Get the rating.

[Wayne Cease]

On 1/2/2018 at 4:22 PM, steingar said:

I can't count the number of times I've been stranded VFR by wx on the fingers of both hands.  I've seen some cool places, but spent way too much down time at small airports.  Not a bad thing, but not my first aspiration either.  I expect the IR to give me some options, and I ask little more.

I have yet to be stranded with an IR.  I have had to spend the night in FL midway due to a line of thunderstorms from the Gulf into the Atlantic.  There were 3 or 4 biz jets doing the same.  This year I canceled for mod to heavy turbulence and high winds (~35 knots and gusting) at the destination.

Largely though it’s deviations around thunderstorms and avoiding ice.  That limits planning trips out too far in the winter.  Cold and clear is fine, not so much for cold and cloudy.  I’ve only flown a rental SR22 with TKS, and it is not FIKI, plus I don’t know if about it to use that, so I treat it like one without TKS.

Living in the southeast I could never use a GA plane as much as I do without the IR.

 

[RobertGary1]

21 minutes ago, Wayne Cease said:

Largely though it’s deviations around thunderstorms and avoiding ice.

That's one thing pilots often forget when they step up to planes like the Mooney. In the training 172's circumnavigating a weather system would usually take longer than waiting it out but in a Mooney you can circumnavigate entire states if necessary. 

-Robert

[Wayne Cease]

58 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

That's one thing pilots often forget when they step up to planes like the Mooney. In the training 172's circumnavigating a weather system would usually take longer than waiting it out but in a Mooney you can circumnavigate entire states if necessary. 

-Robert

Yep.  Did just that a few years ago in a SR22.  Layers of clouds, some down low with freezing temps and even snow between Rockford and Chicago.  We were flying to Madison, WI from Atlanta for a niece's graduation.  We instead of crossing a chunk of IL we flew around IL.  We flew to St Louis, had lunch, stretched our legs and may have gotten some fuel, then up over MO and IA, west of IL and then turned northeast after the cloud cover broke.  Only added about 40-45 min of flying and avoided lots of icing potential.

 

[Ftlausa]

15 hours ago, 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.

Ask to be re-vectored.  If asked why, tell them you need time to enter/dial in the approach.      

[bradp]

Or just slow down.  No reason to be burning it up on an approach or during a high workload time - make your mooney fly at 182 speeds and you have more time to do everything.  

[Andy95W]

14 minutes ago, bradp said:

Or just slow down.  No reason to be burning it up on an approach or during a high workload time - make your mooney fly at 182 speeds and you have more time to do everything.  

+1!

Best way to stay ahead of the airplane is to slow the airplane down.  As you gain proficiency, you'll notice you're flying faster.  It's the natural progression as you get better.

[gsxrpilot]

23 hours ago, Bartman said:

My CFII told me this and asked me to think about it. 

If the weather is good, go VFR.  If the weather is bad, go IFR.  If the weather is too bad for IFR, then you might still be able to go VFR. 

This is very relevant in Texas. We often get weather with very powerful convective activity. Texas thunderstorms are legendary. You don't definitely don't want to be IMC, and it's often not to be on an IFR flight plan just because of all the weaving around and deviating. But at the same time the cells can usually be spotted 50+ miles away, so staying below or above the cloud deck allows you to easily see and avoid the cells. If you were IMC, you might wander into one and be in trouble.

[RLCarter]

@DXB Training is totally different than actually flying an IFR flight plan, during training you spend an hour or more bouncing between approaches at one or more airports with very little time to prepare for the next so the work load stays high. In the real world it's generally point A to point B with low work load in between

Edited January 4, 2018 by RLCarter

[Bartman]

5 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

This is very relevant in Texas. We often get weather with very powerful convective activity. Texas thunderstorms are legendary. You don't definitely don't want to be IMC, and it's often not to be on an IFR flight plan just because of all the weaving around and deviating. But at the same time the cells can usually be spotted 50+ miles away, so staying below or above the cloud deck allows you to easily see and avoid the cells. If you were IMC, you might wander into one and be in trouble.

Exactly. The CFII asked me to think about that statement and said we would discuss it at the next lesson, and it sure made me think. I realized that just having the rating did not mean it should or could be used in every situation, and that in some situations it can be dangerous or even lethal. I fly behind a normally aspirated engine and although I may hope to climb above the buildups or icing conditions I must respect its limitations. I fly without ice protection including a turbo, FIKI or TKS and must respect those limitations as well.  Sometimes it is best to go around the wether and remain IFR, sometimes best to go VFR under/over the cumulus or VFR under the icing but I don't fly in the clear above icing conditions..

Getting the rating was the best thing I ever did. That being said, I respect the limitations of my plane, and my evolving knowledg and skills.  Sometimes that means wait it out, sometimes it means VFR is still safe, and sometimes it means fly another day. 

[RLCarter]

25 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

We often get weather with very powerful convective activity. Texas thunderstorms are legendary.

Living here on the third coast it's common to have 40~60k tops, they are impressive to watch build its like watching a Lava Lamp on crack

[bonal]

While in some way this discussion reminds me of the LOp vs ROp debate except that the vast majority agrees that the IR is the only way to go. I find it interesting how so many try to say that us VFR pilots are not as good as they are while wording their view in such a way as to be not offensive. Just be honest you have been both and your training and experience has made you a "better pilot" right.  And if I had the time and more important the budget to get the rating I would likely go there not so much for the need as for the learning experience. The problem I have is I just don't fly enough to maintain proficiency so getting into actual IMC would be risky at best. I would like to know statistical numbers of accidents comparing VFR pilots in VMC vs IFR pilots in IMC. My go no go decision is real simple and even though it means staying on the ground I am no worse for wear. I remember the saying much better to be on the ground wishing you were flying than flying wishing you were on the ground.  I agree with Skates it's all about planning having options and being smart enough to make the choice to turn around. As a CA flyer I am blessed with real straight forward weather predictions and if I were east of the Rockies would definetly want the IR. Does having it give me more options definetly but at the same time it also gives me more opportunity to get in over my head. I can accept the opinion that I am not as well trained a pilot as one with additional ratings but I am also certain that I am very good at flying within my limitations "training wheels on". My biggest flight planning metric is what would the thread be on Mooney Space should I have an accident based on bad planning or pilot error and I will never give the opportunity for you all to say disparaging opinions about my demise. 

So thank you MS and all its concerned (sincere) members for making me a better pilot even though it does not include a rating.

[mike_elliott]

I haven't read anyone's post that inferred VFR pilots are not as good as IFR rated pilots. I have read repetitively where it will make you a better pilot. Heck, I know some IFR rated pilots I wouldn't let my ex wife fly with.  What seems common is that everyone that has the IFR rating thinks it is worth it in both terms of added competency and capabilities, and those that do not tend to justify not getting it with both valid and invalid reasons. If you can afford it, and afford the plane to be capable of IFR flight, it is well worth it in terms of additional utility, an added way to stay tuned up to flight, increase your capabilities, and to get another merit badge  There isn't anything wrong with VFR only pilots or flying, nor are they an inferior class. By regulation and by the basic need of survival, a VFR pilot is more restricted.

 

[flight2000]

20 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

I have read repetitively where it will make you a better pilot.

Mike, that right there is why some take it the way they do.  Make you a better pilot against what?  Those that have an IR/Commercial/ATP???

I got the rest of what you're saying, but that in a nut shell is what leads VFR only pilots to feel like they are being looked down upon from some ivory tower.

Just sayin...

Cheers,

Brian

Edited January 4, 2018 by flight2000

[mike_elliott]

2 minutes ago, flight2000 said:

Mike, that right there is why some take it the way they do.  Make you a better pilot against what?  Those that have an IR/Commercial/ATP???

I got the rest of what you're saying, but that in a nut shell this is what leds VFR only pilots to feel like they are being looked down upon from some ivory tower.

Just sayin...

Cheers,

Brian

It makes YOU a better pilot that what YOU currently are, not compared to anyone else.

[flight2000]

7 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

It makes YOU a better pilot that what YOU currently are, not compared to anyone else.

Sorry, I disagree with that notion.  You don't need a $7-9K rating to make yourself a better pilot - you need experience operating in whatever limitations you have set for yourself.  The pilot that started this whole discussion did something stupid outside his skill set and paid for it by getting trapped above a solid layer.  Now we are lumping all VFR pilots into a category that they must have an IR to be a better pilot.  Really! 

Brian

Edited January 4, 2018 by flight2000

[mike_elliott]

9 minutes ago, flight2000 said:

Sorry, I disagree with that notion.  You don't need a $7-9K rating to make yourself a better pilot - you need experience operating in whatever limitations you have set for yourself.  The pilot that started this whole discussion did something stupid outside his skill set and paid for it by getting trapped above a solid layer.  Now we are lumping all VFR pilots into a category that they must have an IR to be a better pilot.  Really! 

Brian

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. 

[Andy95W]

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

[Marcopolo]

2 cents coming, read on at you're own risk.

 

  As a newly rated IR pilot (12/28/2017) I will say that the IR training has made "me" a better pilot, that's what training is for, right?  The rating only gives me the ability to use the training to continue learning. (making "me" a better pilot is not a setting of a very high bar as I'm pretty new to this whole flying thing)

 

  I have posted my reason for pursuing the training previously on this site.  I was kinda like the guy we talked about who started this thread, but it was a local flight and I had plenty of outs, which I ended up using one of.  The key for me was that my daughter was with me and as we were aimed at a runway that we couldn't see I could see the uncertainty and un-comfortableness in her.  We tried twice to make an approach to a fogged in field that we could see clearly from above but it would disappear when lined up on final from either direction.  It was a severe clear night with freak fog.  We diverted to another field and landed fine.  I made the decision right then to pursue the IR training and then once I had the training I decided to get the rating. YMMV!

 

Ron

[Andy95W]

Without even talking about IFR vs. VFR, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how flying 20-40 hours with an instructor, learning a new skill, and taking a checkride would not make them a better pilot (unless you're Chuck Yeager, of course).

[Ron McBride]

27 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

Without even talking about IFR vs. VFR, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how flying 20-40 hours with an instructor, learning a new skill, and taking a checkride would not make them a better pilot (unless you're Chuck Yeager, of course).

I will not take that one on.  I began flying in 1972. Single and Multi Engine rated Private Pilot. 10 years ago I got my instrument rating.  I still fly VFR mainly, have been IFR twice.   The instrument rating was the best training I ever got in my Mooney.  I did many circle to land approach's, you will learn how to be on speed in a challenging approach. I have a safety back up if I get caught and need to go on instruments.  You must practice and practice more.  I usually will do an IPC once a year after practice approach's all year.   Having learned to fly in 1972, I did not us ATC services very much, I am much more proficient now at using ATC services, even when VFR. In all of the years before getting my instrument, I did do recurrent hood work just in case.  I have and will cancel trips due to weather.   Many times I will end up driving a long trip (1700 miles), only to see great VFR weather starting 200 miles away from home.

Please get the training, it is well worth it.  The life you might save, could be yours, the wife, kids or grand kids.

Ron

[donkaye]

Forgetting about the new technical skills developed as a result of working on the instrument rating, there's a whole other area of expertise that is developed during the course of the training, and that is the learning the whole ATC system and how it works.  When I was a Private Pilot, I really didn't get the whole perspective of our System and how to best utilized it to accomplish what I wanted.  Working on the instrument rating opened up new vistas of understanding on how to work the System.  That benefit should not be underestimated.

[Guest]

Is that knowledge available to instrument rated pilots only?  Seems to me anyone who flies in the system can gain said knowledge.

Clarence

[jlunseth]

45 minutes ago, donkaye said:

Forgetting about the new technical skills developed as a result of working on the instrument rating, there's a whole other area of expertise that is developed during the course of the training, and that is the learning the whole ATC system and how it works.  When I was a Private Pilot, I really didn't get the whole perspective of our System and how to best utilized it to accomplish what I wanted.  Working on the instrument rating opened up new vistas of understanding on how to work the System.  That benefit should not be underestimated.

I completely agree.  I found that more than the PPL and CPL, the IR was a "ticket to learn."  Learning about the system and how it worked was part of it.  But there is also a whole different perspective on weather.  I found myself taking one of Scott Dennstaedt's advance weather course and reading up on SkewTLogP, and trying to do a better job of assessing storm and frontal strength and the amount of energy in a weather front or condition.  I tried to get smarter about my aircraft's mechanical vulnerabilities and single points of failure.  You can have one of those things happen in VMC and it is an inconvenience, in IMC it just can't happen.  So you care for the aircraft differently.  I don't wait for my vacuum pump to quit, for example, I change it out before it quits. The extra hundred hours it might work until it dies is not worth my life and those of my passengers.  I also have to say that quite a bit of what we learned in ground school, the FAA mandated stuff, is just not very relevant to the real world.  91.185 lost comm procedures for example.  Certainly you need to know them in the very unlikely event that you have a true lost comm situation, but the much more important skill is to be able to figure out how to "find comm" again.  I am not saying you can't do many of these things if you are not instrument rated, rather getting the rating and starting to fly in the system and in instrument conditions definitely motivates you to get alot better.  For the past several years I have flown IFR on any trip of any length, it's just safer, you have help immediately if you need it.  

[DonMuncy]

21 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Is that knowledge available to instrument rated pilots only?  Seems to me anyone who flies in the system can gain said knowledge.

Clarence

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. 

[bonal]

This is what I know. The vast majority of Mooney space pilots are IR and all insist it will make me a better pilot I agree. I also know that it would take a substantial amount of money to upgrade my airplane along with the cost of training. In my opinion I would be better served getting a commercial rating as that is more about aircraft control. If I'm not mistaken there is only one instrument approach to my home field and it requires a certified gps so without one I would still end up miles from home waiting for the weather. Another issue is currency I think all would agree that an instrument pilot that does not maintain currency is likely more at risk challenging IMC than a VFR pilot that just stays out of weather which gets back to time and money. I think spending a full day with Don K. Would be money better spent as we could concentrate on improving my skills for the type of flying I do.  I also know I am not prone to panic when things go bad and am quite capable with my instrument skills to make an immediate 180 should I encounter IMC. My flight planning is very conservative when it comes to weather so not likely I would ever make that mistake. And let's say I end up over a solid layer at my detination well since I am even more conservative about my fuel limits we turn and head for an alternate.  Ok let's say I'm screwed and there is no way down I doubt that ATC would not help me through the layer and as I have a very good single axis auto pilot I can easily set up a stable descent and let my AP keep me level and on track following ATC directions. Confess communicate comply. I promise if I am successful in my future finacial commercial art endeavors after I retire I will get a full engine monitor update my VFR panel and go for the IR. I know it's very challenging to get an IR and all who have done so have all my respect and admiration.