GumpAir wrote:I must be brain damaged... Yeah, I know I am...

But I find IMC, especially night IMC, relaxing and thoroughly enjoyable. And, again at night, I feel kinda cheated if I break out way above minimums. I love seeing the lights right at the bottom, and come sliding on down and making a greaser landing. The extra concentration always makes for heightened spatial awareness and depth perception. Shit's magic.

Gump

HMMM I am not an MD but your avatar is John Belushi, "push the envelope" is your middle name, you run towards danger and your favorite movie Character is Ben Rumson."I'm an ex-citizen of nowhere, and sometimes I get mighty homesick." Lets settle for walks to the beat of a different drum!

Green Hornet wrote:You get to the point that you get your ticket with their airplane and SIM & whatever avionics it has??? then you go to lets say a Maule or super Cub with different equipment avionics in different places and you get yet another CFI to get trained all over again. Or you get trained in your airplane but the Sim is different?

I learned on steam gauges a long time ago, then flew for living where having an NDB was high tech and a lifesaver. The new technology is so much more user friendly and easier to grasp than the old. The boxes that do all the mental gymnastics and math, big screens with moving maps, reliable, non-mechanical avionics that actually work when you need them... Life is good and getting better.

Moving up or around in avionics and panel layout is not a problem. Learn the basics of attitude instrument flying to the point of proficiency with any training environment, and adjusting from one airplane to the next will really be a non-event. Fly for a company with multiple aircraft and you'll be doing it every day. Or, in your own airplane, learning the scan ain't a big deal. It's just a matter of practice and maybe some tweaking to get lighting where you want it.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:

Green Hornet wrote:You get to the point that you get your ticket with their airplane and SIM & whatever avionics it has??? then you go to lets say a Maule or super Cub with different equipment avionics in different places and you get yet another CFI to get trained all over again. Or you get trained in your airplane but the Sim is different?

I learned on steam gauges a long time ago, then flew for living where having an NDB was high tech and a lifesaver. The new technology is so much more user friendly and easier to grasp than the old. The boxes that do all the mental gymnastics and math, big screens with moving maps, reliable, non-mechanical avionics that actually work when you need them... Life is good and getting better.

Moving up in avionics is not a problem. Learn the basics of attitude instrument flying to the point of proficiency with any training environment, and adjusting from one airplane to the next will really be a non-event. Fly for a company with multiple aircraft and you'll be doing it every day. Or, in your own airplane, learning the scan ain't a big deal. It's just a matter of practice and maybe some tweaking to get lighting where you want it.

Gump

I totally agree with that as a matter of fact my PPL CFI was big on under the hood scanning instruments. I actually found that out coming back from Idaho a couple of years ago when California was burning to the ground. I was flying with flight following but once I got passed Tahoe it was said to be 6SM vis but lets just say I was glad to have patroller doors to see HWY 50 below me, that I had a Garmin 396 and could follow the pink line, Altimeter, turn co-ordinator & that I was trained to scan instruments. Lets call it modified VFR IMC!
I guess my only point was that to be honest with myself after experiencing all the new stuff I could see me spending a lot more than $5k. Like you said life is getting better! It gets back to the question is it worth it or can I afford to upgrade.
Of course I suffer from the syndrome of never wanting to do something half assed and love all the new technology!

Bill, if you want an IFR ticket just go get it. I recomend doing it the way I did. Then come home, do 5 or 6 hrs of hood time with a friend to make the adjustment to your plane. If you do not want it then do not worry about the high tech stuff.

Tim

Mauleguy wrote:...... it opens up a whole new world that can decay around you faster then you would ever believe, single pilot IFR in the NW is something to take very seriously. .....
It is also a very hard rating to stay current with long term unless you have a use for it......

I agree. I've thought about working on an IFR ticket a few times, but I would have to spend quite a bit of money to properly equip my airplane, then spend alot more money & time doing the actual training. And when I need it most, wintertime, the freezing level is usually down to around 3,000' or less here in the pacific northwest. Can you spell "ice"?
I also feel that if you don't use that IFR ticket all the time, you will not have the proficiency you need when you do (attempt to) use it. From what others have told me, those "ratings mills" where you can go get your IFR ticket in a week (or whatever) are great for getting the cetificate, but not so great at preparing you to fly in actual IMC conditions. So when you get home from Scheble (where they enjoy very little IMC weather, BTW) or wherever, you need to go work out some more in your own airplane-- although at least for me, I suspect it would be more than the 5 or 6 hours Tim talked about.
Long story short: for me & the flying-just-for-fun I do, the money is better spent on gas.

Eric

I have sent several instrument students to their checkride without having any actual. I hate doing it, but it just a fact of life here in CO. I do try to get them actual if the conditions allow. With that being said, if you are unfortunate to get your instrument ticket without getting actual, I highly recommend being with a current IFR pilot or CFII the first time you go into the clouds. It can be a real eye opener when you loose your peripheral vison you somewhat have wearing googles. And remember, trust your instruments and not head!

I must be brain damaged... Yeah, I know I am...

But I find IMC, especially night IMC, relaxing and thoroughly enjoyable. And, again at night, I feel kinda cheated if I break out way above minimums. I love seeing the lights right at the bottom, and come sliding on down and making a greaser landing. The extra concentration always makes for heightened spatial awareness and depth perception. Shit's magic.

Gump


Ya there's nothin like sliding down the glide slope and breaking out 250' to 300' above the ground with the runway right in front of you.

Something you might think about...seems like I read somewhere that the majority of VFR-into-IMC crashes involve instrument rated pilots. What's that tell ya? People aren't staying proficient.

Eric

For a first post, I will throw my two cents in. BTW, Hello. I’m Chip.

Everyone’s situation is different but for me, I’m glad I did it. I am low time, 300 hrs, and just bought a 182C in Aug. Having an instrument rating sure helps with insurance. Not sure I will recoup the cost of the rating over time but I’m certainly saving some money now and have the experience of flying at a higher level of proficiency to boot. When I was current, I liked to file IFR flight plans on XCs even though it was VFR. It’s just another way to maintain SA en-route and have someone readily available if you need them. If you’re going someplace, may as well make it a “currency” flight to boot. Also, there is no chance of forgetting to close a flight plan because you don’t have to. The finesse piloting skills and confidence gained getting the rating also carried over and made me a better pilot in approaches, landings, configuring/re-configuring the plane, thinking way ahead, and communicating. Those skills translate to all types of flying, even back country. Getting the ticket (and staying current) is challenging and a lot of fun and I am a better pilot for it. I’m glad I did it even though I don’t really fly in actual conditions here in CO. Bill you are right. I got my ticket at PTAF with .3 actual and I think that was very generous. Waiting for spring and those pesky thin layers that hang over COS so I can get some more actual; .1 at a time for a combined TO and landing.

GumpAir wrote:I know that this topic was discussed ad naseum a couple of years ago, with some good points of view for both sides bantered about. Search it, it should be worth reading.

My own opinion... Not being instrument rated is like having a car and not being allowed to drive on the freeway. The training is a good physical and mental exercise. It teaches precision flying and discipline. The ability to stay upright in case of inadvertent IFR is a lifesaver. And... It's fun.

Flying is flying, and the more you do it the better you get at it. So even if IFR training doesn't directly relate to backcountry flying, the ability to control your airplane with more feel and understanding does.

Gump

Perfectly said Gump. In college I had to take a bunch of math classes that I knew I would never use. Only later did I come to the realization that it was the problem solving skills that I really got out of the class. I tell people that getting your IFR rating will do a great deal towards refining your skills, which will affect all aspects of your flying...which makes it well worth it.

IMHO, one of the big problems out there today is that people that are learning to fly in the IFR environment on all the new technology don't develope the mental situational skills required on steam gauges. Then, when all of a sudden they don't have that big moving map, or get into an aircraft without one, their skills are lacking. I find that in myself if I haven't done any steam gauge IFR flying for a while. In fact, there was an article in AOPA a few years ago about some talk of requiring an endorsement if you learn on glass and then want to go to steam guages. If I remember right, I think it is in Australia that they require this.

centennial wrote:......
When I was current, I liked to file IFR flight plans on XCs even though it was VFR. ......
Getting the ticket (and staying current) is challenging and a lot of fun and I am a better pilot for it. ......

"When I was current...."-- are we to assume that you are not current now? Not good if you are rusty and need to use those instrument skills in real life, esp if (as you say) you are a low time (300 hour) pilot with little IFR time plus almost zero time in actual IMC. Like bmurrish said, the real thing's a whole 'nother ball game than the foggles. No offense, but if it was me I wouldn't count too much on those IFR skills until I honed them back up. This might be the sort of situation where those VFR-into-IMC statistics come from.
Again, no offense, just something to think about.

Eric

Thanks Eric no offense, I must not have been clear.

No, I am not current now per part 61.57. When I was current, I used every opportunity to continue to build my instrument skills, maintain currency, and partake in the instrument environment; which is not the same as IMC.

In Colorado, IMC that supports flights in C-172s and 182s is not that common. So, logging actual IMC is usually overcome by events such as coordinating with an instructor, time off work, or other commitments. I still continue to use my instrument training every chance I get; it's part of how I fly now. I suspect that when I take an IPC, I will do well. As for VFR into IMC that’s no big deal for me…I simply don’t fly if conditions are anywhere near IMC so it's an easy No Go decision. Fortunately, I don’t have to face that decision very often, it’s usually the winds that ground me.

My overall point to TJs question was I feel it’s worth getting an instrument rating. It has added to my piloting skills across the board; I certainly don’t regret it.

Chip

Yes, it's useful like all knowledge (but this knowledge I do consider expensive).

I starting my PPL training in a club flying Citabrias Jan 2005, got my ticket in June, got checked out in a Husky to also fly for fun, got checked out in a 182 and started instrument training in a 182 in July. One particular 182 was marginally more to rent than the 172SPs with a lot less conflict but then it started to stay offline so I got checked out to fly the 172s.

I wound up with my own new Maule MX-180C in November 2006, gave up keeping current in the club, and got my instrument rating in my plane August 2007 with about 310 hours PIC and 390 total.

I fly for fun which to me is flying low on clear days with a friend and don't seem to be able to get much more than 130 hours a year, currently at 660 total. I stay legally current although my current legality was done in a simulator flying a 172 (I'll be going up soon in my plane with a CFII). I prefer to go up with a CFII every few months than go with a safety pilot. I also maintain subscriptions to IFR and IFR Refresher.

I have used my rating once to get a clearance when I got fogged in at lunch in Half Moon Bay. That is at the limit of what I'm willing to attempt unless I change my flying style. I did find it useful last month when I was down avoiding headwinds in MVFR flying south with central valley glare.

Even with such limited aspirations, I would feel much better replacing my 250xl 2nd comm with a SL30 nav/com and adding a redundant CDI. My 430 has temporarily gone out once, and, after warranty, of course, I have replaced my CDI, DG and AI (yes my prop is balanced). With a 235 engine, I might be a little more ambitious.

EDIT: Yep, X2 what bmurrish said.

Another CFII CO pilot with 8.4 hours of actual.

Since the original poster is from the North East, I'll chime in.

I got my instrument rating while living in New England. I wanted to get as much actual as possible, and was able to get 20.2 hours of actual during my training. If you're going to be flying IFR in the north east, definitely get your rating there, ideally with an instructor who'll train you in actual conditions.

The training made me a better pilot for sure. You're tolerance for cockpit workload will increase by a large margin. You'll be much farther ahead of the plane. You're knowledge of weather will increase significantly. You'll learn a lot more about how "the system" works. You'll become much more precise.

That said, I haven't really used my instrument ticket since. Like MauleGuy, I like to see where I'm going. When I dreamt about flying as a kid, I wasn't bumping around inside of clouds in those dreams!

The days when I can't fly VFR I'd rather just stay on the ground. In fact, the times when we've been out on family trips in the plane and have had to wait out weather have led to some of the best experiences of my flying life. Things like the high school rodeo in Douglas Wyoming, the parade in Preston, Idaho, commemorating a bank robbery by Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and also home of Napoleon Dynamite, spending a rainy afternoon talking to the Sheriff of a tiny town in South Dakota, and an impromptu visit to the Spam museum in southern Minnesota.

I definitely don't regret getting the rating, but I really don't miss using it either.

Green Hornet wrote:"push the envelope" is your middle name

"Out on the edge you see all the kinds of things you can't see from the center." Kurt Vonnegut

I like the view from there.

Gump

Don't do it. For the $5000 you can go get a float rating which is a ton of fun. With the remainder you can practice flying to make you a better pilot. Let me explain myself, the instrument rating does make you a better pilot by tightening you tolerances in terms of altitude, direction, navigation, situational awareness and multi-tasking (cockpit management) because you need them to pass the ride, however, you can make yourself do all of those by yourself with a little self-discipline. My biggest argument against it is not staying current and then pushing vfr conditions leading into unintended IMC and then CFIT. It is the same reason that I don't recommend newer pilots fly with a GPS into low viz it can lead to going into weather you would never go into without the GPS. My reasoning may be flawed (and I am sure some will point that out) but I believe you will be a safer overall pilot w/o the instrument rating unless you are going to be IMC a lot.

[quote][/but I believe you will be a safer overall pilot w/o the instrument rating unless you are going to be IMC a lot.quote]

Uhhh....WHAT ?

Even if you don't get the rating, at least get some of the training, say 10 hrs with a CFII for instrument reference flying in case you do ever need it. A float rating may be fun but has nothing to do with the fog and or clouds you run into in the Northeast. Just my nickels' worth...

GumpAir wrote:

Green Hornet wrote:"push the envelope" is your middle name

"Out on the edge you see all the kinds of things you can't see from the center." Kurt Vonnegut

I like the view from there.

Gump

I know exactly where the edge is been there many times and I love the view but i can't get there from here! Catch 22

Headoutdaplane wrote:.... the instrument rating does make you a better pilot by tightening you tolerances in terms of altitude, direction, navigation, situational awareness and multi-tasking (cockpit management) because you need them to pass the ride, however, you can make yourself do all of those by yourself with a little self-discipline. My biggest argument against it is not staying current and then pushing vfr conditions leading into unintended IMC and then CFIT. .... I believe you will be a safer overall pilot w/o the instrument rating unless you are going to be IMC a lot.

I agree.
I've told people about taking the gyro's out of my panel, some have said "but you'll kill yourself! what if you fly into a cloud?". Thinking like that is what gets VFR pilots and non-proficient (notice that I didn't say "current") instrument pilots killed. IMHO.

Eric