Get the rating.

[bonal]

18 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

You learn much more when you are actually using the system. And you can't (legally) file or fly in the system without the rating. 

So what am I doing when I use FF seems to me we are all talking to the same controllers. And maybe I am just lucky having never been dropped except when radar coverage was lost as expected but given the new frequency and approx time to contact the next controller and they picked me up within the minute we were expecting contact.

[DonMuncy]

1 minute ago, bonal said:

So what am I doing when I use FF seems to me we are all talking to the same controllers. And maybe I am just lucky having never been dropped except when radar coverage was lost as expected but given the new frequency and approx time to contact the next controller and they picked me up within the minute we were expecting contact.

To a large extent you are correct. There are some things you don't do with FF, such as copying clearances, dealing with departures and arrivals, etc. But if you never want to use full IFR services, they aren't too important. 

From your earlier post; if you have to choose between IFR training and Don Kay training for your kind of flight, I can't disagree with your economic decision making. I recognize that equipping your plane for IFR flight can be expensive, and beyond your expectation of use. I do not criticize your choices. As I posted before, if you have the money time and to get the IR, I think it is a good thing. But it is not necessary, in order to be a good, very good, great and/or safe pilot.

[gsxrpilot]

5 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

I didnt say that you needed a 7-9K rating to make yourself a better pilot, I said it would make you a better pilot. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 

He does fly a Beech... so what would he know about being a better pilot ;-)

#joke #sarcasm (sometimes airplane nerds don't pick up on that stuff)

[smccray]

5 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Thank God we have this exact, same argument every 12-15 months.  I might grow to miss it if we didn't.  Sigh.

Well said.

I advocate all pilots continuing training and getting an instrument rating. It’s not required, but Mike said it best- it will make you a better pilot. The only person that can decide if the expenditure was worth it is the pilot.  The hard part? The pilot cannot make that determination until after the training is complete.  

VFR only pilot and you dig your heals in about how it’s not necessary?  Challenging the assertion is one thing- arguing against pilots who have been there, have the relevant experience and maintain that it is worth the cost?  Really?

I have no doubt there are pilots who would agree that the cost isn’t worth the value after completing the training- perhaps even in this thread.  In my admittedly limited experience that viewpoint is rare.  Most instrument rated pilots say it’s worth it.

[KLRDMD]

7 hours ago, flight2000 said:

You don't need a $7-9K rating to make yourself a better pilot.

How do you get to $7-9k if you own your Mooney ?

All 40 hours with an instructor at $50/hour is $2,000.

40 hours at an average fuel burn of 8 GPH (should average less in training) and $5.00/gallon (should be less) for fuel that's another $1,600.

Add in a DPE fee of $600 and you're at a grand total of $4,200.

Where does the other $2,800-$4,800 come from ?

[David_H]

This topic has a real tailwind.

I don't think there's an actual debate going on. Everyone seems to agree... yet not agree. 

[flight2000]

44 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

How do you get to $7-9k if you own your Mooney ?

All 40 hours with an instructor at $50/hour is $2,000.

40 hours at an average fuel burn of 8 GPH (should average less in training) and $5.00/gallon (should be less) for fuel that's another $1,600.

Add in a DPE fee of $600 and you're at a grand total of $4,200.

Where does the other $2,800-$4,800 come from ?

What’s the full rate for running a Mooney, even if you own it?  You’re hiding the costs if you’re not factoring in everything, not just playing with the variables.  I’d venture somewhere around $140-150 an hour for a short body, higher for the turbo versions.  

I’ll admit, the cost I quoted were for rentals, but aircraft aren’t cheap to run.  Would love to find a freelance CFII around these parts for $50 an hour.  Everbody I’ve asked is $75 and up.  The flight school on my field is charging $250 an hour for a 2015 SR20 and $75+ an hour for the instuctor ($285 an hour for an 06 SR22).  Gas isn’t cheap around here either.  Home field is $5.65 a gallon, so I tanker as much as I can from airports in the Carolina’s where it runs $3.90 and up.   

[Guest]

This is like beating a dead horse.  

Some people want/ need the rating for their mission.  Others don’t want/ need a rating for their mission.  I don’t particularly need an IO-720, dual WAAS, TCAS, ADS-D but it suits my mission more than my E model did, so I have one.  To each their own.

Clarence

 

[Marauder]

How do you get to $7-9k if you own your Mooney ?
All 40 hours with an instructor at $50/hour is $2,000.
40 hours at an average fuel burn of 8 GPH (should average less in training) and $5.00/gallon (should be less) for fuel that's another $1,600.
Add in a DPE fee of $600 and you're at a grand total of $4,200.
Where does the other $2,800-$4,800 come from ?

Slow learner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[HRM]

3 hours ago, bonal said:

So what am I doing when I use FF seems to me we are all talking to the same controllers. And maybe I am just lucky having never been dropped except when radar coverage was lost as expected but given the new frequency and approx time to contact the next controller and they picked me up within the minute we were expecting contact.

Yes, you are and you are also talking with IFR pilots. It's all the same system, there isn't a secret frequency-lounge where only IFR pilots are allowed.

I fly out of a towered AP. I always get a clearance (albeit VFR) with squawk code and I read it back and ATC says "read back correct". I have also been vectored.

I had a CFI during a FR comment on how good my radio skills are. So, FF is great practice for IFR. I frankly feel comfortable flying the entire IFR gamut EXCEPT approaches; however, I had a controller ask me if I wanted the ILS once when I was coming in under VFR for practice!

Lastly, because I am in a Mooney, the controllers often seem to forget that I am not IFR! It's fun. I am looking forward to going for it someday.

[82Mike]

2 hours ago, smccray said:

Well said.

I advocate all pilots continuing training and getting an instrument rating. It’s not required, but Mike said it best- it will make you a better pilot. The only person that can decide if the expenditure was worth it is the pilot.  The hard part? The pilot cannot make that determination until after the training is complete.  

VFR only pilot and you dig your heals in about how it’s not necessary?  Challenging the assertion is one thing- arguing against pilots who have been there, have the relevant experience and maintain that it is worth the cost?  Really?

I have no doubt there are pilots who would agree that the cost isn’t worth the value after completing the training- perhaps even in this thread.  In my admittedly limited experience that viewpoint is rare.  Most instrument rated pilots say it’s worth it.

Ok as Don warned this will or could degrade into a Us vs. Them conversation.  Let’s see if I can put a bow on it.  There are multifacits of what makes a better pilot:

1) stick and rudder skills (the most basic and important skill). VFR/IFR makes no Difference (practice and experience determines this).

2) AMD VFR/IFR makes on difference you either analyze and exercise good judgment or you don’t.

3) Situational awareness (this is where it gets tricky) IFR will help tremendously here.  IFR training is defined as maintaining situational awareness under the pressure of so many tasks and distractions.  The whole process of flying an approach is based on situational awareness WITHOUT reference to visual clues.

4) precision in technical flying skills.  My guts says IFR training would mostly make a pilot superior here out of necessity and the requirement not to but regulations.  Still, a very experienced VFR pilot could be every bit as precise as an IFR pilot.

So what are we left with? Situational Awareness, and what is the leading cause of fatality in pilots who wonder into IMC? You guessed it loss of situational awareness that leads to loss of control.  It is for the reason I stand by “YOU will be a better pilot if you get your IFR”.  No that does not mean me as an IFR pilot are better than any other VFR pilot.  In Med school they always say C Equal MD.  Somebody graduates at the bottom of the class.  I may just be that IFR pilot.

[Bob - S50]

On 1/3/2018 at 12:49 PM, steingar said:

Personally, I think if your personal minimums aren't the approach minimums you need to spend some quality time with you CFI.  Folks have died because they wouldn't go down to minimums.

That said, I am as yet still a lowly VFR pilot with aspirations.

That's not what I'm saying.  While I will fly all the way to minimums, I generally won't go someplace unless the weather is forecast to be at least 200 & 1/2 above approach minimums.  And I won't launch unless the current weather is at minimums or higher regardless of the forecast.  And I also consider whether the current weather is better or worst than the forecast for right now and whether the weather is going up or coming down.  One of my partners won't go unless the ceiling is 1000' or higher and I think that is a good fit for him.

[Bob - S50]

On 1/3/2018 at 1:32 PM, DXB said:

I appreciate the wisdom - am still in the "overwhelmed" phase of training and haven't learned to walk (maintain heading and altitude) and chew gum (do everything else) at the same time.  It made me think of this piece:  https://airfactsjournal.com/2016/04/5-things-every-ifr-pilot-needs-say/   Would the best phrasing be "vectors for time" per the article and/or "delaying vectors"?  Neither is in the glossary.

Use whatever words you need to get the point across.  Even something as simple as, "I need about 5 minutes to get ready for the approach.  Can you vector me around and I'll let you know when I'm ready?"

[Jerry 5TJ]

I quote Dick Rochfort on dealing with ATC:

• Tell them what you prefer
• tell them what you will accept 
• everything else you tell them “unable”

[gsxrpilot]

At the risk of being impolite, if you don't have the rating, you can't say that you'd never use it, that you'd not fly enough to stay current, that it wouldn't benefit you. You don't know. You can say you don't want to spend the time, money, effort, to get the rating. You can say you have other priorities. But until you have it, you have no way of knowing what you're missing.

 

[smccray]

2 hours ago, 82Mike said:

Ok as Don warned this will or could degrade into a Us vs. Them conversation.  Let’s see if I can put a bow on it.  There are multifacits of what makes a better pilot:

1) stick and rudder skills (the most basic and important skill). VFR/IFR makes no Difference (practice and experience determines this).

2) AMD VFR/IFR makes on difference you either analyze and exercise good judgment or you don’t.

3) Situational awareness (this is where it gets tricky) IFR will help tremendously here.  IFR training is defined as maintaining situational awareness under the pressure of so many tasks and distractions.  The whole process of flying an approach is based on situational awareness WITHOUT reference to visual clues.

4) precision in technical flying skills.  My guts says IFR training would mostly make a pilot superior here out of necessity and the requirement not to but regulations.  Still, a very experienced VFR pilot could be every bit as precise as an IFR pilot.

So what are we left with? Situational Awareness, and what is the leading cause of fatality in pilots who wonder into IMC? You guessed it loss of situational awareness that leads to loss of control.  It is for the reason I stand by “YOU will be a better pilot if you get your IFR”.  No that does not mean me as an IFR pilot are better than any other VFR pilot.  In Med school they always say C Equal MD.  Somebody graduates at the bottom of the class.  I may just be that IFR pilot.

Just one thought- I don’t think this is an us vs them debate, and candidly I’m not sure that the IFR rating itself is all that significant.  I don’t mean to be talking out of both sides of my mouth here so just go with it for a second.  I think you outlined a lot of good things that come from both experience and training.  

If your assertion is that most of the value comes from additional training in general rather than specifically the IFR rating, that doesn’t seem unreasonable.  Candidly I don’t have the experience to disagree with you as I don’t have any ratings beyond my private and instrument, so I can’t say.

The problem I have with this line or thinking is that there’s a jump you’re making at the end.  You’re saying that there’s very little value associated specifically with IFR training therefore there’s no need to spend all that time training.  If a pilot says “I don’t fly instruments, but I have my commercial, my sea plane rating, acrobatic training... etc” then I get it. That pilot is getting additional experience and training in other areas.  If you say that there isn’t value specifically to IFF training therefore I’m not doing any training- that doesn’t follow. 

I’ll call my self out first- I only have 4-5 hours with a CFI over the last couple years since I passed my instrument check ride. I schedule an IPC once per year, but I want to be doing more. Life is a challenge between work, money, kids- keep going down the list. 

Dont want to spend the money or the time?  No problem and zero disagreement.

[DonMuncy]

1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Well said. Interestingly, in law school the saying was C Equal JD.  

Some truths are universal.

Jim

When I was in law school, they said "the top third of the class made judges, the middle third made law school profs, and the bottom third made money."

[bonal]

44 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

At the risk of being impolite, if you don't have the rating, you can't say that you'd never use it, that you'd not fly enough to stay current, that it wouldn't benefit you. You don't know. You can say you don't want to spend the time, money, effort, to get the rating. You can say you have other priorities. But until you have it, you have no way of knowing what you're missing.

 

A heroin addict can make the same argument. Yes I do have other priorities like trying to own an airplane and giving it all it needs to be a safe and reliable craft without killing my savings so close to retirement. Sometimes I really get tired of all the folks more economically well off that make comments how you should do this or that because that's what fits your bill. I can have my own opinion about what kind of flying I want to do without having additional ratings. I have no interest in operating a sea plane even though I don't have a sea plane rating. As many have said it's an additional tool to have in your kit which is great but if you don't need to drive any nails then why would you carry a hammer. Look I think it's great that there are so many better pilots out there challenging the elements with their superior skills and if I really felt the need to be flying when weather is not ideal I would add the hammer to my tool kit.  If I had the rating I'm sure I would use it but I also know I would not use it (fly) enough to be real safe in actual IMC.  And don't worry you were not being impolite you were expressing a sincere opinion which I respect. Sadly someone with a different one is viewed as not valid since I don't have the IR am not even qualified to have my own opinion on the subject.

[RLCarter]

Additional training is always a good thing even if it's just flying with a CFI for no reason at all. To me what makes a good pilot is one that stays proficient and uses their head for more than a place for their headset

[Ftlausa]

2 hours ago, DonMuncy said:

When I was in law school, they said "the top third of the class made judges, the middle third made law school profs, and the bottom third made money."

Don, unfortunately, my experience is that all too often, it's the bottom third that is becoming the judges - at least in state court. 

[Shiny moose]

3 hours ago, Ftlausa said:

Don, unfortunately, my experience is that all too often, it's the bottom third that is becoming the judges - at least in state court. 

Since we are on this law topic , why is it that judges make decisions not based on the written state statutes but what seems to be personal feelings. You cannot question them as then they hold a grudge the next time you appear. You can tell from my writing I am not an attorney but I am a property owner that sometimes needs to remove tenants using the courts. 

[steingar]

11 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

That's not what I'm saying.  While I will fly all the way to minimums, I generally won't go someplace unless the weather is forecast to be at least 200 & 1/2 above approach minimums.  And I won't launch unless the current weather is at minimums or higher regardless of the forecast.  And I also consider whether the current weather is better or worst than the forecast for right now and whether the weather is going up or coming down.  One of my partners won't go unless the ceiling is 1000' or higher and I think that is a good fit for him.

That does make extremely good sense, and I now know where you're coming form.  Can't disagree in the slightest.  I was really referring to pilots who won't go down to the published approach minimums.  I've read and seen reports where pilots wouldn't and wound up dead even though the wx at the time would have allowed landings at those minimums.

 

Probably just a neophyte mistake from someone with more aspiration than actual knowledge. But yeah, no-one ever died in an airplane crash who stayed on the ground.

[Marauder]

35 minutes ago, steingar said:

That does make extremely good sense, and I now know where you're coming form.  Can't disagree in the slightest.  I was really referring to pilots who won't go down to the published approach minimums.  I've read and seen reports where pilots wouldn't and wound up dead even though the wx at the time would have allowed landings at those minimums.

 

Probably just a neophyte mistake from someone with more aspiration than actual knowledge. But yeah, no-one ever died in an airplane crash who stayed on the ground.

Flying an approach to minimums sometimes has a pretty increased pucker factor especially if you are dealing with high winds, turbulence, low vis and/or ragged bottoms. Knowing that you are close to the ground and not quite legal to land can make you ask yourself "Why am I here?". There are so many factors that come into play on a low approach that you need to assess your ability to deal with -- like breaking out and seeing the runway out your pilot's side window. 

 

[Yetti]

OK for those of you that have the rating (trying to breath new life into the dead horse)    How high is too high and why would you take the risk on to do the Flight levels?       We had another pilot in a Cirrus fly off into the gulf this week at 20,000.    It would seem that our Mooney's are not equipped well enough to be up that high.   More than likely if he had been at say 9500, he would still be with us.   So what rewards are in place to take on the additional risk.

[gsxrpilot]

6 hours ago, Yetti said:

OK for those of you that have the rating (trying to breath new life into the dead horse)    How high is too high and why would you take the risk on to do the Flight levels?       We had another pilot in a Cirrus fly off into the gulf this week at 20,000.    It would seem that our Mooney's are not equipped well enough to be up that high.   More than likely if he had been at say 9500, he would still be with us.   So what rewards are in place to take on the additional risk.

There is risk in everything we do as pilots. Why take on the additional risk and fly small single engine airplanes? There are plenty of ways to die from 9500 feet as well. In fact, most pilots die MUCH closer to the ground than that. But we all know why we fly. And we accept and manage the risk.  I don't see any difference with flying in the flight levels. It's not something to be taken lightly, but the risk can certainly be managed.

The benefits I see are many. And not the least of them is the safety factor. I have many more engine out options from FL240 than I do from 9500. Other benefits include less traffic, often much better/smoother weather, better speed and efficiency. For me the difference between 10K and 20K is often eliminating a fuel stop. Many of these are the same benefit we site for flying over driving and accept the increased risk with that.

*since I also fly at night, over mountains, and IFR, all in my single engine Mooney, I must be on the extreme end of the risk taking scale and therefore shouldn't be commenting on this topic.

*the reports I've seen say the Cirrus was at 15,000 ft, not 20,000, still high enough to put one to sleep, but very unlikely that an experienced pilot wouldn't notice the effects of hypoxia and do something about it. Useful consciousness at 15K is much different than 20K. If they ever find the guy, we might learn that he died of a heart attack or something else and not hypoxia.