Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

Since this is a philosophical discussion, assume if I buy on my own I
will have to buy a VFR airplane to get a decent one that's affordable.
If I buy a VFR airplane that would rule out getting an instrument rating
because I'm obviously not going to rent airplanes for over 40 hours of
IFR training if I just bought one.

Consider this. Perhaps you can buy a VFR aircraft with pretty old avionics at an even
more affordable price than you're considering now. For actual IFR flight, you will
need avionics that can handle the places you want to go. In many cases, that's a
single NAV/COM with glide slope receiver and perhaps a marker beacon receiver. If
that's your situation, you can have an IFR aircraft by investing a few thousand more
after you buy the plane.

I would go shopping for the plane and add the minimal avionics needed to do most of
the work on the rating. Buy avionics (maybe used) with an eye to what you will use
after you get the rating. If what you buy won't handle all of the approaches required
for the test, rent another aircraft for the few hours needed to train for that.

For example, I bought a Cessna 150 back in 1989. I replaced the radio with a new
Mk-12D/GS and added a Terra MBR to the panel. That would've gotten me into the series
of airports I needed to make a flight from Central Jersey (47N) to Knoxville, TN
(TYS) and return. It also let me use TTN as my alternate on this end. I never
completed training, and I would've had to rent a plane with an ADF for part of the
work, but it wasn't a bad little IFR trainer.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

Personally, I'd buy an IFR-certified plane, with the eventual intent of
getting the instrument rating. I've done that twice, now, although I
still haven't finished up the instrument rating. I have done a fair
amount
of instrument training in both planes, however -- something that would not
be possible if it were a VFR-only plane.

With an IFR platform to fly it's nice to know that I COULD get down
through
the clouds, if needed. It wouldn't be legal, but at least it would
possible.

I'm looking to buy in the spring 2005 time frame.
My intention is to find a decent IFR plane.
Probably a cherokee (right now, I'm shooting for a 180, but we'll see).
I'm not sure when I'll do my IFR training.
In the mean time, I can have the radios (which aren't really all that much)
in the plane, as Jay mentioned.
But, I don't think I'll have to keep it IFR certified until I'm ready to
begin my training...

The other thing I've seen advertised often is "IFR ready" aircraft.
Which I interpret to mean "has radios, not certified".
Maybe this route may be of interest.

Adam

I'd decide what airplane is right for my "mission", then find
one like it to rent and get my IFR rating. When it's buying
time it'll sure look better to the insurance company if you
have more than 160TT, plus 40hrs or so in type, plus of course
the IFR rating. You may be able to shop around more and
have more options (insurance-wise) , not to mention you'd be
pretty comfortable in that type. Like others have mentioned,
by then you'd have a good grip on what you liked or didnt
like about the Nav equipment, and the quirks of the type, which
would help you refine your airplane choice. Your "mission"
might change in that time also, got a spouse? May
need more than what your initial idea was.
Make a list of steps you need to take to reach the ultimate
owning goal, and you'll be there before you know it.


Chris
--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:56:31 GMT, kontiki
wrote:

Ben Jackson wrote:
I'm not so sure about that. I passed a lot of insurance milestones
in my first year of ownership (including getting my instrument rating
and 100 make&model, retract, etc) and my insurance only went down about
10%. It will take years to make back the cost of the IR, but that's not
why I did it!


Well... I wonder what your premium what have been initially had you
purchased the plane/policy initially having the rating Vs. not having
the rating? There are different forces at work when negotiating for
a policy having an instrument rating along with "X" number of PIC hours
going in Vs. a PPL VFR only. Expecting "Y" amount of $$ reduction on
your policy premium after getting the rating is not written into the
contract.

Its a matter of pay me now or pay me more later.. its all money...
better to spend it on training initally than pay for higher premiums
and have less $$ for training and/or flying later.

I had the same experience as Ben. My broker circulates new quotes
with my latest pilot data each year (TT, Time in type, ratings). As
long as the company has a good rating, I go wherever the rate is
cheapest. When I renewed in Spring 2002 after getting my IFR my price
dropped about 5%. Had I stayed VFR only, I believe that it would have
risen about 10% given the effects of 9/11 on GA insurance. So a gross
savings of about 15%.

-Nathan

There is a reason that the vast majority of instrument rated private
pilots don't stay instrument current - it's just not very useful.


This is just plain nonsense. That they do not *choose* to use it does not make
it "not useful".


www.Rosspilot.com

Jay, Jay, Jay, (sigh)

As a midwesterner, a people not completely devoid of common sense, you are
obviously not using the right type of economics.

The following is a list of things that are much more expensive than owning
an aircraft, and can often be avoided by owning one. Of course, just like
many modern pharmaceuticals, the side affects can, in rare cases, actually
cause some of the things you were trying to avoid (or worse).

Here it is:

Divorce
Professional Counseling
Anti-Depressants
Heart Attacks
Lawyer to defend you for throttling the guy at the security checkpoint
Other stupid things you might have bought in a midlife crisis
Sailboat
Business investments that loses even more money
Gambling
Alcohol
Girlfriend
Death due to boring life
Quitting high paying profession due to boredom (ask a radiologist or similar
doctor)
Lost business opportunities due to lack of face time

and for some of the serious money earners out the
Lost time using airlines instead of having personal aircraft

I am sure there are other examples, which, if you can just keep your common
sense at bay a little, you can come up with.


Besides, it runs a close second to sex.







"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:WhRXc.72676$Fg5.60045@attbi_s53...
My cost point may be lower than you would expect simply because my club
is such a good deal the cost has to be pretty low to justify owning IMO.

This is fallacy #1.

You will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER financially justify owning your own
plane.

But it's still worth it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

(Michael) wrote

There is a reason that the vast majority of instrument rated private
pilots don't stay instrument current - it's just not very useful.

Agreed. I am an instrument-rated but not instrument-current pilot.
This is so for the reason you say, and also because I don't have
sufficient confidence in my equipment or abilities to feel safe flying
my plane in any but the easiest IMC. The vacuum pump in my Skyhawk
went belly up just like that a couple years ago while flying VFR. No
warning. No nothing. Just poof. Yeah they teach you partial-panel
procedures as part of your IFR training. But I just don't think I'm
good enough, or don't have the time/money to get good enough, to feel
comfortable handling partial-panel in real IMC.

The new Cessnas have dual vacuums, which I think is an excellent
safety feature.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

The Weiss Family wrote:

But, I don't think I'll have to keep it IFR certified until I'm ready to
begin my training...


Doesn't have to be "IFR certified" then either. Train all you want -
just don't ask ATC for an IFR clearance in it.

There is a reason that the vast majority of instrument rated private
pilots don't stay instrument current - it's just not very useful.



This is just plain nonsense. That they do not *choose* to use it does not make
it "not useful".


Yes, I'd like to know where those "statistics" came from. I make a diligent
effort to maintain my IFR currency (over and above the minimum) and file IFR
on about half of the flights I make in my airplane.

If I were not going to bother staying IFR current then I don't think I'd
bother getting the rating after all.

Michael wrote:

Instrument ratings for pilots of light singles are WAY overrated.

There is a reason that the vast majority of instrument rated private
pilots don't stay instrument current - it's just not very useful.

Michael

You nailed it.

My Comanche 260B gets me there with the best of the singles crowd, but
the difficulties you point out are precisely why I decided using my
rating was more goat-rope than it was worth, to keep me, the databases,
the charts, and the airplane all IFR-current.