Instrument rating with VFR airplane

Coinneach said:
The primary reason I hate renting is that, inevitably, half the panel is tagged inop, and of the other half, half *is* inop but not tagged. I was really looking forward to owning, at least in part, an airplane that's impeccably maintained and not being beaten to death by students every day. More fool me, I guess.
Click to expand...

130 hrs is not much time. It was suggested to me to fly at least 200 hrs and then think about a IFR rating.

Your partners only have 500 hrs after 20-30 years?

I agree that the rating will make you a better pilot even if you don't stay current.

Would you or your partners be OK if you made the investment out of your pocket to repair stuff in the panel?

Around here renting a plane to get your IFR rating will cost you 9-12K approx. and at least a years time.

Good luck.
 
WDD said:
Get out of the partnership. You now know of a lot more things to consider before you get into anything like this again.

Averse to renting because sometimes some of the instruments are inop? How is that worse than the plane you have where you don't even have the instruments that are sometimes marked inop in the rental?
Click to expand...

Averse to renting because 1) airplane condition and b) availability (students bumping my reservations, can't go more than a couple hours away, etc). Also averse to paying rental fees while paying the monthlies on my own airplane.
 
flyingron said:
Note that unless all the named insureds get their instrument rating, it won't really change your premiums. I went through the same thing when I got my rating (Margy has no interest in doing so).
Click to expand...

And depending on your insurance carrier, the IR may only reduce your rate by 5% or so. That's expensive and time-consuming for only a few dollars a year. Get the IR because you want to fly IFR and avoid risky MVFR flight and potential VFR-into-IMC scenarios.
 
For whatever it's worth, my 2 cents would be to look for a new partnership or club. That's recognizing that it's easy to suggest other people spend their money.

Wanting everything in the plane to work doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Broken equipment is, at best, just ballast you don't need. As others have mentioned, I think this would not just be a common source of tension on the ground, but stress in the air, too. You're traveling around in a big aluminum can, maybe 30+ years old, filled with gasoline and a running engine, a couple of thousand feet in the air. Wanting all of the bits to work right would be the correct view here, in my opinion. Letting the visible non-critical parts fail would always have me wondering what other parts might be on the edge of failure that someone else decided were "non-critical" but weren't.

Or maybe a simpler version, if you're flying for fun, flying should be fun, not stressful.
 
Thread creep, it's inevitable. [exaggerated sigh here]

Comments and questions about the partnership, airplane, experience, etc aren't really applicable to my original question: since my airplane is VFR, would it make sense to pursue my instrument rating? Consensus appears to be a no, so I'll go with that.
 
Sorry. I might do it, but do it differently. Get a sim that can do IFR, and fly the crap out of it. None of the hours will count, but general consensus seems to be that it'll get your skills and knowledge up, and may be fun as well. Similarly, get an app for a phone/tablet to study for the written, keep going through it until you're in the 90's or wherever you want to be. Then later on, when you have sorted out better access to better equipment, go for it.
 
I have the Sporty's ground school, been working on it for eight months and still can't nail down the HSI presentation questions. I rage-quit FS20 a few months ago when ATC consistently screwed up vectors to final, aiming me at the center of the airport instead of the fix (plus a metric ton of other stupid bugs).
 
Coinneach said:
Thread creep, it's inevitable. [exaggerated sigh here]

Comments and questions about the partnership, airplane, experience, etc aren't really applicable to my original question: since my airplane is VFR, would it make sense to pursue my instrument rating? Consensus appears to be a no, so I'll go with that.
Click to expand...
I think it is applicable to your original question. If you don’t want to rent, and can’t do it it your airplane, than the answer is to get a new plane/partnership.
I just don’t see the thread creep. I also don’t see why you think it’s a big deal.
 
Yes get your IFR

You can’t In your current partnership plane

You can’t afford to rent to train and pay partnership fees at same time

Exit partnership


Your plane partnership is the tail wagging the IFR dog.
 
Albany Tom said:
Sorry. I might do it, but do it differently. Get a sim that can do IFR, and fly the crap out of it. None of the hours will count, but general consensus seems to be that it'll get your skills and knowledge up, and may be fun as well. Similarly, get an app for a phone/tablet to study for the written, keep going through it until you're in the 90's or wherever you want to be. Then later on, when you have sorted out better access to better equipment, go for it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure teaching yourself instrument flying in a home sim is a wise thing to do. The bad habits or incorrect techniques you acquire by not having professional instruction will be counterproductive in the long term. Now once you have the training and or rating, the sim is a wonderful tool in keeping those learned skills fresh. A simulator could also be a valuable/economical tool if used under the supervision of an instrument instructor.

It
 
Learning the IFR way and system I think would be helpful and would make you more attentive in the VFR world. One day you might have opportunity to partner or own a IFR certified plane.
Since the plane is No go for training- goto one of those schools/programs that condense and do it in days. Rent for the checkride and done
 
Coinneach said:
Thread creep, it's inevitable. [exaggerated sigh here]

Comments and questions about the partnership, airplane, experience, etc aren't really applicable to my original question: since my airplane is VFR, would it make sense to pursue my instrument rating? Consensus appears to be a no, so I'll go with that.
Click to expand...
The problem is many of us don’t accept your premise so answering the question is moot. I’d make the plane minimally ifr capable, screw what the partners say or find another situation. The ifr isn’t going to help you if the plane breaks down, so why bother with it? Your money and time is far better invested in fixing the aircraft or finding a better situation.
 
Coinneach said:
I'm the middle-of-the-road (or airway) guy. I don't need a GTN750 driving a GFC-600 to get me from KABC to KXYZ. I enjoy hand-flying and looking out the window. But I'm intolerant of any degree of mechanical defect in any of my vehicles and will happily pay whatever it takes to keep them squawk-free. From conversations with other owners and FBOs, apparently I'm in an extreme minority.
Click to expand...
I put all squawks into 3 categories:
1 - safety/airworthy: gets resolved,ASAP. Oddly enough, when I bought the cherokee first things I did was shoulder harnesses and completely re-did the seats. 30 yr old foam .... aint.
2 - reasonable improvemens: when I have funding.
3 - cosmetic (paint, for example) probably never
 
Coinneach said:
The primary reason I hate renting is that, inevitably, half the panel is tagged inop, and of the other half, half *is* inop but not tagged. I was really looking forward to owning, at least in part, an airplane that's impeccably maintained and not being beaten to death by students every day. More fool me, I guess.
Click to expand...
where are you located?
 
Instrument training can have two very different goals.

Instrument rating, and filing flights in instrument weather.
Or
Acquiring the instrument skills that will keep you alive if un intentional instrument flight occurs.

That second category does not require near as much equipment as the former. Gyro's that work, accurate altitude and ROC instruments, plus a navigation device to help you get to a suitable place to let down into visual conditions are sufficient.

My initial instrument training was in a plane with a normal set of instruments, plus a single radio that could either do VOR, or communicate. Vacuum for the directional and attitude gyro's came from two venturies, the turn and bank was electric.. The skills acquired in that "primitive" plane allowed me to learn quality scan technique, proper response to any deviation from straight and level flight, change altitude, and make smooth turns, and recover from unusual attitudes.

Once in that same plane, and later in a much better equipped Skyhawk, IFR certified, I flew into zero visibility at night, and had absolutely no stress in properly navigating and controlling the planes until back in visual conditions.

I do not approve of flying in instrument conditions without the rating, but I very much approve surviving un intentional flight into such conditions. Survival is not the result of luck, it is the result of training.

Getting just one of those VOR's working will meet the minimum for flying in IFR conditions, and even if out of your pocket, is the minimum you should do if you stay withy this partnership. A good instructor will be willing to teach you the basics in that plane.
 
Gary Ward said:
130 hrs is not much time. It was suggested to me to fly at least 200 hrs and then think about a IFR rating.

Your partners only have 500 hrs after 20-30 years?
Click to expand...

I started working on my IR immediately after getting my private at 67 hours. My 130 hours is spread out over 20 years due to poverty and illness. You were saying?
 
Coinneach said:
I have the Sporty's ground school, been working on it for eight months and still can't nail down the HSI presentation questions. I rage-quit FS20 a few months ago when ATC consistently screwed up vectors to final, aiming me at the center of the airport instead of the fix (plus a metric ton of other stupid bugs).
Click to expand...
Coinneach said:
I started working on my IR immediately after getting my private at 67 hours. My 130 hours is spread out over 20 years due to poverty and illness. You were saying?
Click to expand...

Get busy flying your own plane now to get current. Have some fun. Then think about the IFR rating down the road a little. Sure it is what comes next. I think you will learn a lot just flying VFR for a while. Then be more ready.

HSI and VORs questions I also struggled with at first. Then the more we trained the more the light bulbs came on. I needed both together(ground school and flight school) until I understood it enough to pass a ground test and a check ride flight.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a working VOR and DG and AI or TC?
You can do a lot of instrument training with that. VOR Approaches, Localizer Approaches, Holding. DME Arc’s Might have simulate a DME with a Handheld GPS or Tablet. You could probably do up to the 30 hour mark of your instrument rating in your airplane, Practice GPS approaches and buttonolgy on something like X-plane. Then rent for 10+ hours to prepare for the checkride in the plane you will take the checkride in.

What does the POA brain trust think about logging VFR practice approaches with something like a simulated DME For currency?

Brian
 
brcase said:
Do you have a working VOR and DG and AI or TC?
You can do a lot of instrument training with that. VOR Approaches, Localizer Approaches, Holding. DME Arc’s Might have simulate a DME with a Handheld GPS or Tablet. You could probably do up to the 30 hour mark of your instrument rating in your airplane, Practice GPS approaches and buttonolgy on something like X-plane. Then rent for 10+ hours to prepare for the checkride in the plane you will take the checkride in.

What does the POA brain trust think about logging VFR practice approaches with something like a simulated DME For currency?

Brian
Click to expand...

The OP said neither VOR was working (or I think he actually said they were trashed). An option might be to have an avionics shop (on your dollar, Coinneach) see what it would take to fix the inop indicators. If you had those fixed you could start with your airplane as brcase says and see how it works out.
 
somorris said:
The OP said neither VOR was working (or I think he actually said they were trashed). An option might be to have an avionics shop (on your dollar, Coinneach) see what it would take to fix the inop indicators. If you had those fixed you could start with your airplane as brcase says and see how it works out.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t sure exactly what “Trashed” meant, but you are probably right that it means totally inop. Out West I see enough GPS outages that having at least one working VOR is comforting especially when navigating in the smoke we have had the past couple months.

Brian
 
geezer said:
Instrument training can have two very different goals.

Instrument rating, and filing flights in instrument weather.
Or
Acquiring the instrument skills that will keep you alive if un intentional instrument flight occurs.
Click to expand...
I agree that some of what you learn training for an IR will stick with you for years, but most of it decays fast when you don't use it, much more so than basic stick-and-rudder skills like landing — operating the controls is muscle memory, but an IFR scan is mental discipline.

If you want your instrument skills to be available for an emergency, you'll need to use them (preferably in actual IMC or a good simulator) for at least a few hours every six months or so, or else you might just be giving yourself false confidence about your ability to cope with an inadvertent VFR into IMC emergency.

In the end, staying current is the big time and money commitment, not getting the initial rating.
 
geezer said:
Instrument training can have two very different goals.

Instrument rating, and filing flights in instrument weather.
Or
Acquiring the instrument skills that will keep you alive if un intentional instrument flight occurs.
Click to expand...

I think scenario #2 is likely over-optimistic, and may impart a false sense of security. If one does not keep current or proficient by flying IFR, or is not flying an aircraft that is appropriately IFR-equipped, one's previous IFR training may not be as helpful as one would hope in a VFR-into-IMC emergency. In addition, the attitude that "my IR skills will save me if I blunder into IFR conditions" is more likely to encourage VFR flight in MVFR conditions where it would be much safer and wiser to simply file IFR to begin with and be done with it. It will be a lot more challenging to transition to IFR in emergency than it is to file from the start. Even more so in a marginally or inadequately equipped aircraft. The accident files are full of fully-rated and current IFR pilots blundering into IMC while VFR. IR training is about much more than staying upright while escaping a VFR-into-IMC emergency. IR training is overkill for this purpose. One could become proficient in emergency instrument skills without the full monte of training for the IR.
 
chemgeek said:
The accident files are full of fully-rated and current IFR pilots blundering into IMC while VFR. IR training is about much more than staying upright while escaping a VFR-into-IMC emergency. IR training is overkill for this purpose. One could become proficient in emergency instrument skills without the full monte of training for the IR.
Click to expand...

The year that I earned my PPL, the FAA had just added the minimal Instrument skill requirement to the flight training and check ride.

My instructor went above and beyond the minimum before signing me off, and on an annual or oftener schedule, I took at least an hour of refresher to keep comfortable with "blundering" flight into clouds. You imply that without that training I might have been a safer pilot.

That first "blunder into clouds was on a CAVU weather report from a reporting station within20 miles of the blunder. I could see stars and incoming airliner traffic above, and house lights below, but then there was no outside reference. Who was responsible for me being in instrument conditions?
What is important is that I did have the fundamental skills and confidence in those ski8lls, and maintained directional control, made a standard rate turn for 180 degrees, no altitude change, and flew back out with no sweat .

The second event where I "blundered" into IFR conditions was again at night, and no reported clouds below 14,000 feet, Less than 2 hours after receiving that in person briefing in the Flight Service Station, I flew into zero visibility, heavy snow at 9,500 feet. How would I have avoided "blundering into clouds"? No night flying without an Instrument rating, and current?

I verified with the flashlight, carried in reach, as required by the FAR's, that I had snow outside the plane. I then notified the controller who was providing flight following to me that I was no longer in VFR conditions, and we determined that there was no traffic below me, and I made a "pilots discretion" descent to 5,500, where the moisture was rain, and ground became visible once more.

It is important to me that I was still on the center of V 3, no turns either direction had taken place, and no other aircraft had been placed in danger. My controller considered it a non event. Would I have been better off without my periodic instrument refreshers? I doubt that.

I am of the opinion that the IFR training for private pilot certificate is the most important change that the FAA ever made.
 
Last edited:
I think additional training is always a good thing. I don't believe there's any relationship between getting training and a persons overall attitude toward risk changing. Choosing to not learn something because it might give you a false sense of security is a silly argument, in my view. To me, it's an indication that your risk management skills are lousy. Fix that...through training, rather than avoiding learning new things. Maybe I'm being harsh, but it sounds like not wanting to learn math in fear that you might do your taxes wrong.
 
Albany Tom said:
I think additional training is always a good thing. I don't believe there's any relationship between getting training and a persons overall attitude toward risk changing. Choosing to not learn something because it might give you a false sense of security is a silly argument, in my view. To me, it's an indication that your risk management skills are lousy. Fix that...through training, rather than avoiding learning new things. Maybe I'm being harsh, but it sounds like not wanting to learn math in fear that you might do your taxes wrong.
Click to expand...
I think you misrepresented what people said. They said that the full instrument rating itself probably won't bring much benefit if you don't stay current, and might even create a false sense of security if you think of it as a get out of jail free card for being more cavalier about the risk of flying into IMC when you're on a VFR flight plan.

Nobody argued against the benefit of some instrument training — I'd recommend that every pilot get up with an instructor and do a couple of hours under the hood every year, even if they're VFR only. As for the the risks of thinking you have a bigger safety benefit than you really do (for example, someone with a 10-year-old instrument rating who hasn't kept current), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

I started on my instrument rating almost as soon as I finished my PPL, and I have no regrets: it's made a big difference to my flying in the 18 years since I got it. But an instrument rating is a use-it-or-lose-it kind of thing, not a one-time bucket list item that makes you permanently safer because you checked it off.
 
I hope I'm not putting words in people's mouths, that wasn't my intent. I interpreted the comments to mean that while a little bit of instrument training is a great idea, that getting an instrument rating that you might not be able maintain isn't a good idea. I believe that any instrument training is a good idea, including getting an instrument rating.

I'm in the middle of my own IR training, and the knowledge I have now, compared to what I had during my PP training, is making me safer already, in my view. Not because I feel any better prepared to keep the right side up in an emergency, but because I'm more aware of all of the things that could go wrong and lead to inadvertent flight into instrument conditions. I already had an understanding of the dangers of inadvertent entry into IFR conditions, and now I have more information about just how many things can go wrong, and how quickly, in IFR. I am less likely to get into IFR than before, because I have more knowledge. I don't see how more knowledge can lead to more danger, unless someone's internal risk compass is broken.

To me, currency/proficiency is a separate issue. Pilots need to remember that something like half of the fatal VFR into IFR accidents are with instrument rated pilots. I don't think that's an issue with pilots getting training that they shouldn't have, I think it's an issue with pilots not understanding that the consequences of lack of VFR and IFR proficiency are very different. In one case, the most likely outcome may be bent gear, or ground loop a taildragger. In the other case, your skills drop and you fly into a mountain on final.
 
You become a *much* better VFR pilot when you do your IFR.

A couple of suggestions:

- You are simming wrong. Get FS20 or even better XP11 and https://www.pilotedge.net/. If you can afford to rent for a few hours, you can afford PE.

- Speaking of simulator, find yourself an airport with a sim, a CFII, and start logging sim hours. You can do up to 20 depending on the sim. Not only does it count toward your IFR but you will be come a better VFR pilot simming.

- Your partnership is the wrong one - obviously. It’s time to start thinking of a new one. However, if you have the money, there is nothing wrong with renting your way to an IFR ticket. I HAD to do that for half of my training (check imminent) until I could get in a club/partnership (hooray I made it). But you need to find a CFII who has a flexible schedule and a school with a dedicated IFR plane (they are out there).
 
In the 1960's, the required equipment for night flight in all aircraft included a D cell flashlight of at least 2 cell size, within reach of the pilot.

In training, my instructor verified compliance on every night flight. He preferred that it be kept between my legs, as that was a place that was easiest to reach in a hurry.. A pre seat belt check item, as if it was not there, it was in the back seat, and difficult to reach, especially in a hurry, or if in IFR conditions, unexpectedly.

He was an outstanding instructor, the one I flew the most hours with, and a member of the top 6 in my time flying. My CFII who signed me off for Comm and Instrument was another of the top 6. My original 4 were the rest, although they each only flew with me once, they started me with the right techniques and attitudes.

He was also the CFI that I did my regular annual proficiency checks, usually about an hour, but as long as I wished. He gave me whatever training I felt that I needed, and he guided me with what he thought I might need, or found that I needed after we were in the air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top