Instrument Rating, not needed?

[NineThreeKilo]

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.

My source is just common sense and my anecdotal experience checking quite a folks out in AC, both VFR only and IFR ticket guys as well a career pilots.

Do you R E A L L Y need to read in a book, or a pie chart or whatever that someone who "lives" in IMC is safer in the soup then a weekend warrior, seems duh obvious to me.

 

[nddons]

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.

Who's talking about flying in convective weather? Yes, pilots do stupid pilot tricks all the time - see Scott Crossfield.

Are you also saying that flying in nonconvective Wx without radar, with a single vacuum source, etc. puts an IFR pilot in a very precarious position?

 

[ClimbnSink]

1. do you fly for fun?
2. do you think instrument training/flying is fun?

Answer those and you can figure out the rest.

 

[DouglasBader]

"unwise" sounds like "dangerous" or "stupid".

Perhaps for those using English as a second language, who don't have access to a dictionary, and don't know how to sound out "unwise," "dangerous," or "stupid."

They don't sound anything alike to me.

Perhaps it's just those who can't seem to help but put words in other's mouths.

It has a negative connotation that folks (including me) are likely to misinterpret.

That's a crying shame. I'm all broken up about it. Are you sure you'll be okay?

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

Irrelevant. My original post addressed the original poster's question regarding the necessity for an instrument rating, and other associated responses.

That was post 49. My original post regarding the efficacy of single engine airplanes in instrument conditions was post 61, and it most certainly did address convective weather.

Those who don't think convective weather is a problem, or the potential for encountering it, probably have no experience in it. I spent considerable time doing dedicated thunderstorm penetration assignments, and I can assure the doubters that it's not a place they ought to be.

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.

You perhaps ought not assume.

Convection is anticipated in nearly all IMC this time of year, or should be. It doesn't take much to disorient or place one in a dangerous condition. Those who think that the small clouds won't hurt, that tops at 15,000 are just baby clouds that don't hold much punch, ought to think again. I did a lot of work in small storms or small rising storms or upshears that produced considerable ice, turbulence, and precip, even in desert conditions.

Those planning cross country flights where the ground can't be seen or the surface is obscured ought to think about the basic tenet of single engine flight; one needs to have a way to see where one's going to put the airplane down after the engine failure, or during a forced landing.

"They" teach a lot of things. Annually much of what's taught isn't followed by a great many who end up being statistical fatalities, and many more scare themselves senseless that never make it to the stats.

Ever had an engine failure and forced landing while flying single engine IMC? I have. I'd prefer to never do it again, either, and won't.

 

[TMetzinger]

Jeez. You truly are a master, Bader.

 

[dell30rb]

Convection is anticipated in nearly all IMC this time of year, or should be.

So you're telling me the stratus layer we've had here every morning since saturday is convective? Its really getting deep in here.

I don't deny that a forced landing in IMC is dangerous and a bad place to be, but the odds of that happening are slim. And unless you're in the mountains or flying in low IFR conditions, if you can keep the wings level you are very likely to pop out with enough room to make a survivable landing out of it.

Those planning cross country flights where the ground can't be seen or the surface is obscured

News flash, cloud layers usually don't extend all the way to the ground. If they do, its generally in a localized area. If its a widespread area, you won't find me flying that day.

 

[TMetzinger]

So you're telling me the stratus layer we've had here every morning since saturday is convective? Its really getting deep in here.

I don't deny that a forced landing in IMC is dangerous and a bad place to be, but the odds of that happening are slim. And unless you're in the mountains or flying in low IFR conditions, if you can keep the wings level you are very likely to pop out with enough room to make a survivable landing out of it.

Or we can compare it to the pro crew in the twin beech turboprop who had an engine problem in IMC and turned into a lawn dart because they both worked the engine issue.

I think the aviator and his judgement matter a lot more than his equipment.

 

[denverpilot]

My source is just common sense and my anecdotal experience checking quite a folks out in AC, both VFR only and IFR ticket guys as well a career pilots.

Do you R E A L L Y need to read in a book, or a pie chart or whatever that someone who "lives" in IMC is safer in the soup then a weekend warrior, seems duh obvious to me.

No, but without it, it's only an opinion. You can't back it up with any facts. Which is a significant problem this hobby and industry consistently struggle with...

Killing off old wive's tales made up by people who didn't put any effort into the research.

Common sense is fine, I wish more folks used it... but it should be easy to back up a common sense prediction with hard numbers. There's mountains of data out there. Should be possible to back the opinion up with fact. But the facts needed are not being tracked, AFAIK... See below.

Science includes testing the theory, no?

As someone pointed out, insurance actuaries usually do their homework on the monetary results portion of this, and they're in agreement that they pay out a lot less on Instrument Rated pilots as PIC. That's not a direct corollary to "safety", but it's at least one significant data point.

The other data point is fatal accidents, and those are roughly equal.

The data that's missing is whether or not the fatals were at the "weekend warrior" end of the training scale or the "hard IMC regularly" end of the scale. About the only way one could get there is by looking perhaps at total Actual IMC time in the dead pilot's logbooks, and I don't think anyone is tracking that.

Identical in thought process and lack of data, to your "common sense" approach, I would postulate that its unlikely that all IFR fatals are ALL from one end or the other of the scale, since there's no anecdotal evidence of that.

So... let's play with the numbers we have... Or some close ones...

Let's say for round numbers there were 10 IFR fatals.

And they were split 50/50 between the non-regular and regular IMC folks.

And just to make it simple, let's say there were also 10 VFR fatals.

One could make the case that out of the weekend warrior crowd, adding the IFR rating reduced that sub-group's fatal accident rate by 50%.

The overall fatal rate didn't fall, however.

Tons of assumptions therein, but it's simply to prove that without the numbers, the opinion is pretty weak.

Even if the fatals were 80% non-regular IMC fliers and 20% regular, it's still a statistically significant improvement in the fatal rate for non-regulars over the VFR total number of fatals.

The non-sequitur in my numbers is that in order to truly compare the IFR and VFR non-regular IMC flyers numbers, you'd have to know how many non-regular VMC flyers were in the VFR control group.

To really know, you'd have to determine whether the pilot truly flew a lot or a little IMC for each fatal.

I don't think anyone's tracking total Actual in accident statistics. They track total time, and maybe instrument time, but not Actual time.

So the data isn't available and all we have is an opinion.

Social Economics and books like Freakonomics and various others, have shown that lots and lots of old wives tales and "common sense" fall down under mathematic scrutiny.

Having read a number of the books on the topic, I've re-tuned my ears to think "Where's the data to back that up?" when I hear "common sense" being applied.

Doesn't mean you're not right, just means its an untested theory. And with the fatal rates almost matching between IFR and VFR, that's a mathematical red flag to say your common sense may be dead wrong.

Interesting stuff, it is. Ultimately it's up to the PIC... as to whether they feel like going home in a body bag today for doing something their ego says they can do, that they really can't.

 

[jmp470]

VFR pilots fly the plane. Fun!

IFR pilots manage systems. Boring and might as well be a taxi driver!

 

[Velocity173]

VFR pilots fly the plane. Fun!

IFR pilots manage systems. Boring and might as well be a taxi driver!

Woooaaah! Yeah if you're an airline pilot. I've hand flown my plane plenty fo times during IMC with no problems. Much easier hand flying these days with a IFR moving map and glass cockpit but still requires skill. Definitely not boring.

 

[Jaybird180]

VFR pilots fly the plane. Fun!

IFR pilots manage systems. Boring and might as well be a taxi driver!

Are you trolling our very serious discussion on the safety merits of VFR vs IFR flight??? Pure sacrilege!



Psyche....j/k

 

[NineThreeKilo]

No, but without it, it's only an opinion. You can't back it up with any facts. Which is a significant problem this hobby and industry consistently struggle with...

Killing off old wive's tales made up by people who didn't put any effort into the research.

Common sense is fine, I wish more folks used it... but it should be easy to back up a common sense prediction with hard numbers. There's mountains of data out there. Should be possible to back the opinion up with fact. But the facts needed are not being tracked, AFAIK... See below.

Science includes testing the theory, no?

As someone pointed out, insurance actuaries usually do their homework on the monetary results portion of this, and they're in agreement that they pay out a lot less on Instrument Rated pilots as PIC. That's not a direct corollary to "safety", but it's at least one significant data point.

The other data point is fatal accidents, and those are roughly equal.

The data that's missing is whether or not the fatals were at the "weekend warrior" end of the training scale or the "hard IMC regularly" end of the scale. About the only way one could get there is by looking perhaps at total Actual IMC time in the dead pilot's logbooks, and I don't think anyone is tracking that.

Identical in thought process and lack of data, to your "common sense" approach, I would postulate that its unlikely that all IFR fatals are ALL from one end or the other of the scale, since there's no anecdotal evidence of that.

So... let's play with the numbers we have... Or some close ones...

Let's say for round numbers there were 10 IFR fatals.

And they were split 50/50 between the non-regular and regular IMC folks.

And just to make it simple, let's say there were also 10 VFR fatals.

One could make the case that out of the weekend warrior crowd, adding the IFR rating reduced that sub-group's fatal accident rate by 50%.

The overall fatal rate didn't fall, however.

Tons of assumptions therein, but it's simply to prove that without the numbers, the opinion is pretty weak.

Even if the fatals were 80% non-regular IMC fliers and 20% regular, it's still a statistically significant improvement in the fatal rate for non-regulars over the VFR total number of fatals.

The non-sequitur in my numbers is that in order to truly compare the IFR and VFR non-regular IMC flyers numbers, you'd have to know how many non-regular VMC flyers were in the VFR control group.

To really know, you'd have to determine whether the pilot truly flew a lot or a little IMC for each fatal.

I don't think anyone's tracking total Actual in accident statistics. They track total time, and maybe instrument time, but not Actual time.

So the data isn't available and all we have is an opinion.

Social Economics and books like Freakonomics and various others, have shown that lots and lots of old wives tales and "common sense" fall down under mathematic scrutiny.

Having read a number of the books on the topic, I've re-tuned my ears to think "Where's the data to back that up?" when I hear "common sense" being applied.

Doesn't mean you're not right, just means its an untested theory. And with the fatal rates almost matching between IFR and VFR, that's a mathematical red flag to say your common sense may be dead wrong.

Interesting stuff, it is. Ultimately it's up to the PIC... as to whether they feel like going home in a body bag today for doing something their ego says they can do, that they really can't.

I gotcha, however, as for the high time IMC guys being safer then the weekend warriors basically falls under "res ipsa loquitur", the thing speaks for itself.

I dont need a study to know that slamming my junk in the door is going to be a poor decision ether.

just my two cents.

 

[poadeleted20]

IFR pilots manage systems. Boring and might as well be a taxi driver!

...until the vacuum pump dies, taking with it the autopilot. Boring is hardly the word for it when that happens, and the only taxi driver who might have the same ride would be one who was on this bridge in the middle of the Great Alaskan Earthquake.

 

[Jay Honeck]

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.

Spoken as only a man who makes a living selling instrument ratings could. <ducking!>. Lol

Seriously, save the preconceived notions. No one is trying to justify anything -- I'm merely explaining a thought process that has been forged by years of experience, thousands of flights, and one that is routinely and repeatedly tested by my wife and me.

Someday, if we have a different, more capable aircraft, the equation may produce a "Yep, it's time to get the instrument rating" answer. For now, the answer is still "Nope, not worth it."

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[zaitcev]

5) And will probably crash and burn anyway

Unless he's in a Diamond. And files a Flight Plan.

 

[DouglasBader]

So you're telling me the stratus layer we've had here every morning since saturday is convective?

I did not say that. You said that.

Speak for yourself.

I don't deny that a forced landing in IMC is dangerous and a bad place to be, but the odds of that happening are slim. And unless you're in the mountains or flying in low IFR conditions, if you can keep the wings level you are very likely to pop out with enough room to make a survivable landing out of it.

In aviation, fools act based on "odds."

In your extensive experience, how many engine failures have you experienced, to a forced landing? How many at night? How many in instrument conditions? How many in single engine aircraft in instrument conditions, to a forced landing?

None? Depending on those slim odds, are you? Wings level...to a "survivable landing" based not colliding with a tree, building, powerline, road sign, or other object? Pop out of what?

News flash, cloud layers usually don't extend all the way to the ground. If they do, its generally in a localized area. If its a widespread area, you won't find me flying that day.

That was a news flash? Youv'e experienced a lot of IMC, have you? I've seen a lot of IMC that goes to the ground; that's why we have approach minimums, you see, and why we train people to fly approaches, not simply to fly above a thin stratus layer, when conducting instrument training. It's also why we test people in simulated instrument conditions and in simulators, with approaches to minimums, and approaches below minimums, terminating in missed approaches. I've done a lot of approaches to very low minimums or touchdowns in very low visibility, including Cat II and Cat III approaches...so yes, cloud layers, sand, dust, fog, precipitation, and other conditions do extend to the ground, and often over a very wide area.

Whether or not you elect to go flying that day is really irrelevant.

That you may find yourself arriving at a destination with conditions rapidly changing to the minus side, leaving you with few options, is a significant fact of instrument operations for which you ought to be prepared. It happens, even with good weather forecasting and a big, dedicated dispatch department. You probably won't have those things, and won't have the advantages they bring.

Night in many locations brings on instrument conditions.

IFR pilots manage systems. Boring and might as well be a taxi driver!

I get paid to do some fairly hard-core VFR flying, and have for many years. Lots of yanking and banking, flight close to the ground in various conditions, short and rough fields, yada, yada. The most challenging flying and the most demanding flying one can do, however, is single pilot IFR. Even the presence of an autopilot doesn't change that distinction.

VFR pilots had better be managers of systems, too. IFR pilots need to manage systems, information, and the flight, and it's this practice that many here refer to when they say that instrument training makes one a better pilot. I disagree: nothing makes one a better pilot. One does this one's self, but one can avail one's self of training and resources to enable that process, and good instrument instruction can certainly be a boon along that road.

It's well to remember that VFR doesn't necessarily mean visual conditions. It means the distinction in cloud clearance and visibility legalities. One can legally operate VFR, however, in instrument conditions. This is an unwise practice that is a hazard and a risk.

 

[dell30rb]

I was simply rebutting your statement that imc this time of year is covective or 'should be'

I've flown a few ils approaches down to a few hundred feet and vis approaching minimums. Its actually difficult to find weather like this, and my point is the average private pilot IA is not flying in these conditions with any frequency and his chances of an engine failure occuring in low IMC during his flying career are negligible

 

[Ghery]

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.

Jesse, you haven't flown in my neck of the woods, then. Ice in clouds is a serious concern in the PNW. That and convective activity are real fast reasons to drive, rather than fly, for me. And I've seen ice that scared me.

 

[azure]

In aviation, fools act based on "odds."

In that case, everyone who flies a single out of KVLL is a fool. Every time you take off, there is a window during which a complete loss of power will mean landing in a crowded parking lot or on a busy city street.

VFR pilots had better be managers of systems, too. IFR pilots need to manage systems, information, and the flight, and it's this practice that many here refer to when they say that instrument training makes one a better pilot. I disagree: nothing makes one a better pilot. One does this one's self, but one can avail one's self of training and resources to enable that process, and good instrument instruction can certainly be a boon along that road.

I agree with this 100%. But I don't think anyone else contributing to this thread would disagree with it, either.

It's well to remember that VFR doesn't necessarily mean visual conditions. It means the distinction in cloud clearance and visibility legalities. One can legally operate VFR, however, in instrument conditions. This is an unwise practice that is a hazard and a risk.

I don't see how operating under a clearance necessarily reduces your risk in that situation. If there are aircraft out there flying VFR, you can't count on ATC to separate you from them regardless of whether you are VFR or IFR unless you are in Class B or C airspace. If you aren't instrument proficient, you are at pretty high risk operating in conditions like that; but if you are, and approach it as if you were operating IFR, I don't see that it's necessarily more risky to do so.

 

[TMetzinger]

Or Jesse has enough experience to avoid scary icing...

I've run into unexpected icing and dealt with it, escaping the icing conditions while I was still "uncomfortable" and before I got to "scared".

And I agree with Douglas that there are atmospheric conditions in which light airplanes (singles or twins) have no business. There are conditions where NO aircraft have any business. But his original post seemed to me to class ALL IMC as a place where the typical GA single had no business. And that is, in my opinion, bull****.

 

[Velocity173]

"The most challenging flying and the most demanding flying one can do, however, is single pilot IFR."

Yeah for a civilian. Try landing helicopter, formation, goggles, dust landing in the middle of Kuwait. That'll make your knees shake! Of course you have your fighter guys landing on a carrier at night which I imagine is no easy task as well. :wink2:

 

[X3 Skier]

Of course you have your fighter guys landing on a carrier at night which I imagine is no easy task as well. :wink2:

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

 

[spiderweb]

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, some of us can't afford to rent Learjets.

 

[gismo]

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

Your definition of majority seems to be different than mine.

In any case, with the exception of your #4 the issues you listed are completely up to the pilot in question. Casting Doug's rather conservative preferences WRT what's required for flight in IMC, I think you'd find that the majority of the posters on this thread would agree with the following:

1) Getting an IR can make you a safer pilot but that's not guaranteed.
2) It's quite possible to be just as safe without an IR as with.
3) During IR training you will learn things that are beneficial to VFR or IFR flight.
4) If you have an IR and maintain sufficient currency you will be able to make some flights that a VFR only pilot could not make safely.
5) An IR is does not "weatherproof" a pilot. Nor does a well equiped airplane. But both can increase the pilot's ability to deal with some weather.

I think it's also worth mentioning that at least statistically, virtually any training will make most pilots safer.

 

[spiderweb]

VFR pilots fly the plane. Fun!

IFR pilots manage systems. Boring and might as well be a taxi driver!

How did you come to such a simplistic conclusion?

 

[ClimbnSink]

What is the difference between flying a plane on instruments and driving a submarine?
Other than the number of digits on the speedo.
Nothing.
Besides
Boring. PIA. Not flying. Unless you have a compelling travel need, and the money, time and inclination forget the IR.

 

[nddons]

What is the difference between flying a plane on instruments and driving a submarine?
Other than the number of digits on the speedo.
Nothing.
Besides
Boring. PIA. Not flying. Unless you have a compelling travel need, and the money, time and inclination forget the IR.

I enjoy flying IFR. I like drawing straight lines on Flight Aware's etch-a-sketch. And I like navigating to a spot on the earth, and have it show up where it should be when I break out of the clouds. That's a thrill that doesn't happen often when flying over the life-sized moving map below us.

 

[spiderweb]

I enjoy flying IFR. I like drawing straight lines on Flight Aware's etch-a-sketch. And I like navigating to a spot on the earth, and have it show up where it should be when I break out of the clouds. That's a thrill that doesn't happen often when flying over the life-sized moving map below us.

Beautifully said.

 

[DouglasBader]

Yeah for a civilian. Try landing helicopter, formation, goggles, dust landing in the middle of Kuwait. That'll make your knees shake! Of course you have your fighter guys landing on a carrier at night which I imagine is no easy task as well.

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.

Well, some of us can't afford to rent Learjets.

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.

 

[jesse]

Jesse, you haven't flown in my neck of the woods, then. Ice in clouds is a serious concern in the PNW. That and convective activity are real fast reasons to drive, rather than fly, for me. And I've seen ice that scared me.

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.

Or Jesse has enough experience to avoid scary icing...

Ding, ding ding.

Spoken as only a man who makes a living selling instrument ratings could. <ducking!>. Lol

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.

 

[DouglasBader]

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.

I do know.

One of the things I know is that an instrument rating doesn't make someone a better pilot. It gives them a little more writing on their pilot certificate.

I also know that an instrument rating isn't a necessity. It's good to have the training, but far from necessary.

Having an instrument rating isn't of much value unless it's kept current. One may be instrument rated, but a night flight over the desert can be very disorienting and just as hazardous to an instrument-rated pilot who isn't current or proficient as it is to a non-rated pilot.

Besides
Boring. PIA. Not flying. Unless you have a compelling travel need, and the money, time and inclination forget the IR.

There's something very satisfying about a hand-flown approach to minimums, to break-out and find the runway ahead in the perfect landing position, and yes, it most certainly is flying. Precise control of airspeed, maintenance of the localizer and glideslope, a high degree of awareness and scan, monitoring of both systems, power, flight data instruments, communications, and cockpit requirements is hardly boring. I've had some brown-out descents into Afghanistan amid the mountains, airborne dark traffic, large windshears and strong gusting winds, frequency jamming, intermittent varying localizers and glideslope, to minimums-landings that were anything but boring. I've had equally interesting and demanding IFR flights domestically in the USA without the shooting (and a few with) that I don't think any participant would have found boring.

 

[Swampfox201]

I think those who have their instrument ticket are glad they have it even if they rarely fly IFR.

My opinion is it made me a better pilot because I now see the whole airspace picture and I feel my flying became more professional as it required more precise aircraft control.

I like most here struggle to stay current. I get an IPC (instrument proficiency check) every six months because where I rent from requires it to fly at night.

I'm glad I have my instrument ticket but I realize I'm current but in no way proficient as I don't fly enough.

 

[Velocity173]

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.

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? Ok then.

 

[EppyGA]

I've watched this thread evolve and wondered if it wouldn't have been more appropriate for the Red Board.

If you want the rating go get it, if you don't that's up to you. I kind of like having another tool in the ouch if I need it.

 

[Jaybird180]

I've watched this thread evolve and wondered if it wouldn't have been more appropriate for the Red Board.

What's that?

 

[nddons]

Beautifully said.

Thank you.

 

[EppyGA]

What's that?

The AOPA forums where people posting simple questions always deteriorate into a pi$$ing contest between two or three pilots that are much superior to most of us.

 

[weilke]

The AOPA forums where people posting simple questions always deteriorate into a pi$$ing contest between two or three pilots that are much superior to most of us.

So you mean no different from this place ?

 

[MBDiagMan]

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?

I think that YOUR thinking is solid! A book that I highly recommend is "The Killing Zone." The author, defines the Killing Zone as the first 350 hours of a pilots experience. He goes through the categories of accidents that often kill new, or ANY pilots for that matter.

For new pilots one of the killers is inadvertently flying into clouds. He stresses the added safety provided by an Instrument Rating as soon as you can possibly get it. He even points out that the FAA determined this and then changed some rulings so that a beginning pilot can get the IR sooner.

Don't follow the crowd. Do what is best for you and what will keep you and your family safest.

My $0.02,

 

[weilke]

I think that YOUR thinking is solid! A book that I highly recommend is "The Killing Zone." The author, defines the Killing Zone as the first 350 hours of a pilots experience. He goes through the categories of accidents that often kill new, or ANY pilots for that matter.

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.