Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

In article ,
kontiki wrote:
One other thing that I should have mentioned in my previous post:
The savings in lower insurance rates you will experience by having
the instrument rating will come close to paying for the cost of
the rating itself.

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!

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

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.

In article , xyzzy
wrote:

Why limit your choices?

Cost. For example, you can get some pretty cherry VFR-only Cherokee
140's in the 20's. To get an IFR 140 in the same condition you're
looking at high 30's. At least that's what I've concluded from my
research.

The value difference between a cherry cherokee 140 without much
in the way of radios and a cherry cherokee 140 with quality radios
(2 navcoms, ADF (maybe)) isn't that much. If by IFR you mean
something with DME, ADF, dual navcoms with flip-flop, IFR GPS, etc
then you'll be more in the 40's.



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.

you won't justify owning based on cost vs a club.


remember the rule-of-thumb: It's cheaper to let the previous owner
install the radios (not as much fun, but definitely cheaper). So,
if you think you'll eventually want a better equipped airplane
for IFR use, you are better off buying it now.



and good luck (owning is great and painful)

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote
So I've been thinking of buying a plane for the sole purpose of
improving my availability & flexibility.

Which is indeed the sole purpose. If you're in a club that's a good
deal, you won't come out ahead financially by owning.

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.

The difference between a VFR airplane and a minimal-IFR one is often
small, but OK.

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.

Well, if your VFR airplane has a gyro panel and a VOR (and most do)
you could probably do most of your training in it, and just rent
something for about 10 hours. But what would you do with an
instrument rating owning a VFR-only airplane?

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on having the hypothetical choice of
getting an IFR rating while continuing to rent, versus buying and
committing to being VFR-only for the forseeable future.

I think an instrument rating for a renter pilot is a bad joke. Most
rentals are not maintained and equipped well enough to be reasonable
choices for flying IFR in most non-VFR weather. Most renter pilots
don't even fly enough to maintain VFR proficiency, never mind IFR
proficiency, and the problems you describe are part of the reason. To
me, this is a no-brainer. Buy the VFR airplane.

Realize that the number of times you will be able to complete the trip
in a typical club/rental airplane with the instrument rating when you
couldn't do it without will be fairly small - much smaller than the
number of times you will be able to complete the trip by adjusting the
schedule a bit with your own airplane when you can't do the same with
a rental/club airplane. You will fly a lot more as a VFR owner than
you will as an IFR renter.

Instrument ratings for pilots of light singles are WAY overrated.
Think back to all trips you cancelled because of weather. How many of
them could you have completed with an instrument rating? Not the ones
in winter, because now you're flying in clouds that are subfreezing
and can leave you with a load of ice any time with no way to get rid
of it, unless your club has a plane with boots or at least a big
engine. Not the ones where there are thunderstorms hiding in those
clouds, because you have no way of knowing where those storms are
unless your club has a plane with spherics. And if the clouds are
really low, how are you going to fare if that engine decides to quit?

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

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:UvLXc.70718$Fg5.35984@attbi_s53...

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.


The counter-point to Jay: If you aren't instrument rated and aren't
*really* serious about getting it, why pay for more stuff than you
need and then have to keep on paying more to maintain it? You can buy
a better VFR-only airplane with the same money, then upgrade it to IFR
or trade-up to an IFR platform when you need to.

This is a very personal choice, of course, and there are many
variables to consider for one's own situation. Jay's got a good plan
for Jay, and I simply gave up on ever getting the IFR rating and
bought into a Stearman instead... a good plan for me. :-)

-Dave Russell
8KCAB

Here is an idea:

Start working on your IFR while looking for the best deal you can find.

If you get a lead on the right plane, you can always finish with the IFR in
your own plane.

If all you find in your budget is VFR planes by the time you are done, then
rethink what you want. Remember, you can take IFR training and currency
flights in a plane that is NOT IFR certified. It just must be IFR equipped.

Lastly, I wouild not fly most any plane I have seen in your price category
into true IMC. Maybe bust a layer, but those older planes DO break more
often. It's not worth the money to improve that level of plane to my
standards for IFR.

Its still good for VFR though.





"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...
I'm a 160-hour PPL and a club member. My club is great and economical,
but availability and flexibility are becoming big drawbacks, so I'm
toying with the idea of buying a plane.

It's hard to justify on strictly financial terms because the club is
such a good deal, but how many times can you schedule a plane for a
Saturday flight, have to reschedule for Sunday because of wx but whoops,
can't because all the planes are booked for Sunday. Or even schedule a
morning flight, but because of AM fog have to postpone a couple of
hours, but still have to be back by noon because someone else has it
right after you, so you might as well not go since the fog didn't lift
till 11:00. Etc.

So I've been thinking of buying a plane for the sole purpose of
improving my availability & flexibility. Other than that I am delighed
with the club. Because of my job and other responsibilities, if I'm
going to do a significant amount of flying I'm going to need
availability and flexibility without having to plan everyhing way ahead.
Also because of that, and also because of reluctance to get into bed
financially with others, I don't think a partnership is the way to go,
though I haven't ruled it out, but for argument's sake let's say it's
ruled out.

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.

I keep putting off starting my IFR training, so while I think it would
be good to do it's clearly not something I'm burning to do.
Availability and flexiblity has something to do with putting off the IFR
training too, it took me 2 years and 80 hours to get my PPL because of
those kinds of issues and I don't want to repeat that with an IFR rating.

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on having the hypothetical choice of
getting an IFR rating while continuing to rent, versus buying and
committing to being VFR-only for the forseeable future. I'm in North
Carolina, where the weather is VFR reasonably often but not so often
that it's a no-brainer like it would be in AZ or FL or some such place.

TIA

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"

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

But it's still worth it.


Amen!
www.Rosspilot.com

Respectfully Disagree.
We fly about 1x per week, about 250 hrs/year on business trips in an
Mooney.
Average number of flights per year cancelled due to icing: 2-3.
Typical layer is thin stratus. We can rent a booted C210/C310 if
absolutely necessary.
As to Tstorms, there have been a lot of days/nights using eyeballs and
the simple WX900 plus Treo with internet Nexrad, we'll beat often the
airlines. They get backed up; we wait a couple of hours and launch
behind the front.
As to low ceilings...in the Midwest we stay up high for cruise, near
airports typically know places to land. You know on average, I'll see
IFR ceilings on 1/20 of flights.
Truth be told, 80% of our flying is VFR with flight following.
Sometimes don't get enough approaches in. Half of that, I'd sweat out
the forecasts if I was VFR only and VFR equipped only. Is (the IR)
useful.......you betcha. If you regularly need to get over mountains
or vast cold water...that's another story.



Instrument ratings for pilots of light singles are WAY overrated.
Think back to all trips you cancelled because of weather. How many of
them could you have completed with an instrument rating? Not the ones
in winter, because now you're flying in clouds that are subfreezing
and can leave you with a load of ice any time with no way to get rid
of it, unless your club has a plane with boots or at least a big
engine. Not the ones where there are thunderstorms hiding in those
clouds, because you have no way of knowing where those storms are
unless your club has a plane with spherics. And if the clouds are
really low, how are you going to fare if that engine decides to quit?

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

Dave Russell wrote:
The counter-point to Jay: If you aren't instrument rated and aren't
*really* serious about getting it, why pay for more stuff than you
need and then have to keep on paying more to maintain it? You can buy
a better VFR-only airplane with the same money, then upgrade it to IFR
or trade-up to an IFR platform when you need to.

That's like saying you shouldn't buy insurance if you are not planning
on using it.