Instrument rating??

Dont forget commercial pilots are also on a schedule. For them to cancel
a trip has much more consequences than for the IFR pilot on a vacation trip.

John Roncallo

Maule Driver wrote:

I've heard similar statements too. They are from people who fly very
capable a/c, professionally, in practically all conditions. I think they
reflect on their level of proficiency and what it takes to maintain it at a
high level, and then have a hard time seeing how IFR can be flown in less
capable a/c but less proficient pilots. It's understandable but obviously
wrong

There's a big grain of truth behind the statement like most things said by
competent people. For example, be careful about the idea of 'hard' IFR vs
'light' IFR as in, "I don't fly 'hard' IFR but find that I can take
advantage of my rating in 'light' IFR conditions". IFR is IFR. The minute
you are engulfed in cloud, you no longer can see changes in the weather and
such. I wonder how many private pilot's first approach to minimums in
actual was 'by accident'. How many PP's first convective cell was embedded
in a benign looking overcast. Establishing personal minimums is good stuff
but it is primarily a planning task done using a forecast. And forecasts
are sometimes crap.

But more training can only be good. Go for the ticket. Most satisfying
thing I've done in a while.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:29:20 -0700, Blanche wrote:

Even if you never fly honest IMC, only VFR, the improvement in your
flying abilities (precision, accuracy, dealing with ATC, etc) will be
well-worth the rating.

I got my PPL January last year. I immediately started to do XC hamburger
runs and also hooked up with a CFII. Our arrangement was that I should
continue to rack up XC PIC time. He started me off in March with a weekly
sim lesson in the school's Frasca; we did about 10 of those. He told me
that when I got to 35 hrs XC PIC, we would start flying. Well, I managed
to time the 35 hr mark with the end of the sim lessons. My first time
flying with him was a 2.7 hr XC with 2.2 of actual IMC. Anyways, I ended
up with my rating just before Christmas.

I was able to get my rating with just over the minimum required hours.
But, I learned to have much more respect for those clouds; I learned a
whole lot about airplane performance and how to fly more precisely; and it
helped my radio work. I don't intend to get anywhere near freezing levels
or convective weather (I've done that VFR and that is a story for another
day). I also learned how fast one can get rusty. But, I feel that with
enough practice, I should be able to use the rating to get up and down
through some tame stratus on some marginal days when I would've elected to
stay on the ground. It also allows me to use our club aircraft for
200nm trips and for night trips. It also helps a little in dealing with
the DC ADIZ (adds some options for flight following, getting in and out).

I consider the training to be money well spent. If you can afford it, it
is kind of like going to college after high school. It opens different
doors.

--
Rick/JYO
PP-ASEL-IA
remove 'nospam' to reply

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

The question I'd ask is: What is your current flying profile (business or
just pleasure) and what changes do you anticipate? I'd sure consider taking
the lessons just to have a better sense of handling the aircraft, but will
you really make use of an IR? Would you be willing to expend the time and
money to stay current? Can you're flying profile justifiy the expense?


Those are the issues that have pretty much convinced me to stay VFR.

I bought into the notion back in the late 80s that the rating would
enable more utility from my airplane, so I got the rating.

After several years of struggling to round up safety pilots so I could
stay current, mentally treating even all my solo VFR flights from an
instrument perspective to the point that every flight was for
proficiency, and none were just to be enjoyed, and keeping up with all
the added costs for current chart/plate subscriptions and airplane
certifications, I finally came to the realization that, hey, I don't fly
for business, there's never a flight that can't be postponed for
weather, and, most important of all, if the weather's crummy, I don't
enjoy the flying much anyway - so I decided not to do it anymore.

The rating will make you a better pilot, no question, and I'm not sorry
I got mine. I just can no longer personally justify jumping through all
the hoops to stay current and use it.

This boils down to different strokes for different folks... I have a close
friend who has 10,000+ hours as an airline captain. He retired last year -
I am working on my IFR now and he goes with me to practice and hone my
skills. HE REFUSES TO TAKE THE CONTROLS OR ASSIST IN FLIGHT/TRIP PLANNING.
He usually looks mine over and we go. When I asked why his reply: "Been
flying heavy planes with a wealth of resources like auto pilot, co-pilots,
and ground support for years. You can get away with alot more in one of
those than you can in this little thing..." Needless to say - after I get
my ticket, Takeoffs are still optional - Landing....MANDATORY.....


"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
ink.net...
I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
got me thinking about it.

This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
Two inside 20 minutes once!)

So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
current enough to handle it.)

Thoughts on this??




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
ink.net...

So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous

Do you need to stay current to fly IMC? Yes.

Do you need to fly 3 times per week? Definitely not. There are
professional pilots who do not fly 3 times per week.

If nothing else, an IFR rating is a very worthwhile tool to increase your
safety while flying in summer marginal VFR with 3-5 miles visibility in
haze.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

This is like arguing that you shouldn't wear a parachute, cause
if you do you'll take extreme chances and kill yourself.

Of course, look at the crash record of the Cirrus (if I'm not mistaken
it is relatively high considering the number of planes produced by
them). Many believe these accidents are the result of pilots taking
risks they normally wouldn't have taken in a non-parachute aircraft.
I believe Richard Collins wrote an interesting article about this a
few months back.

I have started my instrument rating and my piloting skills have
improved 10 fold. But will I be tempted to carry on into worsening
conditions after I have my rating? Well, probably, that is part of
what the rating is for. Perhaps this is why the ATP thought it was
dangerous (the weather may well be much wose than reported). I had an
ATP (and ex fighter pilot)tell me something similar. He advised me to
take aerobatics before getting the instrument. And then if I felt
like I still needed the instrument rating go ahead, but just do it to
improve your skills, "single engine planes are for sunny weather".
(He's retired and swears he doesn't fly on instruments or in single
engines much for that matter.) I didn't take is advise on the
aerobatics (yet) but I may keep my flying to relatively good weather
even after I get my ticket.

Anyway, my CFII now is an ATP and instructor for a major carrier and
he has no problems flying in the clouds at all. So who is right?
Well, neither one of these guys are idiots....

This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance premium...
I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the implications
of that...
denny

"Greg" wrote in message I have started my instrument
rating and my piloting skills have
improved 10 fold. But will I be tempted to carry on into worsening
conditions after I have my rating?

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that
adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
premium...
I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the
implications
of that...

If your implication is that the insurance companies have found that an
instrument rating improves safety, that doesn't actually follow. It could
be that the rating is diagnostic, rather than causative, of above-average
safety. You can't tell just from the correlation.

--Gary

denny

(Greg) wrote
This is like arguing that you shouldn't wear a parachute, cause
if you do you'll take extreme chances and kill yourself.

Of course, look at the crash record of the Cirrus (if I'm not mistaken
it is relatively high considering the number of planes produced by
them). Many believe these accidents are the result of pilots taking
risks they normally wouldn't have taken in a non-parachute aircraft.
I believe Richard Collins wrote an interesting article about this a
few months back.

Hang around a parachute school for a while, and watch people pack
parachutes. Some people stuff them in there literally in minutes.
Some pay $5 for someone else to do the same - generally an unrated
person working under 'supervision' that consists of having someone
somewhere on the airport but not actually watching. Holes are
routinely patched with tape. Mention this, and the response is always
the same - I've got a second parachute. Hang around BASE jumpers, who
don't usually carry a second parachute, and you see an entirely
different approach.

I have started my instrument rating and my piloting skills have
improved 10 fold. But will I be tempted to carry on into worsening
conditions after I have my rating? Well, probably, that is part of
what the rating is for.

At least you're being honest with yourself. Anyone who tells you it's
just for skill improvement isn't being honest with himself. Of course
there are the people that do it just to get the insurance discount.
They may be the safest ones of all.

Perhaps this is why the ATP thought it was
dangerous (the weather may well be much wose than reported).

The basic difference between flying VFR (at least by visual contact
with the surface - I'm not talking about 'pretend' VFR where you still
have to fly on the gauges and navigate with radios) and flying IFR is
this - when you are VFR, you can see what the weather around you is
doing and bail out when it gets scary. Airports are usually only a
few minutes apart in most of the US, and in a pinch most light singles
can be landed in a field. When you fly IFR, you often can't see the
weather. You have to determine what it's doing by other means, and
this is more complex. IFR flying is NOT for the pilot who isn't good
at figuring out what the weathe is doing. In most cases, this is
something that only develops with experience, so in general IFR flying
is not for the inexperienced pilot. The FAA used to require 200 (or
maybe 250) hours for the instrument rating, and I think that made a
lot of sense as an absolute minimum.

I had an
ATP (and ex fighter pilot)tell me something similar. He advised me to
take aerobatics before getting the instrument.

Good advice. I heartily endorse it - despite the fact that I do teach
instruments and don't teach aerobatics.

And then if I felt
like I still needed the instrument rating go ahead, but just do it to
improve your skills, "single engine planes are for sunny weather".

There's a lot to be said for that too. I have flown IFR in singles,
but I can't say I've ever really felt good about it.

Anyway, my CFII now is an ATP and instructor for a major carrier and
he has no problems flying in the clouds at all. So who is right?
Well, neither one of these guys are idiots....

No, but there's a difference in perspective here. When you're an
instructor building time for the airlines, you have to take some risks
or you will never get there. That often means flying some marginal
aircraft in some marginal conditions. If you won't, someone else will
- and he will get to the majors and make six figures, not you. So you
have to walk a fine line - take enough risks to get ahead, but not so
many they kill you. I have an ATP/major airline captain friend too.
He flew a lot of single engine IFR when on his way up. He doesn't do
it anymore.

Michael

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in
This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance premium...

That's not generally true at all. It's ONLY true for low time pilots
and for fast cruisers. When I owned a TriPacer I asked my broker
about what kind of discount I could expect if I got an instrument
rating, and he just laughed. Of course with my Twin Comanche it's a
very different story. You only get that discount if you own something
fast - say Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking and up.

I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the implications
of that...

Fine. The implication is that unless you own have an airplane too
fast to scud run, an instrument rating doesn't do anything to make you
any safer. I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Michael