Instrument rating??

[Paul Folbrecht]

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

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

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

Thoughts on this??

[George]

> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

Tell your ATP friend of a friend to go jump in a lake, or have him join on
here and I'll tell him myself. One of the best things you can do for your
own safety and satisfaction is to get an instrument rating. You can fly
hard, medium, or light IMC depending on your own risk levels, equipment, and
conditions. People who are instrument rated can decide what they think
they're ready for just like a private pilot can.

[George]

> > So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> > at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> > as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> > without it.

This kind of BS just plain ****es me off. You do not become more likely to
kill yourself with an instrument rating and not flying 3 times a week. This
statement is a perfect example of why hours do not necessarily mean
competence in aviation.

[Ron McKinnon]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)

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

My personal belief is that training and/or education (and travel) is never
truly wasted, even if you never use it again.

If you're the kind of guy who thinks the rating is a magic key to
IFR, and you don't need to be current to use it, you'll probably
kill yourself somehow else, even if you don't get the rating. Good
airmanship means good sense. If you have a reasonable quota of
airmanship/good-sense you'll know when to use it, and when not,
and if you don't you're in the wrong avocation anyway.

[Judah]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Folbrecht > wrote in
ink.net:

> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly
dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm
not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

[Brad Z]

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


"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

[Michael 182]

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

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

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

Michael




"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

[Rosspilot]

No need for me to "pile on", but advancing your aviation education is no waste
of time. I have always believed the Instrument Rating is the most important
rating you will ever get. You will be a better pilot and more skilled in
working in the system (VFR, too).

www.Rosspilot.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
> Thoughts on this??

I heard the same from a retired 737 pilot. The way he put it was "If you aren't
going to use it all the time, don't get an instrument rating".


George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[Jeff]

I think the guy is feeding you alot of crap.
there are alot of benefits of instrument training and getting the instrument
rating.
one is lower insurance if you own your own plane the other is you can
legally fly when its below VFR minimums nor do you have to dodge around
clouds when you are going somewhere.

thinking your invincible is not something only instrument pilots do, VFR
pilots do it also. But just because you have an instrument rating does not
mean you can fly in anything. your skills and the plane your flying dictate
the weather you fly in.


Paul Folbrecht wrote:

> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

[Bob Gardner]

Unbelievably bad advice.

Bob Gardner

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

[Jeff]

I think some people get carried away when they talk about the instrument rating and
its usefulness.
That its for flying in nasty thunderstorms, lighting hitting near you, plane
rocking around..the nasty stuff.

I dont fly in freezing rain, thunderstorms or stuff like that, my instrument ticket
comes in handy when I wan t to go somewhere and they have a, say solid overcast at
maybe 1000 ft. well, I dont have to cancel my flight, with the IFR ticket, I can
fly the instrument approach and land safely, or take off with similar conditions,
or fly just below or just above the cloud layer without worrying about cloud
clearence.

there are alot of things the instrument ticket is good for other then the nasty
hard IFR.



"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> >
> > Thoughts on this??
>
> I heard the same from a retired 737 pilot. The way he put it was "If you aren't
> going to use it all the time, don't get an instrument rating".
>
> George Patterson
> A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
> you look forward to the trip.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , G.R. Patterson III at
wrote on 2/29/04 6:01 PM:

>
>
> Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts on this??
>
> I heard the same from a retired 737 pilot. The way he put it was "If you
> aren't
> going to use it all the time, don't get an instrument rating".
>

I am about to embark on my own instrument rating, and I'm fairly certain
that I won't be using it three times a week once I get it. I would hate to
think that flying is only for those with the kind of time and money (i.e.,
nearly unlimited supplies of both) that most of us simply don't have.

But everybody's way is the best way, right? Those who fly for a living are
certain that anything less than daily flying resulting in twenty thousand
hours isn't true proficiency. Those who fly two or three times a week are
equally convinced that they are superior in every way to the "weekend
warriors". And so on, right down the chain...

[C J Campbell]

There are a lot of older pilots who would agree with your friend. You run
into them a lot on rec.aviation.ifr and rec.aviation.piloting.

You could use the same logic for learning to fly in the first place: if you
are not going to stay current and fly a lot then it is not worth it and may
even be dangerous. Taken to extreme, the argument can be made that if you
never learn to fly then you will probably never die piloting an airplane.

A lot of the pilots who die (perhaps even most of them) flying VFR into IMC
conditions have instrument ratings. Maybe they were overconfident, rusty, or
some combination of the two.

The answer to that, of course, is to get your instrument rating and stay
current. Don't tackle weather that neither you nor your equipment are
prepared to handle. Use common sense, and getting an instrument rating will
make you a better and safer pilot. If you have no common sense, then it just
gives you one more way to kill yourself.

So, yeah, your friend is full of it.

[Casey Wilson]

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

<<SNIP!>>

> Thoughts on this??

I'm maybe half-way through my instrument training...
Before I started, I was a damned good pilot......

Now, I'm a better one.......

Your friend needs to find, yourself excepted, a better crowd to run in.

[Dan Luke]

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote:
> Thoughts on this??

Like any load of bulls..., your friend's advice has an ounce of truth in
it. If you get the rating and attempt to use it only once in a great
while, it can get you into trouble. It is possible to remain legally
current but not proficient.

Nevertheless, he's still handing you a load of crap. Three times a week?
Nuts. There is no hard number of hours that every pilot will require in
order to stay competent in the clouds. Be honest with yourself and get
enough time so that you *know* you can trust your skills when you need
them.

I am glad I got the rating: it has added tremendously to the utility and
satisfaction I get from flying.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron McKinnon wrote:

> If you're the kind of guy who thinks the rating is a magic key to
> IFR, and you don't need to be current to use it, you'll probably
> kill yourself somehow else, even if you don't get the rating.

It appears that Paul's ATP friend is assuming that Paul is "the kind of guy
who thinks the rating is a magic key to IFR, and you don't need to be
current to use it". He's either a poor friend (assuming he's wrong) or a
good friend (assuming he's right).

So, Paul, just how accurate is your ATP friend's opinion of you <laugh>?

- Andrew

[Tom Sixkiller]

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

What an engine failure has to do with an IR is rather puzzling.

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

While ANY skill must be maintained, you're more likely to fly into IMC than
have an engine failure. Then, too, how much more COULD you fly if you could
cast off during IMC rather than waiting for VMC? If you have no IR and don't
maintain your basic flying skills, you're asking for trouble that way as
well.

Last spring I returned to flying after more than a dozen years on the
ground. Even through I had nearly 2000 hours (1976-1991) I took a damn long
time getting back into things (lots of right seat time) before I felt
comfortable and proficient.

The question I'd ask is: What is your current flying profile (business or
just pleasure) and what changes do you anticipate? I'd sure consider taking
the lessons just to have a better sense of handling the aircraft, but will
you really make use of an IR? Would you be willing to expend the time and
money to stay current? Can you're flying profile justifiy the expense?

> Thoughts on this??

As John Deakin (32,000 hours) said in one of his articles :

"Over 32,000 hours." Well, yeah, I've watched in fascination over 40
years of professional flying, as that total has grown to a number
that surprises even me, particularly in light of some of the dumb things
I've done. But, consider; 747 time accounts for well over half of
it, and since the 747 is almost exclusively a very long range
aircraft with supplemented or double crews, several thousand of those hours
were spent sleeping in the crew bunk, and more than a few in the
seat, peacefully snoozing on duty (which I encourage on long flights,
preferably one at a time!) Many thousands more were spent in the
cockpit, boring along (and bored) at FL370, on 12 and 14-hour flights,
above most of the weather. More to the point, since there are so few
takeoffs and landings, by the time the other pilots get their share,
I'm lucky to get 2 takeoffs, and 2 landings per month. That's 24 per year,
for 25 years, for about 300, total. Ok, maybe 500, because some of that time
was on short-range flights of nine hours, or less, with a "normal" crew.
Folks, this is not a lot of experience, relative to the total time!

If the guy retired that long ago, it seems he's to the point of life where
he's become very cynical. Number of hours means relatively little.

[John Harper]

My 2c... your friend is exaggerating quite a lot, but what he says
isn't completely unfounded either. I would say that to stay safe you
need to do a lot more than the FARs say (one approach every
month on average). Personally I try to get out whenever we have
bad (but not icing or convective) weather for some actual time,
and I do recurrent training with an instructor less often than I'd
like but still every couple of months. I feel comfortable doing
an ILS to minimums or flying through the odd cold front (though
I'm always glad when *that* is over).

So imho an IR is something you have to work harder at keeping
non-rusty than for VFR.

John

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

[Paul Folbrecht]

Read my post again and you'll see that I said "friend of a friend".
And, actually, he's more of the father of a friend of a friend. I
talked to him for 20 minutes in a bar and may never see him again in my
life.

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> Ron McKinnon wrote:
>
>
>>If you're the kind of guy who thinks the rating is a magic key to
>>IFR, and you don't need to be current to use it, you'll probably
>>kill yourself somehow else, even if you don't get the rating.
>
>
> It appears that Paul's ATP friend is assuming that Paul is "the kind of guy
> who thinks the rating is a magic key to IFR, and you don't need to be
> current to use it". He's either a poor friend (assuming he's wrong) or a
> good friend (assuming he's right).
>
> So, Paul, just how accurate is your ATP friend's opinion of you <laugh>?
>
> - Andrew
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

Thanks for all the feedback. The common theme is obvious: just know
your limitations, which should go without saying anyway!

I'll still be planning on that ticket. Whether or not I go for it some
time is relevant to me at the moment because I'm looking at the purchase
of a C150 or 152 and need to decide if I need IFR cert.

[Paul Folbrecht]

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

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

[BTIZ]

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

so what does that tell you about his judgment?

BT

[Blanche]

Even if you never fly honest IMC, only VFR, the improvement in
your flying abilities (precision, accuracy, dealing with ATC, etc)
will be well-worth the rating.

[John Gaquin]

"George" > wrote in message news:i1w0c.19779
>
> This kind of BS just plain ****es me off. You do not become more likely
to
> kill yourself with an instrument rating and not flying 3 times a week.
This
> statement is a perfect example of why hours do not necessarily mean
> competence in aviation.


methinks thou doth protest too much......

[John Gaquin]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
>
> Thoughts on this??

Definitely get the rating.

On the one hand, the added skills accompanying the Instrument Rating can
only enhance your judgment and abilities.

On the other hand, (at the risk of sounding elitist), he was right -- once
you've flown every day in the IFR system, earning your living on a schedule,
good weather and bad, you realize just what the difference between adequacy
and proficiency means. That doesn't mean that a 200 hr instrument pilot is
dangerous, simply that he operates in a world with a higher degree of
vulnerability than the daily professional. I'm speaking here of the
vulnerability of the skills to degradation through intermittent use.

One very important distinction to keep in mind is this -- the Instrument
Rating does not equip you to fly in bad weather; it equips you to fly when
you can't see. That's all.

Regards,

John Gaquin
B727, B747

[Jack Allison]

IMHO, and, granted, spoken from the standpoint of a non-instrument rated
pilot, I think your friend of a friend is making some pretty gross
generalizations Paul. If he could back it up with real data, ok, *maybe*
I'd consider his point...depends on the data though.

> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)

I'd have to agree that if someone was so confident that they could handle
hard IMC just because they were instrument rated, that's the first link in
the accident chain. And, sure, if they're not current enough to handle
*any* IMC, that's link number two in the chain. I disagree, however, that
just because someone has an instrument rating, they'll automatically have
such a sense of confidence with IMC that they'll make a bad go/no go
decision and end up flying when they shouldn't. Sure, some people are going
to do so but not everyone.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. Personally, I'd ignore the friend of a friend,
even if he has a zillion hours. Thanks for posting this though as I've
found this an interesting thread. I'm planning on starting my instrument
rating this year.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Dale]

In article .net>, Paul
Folbrecht > wrote:

> Thanks for all the feedback. The common theme is obvious: just know
> your limitations, which should go without saying anyway!
>
> I'll still be planning on that ticket. Whether or not I go for it some
> time is relevant to me at the moment because I'm looking at the purchase
> of a C150 or 152 and need to decide if I need IFR cert

Having an instrument rating helps to reduce insurance costs. As your friend
stated you must be current, having an instrument rating does not make you an
instrument pilot. If you have poor judgement getting the instrument rating
isn't going to change the outcome, it'll just happen sooner perhaps. <G>

--
Dale L. Falk


There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.
http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:53:29 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote:

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

In other words, the less you know, the safer a pilot you will be.

It seems his comments imply that you have/will have poor judgement, in
order to be true. That is probably more a commentary on him than on you.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Big John]

I've got to agree with the friend of a friend of a friend of a
friend, etc.

Listen to what he says and understand what he means.

In another thread on this News Group there was a discussion about
single pilot IFR and I'll paraphrase some comments 'You can get like a
one arm paper hanger'. The only way a one arm paper hanger can do his
job is to be proficient (or to say it another way, "Practice makes
perfect").

If you are going to fly hard IFR to minimums then you need to
practice all aspects of IFR flight often enough to stay proficient in
the manner you are using your license.

Remember you can only die once so plan your flying activities to delay
that occurrence as far in the future as possible.

The way to die, is in bed with your boots on (paraphrase) <G>

Big John



On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:53:29 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote:

>I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
>year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
>got me thinking about it.
>
>This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
>Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
>Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
>Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
>So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
>at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
>as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
>without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
>a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
>current enough to handle it.)
>
>Thoughts on this??

[Rosspilot]

>The way to die, is in bed with your boots on (paraphrase) <G>

Naw . . . the way to die is in bed at the age of 80, shot to death by a jealous
husband. <G>


www.Rosspilot.com

[SelwayKid]

Paul Folbrecht > wrote in message et>...
> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

To get instrument rated is one of the smartest things you can do.
Aside from keeping you upside right as opposed to upside wrong?---- it
will enhance all your flying and more aware of what you are doing.
I recall a pilot many years ago who told me I should stay away from
helicopters if I didn't fly them everyday. Well, he is dead in a
mid-air with some other pilots who flew everyday (Los Angeles 1966,
air watch pilot and LA Sheriffs over Chavez Ravine). These many years
later I am still flying helicopters and not on a weekly basis. I am
instrumented rated in both fixed wing and helicopter and still don't
fly that often in IMC. Would I go and challenge it right now? NOT ON
YOUR LIFE.(NOR MINE) But, am I confident that I can stay right side up
in IMC? Yes....and more importantly, I have learned how to stay out of
those situations that require my superior skills! It prevented me from
a potential crash while doing night frost control when fog suddenly
developed and we had to land. I found it during a turn, got vertigo
while in a pull up/turn-around and when I got ground contact again
discovered I was in a 20 degree bank going backwards. PLEASE...FOR
THOSE WHO ARE NOT PROFESSIONALS WITH AT LEAST 10,000 HOURS DON'T TELL
ME HOW STUPID THAT WAS? Simply something that the pro runs into from
time to time and deals with.
There is the key... The instrument rating teaches you limits that need
to be worked on. Can I shoot a 0/0 approach right now? I seriously
doubt it. Can I get it on the ground safely? Well its for certain I
can feel better about it with my IMC experience and ratings than if I
didn't have it/them.
Get your instrument rating and you'll never be sorry about it. If you
are like me, even driving your driving a car will improve!
Ol Shy & Bashful

[Bill Denton]

One question conspicuously missing from this thread is:

"Where do you live and/or fly?"

There are parts of the US where a casual flyer might fly two years without
encountering actual IMC conditions. Does anyone seriously think that adds up
to currency.

Another question is: "How much flying will you be able to afford to do, in
terms of both other financial and other time commitments." This, too, will
be a factor in maintaining currency.

As I always note, I'm still a wannabe, waiting for the Sport Pilot
Certificate to be approved, but you can pick up a lot of good information
from even a little bit of reading.

But the issue here is not about a reasonably current and experienced pilot
launching into "hard" IMC. The issue is about a current pilot who hasn't
flown actual IMC in a year who goes into a fairly benign cloud, becomes
disoriented, and breaks his airplane.

And from what I've read, this happens far more often than you would imagine.

No offense to anyone here, but any advice that doesn't include the factors
I've mentioned is not very good advice. You always have to consider
everything...


"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:53:29 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

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

Instrument training in and of itself is a "good thing™." It will make
you a more knowledgable and professional airman.

That said, if you lack the good sense to know your limitations, no
amount of training will save you.

[Dennis O'Connor]

Absolutely, Larry...
There are those who do, and those who talk about it - endlessly...
As Harry once said, "A man's got to know his limitations."
denny

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message > That said, if you lack
the good sense to know your limitations, no
> amount of training will save you.
>
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 08:37:37 -0600, "Bill Denton" >
wrote:

>But the issue here is not about a reasonably current and experienced pilot
>launching into "hard" IMC. The issue is about a current pilot who hasn't
>flown actual IMC in a year who goes into a fairly benign cloud, becomes
>disoriented, and breaks his airplane.

The OP's issue was whether or not to undergo instrument training. He wrote
nothing about exercising the kind of poor judgement you describe.

The issue you are writing about has to do with "judgement". Do you really
believe that an instrument rating will lead a pilot who ordinarily
exercises good judgement to exercise poor judgement? If so, I would
disagree and would argue that that pilot will exercise poor judgement
whether or not he has an instrument rating.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

> (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>

Well, that logic isn't. You could take-off VFR into crosswinds you can't
handlo for lack of practice. You could to low passes of barbecues without
practice. That kind of decision-making is an everyday part of flying.
You're either good at it or not - it has nothing to do with an IR.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> This
> > statement is a perfect example of why hours do not necessarily mean
> > competence in aviation.
>
>
> methinks thou doth protest too much......
>

Methinks he s dead-on right - in both posts.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

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

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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael]

Paul Folbrecht > wrote
> Thanks for all the feedback. The common theme is obvious: just know
> your limitations, which should go without saying anyway!

Just realize that "knowing your limitations" will usually mean
limiting your use of the instrument rating to conditions that you
could have legally flown VFR. The moment you start using your
instrument rating to fly in weather that isn't legally flyable VFR,
you need to be thinking real hard about what you are doing.

There is a lot of truth to what your friend said.

I get a lot of questions about getting an instrument rating from a lot
of low time pilots. I'm a practicing CFII; these are all potential
customers. I try to talk most of them out of it.

It's not that an instrument rating is inherently bad. No training is
ever bad. If nothing else, you will spend 40 hours flying in a
structured, goal-oriented environment. On top of that, you're
guaranteed to learn SOMETHING about IFR flying.

The problem is this - if you're not flying 2-3 times a week, that
instrument rating is going to come at the cost of something else. If
all it replaces is a bunch of $100 hamburger runs under blue skies and
over familiar territory, then no great loss. But if time and money
are limited, there are lots of things you could do that would be a
better use of limited resources to make you a better, safer, and more
capable pilot.

You could take some training in flying low VFR. If you consider XC
flight over relatively flat terrain with 1000 ft ceilings to be scary
and not doable under VFR, then I assure you that such training will do
far more for your ability to get where you want to go when you want to
get there in a light single than an instrument rating ever will. You
could fly a taildragger or a glider, you could do aerobatics or
formation flying, or you could make cross country mean something and
cross the country.

> I'll still be planning on that ticket. Whether or not I go for it some
> time is relevant to me at the moment because I'm looking at the purchase
> of a C150 or 152 and need to decide if I need IFR cert.

You might consider a Tomahawk instead. I'm seeing a lot of low time
IFR Tomahawks out there in the $20K range. They're not quite as good
a soft/rough field airplane as a C-150, but they are better planes in
every other respect.

Michael

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Here's my two cents...... Wait on the instrument rating.... Go out and fly
to and visit as many airports and their $100 hamburger opportunities as much
as you can. Go out and enjoy that PP-ASEL ticket! For the instrument
rating you will need a LOT of drive and determination... IMHO, I think it
helps to go out there and get lots of flying in (which will improve,,,
hopefully,,,, your flying when you are ready to start the instrument
ticket),,, then when the drive for the new challenge and learning
opportunity rears its' head... go for it!

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL
Student-IASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Thanks for all the feedback. The common theme is obvious: just know
> your limitations, which should go without saying anyway!
>
> I'll still be planning on that ticket. Whether or not I go for it some
> time is relevant to me at the moment because I'm looking at the purchase
> of a C150 or 152 and need to decide if I need IFR cert.

[[email protected]]

>> The way to die, is in bed with your boots on (paraphrase) <G>

> Naw . . . the way to die is in bed at the age of 80, shot to death
> by a jealous husband. <G>

Nah... The way to die is in bed, at the age of 105, on the upstroke,
shot by a jealous spouse, hers! That way you get one more stroke
on the way out! :-)


Jer/



Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 197 Young Eagles!

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> Instrument training in and of itself is a "good thing™." It will make
> you a more knowledgable and professional airman.

All training is in and of itself a good thing. But then, it depends on
your priorities.

If you want to learn to be accurate in procedures, and eventually being
able to fly in IMC, then go for the IFR ticket.

If however you plan to stay a recreational VFR pilot only but aer
looking to enhance your stickj and rudder technique, then I would spend
the money in lessons of acro flying or mountain flying. You'll learn a
lot and besides, it's more fun.

Stefan

[Gene Seibel]

There is nothing wrong with getting an instrument rating. There is
also nothing wrong with being a VFR only pilot if you want. Decide
what's right for you.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



Paul Folbrecht > wrote in message et>...
> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

[Maule Driver]

I've heard similar statements too. They are from people who fly very
capable a/c, professionally, in practically all conditions. I think they
reflect on their level of proficiency and what it takes to maintain it at a
high level, and then have a hard time seeing how IFR can be flown in less
capable a/c but less proficient pilots. It's understandable but obviously
wrong

There's a big grain of truth behind the statement like most things said by
competent people. For example, be careful about the idea of 'hard' IFR vs
'light' IFR as in, "I don't fly 'hard' IFR but find that I can take
advantage of my rating in 'light' IFR conditions". IFR is IFR. The minute
you are engulfed in cloud, you no longer can see changes in the weather and
such. I wonder how many private pilot's first approach to minimums in
actual was 'by accident'. How many PP's first convective cell was embedded
in a benign looking overcast. Establishing personal minimums is good stuff
but it is primarily a planning task done using a forecast. And forecasts
are sometimes crap.

But more training can only be good. Go for the ticket. Most satisfying
thing I've done in a while.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> >
> > Thoughts on this??
>
> I heard the same from a retired 737 pilot. The way he put it was "If you
aren't
> going to use it all the time, don't get an instrument rating".
>
>
> George Patterson
> A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way
that
> you look forward to the trip.

[Andrew Gideon]

Maule Driver wrote:

> Establishing personal minimums is good
> stuff
> but it is primarily a planning task done using a forecast. And forecasts
> are sometimes crap.

This is why the aircraft is also a factor. One of the motivators in my
joining the club I joined was the fact that all the airplanes are
stormscoped. It's just one more tool for the IFRing pilot.

[Plus, I expect the club to go for some type of weather up/download when a
better solution becomes available for the Garmins.]

So a consideration that can be thrown into the mix is the aircraft that will
be flown. Since the OP is planning to buy, will that aircraft be not just
legal for IFR, but something one would be comfortable flying into IFR?

- Andrew

[Dave Russell]

Paul Folbrecht > wrote in message et>...

> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well.

Obviously, any training has value but...

After 30-ish hours of instrument training, I decided that I'd never
have enough time to stay current and make it safe enough for me to
use... so I went out and bought a 'fun' airplane and I've never been
sorry for a second. Maybe an IFR rating would somehow make my flying
safer, but with no vacuum/gyros in the airplane I kinda doubt it.
:-)

There's just a *ton* of flying out there that has nothing to do with
looking at the inside of a cloud. Learn to fly a round loop, a true
slow roll, and exit a 3-turn spin exactly on heading. Formation
flying... simply the most fun thing I've ever done in an airplane.
Get your taildragger endorsement, or a glider rating (and earn your
5-hour badge in a 1-26... *that's* learning to be a pilot!!!), or your
high performance/complex endorsement (in a T-6 Texan!?!). There's
just no end to it, and IFR pales in comparison on the 'interesting'
scale (personal opinion).

Are you looking to use the airplane as a close-to-on-a-schedule
traveling tool? Get the IFR rating. Do you instead fly because you
love to fly, enjoying the trip as much as the destination? 8->

-Dave Russell
8KCAB

[John Roncallo]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

In a sense your friend is right but a little over the top. Unfortunately
most people who get there IR for personal use only, never fly in clouds
and this is the reason why.

I try to make every cross country flight an instrument flight even in
clear VMC. I fly in actual IMC maybe 4 times a year and very rarely for
over 30 min. I do use a simulator Elite Pro Trainer and I fly the
approaches on the sim before doing them for real at an unknown airport.

John Roncallo

[John Roncallo]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
>>Thoughts on this??
>
>
> I heard the same from a retired 737 pilot. The way he put it was "If you aren't
> going to use it all the time, don't get an instrument rating".
>
>
> George Patterson
> A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
> you look forward to the trip.

737 pilots dont use it all the time. They just punch through the clouds
in about 5 minuts. Usually with a 3 axis auto pilot.

John Roncallo

[WRE]

(Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
Two inside 20 minutes once!)

Tells you something about his maintanance practices and/or his pre-flight
skills!


"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??

[John Roncallo]

Dont forget commercial pilots are also on a schedule. For them to cancel
a trip has much more consequences than for the IFR pilot on a vacation trip.

John Roncallo

Maule Driver wrote:

> I've heard similar statements too. They are from people who fly very
> capable a/c, professionally, in practically all conditions. I think they
> reflect on their level of proficiency and what it takes to maintain it at a
> high level, and then have a hard time seeing how IFR can be flown in less
> capable a/c but less proficient pilots. It's understandable but obviously
> wrong
>
> There's a big grain of truth behind the statement like most things said by
> competent people. For example, be careful about the idea of 'hard' IFR vs
> 'light' IFR as in, "I don't fly 'hard' IFR but find that I can take
> advantage of my rating in 'light' IFR conditions". IFR is IFR. The minute
> you are engulfed in cloud, you no longer can see changes in the weather and
> such. I wonder how many private pilot's first approach to minimums in
> actual was 'by accident'. How many PP's first convective cell was embedded
> in a benign looking overcast. Establishing personal minimums is good stuff
> but it is primarily a planning task done using a forecast. And forecasts
> are sometimes crap.
>
> But more training can only be good. Go for the ticket. Most satisfying
> thing I've done in a while.
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
>

[Rick Glasser]

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:29:20 -0700, Blanche wrote:

> Even if you never fly honest IMC, only VFR, the improvement in your
> flying abilities (precision, accuracy, dealing with ATC, etc) will be
> well-worth the rating.

I got my PPL January last year. I immediately started to do XC hamburger
runs and also hooked up with a CFII. Our arrangement was that I should
continue to rack up XC PIC time. He started me off in March with a weekly
sim lesson in the school's Frasca; we did about 10 of those. He told me
that when I got to 35 hrs XC PIC, we would start flying. Well, I managed
to time the 35 hr mark with the end of the sim lessons. My first time
flying with him was a 2.7 hr XC with 2.2 of actual IMC. Anyways, I ended
up with my rating just before Christmas.

I was able to get my rating with just over the minimum required hours.
But, I learned to have much more respect for those clouds; I learned a
whole lot about airplane performance and how to fly more precisely; and it
helped my radio work. I don't intend to get anywhere near freezing levels
or convective weather (I've done that VFR and that is a story for another
day). I also learned how fast one can get rusty. But, I feel that with
enough practice, I should be able to use the rating to get up and down
through some tame stratus on some marginal days when I would've elected to
stay on the ground. It also allows me to use our club aircraft for
>200nm trips and for night trips. It also helps a little in dealing with
the DC ADIZ (adds some options for flight following, getting in and out).

I consider the training to be money well spent. If you can afford it, it
is kind of like going to college after high school. It opens different
doors.

--
Rick/JYO
PP-ASEL-IA
remove 'nospam' to reply

[CriticalMass]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>The question I'd ask is: What is your current flying profile (business or
>just pleasure) and what changes do you anticipate? I'd sure consider taking
>the lessons just to have a better sense of handling the aircraft, but will
>you really make use of an IR? Would you be willing to expend the time and
>money to stay current? Can you're flying profile justifiy the expense?
>

Those are the issues that have pretty much convinced me to stay VFR.

I bought into the notion back in the late 80s that the rating would
enable more utility from my airplane, so I got the rating.

After several years of struggling to round up safety pilots so I could
stay current, mentally treating even all my solo VFR flights from an
instrument perspective to the point that every flight was for
proficiency, and none were just to be enjoyed, and keeping up with all
the added costs for current chart/plate subscriptions and airplane
certifications, I finally came to the realization that, hey, I don't fly
for business, there's never a flight that can't be postponed for
weather, and, most important of all, if the weather's crummy, I don't
enjoy the flying much anyway - so I decided not to do it anymore.

The rating will make you a better pilot, no question, and I'm not sorry
I got mine. I just can no longer personally justify jumping through all
the hoops to stay current and use it.

[David]

This boils down to different strokes for different folks... I have a close
friend who has 10,000+ hours as an airline captain. He retired last year -
I am working on my IFR now and he goes with me to practice and hone my
skills. HE REFUSES TO TAKE THE CONTROLS OR ASSIST IN FLIGHT/TRIP PLANNING.
He usually looks mine over and we go. When I asked why his reply: "Been
flying heavy planes with a wealth of resources like auto pilot, co-pilots,
and ground support for years. You can get away with alot more in one of
those than you can in this little thing..." Needless to say - after I get
my ticket, Takeoffs are still optional - Landing....MANDATORY.....


"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
> year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
> got me thinking about it.
>
> This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
> Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
> Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
> Two inside 20 minutes once!)
>
> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
> as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
> without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
> a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
> current enough to handle it.)
>
> Thoughts on this??




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Richard Kaplan]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
> at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous

Do you need to stay current to fly IMC? Yes.

Do you need to fly 3 times per week? Definitely not. There are
professional pilots who do not fly 3 times per week.

If nothing else, an IFR rating is a very worthwhile tool to increase your
safety while flying in summer marginal VFR with 3-5 miles visibility in
haze.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Greg]

>
> This is like arguing that you shouldn't wear a parachute, cause
> if you do you'll take extreme chances and kill yourself.
>
Of course, look at the crash record of the Cirrus (if I'm not mistaken
it is relatively high considering the number of planes produced by
them). Many believe these accidents are the result of pilots taking
risks they normally wouldn't have taken in a non-parachute aircraft.
I believe Richard Collins wrote an interesting article about this a
few months back.

I have started my instrument rating and my piloting skills have
improved 10 fold. But will I be tempted to carry on into worsening
conditions after I have my rating? Well, probably, that is part of
what the rating is for. Perhaps this is why the ATP thought it was
dangerous (the weather may well be much wose than reported). I had an
ATP (and ex fighter pilot)tell me something similar. He advised me to
take aerobatics before getting the instrument. And then if I felt
like I still needed the instrument rating go ahead, but just do it to
improve your skills, "single engine planes are for sunny weather".
(He's retired and swears he doesn't fly on instruments or in single
engines much for that matter.) I didn't take is advise on the
aerobatics (yet) but I may keep my flying to relatively good weather
even after I get my ticket.

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

[Dennis O'Connor]

This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance premium...
I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the implications
of that...
denny

"Greg" > wrote in message > I have started my instrument
rating and my piloting skills have
> improved 10 fold. But will I be tempted to carry on into worsening
> conditions after I have my rating?

[Gary Drescher]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that
adding
> the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
premium...
> I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the
implications
> of that...

If your implication is that the insurance companies have found that an
instrument rating improves safety, that doesn't actually follow. It could
be that the rating is diagnostic, rather than causative, of above-average
safety. You can't tell just from the correlation.

--Gary

> denny

[Michael]

(Greg) wrote
> > This is like arguing that you shouldn't wear a parachute, cause
> > if you do you'll take extreme chances and kill yourself.
> >
> Of course, look at the crash record of the Cirrus (if I'm not mistaken
> it is relatively high considering the number of planes produced by
> them). Many believe these accidents are the result of pilots taking
> risks they normally wouldn't have taken in a non-parachute aircraft.
> I believe Richard Collins wrote an interesting article about this a
> few months back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael

[Michael]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in
> This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that adding
> the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance premium...

That's not generally true at all. It's ONLY true for low time pilots
and for fast cruisers. When I owned a TriPacer I asked my broker
about what kind of discount I could expect if I got an instrument
rating, and he just laughed. Of course with my Twin Comanche it's a
very different story. You only get that discount if you own something
fast - say Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking and up.

> I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the implications
> of that...

Fine. The implication is that unless you own have an airplane too
fast to scud run, an instrument rating doesn't do anything to make you
any safer. I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Michael

[Dave Russell]

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

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

-DJR

"As a pilot you may never actually achieve perfection in the air, but
you better damn well spend every second you're up there at least
trying to achieve it" Dudley Henriques

[Roger Halstead]

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:34:49 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
>> This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that
>adding
>> the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
>premium...
>> I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the
>implications
>> of that...
>
>If your implication is that the insurance companies have found that an
>instrument rating improves safety, that doesn't actually follow. It could
>be that the rating is diagnostic, rather than causative, of above-average
>safety. You can't tell just from the correlation.

It's a very simple relationship.

The insurance companies do not give a break unless they figure they
are going to save even more money.

That follows directly that if they give pilots with an instrument
rating a cheaper premium they figure the odds are they will have to
pay out less due to that pilot being rated.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>--Gary
>
>> denny
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:34:49 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that
> >adding
> >> the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
> >premium...
> >> I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the
> >implications
> >> of that...
> >
> >If your implication is that the insurance companies have found that an
> >instrument rating improves safety, that doesn't actually follow. It
could
> >be that the rating is diagnostic, rather than causative, of above-average
> >safety. You can't tell just from the correlation.
>
> It's a very simple relationship.

Yes, it's fairly straightforward.

> The insurance companies do not give a break unless they figure they
> are going to save even more money.

Yes. So if they give a break to instrument-rated pilots, they've concluded
that instrument-rated pilots, on average, are safer than others. And let's
assume, for the sake of argument, that their conclusion is correct.

> That follows directly that if they give pilots with an instrument
> rating a cheaper premium they figure the odds are they will have to
> pay out less due to that pilot being rated.

No, the "due to" part is precisely what does not follow. A better average
safety record on the part of instrument pilots does *not* suffice to show
that getting the rating improved their safety at all. Even if instrument
training has no effect on safety--or even if it has an overall negative
effect on safety (say, due to encouraging riskier flying than would
otherwise occur)--it's still possible for instrument-rated pilots, on
average, to fly more safely than others (which would still motivate an
insurance-premium discount). That can occur if, for example, more-capable
(and safer) pilots are much more likely than others to acquire the rating in
the first place. So as I said in my previous post, getting the rating could
be a diagnostic indicator of being a safer pilot, even if it doesn't cause
any improvement in safety--in fact, even if it has the opposite effect!

Therefore, to ascertain what effect instrument training has on pilot safety,
we need more information than just a correlation between the rating and
safety. (If I had to guess, I'd bet that instrument training does increase
safety. But that's just a hunch, not something that's derivable from the
available data.)

--Gary

> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> >
> >--Gary
> >
> >> denny
> >
>

[Mark Astley]

Just to give you a data point...

I guess I fall into the low time pilot category at about 250 hours TT. My
insurance bill was about $90 lower this year possibly as a result of
attaining the instrument rating. Of course, this may be a break due to TT
rather than an IA, except that I don't think you get a break because of TT
until at least 300 hours. Oh, and I fly a PA28-140, not exactly a hotrod.

Still, I didn't get the IA for the insurance. I did it to increase the
usability of my plane. Here in NJ we get a lot of hazy summers and the
occasional scuddy days in fall/spring (ceiling around 2k).

mark

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in
> > This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that
adding
> > the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
premium...
>
> That's not generally true at all. It's ONLY true for low time pilots
> and for fast cruisers. When I owned a TriPacer I asked my broker
> about what kind of discount I could expect if I got an instrument
> rating, and he just laughed. Of course with my Twin Comanche it's a
> very different story. You only get that discount if you own something
> fast - say Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking and up.
>
> > I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the
implications
> > of that...
>
> Fine. The implication is that unless you own have an airplane too
> fast to scud run, an instrument rating doesn't do anything to make you
> any safer. I'm pretty comfortable with that.
>
> Michael

[Mark Astley]

I just posted about this on the original thread, but my insurance went down
a whopping $90 after I picked up my IA. I was told that total time would
have a bigger effect on my premium.

mark

"Dave Russell" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
>...
> > I will simply note that adding
> > the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
premium...
> > denny
>
> Is there any real evidence of this? It's certainly *not* true for me!
> Avemco told me that adding an IFR rating would not change my premium
> by even one cent.
>
> -DJR
>
> "As a pilot you may never actually achieve perfection in the air, but
> you better damn well spend every second you're up there at least
> trying to achieve it" Dudley Henriques

[Mike Rapoport]

From what to what?

Mike
MU-2

"Mark Astley" > wrote in message
...
> I just posted about this on the original thread, but my insurance went
down
> a whopping $90 after I picked up my IA. I was told that total time would
> have a bigger effect on my premium.
>
> mark
>
> "Dave Russell" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > I will simply note that adding
> > > the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
> premium...
> > > denny
> >
> > Is there any real evidence of this? It's certainly *not* true for me!
> > Avemco told me that adding an IFR rating would not change my premium
> > by even one cent.
> >
> > -DJR
> >
> > "As a pilot you may never actually achieve perfection in the air, but
> > you better damn well spend every second you're up there at least
> > trying to achieve it" Dudley Henriques
>
>

[ArtP]

On 4 Mar 2004 13:53:30 -0800, (Dave Russell) wrote:


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

USAIG would not insure me in an SR20 until I got my instrument rating.

[Jay Masino]

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


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

--- Jay


--

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

[Mark Astley]

From $980 to $890, so percentage wise that's about 10% which ain't bad I
guess. This is in a PA28-140 with $1M liability and $36K on the hull. It's
not quite apples to apples year to year because I upgraded my panel and
increased my hull value to compensate. As I'm a low time pilot (about 250
TT, dead in the middle of the killing zone), it's hard to tell whether this
change in premium is strictly due to picking up the extra rating. For
example: last year I had 10 hours in type, now I have well over 100.

mark

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
> From what to what?
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "Mark Astley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I just posted about this on the original thread, but my insurance went
> down
> > a whopping $90 after I picked up my IA. I was told that total time
would
> > have a bigger effect on my premium.
> >
> > mark
> >
> > "Dave Russell" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > I will simply note that adding
> > > > the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
> > premium...
> > > > denny
> > >
> > > Is there any real evidence of this? It's certainly *not* true for me!
> > > Avemco told me that adding an IFR rating would not change my premium
> > > by even one cent.
> > >
> > > -DJR
> > >
> > > "As a pilot you may never actually achieve perfection in the air, but
> > > you better damn well spend every second you're up there at least
> > > trying to achieve it" Dudley Henriques
> >
> >
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

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

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

[Michael]

"Mark Astley" > wrote
> Just to give you a data point...
>
> I guess I fall into the low time pilot category at about 250 hours TT.

You do. When you're that low time, a lot of things make a difference
that will be irrelevant at 500+ hours.

> My
> insurance bill was about $90 lower this year possibly as a result of
> attaining the instrument rating. Of course, this may be a break due to TT
> rather than an IA, except that I don't think you get a break because of TT
> until at least 300 hours.

First off, this varies by insurer but there isn't a single insurer I
know of that treats a 100 hour pilot the same as a 250 hour pilot when
it comes to flying a simple airplane. So don't be so quick to
discount total time - in general, both total time and time in the past
year are more important than ratings.

More to the point, though, continuing training (in whatever form, as
long as it is in your airplane) is attractive to a lot of insurers.
It shows that you are flying regularly, are training regularly, and
are disciplined about your flying. A rating (any rating) acquired in
the past year is generally worth something as long as your rates have
not bottomed out (and yours, at 250 hours, have not).

> Still, I didn't get the IA for the insurance. I did it to increase the
> usability of my plane. Here in NJ we get a lot of hazy summers and the
> occasional scuddy days in fall/spring (ceiling around 2k).

Do you really believe that ceilings of 2000 AGL and visibilities of
3-5 miles require an instrument rating in a Cherokee?

Michael

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mark Astley wrote:
>
> Of course, this may be a break due to TT
> rather than an IA, except that I don't think you get a break because of TT
> until at least 300 hours.

I spoke to the Cessna insurance people at the AOPA flying at Frederick a few
years ago. They said their first price break is at 210 hours.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Mark Astley]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mark Astley" > wrote
> > Just to give you a data point...
> >
> > Still, I didn't get the IA for the insurance. I did it to increase the
> > usability of my plane. Here in NJ we get a lot of hazy summers and the
> > occasional scuddy days in fall/spring (ceiling around 2k).
>
> Do you really believe that ceilings of 2000 AGL and visibilities of
> 3-5 miles require an instrument rating in a Cherokee?

Require? No, of course not, if you're content to get beaten senseless
cruising around down low. A hazy NJ summer can easily be less than 3 miles,
then there's the occasional freak occurence like smoke from Canada blowing
down into your airspace.

mark

[Steven Barnes]

> > Still, I didn't get the IA for the insurance. I did it to increase
the
> > usability of my plane. Here in NJ we get a lot of hazy summers and
the
> > occasional scuddy days in fall/spring (ceiling around 2k).
>
> Do you really believe that ceilings of 2000 AGL and visibilities of
> 3-5 miles require an instrument rating in a Cherokee?
>
> Michael

I do. I'm about half way through my ifr training (about 230 hours total
time over 3 years). My pesonal VFR minimums are 3,500 ovc, 3,000 bkn. I had
to divert once due to weather going from 4,000 bkn to 800 within 20 minutes.
Luckily I was right over an airport when I called ahead to my class C home
base. Fetched the plane the next day.

Even so, once I get the rating, I'm betting my ifr minimums will still be
around the 2k agl mark (2-3 miles visibility). Given the severly blown
practice LOC approach last night under the hood, I need some room. :-) Hard
to tell though. I haven't even had any actual, yet. 1st time may scare my
minimums even higher.

[Michael]

"Mark Astley" > wrote
> Require? No, of course not, if you're content to get beaten senseless
> cruising around down low.

So what you're actually increasing is comfort rather than capability.
Not that there's anything wrong with that - I've been known to file
IFR myself just because it was more convenient or comfortable - but
it's not the same thing as not being able to make it VFR.

> A hazy NJ summer can easily be less than 3 miles,

Really? I'm there quite a bit, and I can't recall the last time the
haze made the visibility less than three miles. Not saying it can't
happen, but I don't see it happening much. What I do see a lot is a
tendency to dramatically underestimate visibility.

Whenever I fly with a student in hazy conditions, I always make it a
point to ask him what he thinks the visibility is. Then I point out a
distant but prominent object that I know is further than that, and ask
him how far away he thinks it is. Then we either find it on the map
and fly to it, until he realizes the visibility was a lot better than
what he thought.

In my experience, I've NEVER had a pilot with less than 1000 hours
fail to significantly underestimate the flight visibility in haze.
Just one of those things I've started noticing since I started
teaching.

> then there's the occasional freak occurence like smoke from Canada blowing
> down into your airspace.

Yeah, that happens. I remember when the smoke from Mexico blew into
Texas. I had about 300 hours then, and I remember thinking how bad it
was, and wondering if I was busting VFR mins. Now that I've racked up
several approaches in 2-4 miles of vis I know that it probably never
got worse than 4 miles. Sure seemed worse at the time though.

Michael

[Thomas Borchert]

Steven,

> My pesonal VFR minimums are 3,500 ovc, 3,000 bkn.
>

Hmm. Bold statement. I wouldn't get in the air much with that as an
unqualified limit. Some questions that immediately pop up:

What kind of terrain? Where I fly a lot, it is all flat. Goin with a
ceiling of 1000 feet is usualy no problem. That would be different in
hill country, of course.

What is the visibility? Where I fly, great visibility underneath a low
cloud deck is common. No problem flying low in those conditions.

With good visibility and even 2500 feet hills around, I don't see why
you would need 3500 overcast to fly. And I agree to the other poster:
Most people underestimate visibility. 3 miles is REALLY, REALLY low.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Snowbird]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in
> > This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that adding
> > the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance premium...

> That's not generally true at all. It's ONLY true for low time pilots
> and for fast cruisers. <..>
> You only get that discount if you own something
> fast - say Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking and up.

Michael,

Are you sure about that? Do you have some sort of study or
evidence you could point to online?

I don't know what you consider "low time" for the purposes of this
discussion, but DH and I both have between 500 and 1000 hrs TT,
more than 300 hrs in type, do recurrant training (WINGS) every
year. Our insurance quote dropped substantially this year in what
we were told is a generally rising market.

We fly a simple, fixed-gear, fixed-prop plane which is slightly
faster than its 180 HP fixed gear cousins -- but it's no Mooney/
Bonanza/Comanche/Viking.

What's different? I finished my IR last fall.

I've heard a similar story from a fellow owner with a Piper Warrior,
which is even slower, and from the chap across the shadeports with a
Piper Archer.

So it kind of looks to us that at least some insurance companies
think the IR makes a difference. Maybe not for your Tripacer, maybe
not for someone flying a Stinson 108 or a C140, but for ordinary
garden-variety spamcans which were commonly produced as
instrument-capable planes.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> "Mark Astley" > wrote
> > Just to give you a data point...

> > I guess I fall into the low time pilot category at about 250 hours TT.

> You do. When you're that low time, a lot of things make a difference
> that will be irrelevant at 500+ hours.

True enough. But at 500+ hrs, it still made a difference to us.

Care to cite the "magic number" of piloting hrs where the IR makes
no difference to insurance rates in simple fixed-gear planes?

Thanks,
Sydney

[Mark Astley]

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
> "Mark Astley" > wrote
> > Require? No, of course not, if you're content to get beaten senseless
> > cruising around down low.
>
> So what you're actually increasing is comfort rather than capability.
> Not that there's anything wrong with that - I've been known to file
> IFR myself just because it was more convenient or comfortable - but
> it's not the same thing as not being able to make it VFR.

I see what you're saying, but I think the line is a bit blurrier. I'm not
going to file if I'm poking around the practice area with ceilings under 2k.
However, since I fly exclusively for pleasure, I'm not going to take a long
x-country cruising down low because I know no one in the plane will be
particularly happy bouncing around for several hours (maybe your passengers
are more tolerant). Before I could file, I had less capability because this
is a flight I wouldn't take. Now at least I have some options.

> > A hazy NJ summer can easily be less than 3 miles,
>
><snip>
>
> In my experience, I've NEVER had a pilot with less than 1000 hours
> fail to significantly underestimate the flight visibility in haze.
> Just one of those things I've started noticing since I started
> teaching.

Fair enough, guess I'll have to get back to you when I break 1000 hours :)
I imagine I look like a sissy when it comes to x-winds as well (my current
limit is gusts up to 20 on a direct x-wind, I won't go beyond that without
an instructor).

> > then there's the occasional freak occurence like smoke from Canada
blowing
> > down into your airspace.
>
> Yeah, that happens. I remember when the smoke from Mexico blew into
> Texas. I had about 300 hours then, and I remember thinking how bad it
> was, and wondering if I was busting VFR mins. Now that I've racked up
> several approaches in 2-4 miles of vis I know that it probably never
> got worse than 4 miles. Sure seemed worse at the time though.
>

I concede that after more experience I may sing a different tune. I WILL
say that scanning for traffic in such conditions is pretty nerve wracking,
but of course filing doesn't get you out of doing that either.

mark

[Snowbird]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Sydney

[Michael]

"Steven Barnes" > wrote
> I do. I'm about half way through my ifr training (about 230 hours total
> time over 3 years). My pesonal VFR minimums are 3,500 ovc, 3,000 bkn. I had
> to divert once due to weather going from 4,000 bkn to 800 within 20 minutes.

First, a question - if you've seen weather go from 4,000 bkn to 800,
how is a 3,000 ft bkn minimum keeping you safe?

Second, an observation - I've seen it go from CAVU to below ILS
minimums (200 and 1/2) in less than 30 minutes.

> Luckily I was right over an airport when I called ahead to my class C home
> base. Fetched the plane the next day.

Just realize that when you're VFR, you're never far from an airport
and you can see the weather going bad as it happens. Little VFR-only
fields are all over the place, and in most of the US you can cruising
VFR, decide to bail, and be on the ground in less than 10 minutes -
meaning you don't have to be very good at predicting the weather and
monitoring trends to escape.

IFR, if you're cruising and decide to bail, you're looking at 20-30
minutes before you are on the ground. Further, you can't see what the
weather is doing when you're in the clouds or above them. Thus IFR
you are more dependent on being able to predict the weather and
monitor trends, not less.

> Even so, once I get the rating, I'm betting my ifr minimums will still be
> around the 2k agl mark (2-3 miles visibility).

In that case, you would benefit far more from some competent
instruction in how to fly marginal VFR than from an instrument rating.
Just my opinion as a practicing instrument instructor...

Michael

[Mark Astley]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven Barnes" > wrote
<snip>
> > Even so, once I get the rating, I'm betting my ifr minimums will still
be
> > around the 2k agl mark (2-3 miles visibility).
>
> In that case, you would benefit far more from some competent
> instruction in how to fly marginal VFR than from an instrument rating.
> Just my opinion as a practicing instrument instructor...

I wonder if minimums in this case are being misinterpreted. For me, the
reason for a 2k minimum (and at least 1 mile visibility) is not because I
don't feel comfortable shooting an ILS down to 200', it's because I fly a
single engine plane and I want an out if the engine decides to take the day
off. If I'm at least within gliding distance of higher ceilings, I know I
can break out and have a chance to find a place to land (side note: there's
a pretty good article in a recent IFR about practicing engine out under the
hood). I see this as conservative risk management (maybe more conservative
than others), not a lack of proficiency. By the same reasoning, regardless
of weather, I think twice about flying over mountains if something will
prevent me from getting decent altitude. I also don't fly at night (other
than the minimum that was required for the PP). As I gain experience, I may
lower my minimums to 1k, but I can't see going much lower than that, at
least not in my current plane.

What skills would a marginal VFR pilot need that they couldn't get from IFR
training? Even under IFR you may find yourself in marginal VFR conditions,
and you still have the responsibility to see and avoid, know what the
weather's doing, have as many outs as you think you need, etc. Or is it
that IFR training assumes these skills are already well developed?

mark

[Teacherjh]

>>
What skills would a marginal VFR pilot need that they couldn't get from IFR
training?
<<

Pilotage. Ground reference maneuvers. Basic attitude flying. VFR chart
interpretation (wrt low altitude rubbernecking). These are the skills you need
for low level marginal vfr flight.
--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Mark Astley]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> What skills would a marginal VFR pilot need that they couldn't get from
IFR
> training?
> <<

I concede that IFR training may not entail these subjects (except for
attitude flying and possibly ground reference), but you definitely need the
same skills, specifically:

>
> Pilotage.

Better know how to do this even under IFR. Electrical systems don't care
whether you filed or not.

> Ground reference maneuvers.

You could argue that "circle to land" requires similar skills, but I won't
make a fuss on this one.

> Basic attitude flying.

This is DEFINITELY covered under IFR training.

> VFR chart
> interpretation (wrt low altitude rubbernecking).

Most CFIIs teach using both VFR and IFR charts in case Murphy shows up. I
guess the tacit assumption is that you already know how to read a VFR chart
and can recognize things that might get you in trouble in an emergency.

> These are the skills you need
> for low level marginal vfr flight.
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>>
I concede that IFR training may not entail these subjects (except for
attitude flying and possibly ground reference), but you definitely need the
same skills...
<<

Yes, you need all those skills (and others) for all flying. You may not use
them all on every flight, but you need them in your toolbox. But the question
is "...couldn't get from IFR > training?" by which I infer "is specifically
taught in IFR training". Low altitude circle to land is NOT taught in the IFR
training I got, except once when I asked to do a complete low circling approach
and land. It was an eye opener.

IFR flight training is primarily about flying solely with reference to
instruments, and working in the system. Some weather may be covered.

Jose





--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Michael]

"Mark Astley" > wrote
> I wonder if minimums in this case are being misinterpreted. For me, the
> reason for a 2k minimum (and at least 1 mile visibility) is not because I
> don't feel comfortable shooting an ILS down to 200', it's because I fly a
> single engine plane and I want an out if the engine decides to take the day
> off.

That's actually quite sensible. My point is that if you're goint to
stick to those minimums, you woud probably be safer flying that
weather VFR under the bottom rather than IFR. It's not necessarily
easier - but with the right training, I think it's safer. I've
snipped the rest of what you wrote, but I do very much agree with it.
I take a pretty dim view of single engine IFR over mountains, or with
ceilings of less than 1000 ft - not because I'd never do it, but
because I HAVE done it and never really felt good about it. In the
end, I wound up with a twin.

> What skills would a marginal VFR pilot need that they couldn't get from IFR
> training?

Low level navigation and planning, mostly. Planning a route to be
flown at low level is a lot different when you have to follow rivers,
roads, and railroads for obstruction clearance and navigation. The
available cues under a 1000 ft ceiling are a lot different than they
are at higher altitudes, and mistakes can be deadly. If you can't
effectively do an impromptu visual diversion at low altitude and in
low vis, you lack essential safety skills for low altitude VFR.

The emergency procedures are different too. You have to be prepared
to make a precautionary off-airport landing with power, and that means
practice landings on soft and/or rough fields, training in field
selection, etc. Uphill or into the wind? Cow pasture or horse
pasture? Newly ploughed or newly harvested? These are all major
issues.

Michael

[Larry Dighera]

On 11 Mar 2004 07:29:45 -0800, (Michael) wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>Planning a route to be
>flown at low level is a lot different when you have to follow rivers,
>roads, and railroads for obstruction clearance and navigation. The
>available cues under a 1000 ft ceiling are a lot different than they
>are at higher altitudes, and mistakes can be deadly.

That's what got Frank Tallman; he thought he was following Ortega
Highway through the pass, but he was actually in (blind) Trubuco
Canyon during an exceptionally severe storm.

[Michael]

(Snowbird) wrote
> Are you sure about that? Do you have some sort of study or
> evidence you could point to online?

No - just what I've seen when my friends and I got insurance.

> I don't know what you consider "low time" for the purposes of this
> discussion

That depends on the airplane. And I should have mentioned that it's
not just low time - recent experiene is also becoming very, very
important.

> We fly a simple, fixed-gear, fixed-prop plane which is slightly
> faster than its 180 HP fixed gear cousins -- but it's no Mooney/
> Bonanza/Comanche/Viking.

Actually, your simple fixed gear plane is faster than similarly
powered planes with retractable gear - it will outrun a 180 hp Arrow
or C-172 RG. It will almost stay with a C-model Mooney. I've given a
reasonable amount of instrument dual in a Tiger (much of it in IMC)
and I must say that while it's not exactly in the
Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking, it's not comparable to a Cherokee or
C-172 either. It has enough speed and enough range that people do use
them for serious travel, and it's not particularly comfortable at low
speeds.

> What's different? I finished my IR last fall.

Maybe. Or maybe the loss rate on that model has been low. Or maybe
you haven't been flying enough hours in the past few years.

> I've heard a similar story from a fellow owner with a Piper Warrior,
> which is even slower, and from the chap across the shadeports with a
> Piper Archer.

I find that amazing - this is directly contrary to what I've seen
locally.

> So it kind of looks to us that at least some insurance companies
> think the IR makes a difference. Maybe not for your Tripacer, maybe
> not for someone flying a Stinson 108 or a C140, but for ordinary
> garden-variety spamcans which were commonly produced as
> instrument-capable planes.

Well, leaving out a C-140, I will suggest that a TriPacer or Stinson
108 is just as instrument capable as a Warrior in terms of speed,
range, and redundancy. In fact, I might argue that the Stinson 108 is
MORE capable.

Granted most of the people I know do gravitate to these older
airplanes rather than the more modern stuff, which might skew my
impressions, but I have to wonder WHY the difference?

Michael

[Michael]

(Teacherjh) wrote
> Low altitude circle to land is NOT taught in the IFR
> training I got, except once when I asked to do a complete low circling
> approach and land. It was an eye opener.

IMNSHO you were cheated. I consider low altitude circle to land an
important part of istrument training - I teach it to those I train for
the rating, I check it on an ICC, and I make it part of my own
recurrent training. I suppose to some extent my priorities are
colored by my experience - I am based out of an airport where no
straight-in approaches exist, and I have friends based at private
strips with no approaches at all. Thus I consider both the circling
maneuver and a maneuver where you shoot an approach into an airport,
break it off, and proceed low VFR to a nearby airport to be part of
the instrument pilot skill set.

In my opinion, there is HUGE overlap between proper instrument
training and training for low VFR. The only things you don't get as
part of the instrument training that you would get as part of proper
low VFR training would be off-airport precautionary landings and low
level flight planning and navigation.

Of course if you are simply trained to pass an instrument checkride,
this all goes out the window. It's quite possible to pass an
instrument ride (or even an instrument instructor ride) and be truly
dangerous in instrument conditions.

Michael

[Steven Barnes]

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
> (Teacherjh) wrote
> > Low altitude circle to land is NOT taught in the IFR
> > training I got, except once when I asked to do a complete low circling
> > approach and land. It was an eye opener.
>
> IMNSHO you were cheated. I consider low altitude circle to land an
> important part of istrument training - I teach it to those I train for
> the rating, I check it on an ICC, and I make it part of my own
> recurrent training. I suppose to some extent my priorities are
> colored by my experience - I am based out of an airport where no
> straight-in approaches exist, and I have friends based at private
> strips with no approaches at all. Thus I consider both the circling
> maneuver and a maneuver where you shoot an approach into an airport,
> break it off, and proceed low VFR to a nearby airport to be part of
> the instrument pilot skill set.
>

I did a night circle to land with my instructor about a month ago (vfr,
under the hood). I can honestly say, I didn't like it. Learned alot, though.
He had always talked about how dangerous it can be and after doing one, even
if it was only simulated, was a big eye opener. Things just look all kinds
of wrong. :-)

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,

> I take a pretty dim view of single engine IFR over mountains, or with
> ceilings of less than 1000 ft
>

Serious question: What's the basis of that dim view (apart from the
need to rationalize having a twin <g>)? I just don't see it reflected
in accident numbers, but maybe I am missing something.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael]

"Steven Barnes" > wrote
> I did a night circle to land with my instructor about a month ago (vfr,
> under the hood). I can honestly say, I didn't like it. Learned alot, though.
> He had always talked about how dangerous it can be and after doing one, even
> if it was only simulated, was a big eye opener. Things just look all kinds
> of wrong. :-)

Tell me, did you like power-on stalls the first time you did them?
Spins? Canyon turns? Landing on very short obstructed strips?

In my opinion, circling maneuvers are not unacceptably dangerous, but
to a greater extent than normal flying they are quite unforgiving of
poor technique. In other words, there is more opportunity to screw up
and less opportunity to correct the screwups. Some people choose not
to do them, and this is their right - but it does reduce the utility
of the rating.

Like any other maneuver, this one can be taught. It's not something
that can be taught on paper - it requires a combination of ground and
flight training. The airlines don't do it.

The reason airlines don't do it is simple - when they moved all their
training to simulators rather than the real airplane - which, despite
anything they tell you, was for reasons of cost more than anything -
they eliminated from their operation anything that could not
effectively be trained in a sim of that era. Sims of that era did not
provide adequate visual and somatic cues for training in circling
approaches.

So I guess my bottom line is this - with proper training, the maneuver
will go from looking very wrong to just looking demanding. I hate to
say your training was improper, but tell me this:

Did you discuss how to select a runway and a circling pattern in
advance?
Did you discuss go-ahead points - meaning a point beyond which even if
you saw the runway you couldn't effectively land on it?
Did you discuss how instrument and visual references are combined to
accomplish the maneuver?

Just as a benchmark, I consider 45 minutes of ground training about
the minimum before going up for the first circling approach - and that
assumes the student has already read the regs and understands about
categories of aircraft, circling vs. straight-in mins, allowable
distance from the runway, etc. It's 45 minutes of just discussing how
to perform the maneuver.

Michael

[Michael]

Thomas Borchert > wrote
> > I take a pretty dim view of single engine IFR over mountains, or with
> > ceilings of less than 1000 ft
>
> Serious question: What's the basis of that dim view (apart from the
> need to rationalize having a twin <g>)? I just don't see it reflected
> in accident numbers, but maybe I am missing something.

I think what you're missing is that most people are just not doing
these things much, so they're not showing up in the accident
statistics much.

Only about one sixth of private pilots are instrument rated to begin
with. The majority of those are not current. The majority of those
who are technically current are not proficient, and have personal
minimums on the order of 800-2. A large chunk of those who are
proficient have similar personal minimums anyway - because they're
flying singles.

I don't know ANYONE who flies single engine low IFR (or IFR over
mountains) a lot. The people I know who do a lot of that kind of
flying all have twins. Once in a while you find someone with a
complex single doing it, but that kind of operator usually has
everything redundant but the engine - gyros and their power sources,
electrical, radios, etc. And the one engine he has, he REALLY takes
care of.

So the bottom line is that you should not expect to see a lot of
accidents where engine or system failure brings someone down - just a
few. And there have been a few.

Statistical risk asessment doesn't work too well when you've
intentionally placed yourself in a very small group.

Michael

[Mike Z.]

Just to throw my 2 cents in.

Odds are you can do that kind of flying and get away with it. Maybe for a long time. You might never have a gyro fail or the fan
stop.

But when or if it happens, do you want to be that guy that ends up in the news? Purely your choice.

Early this winter we lost one somewhere in Lake Michigan at night. He had made that trip a lot of times.

Personally, the older I get, the better I like my odds to be and the more outs I want.

Mike Z


"Michael" > wrote in message om...
> Thomas Borchert > wrote
> > > I take a pretty dim view of single engine IFR over mountains, or with
> > > ceilings of less than 1000 ft
> >
> > Serious question: What's the basis of that dim view (apart from the
> > need to rationalize having a twin <g>)? I just don't see it reflected
> > in accident numbers, but maybe I am missing something.
>
> I think what you're missing is that most people are just not doing
> these things much, so they're not showing up in the accident
> statistics much.
>
> Only about one sixth of private pilots are instrument rated to begin
> with. The majority of those are not current. The majority of those
> who are technically current are not proficient, and have personal
> minimums on the order of 800-2. A large chunk of those who are
> proficient have similar personal minimums anyway - because they're
> flying singles.
>
> I don't know ANYONE who flies single engine low IFR (or IFR over
> mountains) a lot. The people I know who do a lot of that kind of
> flying all have twins. Once in a while you find someone with a
> complex single doing it, but that kind of operator usually has
> everything redundant but the engine - gyros and their power sources,
> electrical, radios, etc. And the one engine he has, he REALLY takes
> care of.
>
> So the bottom line is that you should not expect to see a lot of
> accidents where engine or system failure brings someone down - just a
> few. And there have been a few.
>
> Statistical risk asessment doesn't work too well when you've
> intentionally placed yourself in a very small group.
>
> Michael

[Steven Barnes]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven Barnes" > wrote
> > I did a night circle to land with my instructor about a month ago
(vfr,
> > under the hood). I can honestly say, I didn't like it. Learned alot,
though.
> > He had always talked about how dangerous it can be and after doing
one, even
> > if it was only simulated, was a big eye opener. Things just look all
kinds
> > of wrong. :-)
>
> Tell me, did you like power-on stalls the first time you did them?
> Spins? Canyon turns? Landing on very short obstructed strips?
>
> In my opinion, circling maneuvers are not unacceptably dangerous, but
> to a greater extent than normal flying they are quite unforgiving of
> poor technique. In other words, there is more opportunity to screw up
> and less opportunity to correct the screwups. Some people choose not
> to do them, and this is their right - but it does reduce the utility
> of the rating.
>
> Like any other maneuver, this one can be taught. It's not something
> that can be taught on paper - it requires a combination of ground and
> flight training. The airlines don't do it.
>
> The reason airlines don't do it is simple - when they moved all their
> training to simulators rather than the real airplane - which, despite
> anything they tell you, was for reasons of cost more than anything -
> they eliminated from their operation anything that could not
> effectively be trained in a sim of that era. Sims of that era did not
> provide adequate visual and somatic cues for training in circling
> approaches.
>
> So I guess my bottom line is this - with proper training, the maneuver
> will go from looking very wrong to just looking demanding. I hate to
> say your training was improper, but tell me this:
>
> Did you discuss how to select a runway and a circling pattern in
> advance?
> Did you discuss go-ahead points - meaning a point beyond which even if
> you saw the runway you couldn't effectively land on it?
> Did you discuss how instrument and visual references are combined to
> accomplish the maneuver?
>
> Just as a benchmark, I consider 45 minutes of ground training about
> the minimum before going up for the first circling approach - and that
> assumes the student has already read the regs and understands about
> categories of aircraft, circling vs. straight-in mins, allowable
> distance from the runway, etc. It's 45 minutes of just discussing how
> to perform the maneuver.
>
> Michael

Once I finally got the hang of centering the ball (sorta) power on stalls
didn't scare me as much. I let a wing drop quite a bit in a 172 in early
stall training. Scared me good. Now it's not as bad. Doing them in our
club's 182 was interesting...

We hadn't really planned on doing circle approaches that day. The airport
we went to only has one VOR approach, and the wind happend to require a
circle (funny how that one night he actually made me land instead of
miss...).

"All kinds of wrong" = not what I'm used to. Nice 1000' foot patterns.
Made me fly an entire pattern at an altitude I'm only used to being at when
I'm base turning final. Not wrong, I realize. Just different. I can see how
if you haven't planned ahead & have some good situational awareness about
the pattern, you can get in the wrong place very quickly.

[Roger Halstead]

On 12 Mar 2004 07:38:38 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

>Thomas Borchert > wrote
>> > I take a pretty dim view of single engine IFR over mountains, or with
>> > ceilings of less than 1000 ft
>>
>> Serious question: What's the basis of that dim view (apart from the
>> need to rationalize having a twin <g>)? I just don't see it reflected
>> in accident numbers, but maybe I am missing something.
>
>I think what you're missing is that most people are just not doing
>these things much, so they're not showing up in the accident
>statistics much.
>
>Only about one sixth of private pilots are instrument rated to begin
>with. The majority of those are not current. The majority of those
>who are technically current are not proficient, and have personal
>minimums on the order of 800-2. A large chunk of those who are
>proficient have similar personal minimums anyway - because they're
>flying singles.
>
>I don't know ANYONE who flies single engine low IFR (or IFR over
>mountains) a lot. The people I know who do a lot of that kind of

When I was flying a lot and staying proficient, I flew single engine
IFR right down to minimums on a regular basis and had no problem with
it.

>flying all have twins. Once in a while you find someone with a
>complex single doing it, but that kind of operator usually has
>everything redundant but the engine - gyros and their power sources,
>electrical, radios, etc. And the one engine he has, he REALLY takes
>care of.

I did/do although I no longer fly enough to stay proficient at that
level and pretty much stay out of the soup.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Snowbird]

(Michael) wrote in message >...

> (Snowbird) wrote
> > We fly a simple, fixed-gear, fixed-prop plane which is slightly
> > faster than its 180 HP fixed gear cousins -- but it's no Mooney/
> > Bonanza/Comanche/Viking.

> Actually, your simple fixed gear plane is faster than similarly
> powered planes with retractable gear - it will outrun a 180 hp Arrow
> or C-172 RG. It will almost stay with a C-model Mooney. I've given a
> reasonable amount of instrument dual in a Tiger (much of it in IMC)
> and I must say that while it's not exactly in the
> Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking, it's not comparable to a Cherokee or
> C-172 either. It has enough speed and enough range that people do use
> them for serious travel, and it's not particularly comfortable at low
> speeds.

True. And IMO it's not comparable to a Cherokee or C172 in terms
of ease of handling. But the point is, I don't think it's so clear
that the IR doesn't make a difference until you get into the
"complex speedster" class. It's not complex, and the top speed
isn't *that* much different. (Much though we fans would like to
believe it is *g*)

> > What's different? I finished my IR last fall.

> Maybe. Or maybe the loss rate on that model has been low. Or maybe
> you haven't been flying enough hours in the past few years.

Well, one reason I think I make a good data point is that we've
pretty much flown the same hrs each year since our daughter was
born -- 100 to 150 split between us, more or less equally, and
when we renew our insurance in late Feb. we usually haven't flown
that much in the last 90 days either. We definately fall into a
common pattern of "get current in late winter/early spring, fly
a lot all summer and fall, barely exercise the engine in winter".

> > I've heard a similar story from a fellow owner with a Piper Warrior,
> > which is even slower, and from the chap across the shadeports with a
> > Piper Archer.

> I find that amazing - this is directly contrary to what I've seen
> locally.

I can't comment on what you've seen, only on what I've seen locally,
which is that the IR *does* make a difference on insurance to pilots
with 500-1000 hrs flying nominally IFR-capable planes.

> Well, leaving out a C-140, I will suggest that a TriPacer or Stinson
> 108 is just as instrument capable as a Warrior in terms of speed,
> range, and redundancy.

Not as they are commonly equipped they aren't. At least the Stinson
108s; I know, that's what we were shopping for before DH got fired
and we raised our budget *g*.

If you put in a vacuum pump rather than venturi vacuum, a modern
6 pack, and modern nav/com/txpdr/GS there's no reason why it wouldn't
be just as capable. OTOH, the FAA doesn't make it easy to do so.

So most of those I've seen *aren't* so equipped, thus they aren't
as capable. OTOH, most Warriors I've seen have a modern sixpack,
two radios and an ADF at the least.

*shrug*
Sydney

[Michael]

(Snowbird) wrote
> True. And IMO it's not comparable to a Cherokee or C172 in terms
> of ease of handling.

I concur. It's somewhere halfway between Cherokee and Bonanza.

> But the point is, I don't think it's so clear
> that the IR doesn't make a difference until you get into the
> "complex speedster" class. It's not complex, and the top speed
> isn't *that* much different. (Much though we fans would like to
> believe it is *g*)

Well, hold on a sec. In my experience, the Cherokees cruise 115, the
Tigers 135, and the Bonanzas 155-180 depending on year and engine.
And there's no question that an IR is almost a requirement (in terms
of insurance) on even an older Bonanza. The complexity is, IMO,
irrelevant. The point is - does the plane have the speed and range?
Everything else is a matter of how you equip it. Just as a reference,
the Tiger I instructed in had dual coms (one with nav/GS), KNS-80 with
GS, ADF, audio panel with marker beacons, autopilot, Strikefinder,
backup vacuum, and an external (handheld) GPS with internal battery
backup.

> Well, one reason I think I make a good data point is that we've
> pretty much flown the same hrs each year since our daughter was
> born -- 100 to 150 split between us, more or less equally, and
> when we renew our insurance in late Feb. we usually haven't flown
> that much in the last 90 days either. We definately fall into a
> common pattern of "get current in late winter/early spring, fly
> a lot all summer and fall, barely exercise the engine in winter".

Maybe that's the key. Recent time also matters. On the other hand,
that doesn't make much sense - after all, I would think little recent
experience would be bad for IFR flight.

> Not as they are commonly equipped they aren't. At least the Stinson
> 108s; I know, that's what we were shopping for before DH got fired
> and we raised our budget *g*.
>
> If you put in a vacuum pump rather than venturi vacuum, a modern
> 6 pack, and modern nav/com/txpdr/GS there's no reason why it wouldn't
> be just as capable. OTOH, the FAA doesn't make it easy to do so.

First comment - I've flown IFR with venturi vacuum. As far as I'm
concerned, there's only a slight liability in terms of spinning up the
gyros, and a major advantage in that a venturi won't fail
catastrophically the way a dry pump will.

Second comment - most of these planes do have the 6 necessary
instruments. While a non-standard arrangement is a liability if the
plane is a rental, an owner flying his own plane soon gets used to it.
I've flown IFR in 2 different planes with nonstandard layouts, and
don't consider it an issue.

Your last point is valid - most of these planes DON'T have a
reasonable IFR stack, and most C-172's and Cherokees do. The FAA
doesn't make installing a radio stack any more difficult in a Stinson
than in a Cherokee, but installing a stack isn't trivial (BTDT).
Those pilots I know who own these older planes and are IFR rated tend
to have an IFR stack, and those who are not tend not to.

Bottom line - I don't think the radio stack is the issue. However, I
suspect that the people who gravitate towards these older planes tend
to be, on the whole, fairly competent scud runners. On the other
hand, I think the people who have more modern training gravitate
towards the more modern planes. That may make all the difference.

Michael

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Michael wrote:
> First comment - I've flown IFR with venturi vacuum. As far as I'm
> concerned, there's only a slight liability in terms of spinning up the
> gyros, and a major advantage in that a venturi won't fail
> catastrophically the way a dry pump will.

Any icing and it will - they tend to be very susceptible to it. I have
inadvertently encountered icing conditions on a couple of occasions, so
I don't think it's entirely reasonable to say it will never happen.

On the other hand, the aircraft on which you tend to find venturis are
usually slow, stable and easy to fly with just needle/ball/airspeed so
it ain't half the liability of your vacuum pump going bang on a slick
Bonanza which likes to fishtail a bit in turbulence (making the needle
or TC a bit more challenging to use. My partial panel procedure for the
S-35 Bonanza was that when the needle was doing a good impression of a
metronome, you were wings-level). I occasionally did night hood work in
the C140 just in case, and it really wasn't difficult to fly that class
of plane by needle/ball/airspeed. (I did contemplate putting in a DG/AI
in the panel during the 'Enhanced' Class B days when they looked like
they'd be a permanent feature so I could legally file IFR)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Michael]

Dylan Smith > wrote
> Any icing and it will - they tend to be very susceptible to it.

First off, it takes time to ice up a venturi - dry vacuum pumps just
go bang and shear the drive coupling.

Second, much depends on where you mount them. The hot tip (so to
speak) is to place them just behind the exhaust.

> On the other hand, the aircraft on which you tend to find venturis are
> usually slow, stable and easy to fly with just needle/ball/airspeed

Absolutely true.

Michael