Instrument Rating, not needed?

[Lance F]

To Meanee, the OP. When you come to Atlanta, please look me up. I'm based at Covington on the east side. I'll be glad to talk to you about instrument flying around here. I've done a lot of it, both in single piston engine equipment and in bigger stuff. Plus we have good pancake breakfasts.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Just my 2 cents, but getting a instrument rating is mainly a matter of need. You should assess your goals and requirements and train to meet those objectives. Like anything in aviation an advanced rating, like a more advanced aircraft, requires more maintenance to keep it safe. If you don't fly enough to stay current the words on your ticket are just extra ink. Ignore those who don't know you and say you must have it, and do the same to those who say you don't. You are PIC. You make the call.
I've had the good fortune to get a bit of instrument time in my career and now that I just fly for fun I find the utility of that experience adds to my options. But I still need to practice just as hard as a newly minted pilot. Instrument flying requires precision, this comes at a price.

 

[Bob Noel]

From one perspective, getting the instrument rating is like getting the private certificate. If you don't maintain instrument proficiency, you still have the rating. You can take a break from flying, you still have your pilot cert.

We know how to regain currency and proficiency.

 

[murphey]

Best $1.97 you'll ever spend. http://www.valorebooks.com/textbook.../20/12&buy=3&gclid=CODAm7SG-LECFaaDQgodGmgAOA

Same book for free on FAA website

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli....cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22268

and the updated weather services

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...cfm/go/document.information/documentID/215166

 

[murphey]

Flying a single engine airplane IMC in convective weather without radar, with a single vacuum source, single electrical source, and minimal instrumentation, one puts one's self unnecessarily in a very precarious position. Yes, it's unwise.

But that's not what you said earlier:

" One has little to no business flying in the clouds in single engine equipment (one generator, one vacuum source, one engine, no radar, etc).

In the current note, you added the condition "convective weather" which most of us would agree. But benign fog and such is perfectly reasonable in a small spam can.

 

[LandSickness]

What would prevent a student at any acceptable level training under the hood? If there is an IFR requirement for becoming a Private Pilot, what would prevent a Private Pilot(or for that matter, a Sport Pilot) taking more than required training until he or she felt at the very least VFR into IMC proficient without necessarily pursuing the rating? The rating seems less important than the level of preparation achieved. I'm sure there are Sport Pilots with more hours in the same type plane than a Private Pilot that could, under the same conditions, be considered more proficient, independent of the ratings.

I'm a private pilot student simply because it would enable me to fly many more aircraft than a Sport Pilot can. The Sport Pilot cert, even with restrictions, fits 99% of my mission. No desire to fly at night, or in marginal weather though I see the value in being proficient at it. That wouldn't prevent me from training without pursuing a rating until I was confident in my ability to handle a particular circumstance.

 

[DouglasBader]

If there is an IFR requirement for becoming a Private Pilot, what would prevent a Private Pilot(or for that matter, a Sport Pilot) taking more than required training until he or she felt at the very least VFR into IMC proficient without necessarily pursuing the rating? The rating seems less important than the level of preparation achieved.

No doubt the important part is proficiency and understanding, not the rating. However, a holistic understanding of instrument flight is more than simply being able to hold the wings level by reference to instruments.

There's no IFR requirement for becoming a private pilot; only a requirement for very minimal training in flight by reference to instruments. That's not an IFR requirement. The sole aim of that exposure is a brief introduction to the use of instruments, and a wave at helping the burgeoning pilot to avoid rolling over in an inadvertent encounter with IMC.

IFR is different than IMC. IMC refers to instrument conditions, specifically instrument weather conditions. IFR refers to rules.

It's important to remember that a little training is a dangerous thing. I'm all for someone seeking out additional training, and you're absolutely right that any pilot, student, sport, private, recreational, may seek out additional training that may include flight by reference to instruments. I applaud the individual who does so. The instructor who provides this training must always be mindful, however, that a little training is a dangerous thing, and a positive exposure to flight by reference to instruments may serve more to instill a false sense of confidence. Along with that training should come equal training and discussion on why one shouldn't be in those conditions, and how to avoid them.

But that's not what you said earlier:

As has already been explained, the first post, already identified by number, was to a different set of questions. Convection was certainly mentioned in the latter. Asked and answered. Go back and read.

In the current note, you added the condition "convective weather" which most of us would agree. But benign fog and such is perfectly reasonable in a small spam can.

In that "benign fog" where to you intend to put the airplane down after the engine failure?

How good are you at partial panel work? It's not the same as doing it under the hood, when you're doing it in the real environment.

Have you ever landed on an asteroid the size of Texas in an attempt to blow it up so is misses the earth thereby saving all mankind?

I have not. Have you?

 

[weilke]

What would prevent a student at any acceptable level training under the hood? If there is an IFR requirement for becoming a Private Pilot, what would prevent a Private Pilot(or for that matter, a Sport Pilot) taking more than required training until he or she felt at the very least VFR into IMC proficient without necessarily pursuing the rating?

That is like 'a little bit pregnant'.

There is a fair number of VFR into IMC accidents where the pilot 'was working on his instrument rating' (including JFK jr). This is one of the areas where a little knowledge can be more dangerous than nothing at all.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Oh we have icing here that'll crash the airplanes I fly in IMC in a matter of minutes. That's the thing - I know those conditions and I don't fly in them. The mistake people make is thinking that any cloud between October to March can't be flown in.

There is nothing wrong with saying you don't want to have an instrument rating or you don't want to fly in instrument conditions. But people don't generally say that, instead they convince themselves that such a rating is of little use and rarely does that carry any truth. You don't know what you don't know.


Ding, ding ding.


Actually, it's a hell of a lot of work for me to give someone an instrument rating and I surely don't do it because of the money. I teach those that I think truly appreciate it. I teach because I like giving back to aviation, rarely does the money cross my mind.

I pay my bills via much more profitable means that don't require I stand out on a ramp in the middle of the night in 35 knot blasting winds at 5 degrees OAT or bounce around in turbulence at 105F degree OAT for hours on end.

It was a joke, Jesse. I know you're not in it for the dough.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[nddons]

It was a joke, Jesse. I know you're not in it for the dough.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Jay, how often do you go under the hood with a CFI or safety pilot to practice flying by reference to instruments?

 

[AcroBoy]

If someone does not want to expend the time, money, or effort into getting their IR, why bother trying to convince them? They will rationalize all the reasons to not make the effort, and there is no convincing them otherwise.

 

[MBDiagMan]

The statistics underlying that 'killing zone' concept have been called into question as he did not take into account that a large proportion of private general aviation flying is done by pilots with less than 1000hrs. Probably a valid thought exercise, but when looked at in an incremental manner (will the next hour of flying kill me), there is probably not much difference between hour 51 and hour 2001.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The statistics in his book seem very clear, supporting the first 350 hours as the statistical "Killing Zone." Even the FAA decided that it was better to encourage pilots to move to instrument training right away.

 

[MBDiagMan]

That is like 'a little bit pregnant'.

There is a fair number of VFR into IMC accidents where the pilot 'was working on his instrument rating' (including JFK jr). This is one of the areas where a little knowledge can be more dangerous than nothing at all.

IMHO anyone who is in instrument training and THINKS that they are safe to fly in the clouds is a fool, JFK Jr. not withstanding. Sorry to be harsh.

Your statement reminds me of an old family joke. "Don't go near the river until you learn how to swim." How will you ever learn to swim if you don't get in the water?

 

[LandSickness]

I'm not talking about training to build courage to make a bad decision. Being proficient is also about knowing when not to fly. Just as the introduction to instrument flying is part of the private pilot training, that training should also help the student better assess the risk of flying in certain conditions. You can study law and become very proficient and yet never pass the bar. You can't practice law, but does that mean you don't know it?

That is like 'a little bit pregnant'.

There is a fair number of VFR into IMC accidents where the pilot 'was working on his instrument rating' (including JFK jr). This is one of the areas where a little knowledge can be more dangerous than nothing at all.

 

[spiderweb]

I've landed in strong winds and heavy sandstorms and convective storms in Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, UAE, Pakistan, India, most of the 'Stans, and numerous other places throughout the region. I've done it in fairly sophisticated equipment, and with some very old, somewhat unsophisticated equipment, often at night. I've done that flying into some nasty thunderstorms, in heavy icing conditions, with shooting and rocket fire, and on clear calm days, as well as many nights.

Contrast that against VFR flights under power lines, down burning canyons in formation with other aircraft in low visibility, in severe turbulence, and other associated challenges.

Single pilot IFR is still among the heaviest workloads and most demanding environments available in aviation. Particularly civilian aviation. For most of those participating in this forum, that is the case.



Then don't. Easy.

That said, don't justify inappropriate equipment or circumstance by cost. One ought not strike out over the ocean in an ultralight on the grounds one can't afford a Boeing.

I did convective weather penetration and research in Learjets. I certainly wouldn't have rented one to do that, and I certainly wouldn't have done that at all if I weren't being paid to do so as part of a professionally-run, dedicated research program. I also wouldn't have done it in a Cessna 172.

During the time I did that, I often encountered instrument weather. While we flew ad mid and high altitudes often to penetrate the cells, we also ended up frequently flying instrument approaches to minimums in rain, sandstorms, and other phenomena. I wouldn't have been probing the weather in inappropriate equipment, and wouldn't have been flying point to point at lower altitudes in inappropriate equipment, either. The most basic, simplest equipment we had in use in that operation were Cheyennes and King Air's.

It's also worth noting that even with the equipment we had, which was stuffed with sensor stations, had hardpoints on the wings with sensor packages, and had dispensable pyrotechnic equipment to map and track the cells, I also helped build a network of doppler radar stations on the ground which were part of that operation. Those stations were constructed specifically to allow us to do that research program, and were manned exclusively by our own people, mostly meteorologists and scientists, with whom we had constant contact while we mapped our and flew the cells. We consulted and constructed SKEW-T and other data sources and depictions and we thoroughly briefed and debriefed everything, as well as data-recorded every moment, along with samples, photographic records, and so forth. In short, we didn't blast off willy-nilly into the weather.

Without that, we ought not, and wouldn't have gone into those conditions.

You may not be able to afford to rent a Learjet. I can't afford it either. I don't rent a Learjet. I also don't fly into weather without adequate equipment.

Having an instrument rating may make you legal to blast off into weather. It doesn't mean you should. Simply because you can afford to rent something that will lift you into the air and propel you forward doesn't mean you ought to be in the weather.

I recently refused a single engine flight as dark approached, because the airplane wasn't instrument equipped (it was night equipped, but VFR-only). The flight was over an area with few landing options, particularly at night, and few surface references. I stopped and spent the night, before continuing on in the morning. Insofar as I was concerned, those night conditions were instrument conditions in which I wasn't going to fly the single engine (turbine) airplane. If I couldn't see to make a forced landing, I wasn't going. I didn't.

You have your opinions, which are explained well.

In my opinion, "light" or "medium" IFR flying a Cirrus with at least double redundancy in everything except for the engine is an acceptable risk, and also a good way to fly.

 

[ClimbnSink]

If someone does not want to expend the time, money, or effort into getting their IR, why bother trying to convince them? They will rationalize all the reasons to not make the effort, and there is no convincing them otherwise.

Sounds like you are assuming getting the ir is the default proper thing to do. Which it isn't.

 

[DouglasBader]

In my opinion, "light" or "medium" IFR flying a Cirrus with at least double redundancy in everything except for the engine is an acceptable risk, and also a good way to fly.

I'm not a big fan of cirrus for various reasons, but you're right: matching the equipment to the mission, as well as the pilot to the equipment and the mission, is a crucial part of determining one's suitability to actually accomplish the mission.

Dual redundancy is a big plus, to a point. I don't know what light or medium IFR means, but it probably means different things to different people. If it means that conditions are such that you can't execute a forced landing due to darkness or visibility or other obscuring phenomena, then it's probably a poor idea.

Risk isn't risk until one makes it so. That is, hazards exist everywhere: we turn them into risk by putting them in play. Our job is to eliminate risk. We do that in many ways: by doing something else, by altering the conditions, by leaving a back door open or a way out to mitigate and eliminate the risk by expanding our choices, and so on. Risk isn't acceptable. Alternate solutions are.

Someone mentioned a thin layer with adequate altitude below the layer to recognize and execute a forced landing. That's a hazard (the layer), that's become a risk (taking the flight) mitigated by knowing the underlying terrain (farm fields, sand bars or suitable highways, etc), with options. That's risk elimination. That's one thing: blasting off into the weather to fly, or blasting off to go shoot approaches to minimums, or flight over widespread fog is entirely something else.

 

[weilke]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The statistics in his book seem very clear, supporting the first 350 hours as the statistical "Killing Zone." Even the FAA decided that it was better to encourage pilots to move to instrument training right away.

Private pilots fly something like 65hrs per year on average, a good number of private pilots quit aviation after a few years. If one plotted the hours flown by pilots with 100,200,300 etc. hours, there would be a big hump on the left and a long tail to the right. If you integrate area under the curve, you will find that the majority of hours in private pilot GA is flown by pilots with less than x (probably 300 or so) hours. So it is not terribly suprising that the majority of accidents happen to pilots with less than 300hrs.

If you look on page 14 of the 2010 Nall report, you will find the following:

The 24% of accident flights
commanded by commercial pilots
and 13% flown by ATPs include all
of the accidents in dual instruction
and on positioning flights as well as
most of those made for public benefit,
aerial observation, and other types of
aerial work. However,​

​

​

​

two-thirds of all
non-commercial accidents involving
ATPs (104 of 156) and more than 60%
of those befalling commercial pilots
(174 of 280) occurred on personal
flights. These included 77% and
62% of fatal accidents, respectively,
demonstrating once again the
fundamental differences between the
natures of personal and professional​

flight operations.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/10nall.pdf

Now, ATPs have 1500hrs+, CPLs have 250hrs+. It is the operation (personal flights outside of the constraints of part 121,135,91k or a corporate flight department) that is risky, not the raw hours of the pilot. Rick Beach studied the Cirrus accident rates and found the same thing, people spike in with 100hrs, 1000hrs or 10,000hrs. It is the next hour that counts, not the thousand behind you.

 

[spiderweb]

I'm not a big fan of cirrus for various reasons, but you're right: matching the equipment to the mission, as well as the pilot to the equipment and the mission, is a crucial part of determining one's suitability to actually accomplish the mission.

Dual redundancy is a big plus, to a point. I don't know what light or medium IFR means, but it probably means different things to different people. If it means that conditions are such that you can't execute a forced landing due to darkness or visibility or other obscuring phenomena, then it's probably a poor idea.

For me, the matching is what is important. I am a pilot of probably average skill, and I fly less than 100 hours a year. In an old Cessna, barely certified for IFR, The worst I would fly in is hazy VFR. In the Cirrus, with double redundancies, and with NexRad, traffic, stormscope, etc., I would do more--but not anything close to legal limits.

For example, personal mins for me are +500 feet and +1 mile over published mins, daytime, and +1000 feet and +2 miles over published mins, nighttime.

Embedded thunderstorms can be avoided using NexRad, but the images are old, so the storms have to 50% or less along the route, and no penetrating of lines.

During icing season, I want the clouds to be at least 1,000 feet over MEA (and MRA), as well as the freezing level. That way, if I do pick up ice, I know I can descend quickly to shed, and still be at or above MEA. (This is not a FIKI Cirrus, but if it were, I would not fly through anything reported more than light, and it would still want the above criteria.)

That's me, an average pilot, flying in a very capable single, giving myself margins.

 

[Ken Ibold]

What I'm getting out of this thread is the anti IFR posts seam very defensive.

Yes the IR is maybe the toughest mental thing that you will ever do in your life. Even if you do train for the IR it doesn't mean that you will be capable of passing the check ride. I know several PP that quit during training and now are always being defensive saying that the IR is not necessary.

IMO the instrument rating separates the men from the boys. Even if you get the IR and you have bad judgement you won't be any safer. However, with the IR you will have the knowledge to make better decisions.

I can think of more then ten times when the weather fools have forecast good VFR for my entire trip and then I end up flying the approach to minimums.

For those of us that have flown approaches and popped out at 200' and within seconds touching down on the runway at an airport that you have never been to then taxiing up to the FBO and have all the VFR pilots in the lounge just stare at you then you will know how important the IR is.

I agree with many of your statements, but disagree with your conclusion. The IR is essential if you want to use the airplane as a traveling tool. No question about that. But there are a whole lot of people who do not use their airplane as a traveling tool, and for them there may be better bang for the buck. Do not assume that the color you paint your life is suitable for everyone.

When I was traveling a lot in one of my cross country airplanes, I challenged myself to always fly to ATP standards. When I ditched transportation-oriented aircraft in favor of a Pitts, a different set of "essential skills" were required. Look at the accident database. There are a lot of VFR into IMC accidents. But there are also a heck of a lot of runway loss of control accidents. So someone who is not interested in GA flying for transportation may be better served by working on stick and rudder, or aerobatics, or gliders, or some other pursuit that focuses more on what they want to get out of the aircraft.

 

[denverpilot]

Actually, it's a hell of a lot of work for me to give someone an instrument rating and I surely don't do it because of the money. I teach those that I think truly appreciate it. I teach because I like giving back to aviation, rarely does the money cross my mind.

I pay my bills via much more profitable means that don't require I stand out on a ramp in the middle of the night in 35 knot blasting winds at 5 degrees OAT or bounce around in turbulence at 105F degree OAT for hours on end.

Which also means I'm all the more grateful that you stood out in -10F (!) at night on a cold ramp in December, and spent significant time showing me your techniques for looking at the clouds we DID fly in for roughly 10 hours of Actual, in my piddly-assed can't-possibly-go-there you're-gonna-die-OMG-OMG 182.

(Description of said 182 adjusted for Doug. Ha.)

As I recall, we encountered ice twice. Once was a trace right at the tops that was unforecast and unreported, and we had pre-discussed the possibilty that it was there by reviewing the Skew-T. You were trying to keep me in Actual for the experience but as soon as it started in a very isolated area out East of the airport where we chose to do a hold, the escape option was already defined and executed... Go up. Now.

Less than 500' later, I had the hood on and we were in daylight. Which not only matched the Skew-T but was also reported on PIREPs we looked up on the ground.

The other was on the ground. Hahaha. I'll probably never see the exact conditions again for a long time to land and then ice up taxiing in. That was impressive.

How many people get through the rating and have never seen it? Lots.

So, I'm extremely grateful for the experience, as a never-ending reminder of why the 182 isn't the airplane to even think about screwing around in ice with.

I will use every brain cell in my head to avoid it, with the knowledge that if I find it someday anyway, it's time to act *right now* to get the hell out of it.

Doug, cranky as he is, has a point. If we all had access to the perfect gear, we'd all fly it. We don't, so we have to make due within the limitations of ourselves and our airframes.

Personally, I just take it as a warning that I have to work harder than Doug does with my aircraft and lack of, as Doug says, a dedicated dispatch office -- to make a go/no-go series of decisions that start on the ground and continue throughout the flight.

And that's how Jesse teaches as well... constant re-assessment of the weather and any changes.

Go/no-go isn't a one-time call in VFR flying, it's even less so in IMC flying. The Instrument ticket and IMC don't make the decision easier, they make it harder. Show up well up your game, or you'll get bit.

 

[BurtM]

it really depends on how much travelling you plan on doing and how much time and money you plan on dedicating to remaining proficient.

If you want to be a better, safer pilot, I'd recommend learning to fly gliders.

This.

 

[chemgeek]

If you want to travel places, then and IR and reasonably proficient pilot takes all the stress out of flying marginal VFR. An IR will NOT enable to fly a single engine light plane in thunderstorms or during the icing season. But it opens up all those marginally crappy days (which are common here in the Rickets Belt).

There is no better feeling than climbing on top of a broken deck into the sunshine on a XC while the VFR folks are scud running or dodging low ceilings with the radio station antennas.

The proficiency you will have to demonstrate will also make you a more precise pilot.

 

[BurtM]

It will definitely make you a better, more precise, pilot. It also helped me fly on days other than CAVU, which means I can go places.

I've heard the same from several people.

But what I wonder is, why does it take instrument training for a person to be able to control bank, altitude or airspeed accurately?

Some people act like it's a revelation when they find out the airspeed/attitude combination to make an AC follow an ILS. That's stuff a person should know as a bare PP so you can land at a grass strip without a PAPI.

Not picking on you, don't get me wrong. But ever since FAA changed the IR rules 25 years ago, the argument has been that a person is an accident waiting to happen without an IR, so they might as well go from neo-PP to instrument rating. Even if that means issuing an IR with about zero actual IR time. Doesn't make much sense to me.

The latest issue of Flying has the Aftermath column dedicated to a person with 300 hours, an IR and a capable plane coming to grief.

Anyway, I've never met a person that knew more about weather than a glider/sailplane pilot, so Tony is right.

 

[nddons]

I've heard the same from several people.

But what I wonder is, why does it take instrument training for a person to be able to control bank, altitude or airspeed accurately?

Some people act like it's a revelation when they find out the airspeed/attitude combination to make an AC follow an ILS. That's stuff a person should know as a bare PP so you can land at a grass strip without a PAPI.

Not picking on you, don't get me wrong. But ever since FAA changed the IR rules 25 years ago, the argument has been that a person is an accident waiting to happen without an IR, so they might as well go from neo-PP to instrument rating. Even if that means issuing an IR with about zero actual IR time. Doesn't make much sense to me.

The latest issue of Flying has the Aftermath column dedicated to a person with 300 hours, an IR and a capable plane coming to grief.

Anyway, I've never met a person that knew more about weather than a glider/sailplane pilot, so Tony is right.

Good thing. You had to reach all the way back to post #5.

I'm not a CFI, so this is just my own experience. Anyone who has a PPL has flown to PTS standards with an examiner. After getting your ticket, how many people practice to that level of precision any more? Except for a BFR, no one is going to bust you for busting an altitude or heading - its not like your going to die from it. So for me I could feel myself get lazy. I certainly never thought about finding the exact combination of pitch and power for different flight regimes.

But my eyes were opened while training for my IR. I was controlling the airplane with much greater precision. And while in the enroute and approach phases, knowing someone else at ATC is watching you made me focus on alt and heading like never before.

I also obtained 10 hours of actual IMC, much of it at night, and some of it below minimums for both precision and non precision approaches.

 

[gismo]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The statistics in his book seem very clear, supporting the first 350 hours as the statistical "Killing Zone." Even the FAA decided that it was better to encourage pilots to move to instrument training right away.

Suppose that the median hour total for GA pilots is right around 350 hours and the distribution is nearly gaussian. In that case without any direct correlation between hours and accident rates you would find a peak in accidents around the 350 hour mark simply because that's where the majority of the happen to be.

Kinda like the HR specialist that got all worked up about people extending their weekends by calling in sick when he discovered that 40% of the sick days at his company were Mondays and Fridays.

 

[weilke]

Fwiw, Morris Riggin, DPE in Madison, SD just cut the seal off my certificate and handed me a nondescript printout that says 'Instrument Airplane' and 'Airplane Multiengine VFR only'.

The only cloud I can see right now is a level V TS with a severe warning on the ground about 50 miles east of me

 

[dell30rb]

It is the next hour that counts, not the thousand behind you.

I read a book "the next hour" by richard collins. Basically, he makes your point.

 

[comanchepilot]

Just for the hell of it and thanks to a F-14 RIO freind, I flew the F-14 SIM one time at Miramar and was 1 for 5 at night with a pitching deck and that one was pure luck. The others were either ramp strikes or I hit the island.

Cheers

its all mental. You KNOW you are gonna trap the 3 wire - and if you don't then you have an excuse. Mom moved, or the LSO blinked or any one a 1000 things prevented that 3 wire.

Hence, my callsign - Phonebook . . . .

as in, "Hey Farrell, you've got more excuses than there are names in the Manhattan phonebook. . . ." and there you go. It was a perfect trap in my book - now lets talk about that gust over the fantail . .

confidence is what is required to successfully operate single pilot IFR. Not cockiness - just knowing that you are prepared for engine falling off if need be is enough to prevent the onset of stupid disease - which has killed more pilots than mechanical failures.

 

[chemgeek]

But what I wonder is, why does it take instrument training for a person to be able to control bank, altitude or airspeed accurately?

An IR is not required to be able to control an aircraft to tighter tolerances. But you are REQUIRED to demonstrate the ability to earn the IR. In addition, an IR also requires the demonstration of additional flight planning and management skills not required for the PPL. Most importantly, the IR does allow you to legally fly in IMC, which CAN add additional safety of flight options.

If you are a bad pilot or exercise poor judgment, it won't matter what ratings you have.

Cheers.

 

[peppy]

Getting an IR is always helpful. How much comes down to mission and the aircraft you fly. Even if you are flying VFR, there are IFR flights around you. Having your IR will help you understand what they are thinking. It will also help your radio work. If you fly a lot of cross county flights then the IR is very helpful. Around Atlanta the summer haze will make you understand how marginal, marginal VFR is. Flying in the system can make travel easier. On the west coast the marine layer will severely limit you if VFR only.

After I first got my license, I made a trip from LZU to MOB in a 172. At about 20 miles out of MOB I was down to 700' under thin overcast. MOB was reporting clear skies. Sure enough it went clear just after that. Then and there I knew I wanted an IR. On a flight from PDK to JKA I stopped along the way as the layer below me became broken. I refueled so I had enough to turn back and went on to find scattered conditions but had I been IFR it would have been a nonissue.

The IR can even help when CAVU VFR. Back when I was married my wife and I were flying into Luray (LUA). She was VFR only at that time. A baggage door issue had resulted in a big delay and it was now a late night flight. Arriving at LUA she wanted to do a straight in to 4. I said it was dark. Looking at the approach plates showed no approach to 4 (back then. There is one now). That spoke volumes to me and I told her I was talking her through the GPS 22. She said it looked good for a straight in. I told her it was dark and she wouldn't see the hills until she hit one. She flew the GPS 22. The next day we saw the hills on the straight in to 4.

If you fly a Cub the IR will be nice but no big deal. If you fly a trip plane such as a Bonanza or a Cirrus it is highly advisable to get one and most insurance companies will push you to get the rating.

 

[chemgeek]

The IR can even help when CAVU.

This is under-appreciated. Flying on an IFR flight plan takes the hassle out entering class B or certain special use airspace like the Washington DCA SFRA.

And I don't fly VFR night XC anymore. Too many dark hills near runways in CNY much of the NE corridor.

 

[Dead Stick]

As others have said, what you ought to do next depends upon what you want or expect out of flying. If the extent of your flying is going to be weekend hamburger runs then an instrument rating will probably be overkill. However, if you're going to be depending upon your airplane to get you places reliably and on any type of a schedule then it's pretty much a no-brainer. All that being said, regardless of the type of flying you do, you really ought to learn how to fly now that you've got your license. Personally, I'd recommend that you take a hard look at some glider training. It's not a lot of work and the skill set and confidence that you will develop will serve you well as long as you fly. (Motor? I don't need no stinking motor.) After that, you'd be well served to get some tailwheel and aerobatic training. The glider time will give you confidence and skill for that time when your engine decides it's had enough. The tailwheel training will teach you what your feet are for. And that basic aerobatic training will come in handy when some yoyo controller accidentally cuts you in a little too close behind that B757 ahead of you on approach. That training will serve you well regardless what you do with your license in the future.

 

[Henning]

So, I am a newly minted private pilot, who wants to be a bit better at what I do. So naturally, my next step would be Instrument Rating, I assumed.

Yesterday, my CFI had a small get together. Bunch of his friends came in. Some owners, some renters. And when I asked about IR, nobody is instrument rated. People with over 600 hours are still PPL (not even commercial). One guy has HP/Complex ratings, because his plane is HP and Complex.

I thought that instrument rating is more or less a required rating. In my opinion, it will make me a safer pilot. But looking around, I do not see that people actually have it. Is it some sort of a trend? Is IR at the end not worth it?

You'll get many differentiating opinions on this when it comes to private/recreational flying. I am IR, have been for a long time. Outside of using it a few times for private use, the rest of the times i have used it were for flying jobs. I have not done a personal flight IFR in over a decade because 2 major factors. I do not like it, to me a flight in the clouds is a waste of time and money, if I don't want to see anything along the way an airliner gets me there way cheaper. I also don't have a plane that I think is safe in most of the IMC conditions I fly in which in the summer is loaded with thunderstorms and in the winter loaded with ice.

The flip side to that is that I still launch VFR in conditions most would not accept to fly VFR in due to the low altitudes I'm comfortable flying at (one of the reasons I pay to fly a twin) and stay visual underneath. There are people who will argue that the risk there is higher than the risk if 'in the system'. I don't really argue back on this as those arguments have validity. We all make our choices of what we are most comfortable with. I have spent most of my career at sea and flying as well below the clouds watch and dodging the weather above. In fact, over half of my 2500+ hours has been spent below 200' AGL, much of it maneuvering at 3' AGL, that I am much more comfortable down where I can see what's coming at me. There have been just a handful of flights that required delays of more than 2-3 hrs to complete, and I have made it through the cross Florida T-Storm line on more than one afternoon that had airliners sitting in Miami and Atlanta waiting.

There is also the matter of maintaining proficiency in IMC. Without SVT, IMO this requires 50hrs a year of dedicated instrument flying (not just flying every trip filed IFR and flown in VMC) with 100+hrs a year total flying minimum. I don't have that time to spend nor the desire to fly that much IMC.

 

[gprellwitz]

Flying a single engine airplane IMC in convective weather without radar, with a single vacuum source, single electrical source, and minimal instrumentation, one puts one's self unnecessarily in a very precarious position. Yes, it's unwise.

How about
Flying a single engine airplane IMC in non-convective weather without radar, with a dual single vacuum source, dual single electrical source, and minimal instrumentation a standard six pack, IFR GPS, handheld aviation GPS with XM weather and/or iPad with ADS-B weather?

 

[Henning]

Okay, I plan on having my IR in 13', but I'd like to put some challenge to this assumption.

There is no challenge available. You will learn things and develop skills that you would not otherwise. This alone will make you a far better pilot than if you didn't know these things or develop the skills. The only question to be answered is will you put this advantage to work and in your benefit. The answer to that may be enough no that it makes it not worth the cost, especially if you dedicate enough time and fuel to maintain proficiency for the one or two flights a year you fly IFR out of operational need.

 

[DouglasBader]

How about
Flying a single engine airplane IMC in non-convective weather without radar, with a dual single vacuum source, dual single electrical source, and minimal instrumentation a standard six pack, IFR GPS, handheld aviation GPS with XM weather and/or iPad with ADS-B weather?

A standard six-pack with the analog instrumentation provided in most light airplanes today is minimal, and of poor quality. A typical RC allen mechanical gyro tends to be weak, and subject to degredation and failure. Same for a typical DG or mechanical HSI. Useable, but bottom end of what one ought to consider.

XM weather is nice for VFR, but is no substitute for radar.

There's a lot to be said for a second, third, or fourth engine.

Single engine flight should always take into account finding a place to put the airplane on the ground, in the event of an engine failure. It's inherent to flying with a single engine.

 

[TMetzinger]

How about
Flying a single engine airplane IMC in non-convective weather without radar, with a dual single vacuum source, dual single electrical source, and minimal instrumentation a standard six pack, IFR GPS, handheld aviation GPS with XM weather and/or iPad with ADS-B weather?

Or:
How about Flying a single engine airplane IMC in non-convective weather without radar, with G1000 and independently electrically powered standby instruments as well as a handheld GPS ?

Really, isn't it about risk management rather than risk elimination? You can't eliminate all risk... you could be flying your Boeing and have a nuclear explosion or EMP knock you out of the sky. Or you could have a stroke while your FO has a heart attack. IT IS POSSIBLE.

 

[Garthur]

This is under-appreciated. Flying on an IFR flight plan takes the hassle out entering class B or certain special use airspace like the Washington DCA SFRA.

And I don't fly VFR night XC anymore. Too many dark hills near runways in CNY much of the NE corridor.

Don't know if it's been mentioned before but at night clouds are invisible and you will fly right into them so filing IFR at night is a good idea. Also; I have found myself flying on the gauges when crossing large bodies of water in VFR conditions and 10 mile visibility.

 

[DouglasBader]

Really, isn't it about risk management rather than risk elimination?

No, it's about risk elimination. Too many justify risk based on "calculated risks," and "managing" them.

There are many ways to eliminate risks. It's an unending, ongoing process that is evolutionary and continues from before the flight is conducted until after is is complete.

This has been previously addressed.

You can't eliminate all risk... you could be flying your Boeing and have a nuclear explosion or EMP knock you out of the sky.

That's been addressed in the design of the aircraft and in redundancy. A risk, however, doesn't exist until a hazard exists; a hazard becomes a risk when we put it at play.

I regularly plan around volcanic ash, surface-to-air threats, ice, thunderstorms, political boundaries, and a host of other considerations during the conduct of flights. I eliminate the issues associated with volcanic ash by avoiding known areas, having a team of personnel constantly monitor changing global conditions, and having inflight capability to be reached regarding necessary changes, as well as operating under IFR in contact with agencies responsible for monitoring and reporting that information. I address surface to air threats by; means that do not need discussion here. I have and use anti-ice, and utilize weather reports, forecasts, and airborne weather radar for thunderstorms. Flights are preplanned around certain political obstacles, or arrange passage through or into those locations as needed.

When a hazard is put in play, it becomes risk, and at such times it must be addressed by providing sufficient options that no risk is presented, alternate avenues are utilized to circumnavigate the risk, or the activity is not undertaken or discontinued.

Frankly, nuclear weapons and EMP aren't hazards we contend with or that we face, or that we put into play on any given flight. They're not risks. If someone detonates a nuclear weapon, thus creating a risk, we'll certainly address it at that time.