Jay Honeck must get an instrument rating

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

Jay Honeck wrote:
Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also*
doesn't have an instrument rating.

Now here's one from an ATP. I mostly agree with you.

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.

All the time that I have EVER saved by eliminating or reducing delays
hasn't added up to the time I spent getting the instrument rating,
never mind staying current. And I got mine with substantially less
than 40 hours of instrument flight training, the balance being hood
time on trips I would have flown anyway.

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.

And even with an instrument rating, it will never be zero. For a pilot
willing and able to fly MVFR, the utility advantage of an instrument
rating in a light single is minimal.

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.

That's not totally true - but it's not all that far from the truth
either. Every time you launch into clouds in subfreezing weather
without deice capability, you're rolling the dice. Your plane, though,
has enough horsepower to make it a fairly good bet at times. If you
were flying a Cherokee 140, I would be in nearly full agreement with
you, but with your airplane you can do some winter IFR flying with
reasonable safety.

Question is, how often will that happen? Most stable winter IMC
features ceilings and visibilities high enough to make low VFR
reasonable out in the flatlands where you live.

And then the thunderstorms start.

That's the one part where you are wrong. Cockpit weather is now
available at reasonable prices, so you could fly the summer.

Thing is, I don't remember that much IMC associated with thunderstorms
in the Midwest when I flew there. Usually, the weather outside the
cells was decent enough VFR.

So the bottom line is that you will be able to get some utility out of
your instrument rating - but at best your deployability will change
from say 93% to 99%, and the delays you eliminate (be they waiting for
weather to improve or driving) will never make up for the time you
spend getting the rating and keeping it current.

It's important to remember that no form of travel is guaranteed to get
you there on time. Cars break down and traffic jams happen. Airliners
get delayed for weather, maintenance, and other reasons. The
difference is not that private flying is so much less reliable (in my
experience that wasn't the case) but that it's pretty easy to justify
the delays caused by the airlines or the highway system to others.
Delays in private airplanes are seen as being your own fault, for
choosing this oddball method of transportation, by others. The key
here is others. Wives, bosses, etc. Well, in your case your wife is a
pilot and so is your boss, so no problem there. And it's damn rare to
have a situation where a 1% chance of not getting there on time is
acceptable and a 7% chance is not (remember, no airline is 99% on time
for any flight).

I find it truly pathetic that some pilots actually have the nerve to
tell other pilots that VFR flying is not a reliable way to travel - but
getting the instrument rating suddenly makes it OK.

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.

Instrument flying in light airplanes appeals to daredevil technogeeks,
and damn few others. Most people think it sucks. I can certainly
understand them, though I don't agree with them.

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

Well, here's the problem. Training flights are mostly under the hood
or in actual, but real IFR flights are usually flown mostly in VMC.
You do get to see some cool stuff doing that.

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.

That's about what I've seen. When you look at people who have had the
instrument rating for more than a couple of years, most of them fall
into two groups - those who could get the ATP with little trouble if
they so wished, and those who aren't as good flying instruments today
as they were the day they passed the instrument checkride.

No real surprise - either you go forwards or backwards, as there is no
standing still. Most go backwards. The instrument rating standards
are minimum standards, and someone who can't meet them really shouldn't
be flying IFR.

Michael

All the time that I have EVER saved by eliminating or reducing delays
hasn't added up to the time I spent getting the instrument rating,
never mind staying current.

But that's not the point. Not all time is equally valuable. Sometimes
it's better to spend two hours now to save fifteen minutes later.

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

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

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.

Dont forget you have to have charts and that means a LOT of expense and
hassle for more than one or two areas. Also, anytime one of your
instruments breaks that has the potential of keeping you from flying
safe IFR.

What I did was get my instrument rating. I wanted to get it so I could
fly in the clouds and you do get to see some things IFR that you
wouldn't VFR. I flew out to California and had some good IFR (low
enough altitudes you dont have ice on the coast and low valleys).

I'm able to get some utility out of my IFR rating around my home base I
flew an ILS to minimums once), but on my cross countries (which are
LONG), it's just not worth it to buy and carry all those charts. Other
than that it's usefulness has been to give me the confidence to fly in
VFR marginal conditions knowing that I could go IFR if needed (not
exactly the safest program in the world). Also, I went on to get my
CFI, so it was a necessity to do that.

I would say, overall, for me the rating was a plus. But I WANTED to fly
in the clouds.

Jay knows how he wants to fly. I think it's best to leave it up to him.
In his case, and IFR rating would be a minimal use (like most of us),
but the bottom line is, it's HIS call.

Michael wrote:


All the time that I have EVER saved by eliminating or reducing delays
hasn't added up to the time I spent getting the instrument rating,
never mind staying current. And I got mine with substantially less
than 40 hours of instrument flight training, the balance being hood
time on trips I would have flown anyway.

Well here in the east things might be different. I can't tell you
the number of times when I have been stuck either because the
visibility has been between 1 and 3 miles OR clouds prevented
me from clearing the terrain, when there was no threat of either
freezing or thunderstorms.

Just coming back from my "simulated" checkride put us in mountain
obscuration conditions when both the departure and destination
were P6SN 3000BKN.

All the time that I have EVER saved by eliminating or reducing delays
hasn't added up to the time I spent getting the instrument rating,
never mind staying current.

The thing that prompted me to get my rating was flying to Ithaca in
glorious VMC, and then getting stuck there for several days. I
eventually tried to go out VFR under a low ceiling, but halfway back I
had to divert and spend the night in the airline terminal at Wilkes-Barre.

It only takes once.

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.

Emily wrote:

Ron Lee wrote:
Emily wrote:

Hehehe...I used that line on a student once and his response was, "I've
flown in the clouds before and lived, so what's wrong with not having
one?" Got rid of that one real quick. Who needs that kind of liability?

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

Hmmm. No kids. A pilot. This could be love.

Ron Lee

I think I pointed that out a while ago!

(maybe not to you)

Ouch!

Ron Lee

"M" wrote in message
ups.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.


In those parts of the country not being able to go IFR can mean cancelling
the trip.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

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.


Children are a byproduct.

Emily wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
snip


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.

I agree, especially when flying the same route many times. After seeing
the scenery 10 times, it loses its attraction to some degree. Flying in
a variety of weather and playing "games" like trying to hold altitude
within 10', setting the GPS on the most sensistive course deviation
setting and then trying to keep the needle center, etc., all keep me
engaged.

Matt