Are you a VFR or IFR pilot?

[DaV8or]

On December 1, 2016 at 8:56 AM, flyboy0681 said:

I joined my partnership in 2010 and decided to get my IR out of pure frustration. My base is a couple of miles from the ocean and I had to scrub many trips due to low lying clouds and couldn't get out. I got my rating in 2014 and have had a 100% departure rate ever since. The only problem I have found, if you can call it that, is staying current. It's much more difficult than I thought it would be.

It can be a bitch for some. Very few actually meet the requirements by just flying unless they have a day job where they get paid to fly. I sure couldn't. I got my PPL in '98 and my IR in 2000. I flew pretty much nothing but IFR until 2006. In 2006 I nearly quit flying altogether.  

My wife doesn't like to fly. I never really go anywhere far away and the IR currency became the whole focus of flying. Every flight was IFR and if there was actually any IMC out there, I felt obligated to go out there and fly as many approaches as possible. I felt like if I let currency lapse, I would be crippled, or less of a pilot.

Instead of quitting, I decided to let the currency lapse and just fly VFR. Flying has been fine ever since. Sure, I couldn't punch in and out of the marine layer when I was based in Oakland anymore, It wasn't that big of a deal. I found VFR after all those years kind of liberating. You can just go...

When I decided to buy an airplane, the Mooney I have now, I assumed I would get current again and even set it up to be a decent IFR machine. I did go to a couple of sessions to get an IPC, but the more I screwed around with the 430 GPS the more I realized it was going to take a lot more than a couple of sessions to get anywhere near proficient with that death trap. Until I bought my Mooney, I never flew IFR with a 430, only the usual VORs and DME. I gave it up as I felt I was falling back into the trap of regs and IPCs and obligations, and for what?

Still don't really need it. I might still someday get current fro the hell of it ( Wish it could count as a BFR! ), but now that I live out in the valley with 300+ days of VMC, not sure when I'll do that. To those that say it is foolish to buy a Mooney and not fly it IFR, well... they really don't understand all the reasons one might fly. They only understand the way they fly. Had my Mooney five and half years now and all of it VFR. No regrets and it works fine for me. As a VFR pilot, I'm not sure what type of plane I'm supposed to get? I guess I missed that lesson. Please someone fill me in on the correct plane for VFR and the reasoning why.

[carusoam]

Dave,

your supposed to fly East.  We have had crummy weather for three or four straight days! 

Best regards,

-a-

[DaV8or]

9 hours ago, carusoam said:

Dave,

your supposed to fly East.  We have had crummy weather for three or four straight days! 

Best regards,

-a-

I think I'll skip it. It's another sunny beautiful day here. Not likely to fly though. Today is all about Christmas decorating.

[DonMuncy]

I have to stick in my 2 cents. Nobody here (at least I hope nobody here) is saying "I'm a better pilot than you because I have an instrument rating". I know a bunch of VFR guys who are much better pilots than I am.

All of us who got the rating are proud of the fact that we went to the effort to get it, and know it improved our abilities. If you get your IR, you will be a better pilot than you were before you did. I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that having your IR improves your ability to utilize your plane for trips, but it is a pain to maintain currency, and it may not be worth it to you.

[peevee]

26 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

it is a pain to maintain currency, and it may not be worth it to you.

exactly.

[gsengle]

Getting the rating is valuable and makes any pilot better than they were, regardless of whether they maintain currency all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

1 hour ago, gsengle said:

Getting the rating is valuable and makes any pilot better than they were, regardless of whether they maintain currency all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although I share the sentiment, the terms valuable, and better apparently don't translate well into improved fatality statistics - sadly. Statistics are kind of mixed.

Looking at some of statistical studies done on pilot fatalities we do see IFR rated pilots are only half as likely than non-instrument rated pilots to die from Stall/Spin/Loss of Control type of accidents; which is the largest group of VMC accidents. Supposedly, the training really improved our stall awareness/recovery skills. In the second largest group, essentially CFIT, instrument rated pilots only did slightly better statistically. But it ends there in that the 4 remaining lesser VMC categories of Fatals the instrument-rated pilots did significantly worse than the non-rated; especially with mid-air where instrument rated pilots were 6x more likely to die in a mid-air. Maybe there is some truth to the frequent criticism of instrument rated pilots being too distracted by their in cockpit gadgets preventing them from looking out of the cockpit enough.   

On the IMC accidents as a whole, we see the same larger group of VFR rated pilots die from stall/spin IMC (from VMC to IMC events) as we did in the VMC stats as well as similar numbers between both hitting terrain or obstacles (CFIT) in low ceilings. But instrument pilots more uniquely have IMC fatals with the biggest group being from improper procedures - which I think we can assume was unintentional and therefore blame lack of proficiency as we would for stall/spin too.

One of the most interesting statistics for all those that question IMC in a single, is just how few fatal accidents there were from engine loss, which I'll quote:

"On a more positive note, it was encouraging to discover that engine failure (Malfunction category) was an infrequent cause of fatal accidents. There were only 5 fatal accidents (3 IFR-rated and 2 VFR-rated pilots) total for both groups of pilots in these aircraft. Review of the NTSB reports indicated that of the 5 accidents, only one was deemed in an area unsuitable for landing. Had the pilots maintained aircraft control in the other 4 cases, it is very possible that fatalities could have been avoided."

Edited December 3, 2016 by kortopates

[gsengle]

The safety paradox will always be that the more capable pilot on balance will take more risks. So it's hard to tease apart.

I forget who once said something like, if you wanna make a safer car, forget the airbags, put a line of daggers in the dash pointing at the driver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob_Belville]

39 minutes ago, kortopates said:

instrument rated pilots were 6x more likely to die in a mid-air.

One of the most interesting statistics for all those that question IMC in a single, is just how few fatal accidents there were from engine loss, which I'll quote:

"On a more positive note, it was encouraging to discover that engine failure (Malfunction category) was an infrequent cause of fatal accidents. There were only 5 fatal accidents (3 IFR-rated and 2 VFR-rated pilots) total for both groups of pilots in these aircraft. Review of the NTSB reports indicated that of the 5 accidents, only one was deemed in an area unsuitable for landing. Had the pilots maintained aircraft control in the other 4 cases, it is very possible that fatalities could have been avoided."

The mid-air stats are very interesting. I suppose most are in VMC and in the vicinity of an airport but that would be nice to know. On board traffic info sure looks helpful to me - there is a lot more traffic displayed than spotted. 

The rarity of engine failure is helpful as we weigh the real risks of single engine instrument, night flying, over water or other inhospitable terrain.  

[DXB]

From what I'm hearing, there's little doubt that an IR improves ones general accuracy as a pilot quite a bit. That alone I hope will provide enough motivation for me to finish mine.  The ability to bust through a thin cloud layer and also fly deeper in the system will be gravy.   

However, if one is the type of person who doesn't flagrantly break rules but is still prone to getting in trouble, the IR certainly offers some fearsome new ways to get in trouble. 

[Yetti]

VFR was going to do the IFR this year but apparently that is slipping away. Read the IFR book several times.   Did one of those all stations reporting VFR but the angle of the sun and the haze had me doing an instrument scan. It would seem that at the speeds the Mooney can travel changes the dynamics of what the definitions of VFR/IFR are.  Never felt unsafe kind of like flying at night, just need to adapt and pull on different resources and up the alertness levels.

[Hank]

4 hours ago, Yetti said:

VFR was going to do the IFR this year but apparently that is slipping away. Read the IFR book several times.   Did one of those all stations reporting VFR but the angle of the sun and the haze had me doing an instrument scan. It would seem that at the speeds the Mooney can travel changes the dynamics of what the definitions of VFR/IFR are.  Never felt unsafe kind of like flying at night, just need to adapt and pull on different resources and up the alertness levels.

Instruments will be even more important with your new ride, which is more than Mooney fast, and will run better above 18,000', which is IFR territory. Pice descended through haze so bad that the WV mountains disappeared on a clear day, and the tops appeared after several,thousand feet like they were poking through an overcast. By 3000 msl, I had full ground visibility again.

[nels]

On November 30, 2016 at 6:08 PM, nels said:

I am a VFR pilot and I'd like to get an IFR rating but in my heart I know it probably won't happen. I'm curious how many Mooney pilots are VFR pilots. Also, how long have you been a Mooney owner and how far have you ventured from home in your Mooney. 

Well, this went further than I expected it to.  If indeed it did answer my question of how many Mooney pilots are VFR it must be damn few. I do wonder though if a lot of members may not be IFR but might be embarrassed to admit it on this forum. Personally I would like to have the rating but would never stay current if I did.

[gsengle]

Staying current is no big deal. It can be accomplished with one flight every six months with a safety pilot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jerry 5TJ]

Me: I fly mostly IFR when cross-country, VMC or IMC.   Local flights often VFR, even here under the DC SFRA.  

In IFR/IMC fatal accident reports "improper IFR procedures" are often listed as primary or contributing factors. 

That doesn't mean the pilot lost control in IMC, it usually means he  failed to execute all the steps in proper order (turned too soon on the MAP, for example) or executed one or more steps improperly (descended before established inbound, etc).   He's fully in control, right up to impact.  

We stress "hand flying the needles to minimums" for currency, but I feel practice flying the approach and departure procedures (even VMC) is at least as important to currency.  Knowing the "knob-ology" of your panel is crucial.  

Once I am at the FAF inbound, stabilized and configured for landing, it is not complex to continue on in to DA.  Heck, any teen-aged iPhone game addict can take it from there (& probably better than I can).  Smoothly getting to the FAF stabilized & configured, that takes practice.  

 

 

 

[chrisk]

If you really want to make use of your Mooney, you will want an IFR rating. For me, it lets me make trips that I would never make under VFR.   You have a fast plane with a long range.   To go VFR, you need the weather at your departure, destination, and along the way to be VFR.  For me that happens about half  of the time.   The other half is VFR the whole way.  That said, 99% of my time flying IFR is out of the clouds.    Last weekend, I flew 9.5 hours.  0.2 hours were in IMC.  The 0.2 hours were coming through a layer at my home field.    --But, the last 2.5 hours of my trip were "over the top" of a solid layer, with 1000 foot ceilings.   That would stop most VFR pilots .  You can legally do that VFR, but you better know where you can find clear air to get back down.   And when it takes you an extra hour or two to find that break in the clouds, a wise VFR pilot will not do it.

There is also the issue of night flight.   If you fly IFR at night, your chances of hitting something go way down.   Of the 9.5 hours I spent flying this last weekend, 4.5 of them were at night in very dark skies, over sparsely populated areas, with mountains near by.   (Austin TX to Colorado Springs).   It was all VFR, but I was much more comfortable on an IFR plan. 

 

 

[cnoe]

I'm a VFR pilot and been flying Mooney's 14 years.  I was working on my IFR and I contacted my insurance company and was told my IFR ticket would save me only $250 per year.  I'm base out of Las Vegas and I figured with all the blue skies here a IFR wouldn't benefit me much. I think if you live in southern California with all that fog then a IFR would be a must.  I do think a IFR rating would make anyone a better pilot but I also believe if you fly IFR in a single engine can add some risk.  If your engine quits your screwed,   I spoke with a Mooney pilot a few years ago that was in the soup and had an engine quit.  Clouds to the ground.  He landed in an orchard.  He was very lucky.  His wings were ripped off with the fuselage going right between a row of trees.  He said he'll never fly a single engine  in IFR conditions again.  I fly by the blue card.  I have a blue card in my wallet.  I pull it out.  If it matches the sky then I fly.  If it doesn't match then I don't fly.

This is a very personal decision and I certainly respect yours, but to say "If your engine quits you're screwed" is a defeatist statement and resignation to failure that I do not share. Certainly if you overfly large expanses of LIFR conditions your risk is greatly increased but that's what setting personal minimums is all about. OTOH I don't believe flying IFR over 1,000' ceilings is grossly more hazardous than flying VFR over scattered cumulus with 1,000' bases.

I try to learn from others' bad experiences but ceasing to fly IFR because of one person's bad experience isn't in my DNA. Taking flight has inherent risks and we must all manage them to match our own risk tolerances. One of my very few areas of expertise is in managing personal risk so I may be more comfortable than some in discussing the subject, but I can tell you with certainty that in any emergency situation accepting that "you're screwed" is the worst possible thing you can do.

Everyone has the right to make their own decisions about risk tolerance, and I greatly respect those such as Cliffy who've made their choices based on thousands of hours experience. But for me, at this point in my flying career, I have no issue with taking full advantage of my plane's capabilities to reach my niece's wedding or nephew's graduation on time. If there's ice, or embedded CBs, or significant LIFR enroute, sure I would scrub (or fly commercial) but usually a relatively safe IFR flight is possible.

Also, the insurance companies must agree to some extent as they don't give a ~25% premium reduction for no reason.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mike28w]

Just a question for you IFR folks....    How many are  "C" owners ?  How do you fly in and around the Rockies ?  I have often considered an IR rating but am intimidated by the minimum enroute altitudes ( MEA) in my neighborhood.  A little bit of unexpected ice ( that I wouldn't be able to climb through) and fairly high enroute altitude literally would put me between a rock and a hard place .

 

  It seems that most of the avid IFR flyers are either using turbo'd engines or are based in the lowlands or both....

  Thanks for any advice !    mike ( Idaho)  surrounded by mountains on 3 sides....

[Hank]

I'm an Instrument Pilot, and a C owner. I fly around, over and into the Appalachians, IFR and VFR. The Rockies are a long way from Alabama, and from WV where I earned my PPL, bought and based the Mooney for seven years. I often cruise at 9500 or 10,000 msl, but have only been to the Rockies in my plane once:  came across Iowa and SD to the Billings VOR, then turned and followed the valley south to Cody. Made a NASCAR pit stop in Gillette on the way home, trying to beat an approaching snow storm.

I picked the route to go around the Big Horn Mountains instead of over them as a 200-hour VFR pilot. It was interesting flying south to Cody at 8500', looking up at the mountains in both sides. And the ground was rather close beneath me, too. Even going over southern WV at 7500' gives a generous ground clearance, except for the occasional tower or antenna that are still a couple thousand feet or more below.

 

[mike28w]

4 minutes ago, Hank said:

.........I picked the route to go around the Big Horn Mountains instead of over them as a 200-hour VFR pilot. It was interesting flying south to Cody at 8500', looking up at the mountains in both sides. And the ground was rather close beneath me, too. ......

  Sounds like a cool flight but if you had picked up some unexpected icing , do you think you would have had the power ( with a C model ) to climb through it or room to turn around ?    I'm not trying to be a pain, I just have no experience with ice....   ( other than in a margarita ! )   mike

 

[cliffy]

For all practical purposes my D is a C. I'm "out west" where we have MEAs as high as 14000'. Not really C territory IFR. You can go lower sometimes but not always, but, at a very circuitousness route. As an example, on 9/11 I was going to go from Las Vegas to KABQ. Saw the TV and called the tower and we agreed I wasn't going anywhere for a few days. When the airspace opened up to IFR only I filed and went. My route had a section of 12000 and 13000 MEAs. Temps were probably ISA +10 or better so performance wasn't real good up high and I had to ask for  a block altitude as with every small down draft I couldn't quit hold altitude (this was the highest IFR flight I had done in the airplane. Density altitude was well above 14000". 20 or 30 sea level HP would have been nice to have then). 

As another example try going from LAS to KPSP IFR and see what your route might be to avoid high MEAs.

Now factor in winter clouds and the always present icing conditions out here and you might see that IFR in a non DEICED airplane (there is a difference between "deicing and anti-icing equipment) and the balancing act out here takes a new angle from low marine layer flying (which I've done lots of). 

So because of where I live and my flying style I have gone to VFR only.  IFR just wasn't practical for me anymore in the Mooney I fly. Having to keep current with the 6 in 6 I felt not only was it a hassle but it really didn't instill the competency and confidence that I had doing hard IFR every day did when I was working for a living. BTW, I do feel that if one is not doing 5 hrs of hard IFR with full approaches at the end every month, competency lags but that is just my opinion after 50 years of this stuff.

And, as was noted, hand flying must be factored into the mix. Doing IFR by autopilot from just after T/O to just before touchdown does not make one an IFR pilot (as is being rudely discovered on our fly by wire airliners and "full automation" mandates by airline decree or training). I flew every 3rd approach down to mins by hand and if it was an ILS (90% of the time) I stayed on the gauges until 50' above the runway (CAT III hand flown) so that I knew I could just in case it ever was needed (and it made the 6 month check rides a cinch).  I had me and 200+ passengers behind me depending on the outcome of every flight which I took seriously. If you do this stuff long enough you have to factor in the what ifs. Every flight ,every day, day in and day out, will not end with the planned out come. What-ifs keep you alive. Barely competent or "just legal" won't cut it.

 Add in now with our aging pilot population, cognitive responses change with every passing day. But that's an entire different discussion for another thread. 

Sorry I'm off my soap box now. I didn't mean to go that far out there. I guess I'm just passionate about safety in flying. 

JMO, your mileage may vary.

[Skates97]

Just a new VFR guy here. From the discussion it sounds like some would have the PPL changed so that having your IFR was a requirement...

Getting your IFR I think it has to do with where you fly and when you fly. I have a friend who has been flying for around 29 years. He has been VFR that whole time and regularly flies his Mooney from northern Utah to sunny Southern California. He has had to delay a time or two, and recently stayed overnight unplanned because of clouds but with the icing conditions he wouldn't have been able to fly even if he was IFR. Out here as has been mentioned by some there are lots of great flying days and with the weather forecasting you can stay out of trouble.

The DPE that gave me my check-ride has been flying 737's for 30 years. I would consider him a competent and experienced pilot. He told me that he has flown "hard IFR" in a single engine but won't do that anymore. He said "I fly it all the time in my 737, but I have a lot more going for me in that plane than a single."

For me, I could see getting IFR being handy if I needed to punch through the marine layer along the coast, but that's about it. I really have no desire to fly extended periods in IFR. However I will be keeping my plane at KAJO where the marine layer is kept in check by the mountains so it isn't much of a factor. Flying for me is as much about the view out the window as it is getting to someplace fast, and the views out here in clear skies are amazing.

So, will I pursue an instrument rating? Maybe... For now I will continue to study and learn more about the weather patterns that are typical for where I fly so that I can be sure not to get into any trouble. For the distances that my typical trips will be, if the weather looks like it might not cooperate, I'll just drive. I've been making those drives for decades and doing it again won't hurt me, it just takes twice as long.

[kerry]

1 hour ago, cnoe said:

 

This is a very personal decision and I certainly respect yours, but to say "If your engine quits you're screwed" is a defeatist statement and resignation to failure that I do not share. Certainly if you overfly large expanses of LIFR conditions your risk is greatly increased but that's what setting personal minimums is all about. OTOH I don't believe flying IFR over 1,000' ceilings is grossly more hazardous than flying VFR over scattered cumulus with 1,000' bases.

I try to learn from others' bad experiences but ceasing to fly IFR because of one person's bad experience isn't in my DNA. Taking flight has inherent risks and we must all manage them to match our own risk tolerances. One of my very few areas of expertise is in managing personal risk so I may be more comfortable than some in discussing the subject, but I can tell you with certainty that in any emergency situation accepting that "you're screwed" is the worst possible thing you can do.

Everyone has the right to make their own decisions about risk tolerance, and I greatly respect those such as Cliffy who've made their choices based on thousands of hours experience. But for me, at this point in my flying career, I have no issue with taking full advantage of my plane's capabilities to reach my niece's wedding or nephew's graduation on time. If there's ice, or embedded CBs, or significant LIFR enroute, sure I would scrub (or fly commercial) but usually a relatively safe IFR flight is possible.

Also, the insurance companies must agree to some extent as they don't give a ~25% premium reduction for no reason.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I should rephrase My statement.  If I was flying my Mooney in IFR conditions and my engine quit then I would be screwed.  I fly my Mooney maybe 50 hours a year and take some occasional trips in the 600NM range.  I feel for the amount and kind of flying I do a IFR rating wouldn't benefit me.  I fly for the enjoyment of looking out the windows and if I take a 600NM  trip I would rather do that in my Mooney vs. a C172.  Growing up my father had all his ratings and many times I would hear him say he would only fly IFR in multi-engine planes so I can see my view point is biased.  I have no issues with others saying they can save their buts with personal minimums in case of and engine failures.  I just feel my skill level would never take me there.

[gsengle]

Skates, even if you don't fly any hard IFR our machines are so fast that in almost every part of the country when you fly any appreciable distance you take off and land in two different weather regimes. I even if I restrict myself to punching through layers and high ceilings below the clouds, I believe I am a much safer pilot for being able to deal with the unexpected, completely aside from the precision with this training has helped me achieve.

I never really understood weather until I started flying in it. An instrument rating is a really good thing, not a necessary thing, but a really good thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArtVandelay]

I don't fly hard IFR, but occasionally it allows me to get where I'm going. Bouncing around flying through buildups is not my idea of a fun time.  Just because you have it doesn't mean you have to use it.