...

StraightnLevel said:
My school has an Arrow, which seems perfect for getting complex handled when coming from a Cherokee.

How did you go about getting the high performance endorsement when you bought the Bo?
Click to expand...
In my case, the 182 got me the high performance endorsement…when I was ready for the Bo, I had both endorsements and my IFR rating. Didn’t really have much choice because the insurance company pretty much required IFR, 50 hours of complex time and 10 in type. Getting the 10 in type wasn’t bad - I bought the plane out of state and paid my CFI to pick up the plane with me. Shuttling it home was most of it, and we did a good day of shooting IFR approaches afterward.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Thanks - this is helpful.

Honestly, I am very apprehensive about flying any significant distance cross-country without the instrument training. It just seems like it would be tempting fate.
Click to expand...
Just my 2 cents, that apprehension may also be the little voice in the back of your head telling you to maybe slow down a little bit. I don't mean that in a derogatory way at all. You clearly have a driven mindset, technically oriented, and that's how people get things done. But you've also probably read the stories of the guy who goes from step 1 to 2 to 3 as fast as possible, ends up with a new to them aircraft that they have the min quals to fly, runs into a problem...and then they're gone.

So that bit of taking some time to fly around advice you got from folks wasn't just to sort out what your next steps are, it's to get some additional VFR time down so you're a more comfortable pilot, and in a better space for your next steps.

If you want goals - I'm not a CFI - but I'll toss out some. Knock out the cross country time you need for an instrument rating, making some trips to airports you haven't flown to before. If you're not comfortable with power off 180's to relatively short runways, do enough that you're comfortable. That's not a required PPL thing but it should be. Same with simulated power off to land. Things that not only prepare you for emergencies, but teach you energy management and flying an approach without the crutch of power adjustments. If you don't love slips and slow flight, practice until you do. (Separately!)

As others have mentioned, complex is easy and fun, and lets you log things you couldn't otherwise. High performance is just easy, if the plane is something you're close to familiar with. Tailwheel is worth it just to learn what the rudder does. Not hard, just takes some time but I think worth it.
 
mondtster said:
What you will find if you’re honest with yourself is that not having an instrument rating or a VFR only aircraft is not the limiter you think it is as a fresh private pilot.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:


Most flights suitable for a single-pilot small plane can be accomplished VFR, especially with a few hours of flexibility to wait out weather on occasion.

Stated another way, a small plane is still a small plane, and an instrument rating won’t make it into a mini airliner.

StraightnLevel said:
There is a reason that nearly every company of any size uses private planes.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they’re using kerosene burners with two professional pilots to reach the dispatch reliability you seem to be seeking. Plus they have flight departments that manage the maintenance of the planes. And they still find themselves flying commercially part of the time.

Your expectations may be a bit high for a small piston plane owned and flown by a low-time pilot who’s already fully occupied with a regular job.
 
StraightnLevel said:
I'm within a couple of weeks of my PPL checkride, so I'm starting to think about the follow-on work. For my goals, I know that I will need to add on instrument and complex, likely high performance, possibly multi and/or pressurized (depends on the plane I end up buying).

What should I take into consideration regarding the order of getting the "add-on" certs and endorsements? Is there a good reason to try to do them in a certain order, parallel certain parts, or is it all just putting in time sequentially? Is there any reason to not get all of the above just for the sake of knowing as much as possible from a safety standpoint?
Click to expand...
I could probably write a book to answer this question. I'll try not to. ;)

Clearly you have a goal/mission in mind - Easy travel between about 5 states, and I can tell you from experience that you'll most likely want to do more than that.

However, be aware that this doesn't always work out the way you'd like. If you're going to be traveling with your spouse and/or kids, you'll need to "train" them as well - And what you do with them early on will matter. And I could write an entire chapter on that subject alone. I did just record a bit of a podcast episode on that subject that I'll post about once it's up.

Now, you have partially defined your mission, but we need to better define it to figure out the best path to the goal. How many people and how much weight do you want to carry? How far apart are those 5 frequent destinations, and how fast do you want to get there? And what is your budget, both for purchase and for ongoing operating costs?

Given that you're already talking about pressurized twins, if you really have the budget for that sort of thing, you'll likely want to/have to take more than one step to get there. While it is possible to go from zero to pressurized turbine pretty quickly, it is also a level of expense that is at least an order of magnitude beyond what most pilots can afford. I've seen it happen, but insuring it for 6 months cost more than my airplane. :eek:

Aside from total time and time in type, the two kinds of time the insurance companies seem to really want are complex time, and multi time if applicable. With that in mind, I would go ahead and get into the Arrow right away and get your complex endorsement. Check with them and see what the requirements are for renting it, since IIRC you need at least 100 hours total time along with some other things. If you don't meet the requirements for renting it right away, then once you have the complex endorsement (which should be very quick), go ahead and use it to start on your instrument training. Once you do meet the requirements, use it for your other flying as well. And DON'T FORGET THE GEAR because one gear up incident is likely going to hurt your insurance prospects more than 100 hours of complex time is going to help.

Once you've finished your instrument and done some other flying on your own in the Arrow, and hopefully had a chance to take your family up and make sure this is going to work for them too, you've got some complex time and the 135 knots of the Arrow feels normal, you're ready for another step. If your forever plane is going to be an unpressurized single, you can probably buy it now. Otherwise, you'll probably want to get something that's 150+ knots, unpressurized, and if you've decided a twin is your final destination, a twin. You should be easily insurable in a Twin Comanche by this point, maybe a Baron or 310. If you're going to end up in a pressurized turbine single (Piper Mx00 or Meridian, Cirrus SF50 Vision jet, or TBM), just go ahead and buy a high performance single (SR22, or the faster Mooneys or Bonanzas). In either case, fly the hell out of it, gain experience, and when this level of speed and complexity feels so normal you're getting bored, take the final step into your forever plane.

There is one other option, and @MauleSkinner touched on it. If you have the budget for it, you can skip ahead a bit by always paying for an instructor to be with you. It's expensive, but it does get you experience in the final aircraft much sooner, and it lets you really make use of aviation. Need to get somewhere but the conditions are beyond your skills? Let the instructor pilot fly, and you get to learn by observing. Other times, you'll be getting real-world experience. You'll spend a lot of time with the instructor, and you'll spend a lot of money on the instructor and on insurance, but it'll get you to your destination quicker. Also, this is NOT a job for a random instructor at the local FBO. You'll want someone with a lot more real world experience, preferably with specific time in type.
Daleandee said:
I learned something from a CFI that also does auto racing. He said "sometimes you need to slow down to speed up." I won't explain it as you either get it or you don't ...
Click to expand...
Best thing I learned from flying turbine aircraft came from the chief pilot, and it sounded very similar. "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast." If you are in a big hurry, you screw things up and it makes you slower than you otherwise would have been. Take a deep breath, relax, do the whole damn checklist at a moderate pace even though you're in a hurry, and you'll be in the air before you know it.
Salty said:
IMO getting IR without having done a bunch of vfr leaves you with big gaps. All IR really does for me is let me bust through a cloud layer. Most anything else is too high risk to be worth it. Figuring out how to do what you want safely in vfr is just as valuable.
Click to expand...
This is good advice. I know people that have so little experience with VFR that they go IFR everywhere and miss out on some really fun flying.

Same thing for towered vs. non-towered airports. So many pilots learn at one or the other, and then that's all they do. Make sure to do plenty of both in training, or you'll be artificially limiting yourself. I've always been based at towered airports, but I love going to untowered airports and similar to the always-IFR crowd, I'm a little sad for the always-towered crowd.
mondtster said:
I have pretty much 4 cornered the continental US in VFR only aircraft, largely on a schedule. What you will find if you’re honest with yourself is that not having an instrument rating or a VFR only aircraft is not the limiter you think it is as a fresh private pilot.
Click to expand...
It doesn't limit the percentage of flights I thought it would when I was a student pilot, but even if you don't always use it, you will need a LOT of time flexibility. At least half the US is susceptible to getting socked in under an overcast layer for days on end on occasion, killing any possibility of VFR flight when IFR would be a quick and easy pop up through the layer and on your way. If you can work remotely, that's one thing, but this sort of thing is where get-there-itis comes from.

However, VFR or IFR, having some time flexibility is THE most important thing to have on long cross-country trips, along with the ability and willingness to change plans. It's the people that make one plan and stick to it come hell or high water that always end up killing themselves.
MauleSkinner said:
Outside of FIKI, RADAR-equipped airplanes, I don’t think my as-scheduled IFR trips have had a higher percentage than my as-scheduled VFR trips.
Click to expand...
I don't know how that's possible, unless your IFR trips are a no-go when it's VMC. IFR lets you complete trips that would not be safe or possible VFR.

That said:
Getting the instrument rating makes it so that you can go more often, but it makes the go/no-go decision more difficult.
Getting an airplane with Flight Into Known Icing capability makes it so that you can go more often, but it makes the go/no-go decision more difficult.
Getting an airplane with onboard radar makes it so that you can go more often, but it makes the go/no-go decision more difficult.
etc... The most difficult go/no-gos I've been a part of involved turbine aircraft with all the bells and whistles, two-pilot crews and up to five pilots involved in the decision.
 
Half Fast said:
:yeahthat:

Click to expand...
OK, I've gotta call BS on his article. He's misusing his numbers.

Only about 3% of my time is actual instrument time. However, I have a lot of legs with 0.1 instrument time where I punched up or down (or both) through a layer and they average 2.2 total time. In fact, 22% of my cross country legs and 25% of my cross country time have actual IMC logged, and I don't always bother logging actual IMC so in reality it's probably higher than that.

So yeah, 3% makes it sound like I could do 97% of my trips VFR, when in reality it's only about 75%.
Half Fast said:
Most flights suitable for a single-pilot small plane can be accomplished VFR, especially with a few hours of flexibility to wait out weather on occasion.
Click to expand...
I would say that if you can't fly IFR, you might want to plan on a few days of flexibility, not just a few hours. You won't need it, until you do.
Half Fast said:
Stated another way, a small plane is still a small plane, and an instrument rating won’t make it into a mini airliner.
Click to expand...
No, but it sure helps. Not only with the 1/3 more flights that I accomplish due to weather, but sometimes operationally it's just way easier to fly IFR. For example, flying into the Washington DC area, or flying into big, busy airports.
Half Fast said:
Yes, but they’re using kerosene burners with two professional pilots to reach the dispatch reliability you seem to be seeking. Plus they have flight departments that manage the maintenance of the planes. And they still find themselves flying commercially part of the time.

Your expectations may be a bit high for a small piston plane owned and flown by a low-time pilot who’s already fully occupied with a regular job.
Click to expand...
Good points, but it isn't *that* hard to make things work if you have realistic expectations, especially for the earlier stages. I think that's at least part of what @StraightnLevel is after with this thread.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't know how that's possible, unless your IFR trips are a no-go when it's VMC. IFR lets you complete trips that would not be safe or possible VFR.
Click to expand...
Flying an Archer in icing or embedded thunderstorms is a no-go. I also have single-engine IFR minimums that aren’t far from my VFR minimums. VFR often lets me complete trips that would not be possible or safe IFR.
 
StraightnLevel said:
I have more than 1M miles on Delta alone - I’m sitting on a 737-900 right now as I type this. 1) I think you over-estimate the reliability of the majors, and 2) cost is far less important to me than control over my schedule. A better comparison would be to a NetJets approach.

Bluntly, the ability to leave at 6AM and fly four hours direct to the airport down the street from my office (literally - I can see the VOR from my office window) is worth a lot in comparison to a commercial flight schedule that adds 90-120 minutes of net drive time, adds an hour or more of airport/security dwell time, and runs on THEIR schedule and not mine. Net result, I would get there at 2:30 in the afternoon flying commercial, which effectively burns the entire day. I’ve been doing this for decades, and it’s worn really, really thin.

There is a reason that nearly every company of any size uses private planes. It’s not because the CEO is a pilot, nor that he is saving $$$ (though this is often the case when you total up full costs of travel). Time is the most crucial commodity that any of us have, and that’s where GA creates real value.
Click to expand...
Dunno how useful the CEO comparison is: two hired pilots & a kero burner from a fractional jet company is not in our DIY league.
 
rhkennerly said:
…
I do feel compelled to mention also that, as part of your buying process, you should consider that Southwest can get you anywhere in the US for $500. Any day, in all weather. $500 bucks doesn’t get you very far with most twins or high performance singles….
Click to expand...
Au contrere mon frere. It’s been a long, long time since SWA has gotten me anywhere for under five benjamins, especially on my timeline and it usually takes them longer door to door.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
Your expectations may be a bit high for a small piston plane owned and flown by a low-time pilot who’s already fully occupied with a regular job.
Click to expand...

This is a realization I would say 99% of the folks on this board have had to come to terms with.

Whenever we launch on a weekend or vacation trip it is known we may get stuck somewhere for a day or longer for weather or MX issues or whatever comes up. Its just how piston GA works. Hell I know a guy that flies a TBM professionally and guess what his dispatch rate isn't 100% either and he's an extremely experienced pilot with an incredibly capable airplane.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, but they’re using kerosene burners with two professional pilots to reach the dispatch reliability you seem to be seeking. Plus they have flight departments that manage the maintenance of the planes. And they still find themselves flying commercially part of the time.
Click to expand...
I think I’ve posted in another thread that airline-level dispatch reliability requires you to own two jets and employ four pilots full-time.
StraightnLevel said:
You could have a VERY well-restored Malibu, 340, 421, Baron, or even a Duke for a whole lot less, and from the inside my wife would be just as comfortable.
Click to expand...
Pressurized twins: they might be as reliable as a vintage lawnmower, but they make up for it by being as affordable to operate as a jet. I would love a 340, 414, or 421. But I would have to sell a kidney per year to keep it airworthy. It would be cheaper to sell all my kidneys in advance and get a 425.

We won’t even talk about a Duke. Other than to say you’d look good in a Duke.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Heck, my observed dispatch rate this year with Delta is only about 75% (per trip, not per individual flight). I'm not joking.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you're asking for advice when you already have all the answers..... Best of luck to you:thumbsup:
 
I felt like we just had the dispatch discussion. Turns out it's because I wrote this last week:
Jim K said:
My experience has been that
1) Your dispatch rate will be better than you think. Especially if you get your instrument rating. I've only had to scrub flights a few times, and all of those were completed by moving departure time +/- 1 day. If you have any flexibility at all a GA plane can be quite usable. Maintenance issues have been a bigger problem WRT not being able to go than weather.
Click to expand...
This is with a piston single in the midwest. TBH I'm not sure a fiki twin would be much better, it'd just make the decision harder and have twice as many engines to break. I'll probably still go that direction in a few years though. I'd certainly feel better about flying at night or above widespread low imc if I had a second engine or a chute.
 
FYI, even if you buy a simple aircraft, for a new PP, it would be a VERY good idea to have an instructor come along on the trip to fly it home. Preferably one with a good bit of experience in the make/model.
 
THIS is what I originally replied to.......
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Not really. Without my IR, the decisions were easy, black & white one might say. “No-go” was easy, and less tempting of fate with a “go” decision due to conservatism.

After the IR, you need to use better judgement. Your skill proficiency, plane’s condition, and consideration of how sure prediction of nature’s forces will be if you launch are much more “tempting fate” as you say.

You won’t appreciate it at this time.
Click to expand...
^^^ this
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Only about 3% of my time is actual instrument time. However, I have a lot of legs with 0.1 instrument time where I punched up or down (or both) through a layer and they average 2.2 total time. In fact, 22% of my cross country legs and 25% of my cross country time have actual IMC logged, and I don't always bother logging actual IMC so in reality it's probably higher than that.

So yeah, 3% makes it sound like I could do 97% of my trips VFR, when in reality it's only about 75%.
Click to expand...

flyingcheesehead said:
Not only with the 1/3 more flights that I accomplish due to weather,
Click to expand...


That sounds pretty pessimistic to me, and I suspect that many of your IFR flights could be accomplished VFR without punching through a layer if you needed to. How often is that 0.1 hour of IFR truly essential to making the flight, versus a preference?

Certainly it's more comfortable to get on top, but how often is it really necessary? Even with central Florida summer weather and all our cloud cover and thunderstorms, there are very few days without VFR weather I can fly in if I'm willing to deal with the heat and a little turbulence.

Truth may lie somewhere between 75% and 97%, and has a lot to do with personal preference and risk tolerance, but the overarching point is that VFR flight is much more useful than many seem to think, and an instrument rating is not a solution to make a small plane approach airline reliability.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Looks like the OP took his ball and went home again.
Click to expand...
Yup, another one who had a hissy fit and wiped his question when he didn't get the answer he wanted. Maybe someday he'll grow up.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Nope. Just a direct response to these two posts.
Click to expand...
those two posts had nothing to do with your OP, so why should they be a reason to remove it?

You have a history of taking umbrage when people give you answers that you don’t like. I’m thinking @Dana ’s post is accurate.
 
A lot of people here recommend IFR training. I agree. I, however, have almost 10K hours and I'm a VFR pilot. This surprises a lot of people. My flying has slowed down a lot, but I still fly more than the average GA pilot. I've got 52.6 hours this year.

I've owned a Luscombe, Cessna 140s, a Little Toot biplane, and now a Cessna 182. The 182 is the first airplane I've ever owned that was IFR capable and therefore I didn't train before. Why get an IFR rating if I couldn't afford to fly an IFR plane? I'm now working on it, but I have no regrets, other than I could have learned a lot easier at a younger age!

I will also say, with my job, I carry my laptop on trips and I can WFH (work from hotel) if needed. I feel no pressure to complete a trip ever.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I will also say, with my job, I carry my laptop on trips and I can WFH (work from hotel) if needed. I feel no pressure to complete a trip ever.
Click to expand...
That is exactly the attitude that has allowed you to become a 10,000 hour VFR pilot, and it will work very well after you get your instrument rating as well. :thumbsup:
 
Half Fast said:
He made a joking play on words.

Play Misty for Me is a 1971 American psychological thriller film directed by and starring Clint Eastwood, his directorial debut. Jessica Walter and Donna Mills co-star. The screenplay, written by regular Eastwood collaborators Jo Heims and Dean Riesner, follows a radio disc jockey (Eastwood) being stalked by an obsessed female fan (Walter).
Click to expand...

Yeah I got that but if he's shooting pics in IMC that might be all you get to see ... if you see what I mean ...
 
Some of you guys are pretty snarky but I always learn something in these threads.
 
I tried to convince my photo pilot that we could mount a bright light on my plane pointing backwards and do shoots at night.... he didn't think anyone would go for it! As the sun is setting earlier and earlier each day, I start dreading those 5PM sunsets.
 
I just make them look IFR. I guess he was flying through B-25 exhaust!
52938868240_a1d1615fc9_c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top