Ok, is it worth getting a instrument license if you really don't want to fly IFR?

I've been getting a lot of pressure from old pilots to get my instrument license. I guess all training is good, and parts of an instrument ticket look pretty fun, but it also seems like a lot of work and money for a rating I really never plan to use.

For one thing, I'm not that interested in flying when I can't see out the windows. For another, it's hard for me to imagine I'll ever have an airplane equipped for SAFE IFR flight. You know, duel vacuum systems, auto pilot, stack of radios, diaper, etc..

Some would debate the need for all that stuff... I remember reading in "Stuka Pilot" that Hans Rudel lead a flight of 50 Stuka's on a 300 mile IFR flight to attack a ship, and his specially equipped IFR aircraft had, in addition to the compass, a VSI and a T&B. That's it. But he was Hans Rudel and I'm not.

People say a instrument license will keep you safe, and I see the point, so long as you don't use it. It seems like there's a whole lot of danger associated with being a low time / low budget IFR pilot if you actually go out and fly IFR.

So, for those of you who have taken the leap, was the IFR training worth it even if you don't fly IFR? Anyone out there ever regret the time/money they spent learning to fly on the clocks, or is it the best thing you ever did?

I fly mainly vfr, I do on occasion (couple times a year) request ifr while enroute due to weather changes in the desert region I fequently traverse. For me it's just an added margin of safety associated with the region I operate my ac in... restricted airspace to the south of my route and unpredicable weather during the summer months sometimes prevent just flying around any weather that may develop while enroute, so for me filing ifr enroute becomes the preferred option over turning back...

ravi wrote:Ok, is it worth getting a instrument license if you really don't want to fly IFR?

Hell yes.....

It teaches precision flying. It teaches you how to set-up your airplane to make it do what YOU want it to do. And it teaches you what kind of weather you don't want to be flying in.

Not having your IFR ticket is kinda like having a car that you're not allowed to drive on the freeway. You can get most everywhere on the surface streets, but why if you don't have to.

Gump

I've been studying (very lackadaisically) for my instrument rating since I passed the checkride for my Private back in 2003. Like Ravi, I'm don't see myself flying in actual instrument conditions in my old 170. One thing I am realizing though is how much more acute my sense of spatial orientation from numbers (not feel) needs to be to visualize and fly an approach. It takes more thinking ahead and solid knowledge of the situation to stay ahead of the plane.

Lots of real instrument pilots will chime in I'm sure, but from a n00bie's perspective, it definitely takes your command of the cockpit and the situation up several notches to be able to comprehend and execute a complicated approach.

I am definitely in command of flight simulator, that's for sure....haha.

I got my ifr rateing about 4 years ago and am glad to have it. I have made a total of 3 real aproaches in the 182B. I try to stay curent and that helps me stay a better pilot.

You know when the weather is totaly crap I do not even consider it. When it is marginal vfr I go cus most of the time it is ok. It is safer to be in the clouds on a plan at a safe elevation than to scud run it with the posibility of running out of room and be in the clouds at low elevation.

I got the rating at Shebly's in Kingman Arizona and it took 10 days of drinking out of fire hose. I would do it that way again.

Tim

ravi,

I think the thing that is most positive about getting the instrument rating for someone in your position is that it will make you a better VFR pilot. Why? Because, to succeed in instrument flight, you really have to devote most of your attention to navigation, mandatory reporting, ATC, clearances, and putting the airplane in the right spot, doing the right thing. Which all means that the act of just flying the airplane, as in keeping it right side up, almost has to become second nature.

It'll make you a better pilot, whether you use it or not, and in VMC and IMC.

MTV

I got my instrument rating at GATTS in Kansas. It was the most fun rating I've got other than the seaplane rating I got at Shelbe's in AZ. I thought the most difficult by far was my Private. At the time I got my instrument rating I had over 1000 hours of VFR and that experience probably made it easier. Plus I was in my 40's then and when I worked on my Private I was in my teens.

I'm now in my 50's and have close to 2000 hours and have never regretted getting the Instrument rating. As I said it was all fun. I still very much enjoy the precision required and ability to go places when I wouldn't otherwise. I don't fly what I would call 'hard IFR' but going through layers, making approaches through layers and scattered clouds and ragged bases opens a new world.

In this part of the country (northern Rockies) ice can be a problem due to both the altitudes we have to get to and colder temps, so my IFR is limited to warmer weather and the last few years also not flying through clouds but forest fire smoke.

Get the IFR, you'll never wish you hadn't. I should have gotten mine sooner but had the same doubts and wonders that started this thread.

I guess I'll be the only one to say "why?". I've considered working on an instrument ticket a couple times over the years, I think it would be a fun challenge. But so would a seaplane rating. Same deal afterward-- now what? I don't have nor can I afford a seaplane.
I don't have an IFR-equipped airplane either. To equip mine would not be financially practical. So,I'd have to rent a suitably equipped airplane for my training, as well as hire an instructor. How many hours to get the ticket-- 50? Lotsa money at probably at least a C-note each for the airplane, plus another 50 or so for the CFII.
But say I go for it-- great, trained up for quite a while and got my IFR ticket, now what? Gotta rent that expensive airplane again just to keep "current", plus rent it some more to fly enough IFR to remain proficient (as opposed to legally current).
Then I need to rent it some more when I want to actually go somewhere IFR, as in "actual". Wintertime funly weather,guess what? Freezing level is about 3000 feet and tops are at 15000. Oops, no protection from "known icing" so I guess I can't go anyway. Which is alright, actually, becaiuse those clouds are where people get in over their heads and get killed. Plus looking at the inside of a cloud for 4 hours is kinda boring, at least until you find the embedded thunderstorm.
The benefit of IFR training that everyone always mentions for the VFR guy is that it "makes you a better pilot". How? More pecision, more on top of the airplane,etc? Why can't you learn that just flying VFR? ALWAYS nail your altitude and heading. ALWAYS nail your approach speed and glideslope. ALWAYS hit your landing spot.
I'm sure I'll get flamed here but that's my take on this IFR ticket business, at least in my case.

Eric

zero.one.victor wrote:I guess I'll be the only one to say "why?". I've considered working on an instrument ticket a couple times over the years, I think it would be a fun challenge. But so would a seaplane rating. Same deal afterward-- now what? I don't have nor can I afford a seaplane.
I don't have an IFR-equipped airplane either. I'm sure I'll get flamed here but that's my take on this IFR ticket business, at least in my case.

Eric

True..... But.

Learning any new skill in an airplane, be it IFR, float, glider, whatever... Opens up a bit more of the aviation world, and teaches your brain and the seat of your pants how things are supposed to look and feel. Maybe you won't ever use it, or maybe a year from now you'll be flying for a commuter and doing 10 approaches to minimums a day. Who knows.

And heaven forbid, on that day you're scud running and just like magic, POOF, the world goes white and you're floating inside a milk bottle. What the hell ya gonna do now? Even if all ya got is needle/ball/airspeed, the shiny side stays right side up if you're proficient. I guess the safe and prudent thing to do is to is fly severe clear, day VFR only. Not much fun, and not really getting full use out of your expensive airplane.

Like the old Gunny told me a long time ago. When you're stressed, you revert to your training, and it will save your butt. Speaking for myself only, the instrument rating was one of the best flying investments I've made.

Gump

I went through all this 25 years ago and did get my rating, so here's my 2 cents:

For a space cadet like me, it was easily the most difficult rating I ever got.

When I finally did pass the flight check, I had no really capable aircraft to fly and damn near killed myself trying to prove you could fly a 150 hp Cherokee IFR in the West.

I couldn't keep up the currency, so let it lapse for 10 years, then spent $1500 getting current again.

After finally getting an aircraft that could fly some IFR on the West Coast I kept it up for 12 years, during which time I spent roughly $500 a year on charts, ICC's, practice, transponder & static checks, etc. In all that time I probably made 15 real world approaches trying to actually get somewhere and accumulated a grand total of 41 hours of actual IFR. Now I'm no longer current and may never be again, as the 180 can't really fly IFR in Idaho.

Was it worth it? No, not on a monetary basis. However, I would definitely do it over again! There is not the slightest question in my mind that getting that rating (and the CFII later) was the smartest thing I ever did in my aviation career. It took me to another level and made me FAR more savvy about ATC, weather, precision flying, doing more than two things at once in an airplane....in short, it made me into a professional pilot.

What I might suggest to folks who realize they will never actually use this rating because of not needing it or being able to afford a suitable aircraft is to find a sympathetic CFII and do PART of the Instrument Syllabus, concentrating on the instrument flying and manouvering parts, weather, and understanding ATC. There is a huge amount of reading material for anyone who just wants to learn more about flying. I'm still learning from the folks who do columns on AVWEB every month. AOPA is an incredible resource, too. It's all about an attitude that flying is one of the most important and challenging things you will ever do in life and you can ALWAYS learn something new and useful every year.

BTW, zero.one.victor, why would anyone flame you for that very cogent argument against actually getting the IFR ticket? For many pilots on this forum the rating just doesn't make sense, but the ATTITUDE that most instrument pilots have toward flying does make a lot of sense.

Best Regards,

Rocky

zane wrote:don't see myself flying in actual instrument conditions in my old 170.

The C170 is actually a very good instrument airplane (the caveat being NO ICE, and not holding up traffic at a busy commercial airport on a minimums day with the slow airspeeds).

Lots of hometown airports to slide in and out of with a single VOR or ADF receiver in your airplane. And those two venturis sticking out the right side of the fuselage will always work (like I said, NO ICE).

Gump

Flying instruments has its place. Busting thru stratus in sea level and no terrain obstacles near by is one thing, but mountain flying is another. I get paid to fly some of the finest equipment, the B777, into some of the worst weather. We also have three autopilots ,and there is something about watching the aircraft flare, the throttles come back, and Mr. auto pilot squeeks it on with out seeing the runway. I have flown my SuperCub in IFR and It was an exausting experience. The SuperCub is far from being a stable IFR platform. There is something about coping an IFR clearance, you look up, and you are headed 180 degrees the other direction. I shot a hard core approach into Payne field WA expecting the ILS. I was assigned the full transition VOR approach which included a procedure turn. After I landed the tower stated: "You don't see many IFR SuperCubs", I responded: "Yea, stupid is'nt it". After I tied the bird down, It took one beer to Knock me out. The trick to the IFR ticket is to keep current. It will bite you if you don't.

Idaho SuperCub

zero.one.victor wrote:I guess I'll be the only one to say "why?". I've considered working on an instrument ticket a couple times over the years, I think it would be a fun challenge. But so would a seaplane rating. Same deal afterward-- now what?

I'm with you and I have a Bonanza. The statement that it makes you a better VFR pilot is specious at best. Are you a 100 hour VFR only pilot? Then yes, getting the rating will make you better, but only because any flying will make you better. I may someday get my rating but I'll never use it as around here in Montana IFR means either ice or T storms. It would occasionally handy when I make that annual trip to Minnesota in the summer. You show me a guy who has around 500 hours flying constantly out of short back country strips in something like a 182 and I'll show you somebody every bit as precise, if not more, than a flat lander with an IFR ticket.

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:I have to say I see both sides on this one. I would get the rating and probably be glad I had it for all of the above reasons.

On the other hand I have to say I can really see and agree with Eric's perspective on this one, that's a crapload of money and time invested in something I might maybe use once a year. ...............

There's another thing-- if you get that instrument rating, you'd better use it more than once a year. "Use it or lose it" really does apply here-- without staying proficient (NOT just current), I think that instrument rating can be dangerous. Lotsa folks might figure "I'm an instrument pilot" and don't sweat the scud-running....until the world turns white and about 2 minutes later they auger in. Before you say that wouldn't happen, I know people who are not tailwheel pilots (due to lack of currency/proficiency) who none- the-less go out and fly taildraggers and promptly wreck them. One CFI I know did it while trying to do tailwheel instruction, for god's sake. He's an old USAF jet jockey (Korean war-era), maybe he was hot stuff in PT-17 "Kaydets" back in the day but he's not up to the t/w challenge now.
I know a guy who flies IFR alot, he told me that if he went a month without doing some full-on approaches he could feel the rust. Now how about the guy who doesn't have much real-life IFR experience? It doesn't take much rust at all to obliterate what he had.

Eric

An elderly fellow at my EAA chapter. who has a lot of years and flying under his belt but now walks slowly with a cane, had a keen, comical observation about IFR. He said "IFR just means you get to fly a little longer before you crash!"

Now I know he has his IFR rating and I think he was just trying to pack a lot of exeperience into just a few words. Someday, I hope to be smart enough to figure out what he was trying to tell me.

I don’t doubt that getting the instrument rating improves flying skills generally, although I can't really say since I'm not rated. It’s interesting to me that some of the specific techniques for instrument flying seem to be opposite the techniques needed for maximum performance VFR operations. Taking off without flaps, controlling rate of descent with pitch instead of power, flying long, gentle glideslope paths at speeds significantly greater than 1.2 or 1.3 Vso all make sense for flying in the clouds, but they are exactly the opposite of techniques for backcountry operations.

The instrument rated pilots I’ve flown with all use the same techniques for VFR flying that they use for instrument flying. That may be good for maintaining IFR proficiency, but, in their case, it comes at the expense of maintaining proficiency for max performance VFR flying or engine failure. If I ever get my rating, I will want to make sure that I am flying regularly enough to maintain proficiency in all of the different techniques that are needed for different kinds of flying. I am looking forward to that day!

CAVU

Ravi:

I've thought about whether it's worth becoming instrument rated also. I've spoken to numerous IFR piltos and instructors about it as well as other VFR pilots. The opinions you're hearing from these fine gentlemen are essentially the same ones I've gotten over the last couple years.

I think what it comes down to for the common VFR pilot is that getting an istrument rating is expensive training that will make you become a more knowledgeable overall pilot, but probably not something you will use regularly, unless you have enough additional cash after getting the rating to upgrade to and IFR plane. Is it better training than simply spending that same money to fly VFR more often? I think that's a debatable point, as is shown by the differences of opinion in this thread.

For me, I've chosen the same route as Zero.One.Victor, that is, to spend the money flying as much VFR as I can. I also spend a good deal of time reading flying publications and re-watching my PPL training videos to try to stay sharp on the basics. Good luck with your decision.

Joe.

Ravi,

You can't go wrong getting an instrument rating. Even if you don't plan on using it, the experience will make you a better pilot overall. It just adds a new dimension to how you fly your airplane and gives you an additional skill set. It is expensive, but worth every cent.

Ultimately, if you choose not to get your instrument rating, I strongly recommend practicing flight by reference to instruments a couple times a year. Simulators are great, but under a hood in your 170 would be better assuming you have at least a turn coordinator or turn indicator. Grab an instructor, or a good safety pilot and practice straight-and-level flight as well as 180 degree turns. There's a good reason why the FAA requires this type of training in part 61 for VFR private pilots. Unintentional flight into IMC happens. There are many accidents to prove it. It happened to me once, and at the time I couldn't have imagined how easily and quickly comes. Practicing these maneuvers will go a long way toward saving your life if it should happen to you.

You are correct, however, in that if you don't use it you lose it. If you don't maintain your currency, you have no business flying IMC. That's where your good judgment comes into play and tells you to stay VFR until you get recurrent.

Good luck,
Matt

You bet, well worth the time and money. I used mine once in a year, for about 12 to 15 minutes actual. Glad I had it. Alway safety pilots around to help with currency. Good reason to spend some of the high dollar gas too. Have fun fly safe. Bub

I have it, don't use it much if I can avoid it (kind of like night flying), but feel much more confident because of the experience. I fly back and forth to Ontario quite a bit and it can be tough to get good weather all the way up, usually something is going on cloud-weather wise that you have to bust through along the way and the rating allows that with only a radio call. I did think at the time that the instrument rating process was the most draining-training I have ever done for anything. I am tickled to have the endorsement, but it is not something you can just wish for, you must make the comittment for it to happen. Yes, the float rating was a much more enjoyable experience, but they both have their place.