Jay Honeck must get an instrument rating

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
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.

I can't dispute your utility assessment (for your location); and whether
instrument flying is fun is a subjective matter (though I agree with Jose
about the visual beauty of flying among clouds). As for time to learn
(especially if you previously got right up to the signoff) and maintaining
proficiency, I think both can be done conveniently and inexpensively by
using MSFS. (That doesn't count for official currency, of course--but
currency can be maintained with just three approaches on each of four days
per year.)

--Gary

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.

A lot of times I will file IFR to a destination (class B for example)
because I know getting in and out will be assured. If you are VFR
and they are busy you might ebd up flying around in circles for a
while until they can give you sufficient slot to land. I consider
that safer.

Finally, even though you might think your destination is (or will be)
VFR, when you get there it might be only allowing Instrument approaches.
You can request a visual but you might not get it. Without the rating
you fly around for a while and hope things improve or divert.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
once you get used to flying under IFR you notice how simple it is to get
to places and plan flights and how accurate you planning will be.

Try that in the Northeast, NWPilot!

Ummm I do it all the time in the North East!

Ummm I do it all the time in the North East!

I've been flying in the northeast for years, and almost never get
direct. At least not in the Boston/NY/DC corridor. I suppose if I plan
to go via Albany, Cleveland, and Altoona, I can get what I planned on.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
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"


Great Response Jay!

I can't dispute your utility assessment (for your location); and whether
instrument flying is fun is a subjective matter (though I agree with Jose
about the visual beauty of flying among clouds). As for time to learn
(especially if you previously got right up to the signoff) and maintaining
proficiency, I think both can be done conveniently and inexpensively by
using MSFS. (That doesn't count for official currency, of course--but
currency can be maintained with just three approaches on each of four days
per year.)

--Gary



Gary, I would not fly in the soup with someone that only dose the min in
requirements each year at the controls! yea they are current but they are
not proficient.

"NW_Pilot" wrote in message
. ..
Gary, I would not fly in the soup with someone that only dose the min in
requirements each year at the controls! yea they are current but they are
not proficient.

I agree. The minimum requirements give you official currency, and frequent
MSFS practice maintains proficiency. When I've practiced recently using
MSFS, I'm comfortable flying in actual IMC even if I haven't done so for a
couple of months.

--Gary

"M" wrote in message
oups.com...
Except, in certain parts of the country, IFR means burning 1/3 more
fuel and flying 1/3 more distance, and 20 minutes extra delay in
takeoff.

- An instrument current pilot who loves to fly VFR for its freedom.

If I am doing a small hop less than 50 miles I usually don't file IFR unless
the conditions are MVFR as some places it dose take a lot more time but when
your ferrying airplanes across the country like myself I file IFR if
equipped and certified! When they tell me I have a 30 min hold time I will
launch VFR if able and pick up my clearance enroute. In believe on the ICAO
flight plan its called a "Z" flight Works great!

Emily wrote:

Man, that's why I don't have kids.

Children are a product of their upbringing. There are still some
excellent children out there, as there are still parents who actually care
to do the proper job in raising them.

--
Peter

Dylan Smith wrote:

Seriously - if you're flying IFR, generally (or at least in my
experience) you don't tend to spend all that much time inside a cloud.

Come to an airport in the Northeast US on the downwind side of the Great
Lakes. There are many spring and fall flights where the only visual
flying you do ends three seconds after takeoff and resumes five to eight
seconds before landing.

--
Peter
144 hours of actual and counting