To IFR or not to IFR?

noobJohn said:
This particular school uses 172 and 172RG. The 172RG is only ~$15/hour more than the 172. Would the complex time accumulated during IFR training be useful or should I just stick to the basics?
Click to expand...
If you intend to fly complex planes later, then yes, it will, as more retractable time always makes insurers happier when they write your first retractable gear airplane policy and FBO's happier when you want to rent a retractable gear airplane from them. Otherwise, it has no utility, the time learning and getting used to the complex systems will detract from your IR training, and you can probably find better things to do with the money.
 
Just a data point, take it for what it's worth:

I'm a 20+ year, VFR-by-choice pilot. My wife (also a VFR-by-choice pilot) has flown for 17 years.

We have flown all over the United States, coast to coast, Canada to Mexico, all VFR. We have attended Oshkosh 33 times in a row, flying in since 1999. We've never missed due to weather, although we've been delayed a few times. (Remember SloshKosh?)

Although we do use our plane for business, both of us fly for the sheer joy of it. Back in 2001, I went for the instrument rating. I logged 54 approaches, a bunch of hours, and was about to be signed off for the checkride when we bought our first hotel. That was the end of focused, concentrated free time as I knew it, and I never finished the rating.

I found that the training made me a more precise pilot -- but so did aerobatics training. I also found that I did not enjoy instrument flying, at all. Flying without seeing anything, staring intently at the instrument panel, surrendering my routing choice to others, all of it was a bore and a chore, and seemed diametrically opposed to why I wanted to fly in the first place.

A few years later, when it became possible to resume my training, I hesitated. Living in Iowa (at the time), Mary and I logged the number of days when an instrument rating would help us. They were amazingly few, given that we could not fly in icing or convective conditions in the piston powered bug-smashers we flew. So, I decided to remain VFR only, by choice, and have never regretted it.

Now that I live on an island in the gulf, there are more times when the rating would help me get out, but they are still very few, and frankly I don't fly anywhere that I absolutely have to be. So, if it's VFR, we go. If it's not, chances are pretty good that it would be a miserable flight, and I don't want to ever fly in miserable conditions.

An aside: I have found that technology has made flying in marginal VFR conditions much more enjoyable and safe. We have had synthetic vision on our EFIS for over a year, now, and it has the marvelous ability of making hazy conditions clear as a bell. The days of not being able to see where the airport is are behind us, because there is a magenta "balloon" floating over it in the virtual world.

And, of course, with ADS-B traffic and weather, it is now possible to fly around weather that, back in the olden days, we used to be unaware of. Before XM and ADS-B weather, VFR cross-country flights were truly sketchy affairs.

Another data point: Remaining IFR current is not enough. You must remain proficient. I know a LOT of pilots, and I can count the number of instrument proficient private instrument pilots on one hand. It is extraordinarily difficult and expensive to maintain instrument proficiency as a non-professional private pilot.

So, there you have it. You have to ask yourself why you are flying, and what kind of flying you enjoy. I made the choice to stay VFR, and have had a ball with it for over two decades. YMMV.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Just a data point, take it for what it's worth:

I'm a 20+ year, VFR-by-choice pilot. My wife (also a VFR-by-choice pilot) has flown for 17 years.

We have flown all over the United States, coast to coast, Canada to Mexico, all VFR. We have attended Oshkosh 33 times in a row, flying in since 1999. We've never missed due to weather, although we've been delayed a few times. (Remember SloshKosh?)

Although we do use our plane for business, both of us fly for the sheer joy of it. Back in 2001, I went for the instrument rating. I logged 54 approaches, a bunch of hours, and was about to be signed off for the checkride when we bought our first hotel. That was the end of focused, concentrated free time as I knew it, and I never finished the rating.

I found that the training made me a more precise pilot -- but so did aerobatics training. I also found that I did not enjoy instrument flying, at all. Flying without seeing anything, staring intently at the instrument panel, surrendering my routing choice to others, all of it was a bore and a chore, and seemed diametrically opposed to why I wanted to fly in the first place.

A few years later, when it became possible to resume my training, I hesitated. Living in Iowa (at the time), Mary and I logged the number of days when an instrument rating would help us. They were amazingly few, given that we could not fly in icing or convective conditions in the piston powered bug-smashers we flew. So, I decided to remain VFR only, by choice, and have never regretted it.

Now that I live on an island in the gulf, there are more times when the rating would help me get out, but they are still very few, and frankly I don't fly anywhere that I absolutely have to be. So, if it's VFR, we go. If it's not, chances are pretty good that it would be a miserable flight, and I don't want to ever fly in miserable conditions.

An aside: I have found that technology has made flying in marginal VFR conditions much more enjoyable and safe. We have had synthetic vision on our EFIS for over a year, now, and it has the marvelous ability of making hazy conditions clear as a bell. The days of not being able to see where the airport is are behind us, because there is a magenta "balloon" floating over it in the virtual world.

And, of course, with ADS-B traffic and weather, it is now possible to fly around weather that, back in the olden days, we used to be unaware of. Before XM and ADS-B weather, VFR cross-country flights were truly sketchy affairs.

Another data point: Remaining IFR current is not enough. You must remain proficient. I know a LOT of pilots, and I can count the number of instrument proficient private instrument pilots on one hand. It is extraordinarily difficult and expensive to maintain instrument proficiency as a non-professional private pilot.

So, there you have it. You have to ask yourself why you are flying, and what kind of flying you enjoy. I made the choice to stay VFR, and have had a ball with it for over two decades. YMMV.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment that lots of private pilots are not proficient flying IFR. However, a lot of that is their own doing. I fly an approach every time at night. I also enjoy just going flying on a nice stormy day more than a windless CAVU day. I almost always file on any cross country, just because I like using the system. As long as choices don't become excuses, then whatever works for an individuals situation.
 
Dang it, Jay. Don't confuse me! :D

Is there some part of you that wishes you had completed the rating? If for nothing more than to say you did it. :dunno:

Jay Honeck said:
Just a data point, take it for what it's worth:

I'm a 20+ year, VFR-by-choice pilot. My wife (also a VFR-by-choice pilot) has flown for 17 years.

Although we do use our plane for business, both of us fly for the sheer joy of it. Back in 2001, I went for the instrument rating. I logged 54 approaches, a bunch of hours, and was about to be signed off for the checkride when we bought our first hotel. That was the end of focused, concentrated free time as I knew it, and I never finished the rating.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jnmeade said:
I am not as eager as most of you to recommend getting an IFR ticket absent a clear need for the ticket.

There is a subliminal assumption that an IFR pilot flies to higher standards than a VFR pilot. That may in fact be true but it is simply not necessary.

In other words, a person can develop equal proficiency in maintaining an altitude, a heading, turning at a precise point at an acceptable bank angle, managing fuel selection, descent, climb and turn rates and so forth in VFR as under the hood.

If one needs an IFR certificate one should get one.
If one gets an IFR ticket because one is told it will make one a better pilot, that is a bit disingenuous. Being a better pilot is well within the capability and indeed should be the goal of every VFR pilot.

So, let's all fly at precise altitudes, airspeeds, etc. in all flight regimes. If one needs to fly IMC or in the system, get the IFR ticket. Don't get the IFR ticket because one is too lacking in discipline to be the best pilot one can be in the VFR world.
Click to expand...
I don't think its so much better heading, speed, and altitude control, as it is learning a new side of aviation. Once you learn the IFR side, you will understand the VFR side much better. If I flew for a hobby, I would definitely get an IR but probably not fly IMC.
 
noobJohn said:
Dang it, Jay. Don't confuse me! :D

Is there some part of you that wishes you had completed the rating? If for nothing more that to say you did it. :dunno:
Click to expand...

My experience with traveling VFR is like Jay's, I have rarely had a delay or a missed flight that I would have taken if IFR, there are some clouds I will not go into, I'm more comfortable at the tree tops where I can see the monsters that want to kill me. IMC they hit you like out of a horror movie.

That said, I am very glad I got the rating because it has opened the opion on those flights. In SoCal the IR was indispensable, the Marine Layer there is the most docile IMC there is and presents no hazards to a properly trained pilot.

I do however realize that my proficiency on interpretation is degraded (although I always try and at least a few minutes every flight of solid concentration on it) which is why I chose to spend the money on the panel I did. After several years of doing IPCs in a continuously upgrading Cherokee, it became quite obvious to me the advantages I was buying myself, and they are advantages that in a bind, VFR or IFR, can save my ass.

There is little room for ego in aviation. The key is to admit your weaknesses and find the best way to help becoming victim to them. IMO, you need to hand fly in IMC (actual or simulated) pretty regularly at least 50 hrs a year dedicated to it in order to stay at the same level of proficiency as 5 hrs with SVT, and once you know the system, there is no real difference between IMC and VMC with regards to situational awareness because you have eVMC.

Unless I'm flying for a living in 2D panel planes, I won't choose to go into IMC with them except to pop through a layer. As long as nothing too much goes wrong, I'll be fine. But life, especially aviation life, rarely works that way, you are either totally fine, or going of the falls of **** creek in a cascade of failures. I have had enough trips down the creek, I'll buy my advantages with technology since I cannot maintain the proficiency I feel I want single pilot IFR with the flying schedule I can keep.
 
Yes, everyone is different. I actually enjoy the challenge of IMC, but I'm well aware that it's less safe than flight in visual conditions, and I won't do it without an instructor unless I feel on top of my game. That said, the vast majority of my time in actual so far is solo -- until I lost my job last year, I was doing pretty well staying proficient that way. So it can be done even as a nonprofessional pilot - sometimes. Since moving here I've only gotten in two solo proficiency flights, practically back to back last fall. Not enough to even stay current, so I did an IPC. Then came our "fun" winter -- and lots of down time for me. Sigh.
 
noobJohn said:
Dang it, Jay. Don't confuse me! :D

Is there some part of you that wishes you had completed the rating? If for nothing more than to say you did it. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I replied to you initially as well, and almost identical to Jay, was nearly at the finish line and stopped. My area is VMC year round. My only IR need is the once every year or two California trip. I still want to finish, am just time constrained right now and PIC is not an option running my own business.

I think I'd like to be VFR under and not in most of the moderate stuff I've been near similar to Henning's style.

IFR flying felt like being at work, and flying is my escape from that ... so I piled up a BUNCH of fun getaway excursions over the past years and don't regret ANY of it. I've been delayed twice in 600 hours, the longest being 7 hours.
 
IMO 5 hours a month is enough if you are using most of that time to fly IFR. Once you get the rating it's wise to fly IFR and use approaches even if the weather is VMC. Otherwise you will lose the skills pretty quickly.

The worst thing you could do is fly VFR all the time and then go off and shoot into IMC for the first time in months because the weather is a little low. As long as you're smart about that, you'll be fine.
 
AustinPilot said:
IMO 5 hours a month is enough if you are using most of that time to fly IFR. Once you get the rating it's wise to fly IFR and use approaches even if the weather is VMC. Otherwise you will lose the skills pretty quickly.

The worst thing you could do is fly VFR all the time and then go off and shoot into IMC for the first time in months because the weather is a little low. As long as you're smart about that, you'll be fine.
Click to expand...
5 hours a month may be good for you but not for others. The day after I got my IR, I filed and flew in actual as much as I could. I haven't flown instruments in about a year as I haven't really needed it due to Commercial training and currently CFI training.
 
AustinPilot said:
IMO 5 hours a month is enough if you are using most of that time to fly IFR. Once you get the rating it's wise to fly IFR and use approaches even if the weather is VMC. Otherwise you will lose the skills pretty quickly.

The worst thing you could do is fly VFR all the time and then go off and shoot into IMC for the first time in months because the weather is a little low. As long as you're smart about that, you'll be fine.
Click to expand...

That's 60 hours a year just on proficiency training. At $150hr that $22,500 of flying to maintain proficiency. Unless you fly everywhere with a safety pilot, 60 hours of training flights or actual is hard to achieve for most GA pilots. Figure half the flights you make will have to be 'extra proficiency/training' flights for not other goal. That, $11,250 a year spent only on proficiency would pay for a 750 and G-500 deck in 3-4 years, and you get the benefits of SVT which are not available in a 2D deck at any cost. The argument that maintaining proficiency is BETTER than adding technology as a better value is incorrect.
 
Henning said:
That's 60 hours a year just on proficiency training. At $150hr that $22,500 of flying to maintain proficiency. Unless you fly everywhere with a safety pilot, 60 hours of training flights or actual is hard to achieve for most GA pilots. Figure half the flights you make will have to be 'extra proficiency/training' flights for not other goal. That, $11,250 a year spent only on proficiency would pay for a 750 and G-500 deck in 3-4 years, and you get the benefits of SVT which are not available in a 2D deck at any cost. The argument that maintaining proficiency is BETTER than adding technology as a better value is incorrect.
Click to expand...

He said in the original post that he flies 5 hours a month already. I didn't make the number up myself.
 
noobJohn said:
Dang it, Jay. Don't confuse me! :D

Is there some part of you that wishes you had completed the rating? If for nothing more than to say you did it. :dunno:
Click to expand...

lol I've accomplished more with aviation than most people, and have had a ball doing it. I belong to every public, and a couple of private, aviation organizations, and I fly more often than anyone I know. Even better, I fly in one of the most beautiful areas on the world.

I am totally, 100% happy with my choice to stay VFR. It was the right one for me. :)

That all said, if I were to somehow become a billionaire and was suddenly able to afford a truly capable IFR aircraft (think: PC-12 or King Air), I would probably finish up the rating.
 
AustinPilot said:
He said in the original post that he flies 5 hours a month already. I didn't make the number up myself.
Click to expand...

But all 5 hours would have to be spent working on it. That means every flight is under the hood with a safety pilot or in IMC. If someone is into that, cool, not me though, I like to look out the widows and watch the world go by as I fly along.
 
He has people who do the calculations in exchange for his advice on love.

Edit to add : just kidding with you, Henning. :D No offense intended.
PPC1052 said:
Might want to check your math there, sparky.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
But all 5 hours would have to be spent working on it. That means every flight is under the hood with a safety pilot or in IMC. If someone is into that, cool, not me though, I like to look out the widows and watch the world go by as I fly along.
Click to expand...

You can fly IFR without being in IMC or under the hood. I think just practicing the ATC workflow and using instrument procedures to land, even in VMC, will help. You can't log the approaches, sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't good practice.
 
...great thread.

I'm a ~200 hour Private Pilot and struggling with this as well. I'm in a Cherokee 235 partnership and the aircraft is IFR certified and we're about to do a small avionics upgrade to get us ADS-B compliant primarily building around a 430W or 650 GPS platform.

To this point, I've gone up post-PPL several times with my CFI to fly in IMC. I wanted to have the experience and get an idea of how it affected me and how to fly in it if I ever get myself into it. Fortunately I found that it doesn't really bother me. I don't enjoy it really, but I didn't have any major problems with the 'leans' or vertigo, etc... and was able to maintain headings, climb/descend and do the 180 turn. I hand flew in it both times for over 30 minutes...it was exhausting! I'd assume that changes over time/training but it's definitely work. My plane has a single-axis autopilot as well that is helpful in an inadvertent IMC situation - at least it can help keep the shiny side up.

Anyway, I intent on going back from time to time just to get some practice there so that I can keep my cool should I ever find myself in that situation.

I will probably go get the IFR because I want to learn and be a better pilot. My intent with an IFR is to be able to get in/out with fog or low decks that are maybe a few thousand feet thick that I can get on top in short order and then if need be shoot an approach through some broken or overcast layers close to MVFR. I've had a few cancellations because of marginal weather and had a recent XC trip where as I was on my return flight Foreflight was showing my destination area popping with blue dots. It ended up being a non-event (was watching weather closely and timed it perfectly) but had we arrived a few hours later that broken layer was now overcast and pretty much right at the ceiling level that would have barely kept me at pattern altitude with 500' clearance of the clouds.

I don't think there's a blanket answer here - everyone has to make the determination based on their time/$$/mission. I'll get mine but will continue to have pretty strict minimums. After 10 years in the system, sure those minimums will change - but initially I want the IFR to improve my flying abilities, get better with ATC/system and not have to postpone/cancel flights with marginal conditions.
 
No intent on being a professional pilot, will probably never own a plane that goes in FL180 and don't plan to fly around in thick clouds... however I see absolutely no negative in getting my instrument rating. The true benefit I see is learning more in depth about how to control the plane, how to work within the system and make you a more competent and capable pilot.
 
Resurrecting my own thread. I decided last year to go for the IFR rating. I was basically checkride ready with just a few more hours of simulated instrument time needed when my instructor left town. I flew once with another instructor who agreed I was ready but one obstacle remained. The written test. To make a long story short, life got in the way. Life's obstacles have cleared and I'm ready to get back at it. This time around I'm going to pass the @#$@#$@#$ written test first, then knock the rust off my instrument skills with an instructor and pass that checkride.

Simple question. Can the King IFR Windows DVD course be used on multiple computers?
 
noobJohn said:
Resurrecting my own thread. I decided last year to go for the IFR rating. I was basically checkride ready with just a few more hours of simulated instrument time needed when my instructor left town. I flew once with another instructor who agreed I was ready but one obstacle remained. The written test. To make a long story short, life got in the way. Life's obstacles have cleared and I'm ready to get back at it. This time around I'm going to pass the @#$@#$@#$ written test first, then knock the rust off my instrument skills with an instructor and pass that checkride.
Click to expand...

So looking back, I take that you feel that it was a worthwhile endeavor. True?
 
How often will you fly hard instruments to stay proficient?!two, three times a week? less? More? Or will you fly instruments much less , lose the edge and kill yourself. It happens time and again, over and over. Usually due to inexperience and freezing in the clutch. I had to make a living and could not devote the time to be a pro on instruments. Wisely for me , I only did 4000 hours of recreational flying, along with some long trips, and enjoyed it a lot.
 
Hi John.

I did the same thing you are thinking about, i.e. passed the written first thing. The time running out on the written was what drove me to go ahead and finish up and do the checkride. I think the King DVD's will work on a TV disk player or on a computer, whichever you put them in. I used King, and they are good. My biggest challenge was staying awake and paying attention.

Good luck!
 
Everyone has their opinions.

IMO, having the IFR in your pocket if you need it is valuable, even if you never fly hard IMC. I'm currently putting around in a VFR only Cherokee. While I haven't done anything "unsafe," I have had to fly at 1500AGL for an hour because a broken layer didn't reveal a hole big enough for my paltry 400-500fpm climb rate to get up through and stay clear. I'd of been much more comfortable at 5000AGL above the broken layer with more time to react to an emergency if one happened.

The other day, I took off VFR and got above a scattered layer in cruise with tops at about 3000. It quickly became tight broken over my destination with a ceiling of around 1700. I ended up having to do a 1200fpm decent through a small hole into the area, where I contacted the tower and landed safely. Terrain wasn't a factor. Now, was that technically unsafe to do? No, IMO. Ducking through holes in broken layers is normal for VFR ops, otherwise you'd never fly in the SE USA during the summer.

But in that situation I'd of much rather been able to simply fly an approach with ATC separation and a gradual decent then having to cowboy it down below the clouds to remain legal.

All these boogeyman stories about getting in over your head, etc. aren't a result of having the IFR ticket. They are the result of stupid pilots making stupid decisions. There's plenty of utility in the IFR ticket besides hard IMC flying.
 
noobJohn said:
Simple question. Can the King IFR Windows DVD course be used on multiple computers?
Click to expand...

I'd recommend going a different route and using something that has online practice tests. Gleim's online stuff or SheppardAir. That's all you need. The King stuff is outdated and being able to take dozens of randomized practice tests is absolutely the best study tool you can have.
 
King works great, for practice tests; as long as they update it's all good, use the King or pay another $20 for Shepard or Dauntless, but for the meat and potatoes of your learning and videos, King all the way.


I've used King with all my students, and for myself, on everything from private to ATP, never failed and never had a student fail a written or a oral (which is what those prep you for).
 
I just started my IFR training. After only a few lessons, I can already see how completely different flying under the hood is from flying VFR. It does require far more precise control, and very clear thinking and planning. I don't plan on using it for hard IMC. I'm more the pop-thru-the-layer type. We fly to the CA coast a lot, and the instrument rating will increase our opportunity to fly to our preferred destinations by nearly 50%. Also, my home field is regularly socked in during the mornings in winter, but it is clear blue skies from 1500 up.

Besides, my wife says I'm not a real pilot until I get my instrument rating.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
How often will you fly hard instruments to stay proficient?!two, three times a week? less? More? Or will you fly instruments much less , lose the edge and kill yourself. It happens time and again, over and over. Usually due to inexperience and freezing in the clutch. I had to make a living and could not devote the time to be a pro on instruments. Wisely for me , I only did 4000 hours of recreational flying, along with some long trips, and enjoyed it a lot.
Click to expand...

The rating isn't just about flying in IMC.

I flew through Chicago's B this morning, and received several shortcuts from ATC that I wouldn't have received VFR.

I don't disagree about proficiency, but there's much more utility available to the IR pilot even when it's CAVU.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
The rating isn't just about flying in IMC.

I flew through Chicago's B this morning, and received several shortcuts from ATC that I wouldn't have received VFR.

I don't disagree about proficiency, but there's much more utility available to the IR pilot even when it's CAVU.
Click to expand...

Based on the east coast (and I would think on the west coast as well), it's much easier to fly IFR on trips. You don't have to worry a bit about all the complex airspace since atc clears you through everything. Sure, sometimes the routes you get are a little crazy, but it's a lot more relaxing than trying to navigate the airspace mess from Boston to Richmond with sectional charts.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I flew through Chicago's B this morning, and received several shortcuts from ATC that I wouldn't have received VFR.
Click to expand...
Really? I've always gotten horrendously worse routings through Chicagoland IFR than VFR.

27K: Chicago Approach, Navion 5327K. Is there any altitude I can request that will avoid me having to go to KELSI?
C90: Hold on, I'll check....Nope.
27K: OK, here's what we're going to do. I'm going to climb up 500' (I was at 10,000 already), cancel IFR, and you'll give me flight following direct to OSH.
C90: We can do that.
 
Didn't go anywhere near KELSI. MSN to GYY via RFD/JOT/Direct. 20 miles from MSN direct SIMMN, then vectored straight to GYY.

Everything I read here and elsewhere, as well as discussing it with my CFI, said that it wouldn't go anything like that.

I confess I haven't flown near Chicago's airspace VFR... maybe I would have been allowed that VFR, maybe not. I guess I'm just guessing when I say not:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top