Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

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

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

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

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

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

I'm well aware of this.

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

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

My opinion is based on having done it both ways.

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

As well it should.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Them's the breaks. Worst comes to worst, your options are no fewer
than a VFR-only pilot's. Sometimes they'll be better.

And quite often they won't.

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

Your point was, "how are you going to fare in low wx if that single
engine quits." Having a second engine does not prevent misfueling,
mismanagement, etc.

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

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

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

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

Living testamnets to the utility of an instrument rating .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't bet on it. Low VFR is a skill, just like IFR...(SNIP) Unfortunately,
these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
XC.

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

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

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

Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
out in these parts would disagree.

And how much scud running experience do THEY have?

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

Same advice I give.

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

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

Michael

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

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

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

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


I'm well aware of this.

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

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

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

My opinion is based on having done it both ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Living testamnets to the utility of an instrument rating .

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

Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
out in these parts would disagree.

And how much scud running experience do THEY have?

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

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

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

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

Um... survey says "nope."

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

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

Best,
-cwk.

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

(a) Not around Boston you can't

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

It has been litigated. PIREPs are anecdotal, airmets
are authoritative.

No argument with the substance of what you're saying. But this has to
be among the least-enforced regs on the books.

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

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

Yup. So the chances of getting busted are greater.

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

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

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

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

Living testamnets to the utility of an instrument rating .

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

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

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

Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
out in these parts would disagree.

And how much scud running experience do THEY have?

My CFII, plenty. He's made the point about flying under the clouds
being safer some of the time, but only for a pilot who's rated and
equipped to fly above them in case the weather goes south

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

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

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

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

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

Michael

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

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

Russell Kent

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

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

Where did you get the 18% number?

Mike
MU-2