Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

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

[Jay Honeck]

> 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.

Why limit your choices?

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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Hankal]

>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

My advise is to purchase an IFR aircraft.
Even if you never get the rating, it is safer and easier to sell.
My aircaft and I are IFR rated.
Hank N1441P

[xyzzy]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>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.
>
>
> 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.

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.

[xyzzy]

Hankal 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
>
>
> My advise is to purchase an IFR aircraft.
> Even if you never get the rating, it is safer and easier to sell.
> My aircaft and I are IFR rated.
> Hank N1441P

I agree that's best but this is a philosophical hypothetical question.
For argument's sake I've limited the choices to only two -- buy VFR
airplane OR get instrument rated. My own situation isn't really that
simple but it's a philosophical discussion.

[kontiki]

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
> 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.
>

I would recommend getting yourself an instrument rating first... before
buying an airplane. An IFR capable airplane is not going to be cheap
but you need to know what your mission will inevitably be and what you
REALLY want in an IFR platform. The knowledge and experience in having
the rating with make you a more educated buyer of an airplane wherether
you realize it or not.

There is also something to be said for earning an instrument rating
while flying a number of differently equipped rental aircraft. During
my instrument training I flew pipers and Cessnas equipped with everything
from ancient KX-170's to Garmin 430's and everything in between. That
is good experience and helped me understand what is important to have
in a instrument platform.

Just my $.02

[Marco Leon]

All you need to turn that VFR Cherokee 140 into an IFR plane is a $200
Pitot/Static and transponder check.
You'll be limited to the type of approaches depending on the equipment but
you can absolutely start training for your Instrument. I purchased a 1978
Warrior before I finished my private and subsequently got my instrument
rating.

Marco

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >>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.
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
>

[ShawnD2112]

You're starting from the wrong point. Don't start with "what kind of
airplane do I want". Start with "what kind of flying do I want to do". If
I'm a day VFR pilot only, fly airplanes that are older than my Dad, have no
electrics and minimal instrumentation, have been all over France and the UK
and have a blast doing it. Decide what you want to do with your flying and
that will tell you what kind of airplane and whether to do your IFR ticket
or not. Are you happy to fly slow, or just tool around in the sky for the
sake of flying, or do you want to use it to go places and as a means of
travel? Do you want to be able to cruise at 150 kts or is 100 OK?

Once you decide what kind of flying you want to do, then you can decide what
kind of airplane you want. I want to fly aerobatics so I got myself a
Pitts. No "systems", no lights, no gyros, pure day VFR - and I love every
minute of it. But, I can't take a mate to France for lunch in it.
Sometimes it's limiting but I don't value going places enough to part with
the kind of cash that requires. And don't underestimate that factor. A
Taylorcraft is a lot cheaper to buy, own, and operate than something that's
fully IFR certified or fast.

Hopefully that helps a bit.

Shawn


"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
>

[kontiki]

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.

With respect to the weather conditions in North Carolina...
that doesn't matter much for IR training... in fact you will have
the opportunity for more "actual" hours which will benefit you
in the long run. Weather isn't as much of an impediment for an
IR rating as it is for a PPL rating.

[Ben Jackson]

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

I think of ownership and my IFR rating as both giving me flexibility in
scheduling. Here's an example:

Last week we decided on Monday night that we'd like to go to Canada for
a 3 day weekend. Renting an airplane for 3 days on such short notice
would have probably been impossible. Heck, it was short notice just to
get up-to-date Canadian charts!

On the other hand, while we arrived in beautiful weather, a storm front
moved through on Saturday (while we were in a museum :) and left multiple
layers of scattered to overcast clouds all along the route of my return
flight. I was able to file, get on top without even penetrating a cloud
and descend through the overcast at home. Could I have gotten home VFR?
Yes, based on what I observed enroute. It sure wasn't clear from the
weather briefing. I probably would have gone underneath, and that would
have meant a low overwater leg.

As a VFR pilot I would have spent most of my last day (or the next day,
having stayed another night) obsessing over the return flight -- probably
at the airport, so I'd be ready to take advantage of a window of
opportunity. At least as a VFR-only owner there wouldn't be a club or
FBO pestering you to return the plane.

>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.

I think this part of your question is a false dilemma. "IFR capable"
is not a yes/no attribute. It's a continuum from aircraft with no
electrical system or gyro instruments to transport jets with redundant
FMS computers. In any airplane you're likely to buy, a VOR w/glideslope
can be installed for a few thousand dollars and the pitot/static check
can be done for a few hundred. Peanuts compared to the annual cost of
ownership.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Ben Jackson]

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/

[kontiki]

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.

[Bob Noel]

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.

[Michael]

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

[Dave Russell]

"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

[Dude]

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
>

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[Rosspilot]

>You will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER financially justify owning your own
>plane.
>
>But it's still worth it.


Amen!
www.Rosspilot.com

[Bob Miller]

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

[john smith]

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.

[G.R. Patterson III]

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.

[The Weiss Family]

> 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

[SeeAndAvoid]

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

[Nathan Young]

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

[Rosspilot]

>>
>> 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

[Dude]

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 there:
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"
>
>

[Jim Rosinski]

(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

[CriticalMass]

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.

[kontiki]

>>>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.

[CriticalMass]

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.

[C Kingsbury]

(Michael) wrote in message >...

> > 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.

The field I used to rent at (BED) had 2 FBOs with about 3 dozen
planes, at least 20 of which wranged from acceptably-equipped to
cadillac (e.g. new 172SP/182). All were well-maintained and flown
regularly in IFR.

> Most renter pilots
> don't even fly enough to maintain VFR proficiency, never mind IFR
> proficiency,

Regular pilots who were IFR probably stayed more current since they
didn't cancel nearly as many flights.

> Instrument ratings for pilots of light singles are WAY overrated.

Michael argues this point frequently and with far more reason, logic,
and experience on his side than usually found on Usenet. His is one
viewpoint I never dismiss without serious consideration. That being
said...

> Think back to all trips you cancelled because of weather. How many of
> them could you have completed with an instrument rating?

Geography has everything to do with this. Here in the Northeast, I'd
say at least half as a rule of thumb.

> 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

We get a lot of low-overcast winter days out here where that just
isn't a factor.

> 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.

For me, trying mostly to fly to destinations within about 300 miles or
so, the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
pretty limited. Frankly on those days the whole Northeastern airway
system goes down the tubes anyway. It just means I need to have more
margin for error.

> And if the clouds are
> really low, how are you going to fare if that engine decides to quit?

Did an NTSB search for records with IFR, engine, and failure for the
past 5 years. Out of 60 records, I found two in IFR conditions where a
non fuel-related engine failure of some kind figured in.

This one is pretty unambiguous. Engine failure while climbing to
altitude:
http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20021125X05516&key=1

Now, cautionary note is that I may not be searching correctly so I'm
conceivably missing out on some incidents, but in this sample there
were probably 15 fatals which involved nothing more complicated than
spatial disorientation. In any case, engine failure is not what I
worry about in IFR. Pilot failure is a lot more likely, and a twin
isn't going to prevent that. Some would even argue the added
complexity increases the odds.

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

Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, either,
particularly if you leave out the technically-current 20hrs/yr
sightseer types. Due to towers and congested areas scud running isn't
a practical choice either around here. So, VFR flying isn't very
useful either. Guess I should just quit flying until I can afford a
big twin Cessna or Eclipse finishes their jet!

Best,
-cwk.

[CriticalMass]

C Kingsbury wrote:

> The field I used to rent at (BED) had 2 FBOs with about 3 dozen
> planes, at least 20 of which wranged from acceptably-equipped to
> cadillac (e.g. new 172SP/182). All were well-maintained and flown
> regularly in IFR.

That is a situation the vast majority of renters NEVER have an
opportunity to enjoy. Most FBOs I've ever rented from in my 30+ years
of flying had nothing but ragged out beaters on the ramp. You were very
fortunate to have such a rich fleet from which to choose.

>Think back to all trips you cancelled because of weather. How many of
>them could you have completed with an instrument rating?

I can count 'em on one hand. I fly as a hobby, not for business. I can
always pick when I fly. Trips don't get canceled, they just get
postponed, and it's not a problem.

> For me, .... the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
> pretty limited.

Well, that's anecdotal, isn't it? For others, it's a much bigger risk
factor. But, the point made was, T-storms and ice are show-stoppers for
us bottom feeders in the aviation food chain. The point stands.

>>There is a reason that the vast majority of instrument rated private
>>pilots don't stay instrument current - it's just not very useful.
>
>
> Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, .....So, VFR flying isn't very
> useful either.

Depends on your definition of "useful". I'll agree that any pilot who
can't be bothered to stay proficient in the type of flying he does is
not doing anyone any favors. But that's a side issue.

[Matt Whiting]

CriticalMass wrote:

>
>
> C Kingsbury wrote:
>> For me, .... the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
>> pretty limited.
>
>
> Well, that's anecdotal, isn't it? For others, it's a much bigger risk
> factor. But, the point made was, T-storms and ice are show-stoppers for
> us bottom feeders in the aviation food chain. The point stands.

It all depends. I live in PA and flew my Skylane through the eastern
part of the US, summer and winter for more than 6 years. It had a
Strikefinder, and was well equipped in avionics-wise. I flew for both
business and pleasure and made a lot of flights that would not have been
possible, or at least not wise, VFR. I never found staying current a
problem in the northeast. I filed IFR for almost every flight,
regardless of the weather. I found IFR to be helpful at night in
particular, as I live in the northcentral region of PA where there are
large expanses of state forest with few lights on the ground. On a
moonless night, with an overcast, if was pretty much IMC. I believe the
instrument rating adds a complete new dimension to your flying skills
and greatly increases the precision with which you fly, be it IFR or
VFR. A very useful rating to obtain, IMO, even if you don't use it
later on.

I cancelled maybe one flight in 6 years due to icing concerns and never
cancelled for t-storms, even a couple of flights to Florida in the
summer were not a big deal. The Strikefinder made this possible.
Without it, I agree that thunderstorms and IMC can be a dangerous mix.

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> I found IFR to be helpful at night in
> particular,

ah, right. Being IFR at night is a big help - very little
worrying about blundering into clouds like you would if
you were only VFR.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> 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.

Oh, I can think of dozens (hundreds?) of reasons to own your own plane. I
would not want to go back to renting.

And, in our case, a plane is an excellent business tool. We use it to visit
FBOs all over the country, delivering promotional displays and schmoozing
the FBOs about our aviation theme hotel.

But it simply can't be justified purely financially. Renting will always be
cheaper, simply because there is no risk of paying for anything beyond the
per-hour fee.

Now, of course, the original poster is comparing owning to a flying CLUB,
which (usually) does have SOME financial risk in the event of an early
engine rebuild, or something similar. In that case, owning will still be
more expensive, but perhaps not quite as dramatically so, by comparison.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Miller]

OK, I'll bite again:

Databases: Current databases are not an IFR requirement. If you like
that panel candy 430/530/CNX80, great; but don't use the cost as an
excuse. KNS80 and a Garmin 196 do not need regular updating. Update
your handheld 1x per year: $50.

Charts: $300 per year from Aircharts.

Plane: $150 every other year for pitot static check. I can check my
backup vacuum prior to T/O.

Overall, $500 per year is a pittance compared to the overhead required
to maintain the plane.


> 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.

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> And, in our case, a plane is an excellent business tool. We use it to
> visit
> FBOs all over the country, delivering promotional displays and
> schmoozing
> the FBOs about our aviation theme hotel.
>
> But it simply can't be justified purely financially. Renting will
> always be
> cheaper, simply because there is no risk of paying for anything beyond
> the
> per-hour fee.

Well, then, what's the overall cost/benefit picture? If you were a
renter, would you get the same business utility that you get from owning
the -235?

I don't have hard numbers for this, but I know having my my airplane
contributes to the success of my business. There have been occasions
when I needed it on short notice; when it was available but the club
planes might not have been. What's that worth?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[C Kingsbury]

CriticalMass > wrote in message >...
> C Kingsbury wrote:
>
> That is a situation the vast majority of renters NEVER have an
> opportunity to enjoy. Most FBOs I've ever rented from in my 30+ years
> of flying had nothing but ragged out beaters on the ramp. You were very
> fortunate to have such a rich fleet from which to choose.

That's the plus side to being in a large metorpolitan area. The
downside is cost- $90+/hr for a basic Warrior/172, more for
newer/bigger.

> I can count 'em on one hand. I fly as a hobby, not for business. I can
> always pick when I fly. Trips don't get canceled, they just get
> postponed, and it's not a problem.

Again, I think you have to figure in geography here. Even in the
Northeast there are relatively few true IFR-only days, but there are a
lot of MVFR days where the prognosis for what's going to happen is
unclear. As a VFR pilot you lose a lot of those days, and that can be
30%+ of the time in Spring and summer.

> > For me, .... the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
> > pretty limited.
>
> Well, that's anecdotal, isn't it? For others, it's a much bigger risk
> factor. But, the point made was, T-storms and ice are show-stoppers for
> us bottom feeders in the aviation food chain. The point stands.

People in Atlanta don't put snow tires on their cars. Ever see what
happens when it snows there? The point is that there's a lot of
"gentleman's IFR" or safer-flying-IFR-than-MVFR weather up here that
you don't need a big powerful plane with 100k in avionics to use the
system to your advantage. I agree completely that it's not true
everywhere. Down South you have to think a lot more about dodging the
boomers, out West MEAs and such are an issue, and around here ice can
easily ground you, but most of the time it's not a factor. Light scud
and thin low overcasts often are. These are conditions that make IFR
in a 172 useful, and that's why probably half or more of the planes
and pilots at my field are rated and equipped.

> > Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, .....So, VFR flying isn't very
> > useful either.
>
> Depends on your definition of "useful". I'll agree that any pilot who
> can't be bothered to stay proficient in the type of flying he does is
> not doing anyone any favors. But that's a side issue.

My definition of useful is mission accomplishment. I'm not looking for
95% dispatch reliability, I'm just looking for not being stuck 200
miles away for 4-5 days because of low ceilings and little else.
That's 5 months of the year around here.

Best,
-cwk.

[CriticalMass]

Bob Miller wrote:
> OK, I'll bite again:
>
> Databases: Current databases are not an IFR requirement. If you like
> that panel candy 430/530/CNX80, great; but don't use the cost as an
> excuse. KNS80 and a Garmin 196 do not need regular updating. Update
> your handheld 1x per year: $50.

"current databases are not an IFR requirement". Thankyou. I know.
But, in the off-chance you want to actually USE them, it is. Does the
phrase "legal" ring any bells?

The "cost I use as an excuse" is the cost to update what I have
installed in my airplane. The cost to keep my Garmin 155XL db current
is MUCH more than the costs to update the VFR only handhelds you quote,
and I'll USE that as a component of my "excuse" - thanks.

> Charts: $300 per year from Aircharts

I keep the "Aircharts Atlas" current, in my plane, to stay legal. IFR
currency would entail more cost.

> Plane: $150 every other year for pitot static check. I can check my
> backup vacuum prior to T/O.

OK. Good for you. Hope all your stuff keeps working, "prior to T/O".

What you conveniently choose to overlook in your pie-in-the-sky
"analysis" of the costs to fly IFR is those pesky instrument failures -
when your altimeter fails the biennial test, and you need a
new/overhauled one. Not included in your "$150/yr" test, and it
happens, not infrequently.

> Overall, $500 per year is a pittance compared to the overhead required
> to maintain the plane.

I think I'll depart this discussion given that you've chosen to define
what constitutes a "pittance", which is a relative term.

You've assumed what databases I have to keep current, you've assumed my
equipment will continue to pass all the IFR checks, you've assumed what
it costs me to "maintain the plane", and you've made your own assumption
about which charts I'll be using.

Too many assumptions for me to take you seriously.

[CriticalMass]

C Kingsbury wrote:


>
> My definition of useful is mission accomplishment. I'm not looking for
> 95% dispatch reliability, I'm just looking for not being stuck 200
> miles away for 4-5 days because of low ceilings and little else.
> That's 5 months of the year around here.


Aww, jeez, don't remind me. It did happen once, and, trust me, I really
wished I was "IFR current".

[Newps]

Bob Miller wrote:

a Garmin 196 do not need regular updating. Update
> your handheld 1x per year: $50.

Actually...$35.

[Newps]

CriticalMass wrote:

>
>
> "current databases are not an IFR requirement". Thankyou. I know. But,
> in the off-chance you want to actually USE them, it is. Does the phrase
> "legal" ring any bells?

Yes it does and you are wrong. Not all units require a current database.


>
> The "cost I use as an excuse" is the cost to update what I have
> installed in my airplane. The cost to keep my Garmin 155XL db current
> is MUCH more than the costs to update the VFR only handhelds you quote,
> and I'll USE that as a component of my "excuse" - thanks.

The 155 costs $120 for a single update and $285 per year for an update
every 28 days of the entire US.

[[email protected]]

On 27-Aug-2004, (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!


I think it depends to a large extent on the make/model involved. For simple
airplanes like a C-172, having an IR probably will not have much impact on
insurance rates. But on a complex, high performance plane the savings could
be substantial. This is understandable considering the relative risk: A
VFR-only pilot will be much safer scud-running in marginal VFR conditions in
a 172 than in a Bonanza.

I've been IFR rated for 30 years, but when two pilots who had not quite
finished their UFR training became partners in my Arrow, insurance went up
by about $600/year. Went back down after they got their ratings.

Getting an IR isn't cheap, but unless you fly exclusively in some place like
Arizona or Florida, it is pretty much a necessity for extracting real
transportation value (as opposed to just recreation) from an airplane.
--
-Elliott Drucker

[[email protected]]

On 27-Aug-2004, (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.


Oh really? I recently completed a fairly long trip from PAE (Everett, WA)
to the LA area (SMO) and back, with stops in between Four legs, only one of
which would have been possible (or at least safe) without some IFR flying.

Unless you fly exclusively in Arizona or Florida (or similar climates), or
have no real need to adhere to any sort of schedule, VFR-only flying just
cannot provide very reliable or useful transportation.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[[email protected]]

On 28-Aug-2004, (Jim Rosinski) wrote:

> 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.

Yes, that is the nature of a vacuum pump failure. What warning were you
expecting?


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

In my opinion, a better alternative (and one available for virtually any
airplane) is a standby electric AI. Also, most GPS units provide an "HSI"
functon that will provide a workable backup for a vacuum DG.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:
>
>ah, right. Being IFR at night is a big help - very little
>worrying about blundering into clouds like you would if
>you were only VFR.

I just returned from a day trip to Seattle at night, IFR. Most of the
time I was on top with a full moon. As ATC was vectoring me over SEA
(after departing BFI) they were working a VFR Archer that wanted to make
some kind of transition (I never figured out where they were) and getting
in to trouble with airspace and clouds. I was really glad I had decided
to file...

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
[snip]
> Getting an IR isn't cheap, but unless you fly exclusively in some
> place like
> Arizona or Florida, it is pretty much a necessity for extracting real
> transportation value (as opposed to just recreation) from an airplane.

Yep. To say, as some have, that the rating is not worth having for most
GA pilots ignores the most important criterion of flying: what do you
use the airplane for? If you use an airplane to travel, how useful is
it if you have to accept regular postponements for weather?

As soon as I got my PP certificate, it became obvious to me that flying
to Houston every year for Thanksgiving and Christmas was going to
*require* me to have the instrument rating. Otherwise, I could expect
to skip some trips or get stuck at Mom's house on occasion.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On 28-Aug-2004, (Jim Rosinski) wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Yes, that is the nature of a vacuum pump failure. What warning were you
> expecting?

Personally, I'd like a sweet voice to say to me "You have 10 hours until
vacuum pump failure," "You have 9 hours until vacuum pump failure," etc.
:-)

I solved the problem by owning a Skylane with a wet pump. Never had a
failure of the pump. I did have a vacuum loss caused by a T fitting
installed as part of the Precise Flight standby system. How ironic...


Matt

[Bob Miller]

CriticalMass > wrote in message >...
> Bob Miller wrote:
> > OK, I'll bite again:
> >
> > Databases: Current databases are not an IFR requirement. If you like
> > that panel candy 430/530/CNX80, great; but don't use the cost as an
> > excuse. KNS80 and a Garmin 196 do not need regular updating. Update
> > your handheld 1x per year: $50.
>
> "current databases are not an IFR requirement". Thankyou. I know.
> But, in the off-chance you want to actually USE them, it is. Does the
> phrase "legal" ring any bells?

It sounds like you're assuming you need an IFR GPS for approaches.
I'm suggesting using the GPS for backup xc navigation and using
VOR/ADF/RNAV/DME/ILS approaches. Your charts must be up to date and
you need to check for NOTAMS and TFRs before flying. Why does a VFR
GPS need to be updated, and as someone pointed out, keeping them
updated is not all that expensive. I looked up the update cost on the
196 - $35. Have an old panel mounted Trimble GPS useful for slaving
the A/P to. Annual update cost $0.

> The "cost I use as an excuse" is the cost to update what I have
> installed in my airplane. The cost to keep my Garmin 155XL db current
> is MUCH more than the costs to update the VFR only handhelds you quote,
> and I'll USE that as a component of my "excuse" - thanks.
>
> > Charts: $300 per year from Aircharts
>
> I keep the "Aircharts Atlas" current, in my plane, to stay legal. IFR
> currency would entail more cost.

OK, I looked up my Airchart cost from May. Entire US, both VFR
sectional style atlases, all approach plates and all updates. $400.
I assume you could get part of the country for $300. Knowing I am set
for IFR chart legality - priceless.

> > Plane: $150 every other year for pitot static check. I can check my
> > backup vacuum prior to T/O.
>
> OK. Good for you. Hope all your stuff keeps working, "prior to T/O".

I'm not sure what the snipe here is about???

> What you conveniently choose to overlook in your pie-in-the-sky
> "analysis" of the costs to fly IFR is those pesky instrument failures -
> when your altimeter fails the biennial test, and you need a
> new/overhauled one. Not included in your "$150/yr" test, and it
> happens, not infrequently.

I live near and fly around class B's a lot. Having an accurate
altimeter is important to me and not something I consider to be an
incremental cost of IFR capability, so no, I'm not including that.
(However, in 4 years, I've never had anything but the inspection fee)

> > Overall, $500 per year is a pittance compared to the overhead required
> > to maintain the plane.
>
> I think I'll depart this discussion given that you've chosen to define
> what constitutes a "pittance", which is a relative term.

All the flights kept, time and stress saved knowing that I can launch
in MVFR conditions, can easily pick up IFR on the way....I'll not get
into quantifying that here again. But from a cost standpoint for a
high performance single (Mooney) my costs are something like:

Hangar $1300
Maint $3000
Annual $1500
Insure $1300
Taxes $0
Total $7100

Variable costs are about $50 per hour.
The $400-500 that goes into IFR *is* a pittance to me, and can even be
argued that some of it is not really incremental anyway.

> You've assumed what databases I have to keep current, you've assumed my
> equipment will continue to pass all the IFR checks, you've assumed what
> it costs me to "maintain the plane", and you've made your own assumption
> about which charts I'll be using. Too many assumptions for me to take you seriously.

The claim was made that IFR is not practical for light GA SE flying.
Maybe you fly purely for pleasure. It seems you are projecting the
assumptions that are valid for you on others. The reason for my post
is to ensure that anyone who reads this thread sees another side to
the story, namely that it is practical, useful and desirable for many
(maybe not all) situations to maintain the IFR rating.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bob Miller wrote:
>
> It sounds like you're assuming you need an IFR GPS for approaches.
> I'm suggesting using the GPS for backup xc navigation and using
> VOR/ADF/RNAV/DME/ILS approaches.

Let's say you have an aircraft with a LORAN, a NAV/COM with glide slope receiver, and
a marker beacon receiver. The radio stack is full, but you have a spare 3.5" hole in
the panel. Would you -

a. Replace the LORAN with an approach certified GPS.
b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole.
c. Replace the intercom with an audio panel and MBR and replace the MBR with a NAV
unit or slim NAV/COM.
d. Something else.

As always, money's tight, so I would pick b, though c also is attractive. Your
choice? Panel can be seen at
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/GeorgePatterson/panel.jpg

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

[PInc972390]

b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.

Get an autopilot to fit the hole.

[G.R. Patterson III]

PInc972390 wrote:
>
> b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.
>
> Get an autopilot to fit the hole.

Good idea, but that still leaves me with the problem of handling approaches in which
the FAF is the intersection of radials from two VORs. Any solution I can think of
fills that hole with either a radio or a CDI.

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

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

> PInc972390 wrote:
> >
> > b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.
> >
> > Get an autopilot to fit the hole.
>
> Good idea, but that still leaves me with the problem of handling approaches
> in which
> the FAF is the intersection of radials from two VORs. Any solution I can
> think of
> fills that hole with either a radio or a CDI.
>
> George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
> he gives it to.

Get a GPS. Some of them have built-in CDI right on the front panel
display. I don't find them very convenient, but they are legal.

[Dan Luke]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> Let's say you have an aircraft with a LORAN, a NAV/COM with glide
> slope receiver, and
> a marker beacon receiver. The radio stack is full, but you have a
> spare 3.5" hole in
> the panel. Would you -
>
> a. Replace the LORAN with an approach certified GPS.
> b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole.
> c. Replace the intercom with an audio panel and MBR and replace the
> MBR with a NAV
> unit or slim NAV/COM.
> d. Something else.

a.

GPS is a Swiss Army knife WRT approaches.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Steven Barnes]

"Bob Miller" > wrote in message
om...
> CriticalMass > wrote in message
>...
> > Bob Miller wrote:
> > > OK, I'll bite again:
> > >
> > > Databases: Current databases are not an IFR requirement. If you like
> > > that panel candy 430/530/CNX80, great; but don't use the cost as an
> > > excuse. KNS80 and a Garmin 196 do not need regular updating. Update
> > > your handheld 1x per year: $50.
> >
> > "current databases are not an IFR requirement". Thankyou. I know.
> > But, in the off-chance you want to actually USE them, it is. Does the
> > phrase "legal" ring any bells?
>
> It sounds like you're assuming you need an IFR GPS for approaches.
> I'm suggesting using the GPS for backup xc navigation and using
> VOR/ADF/RNAV/DME/ILS approaches. Your charts must be up to date and
> you need to check for NOTAMS and TFRs before flying. Why does a VFR
> GPS need to be updated, and as someone pointed out, keeping them
> updated is not all that expensive. I looked up the update cost on the
> 196 - $35. Have an old panel mounted Trimble GPS useful for slaving
> the A/P to. Annual update cost $0.
>
> > The "cost I use as an excuse" is the cost to update what I have
> > installed in my airplane. The cost to keep my Garmin 155XL db current
> > is MUCH more than the costs to update the VFR only handhelds you quote,
> > and I'll USE that as a component of my "excuse" - thanks.
> >
> > > Charts: $300 per year from Aircharts
> >
> > I keep the "Aircharts Atlas" current, in my plane, to stay legal. IFR
> > currency would entail more cost.
>
> OK, I looked up my Airchart cost from May. Entire US, both VFR
> sectional style atlases, all approach plates and all updates. $400.
> I assume you could get part of the country for $300. Knowing I am set
> for IFR chart legality - priceless.
>
> > > Plane: $150 every other year for pitot static check. I can check my
> > > backup vacuum prior to T/O.
> >
> > OK. Good for you. Hope all your stuff keeps working, "prior to T/O".
>
> I'm not sure what the snipe here is about???
>
> > What you conveniently choose to overlook in your pie-in-the-sky
> > "analysis" of the costs to fly IFR is those pesky instrument failures -
> > when your altimeter fails the biennial test, and you need a
> > new/overhauled one. Not included in your "$150/yr" test, and it
> > happens, not infrequently.
>
> I live near and fly around class B's a lot. Having an accurate
> altimeter is important to me and not something I consider to be an
> incremental cost of IFR capability, so no, I'm not including that.
> (However, in 4 years, I've never had anything but the inspection fee)
>
> > > Overall, $500 per year is a pittance compared to the overhead required
> > > to maintain the plane.
> >
> > I think I'll depart this discussion given that you've chosen to define
> > what constitutes a "pittance", which is a relative term.
>
> All the flights kept, time and stress saved knowing that I can launch
> in MVFR conditions, can easily pick up IFR on the way....I'll not get
> into quantifying that here again. But from a cost standpoint for a
> high performance single (Mooney) my costs are something like:

[snip]

I just got my rating one week ago. I got to put it to use in one of those
little single engine airplanes. Flew from Springfield, IL up to Iowa City
for the fly-in. SPI was OVC 1,000 & didn't lift for a few hours. About 30
miles en-route, we were VFR conditions but stayed IFR up until the approach
just for experience. If I didn't have the rating, we would have missed the
show.
For a 3 hour round trip, only .3 of actual. Still, well worth it. *That's*
the kind of IFR flying our little single engine planes are made for.
Already I'm glad I got the rating.

[CriticalMass]

Let's put a fork in this and call it DONE. We're wasting each other's time.

Bob Miller wrote:

>>Bob Miller wrote:
> It sounds like you're assuming you need an IFR GPS for approaches.

As it happens, my airplane *does* have an IFR *approach-approved* GPS
installed, but, regardless, I never said that. You read that into my
post - I assumed no such thing.

> I'm suggesting using the GPS for backup xc navigation and using
> VOR/ADF/RNAV/DME/ILS approaches. Your charts must be up to date and
> you need to check for NOTAMS and TFRs before flying. Why does a VFR
> GPS need to be updated, and as someone pointed out, keeping them
> updated is not all that expensive. I looked up the update cost on the
> 196 - $35. Have an old panel mounted Trimble GPS useful for slaving
> the A/P to. Annual update cost $0.

Oh, jeez, a pre-flight primer for the student pilots among us. Fine.
That's not an issue with me, nor, did I ever post any opinion regarding
use or update requirements of VFR GPSes

> OK, I looked up my Airchart cost from May. Entire US, both VFR
> sectional style atlases, all approach plates and all updates. $400.
> I assume you could get part of the country for $300. Knowing I am set
> for IFR chart legality - priceless.

OK. So, what?

> I'm not sure what the snipe here is about???

Nor was I certain what your point was.

> The claim was made that IFR is not practical for light GA SE flying.

Yes. That was the claim, and I agree with it.

> Maybe you fly purely for pleasure.

It doesn't matter a WHIT why I fly. The points made to argue that
position are valid, regardless.

> It seems you are projecting the assumptions that are valid for you on others.

I posted my personal opinion, based on my personal experiences with
these issues. If you wish to project those somewhere else, have at it.
Your option.

> The reason for my post is to ensure that anyone who reads this thread sees another side to the story, namely that it is practical, useful and desirable for many (maybe not all) situations to maintain the IFR rating.

OK. As long as it's caveated as "your opinion".

[Dude]

Well, Jay seemed to miss my subtle sarcasm, but it was subtle for a reason.

There are almost always cheaper solutions than plane ownership, unless you
really make a lot of money (high hourly time value can warp economics
quickly). There are also business flyers with missions that can be cheaper
by owning, but they are even rarer than the high income guys.

There is flexibility that comes with renting, and different flexibility that
comes with ownership, and each end up costing the pilot or traveler time.
Time to figure out how to get somewhere, or time spent on ownership
decisions and tasks. If you were to give me a hypothetical situation on
needing to get somewhere, yet not having a rental available, I could show
you how to use other means for more costs (or less to big cities) in that
one instance, yet still come out ahead overall.

The bottom line for me is that the joy of ownership outweighs the costs, and
I think Jay agrees with me. What he is pointing out though, is that we do
pay some amount for the joy.

When the percieved joy of ownership and its benefits outweighs the well
examined probable costs one should buy an airplane.

For me, renting got boring and disappointing before I even earned my private
certificate. The planes available for rent were not what I wanted to spend
my time in. A more tempered soul would have gone a more traditional route,
but I bought a brand new plane that brought me the enjoyment of flying I
yearned for. I felt guilty, and even foolish at times, but overall I did
the right thing.

Why should I spend money and time working for ratings and not enjoying it
when I am really doing the whole thing for enjoyment anyway? I was spending
5k a year, flying less than 50 hours, and not having a lot of fun. I bought
a plane, put it on leaseback, and spend a real 10k a year (that is counting
EVERYTHING, except depreciation, which I may have to send back. If I sold
the plane today, it would cost me another 10k loss due to real depreciation
against my principle). I now fly over 100 hours per year, so my hourly rate
is about the same, but I get more fun, and enjoy it more often.

You could say I am losing money in my leaseback, but I see it as a good
value. Not a good investment, a good value.

The pain of renting for me was not the scheduling hassles, and it still is
not a big pain, or I would take my plane off leaseback. I do have the added
benefit that if the plane is really busy, it makes a profit enough that I
could rent any other plane in the fleet and still come out ahead.

[Michael]

(C Kingsbury) wrote
> The field I used to rent at (BED) had 2 FBOs with about 3 dozen
> planes, at least 20 of which wranged from acceptably-equipped to
> cadillac (e.g. new 172SP/182). All were well-maintained and flown
> regularly in IFR.

This is highly unusual to say the least. I've also seen what such
planes (new C82's) rent for, and I believe that anyone whose budget
for purchase is limited enough that an IFR-equipped airplane is not an
option could not afford to rent such planes regularly.

> Regular pilots who were IFR probably stayed more current since they
> didn't cancel nearly as many flights.

Don't bet on it. As I said before,

> > Think back to all trips you cancelled because of weather. How many of
> > them could you have completed with an instrument rating?
>
> Geography has everything to do with this. Here in the Northeast, I'd
> say at least half as a rule of thumb.

While I agree that geography (really climate) has everything to do
with this, I have flown in the Northeast enough to know that this is
not realistic unless you are unwilling to fly VFR in MVFR conditions.

> > 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
>
> We get a lot of low-overcast winter days out here where that just
> isn't a factor.

You mean you're not flying IMC in subfreezing temperatures? Or that
no Airmet for icing in clouds was issued? If the latter, I invite you
to consider this story:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=32948A10.6E4D%40goldengate.net&rnum=1

BTW, I believe the author of that story has given up IFR flying...

> For me, trying mostly to fly to destinations within about 300 miles or
> so, the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
> pretty limited. Frankly on those days the whole Northeastern airway
> system goes down the tubes anyway.

Of the IFR trips I've made to the NE, I would say that about 1 in 3
would have been cancelled had I not had spherics capability. You're
right - the ATC system was hosed on the days I needed a Stormscope. I
was rerouted half a dozen times in 200 miles. But I got where I was
going. Without, I would have had to land. Not so bad if I'm headed
West - get up to the line, land, get rained on, continue. Pure bitch
if headed East.

> > And if the clouds are
> > really low, how are you going to fare if that engine decides to quit?
>
> Did an NTSB search for records with IFR, engine, and failure for the
> past 5 years. Out of 60 records, I found two in IFR conditions where a
> non fuel-related engine failure of some kind figured in.

Issue #1 - fuel related doesn't always mean stupidity. There are
misfuelings that are hard to catch, there are fuel leaks, etc. Don't
write them all off.

Issue #2 - most people I know won't fly much low IFR in a single.

> were probably 15 fatals which involved nothing more complicated than
> spatial disorientation.

No doubt. Pilot error is the biggest cause of all accidents. I never
really understood that until I started giving IFR recurrent training
dual to owners of complex airplanes. The skill level out there is,
well, scary. In fact, I've noticed that there really isn't an average
skill level. About 1 in 4 train seriously, work at it, and are good
or at least getting there. The rest - well, let's just say that I
wouldn't curl up and go to sleep in the back seat of their airplanes
on an IFR trip.

> In any case, engine failure is not what I worry about in IFR.

Well, I've already had one, IFR. You could say it was fuel related -
a component in the fuel servo rusted, and the rust dislodged in
turbulence and clogged two fuel injectors. I would call it bad
design, but of course it's a certified component so I can't redesign
it.

Of course it was in a twin, so no big deal.

That doesn't mean I won't fly single engine IFR. I have, and do, and
will. I pretty regularly instruct in single airplanes in IMC. But I
don't fool myself about the risks, either. Of course when you watch a
student in a Bonanza struggle to hold in IMC and routinely exceed 45
degrees of bank, you don't tell him that moving up to a TravelAir or
Baron will make him safer. You just try to get him to a level where
he won't kill himself, and when it comes to engine failure you hope
for the best.

> Pilot failure is a lot more likely, and a twin
> isn't going to prevent that. Some would even argue the added
> complexity increases the odds.

Like I said - for the non-proficient pilot you're right, and given my
experience most IFR pilots are non-proficient.

> > There is a reason that the vast majority of instrument rated private
> > pilots don't stay instrument current - it's just not very useful.
>
> Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, either,
> particularly if you leave out the technically-current 20hrs/yr
> sightseer types.

But why leave them out? They ARE technically VFR current, where these
IFR pilots are not IFR current. And they are adequately proficient
for the kind of flying they do - hundred dollar hamburgers on bluebird
days. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. We're creating a
whole new certificate for these guys - sport pilot. That's what these
guys are. They're not flying for transportation - why hold them to
the standards required to do it?

A much higher level of training and proficiency is required for IFR
flight. 20 hours a year won't cut it. In fact, I would say IFR is
not for the pilot who won't fly at least 100 hours a year. Few
renters do.

> Due to towers and congested areas scud running isn't
> a practical choice either around here.

Don't bet on it. Low VFR is a skill, just like IFR. It takes as much
training, skill, and knowledge - maybe more. It takes as much
planning to execute a low VFR flight as it does an IFR flight in
equivalent conditions, maybe more. If your VFR XC flight training
began and ended with XC flights flown only under basic VFR, you are no
more prepared to fly low VFR than someone who got 3 hours of
instruments for the private is prepared to fly IFR. Unfortunately,
these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
XC.

Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
significant utility in these planes. But when we're talking C-172's
and Cherokee 140's and such, the utility of the instrument rating is
so minimal that, IMO, it's just not worth bothering with - the time
and money is better spent on other things.

Michael

[Bob Miller]

CriticalMass > wrote in message >...

> Let's put a fork in this and call it DONE. We're wasting each other's time.
>
> The claim was made that IFR is not practical for light GA SE flying.
>
> Yes. That was the claim, and I agree with it.

OK. Just because it is on the menu, doesn't mean you have to partake
of it, if the incremental value to you does not outweigh your
incremental cost of the way you do it....it does for me.

[C Kingsbury]

(PInc972390) wrote in message >...
> b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.
>
> Get an autopilot to fit the hole.

It's always been my impression that installing an autopilot is a
big-money proposition. I'd love to have even a 1-axis unit in my 172
but I've been led to believe that's talking 10k range by the time it's
all done.

-cwk.

[Michael]

Matt Whiting > wrote
> It all depends. I live in PA and flew my Skylane through the eastern
> part of the US, summer and winter for more than 6 years. It had a
> Strikefinder, and was well equipped in avionics-wise.

There is a HUGE difference between a well-equipped C-182 and the sort
of IFR airplane a pilot might buy of a VFR budget or rent at a typical
club that is a 'good deal' - meaning a clapped-out Cherokee or
Skyhawk.

> I flew for both
> business and pleasure and made a lot of flights that would not have been
> possible, or at least not wise, VFR.

As Lindbergh once said, risk is relative and inexperience can be a
magnifying glass. To properly compare the risk factors of making a
flight IFR or low VFR under a given set of conditions, you need
experience in both. My experience has been that most people do not
properly asess the relative risks. With the advent of cell towers,
most scud runners I know have raised their minimums - to about 500 ft.

> I believe the
> instrument rating adds a complete new dimension to your flying skills
> and greatly increases the precision with which you fly, be it IFR or
> VFR. A very useful rating to obtain, IMO, even if you don't use it
> later on.

Weren't you arguing in another thread to fly as you train and train as
you fly? Actually, I agree that an instrument rating is valuable
cross training for a VFR pilot - just not nearly as valuable as many
other, less expensive forms of training.

> I cancelled maybe one flight in 6 years due to icing concerns

Then clearly you were willing to fly IMC when there were airmets for
icing in clouds. This is of course counter to regulation - the one
about not operating contrary to POH/AFM, since Skylanes all prohibit
flight into known icing conditions. Even if the airplane has no such
prohibition, this is generally considered careless and reckless. This
is not a gray area - it has been well established and litigated, and
an airmet for ice means known icing conditions regardless of PIREPs.

Nonetheless, it is commonly done. In a Skylane, it's actually not so
bad. The plane carries ice relatively well due to the big engine and
fat wing, so you have some time to escape. Assuming you plan the outs
carefully and don't encounter anything too ugly, you will probably be
OK. Every year we lose a few planes that encounter something ugly.

Anyway, my point is that while this isn't in compliance with the regs,
it is a manageable risk, much like flying single engine IFR. But
conditions that a Skylane-class airplane will escape with often bring
down a Skyhawk-class airplane - just not enough power.

> and never cancelled for t-storms, even a couple of flights to Florida in the
> summer were not a big deal. The Strikefinder made this possible.

Yes, exactly. How many rental planes have one? How likely is it that
you will find one in a budget-priced IFR plane bought on a VFR budget?

Most IFR rentals are instrument trainers, flown mostly under the hood
rather than in actual. They tend to be Skyhawks and Cherokees these
days, and they very rarely have spherics. In fact, they usually have
a couple of nav-coms, an ADF and/or DME, and maybe some POS LORAN or
VFR GPS. How many of your trips could have been completed in one of
those?

Michael

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(C Kingsbury) wrote:

> (PInc972390) wrote in message
> >...
> > b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.
> >
> > Get an autopilot to fit the hole.
>
> It's always been my impression that installing an autopilot is a
> big-money proposition. I'd love to have even a 1-axis unit in my 172
> but I've been led to believe that's talking 10k range by the time it's
> all done.

nah, it's not that much, probably less than $6,000 (especially if
you don't put in a new DG). I had an STEC 40 put in my cherokee 140
at the same time as a KX-155, Strikefinder, cooling fan, and DG.
That bill was a bit over $15,000.

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Michael) wrote:

> Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
> Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
> significant utility in these planes. But when we're talking C-172's
> and Cherokee 140's ...

hey! (said the owner of a 140 that has a pretty good panel... )

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

[Rosspilot]

>> Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
>> Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
>> significant utility in these planes. But when we're talking C-172's
>> and Cherokee 140's ...


So what are you saying? A plane flying in clouds has to be high-performance
to be safe? What?


www.Rosspilot.com

[Javier Henderson]

(Rosspilot) writes:

> >> Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
> >> Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
> >> significant utility in these planes. But when we're talking C-172's
> >> and Cherokee 140's ...
>
>
> So what are you saying? A plane flying in clouds has to be high-performance
> to be safe? What?

I was wondering about that, myself. If I didn't have an instrument rating,
I'd be grounded a good chunk of the time. The marine layer comes in almost
every day at my home base, and you can't bet it will dissipate by mid
to late morning. Yesterday, for example, it remained all day.

-jav

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roy Smith wrote:
>
> Get a GPS. Some of them have built-in CDI right on the front panel
> display. I don't find them very convenient, but they are legal.

I thought you had to have a separate CDI to use one as a primary navigation tool for
approaches. Is that incorrect?

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

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
> >
> > Get a GPS. Some of them have built-in CDI right on the front panel
> > display. I don't find them very convenient, but they are legal.
>
> I thought you had to have a separate CDI to use one as a primary navigation
> tool for approaches. Is that incorrect?

My understanding (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) is that some
of the newer units (I'm thinking specifically of the CNX-80) are
certified such that you don't need an external CDI, as long as the unit
is mounted so that the built-in one is within some specified distance
from the pilot's center of vision, or some such.

[zatatime]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:04:32 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
>
>> Roy Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > Get a GPS. Some of them have built-in CDI right on the front panel
>> > display. I don't find them very convenient, but they are legal.
>>
>> I thought you had to have a separate CDI to use one as a primary navigation
>> tool for approaches. Is that incorrect?
>
>My understanding (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) is that some
>of the newer units (I'm thinking specifically of the CNX-80) are
>certified such that you don't need an external CDI, as long as the unit
>is mounted so that the built-in one is within some specified distance
>from the pilot's center of vision, or some such.


As I understand it a "separate" CDI means one not shared by two
navigation devices (radios). Having the built in display adheres to
the separate requirement. I don't believe there is any requirement to
use an external display.

HTH.
z

[Dude]

I don't know what he is saying, but there is a valid point to that line of
logic.

1. If you are going to get into bumpy stuff, a plane with a low
wingloading - say less than 16 or 17, is going to be pretty uncomfortable.

2. If you are going to spend a lot on avionics, you might want to put them
in more airplane. In other words, why put 15 to 20 grand into a skyhawk or
warrior when you could trade up to a mooney or skylane for not much more.
The heavier plane likely has the avionics level you desire (albeit older).

In fact, even maintaining one of those planes to IFR standards can all of a
sudden become too expensive. Most owners don't keep those planes to those
standards.

OTOH the cost of operation goes up with the heavier plane, so if you fly
enough, or own long enough, you can get your money's worth with an upgraded
panel in a lighter plane. Once again, it depends on the mission.




"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >> Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
> >> Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
> >> significant utility in these planes. But when we're talking C-172's
> >> and Cherokee 140's ...
>
>
> So what are you saying? A plane flying in clouds has to be
high-performance
> to be safe? What?
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:
>My understanding (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) is that some
>of the newer units (I'm thinking specifically of the CNX-80) are
>certified such that you don't need an external CDI, as long as the unit
>is mounted so that the built-in one is within some specified distance
>from the pilot's center of vision, or some such.

I think that applies to the annunciator (msg, ptk) which is displayed in
the lower-lefthand corner of the CNX-80. I don't think it applies to
the CDI, but you could download the install guide from Garmin's site and
find out. I looked into it once. Sadly my radio stack is too far from
the centerline.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[C Kingsbury]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
>
> This is highly unusual to say the least. I've also seen what such
> planes (new C82's) rent for, and I believe that anyone whose budget
> for purchase is limited enough that an IFR-equipped airplane is not an
> option could not afford to rent such planes regularly.

3 pretty new 182s got for $130-150/hour wet and very well equipped (1
w/ sferics, 2w/datalink WX, all A/P). One is a Turbo 182, not that you
need it all that much out here where 2000' gets called Mt. Something.

If you budget $1000/month for ownership that would allow you to rent
these between 80 and 92 hours per year. Managed wisely (i.e. recurrent
training) that ought to be enough for a 140kt airplane.

> While I agree that geography (really climate) has everything to do
> with this, I have flown in the Northeast enough to know that this is
> not realistic unless you are unwilling to fly VFR in MVFR conditions.

Well, I'm not. MVFR up here often turns into MIFR. I'd rather spend
the enroute segment on top and shoot an approach to 800-1000AGL at the
end than slog along in 3mi viz at 1000 and risk getting snared by
precipitation fog.

> You mean you're not flying IMC in subfreezing temperatures? Or that
> no Airmet for icing in clouds was issued?

Does the FAA keep records of flight plans filed? I'll bet you'd find
an awful lot filed between October and April by no-known-ice planes.
Good, bad, or indifferent it's been my experience that's how it's done
around here. The airmet is out there pretty much non-stop for 4-5
monoths of the year. What people look at very closely are the pireps.

I've only flown those days in the winter with a very gray-haired CFII.
That's the condition that probably gives me the most pause.
Thunderstorms around here are more well behaved. The conditions that
cause them are pretty consistent, and when they do start up the radar
is pretty good about telling us where they are. Ice remains something
of an X factor. There's also the fact that it's reasonable to equip a
plane for flight in icing, but not for thunderstorm penetration.

> If the latter, I invite you
> to consider this story:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=32948A10.6E4D%40goldengate.net&rnum=1

Yeah, it's a useful reminder that the IFR ticket potentially opens up
new risks to you as well as new capabilities.

> BTW, I believe the author of that story has given up IFR flying...

A week ago somebody posted an AvWeb story about an old-time scudrunner
who gave it up after seeing an unlit 800' tower with guy wires across
a highway.

> Of the IFR trips I've made to the NE, I would say that about 1 in 3
> would have been cancelled had I not had spherics capability. You're
> right - the ATC system was hosed on the days I needed a Stormscope.

> I was rerouted half a dozen times in 200 miles.

Shucks, I get re-routed that many times on VFR days going from BED to
HPN ;)

> But I got where I was
> going. Without, I would have had to land. Not so bad if I'm headed
> West - get up to the line, land, get rained on, continue. Pure bitch
> if headed East.

Them's the breaks. Worst comes to worst, your options are no fewer
than a VFR-only pilot's. Sometimes they'll be better. My next plane
will definitely have sferics or a datalink unit.

> Issue #1 - fuel related doesn't always mean stupidity. There are
> misfuelings that are hard to catch, there are fuel leaks, etc. Don't
> write them all off.

Your point was, "how are you going to fare in low wx if that single
engine quits." Having a second engine does not prevent misfueling,
mismanagement, etc. In fact, the added complexity of many multi-engine
fuel systems (esp. serious long-range ones with multiple aux tanks
that require manual transfers) seems likely to increase the likelihood
of precisely this sort of thing. Sure enough, I found a handful of
these in the records I pulled.

> skill level. About 1 in 4 train seriously, work at it, and are good
> or at least getting there. The rest - well, let's just say that I
> wouldn't curl up and go to sleep in the back seat of their airplanes
> on an IFR trip.

Two of my partners are instrument-rated with 4-5 times the hours I
have. I've flown safety pilot with them to help them stay current.
They're conscientious and methodical, but I also watch them make lots
of little slip-ups. And I think, enough of these under the wrong
circumstances, and that's curtains. I don't think either of them has
filed an IFR plan once in the past few years, but they stay current
for some reason nonetheless.

Personally, I've decided that if I'm going to fly IFR for real, I'm
also going to go up in actual conditions with my CFII at least once
every three months for a workout no matter what. He loves the scud,
and he loves beating people up in it. The way I see it, you can be a
bit of a duffer when it comes to hamburger-fetching and probably not
risk too much more than a bruised ego, but IFR is for professionals
only, whether you're getting paid or not.

> will. I pretty regularly instruct in single airplanes in IMC. But I
> don't fool myself about the risks, either.

Pretty much what this whole game comes down to. If you want to
minimize the risks, you drive or take the winged people tube.

> > Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, either,
> > particularly if you leave out the technically-current 20hrs/yr
> > sightseer types.
>
> But why leave them out?

Because these guys are not VFR-current enough to safely execute the
sort of long-distance MVFR cross-countries we're talking about here.
They're the VFR equivalent of my legally IFR-current partners.

> guys are. They're not flying for transportation - why hold them to
> the standards required to do it?

I'm 100% for Sport Pilot. Though I will confess to a degree of
skepticism about being able to make a good pilot in 20-30 hours as a
lot of people seem to be hoping for. Looking back at my experience, I
can't see why I would have developed the necessary skills any faster
in an LSA than in a PA-28. Does weight and maybe 15 knots of speed
make that much difference? Still, it ought to be significantly cheaper
to certify, build, and maintain LSA than traditional spamcans. That's
100% upside.

> > Due to towers and congested areas scud running isn't
> > a practical choice either around here.
>
> Don't bet on it. Low VFR is a skill, just like IFR...(SNIP) Unfortunately,
> these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
> XC.

I think we're in agreement on this one. The more variety of conditions
people are exposed to, the better. This is one of my CFII's arguments
against the ten-day instrument courses. He actually tells people he
prefers they spend at least a year working on their rating so they see
the different conditions each month offers.

> But when we're talking C-172's
> and Cherokee 140's and such, the utility of the instrument rating is
> so minimal that, IMO, it's just not worth bothering with - the time
> and money is better spent on other things.

Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
out in these parts would disagree. One who wouldn't was the guy in
Alaska who gave me my SES, which I got 8 hours after doing my private.
His advice was, "go out and scare yourself for at least a hundred
hours first." He went on to say, "the instrument rating is pretty much
useless." My local CFII's response was, "Well, in Alaska he's right,
but this ain't Alaska." Too bad, I think sometimes.

Best,
-cwk.

[PaulH]

I live in Chicago and have found that having the rating is the only
way that I can use the plane effectively, i.e. make trips that I plan
in advance to make as opposed to running out for a hamburger when the
weather is nice. I still scrub flights for thunderstorms and ice but
my utility has gone from about 30% to maybe 70%. Last week I was able
to make an IFR flight between storms that I would never have made
without the rating (there were still showers in the area even though
the initial storm activity has passed through).

As other posters have said, you don't need a lot of avionics for legal
IFR, especially for training. It's also a lot less expensive to buy
the plane with the equipment already installed than to add it later,
though of course it's nice to work with the new GPS systems.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ben Jackson wrote:
>
> I don't think it applies to
> the CDI, but you could download the install guide from Garmin's site and
> find out.

Thanks -- I'll do that.

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

[Jay Masino]

G.R. Patterson III > wrote:
> a. Replace the LORAN with an approach certified GPS.
> b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole.
> c. Replace the intercom with an audio panel and MBR and replace the MBR with a NAV
> unit or slim NAV/COM.
> d. Something else.
> As always, money's tight, so I would pick b, though c also is attractive. Your
> choice? Panel can be seen at

George,
If money is really tight, I'd go with (a.), but use one of the previous
generation of IFR GPSs like the UPS AT/Garmin AT GX-50/60 or the Garmin
GNC-300XL. They'd require an external CDI like the small ones sold by Mid
Continent Instruments. It'll install in the 3 1/2" hole using an adapter
plate. I've got a GX-60, and it works just fine, even though it's not as
glitzy as the 430/530/CNX-80s. You'll get the capability you need, and
you can "chase" the leading edge of handheld GPSs, every couple of years,
to satisfy any need for a nicer moving map. With an IFR GPS, you'll have
the ability to fly to any intersection, so identifying them with dual VORs
won't be an issue.

--- Jay



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

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Masino wrote:
>
> If money is really tight, I'd go with (a.), but use one of the previous
> generation of IFR GPSs like the UPS AT/Garmin AT GX-50/60 or the Garmin
> GNC-300XL. They'd require an external CDI like the small ones sold by Mid
> Continent Instruments. It'll install in the 3 1/2" hole using an adapter
> plate.

If it fits in the smaller holes, I have two empty spaces for the CDI; one to the left
of my T&B, and one below it. I don't know how well the FAA likes the idea of putting
the CDI on the left side of the panel, though. I'll let my avionics tech decide that,
I guess.

> With an IFR GPS, you'll have
> the ability to fly to any intersection, so identifying them with dual VORs
> won't be an issue.

That was my thinking too. Thanks for the leads.

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

[Michael]

(Rosspilot) wrote
> So what are you saying? A plane flying in clouds has to be high-performance
> to be safe? What?

A plane flying in clouds at subfreezing temperatures DOES have to be
high performance to be reasonably safe. A low performance airplane
will fall out of the sky too quickly when the ice starts building.

A plane flying in clouds needs range to escape deteriorating weather.
That means speed and/or endurance.

Michael

[Michael]

(C Kingsbury) wrote
> If you budget $1000/month for ownership that would allow you to rent
> these between 80 and 92 hours per year.

I can OWN a C-182 on $1000 a month. A nice one. A VFR airplane can
be swung on $400/month, flying 10-15 hours a month.

> Well, I'm not. MVFR up here often turns into MIFR. I'd rather spend
> the enroute segment on top and shoot an approach to 800-1000AGL at the
> end than slog along in 3mi viz at 1000 and risk getting snared by
> precipitation fog.

I think you're taking more risks on top. It's EASIER to be on top,
but I don't believe it's SAFER.

> Does the FAA keep records of flight plans filed? I'll bet you'd find
> an awful lot filed between October and April by no-known-ice planes.
> Good, bad, or indifferent it's been my experience that's how it's done
> around here. The airmet is out there pretty much non-stop for 4-5
> monoths of the year. What people look at very closely are the pireps.

I'm well aware of this.

First, it's contrary to regs. There is no way around this. It is not
a gray area. It has been litigated. PIREPs are anecdotal, airmets
are authoritative.

Second, it's consistently fatal. Every year we lose some. Of course
we lose some scud running too. What are the relative rates? We have
no idea how many hours are flown in either mode, nor by what kind of
pilots, nor in what kind of aircraft. So really, all we've got here
is opinion.

My opinion is based on having done it both ways.

> I've only flown those days in the winter with a very gray-haired CFII.
> That's the condition that probably gives me the most pause.

As well it should.

> There's also the fact that it's reasonable to equip a
> plane for flight in icing, but not for thunderstorm penetration.

That's true, but irrelevant. It's very reasonable to equip a plane
for thunderstorm avoidance - a stormscope is a lot cheaper than boots.

> Yeah, it's a useful reminder that the IFR ticket potentially opens up
> new risks to you as well as new capabilities.

More to the point, it's a reminder of how ill-equipped the light
single is for tangling with ice.

> > BTW, I believe the author of that story has given up IFR flying...
>
> A week ago somebody posted an AvWeb story about an old-time scudrunner
> who gave it up after seeing an unlit 800' tower with guy wires across
> a highway.

Absolutely. I've seen something rather similar in my scud running
days.

There are risks either way. It's all a question of what's riskier.
We have no good statistics on this, so all we're left with is the
opinion of those who have done it both ways. But understand that
those are really the only opinions that count. If you haven't done it
both ways, you have no real way to compare.

> > But I got where I was
> > going. Without, I would have had to land. Not so bad if I'm headed
> > West - get up to the line, land, get rained on, continue. Pure bitch
> > if headed East.
>
> Them's the breaks. Worst comes to worst, your options are no fewer
> than a VFR-only pilot's. Sometimes they'll be better.

And quite often they won't.

> > Issue #1 - fuel related doesn't always mean stupidity. There are
> > misfuelings that are hard to catch, there are fuel leaks, etc. Don't
> > write them all off.
>
> Your point was, "how are you going to fare in low wx if that single
> engine quits." Having a second engine does not prevent misfueling,
> mismanagement, etc.

Mismanagement is stupidity or incompetence. Leaks are a different
story. And in fact we had a poster, not too long ago, who had a leak.
But only ONE engine quit so he did OK. Misfuelings are a gray area -
if it's a matter of the plane not being level, one engine will quit
first and warn you.

> Two of my partners are instrument-rated with 4-5 times the hours I
> have. I've flown safety pilot with them to help them stay current.
> They're conscientious and methodical, but I also watch them make lots
> of little slip-ups. And I think, enough of these under the wrong
> circumstances, and that's curtains.

Yes. The national airspace system is complex and quirky. None of us
are perfect. Make the wrong slipup at the wrong time, and it's over.
The difference between the proficient pilot and the non-proficient one
- the proficient pilot makes fewer mistakes and catches them quicker.
That is all. He can die from his mistakes too, it's just not as
likely.

> I don't think either of them has
> filed an IFR plan once in the past few years, but they stay current
> for some reason nonetheless.

Living testamnets to the utility of an instrument rating :).

> Personally, I've decided that if I'm going to fly IFR for real, I'm
> also going to go up in actual conditions with my CFII at least once
> every three months for a workout no matter what.

Good move. Do it or don't, but don't screw around with it.

> The way I see it, you can be a
> bit of a duffer when it comes to hamburger-fetching and probably not
> risk too much more than a bruised ego, but IFR is for professionals
> only, whether you're getting paid or not.

I concur. It should not be that way, but it is.

> Still, it ought to be significantly cheaper
> to certify, build, and maintain LSA than traditional spamcans. That's
> 100% upside.

Right. The ticket is window dressing. The important part is being
able to build and sell aircraft without the FAA dictating every move
you make. And I do know people who are ready to be cut loose at 20
hours. I know a pilot who finished in minimum hours, and that
included night, instrument, etc. He could easily have done the Sport
pilot thing in 20. Is he unusual? Sure, and I bet it will be an
unusual sport pilot who makes it in 20. Is that a reason to hold back
the ones who can do it?

> > Don't bet on it. Low VFR is a skill, just like IFR...(SNIP) Unfortunately,
> > these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
> > XC.
>
> I think we're in agreement on this one. The more variety of conditions
> people are exposed to, the better. This is one of my CFII's arguments
> against the ten-day instrument courses. He actually tells people he
> prefers they spend at least a year working on their rating so they see
> the different conditions each month offers.

I guess there's logic to this. My point was different. You can teach
yourself IFR (somebody had to) but the odds are against you. Ditto
scud running. If you had a dual XC in 500-1, you're way more prepared
to tackle it then if your dual XC's were all in 3000-5 or better. And
yes, I did have a dual XC in 500-1.

> > But when we're talking C-172's
> > and Cherokee 140's and such, the utility of the instrument rating is
> > so minimal that, IMO, it's just not worth bothering with - the time
> > and money is better spent on other things.
>
> Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
> out in these parts would disagree.

And how much scud running experience do THEY have?

> One who wouldn't was the guy in
> Alaska who gave me my SES, which I got 8 hours after doing my private.
> His advice was, "go out and scare yourself for at least a hundred
> hours first."

Same advice I give.

> He went on to say, "the instrument rating is pretty much
> useless." My local CFII's response was, "Well, in Alaska he's right,
> but this ain't Alaska."

The difference between New York and Alaska is more a matter of
attitude than anything else.

Michael

[Rosspilot]

>> So what are you saying? A plane flying in clouds has to be
>high-performance
>> to be safe? What?
>
>A plane flying in clouds at subfreezing temperatures DOES have to be
>high performance to be reasonably safe. A low performance airplane
>will fall out of the sky too quickly when the ice starts building.
>
>A plane flying in clouds needs range to escape deteriorating weather.
>That means speed and/or endurance.


All IFR is not icing. All IFR does not involve deteriorating weather.

<sigh>

Why do I bother?




www.Rosspilot.com

[Aaron Coolidge]

G.R. Patterson III > wrote:


: Ben Jackson wrote:
:>
:> I don't think it applies to
:> the CDI, but you could download the install guide from Garmin's site and
:> find out.

: Thanks -- I'll do that.

George, you certainly do need an external CDI for any of the GPS units, up
to and including the 430/530. It can be located anywhere on the panel.
You do not need an external annunciator panel with the 430/530.
Mid-continent makes a line of 2.5" CDI units compatible with just about
every IFR GPS, the MD-40 series. I have one of these in my plane for
my IFR GPS, located just to the right of the TC. It works like a charm.
If you can wait a couple days, I can take a picture of it.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[Dude]

Your rental environment is outstanding.

In my area, few FBO's or clubs have more than one rental that is not a
trainer or multitrainer. In order to be sure that you can rent from each
FBO, you have to remain current with them by renting regularly.

In other words, you have to spread your business around enough so that if
you need a plane on short notice, you will not have to get a currency check
out to actually have a choice of places to rent.

In the end, its easier just owning your own.


"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
om...
> (Michael) wrote in message
>...
> >
> > This is highly unusual to say the least. I've also seen what such
> > planes (new C82's) rent for, and I believe that anyone whose budget
> > for purchase is limited enough that an IFR-equipped airplane is not an
> > option could not afford to rent such planes regularly.
>
> 3 pretty new 182s got for $130-150/hour wet and very well equipped (1
> w/ sferics, 2w/datalink WX, all A/P). One is a Turbo 182, not that you
> need it all that much out here where 2000' gets called Mt. Something.
>
> If you budget $1000/month for ownership that would allow you to rent
> these between 80 and 92 hours per year. Managed wisely (i.e. recurrent
> training) that ought to be enough for a 140kt airplane.
>
> > While I agree that geography (really climate) has everything to do
> > with this, I have flown in the Northeast enough to know that this is
> > not realistic unless you are unwilling to fly VFR in MVFR conditions.
>
> Well, I'm not. MVFR up here often turns into MIFR. I'd rather spend
> the enroute segment on top and shoot an approach to 800-1000AGL at the
> end than slog along in 3mi viz at 1000 and risk getting snared by
> precipitation fog.
>
> > You mean you're not flying IMC in subfreezing temperatures? Or that
> > no Airmet for icing in clouds was issued?
>
> Does the FAA keep records of flight plans filed? I'll bet you'd find
> an awful lot filed between October and April by no-known-ice planes.
> Good, bad, or indifferent it's been my experience that's how it's done
> around here. The airmet is out there pretty much non-stop for 4-5
> monoths of the year. What people look at very closely are the pireps.
>
> I've only flown those days in the winter with a very gray-haired CFII.
> That's the condition that probably gives me the most pause.
> Thunderstorms around here are more well behaved. The conditions that
> cause them are pretty consistent, and when they do start up the radar
> is pretty good about telling us where they are. Ice remains something
> of an X factor. There's also the fact that it's reasonable to equip a
> plane for flight in icing, but not for thunderstorm penetration.
>
> > If the latter, I invite you
> > to consider this story:
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=32948A10.6E4D%40goldengate.net&rnum=1
>
> Yeah, it's a useful reminder that the IFR ticket potentially opens up
> new risks to you as well as new capabilities.
>
> > BTW, I believe the author of that story has given up IFR flying...
>
> A week ago somebody posted an AvWeb story about an old-time scudrunner
> who gave it up after seeing an unlit 800' tower with guy wires across
> a highway.
>
> > Of the IFR trips I've made to the NE, I would say that about 1 in 3
> > would have been cancelled had I not had spherics capability. You're
> > right - the ATC system was hosed on the days I needed a Stormscope.
>
> > I was rerouted half a dozen times in 200 miles.
>
> Shucks, I get re-routed that many times on VFR days going from BED to
> HPN ;)
>
> > But I got where I was
> > going. Without, I would have had to land. Not so bad if I'm headed
> > West - get up to the line, land, get rained on, continue. Pure bitch
> > if headed East.
>
> Them's the breaks. Worst comes to worst, your options are no fewer
> than a VFR-only pilot's. Sometimes they'll be better. My next plane
> will definitely have sferics or a datalink unit.
>
> > Issue #1 - fuel related doesn't always mean stupidity. There are
> > misfuelings that are hard to catch, there are fuel leaks, etc. Don't
> > write them all off.
>
> Your point was, "how are you going to fare in low wx if that single
> engine quits." Having a second engine does not prevent misfueling,
> mismanagement, etc. In fact, the added complexity of many multi-engine
> fuel systems (esp. serious long-range ones with multiple aux tanks
> that require manual transfers) seems likely to increase the likelihood
> of precisely this sort of thing. Sure enough, I found a handful of
> these in the records I pulled.
>
> > skill level. About 1 in 4 train seriously, work at it, and are good
> > or at least getting there. The rest - well, let's just say that I
> > wouldn't curl up and go to sleep in the back seat of their airplanes
> > on an IFR trip.
>
> Two of my partners are instrument-rated with 4-5 times the hours I
> have. I've flown safety pilot with them to help them stay current.
> They're conscientious and methodical, but I also watch them make lots
> of little slip-ups. And I think, enough of these under the wrong
> circumstances, and that's curtains. I don't think either of them has
> filed an IFR plan once in the past few years, but they stay current
> for some reason nonetheless.
>
> Personally, I've decided that if I'm going to fly IFR for real, I'm
> also going to go up in actual conditions with my CFII at least once
> every three months for a workout no matter what. He loves the scud,
> and he loves beating people up in it. The way I see it, you can be a
> bit of a duffer when it comes to hamburger-fetching and probably not
> risk too much more than a bruised ego, but IFR is for professionals
> only, whether you're getting paid or not.
>
> > will. I pretty regularly instruct in single airplanes in IMC. But I
> > don't fool myself about the risks, either.
>
> Pretty much what this whole game comes down to. If you want to
> minimize the risks, you drive or take the winged people tube.
>
> > > Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, either,
> > > particularly if you leave out the technically-current 20hrs/yr
> > > sightseer types.
> >
> > But why leave them out?
>
> Because these guys are not VFR-current enough to safely execute the
> sort of long-distance MVFR cross-countries we're talking about here.
> They're the VFR equivalent of my legally IFR-current partners.
>
> > guys are. They're not flying for transportation - why hold them to
> > the standards required to do it?
>
> I'm 100% for Sport Pilot. Though I will confess to a degree of
> skepticism about being able to make a good pilot in 20-30 hours as a
> lot of people seem to be hoping for. Looking back at my experience, I
> can't see why I would have developed the necessary skills any faster
> in an LSA than in a PA-28. Does weight and maybe 15 knots of speed
> make that much difference? Still, it ought to be significantly cheaper
> to certify, build, and maintain LSA than traditional spamcans. That's
> 100% upside.
>
> > > Due to towers and congested areas scud running isn't
> > > a practical choice either around here.
> >
> > Don't bet on it. Low VFR is a skill, just like IFR...(SNIP)
Unfortunately,
> > these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
> > XC.
>
> I think we're in agreement on this one. The more variety of conditions
> people are exposed to, the better. This is one of my CFII's arguments
> against the ten-day instrument courses. He actually tells people he
> prefers they spend at least a year working on their rating so they see
> the different conditions each month offers.
>
> > But when we're talking C-172's
> > and Cherokee 140's and such, the utility of the instrument rating is
> > so minimal that, IMO, it's just not worth bothering with - the time
> > and money is better spent on other things.
>
> Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
> out in these parts would disagree. One who wouldn't was the guy in
> Alaska who gave me my SES, which I got 8 hours after doing my private.
> His advice was, "go out and scare yourself for at least a hundred
> hours first." He went on to say, "the instrument rating is pretty much
> useless." My local CFII's response was, "Well, in Alaska he's right,
> but this ain't Alaska." Too bad, I think sometimes.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.

[Jay Masino]

G.R. Patterson III > wrote:
> If it fits in the smaller holes, I have two empty spaces for the CDI; one to the left
> of my T&B, and one below it. I don't know how well the FAA likes the idea of putting
> the CDI on the left side of the panel, though. I'll let my avionics tech decide that,
> I guess.

I think the FAA's guidelines for placement of the CDI is something vague
like "within view of the pilot", so the left side would probably be
fine. However, if it was me, I'd use your 3.5" hole with adapter. It's
a more intuitive location for an IFR scan (in my opinion). That said,
mine is to the right of the radio stack. Take a look at:
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/private/panel2.JPG
My ILS head is where your spare hole is. Anyway, you can see what one of
those Mid Continent CDIs looks like inside a 3.5" hole.

--- Jay


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

[xyzzy]

kontiki wrote:

> With respect to the weather conditions in North Carolina...
> that doesn't matter much for IR training... in fact you will have
> the opportunity for more "actual" hours which will benefit you
> in the long run. Weather isn't as much of an impediment for an
> IR rating as it is for a PPL rating.
>

I wasn't mentioning weather here as an impediment to the IFR rating so
much as a factor in determining the value of getting one.

[xyzzy]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> I believe the
> instrument rating adds a complete new dimension to your flying skills
> and greatly increases the precision with which you fly, be it IFR or
> VFR. A very useful rating to obtain, IMO, even if you don't use it
> later on.
>

This is actually the best argument for getting the IFR rating IMO (and
in my situation).

[G.R. Patterson III]

Aaron Coolidge wrote:
>
> If you can wait a couple days, I can take a picture of it.

I'm not in any hurry -- making tentative plans for the future.

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Masino wrote:
>
> Take a look at:
> http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/private/panel2.JPG

Thanks. Nice photo.

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

Rosspilot wrote:
>
> All IFR is not icing. All IFR does not involve deteriorating weather.

That should be "Not all IFR is icing. Not all IFR involves deteriorating weather."
What you said is that IFR never involves icing or deteriorating weather.

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

[Michael]

(Rosspilot) wrote
> All IFR is not icing.

All IFR in IMC flown in subfreezing weather has the potential for
icing. Icing is not predictable. All you really know is this - if
you have visible moisture and subfreezing temperatures, you are at
risk.

> All IFR does not involve deteriorating weather.

All IFR in IMC involves the potential for deteriorating weather. When
you're flying in or above cloud, you can't effectively monitor it.
Therefore, you need to have sufficient range to exit the weather
system. If you don't have that range, you are at risk.

Michael

[Rosspilot]

>> All IFR is not icing.
>
>All IFR in IMC flown in subfreezing weather has the potential for
>icing.


Ok . . . all IFR is *not* conducted in subfreezing weather.

> All IFR does not involve deteriorating weather.

<<All IFR in IMC involves the potential for deteriorating weather.>>


You seem hell-bent on making the argument that all IFR exceeds the capacity of
a light single.

It's simply nonsense. You have to know your aircraft's limitations, and flight
plan properly. Exercizing the "no-go" decision is a big part of having the
Instrument Rating.


> if
>you have visible moisture and subfreezing temperatures, you are at
>risk.

>you need to have sufficient range to exit the weather
>system. If you don't have that range, you are at risk.


If you launch under a crystal clear blue sky in a brand new Mooney Ovation or
Piper Saratoga you are "at risk".

Give me a break!



www.Rosspilot.com

[Rosspilot]

>> All IFR is not icing. All IFR does not involve deteriorating weather.
>
>That should be "Not all IFR is icing. Not all IFR involves deteriorating
>weather."
>What you said is that IFR never involves icing or deteriorating weather.



I know you think you know what I meant but what I said isn't exactly what I
thought or meant to say, although it is what you thought I meant.

<G>






www.Rosspilot.com

[Steven Barnes]

I had an avionics guy tell me that my VOR head (localizer only, no GS) could
be used if we added a GPS. A switch to toggle from receiving from VOR head
or GPS would do it. That right?

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:UHSYc.74315$9d6.21993@attbi_s54...
> In article >,
> Roy Smith > wrote:
> >My understanding (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) is that some
> >of the newer units (I'm thinking specifically of the CNX-80) are
> >certified such that you don't need an external CDI, as long as the unit
> >is mounted so that the built-in one is within some specified distance
> >from the pilot's center of vision, or some such.
>
> I think that applies to the annunciator (msg, ptk) which is displayed in
> the lower-lefthand corner of the CNX-80. I don't think it applies to
> the CDI, but you could download the install guide from Garmin's site and
> find out. I looked into it once. Sadly my radio stack is too far from
> the centerline.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[Matt Whiting]

Michael wrote:

> (Rosspilot) wrote
>
>>So what are you saying? A plane flying in clouds has to be high-performance
>>to be safe? What?
>
>
> A plane flying in clouds at subfreezing temperatures DOES have to be
> high performance to be reasonably safe. A low performance airplane
> will fall out of the sky too quickly when the ice starts building.

Well, I found out one evening flying past Lake Erie that a Skylane will
carry at least an inch of ice on the leading edge and struts and still
fly very well ... just a little bit on the slow side. :-)

It didn't "fall out of the sky", but I did have to descend from 11,000
to 9,000 before I could hold altitude with full throttle and the carb
heat on (the air intake froze over almost immediately upon the ice
encounter).


Matt

[G.R. Patterson III]

Steven Barnes wrote:
>
> I had an avionics guy tell me that my VOR head (localizer only, no GS) could
> be used if we added a GPS. A switch to toggle from receiving from VOR head
> or GPS would do it. That right?

I have heard that that is sometimes the case. Depends on the VOR head and GPS. Do you
have a NARCO VOR head? If so, that means mine might work that way, though mine has
the GS needle.

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

[Steven Barnes]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Steven Barnes wrote:
> >
> > I had an avionics guy tell me that my VOR head (localizer only, no GS)
could
> > be used if we added a GPS. A switch to toggle from receiving from VOR
head
> > or GPS would do it. That right?
>
> I have heard that that is sometimes the case. Depends on the VOR head and
GPS. Do you
> have a NARCO VOR head? If so, that means mine might work that way, though
mine has
> the GS needle.
>
> George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
> he gives it to.


Hmmm. It's a Bendix/King indicator hooked up to a 155. I can't remember the
exact type. Books are at the airport.
Looks like the more in-expensive way in is the Garmin 155XL. Although, I
just did a bit of looking at the KLN94. Looks nice. Used is fine. Heh, used
will probably be required to be affordable.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Steven Barnes wrote:
>
> Heh, used
> will probably be required to be affordable.

Yep.

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

[Rosspilot]

> I found out one evening flying past Lake Erie that a Skylane will
>carry at least an inch of ice on the leading edge and struts and still
>fly very well ... just a little bit on the slow side. :-)
>
>It didn't "fall out of the sky", but I did have to descend from 11,000
>to 9,000 before I could hold altitude with full throttle and the carb
>heat on (the air intake froze over almost immediately upon the ice
>encounter).
>
>


I picked up about an inch of ice climbing out of Burlington, VT one April day
in a rented Archer. Ice on windscreen and leading edge . . . plane simply
stopped climbing at 6000 and tops were at 8. I could not get above it, and had
to return to field which was 20 miles away. Wasn't sure I had time for a full
approach so I took a radar surveillance approach and got down ok, but I could
not see out the front--had to land looking out the side. It was one of those
times I was pretty scared.


www.Rosspilot.com

[Michael]

(Rosspilot) wrote
> >All IFR in IMC flown in subfreezing weather has the potential for
> >icing.
>
> Ok . . . all IFR is *not* conducted in subfreezing weather.

OK, so how much IFR in IMC involves neither subfreezing weather nor
T-storms? In my experience, relatively little.

> You seem hell-bent on making the argument that all IFR exceeds the capacity of
> a light single.
>
> It's simply nonsense. You have to know your aircraft's limitations, and flight
> plan properly. Exercizing the "no-go" decision is a big part of having the
> Instrument Rating.

But the issue here is how often the weather is beyond the capacity of
a typical light single VFR yet not beyond the capacity of the same
airplane IFR. I argue that it's relatively rare to have such weather.

> If you launch under a crystal clear blue sky in a brand new Mooney Ovation or
> Piper Saratoga you are "at risk".

Yes. Only a question of how much.

The issue here is relative risk. I'm not really interested in
absolute risk - each pilot decide how much is acceptable for him given
the mission. What I'm interested in is which method of completing the
mission is safer - IFR or low VFR. Given the capabilities of the
typical low performance light single, I would argue that in MOST (not
all) cases low VFR is the safer way to accomplish the mission.

As the airplane changes, so does the decision - both because a heavier
more powerful airplane is at lower risk IFR, and because it is at
higher risk low VFR.

Michael

[Michael]

Matt Whiting > wrote
> Well, I found out one evening flying past Lake Erie that a Skylane will
> carry at least an inch of ice on the leading edge and struts and still
> fly very well ... just a little bit on the slow side. :-)

I concur. Do you believe you would have had the same result with a
Skyhawk? I think you know better.

> It didn't "fall out of the sky", but I did have to descend from 11,000
> to 9,000 before I could hold altitude with full throttle and the carb
> heat on (the air intake froze over almost immediately upon the ice
> encounter).

Right. You had the engine power to cope with the (far from uncommon)
conditions. A Skyhawk or Cherokee 140 would not. A Hawk XP or Archer
probably would. A Skylane or Cherokee 235 definitely does.

Thus my point - in a non-deiced high performance airplane, you can
stick your nose in. There is still some risk, but it's a lot less
than the risk of doing the same thing in a low performance airplane.

On the other hand, the low performance airplane is likely slower, and
thus can fly low VFR with a greater margin of safety. Is it such a
stretch to believe that with given weather conditions, the choice of
airplane determines whether going IFR or low VFR is the safer option?

Michael

[C Kingsbury]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> (C Kingsbury) wrote
> > If you budget $1000/month for ownership that would allow you to rent
> > these between 80 and 92 hours per year.
>
> I can OWN a C-182 on $1000 a month. A nice one. A VFR airplane can
> be swung on $400/month, flying 10-15 hours a month.

(a) Not around Boston you can't
(b) Especially not if you figure in a loan
(c) Nice C-182 yes, like-new low TT fully-equipped, no.
(d) Comparing apples and oranges. My point is up here you can rent
real IFR airplanes. I'm quite obviously spoiled, but keep in mind that
gas on my field is now over 4.30/gal

> I think you're taking more risks on top. It's EASIER to be on top,
> but I don't believe it's SAFER.


> I'm well aware of this.
>
> First, it's contrary to regs. There is no way around this. It is not
> a gray area. It has been litigated. PIREPs are anecdotal, airmets
> are authoritative.

No argument with the substance of what you're saying. But this has to
be among the least-enforced regs on the books. Unlike below-legal
scud-running, IFR leaves a clear paper trail with calls on tape at the
FSSs. Up here in winter you'll even hear the FSS briefers downplaying
the icing airmet in the same way pilots do.

> Second, it's consistently fatal. Every year we lose some. Of course
> we lose some scud running too. What are the relative rates? We have
> no idea how many hours are flown in either mode, nor by what kind of
> pilots, nor in what kind of aircraft. So really, all we've got here
> is opinion.
>
> My opinion is based on having done it both ways.

This is part of the reason why I've asked whether flight plans are
archived for research purposes. They'd at least give us some better
idea of what's happening on the IFR side of operations.

> That's true, but irrelevant. It's very reasonable to equip a plane
> for thunderstorm avoidance - a stormscope is a lot cheaper than boots.

Actually the point I had in mind was a bit more circular- that because
commercial aircraft can easily operate through icing that would kill a
light single, perhaps there isn't a sense of needing to do such a good
job of forecasting it. Up here the ice forecasts are extremely coarse.
It's like saying, "well, it's July and it's hot and there are some
clouds, so there's going to be thunderstorms so nobody should fly
anywhere within 200 miles," while in fact you're describing 30 days of
the year, out of which you may get storms on two or three at best.

> But only ONE engine quit so he did OK. Misfuelings are a gray area -
> if it's a matter of the plane not being level, one engine will quit
> first and warn you.

I'm not going into the single-vs-twin debate now :)

> Yes. The national airspace system is complex and quirky. None of us
> are perfect. Make the wrong slipup at the wrong time, and it's over.
> The difference between the proficient pilot and the non-proficient one
> - the proficient pilot makes fewer mistakes and catches them quicker.
> That is all. He can die from his mistakes too, it's just not as
> likely.
>
> > I don't think either of them has
> > filed an IFR plan once in the past few years, but they stay current
> > for some reason nonetheless.
>
> Living testamnets to the utility of an instrument rating :).

Would you say that if they get caught in IMC inadvertently they don't
stand a better chance? And yes, I am aware that a non-trivial number
of rated pilots get killed in just that situation every year. Just
don't know how relative numbers stack up.

> > Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
> > out in these parts would disagree.
>
> And how much scud running experience do THEY have?

My CFII, plenty. He's made the point about flying under the clouds
being safer some of the time, but only for a pilot who's rated and
equipped to fly above them in case the weather goes south, which it
has a habit of around here. MVFR in New England is a pretty bad
proposition for a VFR-only pilot.

As for the insurance guys, well, they probably understand the real
statistics as well as if not far better than the FAA. After all,
that's what makes their business work, or not.

> > He went on to say, "the instrument rating is pretty much
> > useless." My local CFII's response was, "Well, in Alaska he's right,
> > but this ain't Alaska."
>
> The difference between New York and Alaska is more a matter of
> attitude than anything else.

Um... survey says "nope."

1) Icing is thick in the clouds in Alaska throughout the prime flying
season; in the Northeast US it's a high risk maybe 4 months a year.
2) Mountains in Alaska mean MEAs at and well beyond 10,000' most of
the time. Vast majority of the Northeast never needs to go above
7,000, with as low as 2500 in many places.
3) VFR at 500/1 is probably illegal over 50% of the routes that I fly.
There's peoples *everywhere* around here. You really need 1000-1500AGL
to be on the safe side also taking towers into consideration.
4) Instrument services just aren't available on anywhere near the
scale in Alaska as they are here.

To be fair, terrain avoidance is less of an issue here, and weather
services offer far more data. Still, Alaska is the land of MVFR
operations, and their accident rate is staggering. But they do get
their money's worth out of planes, though.

Best,
-cwk.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Michael wrote:
>
> OK, so how much IFR in IMC involves neither subfreezing weather nor
> T-storms? In my experience, relatively little.

Maybe where you are, but here on the northeast coast, we get frontal systems that
stall out and won't move until another system comes in and shoves them offshore. The
result is about a week of low ceilings and drizzle or rain, maybe fog. The choices
are IFR or scud-run. Sometimes only IFR flight is possible. There's no convective
activity after the first day and the freezing level (if there is one) is known and
constant. This is followed by a few hours of very pretty weather and then all Hell
breaks loose.

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

[Michael]

(C Kingsbury) wrote
> > I can OWN a C-182 on $1000 a month. A nice one. A VFR airplane can
> > be swung on $400/month, flying 10-15 hours a month.
>
> (a) Not around Boston you can't

Probably true. Anyway, my point stands - you may have this kind of
stuff in your backyard, but most people don't.

> > It has been litigated. PIREPs are anecdotal, airmets
> > are authoritative.
>
> No argument with the substance of what you're saying. But this has to
> be among the least-enforced regs on the books.

And that's fine. I'm perfectly OK with the idea of violating FAR's
when in your judgment they are not applicable. But across the board
please - this also means it's just as legit to violate minimum
altitudes for scud running.

> Unlike below-legal
> scud-running, IFR leaves a clear paper trail

Yup. So the chances of getting busted are greater.

> This is part of the reason why I've asked whether flight plans are
> archived for research purposes. They'd at least give us some better
> idea of what's happening on the IFR side of operations.

Yes, it would be great if we had actual statistics to work with.

> Actually the point I had in mind was a bit more circular- that because
> commercial aircraft can easily operate through icing that would kill a
> light single, perhaps there isn't a sense of needing to do such a good
> job of forecasting it.

Commercial aviation can also see T-storms - these guys can't dispatch
into an area of forecast T-storms without RADAR. No ****, it's in
Part 121. So it's really not a matter of need - icing is just not
predictable.

> > Living testamnets to the utility of an instrument rating :).
>
> Would you say that if they get caught in IMC inadvertently they don't
> stand a better chance? And yes, I am aware that a non-trivial number
> of rated pilots get killed in just that situation every year. Just
> don't know how relative numbers stack up.

My opinion is no, they don't stand a better chance. It's only
opinion. As you mentioned, large numbers of rated pilots do get
killed in such situations. But we don't know who is flying what kind
of weather, either.

Important to remember - VFR into IMC fatality is a private pilot kind
of accident. Only about 18% of private pilots are instrument rated,
so they should account for only 18% of those fatalities - less if the
rating offers an advantage. What are the real numbers?

> > > Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
> > > out in these parts would disagree.
> >
> > And how much scud running experience do THEY have?
>
> My CFII, plenty. He's made the point about flying under the clouds
> being safer some of the time, but only for a pilot who's rated and
> equipped to fly above them in case the weather goes south

What ever happened to putting down at the nearest airport (which, in
your neck of the woods, is probably no more than 10 minutes away,
usually less) if the weather goes south?

> As for the insurance guys, well, they probably understand the real
> statistics as well as if not far better than the FAA. After all,
> that's what makes their business work, or not.

And what statistics do they have? I know that when I got an
instrument rating in my TriPacer, the insurance did not change. It
was a minimum-IFR airplane - 4 seats, 150 hp, 100 kts, IFR certified.

> To be fair, terrain avoidance is less of an issue here, and weather
> services offer far more data. Still, Alaska is the land of MVFR
> operations, and their accident rate is staggering. But they do get
> their money's worth out of planes, though.

And we don't. Which probably accounts for the difference in accident
rates more than anything. Hard to get hurt if you never do anything.

Michael

[Paul Sengupta]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Rosspilot) wrote
> > Ok . . . all IFR is *not* conducted in subfreezing weather.
>
> OK, so how much IFR in IMC involves neither subfreezing weather nor
> T-storms? In my experience, relatively little.

Here in the UK, I'd say about 80% of it.

Paul

[Russell Kent]

"Michael" > wrote:
> Important to remember - VFR into IMC fatality is a private pilot kind
> of accident. Only about 18% of private pilots are instrument rated,
> so they should account for only 18% of those fatalities - less if the
> rating offers an advantage. What are the real numbers?

Perhaps, but I think you assume that the other possible influences are
uniformly distributed, which I doubt is true. For example, do the 18% of
IFR rated private pilots have the same level of recent flying experience(*)
as the 72% of non-IFR rated pilots?

Russell Kent

(*) I'm assuming that "recent flying experience" would be a factor in the
survivability of, or probability of encountering, a VFR-into-IMC situation.
I have no evidence to back this claim; it's just a gut feeling.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (C Kingsbury) wrote
> Important to remember - VFR into IMC fatality is a private pilot kind
> of accident. Only about 18% of private pilots are instrument rated,
> so they should account for only 18% of those fatalities - less if the
> rating offers an advantage. What are the real numbers?
> Michael

Where did you get the 18% number?

Mike
MU-2

[Michael]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote
> > OK, so how much IFR in IMC involves neither subfreezing weather nor
> > T-storms? In my experience, relatively little.
>
> Here in the UK, I'd say about 80% of it.

And here in Texas, maybe 8% at best.

There is a good reason why the UK has an IMC rating.

Michael

[Dan Luke]

"Michael" wrote:

>> Ok . . . all IFR is *not* conducted in subfreezing weather.
>
> OK, so how much IFR in IMC involves neither subfreezing weather nor
> T-storms? In my experience, relatively little.

Virtually all the IMC I have flown has involved neither, unless you want
to be very liberal about the meaning of "involves."

>> You seem hell-bent on making the argument that all IFR exceeds the
>> capacity of
>> a light single.
>>
>> It's simply nonsense. You have to know your aircraft's limitations,
>> and flight
>> plan properly. Exercizing the "no-go" decision is a big part of
>> having the
>> Instrument Rating.
>
> But the issue here is how often the weather is beyond the capacity of
> a typical light single VFR yet not beyond the capacity of the same
> airplane IFR. I argue that it's relatively rare to have such weather.

Can't agree with you there. I have found it relatively common on the
central Gulf Coast, fall through spring. Most of my trips are morning
departures; in winter both origin and destination airports are often IFR
or very untrustworthy VFR. This weather usually consists of fog or a
low overcast that contains no icing or convective threats.

Even thogh I frequently encounter IMC, my actual IMC time is quite low;
I spend little time enroute in clouds. That's not because I avoid
flying on days when it's solid from 1,500 to 15,000, but because such
days are rare down here. Most of my IMC time is climbing, descending
and approaches. In those circumstances, ice and CBs have seldom been
issues for me, and the instrument rating has been quite useful.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> You could say I am losing money in my leaseback, but I see it as a good
> value. Not a good investment, a good value.

That pretty well sums up aircraft ownership in general.

You can't define it in terms of "investment," but rather in terms of
"value."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[PInc972390]

>That should be "Not all IFR is icing. Not all IFR involves deteriorating
>weather."
>What you said is that IFR never involves icing or deteriorating weather.
>

It is my policy to not go to a location unless the weather picture is better
than where I am at. Just because this is my policy doesn't always mean that I
do it.

[Captain Wubba]

No reason you can't do both. To do your instrument training all you
need is the pitot/static and transponder check. I did all of my
instrument training in an old Beech Musketeer with only a pair of
KX-170Bs. For your checkride, all you need to do is three types of
approaches (and a hold and some other basic stuff), and if you get a
'VFR' plane with a glideslope (a great many do, even many old 150s),
you'll do a localizer approach, a VOR approach, and an ILS approach.

Would I take in the soup for real? Not for any length of time. But to
earn your rating, you don't need dual Garmin 430s. The hardest thing
about instrument training isn't the approaches. It's developing the
skills that will keep you from killing yourself. It's managing to stay
upside-up. And those skills can certainly be developed in a VFR plane.

Getting your instrument ticket is an excellent idea, even if you
aren't planning on using it much. If you don't stay current, it is
dangerous to be in the clouds, but regaining currency is relatively
easy. It does help make you a better pilot, and it is certainly a very
valuable 'insurance' policy.

Id do both...buy a good VFR plane with enough instrumentation to do
your IFR training (most have it already), and get your rating in it.
If you later find the need to do hard IFR flying on a regular basis,
you can look at other options down the road.

Cheers,

Cap,


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

[[email protected]]

Captain Wubba > wrote:
: No reason you can't do both. To do your instrument training all you
: need is the pitot/static and transponder check. I did all of my
: instrument training in an old Beech Musketeer with only a pair of
: KX-170Bs. For your checkride, all you need to do is three types of
: approaches (and a hold and some other basic stuff), and if you get a
: 'VFR' plane with a glideslope (a great many do, even many old 150s),
: you'll do a localizer approach, a VOR approach, and an ILS approach.

: Would I take in the soup for real? Not for any length of time. But to
: earn your rating, you don't need dual Garmin 430s. The hardest thing
: about instrument training isn't the approaches. It's developing the
: skills that will keep you from killing yourself. It's managing to stay
: upside-up. And those skills can certainly be developed in a VFR plane.

Well-said. The term "IFR-Certified" gets thrown around primarily to try to
increase the value of a plane during a sale. Many (most?) VFR planes have IFR
equipment (VOR, LOC, often a GS). All an "IFR-Certified" plane means is one that has
the altimeter checked along with the *required* VFR transponder biannual check.
That's it. No more, no less. Now, to actually fly IFR (i.e. accept an IFR
clearance), it must not only be certified, but equipped to fly the approaches you
intend to use. Having a LOC/VOR/GS is a very reasonable set of equipment for IFR
training. You only need one precision and two non-precision approaches for the
checkride. For actual IFR, having some redundancy built in and maybe a few more
gadgets (digital radios, DME, IFR GPS) would be nice to reduce workload. For
training, dual (or even single) KX-170B's is perfectly fine, and in a lot of ways
better since it's more difficult to triangulate VOR's than read a DME. The biggest
part of the IFR rating (80% or more) isn't flying approaches, but keeping the
shiny-side up and executing precision airwork with minimal concentration required.
Approaches are a natural byproduct of precision airwork, with just a couple more
things thrown in (i.e. convertning the symbols on the plates into the required
precision airwork). It's mostly about constantly cramming more workload onto yourself
until you can function automatically on the basics and have some CPU cycles left over
to do other things.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Aaron Coolidge]

wrote:

: shiny-side up and executing precision airwork with minimal concentration required.
: Approaches are a natural byproduct of precision airwork, with just a couple more
: things thrown in (i.e. convertning the symbols on the plates into the required
: precision airwork). It's mostly about constantly cramming more workload onto yourself
: until you can function automatically on the basics and have some CPU cycles left over
: to do other things.

Let me agree with Cory. I started with a pretty basic IFR setup, and I have
added to it as my needs increased. I would say that a marker beacon is
also important, unless you've got some other way to identify the OM for an
ILS approach (VOR triangulation, ADF, whatever).
I found the hardest thing in IFR training was mental prep for approaches
one right after another. We have a VOR that has approaches to quite a few
airports starting over it. Frequently in training we'd start over that vor
and shoot five or six different approaches, each missed approach going back
to the VOR. We'd do six approaches in 1.2 hobbs hours. It sure helped to
get all of your paperwork out of the way and your charts organized
beforehand!
--
Aaron Coolidge