Wish I'd had the IR...

[jsstevens]

I've read a number of debates over the years (on POA and elsewhere) about whether or not an IR really is useful in the small planes we typically fly. (Apologies to any pros on here who fly serious planes...)

This Saturday I planned to fly from Orlando Exec (KORL) to Craig in Jacksonville (KCRG) to pop across the street and look at cars. Seemed like a nice excuse to fly somewhere, there was no convective forecast until around 2PM. I was going to leave KORL by 8AM, check out the cars shortly after 9AM and be back to KORL by noonish well ahead of the thunderstorms. It was a great plan.

7AM, on my way to the airport I called for a briefing. KCRG is LIFR. As is KSJG (Saint Augustine) KFIX (Flagler County), KDAB (Daytona Beach) etc. KORL is clear. KTIX (Titusville) is clear. But there is a band of low clouds across the north part of the state. Even inland so I can't sneak around to the west. Briefer says "VFR flight is not recommended but it should clear by 9AM."

I decided to wait until about 8:30 and see if it did start to clear. Called again. KCRG is now VFR but all the intermediate airports are still IFR. No reports on cloud tops but probably not very thick. Still VFR flight not recommended. But I decided to fly out to the coast and see how it looked. By the time I finish preflight and taxi out, clouds in Orlando are broken (but not very broken) at 1400 feet. I do one lap around the pattern because I can use the practice and then quit. No way I'm scud running to the coast to see if I can get OVER clouds.

I also decide to not wait any longer because if I leave later, I will be pushing into the thunder storms on the way back.

This flight would have been easy if I had the IR. There was no convective activity, the destination was 800 feet and 2 miles by the time I would have arrived. But I scrubbed because I do not yet have the rating. So there's one data point: IR would have saved my flight.

John

 

[wayne]

Yep.

I got it so I can travel on something resembling a planned schedule. We had two or three day trips canceled for some very benign IMC after I got my PPL, so I started up my IR sooner than I originally planned. No, it's not 100%, but then neither is flying commercial; commercial is closer to 100% though.

There have been lots of trips that would have been hard to impossible to do VFR. Being able to go IFR opens up more possibilities. Also means you have to check deeper into the weather conditions.

 

[steingar]

If I had nickel for every time I had to scrub for benign IFR...

I start training once my aircraft gets out of annual and has the last of the avionics squawks fixed.

 

[Topper]

IR is extremely useful in small planes. Since I got mine, I have not cancelled a single trip. Occasionally had to delay, but always made my trip and destination. Some luck involved, ts parked over departure or destination airport could still cause a cancellation.

 

[James331]

Having your IFR ticket and a nice /G plane is a great tool, not 100% dispatch for weather, I don't mess with embedded CBs, or convective at night as I don't have a radar pod, no ice and I lean towards 135 limits even though I'm 91, but still it's very handy indeed

 

[Kritchlow]

It’s does more than just allow the mission you described.
Even if you never use it, it teaches you a lot about how the whole system works. It really does make you a better, more well rounded pilot.

 

[steingar]

Even if you never use it, it teaches you a lot about how the whole system works. It really does make you a better, more well rounded pilot.

I have heard taildragger pilots say flying a taildragger makes you a better pilot. I've heard glider pilots say the same thing. I had to think long and hard to determine what a "better pilot" actually is. I came up with a better pilot is one who doesn't crash and die. Personally, I really don't think you need to know how to fly a taildragger or a glider to not crash and die. I really don't think it involves landing right on the centerline, or landing in the minimum distance possible. I do think it has to do with having the judgement to keep away from sticky situations the present few outs. Personally, I think having the IR is going to present one with way more outs than the ability to fly a taildragger or a glider, thus I do think that getting makes you a better pilot.

It might just boost me up to average, but I doubt it.

 

[wsuffa]

It’s does more than just allow the mission you described.
Even if you never use it, it teaches you a lot about how the whole system works. It really does make you a better, more well rounded pilot.

Yep.

As does spin training.

But even with an Instrument rating, some flights should not be flown. Through convective is one, icing is another, and LIFR/marine layer is another. I've done three flights that taught me a lot about that last one - two ILS to minimum (same trip....) at Lakefront and Brazoria, and once where the ground fog built so fast that I could see the runway lights VFR but passed through the layer 10' off the deck. The lessons are now ingrained.

That said, the Instrument rating is immensely valuable. And well worth doing. But no one should expect that it will solve all issues. To the OP's point, I might well do the flights IFR if sufficient approach procedures are available at the destination, but if we were talking IFR with low clouds in the evening, I'd really think twice to determine the dew-point spread and winds.

 

[arkvet]

I have 37 hours of IFR (training) in the book (several actual IMC) and am looking forward to scheduling my check ride within the coming weeks.

I have had to drive too many times with 2000' ceilings and sunny on top. Not gonna do it anymore.

 

[steingar]

Weather is good- VFR
Weather is bad-IFR
Weather is really bad-go by car

 

[azure]

Weather is good- VFR
Weather is bad-IFR
Weather is really bad-go by car

And weather is somewhere between bad and really bad - go VFR.

 

[Kritchlow]

Yep.

As does spin training.

But even with an Instrument rating, some flights should not be flown. Through convective is one, icing is another, and LIFR/marine layer is another. I've done three flights that taught me a lot about that last one - two ILS to minimum (same trip....) at Lakefront and Brazoria, and once where the ground fog built so fast that I could see the runway lights VFR but passed through the layer 10' off the deck. The lessons are now ingrained.

That said, the Instrument rating is immensely valuable. And well worth doing. But no one should expect that it will solve all issues. To the OP's point, I might well do the flights IFR if sufficient approach procedures are available at the destination, but if we were talking IFR with low clouds in the evening, I'd really think twice to determine the dew-point spread and winds.

Well my point was you are a better pilot. I really don’t think an IR should be equated with spin training. But... it does teach you a whole lot about the system. A tail dragger endorsement will not do that.
Convection?? That depends on many factors, but I agree nobody should fly down the throat of thunderstorm.

Regardless, I’ve only done a small handful of approaches to minimums (1800 rvr CAT 1) in my 34 years flying. The IR (imo) is not necessarily about flying IFR in the GA world. Obviously airlines are different.

 

[rocketflyer84]

On many of my IFR flights I might only be IMC for 5% of the flight or less, but these are flights that I just wouldn’t have taken VFR. 200 ft thick cloud layer at 1000 ft would cancel a VFR trip but for IFR it’s fun... punch though, literally IMC for a few seconds and on your way. Because of things like that the IFR is quite useful even for us little guys.

 

[EdFred]

But then there's days where it doesn't matter if you have it or not. Friday might be one of them. Embedded thunderstorms in a stationary front going across Northern Indiana and I have to try to get from Grand Rapids to Louisville.

 

[chemgeek]

The instrument rating takes all the stress out of flying MVFR, and allows easy travel in benign IFR. It's well worth it to be riding in the sunshine above a low clag layer while VFR pilots are below dodging radio towers.

 

[wsuffa]

Well my point was you are a better pilot. I really don’t think an IR should be equated with spin training. But... it does teach you a whole lot about the system. A tail dragger endorsement will not do that.
Convection?? That depends on many factors, but I agree nobody should fly down the throat of thunderstorm.

Regardless, I’ve only done a small handful of approaches to minimums (1800 rvr CAT 1) in my 34 years flying. The IR (imo) is not necessarily about flying IFR in the GA world. Obviously airlines are different.

Any education is good - the more you learn about flying, the system, or the limits of your airplane, the better. Obviously you're not going to do some stuff with a 121 aircraft, but knowing the limits (and how other aircraft perform) can save one's bacon. Sully and Capn Hayes are prime examples.

As for the IR, it depends. I lived near enough to the gulf coast that you could lose a lot of flying options without it. In the dryer climes, like Arizona, not so much. Even the mid-Atlantic can be useful, if for no reason than punching through a deck.

And yeah, by convection I meant down the throat of t'storms. Or even under the anvil or in the saddle between lines where hail can form.

Having the IR means more options, but it also means more risks that one must consider.

YMMV.

 

[eman1200]

But then there's days where it doesn't matter if you have it or not. Friday might be one of them. Embedded thunderstorms in a stationary front going across Northern Indiana and I have to try to get from Grand Rapids to Louisville.

Have u heard of get-there-itis? It really helps when you’re on the fence about a flight. Great for indecisive people.

 

[denverpilot]

I have heard taildragger pilots say flying a taildragger makes you a better pilot. I've heard glider pilots say the same thing. I had to think long and hard to determine what a "better pilot" actually is. I came up with a better pilot is one who doesn't crash and die. Personally, I really don't think you need to know how to fly a taildragger or a glider to not crash and die. I really don't think it involves landing right on the centerline, or landing in the minimum distance possible. I do think it has to do with having the judgement to keep away from sticky situations the present few outs. Personally, I think having the IR is going to present one with way more outs than the ability to fly a taildragger or a glider, thus I do think that getting makes you a better pilot.

It might just boost me up to average, but I doubt it.

I always find it amusing that someone who peddles education for a living is hyper-sensitive in the negative about anyone claiming furthering aviation education made them a better overall pilot.

Won’t your students be better at other life skills besides just picking up whatever is in your textbooks in your classes? I suspect they will.

It’s their option if they want to take the class and pay for it, but they’ll probably be better for it in some fashion if they do.

If they aren’t, I would expect enrollment to drop dramatically.

 

[wayne]

But then there's days where it doesn't matter if you have it or not. Friday might be one of them. Embedded thunderstorms in a stationary front going across Northern Indiana and I have to try to get from Grand Rapids to Louisville.

That's when you want speed, so you can go around it. I've made and end-run around several storms lines. Keep an eye on the FIS/XM weather to watch how it's moving and talk with the controllers with weather radar to keep clear of the bad stuff. Give it plenty of room as it can move or develop quickly.

Yeah, yeah, a long enough line and it just doesn't make sense. We were going to a niece's college graduation; flying from Atlanta to Madison, WI. There were freezing temps and low clouds across most of IL, and even snow between Rockford and Chicago. In May! We flew to St Louis and stopped to stretch legs, have lunch and then onward, just west of IL and finally turned back to Madison. It was ~100 nm deviation to avoid the bad stuff. Speed and an IR and everything was fine. We had beautiful weather, including tailwinds on the return trip home two days later.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I have heard taildragger pilots say flying a taildragger makes you a better pilot. I've heard glider pilots say the same thing. I had to think long and hard to determine what a "better pilot" actually is. I came up with a better pilot is one who doesn't crash and die. Personally, I really don't think you need to know how to fly a taildragger or a glider to not crash and die. I really don't think it involves landing right on the centerline, or landing in the minimum distance possible. I do think it has to do with having the judgement to keep away from sticky situations the present few outs. Personally, I think having the IR is going to present one with way more outs than the ability to fly a taildragger or a glider, thus I do think that getting makes you a better pilot.

It might just boost me up to average, but I doubt it.

Any rating or endorsement that you train for and earn, makes you better, more well rounded pilot.

 

[Topper]

That's when you want speed, so you can go around it. I've made and end-run around several storms lines. Keep an eye on the FIS/XM weather to watch how it's moving and talk with the controllers with weather radar to keep clear of the bad stuff. Give it plenty of room as it can move or develop quickly.

Yeah, yeah, a long enough line and it just doesn't make sense. We were going to a niece's college graduation; flying from Atlanta to Madison, WI. There were freezing temps and low clouds across most of IL, and even snow between Rockford and Chicago. In May! We flew to St Louis and stopped to stretch legs, have lunch and then onward, just west of IL and finally turned back to Madison. It was ~100 nm deviation to avoid the bad stuff. Speed and an IR and everything was fine. We had beautiful weather, including tailwinds on the return trip home two days later.

Second that, speed makes a huge difference. At 110knots, it can be hard to get around, especially a fast moving system. Once you start getting closer to 200 knots, it opens up a lot more possibilities.

Jim

 

[James331]

Second that, speed makes a huge difference. At 110knots, it can be hard to get around, especially a fast moving system. Once you start getting closer to 200 knots, it opens up a lot more possibilities.

Jim

At 250 with a ceiling of FL300 you still don't want to play downwind of a cell.

 

[NoHeat]

IR is extremely useful in small planes. Since I got mine, I have not cancelled a single trip. Occasionally had to delay, but always made my trip and destination. Some luck involved, ts parked over departure or destination airport could still cause a cancellation.

I’ve still canceled plenty of times due to icing, bad turbulence, and thunderstorms. My instrument rating doesn’t solve those problems.

That being said, I love poking through an overcast stratus layer above the freezing point — that’s the very common situation posed by the OP, and it is my favorite use of the IR.

 

[EdFred]

Have u heard of get-there-itis? It really helps when you’re on the fence about a flight. Great for indecisive people.

Oh, I already have 2 alternative plans. I don't do TS and I don't do ice. One option is leave a day early. The other is drive. ugh.

 

[Tantalum]

Yep.

I got it so I can travel on something resembling a planned schedule. We had two or three day trips canceled for some very benign IMC

Totally agree. Having my IR has really opened up a lot of doors. Even living in the San Diego area where our weather is usually VFR there were several trips I would have to cancel because of a stubborn marine layer or thin overcast or broken layer.. plus with all the Bravo around here and busy airspace you can have some limited options if you are trying to dodge clouds and be vigilant of airspace. Since getting IR I've filed for all my XC trips. It helps with traffic, workload, all the class B airspace, and getting me sequenced in on a nice approach.. even in clear weather all of this makes me a better pilot*

Even if you never use it, it teaches you a lot about how the whole system works. It really does make you a better, more well rounded pilot.

It absolutely makes you a better pilot. You become much more vigilant of the system as a whole and airspace design, it gave me a much better understanding and appreciation for aviation and the precision "by the numbers" discipline aspect of it.. and gives me a great options for getting back home if the layer doesn't burn off in time

*RE: better pilot
subjective term, and it will mean different things for different people depending on your mission. For me, it was a more cohesive understanding of the "system" as a whole and made me a much more disciplined and precise pilot with keeping headings, altitudes, etc. and just overall confidence level. Any additional training though will make you a better, more well rounded pilot, whether it is sail planes, tailwheel, sea plane, spins, etc.

 

[jimmyjack]

I personally feel an IR should be required for all new USA pilots. It would be interesting to see some sort of flow plan. Like, you have 12-24 mos after your PPL ticket to get your IR ticket or you're unqualified to fly. I understand that's an unpopular opinion, but it just makes you so much safer as a pilot.

and LIFR/marine layer is another.

I think that's a stretch. Some of the calmest, most enjoyable IMC are those low layers. And it's a hell of a thrill flying down to mins.

I've already have a few flights that would have been scrubbed without the winning combination of both IR and /G.

There are few things so fun and challenging as instrument flying. I truly get a kick out of it.

 

[EdFred]

Completely disagree. Light sport for example. Cubs and Taylorcrafts as well. If you're never going to be flying above MVA or at any MOCA, there's no point to it. What can make you safer is a whole lot of other stuff directly related to the type of flying you are going to be doing.

 

[Tantalum]

I personally feel an IR should be required for all new USA pilots. It would be interesting to see some sort of flow plan. Like, you have 12-24 mos after your PPL ticket to get your IR ticket or you're unqualified to fly.

and that folks.. is the final death blow to general aviation; dealt by yet another onerous regulation under the guise of "safety" but in reality freeing the airways of GA traffic and driving costs even higher

What would be the point of a rule like that? About 2/3 of my flying friends have no interest in IFR flying, have hundreds, if not thousands of hours, and don't have an IR nor do they ever plan to get it since their main mission is VFR sightseeing in a low and slow plane

There are lots of other ways to make this sport safer than creating another barrier to entry for new pilots.

 

[bnt83]

and that folks.. is the final death blow to general aviation; dealt by yet another onerous regulation under the guise of "safety" but in reality freeing the airways of GA traffic and driving costs even higher

What would be the point of a rule like that? About 2/3 of my flying friends have no interest in IFR flying, have hundreds, if not thousands of hours, and don't have an IR nor do they ever plan to get it since their main mission is VFR sightseeing in a low and slow plane

There are lots of other ways to make this sport safer than creating another barrier to entry for new pilots.

Exactly

 

[jimmyjack]

and that folks.. is the final death blow to general aviation;

Yeah, I fly a 172. A 60 y/o one at that. I concede that I use it as an XC IFR machine, but If that's not GA, I don't know what is.

What would be the point of a rule like that? About 2/3 of my flying friends have no interest in IFR flying, have hundreds, if not thousands of hours, and don't have an IR nor do they ever plan to get it since their main mission is VFR sightseeing in a low and slow plane

As mentioned, safety. Mandated instrument training (beyond the nonsense taught in PPL) would all but eradicate VMC into IMC deaths.

There are lots of other ways to make this sport safer than creating another barrier to entry for new pilots.

Getting your instrument costs less than half the private, in most cases. The folks that can barely afford their private aren't going to be flying hardly at all anyhow.

 

[EdFred]

Yeah, I fly a 172. A 60 y/o one at that. I concede that I use it as an XC IFR machine, but If that's not GA, I don't know what is.

As mentioned, safety. Mandated instrument training (beyond the nonsense taught in PPL) would all but eradicate VMC into IMC deaths.

Getting your instrument costs less than half the private, in most cases. The folks that can barely afford their private aren't going to be flying hardly at all anyhow.

Theres so much wrong here I dont even know where to start. Im not sure in what world that 40 hours is half of 40 hours.

So youre saying that no IFR rated pilot has ever CFIT or SD because he got instrument training. Are you also going to mandate 6 month or 3 month IPCs to "guarantee" safety?

Fun fact: There are no guarantees.

 

[jimmyjack]

Im not sure in what world that 40 hours is half of 40 hours.

Few people are able to achieve the private in 40 hours, as we all know.

So youre saying that no IFR rated pilot has ever CFIT or SD because he got instrument training. Are you also going to mandate 6 month or 3 month IPCs to "guarantee" safety?

Fun fact: There are no guarantees.

I never said the word guarantee.

Is your argument really that an IR does not make you safer?

Are you really going to crutch your argument on the added cost being so detrimental to GA when GA isn't declining because of the training cost but because of the aircraft cost?

Will you additionally suggest that Light Sport is an example of a saving grace for GA when Light Sport represents a tiny fraction of USA-based planes and pilots today (because there are so few LS planes and they cost as much as a certificated plane and/or because no one wants to be a Sport Pilot except those that can't get anything else)?

 

[EdFred]

40 hours here. 40.2 of instrument time when I got the IR, but since I also needed 50 hours of PIC XC time I had 104 hours total. So it took me 64 hours to get my IR after I got my private. So already I spent 50% MORE money on the IR, and I did very little extraneous flying.

"All but eradicate" is as close to saying guarantee without actually saying it. Mathematically you are approaching a limit, so yes, you did say guarantee. An IR only makes you safer if you continually train under the hood and in IMC. So you are going to then have to mandate recurrent training to keep the safety level up. If you are never going to fly instrument conditions because the airplanes you fly don't have electrical systems, aren't certified for instrument flight, or you never fly above the MOCA/MVA the IR is a waste. The IR does not prevent uncontrolled runway departures. The IR does not prevent the base to final stall. The IR does not prevent an excess of a nitrogen-oxygen mixture in the fuel tanks. The IR does not prevent loading up the plane beyond max gross on a hot day.

I'm not basing my argument on the cost being detrimental. I am also not basing it on light sport. All I am saying is get additional training in the type of flying you are going to do. If that's going to be flying low and slow, then focus your post private training on that. If you're going to by flying mountain valleys below MEA's get your post private training on that. If you're going to be packing up the family at Flagstaff, then focus your training on that. Getting the IR doesn't make one a safer pilot if they only get the IR and never use it for the next 15 years because the airplane they fly doesn't even have an AI in it.

Your IR mandate is the equivalent of treating a broken leg by giving someone insulin.

 

[Tantalum]

As mentioned, safety. Mandated instrument training (beyond the nonsense taught in PPL) would all but eradicate VMC into IMC deaths.

Getting your instrument costs less than half the private, in most cases. The folks that can barely afford their private aren't going to be flying hardly at all anyhow.

Lot of assumptions here, keep in mind a couple things:

**SAFETY - safe IFR flying requires one to not only be current, but *proficient*.. I would wager good money that someone who has an IR rating but has no intention of ever using it (because now it's a law, not elective, so he got it but never plans to use it) is *not* proficient and is much more likely to kill themsleves flying in IMC conditions than someone who is a standard VFR pilot and is taught to plan well and avoid the clouds. If we made this proposal a LAW then there would be a sentiment that we're all safer pilots, and more people would launch into conditions they shouldn't, because, "hey well, I got this IR ticket, I can use it if I need it!". Take someone who is just doing the weekend burger runs and sightseeing and has no interest in IFR flying.. so now you've forced him or her to get their IR that they will never use.. if they don't stay IR proficient than 9 months later I would say not only are they no safer than before.. but likely less safe than before if they launch into even mild IFR conditions

**COSTS - an IR rating is not half the cost of a PPL.. especially if you make it compulsory to earn it within a year of your PPL. After your PPL you are going to need a ton of XC hours, a ton of simulated instrument time, and a ton of ground and air instruction.. like someone else said, those 40 hrs blocks will only be "half the cost" assuming you can knock all that stuff out in the minimum 40 hours for IR yet it took you well over 80hrs to get your PPL.. the math doesn't add up here

I appreciate the sentiment, and not here to stir any ill well.. the GA skies are small enough that it pays to have civility in our small community. But this proposal would not increase safety and would just add another very expensive barrier to new pilots

PS
according to the FAA "unintended flight in IMC" is **number 7** on the list of most common causes of GA accidents..:
1. Loss of Control Inflight
2. Controlled Flight Into Terrain
3. System Component Failure – Powerplant
4. Fuel Related
5. Unknown or Undetermined
6. System Component Failure – Non-Powerplant
7. Unintended Flight In IMC
8. Midair Collisions
9. Low-Altitude Operations
10. Other

source: https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=21274

Stopping those accidents comes back to basic PPL training and airmanship skills. The fact that fuel related accidents are that much higher than IMC related accidents is telling.. and a proof that laws don't automatically save lives (remember we have legal VFR fuel minimums and preflight items we're supposed to calculate and test.. technically fuel related accidents should be near impossible)

IN FACT, if we go by the NTSB, then IMC related accidents are not even in the top ten:
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/pr20170829.aspx

 

[jimmyjack]

40 hours here. 40.2 of instrument time when I got the IR,

Congratulations?

So already I spent 50% MORE money on the IR, and I did very little extraneous flying.

You're one person, and a rarity (for many reasons).

The IR does not prevent uncontrolled runway departures. The IR does not prevent the base to final stall. The IR does not prevent an excess of a nitrogen-oxygen mixture in the fuel tanks. The IR does not prevent loading up the plane beyond max gross on a hot day.

I didn't mention any of that. I mentioned exactly one thing, VMC into IMC deaths.

Yes, you must stay proficient to fly approaches, holds, use the terminology correct, etc, etc. But I personally feel that entering IMC and keeping your eyeballs on the instruments to 180° and get back into VMC is like learning a bicycle. It's getting used to the lack of visual feedback that keeps you from panicking. That's what the quick IFR section of private training attempts, and fails at, teaching.

 

[frfly172]

Having the IR is good for when you depart in marginal VFR and conditions go down rather than up.

 

[EdFred]

I didn't mention any of that. I mentioned exactly one thing, VMC into IMC deaths.

Which is so far down the list there are way more important things to focus on.

 

[Scott@KTYR]

I've read a number of debates over the years (on POA and elsewhere) about whether or not an IR really is useful in the small planes we typically fly. (Apologies to any pros on here who fly serious planes...)

This Saturday I planned to fly from Orlando Exec (KORL) to Craig in Jacksonville (KCRG) to pop across the street and look at cars. Seemed like a nice excuse to fly somewhere, there was no convective forecast until around 2PM. I was going to leave KORL by 8AM, check out the cars shortly after 9AM and be back to KORL by noonish well ahead of the thunderstorms. It was a great plan.

7AM, on my way to the airport I called for a briefing. KCRG is LIFR. As is KSJG (Saint Augustine) KFIX (Flagler County), KDAB (Daytona Beach) etc. KORL is clear. KTIX (Titusville) is clear. But there is a band of low clouds across the north part of the state. Even inland so I can't sneak around to the west. Briefer says "VFR flight is not recommended but it should clear by 9AM."

I decided to wait until about 8:30 and see if it did start to clear. Called again. KCRG is now VFR but all the intermediate airports are still IFR. No reports on cloud tops but probably not very thick. Still VFR flight not recommended. But I decided to fly out to the coast and see how it looked. By the time I finish preflight and taxi out, clouds in Orlando are broken (but not very broken) at 1400 feet. I do one lap around the pattern because I can use the practice and then quit. No way I'm scud running to the coast to see if I can get OVER clouds.

I also decide to not wait any longer because if I leave later, I will be pushing into the thunder storms on the way back.

This flight would have been easy if I had the IR. There was no convective activity, the destination was 800 feet and 2 miles by the time I would have arrived. But I scrubbed because I do not yet have the rating. So there's one data point: IR would have saved my flight.

John

When do you start your IFR Training? It will make you a better pilot and allow you to fly more missions.

 

[James331]

Yep.

As does spin training.

But even with an Instrument rating, some flights should not be flown. Through convective is one, icing is another, and LIFR/marine layer is another. I've done three flights that taught me a lot about that last one - two ILS to minimum (same trip....) at Lakefront and Brazoria, and once where the ground fog built so fast that I could see the runway lights VFR but passed through the layer 10' off the deck. The lessons are now ingrained.

That said, the Instrument rating is immensely valuable. And well worth doing. But no one should expect that it will solve all issues. To the OP's point, I might well do the flights IFR if sufficient approach procedures are available at the destination, but if we were talking IFR with low clouds in the evening, I'd really think twice to determine the dew-point spread and winds.

IMHO the instrument isn't really about flying, stick and rudder and what not arent nearly that important, it's mostly just procedures and navigation, more like navigating a submarine than flying a airplane, it just happens to be in a plane, if that makes sense.

Personally I think being a good backcountry pilot requires far more skill than being a good IFR pilot, and that's from someone who makes his money flying a good chunk of hard IFR.

 

[Tantalum]

But I personally feel that entering IMC and keeping your eyeballs on the instruments to 180° and get back into VMC is like learning a bicycle. It's getting used to the lack of visual feedback that keeps you from panicking.

I agree with you on this totally. My point though is that unless you use IR often for your mission, and by often I mean couple times a month, then those skills will rust fast. Requiring someone to get their IR license but then having them do their standard bounce around the local airstrips for barbecues fun those skills will erode

A while back we had a thread about things we wish we learned in PPL.. my two items were more about powerplant mechanics and inadvertent IMC. A lot of PPL hood work is pretty basic plane stuff.. I think if PPL flights had a requirement for some actual and a higher requirement of time for "hood work" then that would help keep people right side up. You are right, it is the panic that screws people.. and a hood can't replicate that