Instrument Rating, not needed?

[Jay Honeck]

I completed most or the instrument training in 2002. Then we bought our first hotel. That was the end of "free time" as I knew it.

Since then, Mary (my wife, also a pilot) and I have very carefully run the numbers for the instrument rating, since to resume training (for me) and to start training (for her) would be a great hardship, timewise. Every time we come down solidly on the "not worth it" side of the equation. Here's why:

1. We carefully studied the weather in Iowa, (where we lived for 14 years) and tracked our flights. In a year there was surprisingly only one flight (out of 102) where we would have flown with the instrument rating that we were forced to scrub without it, simply because spam cans don't do ice or t-storms.

2. We fly more than most, but not often enough. Even flying twice a week, which is our intention, we would not fly often enough to stay IFR proficient.

3. To remain current and even marginally capable means flying IFR every flight. Of the guys I know who are current, this is how they achieve it -- and it sucks the life out of their flying.

In short, we didn't learn to fly just to spend every flight studying approach plates.

4. Of all the instrument rated pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- I can only name two who are instrument proficient, and one of them flies C-5s from Spain to Afghanistan every few months. I can only name a tiny number who are even instrument current. Its just incredibly difficult to remain instrument proficient on your own dime.

Now, of course, since 2010 we have lived in sunny south Texas, with 350+ VFR days per year, making the rating even less worthwhile.

So, my conclusions are:

1. Yes, the instrument training makes you a better pilot. So does flying more often, and self discipline.

2. Spend some of the $7000 you'll save by not getting the rating on XM or ADS-B weather. This will help keep you out of the weather, and is worth every penny, times two.

3. Be flexible. We have flown everywhere in our airplane, all VFR, all safely, for 18 years, simply by remembering that one rule: be flexible. If you can't get to Sun N Fun due to icing ahead -- land in Nashville and have the time of your life for a few days. (We did this in 2004; it remains one of our favorite vacations, ever -- and we had no intention of ever going to Nashville!)

Your mileage may vary, and my opinion could change in the future -- but my experience says "Nope, not worth it."

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[bbchien]

For a private pilot and commercial pilots who just get the rating because they have the hrs yet dont fly for a living (who I also categorize as private pilots) it only makes sense if you are going to do ALOT of IMC flying, it does make you more precise, BUT ONLY IF YOU KEEP UP ON IT!

If you just get your IFR ticket and rarely go IMC, its a waste of money and will make LESS SAFE of a pilot (see false confidence).

I disagree partially.

Even if you don't stay current, the tools for stumbling into IMC say, VFR at night, are must much sharper for that otherwise very fatal event.

 

[zaitcev]

Is IR at the end not worth it?

IR improves your schedule reliability by a lot in some parts of the country, for example in coastal California. All you need is to penetrate the marine layer, which is 10 seconds IMC, but cannot be done legally flying VFR. In New Mexico, IR is worthless. The east-coasters have varying opinions about its utility. In particular in regions of icing, IR and airplane capability march hand in hand. So you need to consider if you want it.

Note that IR is perishable. If you do not excercise it, might as well travel on airlines, IMHO.

 

[nddons]

I disagree partially.

Even if you don't stay current, the tools for stumbling into IMC say, VFR at night, are must much sharper for that otherwise very fatal event.

Thank you. I'm sure I'm not the only pilot who has scrambled to get 6 approaches in at the end of 6 months (and you know who you are), and found that I lost a lot less than I thought I would have lost with that much of a layoff. That's not how I plan it, but sometimes life intervenes.

Does that mean that I would launch in zero/zero, or plan on shooting approaches to minimums? Absolutely not. Does that mean I remember how to talk to ATC, can read an approach plate, and live with flying through a 2,000 ceiling to a visual landing? Yes. And if that 2,000 ft ceiling becomes a 200 ft. ceiling, there are always these things called "alternates."

 

[Jim Logajan]

A Google search will find various stats on whether an IR makes you a safer pilot; it doesn't appear to be an unequivocal given either way. Perhaps whatever is gained in skill is offset by the higher risk flights that IR pilots take; suggesting some form of risk homeostasis is at play.

Here is an excerpt of one such article:

"[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]A statement often heard from flight instructors is that the instrument rating “will make you a better pilot.” Certainly, our data indicates that this rating has some clear benefits both under VMC and IMC conditions. Notably, IFR-rated pilots enjoy a 50% reduction in the Stall/Spin/Loss of Control category under both VMC and IMC conditions when compared with their VFR-rated counterparts. On the other hand, the IFR-rated group got snared by other causes that seem to impact the VFR-rated cohort less often. First and foremost, the 6-fold higher mid-air collision rate under VMC conditions by the former group was obvious. Second, under IMC, following improper procedures leads to deadly consequences for IFR-rated pilots, this presumably reflecting the unforgiving environment.[/FONT][/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular] In total (both VMC and IMC accidents), there were 67 and 58 fatal accidents involving VFR-rated and IFR-rated pilots respectively. However, in general aviation, VFR-rated pilots (258,749) outnumber their IFR-rated peers (171,309) (source: AOPA, www.aopa.org/whatsnew/stats/). Correcting for this increased presence of VFR-rated pilots, we calculated 26 fatal accidents per 100,000 VFR-rated and 34 fatal accidents per 100,000 IFR-rated pilots. The slightly higher rate for the IFR-trained pilots did not represent skewing of the data under the more strenuous demands of IMC, since a similar trend was evident under VMC conditions (16 and 21 fatal accidents per 100,000 VFR- and IFR-rated pilots respectively). Likewise, increased exposure of IFR-rated pilots, who generally have higher flight times than their VFR-rated counterparts, is unlikely to be the cause of the increased accident rate for the former group. Thus, for pilots with 200-1000 logged hours, the fatality rate was 9 VFR-rated pilots and 10 IFR-rated pilots per 100,000 pilots with the corresponding rating. Taken together, our findings, albeit with these aircraft, would suggest that while IFR-rated pilots do indeed have a greater control of the aircraft, this rating does not confer a lower fatal accident rate.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]"[/FONT][/FONT]
​

http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueSO02/Hangar91002.html

 

[Velocity173]

Completely agree with Jay. I got my instrument ticket on Uncle Sam's expense both fixed-wing and rotorcraft and I don't use either one on a regular basis.

I got my fixed-wing ticket because I bought a new IFR equiped aircraft and had dreams flying in the soup all over the country. Well come to find out I don't travel that much and it seems a good deal of the time if is is IMC it's probably low IFR, icing, or thunderstorms. None of that I want to encounter. Also, I was having trouble maintaining currency. Trying to get my 6hits with IMC counditions while paying out of pocket is tough. Even in the military our IMC requirement wasn't as strict as that. Also maintaining my aircraft with proper instrumentation including updating my 28 day GPS database and 30 day VOR checks has become cumbersome.

I have a rotorcraft instrument ticket as well that I don't use. While it's required by my company our aircraft isn't ceritfied (although avionics equiped) for IFR. I simply need it in case I go IIMC.

So while the rating might make you a better pilot, are you really going to use it? Do you feel comfortable that if you do get into IMC can you get yourself out safely with your VFR ticket? There are plenty of VFR only guys who can get themselves out of IMC and back to VMC. There are also plenty of cases (this months Flying mag) where IFR guys find a way of crashing their aircraft in IMC. I'd suggest getting the rating if really have plans of doing a lot of IFR traveling or you are working at becoming a professional pilot.

 

[jesse]

1. We carefully studied the weather in Iowa, (where we lived for 14 years) and tracked our flights. In a year there was surprisingly only one flight (out of 102) where we would have flown with the instrument rating that we were forced to scrub without it, simply because spam cans don't do ice or t-storms.

I hear that often - but generally by people that don't have instrument ratings. I've been flying in Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska for quite awhile now. Time after time again the instrument rating is what gets me home and is what makes the difference between a nice comfortable flight and a hot bumpy one. I do fly about 3-400 hours a year right now.

I've noticed that those without the rating often evaluate the weather incorrectly and determine they wouldn't be able to fly in conditions even with an instrument rating when in reality they could. It's hard to make decisions about something you haven't been fully trained on nor have gained experience doing.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

They make these cool things called view limiting devices, and these other even cooler things called simulators... they make it so that you can't see this stuff called "the ground".

It's pretty neat. You should check it out. No IMC required.

Pretending to be in IMC and being in IMC are two very different animals.

This is the reason some employers will ask for X amount of hours ACTUAL.

Flying in IMC, you can't take off the foggles and abort, or hit pause and reset, if the temp starts getting low you will get ice, this is entirely diffrent mindset.

One aspect to a non-instrument rated pilot is they dont get themselves in IMC, most of them think of IMC as suicidal without having a instrument rating, thus they are more conservative when it come to weather.

Weekend warrior instrument rated pilots, who are not IMC current (I.e. doing their 666 in anything near IMC) will be more likely to blast off into iffy weather, loose it and lawn dart into something.

 

[DouglasBader]

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?

Whether an instrument rating is "worth it" is entirely up to you, and the only person who's judgement counts on that issue is your own.

An instrument rating will not make you a safer pilot. It won't make you anything. Only you can do that. To suggest an instrument rating might make you safer would be a stretch. It doesn't make you a better or safer pilot. If does provide training and learning opportunities which, if properly availed, can help you make yourself a safer pilot, provided your behaviors, habits, practices, and procedures are adjusted accordingly.

What an instrument rating will do is provide you with a training environment to continue working toward an aviation goal. Many find that after obtaining their private, their drive stifles, and a lot of people eventually quit flying. It's easy to justify spending money toward a goal, such as obtaining the private. With that obtained, justifying rental and instruction fees isn't nearly as easy. Starting up with training for a new rating is one way to place a goal in the window and to give you a solid reason to keep plugging away.

I flew for five years commercially without an instrument rating...only got it so I could flight instruct. It's not necessary, but it can be useful. It can also lull you into thinking your'e prepared to blast off into the clouds simply because you have the rating, and that's not true, either. Like all training and certification, it's the veritable license to learn.

Thank you. I'm sure I'm not the only pilot who has scrambled to get 6 approaches in at the end of 6 months (and you know who you are), and found that I lost a lot less than I thought I would have lost with that much of a layoff.

You're doing well. I fly professionally, and am an ATP with international experience in heavy equipment. I flew thunderstorm and atmospheric research, all instrument work inside convective cells, and I've done instrument work all over the globe in all kinds of weather. I've maintained currency on a professional basis for many years, and frankly, three weeks off the gauges is about all the time it takes for some serious rust to set in.

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.

Men from the boys. That's funny. A cub will kill you just as dead as a 747.

An instrument rating doesn't help you make better decisions. It's an inked line on your pilot certificate. You make better decisions.

The instrument rating is about learning how to fly in the national airspace system, fly the airplane by reference to instruments, and to follow the procedures necessary to conduct IFR flight.

Engaging in IFR flight opens up a whole new world of hazards and risks.

 

[spiderweb]

I've noticed that those without the rating often evaluate the weather incorrectly and determine they wouldn't be able to fly in conditions even with an instrument rating when in reality they could. It's hard to make decisions about something you haven't been fully trained on nor have gained experience doing.

This is an important point. Before the rating, I really knew very little about weather. I'm certainly not an expert after having received the rating in 2005, but 1) I do know a lot more, and 2) I've -experienced- some of this weather--something I could not have done without the rating.

 

[spiderweb]

And, as you eventually answered my question, "where do you live," I think you'll be far happier with the IR than without, for the many weather and airspace restriction-reasons stated above.

 

[bluerooster]

To meenee;
If you move to ATL, (heads up) as a general rule, CAVU 'round here is defined as 3mi. clear of clouds. While there will generally be no signifigant clouds, the vis will be about 3 miles. (in summertime)

The way I see it, an IR is kinda like 4 wheel drive. go in with 2 wheel, then you can use 4 wheel to get back out, if need be. Now, if you never go into 4 wheel territory, why spend the extra bucks?

I know many folks with several thousand hours each, who have never had an IR.
And routinely fly HP/complex/multi engine, aircraft on long cross country trips. But they have VFR experience on their side. and know their limitations. The IR is a personal thing, Yes it allows you to get on top of a layer and go VFR from there. Or descend through a layer to VFR conditions below.
Most folks that I know with IR don't use it enough to be able to legaly shoot an approach in actual IMC with pax aboard. But at least they've had the training to do so if the need should arise.

 

[BillTIZ]

I just completed a 5300+ NM trip in 12 days. All day VFR flying planned, but I had my instrument rating current before I left.

All days were VFR, had one day after arriving in Anchorage that was IFR for over half the day.

Until I got one day away from home. The forecast was not good in Montana and Idaho for VFR. "VFR NOT RECOMMEND" was the standard mantra due to smoke from forest fires. I departed Helena MT headed into the mountains toward Pocatello ID and was doing good with good visibility at 9500MSL until I neared the ID border.

A thick wall of smoke in front of me, I was already with ARTCC with flight following, time to go IFR at 12,000MSL (MEA) and I was already following the airway. That made it easy to get home. I was IFR Enroute for almost 2 hrs before I had ground contact again.

I've had my instrument rating for 12 yrs, that was only the second time I needed to use it.
I keep myself current using the local flight school Sim and some under the hood approaches. Without the ability to go IFR in benign conditions, I would have had to reverse course and find the long way home through Wyoming to get from Montana to Nevada.

 

[azure]

As a VFR-only pilot I've canceled a bunch of trips that could have been made IFR. Last year in early September I drove to Columbus OH for a weekend event I was hoping to fly to, because the wx was MVFR on the way down. As it turns out I made it home a few hours earlier by driving than I would have if I'd flown, because of storms crossing northern OH on Sunday afternoon. But I hate driving that long stretch of road so much I'd still much rather have flown.

The Great Lakes are famous for generating tons of low stratus in spring and fall. A lot of it is thin layers that I can't imagine would be much trouble at all with an IR. Until winter gets under way, most of the time the freezing level is above the (reported) tops.

 

[gismo]

My goal is to be a safer pilot. And not to cancel plans because destination field has 1000' overcast.

I am in northeast. Live in NY, fly out of PA. Weather is mostly good, but can get hazy. I may be moving to Atlanta area around new year's, if I can transfer to a new position at work.

I asked people why they never went for IR. One said that he owns his plane and thinks it's pointless to him. Another one told me "I rent a plane, maybe once I get my own, I will get IR". So responses were no help at all.

I figured IR would give me, in addition to ability to fly in clouds, higher mastery of the aircraft, ability to think ahead, and give me more confidence in flying in general. And no, no right/left seats on a 737 in my future.

IMO, if you fly XC trips more than once a year in a plane that's set up for IFR an IR is almost mandatory, but it's also virtually useless if you don't maintain your currency and competency in IMC. With it your chances of completing a trip on any given day are more than twice as good as without it and you're also about 20 times less likely to come to grief in marginal weather or unforcecast IMC at night. It will not make you immune to weather, in fact you will likely have to deal with a lot more weather issues than you would as a VFR only pilot since the lack of an IR will keep you safely grounded on iffy days. Keep in mind that it will probably require at least a couple hours of instrument practice every couple of months at first to stay sharp enough to be safe and something like half of that once you've gotten a few hundred hours of "real" IMC under your belt.

 

[denverpilot]

Weekend warrior instrument rated pilots, who are not IMC current (I.e. doing their 666 in anything near IMC) will be more likely to blast off into iffy weather, loose it and lawn dart into something.

Was with you right up until here. Cite your source for this, otherwise it's just an opinion.

Jay had good data regarding fatals, but that data didn't indicate whether the fatals were "weekend warriors" or folks who flew IMC all the time non-commercially.

I'm definitely in your "weekend warrior" category, but have personal minimums of no less than Marginal VFR at both ends, no icing, and no thunderstorms. I might push those with a severely stable non-icing weather system, hanging lower, and with various formal meteorology courses over the years, I know I can recognize those.

(Everyone needs to adjust for their own limitations. An IR ticket isn't to be taken lightly.)

Because I try hard to know my limitations and my aircraft's limitations. I can probaly handle not bumping into things Enroute, and I'll go out of my way to get time in Actual, but there just ain't going to be much of it that's flyable around here. This means my IMC will almost always be "far from home" after extra fatigue and a long day. That's a significant factor in my planning for minimums also.

I'd love to see your data that shows a significantly statistical increase in accidents amongst the "weekend warrior" crowd vs. the "I live in IMC" crowd, if you can find it. It will simply add to my abundance of caution. But it's a statement of opinion without facts if there's no data to back it up. I agree that it seems reasonable on the surface, but show the numbers.

 

[Everskyward]

I think we are talking about at least three different things here.

1. Knowledge. More knowledge is almost always a good thing. Knowledge about weather and the airspace system can be very helpful.

2. Practicality. You will be able to complete a greater percentage of trips in a timely manner with an instrument rating. The degree to which it helps you depends on where you live and the airplane you are flying.

3. Safety. I thought this was the OPs question. I don't think an instrument rating necessarily makes you safer. You're less likely to lose control of the airplane in IMC or at night with no horizon, but you are also probably more likely to take on challenges that you wouldn't as a VFR only pilot. Then there's the question of currency which other people have mentioned.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

1. We carefully studied the weather in Iowa, (where we lived for 14 years) and tracked our flights. In a year there was surprisingly only one flight (out of 102) where we would have flown with the instrument rating that we were forced to scrub without it, simply because spam cans don't do ice or t-storms.

Being currently in Iowa (though not for 14 years, and lacking careful tracking of flights)... I can think of many times when a cancelled VFR flight would also be a cancelled IFR flight. It's not always that way. Maybe i'll pay more attention to the weather on days I don't fly and see how often a hypothetical trip would be possible IFR but not VFR.

2. We fly more than most, but not often enough. Even flying twice a week, which is our intention, we would not fly often enough to stay IFR proficient.

I think this is a choice on your part that you don't want to spend your flying time maintaining proficiency. Nothing at all wrong with that, but see it for what it is. If you don't want to spend time maintaining proficiency, you could fly 8 hours a day, every day and still "not fly often enough".

3. To remain current and even marginally capable means flying IFR every flight. Of the guys I know who are current, this is how they achieve it -- and it sucks the life out of their flying. ...

either you or I are badly misinformed.

4. Of all the instrument rated pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- I can only name two who are instrument proficient, and one of them flies C-5s from Spain to Afghanistan every few months. I can only name a tiny number who are even instrument current. Its just incredibly difficult to remain instrument proficient on your own dime.

As has been noted by others, it takes a commitment. That's why you (and I) know countless instrument pilots who are not current, let alone proficient. Of the instrument students I know, I suspect at least half won't maintain proficiency after getting the rating. I also suspect that none of them realize that. It would be helpful for prospective instrument students to understand that there is a commitment and a greater responsibility required of the pilot. Maybe this thread helps with that.

Now, of course, since 2010 we have lived in sunny south Texas, with 350+ VFR days per year, making the rating even less worthwhile.

Well, yeah, given that situation the cost/benefit is stacked against the instrument rating and i'd be more likely to fall into the "Nope, not worth it." camp if the goal is to be able to fly in IMC.

 

[gismo]

One other advantage of an IR is that when you fly IFR you shouldn't have to worry about SUA or even TFRs for the most part. Even in the dreaded SFAR, it's business as usual for the IFR pilot (as long as he doesn't attempt to launch VFR and pick up his clearance in the air).

 

[Piloto]

If you are planning to be flying at night get the IFR ticket. Night flying specially over water is very much like flying IFR even if there is not a single cloud. Many countries do not allow VFR flights at night.

José

 

[DouglasBader]

Bear in mind that with an instrument rating, unless on is in capable equipment, one has little added utility benefit; one can't simply go blasting into instrument weather (or shouldn't) simply because one is rated to do so.

When I say capable equipment, I'm not talking about a Cessna 172 that is certified for IFR flight. One has little to no business flying in the clouds in single engine equipment (one generator, one vacuum source, one engine, no radar, etc). There are far too many "authorities" such as Dick Collins who have actively advocated otherwise, but the sad fact is that unless you're flying equipment that has the capability to be there, one shouldn't be there.

That includes many light twins.

Particuarly in the case of embedded convective weather, one ought not be there without radar (XM weather is a start, but a poor substitute), period.

The notion of simply jumping in and going is nice, but flawed.

 

[poadeleted21]

Bear in mind that with an instrument rating, unless on is in capable equipment, one has little added utility benefit; one can't simply go blasting into instrument weather (or shouldn't) simply because one is rated to do so.

When I say capable equipment, I'm not talking about a Cessna 172 that is certified for IFR flight. One has little to no business flying in the clouds in single engine equipment (one generator, one vacuum source, one engine, no radar, etc). There are far too many "authorities" such as Dick Collins who have actively advocated otherwise, but the sad fact is that unless you're flying equipment that has the capability to be there, one shouldn't be there.

That includes many light twins.

Particuarly in the case of embedded convective weather, one ought not be there without radar (XM weather is a start, but a poor substitute), period.

The notion of simply jumping in and going is nice, but flawed.

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

 

[jesse]

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

That is a serious, serious, reach...Even for you.

 

[DavidWhite]

Bear in mind that with an instrument rating, unless on is in capable equipment, one has little added utility benefit; one can't simply go blasting into instrument weather (or shouldn't) simply because one is rated to do so.

When I say capable equipment, I'm not talking about a Cessna 172 that is certified for IFR flight. One has little to no business flying in the clouds in single engine equipment (one generator, one vacuum source, one engine, no radar, etc). There are far too many "authorities" such as Dick Collins who have actively advocated otherwise, but the sad fact is that unless you're flying equipment that has the capability to be there, one shouldn't be there.

That includes many light twins.

Particuarly in the case of embedded convective weather, one ought not be there without radar (XM weather is a start, but a poor substitute), period.

The notion of simply jumping in and going is nice, but flawed.

I guess all of my actual hours (in a 172 and 210) don't count at all.

 

[DouglasBader]

That is a serious, serious, reach...Even for you.

It's not a stretch at all, especially for me. I said it, and I meant it.

I guess all of my actual hours (in a 172 and 210) don't count at all.

Don't count for what?

Best $1.97 you'll ever spend.

It's listed at three dollars and seventy six cents, but why would I want another copy?

 

[TMetzinger]

Bear in mind that with an instrument rating, unless on is in capable equipment, one has little added utility benefit; one can't simply go blasting into instrument weather (or shouldn't) simply because one is rated to do so.

When I say capable equipment, I'm not talking about a Cessna 172 that is certified for IFR flight. One has little to no business flying in the clouds in single engine equipment (one generator, one vacuum source, one engine, no radar, etc). There are far too many "authorities" such as Dick Collins who have actively advocated otherwise, but the sad fact is that unless you're flying equipment that has the capability to be there, one shouldn't be there.

That includes many light twins.

Particuarly in the case of embedded convective weather, one ought not be there without radar (XM weather is a start, but a poor substitute), period.

The notion of simply jumping in and going is nice, but flawed.

This may be true for your particular risk tolerance, but it is not the same for everyone.

Dick Collins flew for many many years in his "inadequate" equipment, so how come he didn't die doing so?

 

[DrMack]

We live in Dallas, Texas and most of our flights are in VMC but I fly every cross country IFR. I earned my IR not because I wanted to fly in the weather, but because I wanted to fly in the SYSTEM and that's what I do. On occasion I will fly VFR on local flights and have noticed a stark contrast in my flying style VFR vs. IFR. When IFR my cockpit is is more organized, my plan is airtight, everything is simply tuned up and my brain seems to be in the full ON configuration and situation awareness is complete and uninterrupted for the entire flight. Sometimes I'm so focused on what's going on in the cockpit I don't notice when we fly into clouds. Entering IMC under those operational conditions is a non-event.

VFR on the other hand is totally different. The plan is usually rather vague and ad hoc and because so much of my attention is devoted to what's going on outside the cockpit I don't seem to have the same systems awareness that I have under IFR. I do enjoy the freedom of VFR but I get a little anxious about traffic separation and obstructions, issues that are greatly, but not entirely mitigated under IFR. I also am not keen on having to keep up with the airspace class, especially TFRs and other restricted airspace. Our home airport is under the DFW bravo shelf so getting in and out IFR is a no-stress situation.

So for me I feel that flying IFR is safer because my situational awareness is higher, my planning is more detailed and complete, and my execution is more precise. My personal minimums are MVFR forecast but I don't panic if hard IFR moves into the destination while enroute. I never challenge convection or ice. So again, for me it's about flying in the system, not in the weather, and as one with the dubious distinction of having to squawk 7700 for real I am keenly aware of what it means to have every resource in the system available to you when you need them.

As for why IR pilots seem to have just as many fatals with continued VFR into IMC as VFR pilots, I believe it is because we are not as operationally tuned up while flying VFR as we are when operating IFR and it is difficult even for IR pilots to make the instant transition to BAI when it is unexpected.

 

[dell30rb]

That is a serious, serious, reach...Even for you.

Agreed. This coming from the guy who flies in combat zones and does firefighting? Easy IFR in a cessna is too dangerous?

Now i can respect someone who wont fly in conditions near minimums in a single. Its a higher risk for sure. But a 1000 plus overcast?

 

[saracelica]

I like what DrMack wrote. IFR once you get through the training seems easier. Being in the system and having another "set of eyes" watching you is ALWAYS helpful. I think I'm going to try the training in the Spring of 2013 and see if I can get through it.

 

[Meanee]

Bear in mind that with an instrument rating, unless on is in capable equipment, one has little added utility benefit; one can't simply go blasting into instrument weather (or shouldn't) simply because one is rated to do so.

When I say capable equipment, I'm not talking about a Cessna 172 that is certified for IFR flight. One has little to no business flying in the clouds in single engine equipment (one generator, one vacuum source, one engine, no radar, etc). There are far too many "authorities" such as Dick Collins who have actively advocated otherwise, but the sad fact is that unless you're flying equipment that has the capability to be there, one shouldn't be there.

That includes many light twins.

Particuarly in the case of embedded convective weather, one ought not be there without radar (XM weather is a start, but a poor substitute), period.

The notion of simply jumping in and going is nice, but flawed.

Well, that sucks. I guess I have to go buy a Boeing to be able to fly through an overcast layer.

 

[bullwinkle]

I'm a Sport Pilot, so the IR option is not available for me. I am hoping at some point to pick up some hours with an instructor just learning the basics of instrument flight to keep me from augering in if I get in a bind. I'm not expecting that to ever happen though, as I'm pretty freaking scared of clouds.

 

[poadeleted20]

An instrument rating is not a magic charm that by itself creates an additional curtain of safety around you. However, IR training will teach you a lot of techniques and improve a lot of skills that the average Private Pilot won't pick up otherwise, and it gives you options you wouldn't otherwise have when considering whether or not to fly somewhere on any given day. It also lowers your insurance rates (whether you agree with the actuaries or not) for most light GA pilots and planes, especially high performance/complex types, although probably not as much as the cost of getting the rating unless you own a far more expensive plane that most folks here -- at least, if you only amortize it over one year.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I hear that often - but generally by people that don't have instrument ratings. I've been flying in Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska for quite awhile now. Time after time again the instrument rating is what gets me home and is what makes the difference between a nice comfortable flight and a hot bumpy one. I do fly about 3-400 hours a year right now.

I've noticed that those without the rating often evaluate the weather incorrectly and determine they wouldn't be able to fly in conditions even with an instrument rating when in reality they could. It's hard to make decisions about something you haven't been fully trained on nor have gained experience doing.

The hot/bumpy versus smooth/cool point I will concede. There have been flights, bumping among below a solid cloud deck, where I wished I had the ability to get on top. But I still flew, and I was 100% safe.

Your incorrect weather assessment assertion is just wrong, however. I know plenty enough about weather to know when I will, and will not, fly my spam can, VFR or IFR. If there is convection or icing, flying is out. Anyone who says otherwise is a future statistic.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jesse]

The hot/bumpy versus smooth/cool point I will concede. There have been flights, bumping among below a solid cloud deck, where I wished I had the ability to get on top. But I still flew, and I was 100% safe.

Your incorrect weather assessment assertion is just wrong, however. I know plenty enough about weather to know when I will, and will not, fly my spam can, VFR or IFR. If there is convection or icing, flying is out. Anyone who says otherwise is a future statistic.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

I find the average weekend spam can pilot's ability to truly evaluate if there is an icing risk to be less than spectacular without good training. I've flown in IMC in every month of the year in the midwest and have yet to even remotely scare myself with regards to icing. I look at the conditions to an extreme detail. The same for convection. I also find that those without instrument ratings are constantly trying to justify why they don't have it and that weighs into their thought process.

 

[DouglasBader]

Dick Collins flew for many many years in his "inadequate" equipment, so how come he didn't die doing so?

Why ask such a ridiculous question?

Perhaps you should ask Dick Collins.

Collins spent a lot of time pushing the idea that light twins were dangerous, and later said he regretted the effort, and that his efforts had gone too far.

Simply because one does something unwise or dangerous doesn't mean one will die, or eventually do so. The issue of death is something you introduced. Not me.

Well, that sucks. I guess I have to go buy a Boeing to be able to fly through an overcast layer.

If you say so. I didn't.

Agreed. This coming from the guy who flies in combat zones and does firefighting? Easy IFR in a cessna is too dangerous?

Single pilot IFR is probably the most demanding thing one can do in aviation, and involves the highest task saturation and workload.

Yes, I'm employed to fly professionally in various environments and in various types of aircraft, and no, I don't consider it dangerous. I don't do dangerous.

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.

As for "easy IFR," you said that. I didn't, nor did I say anything about IFR being dangerous.

 

[TMetzinger]

"unwise" sounds like "dangerous" or "stupid". It has a negative connotation that folks (including me) are likely to misinterpret.

If what you're saying is you think the risks of flying in IMC in a piston single are too high for you, that's your decision.

If what you're saying is that you think the risks of flying in IMC in a piston single are too high for any reasonable person, then I disagree.

 

[tiger]

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

Doug, you said "flying in the clouds" without qualification. Under what circumstances do you think the posited only-one-of-everything spam can with a current, rated, proficient pilot has legitimate business entering a cloud?

 

[dell30rb]

Flying a single engine airplane IMC in convective weather without radar,

You didn't mention in your original post this presence of convective weather.

I'm not talking about a Cessna 172 that is certified for IFR flight. One has little to no business flying in the clouds in single engine equipment (one generator, one vacuum source, one engine, no radar, etc).

You just said "flying in the clouds". I assumed you meant in the absence of convection, as no one in their right mind would take an aircraft without on board radar in IMC in an environment where convection is anticipated. They do teach you not to do that, you know.

The only IFR single I have flown without a standby vac source has been a 152.

 

[Meanee]

So, from reading this thread, it seems that majority of people think that a weekend warrior with IR does following

1) Flies on a bad equipment into a middle of a thunderstorm
2) Never stays current
3) Will save money on his plane insurance
4) Shouldn't be flying anything in clouds unless it's a multimillion dollar aircraft
5) And will probably crash and burn anyway

 

[Velocity173]

So, from reading this thread, it seems that majority of people think that a weekend warrior with IR does following

1) Flies on a bad equipment into a middle of a thunderstorm
2) Never stays current
3) Will save money on his plane insurance
4) Shouldn't be flying anything in clouds unless it's a multimillion dollar aircraft
5) And will probably crash and burn anyway

Not at all. Just make sure you're an IFR weekend warrior and not a once a year IFR warrior. STAY CURRENT. You don't have to have a multimillion dollar 2 crew piloted aircraft. You have to realize however that a single pilot basic IFR aircraft, the risks are much greater but not dangerous.

I think the biggest hazard in single pilot IFR is weather decision making. Not far from were I work a C-210 piloted by Scott Crossfield (The Fastest Man Alive) came apart in flight because he flew into a thunderstorm. Now this is a pilot with a wealth of experience who made the mistake of flying IMC in the southeast during thunderstorms. Make sure the aircraft and yourself are capable of flying in the weather you set out in.