Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

Matt Whiting wrote
It all depends. I live in PA and flew my Skylane through the eastern
part of the US, summer and winter for more than 6 years. It had a
Strikefinder, and was well equipped in avionics-wise.

There is a HUGE difference between a well-equipped C-182 and the sort
of IFR airplane a pilot might buy of a VFR budget or rent at a typical
club that is a 'good deal' - meaning a clapped-out Cherokee or
Skyhawk.

I flew for both
business and pleasure and made a lot of flights that would not have been
possible, or at least not wise, VFR.

As Lindbergh once said, risk is relative and inexperience can be a
magnifying glass. To properly compare the risk factors of making a
flight IFR or low VFR under a given set of conditions, you need
experience in both. My experience has been that most people do not
properly asess the relative risks. With the advent of cell towers,
most scud runners I know have raised their minimums - to about 500 ft.

I believe the
instrument rating adds a complete new dimension to your flying skills
and greatly increases the precision with which you fly, be it IFR or
VFR. A very useful rating to obtain, IMO, even if you don't use it
later on.

Weren't you arguing in another thread to fly as you train and train as
you fly? Actually, I agree that an instrument rating is valuable
cross training for a VFR pilot - just not nearly as valuable as many
other, less expensive forms of training.

I cancelled maybe one flight in 6 years due to icing concerns

Then clearly you were willing to fly IMC when there were airmets for
icing in clouds. This is of course counter to regulation - the one
about not operating contrary to POH/AFM, since Skylanes all prohibit
flight into known icing conditions. Even if the airplane has no such
prohibition, this is generally considered careless and reckless. This
is not a gray area - it has been well established and litigated, and
an airmet for ice means known icing conditions regardless of PIREPs.

Nonetheless, it is commonly done. In a Skylane, it's actually not so
bad. The plane carries ice relatively well due to the big engine and
fat wing, so you have some time to escape. Assuming you plan the outs
carefully and don't encounter anything too ugly, you will probably be
OK. Every year we lose a few planes that encounter something ugly.

Anyway, my point is that while this isn't in compliance with the regs,
it is a manageable risk, much like flying single engine IFR. But
conditions that a Skylane-class airplane will escape with often bring
down a Skyhawk-class airplane - just not enough power.

and never cancelled for t-storms, even a couple of flights to Florida in the
summer were not a big deal. The Strikefinder made this possible.

Yes, exactly. How many rental planes have one? How likely is it that
you will find one in a budget-priced IFR plane bought on a VFR budget?

Most IFR rentals are instrument trainers, flown mostly under the hood
rather than in actual. They tend to be Skyhawks and Cherokees these
days, and they very rarely have spherics. In fact, they usually have
a couple of nav-coms, an ADF and/or DME, and maybe some POS LORAN or
VFR GPS. How many of your trips could have been completed in one of
those?

Michael

In article ,
(C Kingsbury) wrote:

(PInc972390) wrote in message
...
b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.

Get an autopilot to fit the hole.

It's always been my impression that installing an autopilot is a
big-money proposition. I'd love to have even a 1-axis unit in my 172
but I've been led to believe that's talking 10k range by the time it's
all done.

nah, it's not that much, probably less than $6,000 (especially if
you don't put in a new DG). I had an STEC 40 put in my cherokee 140
at the same time as a KX-155, Strikefinder, cooling fan, and DG.
That bill was a bit over $15,000.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

In article ,
(Michael) wrote:

Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
significant utility in these planes. But when we're talking C-172's
and Cherokee 140's ...

hey! (said the owner of a 140 that has a pretty good panel... )

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
significant utility in these planes. But when we're talking C-172's
and Cherokee 140's ...


So what are you saying? A plane flying in clouds has to be high-performance
to be safe? What?


www.Rosspilot.com

ospam (Rosspilot) writes:

Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
significant utility in these planes. But when we're talking C-172's
and Cherokee 140's ...


So what are you saying? A plane flying in clouds has to be high-performance
to be safe? What?

I was wondering about that, myself. If I didn't have an instrument rating,
I'd be grounded a good chunk of the time. The marine layer comes in almost
every day at my home base, and you can't bet it will dissipate by mid
to late morning. Yesterday, for example, it remained all day.

-jav

Roy Smith wrote:

Get a GPS. Some of them have built-in CDI right on the front panel
display. I don't find them very convenient, but they are legal.

I thought you had to have a separate CDI to use one as a primary navigation tool for
approaches. Is that incorrect?

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:

Get a GPS. Some of them have built-in CDI right on the front panel
display. I don't find them very convenient, but they are legal.

I thought you had to have a separate CDI to use one as a primary navigation
tool for approaches. Is that incorrect?

My understanding (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) is that some
of the newer units (I'm thinking specifically of the CNX-80) are
certified such that you don't need an external CDI, as long as the unit
is mounted so that the built-in one is within some specified distance
from the pilot's center of vision, or some such.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:04:32 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:

Get a GPS. Some of them have built-in CDI right on the front panel
display. I don't find them very convenient, but they are legal.

I thought you had to have a separate CDI to use one as a primary navigation
tool for approaches. Is that incorrect?

My understanding (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) is that some
of the newer units (I'm thinking specifically of the CNX-80) are
certified such that you don't need an external CDI, as long as the unit
is mounted so that the built-in one is within some specified distance
from the pilot's center of vision, or some such.


As I understand it a "separate" CDI means one not shared by two
navigation devices (radios). Having the built in display adheres to
the separate requirement. I don't believe there is any requirement to
use an external display.

HTH.
z

I don't know what he is saying, but there is a valid point to that line of
logic.

1. If you are going to get into bumpy stuff, a plane with a low
wingloading - say less than 16 or 17, is going to be pretty uncomfortable.

2. If you are going to spend a lot on avionics, you might want to put them
in more airplane. In other words, why put 15 to 20 grand into a skyhawk or
warrior when you could trade up to a mooney or skylane for not much more.
The heavier plane likely has the avionics level you desire (albeit older).

In fact, even maintaining one of those planes to IFR standards can all of a
sudden become too expensive. Most owners don't keep those planes to those
standards.

OTOH the cost of operation goes up with the heavier plane, so if you fly
enough, or own long enough, you can get your money's worth with an upgraded
panel in a lighter plane. Once again, it depends on the mission.




"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
significant utility in these planes. But when we're talking C-172's
and Cherokee 140's ...


So what are you saying? A plane flying in clouds has to be
high-performance
to be safe? What?


www.Rosspilot.com

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:
My understanding (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) is that some
of the newer units (I'm thinking specifically of the CNX-80) are
certified such that you don't need an external CDI, as long as the unit
is mounted so that the built-in one is within some specified distance
from the pilot's center of vision, or some such.

I think that applies to the annunciator (msg, ptk) which is displayed in
the lower-lefthand corner of the CNX-80. I don't think it applies to
the CDI, but you could download the install guide from Garmin's site and
find out. I looked into it once. Sadly my radio stack is too far from
the centerline.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/