Jay Honeck must get an instrument rating

Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

I just have to comment on this. I think most VFR flying is incredibly
boring. In the clouds? I love it. I love having to pay attention
every second. I love talking to ATC. Call me strange, but I don't
think it's boring at all.

Well, okay -- "boring" may be the wrong term for instrument flight.
How about "long periods of monotony (hopefully) broken by short periods
of fulfillment"?

;-)
Well I will have to disagree with the boring and monotonous at least in
a single engine aircraft such as yours. In a properly equipped
instrument aircraft cerified for known icing then yes it is boring and
monotonous. In your aircraft if you are going to go into the clouds it
probably should not be for more than 30 minutes in most cases and most
of the time 10 minutes would probably be the max. There are exceptions
but the possiblity of icing simply restricts most single engine
aircraft to limited amount of IMC. Like take off and climb throught the
fog to VMC or flying on top to your destination to shoot an approach
through the cloud layer to a landing.

The biggest down side to the Instrument rating is that you need to
spend about 30 or 40 minutes a month to shoot a couple approaches to
keep current so that you can fly IMC for 5 minutes to get out of the
airport you are fogged into. On the other handing knowing a good
instrument rated pilot that you can have fly in and fly your airplane
out is much more economical. I have seen airplanes parked at the
airport for over 2 weeks while the pilot waited for a low fog layer to
burn off and watch the IFR pilots leave and arrive at will.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

In article ,
Margy Natalie wrote:

Does this mean you'll get yours too Margie? :-)


I was trying to throw the attention off of me and onto Jay. It doesn't
seem to have worked.

Consider: Ron has the rating, Mary does not.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Brian wrote:


The biggest down side to the Instrument rating is that you need to
spend about 30 or 40 minutes a month to shoot a couple approaches to
keep current so that you can fly IMC for 5 minutes to get out of the
airport you are fogged into.

We have several nice approaches to our home field and I nearly always
fly with Margy (built in safety pilot) so just flying with the foggles
on for the last few minutes of a flight I'm making otherwise is not
a daunting prospect. Nothing says they have to be done IFR.

Jose wrote:
Ok Jay, I concede. I'll get mine before you get yours.

Jay, you're going to let a =girl= beat you to an instrument rating?
Pretty soon you'll have to trade Atlas in for a high wing.

HEY!

-jav, 182 owner/operator

On 2006-09-27, ktbr wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:

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.

I've never felt that flying IFR 'sucked' any more than flying VFR.
It *is* a little more of a challenge than VFR but that makes it all
that much more rewarding to me. You are required to maintain your
currency to a higher degree and I think that makes you a safer pilot.

The thing that Jay is probably missing is that real world IFR flying is
_much_ different to IFR training. The difference is like night and day.
For the training, you fly perhaps 40 or 50 hours under the hood, doing
nothing but staring at the instruments.

Real world IFR flying, in my experience, has been 95% VMC because you
spend a lot of time on top of clouds or between them. Since you are in
VMC, you don't look at the instruments any more than you do on a VFR
flight (after all, you still have to see and avoid when flying IFR in
VMC).

The most staggeringly beautiful flights I've had - with the exception of
mountain flying - have ALL been IFR flights. Majestic cloud canyons that
are out of this world. Bursting out of walls of sheer cloud. Spears and
tendrils of cloud between layers, illuminated by milky sunshine coming
through a high cirrus layer. A runway, lit up like a Christmas tree,
emerging from the murk at the last stages of an ILS.

Real world IFR flying is seldom staring at the gauges.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason.

I don't understand this. Properly used, an instrument rating will
increase your freedom of flight. An instrument rated pilot is NOT
required to file and fly IFR. An instrument rated pilot can do every
one of your VFR flights and more.

You've misinterpreted what I mean by "getting there". I don't mean
that getting to the destination is the ultimate goal -- I mean that the
journey is the ultimate goal. Often we don't care *where* we fly, as
long as we're flying.

Let me illustrate this attitude further. As I've mentioned here many
times before, when we plan long, multi-day cross-country vacations by
air, we plan three separate journeys. (This is a luxury afforded to us
by living in the exact center of the continent.) On departure day, we
simply choose the destination that matches the best long-range VFR
weather forecast.

This has worked for us for 12 years, on dozens of trips. Best of all,
my kids get to research and plan 3 separate adventures, and no one
knows which one we'll enjoy until we're in the plane. It's a truly fun
way to travel, adds to the excitement for the family, and usually
ensures excellent flying weather.

In fact, even with the instrument rating, now that I think about it, I
don't think I'd change that planning process. It's become an integral
part of who we are, and how we travel.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2006-09-27, Emily wrote:
Jose wrote:

Instrument flying in light airplanes appeals to daredevil technogeeks,
and damn few others.

I don't think that's a fair or true statement.

unsafe. To say that those of who who fly IFR in light airplanes are
daredevils to a great disservice, and plays right into the hands of
those who think GA is dangerous, period.

To nitpick here, he did say '...and damn few others', implying that not
all light plane IFR people are daredevil technogeeks. Also, GA *is*
dangerous, period, in comparison to most things we do in our daily
lives. It's certainly the most dangerous thing I do, and is reflected in
insurance rates. Most insurance forms here don't even *ask* if you ride
a motorcycle, but they ask if you fly in GA aircraft - which puts up
your premiums by a clear order of magnitude.

If people want to fly with me and ask how safe flying a light plane is -
I tell them straight. I tell them it is approximately as safe as riding
a motorcycle on the roads, which is what I've seen so far is the best
comparison. I'm not going to lie to a non-pilot because then they won't
have the best information to judge whether or not it's an activity they
want to participate in. I've not yet had anyone refuse.

I'm a daredevil techogeek and proud of it, too. Life is too short to be
risk averse, and in any case - most of us are fated to die slowly and
horribly over a period of several years. I'd rather live than wait to
die. Additionally - I've got around 1200 hours and *never* hurt an
airplane - but I'm quite aware that however well I plan there is always
the possibility of something going wrong from mechanical failure to my
own fsckup - and try to prevent it and guard against it. That is why I
refused to join the chorus of indignant condemnation about the LEX crash
- I'm more interested in the human factors that caused it so I have a
fighting chance of understanding it and hopefully preventing myself from
making a similar stupid pilot trick. Enjoying doing activities that has
an element of risk involved DOES NOT mean you go ahead and do it with
blatant disregard for safest practice. And I just enjoy doing glider
aerobatics far too much to give it up!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-09-27, john smith wrote:
Duane Cole didn't have an IFR equipped Taylorcraft, yet he never missed
an airshow because of weather.

I bet he scud run quite a bit.

I used to have a Cessna 140. It was SLOW. Scud running in a slow
aircraft can be an acceptable risk so long as you have a planned out.
Amongst owners of ancient, slow aeroplanes, scud running is routine.

The Taylorcraft is an ancient, slow machine. I know very well because I
just bought into an Auster (which is a Taylorcraft derivative).

However, I *never* did scud runs in the Bonanza because it was far too
risky - to fly slowly, forward visibility would be appalling (and the
engine would get too hot too - flaps down, slow flight requires a fair
bit of power). So I'd go IFR in the Bonanza or simply cancel if the IFR
weather was unsuitable.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:
The most staggeringly beautiful flights I've had - with the exception of
mountain flying - have ALL been IFR flights. Majestic cloud canyons that
are out of this world. Bursting out of walls of sheer cloud. Spears and
tendrils of cloud between layers, illuminated by milky sunshine coming
through a high cirrus layer. A runway, lit up like a Christmas tree,
emerging from the murk at the last stages of an ILS.


I have to agree with this. Aside from the tremendous satisfaction in emerging
from the crap to see the runway right in front of me or noting with satisfaction
the looks on the faces of the lesser beings as I transverse the FBO after
flight, the most spectacular sight I have ever seen in my life was at the
beginning of an IFR flight out of Charleston, SC.

I had spent the night after flying in with crappy weather. The early morning
didn't look promising from the ground but Flight Service assured me it was clear
on top and there was improving weather as I moved to the NW towards Charlotte.
I took off in the rain and immediately entered the crap at about 20 feet off the
deck. I tucked in the gear and started my climb. After about another minute or
two I poked out on top of a stratus deck. There to the east was the sun just
starting to poke its way up out of the clouds. The entire sky was lit up a
brilliant vivid orange. I'm not a religious man but the memory still send
shivers down my back. Like Gordo once said, "What a heavenly sight!".

The rest of the flight was in the clear for me. I never could have made it if I
didn't have the rating.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Margy Natalie 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.

Margy

I declare all that declare one should get an instrument rating should
get or already have one in their possession.

Margy?

Michelle P (Yeah I already have one)