![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay Honeck wrote:
The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for not having an instrument rating. Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also* doesn't have an instrument rating. ;-) I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but in the spirit of Usenet, I will response in a semi-serious way. (Besides, Steven would be disappointed if I didn't take this matter with the utmost seriousness...) I've been over this many times, here, internally, and with Mary, and my reasons for not pursuing the rating at this time always come back to the same four points: 1. Time. In 2002 I trained right up to the point where I was to be signed off to take the IR flight test. Then we bought the hotel. It just ain't gonna happen now, and never will until we get out of the business we're in. 2. Utility. For giggles, we tracked our flying pattern for a year, and kept track of the number of flights that we could have made with the IR, that we didn't make VFR. In other words, how many flights were cancelled because we didnt't have the rating. The answer was amazing, to me. There were just a handfull -- three -- times that we would have flown with the IR, that we didn't fly. This out of over 100 flights. The reasons are simple: Most of our instrument weather in the upper Midwest is of the kind that you would need a Pilatus (or better) to fly in. Since we don't have icing capability, that essentially eliminates flying in clouds from now through next March. And then the thunderstorms start. Now, if we lived in an area with lots of coastal fog, or high terrain, things would be dramatically different. But we don't. 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact, we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of the experience. In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason. In the instrument flights I've flown, the flying experience has been much closer to Microsoft Flight Simulator than any sort of a real flying experience -- except that you actually ended up in Kansas City at the end of the day. While there is a lot to be said for that, we fly because we love to fly -- not simply to end up somewhere. Further, flying the airways can truly ruin a flight, IMHO. Doing so absolutely sucked the life out of the experience of flying past the Grand Canyon last spring -- we simply couldn't see it because our Victor airway didn't go that way, despite being in severe clear weather. THAT is not why I fly. 4. Safety. This may sound counter-intuitive, but of all the instrument pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- there is only ONE that I would fly with in the soup. The rest are technically instrument pilots, but they fly instruments so infrequently that I know -- and they do, too -- that they are not proficient. Why is this? Go back and read #3. Even pilots with the rating who fly often report that maintaining proficiency is difficult, because it means droning along under the foggles while everyone else is ooo-ing and ah-ing about the fantastic fall colors. My basic fear is that I would not maintain my instrument skills at a level high enough to ensure that our flight safety would actually be enhanced by having the rating. In other words, I -- like so many before me -- would spend many hours (and thousands of dollars) to end up an instrument pilot in name only. Now, does all this mean that the rating isn't worth getting? Nope. The instrument training made me a MUCH more precise and better pilot, and I'm glad I went through it, even though I've not yet finished up. In closing, getting the rating has long been a goal of mine, not unlike touring Europe, or teaching myself HTML, or opening a restaurant. When I get the time to do it right, it will happen, and it, too, will be checked off my list of "Life Goals", just as I've ticked off all the others. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" The overwhelming majority of my IFR flights consists of go up thru a layer at the start of the flight and coming back down at my destination. The only time I've shot a approach to minimums is during a training flight. I just don't fly when it's hard IFR but it sure is nice to know that if I climb up past a scattered to broken layer I'm not going to get trapped up there. Get the rating and use it that way until you have the time to stay very proficient. John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who has an instrument rating? | No Such User | Piloting | 20 | March 4th 04 08:06 PM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
Instrument Rating Ground School at Central Jersey Regional (47N) | john price | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 29th 03 12:49 PM |
Instrument Rating Ground School at Central Jersey Regional (47N) | john price | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 12th 03 12:24 PM |
Got my Instrument Rating! | Jazzy_Pilot | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | August 21st 03 02:35 AM |