IFR rating or not

brien23

brien23

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,498
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Display name:
Brien
Is it worth the cost and effort to obtain a IFR rating. For most VFR pilots I would say save your money. The rating requires that you stay current and for a lot of pilots down the road do not use it. So for the expense would you get a Seaplane rating, MEL, Glider/Sailplane, Balloon or some other fun rating. At one time I recommended to new pilots that the IFR rating would be worth getting, now not so much.
 
I think it depends on your mission. When I first got my license in the Northeast I had no need for it. My flying was weekend fun only on clear days. On days where I could have used an IFR conditions were too bad typically anyway for an old Warrior (icing, etc.)

Now here in SoCal I've had to cancel more XC trips than I've actually been able to fly thanks to limited vis, low ceilings, etc. California IMC is usually a 1000 ft ceiling with tops around 2,500... you are through a quick. Sucks having to cancel a fun trip you had planned out because of a small layer like that

Plus I feel like getting instrument ticket makes you a better pilot overall
 
Just because you may not stay current with the IFR rating doesn't mean you won't learn and maintain some skills that could come in handy some day. As long as each pilot understands their limitations the rating will always be a +.
 
It makes you a better pilot. You will be more precise with your skills.

Even if you never fly in the soup, get the rating. Go get a buddy and regularly do practice approaches.

Flying in the system is so easy and it makes flying more enjoyable for me.
 
It depends on where you are and where you go and what you fly. For example, in the high desert or in the mountains, if it is IMC then short of some big $$$ your airplane isn't capable enough.
 
If you don't plan to use it, then it's like insurance.
Best part is you only have to buy it once but you benefit from it for the rest of your flying ventures.
If you use it, you still only buy it once.
If you don't keep it current it still works in your favor.
No one can argue with how much better a pilot you are with that knowledge in your back pocket.
Then go out and get fun ratings.
 
brien23 said:
Is it worth the cost and effort to obtain a IFR rating. For most VFR pilots I would say save your money. The rating requires that you stay current and for a lot of pilots down the road do not use it. So for the expense would you get a Seaplane rating, MEL, Glider/Sailplane, Balloon or some other fun rating. At one time I recommended to new pilots that the IFR rating would be worth getting, now not so much.
Click to expand...
Only you and your piggy bank know the answer to "Is it worth the cost and effort." Why are you asking? Do you have a desire to do it? Did someone tell you you should?
 
Before the IFR rating, we used to worry through half of most vacations wondering if we would be able to leave as planned, or if we should leave early, or extend our vacation, which was often impractical.

Now, that worry is minimal, even though the weather we used to worry about rarely occurred. If it looks like it 'might' be IMC, we can still leave, unless it is really bad or thunderous. It has made our vacations much, much less stressful.

Plus there is the pride factor.

But the fact that IFR training makes you a better pilot is still the primary reason for getting it.
 
I'm in the camp that it is better to get it.

Get the flame throwers ready for this, but relating certifications to levels of educational achievement I think it is something like:
Solo student = High School Graduate
PPL = Associates degree
IFR = Bachelor's
Commercial = Master's
ATP = Doctorate

Land/Sea, Single/Multi, Non-powered, Type certifications and the rest equate to 'concentrations' at each of the levels.

There's my opinion. I'm working on my BA and plan to make MA.
 
I'm not sure how I'd use my airplane for any practical purpose in New England without a instrument rating. I am a much better pilot with it, and the currency rules makes it so I force myself to fly in the system to keep current and proficient.

Many will disagree with me but instrument flight is my favorite type of flying as well. I have yet to have a better feeling in aviation than the satisfaction of a properly planned IFR flight ending with a approach and shockingly the runway is right in front of you where you thought (hoped) it would be :)
 
After about 300 hours PP-SEL, VFR, I finally decided that:
1. I was tired of sitting on the ground when there was 100ft-thick overcast/broken layer, and beautiful on top.
2. The training involved will definitely make me a better/safer pilit
3. I fly more and more for business, and missing meetings (because of #1) is not an option

So for me, it's really important, and I've just started.
Should have my written done in about 2 weeks.
 
Get the one you're going to use

Failing that get the one you're going to have the most fun getting.



That said, it's not part of the cookie cutter training for the PPL, but I think every PPL should have some real in and out of IMC time, no foggles.
 
luvflyin said:
Only you and your piggy bank know the answer to "Is it worth the cost and effort." Why are you asking? Do you have a desire to do it? Did someone tell you you should?
Click to expand...
I am a CFII and have instructed it for the last 45 years. Now I am not sure it's for everyone.
 
Last edited:
brien23 said:
Is it worth the cost and effort to obtain a IFR rating. For most VFR pilots I would say save your money. The rating requires that you stay current and for a lot of pilots down the road do not use it. So for the expense would you get a Seaplane rating, MEL, Glider/Sailplane, Balloon or some other fun rating. At one time I recommended to new pilots that the IFR rating would be worth getting, now not so much.
Click to expand...
I would agree with one proviso...if you're going to travel VFR, find a good instructor to teach you a VFR skill set equivalent to what the instrument rating teaches, along with the old AOPA 180-degree turn techniques for non-instrument pilots. With the proliferation of instrument ratings over the last 30 or 40 years, a lot of that skillset isn't known or taught by most instructors.

http://www.aviation.illinois.edu/avimain/papers/research/pub_pdfs/journalpubs/180 Degree Turn.pdf

 
Even if you don't ever file an IFR plan, even if you don't take the IR checkride, pay for the training.
The flying racket absolutely guarantees that someday you are going to get caught by the weather, and the training can be the difference between living and dying.
 
Just one guy here, but. . .I stayed VFR only for a long while, then got (and use) the rating. I'm not in the "it makes you a better pilot" camp, because it really doesn't. It makes you a better instrument pilot, for sure, but when VFR, no, not really. Just not buying that old saw.

Flying solely by reference to instruments you can learn pretty quick - it's just not that big a lift; most of the instrument rating work, the big lift, is in the rules, procedures, comms, . etc., - all the minutia that doesn't have anything to do with the basic flying-the-airplane-in-the-clouds; 90% of what you learn for the rating is mostly useless when VFR.

If you travel, which became my impetuous, it gives you more flexibility, lowers the stress - instead of scud running, you can file and not sweat the slightly too-low-for-VFR ceiling, for example. It can be fun, and a cool challenge, but when you blast off VFR, you aren't magically a "better" pilot for having gotten the rating.
 
I'm there. To be legal, I need a checkride, but I've bitched about the circumstances that led here often enough.

It's comforting (sort of) to know that if I -have- to, I can get on the ground safely. Before, I had no idea if I could or not. Now, I'm certain I can. But not legally.
 
Sundancer said:
Just one guy here, but. . .I stayed VFR only for a long while, then got (and use) the rating. I'm not in the "it makes you a better pilot" camp, because it really doesn't. It makes you a better instrument pilot, for sure, but when VFR, no, not really. Just not buying that old saw.

Flying solely by reference to instruments you can learn pretty quick - it's just not that big a lift; most of the instrument rating work, the big lift, is in the rules, procedures, comms, . etc., - all the minutia that doesn't have anything to do with the basic flying-the-airplane-in-the-clouds; 90% of what you learn for the rating is mostly useless when VFR.

If you travel, which became my impetuous, it gives you more flexibility, lowers the stress - instead of scud running, you can file and not sweat the slightly too-low-for-VFR ceiling, for example. It can be fun, and a cool challenge, but when you blast off VFR, you aren't magically a "better" pilot for having gotten the rating.
Click to expand...

Wow. I'm glad it was easy for you. It wasn't for me. Learning to fly by reference to instruments wasted probably 30 hours (a bad scan that wasn't caught until late). My VFR flying has also improved.. I'm holding +- 20 ft VFR, +- 2 deg, whereas before "generally correct" was good enough. VFR radio work is much improved. Looking forward to going into busy airspace in VMC conditions on an IFR flight plan just to make it -easier-, etc.
 
Shepherd said:
Even if you don't ever file an IFR plan, even if you don't take the IR checkride, pay for the training.
The flying racket absolutely guarantees that someday you are going to get caught by the weather, and the training can be the difference between living and dying.
Click to expand...



I went many years as a VFR only pilot. Then one day I got trapped under a lowering cloud base and barely got to my coastal destination before the clouds turned to ground fog. At night to boot. If I'd been instrument rated at the time, even if out of currency, it would have been a non-event to get a pop-up clearance for the ILS. It's that event that led me to get my instrument rating. Now a CFII and fly for a living in Alaska.
 
Sundancer said:
Just one guy here, but. . .I stayed VFR only for a long while, then got (and use) the rating. I'm not in the "it makes you a better pilot" camp, because it really doesn't. It makes you a better instrument pilot, for sure, but when VFR, no, not really. Just not buying that old saw.

Flying solely by reference to instruments you can learn pretty quick - it's just not that big a lift; most of the instrument rating work, the big lift, is in the rules, procedures, comms, . etc., - all the minutia that doesn't have anything to do with the basic flying-the-airplane-in-the-clouds; 90% of what you learn for the rating is mostly useless when VFR.

If you travel, which became my impetuous, it gives you more flexibility, lowers the stress - instead of scud running, you can file and not sweat the slightly too-low-for-VFR ceiling, for example. It can be fun, and a cool challenge, but when you blast off VFR, you aren't magically a "better" pilot for having gotten the rating.
Click to expand...
Your tolerances for heading, altitude, and corse deviations decrease IMO. Even when I fly VFR I want to nail 4500ft. Not 4600, not 4700, not 4550. It will make you a precise VFR pilot as well. It may be anecdotal but I've noticed IR PPL are better at holding altitude, heading, course, tracking a VOR, etc than non IR PPL.
 
Last edited:
For me it's simple. If you want to travel with an airplane, to transit states, to come home on a different day than you left, to fly a fast airplane, an instrument rating is well worth it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
brien23 said:
Is it worth the cost and effort to obtain a IFR rating. For most VFR pilots I would say save your money. The rating requires that you stay current and for a lot of pilots down the road do not use it. So for the expense would you get a Seaplane rating, MEL, Glider/Sailplane, Balloon or some other fun rating. At one time I recommended to new pilots that the IFR rating would be worth getting, now not so much.
Click to expand...

If you answer no to the 3 following questions, an IR is not worth it:

1. Do you plan on becoming a commercial pilot or becoming a flight instructor.
2. Do you use a plane for business travel?
3. Do you now fly or are you planning on flying XC flights of more than 200 NM?
 
Clip4 said:
If you answer no to the 3 following questions, an IR is not worth it:

1. Do you plan on becoming a commercial pilot or becoming a flight instructor.
2. Do you use a plane for business travel?
3. Do you now fly or are you planning on flying XC flights of more than 200 NM?
Click to expand...
I've got a lot of time at #3 without the need for an instrument rating. I don't think it's a deal-breaker.
 
Clip4 said:
If you answer no to the 3 following questions, an IR is not worth it:

1. Do you plan on becoming a commercial pilot or becoming a flight instructor.
2. Do you use a plane for business travel?
3. Do you now fly or are you planning on flying XC flights of more than 200 NM?
Click to expand...
I disagree with all 3
 
As for things like Seaplane, Multi, Glider, Tail wheel, I'll wait until I feel I'm going to use them. In my book, the instrument rating is a must.

I was once of the mindset that I would not fly in weather. That didn't last more than a year. Eventually, I started venturing further, and pushing the limits of what I would fly in. It bit me twice, one of which scared the crap out of me. (And I was half-way through my IR at the time.) So, unless you are 100% certain that you will never launch in anything but CAVU weather for well beyond your range, not getting your IR is foolhardy.

I can't speak for everyone, but my IR did make me a better pilot. Not just in how precisely I control the aircraft, but in how I look at the environment. The more experience I get in weather, the more I start to understand it better. And I actually enjoy flying in the system, especially when traveling. The only time I don't file IFR is when I'm just going up for some practice, or a sight-seeing flight in CAVU and low traffic. I enjoy the precision required of IR. (And so does my wife.)

As far as maintaining IR proficiency, I'm not finding that it doesn't take as much effort or expense as I thought. Between trips to the coast, and the winter fogs here in the valley, I'm getting my minimums without difficulty. And I just take a IPC ride every 6 months so that I don't have to bother tallying up my approaches. It also helps me to stay proficient, and identify any areas that need some fine tuning. It's only an hour on the ground and a couple hours in the air. With gas and instructor, the IPC only costs me a few hundred. Well worth it in my book.
 
An instrument rating teaches you a higher level of weather/flight planning. Without the rating, the go/no-go decision is much simpler. With it, you are more flexible but have a more complicated decision process. Basically, sticking to VFR keeps you well away from the real weather monsters like embedded thunderstorms and icing. Flying IFR lets you get up close and personal with those monsters so you have to plan more thoroughly to avoid getting bitten by them.

I don't know if the rating automatically makes you a better pilot. Probably a commercial certificate goes farther in that regard, and you can indeed get a VFR only CPL. But the instrument rating seems to have a bigger impact on insurance premiums than a commercial certificate does, which says something about which one of them makes you less likely to do something that leads to an insurance claim, such as crashing an airplane.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I've got a lot of time at #3 without the need for an instrument rating. I don't think it's a deal-breaker.
Click to expand...

I'd amend #3 to include traveling back on a subsequent day when you *have* to be back for work. VFR travel then becomes very stressful and can interrupt nice weekends or leave you stranded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I'd amend #3 to include traveling back on a subsequent day when you *have* to be back for work. VFR travel then becomes very stressful and can interrupt nice weekends or leave you stranded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The overwhelming majority of the times when I had to sit it out VFR, IFR wouldn't have been an option either due to thunderstorms or icing. YMMV.

The only significant difference I saw was the willingness of FSS to brief me for a flight into embedded thunderstorms and/or icing when I wasn't equipped if I could go IFR. I had a few briefers over the years refuse to brief a VFR flight. Largely not a problem anymore due to the availability of online weather.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The overwhelming majority of the times when I had to sit it out VFR, IFR wouldn't have been an option either due to thunderstorms or icing. YMMV.

The only significant difference I saw was the willingness of FSS to brief me for a flight into embedded thunderstorms and/or icing when I wasn't equipped if I could go IFR. I had a few briefers over the years refuse to brief a VFR flight. Largely not a problem anymore due to the availability of online weather.
Click to expand...

That's a different argument. With nexrad on board that had not been my experience and frontal thunderstorms are more easily forecast anyway. And it also depends a bit on your region.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is not quite what I thought the post would turn out to be. I thought more non IFR pilots would respond as to the reason they are not IFR rated. I have been around many airports, seen lots of pilots with planes that are IFR capable, but for one reason or another the pilots are not. Years ago you had to build a lot of time before you could be instrument rated, they did away with that and most of us thought that was the best thing the FAA had done ever. Could also have been I thought I would get more instrument students also on my part. As I said now I am not sure.
 
Last edited:
gsengle said:
That's a different argument. With nexrad on board that had not been my experience and frontal thunderstorms are more easily forecast anyway. And it also depends a bit on your region.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Different argument, but an instrument rating is just as useless if your airplane isn't equipped for the weather. ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
Different argument, but an instrument rating is just as useless if your airplane isn't equipped for the weather. ;)
Click to expand...

Now that's true! I have 2 AIs, two alternators, two batteries, certified known ice, stormscope and ADSB-in. Would be a waste of equipment to not be rated...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is another "need" arugment, like the one we had on engine monitors.

Very few people "need" an IFR rating, unless their job requires it. Short of that, it is good to have, but if you don't "Know" you need it, then you don't.

If the time, expense and difficulty of obtaining an IFR rating are worse for you than occasional weather delays, then why get one.

But even though I am retired, I still find that weather delays can be a real pain. They can add hundreds of dollars in expenses for over night stays. Appointments and meetings may be missed. Pet care arrangements may need to be made or modified.

So nobody can tell you if you should get one, unless you are living at home with Mom and Dad and they want you to get it on their dime.
 
Doing better at holding heading, holding altitude - you can practice and improve that without doing the Instrument rating. Concur that it might be a by-product of working on the rating, for sure, but you can do that independently. Not ragging on the Instrument - I have it and use it - just not convinced it makes someone a "better" VFR pilot. In other words, you can get the benefits (when there are tangible ones) without the procedural and regulatory noise that goes with the instrument rating, and that take up a huge amount of the time required.
 
Good topic! From a practical standpoint what equipment, and therefore what types of approaches, will give you the best experience during instrument training? Although I have neither an autopilot nor a panel mounted GPS I would like to sharpen my skills, gain some experience, and be prepared to get out of a bad weather situation should I ever be trapped in that situation.
 
Rob58 said:
Good topic! From a practical standpoint what equipment, and therefore what types of approaches, will give you the best experience during instrument training? Although I have neither an autopilot nor a panel mounted GPS I would like to sharpen my skills, gain some experience, and be prepared to get out of a bad weather situation should I ever be trapped in that situation.
Click to expand...
Whatever equipment you'll be flying instruments on. If you plan on flying /U, train in a /U plane. If you plan on flying /G, train on a /G plane. You should be familiar and comfortable flying every type of approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top