Hammer wrote:In my 2,800-ish hours, the IFR license has proven to be the least useful investment in flying I've made yet. It's extremely rare to need to fly IFR on a day I want to be flying at all. YMMV

If you want to jump in with both feet and really commit to IFR flying then great. Otherwise, just steer clear of the whole mess.

I keep wrestling with that same logic as well. I want the rating for a few reasons, one of which being the occasional flight into a place with actual flyable IMC where being able to get up through a cloud layer means I don't get stuck for a day or two. That's a rare event for me though, and IMC out here is generally either convective or iced up (neither of which I will tangle with). My other uses are more around learning new skills to be a better pilot, and maybe some future use for pushing into Class A. But that's it. It's a very expensive road to get from where I'm at now to a fully-WAAS-equipped aircraft plus a rating on top of that.

Most pilots I talk to out here tell me to save my money. One local corporate pilot (flies Citations universally on IFR flight plans) says he's logged actual IMC 2-3 times in the past several years. So I don't know. I really like the idea of it, but the economics are just absurd unless you're going to use it a lot.

A Citation spends a small percentage of each flight in the clouds IFR. A Huey or 172 spends nearly 100 percent. I got most of my 400 hours IMC in Missouri National Guard units in five years. Total time was a bit over 500 hours. Midwest weather is often safe IMC in slow moving warm and in stationary fronts. Army Regulations require IFR flight plan unless mission precludes it.

I agree it is too expensive for many of us. I was able to do it only on Uncle Sugar's or the student's dime.

Hammer wrote:I got my IFR license on the absolute bare minimum instruments...including a single com radio. And I've flown full glass with autopilot...much nicer if you have $100,000 for instruments.

That said, the expense and time commitment of the panel, license, and recurrent training does not come close to justifying the occasional use of the license, in my opinion.

IFR flying is great fun if someone else is paying for it. But you're going to need to damn near double your yearly flight hours to be safe on the gages. Burning up gas and engine time just to look at your panel gets really old, really fast. If you try to get by with minimum recurrent training you'll either wisely choose to not use the license, or die using it...and that's regardless of what you put in your panel.

In my 2,800-ish hours, the IFR license has proven to be the least useful investment in flying I've made yet. It's extremely rare to need to fly IFR on a day I want to be flying at all. YMMV

If you want to jump in with both feet and really commit to IFR flying then great. Otherwise, just steer clear of the whole mess.

Good luck!

100% agree with Hammer on this one. Staring at the gauges gets boring after a while, and I fly for enjoyment and occasionally to actually get somewhere. It's still more enjoyable for me to land and wait out a storm (possibly including an overnight hangar and hotel) than to push on through it to "get there." I positively KNOW that I would be DANGEROUS as an "occasional IFR" pilot, so I hung up that title, and just fly VFR. And despite the fact that were I live, our most common IFR weather is a low stratus layer with excellent VFR on top.

Having said all that, I'd have to add that getting the instrument rating was a good experience, and I am glad I did it. And it does save you some money on insurance (ditto the commercial rating). Whether it saves you enough to be cost-effective is a function of your age, flying experience, etc. (Us older guys aren't going to recoup the cost of the training in our lifetimes...)

Good luck!

(PS – I will still equip my homebuilt with enough equipment to fly "emergency" IFR, though probably not a certified GPS. Don't plan to ever need it, but better to have it and not use it than to need it and not have it.)

JP256 wrote:…..I positively KNOW that I would be DANGEROUS as an "occasional IFR" pilot ....

Very few people seem to realize or admit that.
Bravo to you for being smart & realistic.
I know people who earned their instrument rating many years ago and haven't flown IFR since,
yet they still seem to feel that it's their ace in the hole if they encounter bad weather.

Kind of akin to the (maybe even low-time) pilot who hasn't flown in a year or more,
who comes out and shoots 3 landings and thinks he's ready for anything.

I’ve had my instrument rating for a few years now, and flying around Seattle I’ve found an approach-capable gps is the most important piece of gear in the plane for instrument flight (beyond the basics MTV mentioned). One of the planes I fly has dual nav/comms, adf, but no gps, and while I can still get around in IMC with this equipment, it’s a struggle and getting worse as more nav goes towards gps. I want an autopilot for prolonged flights in IMC, short <1hr jaunts it’s not necessary.

I love instrument flying, something about going through clouds and maneuvering above a cloud deck makes me feel like I’m as close to heaven as I’ll ever get .

This has been touched on already, but not emphasized: To me, for the "average pilot", whoever that is, arguably the most important reason to complete an instrument rating is that it'll make you a better pilot.

Yes, you can fly around VFR the same amount of time and become a better pilot.....maybe. Or, you may just burn up a bunch of avgas and not really learn much. Discipline is key to instrument flight. And, that's a good skill to have.

So, frankly, you may never use the rating "for real", but I assure you, you'll come out the other end with both a sense of accomplishment and better skills.

MTV

mtv wrote:This has been touched on already, but not emphasized: To me, for the "average pilot", whoever that is, arguably the most important reason to complete an instrument rating is that it'll make you a better pilot.

Yes, you can fly around VFR the same amount of time and become a better pilot.....maybe. Or, you may just burn up a bunch of avgas and not really learn much. Discipline is key to instrument flight. And, that's a good skill to have.

So, frankly, you may never use the rating "for real", but I assure you, you'll come out the other end with both a sense of accomplishment and better skills.

MTV

I agree with the precision flying part, but you can learn to fly to IFR test standards in less than half the time and expense of getting the ticket. To this day I begrudge every minute I spent studying for that pedantic and worthless IFR written test.

PERSONALLY, I do not believe that the “better pilot for having done it” was worth the time and expense of doing it.

If you need it for a commercial rating or for insurance, or you actually have a aircraft and life situation that allows you to use it regularly...great. But for Jo Sixpack who thinks it’d be handy a few times a year, I think it’s mostly wasted money. As always, just my opinion.

You don't need an IFR rating (or training) to nail your heading, altitude, turns, etc.
Or more importantly for most of us, to nail your approach course & airspeed and hit your spot.
VFR flight doesn't rule out precision,
amd IFR flight (unfortunately) doesn't rule out sloppiness (for a lot of folks anyway).

Oh, you’re both right on disciplined, precise flight.

Trouble is, I sure don’t see much of that amongst VFR pilots......

Your mileage may vary.

MTV

I've seen plenty of IFR rated pilots who don't display much of it either.

In aviation, following integration of contact flying with instrument indication and basic instrument tests for all but instrument certificates, precision is defined as plus or minus certain airspeed, altitude, and compass heading. Pushing a well down nose around quickly enough to get the wing level before going over wires is not a consideration. This is fine for judging instrument precision but inadequate for judging contact flying precision. On course, on glideslope won't put burst on target gunnery or rockets on target. Instrument precision can be judged without even consideration of the primary control: rudder. The localizer or DG can be kept centered more precisely with dynamic proactive rudder but doesn't have to be to make the plus/minus grade. Not keeping the target between our legs with dynamic proactive rudder is less precise than with. Not directing our butt to the target with rudder only in a crab is less precise than doing so. Landing other than slowly and softly on the numbers is less precise than doing so.

When we talk about precision in instrument flying, numbers are not most precise but sometimes all we have to go by. When we talk about precision in contact flying we would be more precise forgetting about the numbers.

L18C-95 wrote:https://backcountrypilot.org/images/originalphotos/4537/3490/75cf762cedf1b65096601457.jpg

Nice set up: ILS/VOR, RNAV, 2nd NAV/COM, S-TEC 20

Outside of training this meets basic IFR.

This is the answer I was looking for when I found this thread. Thank you.

In the US something has to get him to the LOM point with no ADF, no real LOM. I'm not familiar with the S-20. Does that do the same as the GPS computer that creates a LOM point?

The IFR GPS provides the navigation to the IAF. S-TEC20 is a basic single axis A/P with VOR/LOC tracking. Most countries allow IFR GPS to navigate to NDB beacons.

Under EASA you only need IFR GPS plus a second source of navigation to fly airways IFR. Technically the second source could be radar control service, although in practice for light GA it is VOR.

After Brexit the UK may require DME as this is in their AIP, but not a requirement under partNCO EASA.

The Locator Outer Marker was part of the Instrument Landing System which included LOM, MM, sometimes IM, localizer, glideslope, and certain lighting. A Low frequency Automatic Direction Finder got you a homing Non Directional Beacon, a needle continuously pointing relative bearing to the station. Needle flipped when you crossed the LOM. A single frequency marker beacon radio got a light and audio indication for LOM, MM, and IM (where available). The navigation Variable Omni Range radio ILS frequency got both the tighter localizer and the glideslope. The Initial Approach Fix was defined by VOR alone, NDB alone, or intersection of two VOR radials, two LOM bearings, or one radial and one bearing.

Am I correct that you are saying you need an ADF and a Marker Beacon Receiver to fly an ILS with a LOM?

The entire Cirrus production line might need some new placards

Before computer gps could emulate, substitute for, the LOM yes. I think RNAV, Tacan, Distance Measuring Equipment could substitute. I never used that.

I know the gps computer does everything now. OP is looking for legal, cheap, old panel. I think that was shot down in US by ATC no longer keeping the cheap for everybody low frequency navigation, especially LOM. I hand flew 400 hours of Huey IMC with only ADF. It was cheap and reliable with only precision approach lacking. For that we had PAR. We saved the government a lot of money safely.

GPS is great but before GPS the only radio navigation system that gave continuous information, situational awareness, of where the fix was...ADF. And ADF was the cheapest navigation radio.

Americans, more than most people, are perfectly willing to shoot themselves in the foot.

In Great Britain there is affection for the ADF bordering on fetish. The NDB hold being a core element of the IR.

I agree with Hammer and the others who stress the need for frequent IFR/IMC actual or simulated to maintain actual proficiency. To a much greater extent than visual flying, flight by reference solely to instruments is a very perishable skill set.

Regarding equipment, I paid close attention to the answer given by Alan Klapmeier, co-founder (with his brother Dale) of Cirrus Aircraft, when he was asked what the greatest safety feature of their new Cirrus was. Everyone expected him to say it was the whole airframe parachute. Instead, he replied that it was that big 10" blue over brown attitude indicator on the Avidyne primary flight display.

Even under high workload or high stress single pilot IFR operations, when one's scan could break down or be interrupted or distracted just long enough to cause a crash, it is hard to not see a big color artificial horizon. I'm over sixty now and consider myself a competent instrument pilot but I will no longer fly a steam gauge panel into serious IMC. I'm not saying that, for instance, a full time commercial pilot flying a legacy panel is not safe. I'm just stating my personal ADM.

Pierre

I agree with you and Hammer on iterations and recurrent training being more critical in IMC. With contact flying we can somewhat mitigate skills limitations with avoidance. Not so with complete loss of outside reference. We have to have complete confidence.

I could learn the new glass cockpit and yes, safer. With loss of confidence, nothing is safe. I have too much old muscle memory. I have too few iterations and too little experience taking an alternate route should the computer not bring up the frequency and approach I want to shoot. There are too many little dials that turn, push, and pull. There are important things that go away if you touch the wrong place on a screen.

I am too old and slow to want more. Maybe just a big knob that only works one way and a needle that always points to the station. I am fine with a young pilot who has confidence in his/her currency and ability to make full use of all that capability.