Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

(C Kingsbury) wrote
If you budget $1000/month for ownership that would allow you to rent
these between 80 and 92 hours per year.

I can OWN a C-182 on $1000 a month. A nice one. A VFR airplane can
be swung on $400/month, flying 10-15 hours a month.

Well, I'm not. MVFR up here often turns into MIFR. I'd rather spend
the enroute segment on top and shoot an approach to 800-1000AGL at the
end than slog along in 3mi viz at 1000 and risk getting snared by
precipitation fog.

I think you're taking more risks on top. It's EASIER to be on top,
but I don't believe it's SAFER.

Does the FAA keep records of flight plans filed? I'll bet you'd find
an awful lot filed between October and April by no-known-ice planes.
Good, bad, or indifferent it's been my experience that's how it's done
around here. The airmet is out there pretty much non-stop for 4-5
monoths of the year. What people look at very closely are the pireps.

I'm well aware of this.

First, it's contrary to regs. There is no way around this. It is not
a gray area. It has been litigated. PIREPs are anecdotal, airmets
are authoritative.

Second, it's consistently fatal. Every year we lose some. Of course
we lose some scud running too. What are the relative rates? We have
no idea how many hours are flown in either mode, nor by what kind of
pilots, nor in what kind of aircraft. So really, all we've got here
is opinion.

My opinion is based on having done it both ways.

I've only flown those days in the winter with a very gray-haired CFII.
That's the condition that probably gives me the most pause.

As well it should.

There's also the fact that it's reasonable to equip a
plane for flight in icing, but not for thunderstorm penetration.

That's true, but irrelevant. It's very reasonable to equip a plane
for thunderstorm avoidance - a stormscope is a lot cheaper than boots.

Yeah, it's a useful reminder that the IFR ticket potentially opens up
new risks to you as well as new capabilities.

More to the point, it's a reminder of how ill-equipped the light
single is for tangling with ice.

BTW, I believe the author of that story has given up IFR flying...

A week ago somebody posted an AvWeb story about an old-time scudrunner
who gave it up after seeing an unlit 800' tower with guy wires across
a highway.

Absolutely. I've seen something rather similar in my scud running
days.

There are risks either way. It's all a question of what's riskier.
We have no good statistics on this, so all we're left with is the
opinion of those who have done it both ways. But understand that
those are really the only opinions that count. If you haven't done it
both ways, you have no real way to compare.

But I got where I was
going. Without, I would have had to land. Not so bad if I'm headed
West - get up to the line, land, get rained on, continue. Pure bitch
if headed East.

Them's the breaks. Worst comes to worst, your options are no fewer
than a VFR-only pilot's. Sometimes they'll be better.

And quite often they won't.

Issue #1 - fuel related doesn't always mean stupidity. There are
misfuelings that are hard to catch, there are fuel leaks, etc. Don't
write them all off.

Your point was, "how are you going to fare in low wx if that single
engine quits." Having a second engine does not prevent misfueling,
mismanagement, etc.

Mismanagement is stupidity or incompetence. Leaks are a different
story. And in fact we had a poster, not too long ago, who had a leak.
But only ONE engine quit so he did OK. Misfuelings are a gray area -
if it's a matter of the plane not being level, one engine will quit
first and warn you.

Two of my partners are instrument-rated with 4-5 times the hours I
have. I've flown safety pilot with them to help them stay current.
They're conscientious and methodical, but I also watch them make lots
of little slip-ups. And I think, enough of these under the wrong
circumstances, and that's curtains.

Yes. The national airspace system is complex and quirky. None of us
are perfect. Make the wrong slipup at the wrong time, and it's over.
The difference between the proficient pilot and the non-proficient one
- the proficient pilot makes fewer mistakes and catches them quicker.
That is all. He can die from his mistakes too, it's just not as
likely.

I don't think either of them has
filed an IFR plan once in the past few years, but they stay current
for some reason nonetheless.

Living testamnets to the utility of an instrument rating .

Personally, I've decided that if I'm going to fly IFR for real, I'm
also going to go up in actual conditions with my CFII at least once
every three months for a workout no matter what.

Good move. Do it or don't, but don't screw around with it.

The way I see it, you can be a
bit of a duffer when it comes to hamburger-fetching and probably not
risk too much more than a bruised ego, but IFR is for professionals
only, whether you're getting paid or not.

I concur. It should not be that way, but it is.

Still, it ought to be significantly cheaper
to certify, build, and maintain LSA than traditional spamcans. That's
100% upside.

Right. The ticket is window dressing. The important part is being
able to build and sell aircraft without the FAA dictating every move
you make. And I do know people who are ready to be cut loose at 20
hours. I know a pilot who finished in minimum hours, and that
included night, instrument, etc. He could easily have done the Sport
pilot thing in 20. Is he unusual? Sure, and I bet it will be an
unusual sport pilot who makes it in 20. Is that a reason to hold back
the ones who can do it?

Don't bet on it. Low VFR is a skill, just like IFR...(SNIP) Unfortunately,
these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
XC.

I think we're in agreement on this one. The more variety of conditions
people are exposed to, the better. This is one of my CFII's arguments
against the ten-day instrument courses. He actually tells people he
prefers they spend at least a year working on their rating so they see
the different conditions each month offers.

I guess there's logic to this. My point was different. You can teach
yourself IFR (somebody had to) but the odds are against you. Ditto
scud running. If you had a dual XC in 500-1, you're way more prepared
to tackle it then if your dual XC's were all in 3000-5 or better. And
yes, I did have a dual XC in 500-1.

But when we're talking C-172's
and Cherokee 140's and such, the utility of the instrument rating is
so minimal that, IMO, it's just not worth bothering with - the time
and money is better spent on other things.

Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
out in these parts would disagree.

And how much scud running experience do THEY have?

One who wouldn't was the guy in
Alaska who gave me my SES, which I got 8 hours after doing my private.
His advice was, "go out and scare yourself for at least a hundred
hours first."

Same advice I give.

He went on to say, "the instrument rating is pretty much
useless." My local CFII's response was, "Well, in Alaska he's right,
but this ain't Alaska."

The difference between New York and Alaska is more a matter of
attitude than anything else.

Michael

Your rental environment is outstanding.

In my area, few FBO's or clubs have more than one rental that is not a
trainer or multitrainer. In order to be sure that you can rent from each
FBO, you have to remain current with them by renting regularly.

In other words, you have to spread your business around enough so that if
you need a plane on short notice, you will not have to get a currency check
out to actually have a choice of places to rent.

In the end, its easier just owning your own.


"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
om...
(Michael) wrote in message
om...

This is highly unusual to say the least. I've also seen what such
planes (new C82's) rent for, and I believe that anyone whose budget
for purchase is limited enough that an IFR-equipped airplane is not an
option could not afford to rent such planes regularly.

3 pretty new 182s got for $130-150/hour wet and very well equipped (1
w/ sferics, 2w/datalink WX, all A/P). One is a Turbo 182, not that you
need it all that much out here where 2000' gets called Mt. Something.

If you budget $1000/month for ownership that would allow you to rent
these between 80 and 92 hours per year. Managed wisely (i.e. recurrent
training) that ought to be enough for a 140kt airplane.

While I agree that geography (really climate) has everything to do
with this, I have flown in the Northeast enough to know that this is
not realistic unless you are unwilling to fly VFR in MVFR conditions.

Well, I'm not. MVFR up here often turns into MIFR. I'd rather spend
the enroute segment on top and shoot an approach to 800-1000AGL at the
end than slog along in 3mi viz at 1000 and risk getting snared by
precipitation fog.

You mean you're not flying IMC in subfreezing temperatures? Or that
no Airmet for icing in clouds was issued?

Does the FAA keep records of flight plans filed? I'll bet you'd find
an awful lot filed between October and April by no-known-ice planes.
Good, bad, or indifferent it's been my experience that's how it's done
around here. The airmet is out there pretty much non-stop for 4-5
monoths of the year. What people look at very closely are the pireps.

I've only flown those days in the winter with a very gray-haired CFII.
That's the condition that probably gives me the most pause.
Thunderstorms around here are more well behaved. The conditions that
cause them are pretty consistent, and when they do start up the radar
is pretty good about telling us where they are. Ice remains something
of an X factor. There's also the fact that it's reasonable to equip a
plane for flight in icing, but not for thunderstorm penetration.

If the latter, I invite you
to consider this story:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ate.net&rnum=1

Yeah, it's a useful reminder that the IFR ticket potentially opens up
new risks to you as well as new capabilities.

BTW, I believe the author of that story has given up IFR flying...

A week ago somebody posted an AvWeb story about an old-time scudrunner
who gave it up after seeing an unlit 800' tower with guy wires across
a highway.

Of the IFR trips I've made to the NE, I would say that about 1 in 3
would have been cancelled had I not had spherics capability. You're
right - the ATC system was hosed on the days I needed a Stormscope.

I was rerouted half a dozen times in 200 miles.

Shucks, I get re-routed that many times on VFR days going from BED to
HPN

But I got where I was
going. Without, I would have had to land. Not so bad if I'm headed
West - get up to the line, land, get rained on, continue. Pure bitch
if headed East.

Them's the breaks. Worst comes to worst, your options are no fewer
than a VFR-only pilot's. Sometimes they'll be better. My next plane
will definitely have sferics or a datalink unit.

Issue #1 - fuel related doesn't always mean stupidity. There are
misfuelings that are hard to catch, there are fuel leaks, etc. Don't
write them all off.

Your point was, "how are you going to fare in low wx if that single
engine quits." Having a second engine does not prevent misfueling,
mismanagement, etc. In fact, the added complexity of many multi-engine
fuel systems (esp. serious long-range ones with multiple aux tanks
that require manual transfers) seems likely to increase the likelihood
of precisely this sort of thing. Sure enough, I found a handful of
these in the records I pulled.

skill level. About 1 in 4 train seriously, work at it, and are good
or at least getting there. The rest - well, let's just say that I
wouldn't curl up and go to sleep in the back seat of their airplanes
on an IFR trip.

Two of my partners are instrument-rated with 4-5 times the hours I
have. I've flown safety pilot with them to help them stay current.
They're conscientious and methodical, but I also watch them make lots
of little slip-ups. And I think, enough of these under the wrong
circumstances, and that's curtains. I don't think either of them has
filed an IFR plan once in the past few years, but they stay current
for some reason nonetheless.

Personally, I've decided that if I'm going to fly IFR for real, I'm
also going to go up in actual conditions with my CFII at least once
every three months for a workout no matter what. He loves the scud,
and he loves beating people up in it. The way I see it, you can be a
bit of a duffer when it comes to hamburger-fetching and probably not
risk too much more than a bruised ego, but IFR is for professionals
only, whether you're getting paid or not.

will. I pretty regularly instruct in single airplanes in IMC. But I
don't fool myself about the risks, either.

Pretty much what this whole game comes down to. If you want to
minimize the risks, you drive or take the winged people tube.

Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, either,
particularly if you leave out the technically-current 20hrs/yr
sightseer types.

But why leave them out?

Because these guys are not VFR-current enough to safely execute the
sort of long-distance MVFR cross-countries we're talking about here.
They're the VFR equivalent of my legally IFR-current partners.

guys are. They're not flying for transportation - why hold them to
the standards required to do it?

I'm 100% for Sport Pilot. Though I will confess to a degree of
skepticism about being able to make a good pilot in 20-30 hours as a
lot of people seem to be hoping for. Looking back at my experience, I
can't see why I would have developed the necessary skills any faster
in an LSA than in a PA-28. Does weight and maybe 15 knots of speed
make that much difference? Still, it ought to be significantly cheaper
to certify, build, and maintain LSA than traditional spamcans. That's
100% upside.

Due to towers and congested areas scud running isn't
a practical choice either around here.

Don't bet on it. Low VFR is a skill, just like IFR...(SNIP)
Unfortunately,
these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
XC.

I think we're in agreement on this one. The more variety of conditions
people are exposed to, the better. This is one of my CFII's arguments
against the ten-day instrument courses. He actually tells people he
prefers they spend at least a year working on their rating so they see
the different conditions each month offers.

But when we're talking C-172's
and Cherokee 140's and such, the utility of the instrument rating is
so minimal that, IMO, it's just not worth bothering with - the time
and money is better spent on other things.

Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
out in these parts would disagree. One who wouldn't was the guy in
Alaska who gave me my SES, which I got 8 hours after doing my private.
His advice was, "go out and scare yourself for at least a hundred
hours first." He went on to say, "the instrument rating is pretty much
useless." My local CFII's response was, "Well, in Alaska he's right,
but this ain't Alaska." Too bad, I think sometimes.

Best,
-cwk.

On 27-Aug-2004, (Michael) wrote:

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


Oh really? I recently completed a fairly long trip from PAE (Everett, WA)
to the LA area (SMO) and back, with stops in between Four legs, only one of
which would have been possible (or at least safe) without some IFR flying.

Unless you fly exclusively in Arizona or Florida (or similar climates), or
have no real need to adhere to any sort of schedule, VFR-only flying just
cannot provide very reliable or useful transportation.

--
-Elliott Drucker

Here is an idea:

Start working on your IFR while looking for the best deal you can find.

If you get a lead on the right plane, you can always finish with the IFR in
your own plane.

If all you find in your budget is VFR planes by the time you are done, then
rethink what you want. Remember, you can take IFR training and currency
flights in a plane that is NOT IFR certified. It just must be IFR equipped.

Lastly, I wouild not fly most any plane I have seen in your price category
into true IMC. Maybe bust a layer, but those older planes DO break more
often. It's not worth the money to improve that level of plane to my
standards for IFR.

Its still good for VFR though.





"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...
I'm a 160-hour PPL and a club member. My club is great and economical,
but availability and flexibility are becoming big drawbacks, so I'm
toying with the idea of buying a plane.

It's hard to justify on strictly financial terms because the club is
such a good deal, but how many times can you schedule a plane for a
Saturday flight, have to reschedule for Sunday because of wx but whoops,
can't because all the planes are booked for Sunday. Or even schedule a
morning flight, but because of AM fog have to postpone a couple of
hours, but still have to be back by noon because someone else has it
right after you, so you might as well not go since the fog didn't lift
till 11:00. Etc.

So I've been thinking of buying a plane for the sole purpose of
improving my availability & flexibility. Other than that I am delighed
with the club. Because of my job and other responsibilities, if I'm
going to do a significant amount of flying I'm going to need
availability and flexibility without having to plan everyhing way ahead.
Also because of that, and also because of reluctance to get into bed
financially with others, I don't think a partnership is the way to go,
though I haven't ruled it out, but for argument's sake let's say it's
ruled out.

Since this is a philosophical discussion, assume if I buy on my own I
will have to buy a VFR airplane to get a decent one that's affordable.
If I buy a VFR airplane that would rule out getting an instrument rating
because I'm obviously not going to rent airplanes for over 40 hours of
IFR training if I just bought one.

I keep putting off starting my IFR training, so while I think it would
be good to do it's clearly not something I'm burning to do.
Availability and flexiblity has something to do with putting off the IFR
training too, it took me 2 years and 80 hours to get my PPL because of
those kinds of issues and I don't want to repeat that with an IFR rating.

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'm in North
Carolina, where the weather is VFR reasonably often but not so often
that it's a no-brainer like it would be in AZ or FL or some such place.

TIA

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

Since this is a philosophical discussion, assume if I buy on my own I
will have to buy a VFR airplane to get a decent one that's affordable.
If I buy a VFR airplane that would rule out getting an instrument rating
because I'm obviously not going to rent airplanes for over 40 hours of
IFR training if I just bought one.

Consider this. Perhaps you can buy a VFR aircraft with pretty old avionics at an even
more affordable price than you're considering now. For actual IFR flight, you will
need avionics that can handle the places you want to go. In many cases, that's a
single NAV/COM with glide slope receiver and perhaps a marker beacon receiver. If
that's your situation, you can have an IFR aircraft by investing a few thousand more
after you buy the plane.

I would go shopping for the plane and add the minimal avionics needed to do most of
the work on the rating. Buy avionics (maybe used) with an eye to what you will use
after you get the rating. If what you buy won't handle all of the approaches required
for the test, rent another aircraft for the few hours needed to train for that.

For example, I bought a Cessna 150 back in 1989. I replaced the radio with a new
Mk-12D/GS and added a Terra MBR to the panel. That would've gotten me into the series
of airports I needed to make a flight from Central Jersey (47N) to Knoxville, TN
(TYS) and return. It also let me use TTN as my alternate on this end. I never
completed training, and I would've had to rent a plane with an ADF for part of the
work, but it wasn't a bad little IFR trainer.

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

I'd decide what airplane is right for my "mission", then find
one like it to rent and get my IFR rating. When it's buying
time it'll sure look better to the insurance company if you
have more than 160TT, plus 40hrs or so in type, plus of course
the IFR rating. You may be able to shop around more and
have more options (insurance-wise) , not to mention you'd be
pretty comfortable in that type. Like others have mentioned,
by then you'd have a good grip on what you liked or didnt
like about the Nav equipment, and the quirks of the type, which
would help you refine your airplane choice. Your "mission"
might change in that time also, got a spouse? May
need more than what your initial idea was.
Make a list of steps you need to take to reach the ultimate
owning goal, and you'll be there before you know it.


Chris
--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

I live in Chicago and have found that having the rating is the only
way that I can use the plane effectively, i.e. make trips that I plan
in advance to make as opposed to running out for a hamburger when the
weather is nice. I still scrub flights for thunderstorms and ice but
my utility has gone from about 30% to maybe 70%. Last week I was able
to make an IFR flight between storms that I would never have made
without the rating (there were still showers in the area even though
the initial storm activity has passed through).

As other posters have said, you don't need a lot of avionics for legal
IFR, especially for training. It's also a lot less expensive to buy
the plane with the equipment already installed than to add it later,
though of course it's nice to work with the new GPS systems.

No reason you can't do both. To do your instrument training all you
need is the pitot/static and transponder check. I did all of my
instrument training in an old Beech Musketeer with only a pair of
KX-170Bs. For your checkride, all you need to do is three types of
approaches (and a hold and some other basic stuff), and if you get a
'VFR' plane with a glideslope (a great many do, even many old 150s),
you'll do a localizer approach, a VOR approach, and an ILS approach.

Would I take in the soup for real? Not for any length of time. But to
earn your rating, you don't need dual Garmin 430s. The hardest thing
about instrument training isn't the approaches. It's developing the
skills that will keep you from killing yourself. It's managing to stay
upside-up. And those skills can certainly be developed in a VFR plane.

Getting your instrument ticket is an excellent idea, even if you
aren't planning on using it much. If you don't stay current, it is
dangerous to be in the clouds, but regaining currency is relatively
easy. It does help make you a better pilot, and it is certainly a very
valuable 'insurance' policy.

Id do both...buy a good VFR plane with enough instrumentation to do
your IFR training (most have it already), and get your rating in it.
If you later find the need to do hard IFR flying on a regular basis,
you can look at other options down the road.

Cheers,

Cap,


TTA Cherokee Driver wrote in message ...
I'm a 160-hour PPL and a club member. My club is great and economical,
but availability and flexibility are becoming big drawbacks, so I'm
toying with the idea of buying a plane.

It's hard to justify on strictly financial terms because the club is
such a good deal, but how many times can you schedule a plane for a
Saturday flight, have to reschedule for Sunday because of wx but whoops,
can't because all the planes are booked for Sunday. Or even schedule a
morning flight, but because of AM fog have to postpone a couple of
hours, but still have to be back by noon because someone else has it
right after you, so you might as well not go since the fog didn't lift
till 11:00. Etc.

So I've been thinking of buying a plane for the sole purpose of
improving my availability & flexibility. Other than that I am delighed
with the club. Because of my job and other responsibilities, if I'm
going to do a significant amount of flying I'm going to need
availability and flexibility without having to plan everyhing way ahead.
Also because of that, and also because of reluctance to get into bed
financially with others, I don't think a partnership is the way to go,
though I haven't ruled it out, but for argument's sake let's say it's
ruled out.

Since this is a philosophical discussion, assume if I buy on my own I
will have to buy a VFR airplane to get a decent one that's affordable.
If I buy a VFR airplane that would rule out getting an instrument rating
because I'm obviously not going to rent airplanes for over 40 hours of
IFR training if I just bought one.

I keep putting off starting my IFR training, so while I think it would
be good to do it's clearly not something I'm burning to do.
Availability and flexiblity has something to do with putting off the IFR
training too, it took me 2 years and 80 hours to get my PPL because of
those kinds of issues and I don't want to repeat that with an IFR rating.

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'm in North
Carolina, where the weather is VFR reasonably often but not so often
that it's a no-brainer like it would be in AZ or FL or some such place.

TIA

Captain Wubba wrote:
: No reason you can't do both. To do your instrument training all you
: need is the pitot/static and transponder check. I did all of my
: instrument training in an old Beech Musketeer with only a pair of
: KX-170Bs. For your checkride, all you need to do is three types of
: approaches (and a hold and some other basic stuff), and if you get a
: 'VFR' plane with a glideslope (a great many do, even many old 150s),
: you'll do a localizer approach, a VOR approach, and an ILS approach.

: Would I take in the soup for real? Not for any length of time. But to
: earn your rating, you don't need dual Garmin 430s. The hardest thing
: about instrument training isn't the approaches. It's developing the
: skills that will keep you from killing yourself. It's managing to stay
: upside-up. And those skills can certainly be developed in a VFR plane.

Well-said. The term "IFR-Certified" gets thrown around primarily to try to
increase the value of a plane during a sale. Many (most?) VFR planes have IFR
equipment (VOR, LOC, often a GS). All an "IFR-Certified" plane means is one that has
the altimeter checked along with the *required* VFR transponder biannual check.
That's it. No more, no less. Now, to actually fly IFR (i.e. accept an IFR
clearance), it must not only be certified, but equipped to fly the approaches you
intend to use. Having a LOC/VOR/GS is a very reasonable set of equipment for IFR
training. You only need one precision and two non-precision approaches for the
checkride. For actual IFR, having some redundancy built in and maybe a few more
gadgets (digital radios, DME, IFR GPS) would be nice to reduce workload. For
training, dual (or even single) KX-170B's is perfectly fine, and in a lot of ways
better since it's more difficult to triangulate VOR's than read a DME. The biggest
part of the IFR rating (80% or more) isn't flying approaches, but keeping the
shiny-side up and executing precision airwork with minimal concentration required.
Approaches are a natural byproduct of precision airwork, with just a couple more
things thrown in (i.e. convertning the symbols on the plates into the required
precision airwork). It's mostly about constantly cramming more workload onto yourself
until you can function automatically on the basics and have some CPU cycles left over
to do other things.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

: shiny-side up and executing precision airwork with minimal concentration required.
: Approaches are a natural byproduct of precision airwork, with just a couple more
: things thrown in (i.e. convertning the symbols on the plates into the required
: precision airwork). It's mostly about constantly cramming more workload onto yourself
: until you can function automatically on the basics and have some CPU cycles left over
: to do other things.

Let me agree with Cory. I started with a pretty basic IFR setup, and I have
added to it as my needs increased. I would say that a marker beacon is
also important, unless you've got some other way to identify the OM for an
ILS approach (VOR triangulation, ADF, whatever).
I found the hardest thing in IFR training was mental prep for approaches
one right after another. We have a VOR that has approaches to quite a few
airports starting over it. Frequently in training we'd start over that vor
and shoot five or six different approaches, each missed approach going back
to the VOR. We'd do six approaches in 1.2 hobbs hours. It sure helped to
get all of your paperwork out of the way and your charts organized
beforehand!
--
Aaron Coolidge