Instrument rating??

In rec.aviation.piloting Dave Russell wrote:
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
I will simply note that adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance premium...
denny
Is there any real evidence of this? It's certainly *not* true for me!
Avemco told me that adding an IFR rating would not change my premium
by even one cent.


Agreed. My insurance never changed when I got my instrument rating.

--- Jay


--

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

(Dave Russell) wrote in message . com...
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
I will simply note that adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance premium...
denny

Is there any real evidence of this? It's certainly *not* true for me!
Avemco told me that adding an IFR rating would not change my premium
by even one cent.

My agent says 10%. It may be less for non-complex planes. However, it
did save me money on the Aeronca Champ.

(Greg) wrote
This is like arguing that you shouldn't wear a parachute, cause
if you do you'll take extreme chances and kill yourself.

Of course, look at the crash record of the Cirrus (if I'm not mistaken
it is relatively high considering the number of planes produced by
them). Many believe these accidents are the result of pilots taking
risks they normally wouldn't have taken in a non-parachute aircraft.
I believe Richard Collins wrote an interesting article about this a
few months back.

Hang around a parachute school for a while, and watch people pack
parachutes. Some people stuff them in there literally in minutes.
Some pay $5 for someone else to do the same - generally an unrated
person working under 'supervision' that consists of having someone
somewhere on the airport but not actually watching. Holes are
routinely patched with tape. Mention this, and the response is always
the same - I've got a second parachute. Hang around BASE jumpers, who
don't usually carry a second parachute, and you see an entirely
different approach.

I have started my instrument rating and my piloting skills have
improved 10 fold. But will I be tempted to carry on into worsening
conditions after I have my rating? Well, probably, that is part of
what the rating is for.

At least you're being honest with yourself. Anyone who tells you it's
just for skill improvement isn't being honest with himself. Of course
there are the people that do it just to get the insurance discount.
They may be the safest ones of all.

Perhaps this is why the ATP thought it was
dangerous (the weather may well be much wose than reported).

The basic difference between flying VFR (at least by visual contact
with the surface - I'm not talking about 'pretend' VFR where you still
have to fly on the gauges and navigate with radios) and flying IFR is
this - when you are VFR, you can see what the weather around you is
doing and bail out when it gets scary. Airports are usually only a
few minutes apart in most of the US, and in a pinch most light singles
can be landed in a field. When you fly IFR, you often can't see the
weather. You have to determine what it's doing by other means, and
this is more complex. IFR flying is NOT for the pilot who isn't good
at figuring out what the weathe is doing. In most cases, this is
something that only develops with experience, so in general IFR flying
is not for the inexperienced pilot. The FAA used to require 200 (or
maybe 250) hours for the instrument rating, and I think that made a
lot of sense as an absolute minimum.

I had an
ATP (and ex fighter pilot)tell me something similar. He advised me to
take aerobatics before getting the instrument.

Good advice. I heartily endorse it - despite the fact that I do teach
instruments and don't teach aerobatics.

And then if I felt
like I still needed the instrument rating go ahead, but just do it to
improve your skills, "single engine planes are for sunny weather".

There's a lot to be said for that too. I have flown IFR in singles,
but I can't say I've ever really felt good about it.

Anyway, my CFII now is an ATP and instructor for a major carrier and
he has no problems flying in the clouds at all. So who is right?
Well, neither one of these guys are idiots....

No, but there's a difference in perspective here. When you're an
instructor building time for the airlines, you have to take some risks
or you will never get there. That often means flying some marginal
aircraft in some marginal conditions. If you won't, someone else will
- and he will get to the majors and make six figures, not you. So you
have to walk a fine line - take enough risks to get ahead, but not so
many they kill you. I have an ATP/major airline captain friend too.
He flew a lot of single engine IFR when on his way up. He doesn't do
it anymore.

Michael

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
The basic difference between flying VFR (at least by visual contact
with the surface - I'm not talking about 'pretend' VFR where you still
have to fly on the gauges and navigate with radios) and flying IFR is
this - when you are VFR, you can see what the weather around you is
doing and bail out when it gets scary. Airports are usually only a
few minutes apart in most of the US, and in a pinch most light singles
can be landed in a field. When you fly IFR, you often can't see the
weather. You have to determine what it's doing by other means, and
this is more complex. IFR flying is NOT for the pilot who isn't good
at figuring out what the weathe is doing. In most cases, this is
something that only develops with experience, so in general IFR flying
is not for the inexperienced pilot. The FAA used to require 200 (or
maybe 250) hours for the instrument rating, and I think that made a
lot of sense as an absolute minimum.

Michael has, IMO, a very valid point here. (in the post below,
"you" and "you're" are intended as general terms not referring
to Michael)

We do both -- fly VFR under the clouds in crud/file IFR and
stay over them.

There's no question in my mind that VFR flight under the clouds
requires a much higher degree of piloting skill and situational
awareness to manage safely. It's tough. It's uncomfortable.
And having a GPS helps, but only somewhat -- the best route is
often not "GPS direct" but along a river to a highway, through
the pass then left through the valley to the airport. Flying
on the centerline of a course directly into a terrain or obstacle
used to be called "the mark of Loran-guided death" now one could
substitute "GPS-guided".

From that POV, filing IFR and getting into a system where the
minimum safe altitudes are mapped out and navigation is easy,
looks much safer.

On the other hand, IFR flight is often deceptively easy. You can
file, pop through a layer into glorious sunshine, and go on
your way fat, dumb, and happy. It's very easy to get lulled into
complacency by how easy and comfortable it is, and stop asking
hard questions: what is the weather enroute? is there space between
the cloud base and terrain where I could maneuver to a survivable
landing if the engine quit? where is the nearest VFR weather where
I could land if my electrical system quit? What's the weather at my
destination and is it honestly within my capabilities for that
approach? What's the freezing level? How does it relate to the
MIAs on my route?

It's tough and uncomfortable to ask those questions when flying a
SE plane IFR. It makes it seem like maybe what you're doing is
no safer, maybe even not as safe, as bucking along in the crappy
vis under the clag. But IFR is safer, everyone "knows" that. It
feels safer. So pilots don't ask.

So then we get these sad accidents where someone flying a C182
crashes from fuel exhaustion on the way to his alternate airport
because he tried 3 ILS to his destination and couldn't make it in,
or where someone has an engine failure over inhospitable terrain
at night, or where someone picks up icing descending through clouds
on approach.

Cheers,
Sydney

I just got mine, so I don't speak from a whole lot of experience.

But I would say a few things in response to that...

Most importantly, personal judgement is just that - personal. You need to
have good judgement, and one thing that my CFI hammered into me from very
early on in my IFR training was that just cause it's legal doesn't mean
it's smart or safe.

That said, I do agree that you have to keep flying in order to maintain
proficiency. Even a week-long lapse had a noticeable affect on my
performance at this stage of my IFR flying. But the more I fly IFR (even
in VMC) the less I lose between days. I expect that after I have been
flying IFR for a while, it will be to the point where I can go a week or
two between flights on not be too rusty. But I don't think I would walk
out today and start a flight into minimums - even if I had flown IFR
yesterday.

It's not much different than when I got my private a couple of years ago.
After I got my private, if I took more than a few days off, it showed. It
showed in my navigation, in my control, and in my landings. But after a
year or so, I was able to maintain control pretty intuitively, and land
comfortably without having to try too hard, even after a week or two
break.

The bottom line is that you have to know yourself - your own limitations.
Even if you REALLY WANT to fly somewhere, and it's legal, but beyond your
personal capability at the time, you really need to evaluate your
situation objectively and avoid "get-there-itis". Without a doubt, that
is the killer.

If your personality and ego won't let you do that, your friend may be
right. But if you're reasonable enough to remember to take a step back
and THINK, even in the face of strong desire, I'm guessing you'll be just
fine.

Of course, if you give up before you even try, what's the point!?!?!

Paul Folbrecht wrote in
ink.net:

I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
got me thinking about it.

This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
Two inside 20 minutes once!)

So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly
dangerous
as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm
not
current enough to handle it.)

Thoughts on this??

Simple. Your friend of a friend is an idiots' idiot.


"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
ink.net...
I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
got me thinking about it.

This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
Two inside 20 minutes once!)

So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
current enough to handle it.)

Thoughts on this??

You have a PPL. Would you now attempt to fly in conditions that you can't
handle, or attempt maneuvers that you or the plane are not qualified for?

Get the IR, respect the weather, and enjoy a marginal amount more freedom
than you do now. If you are silly enough to take off into freezing rain just
because you have an IR, it is not the IR that is killing you.

By the way, this guy must have had a terrible mechanic - nine engine
failures!

Michael




"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
ink.net...
I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
got me thinking about it.

This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
Two inside 20 minutes once!)

So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
current enough to handle it.)

Thoughts on this??

I think that was over quite a number of years. He'd been flying since
the 40s. Not sure if all were in the Cubs either but the two in a row
were. (He landed, looked things over, restarted, did a runup, looked
good, took off.. and ended up in the next field over.)

By the way, this guy must have had a terrible mechanic - nine engine
failures!

Michael

I think that was over quite a number of years. He'd been flying since
the 40s. Not sure if all were in the Cubs either but the two in a row
were. (He landed, looked things over, restarted, did a runup, looked
good, took off.. and ended up in the next field over.)


so what does that tell you about his judgment?

BT

Paul,

(He landed, looked things over, restarted, did a runup, looked
good, took off.. and ended up in the next field over.)


See? There's a TON of unreasonable risk taking in that chain of eventy.
And you're going to let a guy like that tell you what'S risky in
aviation? Jeeze!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)