Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

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

The vacuum pump in my Skyhawk
went belly up just like that a couple years ago while flying VFR. No
warning. No nothing. Just poof.

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


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

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

--
-Elliott Drucker

wrote:

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


The vacuum pump in my Skyhawk
went belly up just like that a couple years ago while flying VFR. No
warning. No nothing. Just poof.


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

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

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


Matt

Michael wrote:

Instrument ratings for pilots of light singles are WAY overrated.

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

Michael

You nailed it.

My Comanche 260B gets me there with the best of the singles crowd, but
the difficulties you point out are precisely why I decided using my
rating was more goat-rope than it was worth, to keep me, the databases,
the charts, and the airplane all IFR-current.

OK, I'll bite again:

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

Charts: $300 per year from Aircharts.

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

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


My Comanche 260B gets me there with the best of the singles crowd, but
the difficulties you point out are precisely why I decided using my
rating was more goat-rope than it was worth, to keep me, the databases,
the charts, and the airplane all IFR-current.

Bob Miller wrote:
OK, I'll bite again:

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

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

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

Charts: $300 per year from Aircharts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too many assumptions for me to take you seriously.

CriticalMass wrote:



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

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



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

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

CriticalMass wrote in message ...
Bob Miller wrote:
OK, I'll bite again:

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

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

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

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

Charts: $300 per year from Aircharts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Miller wrote:

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

Actually...$35.

(Michael) wrote in message om...

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on having the hypothetical choice of
getting an IFR rating while continuing to rent, versus buying and
committing to being VFR-only for the forseeable future.

I think an instrument rating for a renter pilot is a bad joke. Most
rentals are not maintained and equipped well enough to be reasonable
choices for flying IFR in most non-VFR weather.

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

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

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

Instrument ratings for pilots of light singles are WAY overrated.

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

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

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

Not the ones
in winter, because now you're flying in clouds that are subfreezing
and can leave you with a load of ice any time

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

engine. Not the ones where there are thunderstorms hiding in those
clouds, because you have no way of knowing where those storms are
unless your club has a plane with spherics.

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

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

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

This one is pretty unambiguous. Engine failure while climbing to
altitude:
http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?...25X05516&key=1

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

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

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

Best,
-cwk.

C Kingsbury wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, .....So, VFR flying isn't very
useful either.

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