Instrument Rating, not needed?

M

Meanee

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
521
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Display Name
Display name:
Meanee
So, I am a newly minted private pilot, who wants to be a bit better at what I do. So naturally, my next step would be Instrument Rating, I assumed.

Yesterday, my CFI had a small get together. Bunch of his friends came in. Some owners, some renters. And when I asked about IR, nobody is instrument rated. People with over 600 hours are still PPL (not even commercial). One guy has HP/Complex ratings, because his plane is HP and Complex.

I thought that instrument rating is more or less a required rating. In my opinion, it will make me a safer pilot. But looking around, I do not see that people actually have it. Is it some sort of a trend? Is IR at the end not worth it?
 
it really depends on how much travelling you plan on doing and how much time and money you plan on dedicating to remaining proficient.

If you want to be a better, safer pilot, I'd recommend learning to fly gliders.
 
Meanee said:
So, I am a newly minted private pilot, who wants to be a bit better at what I do. So naturally, my next step would be Instrument Rating, I assumed.

Yesterday, my CFI had a small get together. Bunch of his friends came in. Some owners, some renters. And when I asked about IR, nobody is instrument rated. People with over 600 hours are still PPL (not even commercial). One guy has HP/Complex ratings, because his plane is HP and Complex.

I thought that instrument rating is more or less a required rating. In my opinion, it will make me a safer pilot. But looking around, I do not see that people actually have it. Is it some sort of a trend? Is IR at the end not worth it?
Click to expand...

Where do you live, and what do you want to do with aviation?
 
Meanee said:
So, I am a newly minted private pilot, who wants to be a bit better at what I do. So naturally, my next step would be Instrument Rating, I assumed.

Yesterday, my CFI had a small get together. Bunch of his friends came in. Some owners, some renters. And when I asked about IR, nobody is instrument rated. People with over 600 hours are still PPL (not even commercial). One guy has HP/Complex ratings, because his plane is HP and Complex.

I thought that instrument rating is more or less a required rating. In my opinion, it will make me a safer pilot. But looking around, I do not see that people actually have it. Is it some sort of a trend? Is IR at the end not worth it?
Click to expand...

Depends on your mission, you wanting to buy a NORDO J3 and pull it out on CAVU days to go eat pancakes or are you wanting to ride left seat in a 737? I know CFII's who struggle to stay instrument current because they don't fly IFR much at all in reality. Getting it has to be good thing but not always necessary.
 
It will definitely make you a better, more precise, pilot. It also helped me fly on days other than CAVU, which means I can go places.
 
An instrument rating will make you a far better pilot even if you never enter a cloud.
 
kgruber said:
An instrument rating will make you a far better pilot even if you never enter a cloud.
Click to expand...

Okay, I plan on having my IR in 13', but I'd like to put some challenge to this assumption.
 
My goal is to be a safer pilot. And not to cancel plans because destination field has 1000' overcast.

I am in northeast. Live in NY, fly out of PA. Weather is mostly good, but can get hazy. I may be moving to Atlanta area around new year's, if I can transfer to a new position at work.

I asked people why they never went for IR. One said that he owns his plane and thinks it's pointless to him. Another one told me "I rent a plane, maybe once I get my own, I will get IR". So responses were no help at all.

I figured IR would give me, in addition to ability to fly in clouds, higher mastery of the aircraft, ability to think ahead, and give me more confidence in flying in general. And no, no right/left seats on a 737 in my future.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Okay, I plan on having my IR in 13', but I'd like to put some challenge to this assumption.
Click to expand...

40 hours under the hood and the extra radio work will make you better at multi tasking, precise flying and holding altitudes n such. Still get a little hesitant to practice stalls and steep turns? Try doing them under the hood. The extra study of weather and aircraft systems helps a lot too.

If you like to travel, get the rating. It is also a license to learn and with it comes responsibility to stay current or stay out of the clouds. As long as you have a few PPL or higher rated buddies this is no problem, most don't mind a free airplane ride as a safety pilot.
 
Last edited:
There are lots of things you can do to make you a safer pilot... that doesn't have to do with IFR training. Fly more and more often, read a lot, go to seminars, fly gliders, fly tail draggers, learn more about weather, fly different airplanes.
Most of my IR friends lament that they fly IFR so little that they are never current, and actually feel less-safe because they are tempted to do IFR with little practice.
I'm glad the other posters are realistic about IFR training, in some places they'll make you out a pariah if you aren't IFR or planning to be...
If I lived on the coast, sure I'd be IR in a second... no waiting for hours for a 200 ft fog-layer to clear. But I live in AZ - we seldom even see clouds, and when you do, you usually want to be flying the other way!
 
Meanee said:
My goal is to be a safer pilot. And not to cancel plans because destination field has 1000' overcast.
Click to expand...

If you want to have that capability, you will have to remain not only current but also proficient. If you can't commit to that (going up under the hood with a safety pilot every x days), then just getting the rating may not make you a safer pilot.
 
Start with the ground school with sims or PCATD and see what you think. If it looks interesting and you "get it", continue. If not wait till you really want/need the rating.

OTOH, PCATD's can be annoying and might turn you off IR altogether. :wink2:

Cheers
 
If you have the funds and time, I don't see any downside to getting additional ratings, or training. I don't beleive there is a pilot out there that knows it all, or caould say they don't learn anything new. If they say they know it all, they won't be around much longer.

Living in the northeast, the IR is a big bonus, you know how those fronts can come through and just cover ther regioun with clouds.
 
I used to think the instrument rating was about flying in bad weather. But really, that's surprisingly little of what I find useful about it. It's not a bad weather magic bullet... in the worst weather (convection/icing) it's much safer to fly VFR ironically.

It's just a much safer way to fly XC all around over the tactical dodge and weave VFR method where you beg ATC for radar services and cross your fingers.

There are some trade-offs... you can't just go left if you want to, you need a clearance for nearly anything short of an emergency. They can send you an inconvenient way, stick you in a hold, or something else you'd never do VFR while the hobbs are ticking.

If you don't fly much XC... the instrument rating has much less value.
 
People that say an instrument rating isn't needed either:

1.) Don't fly 300NM+ cross country trips
2.) Don't need to be anywhere by an particular time
3.) Don't have access to an airplane that is good for instrument flying
4.) Don't have an instrument rating
5.) Fly illegally in weather that is not VFR anyways

An instrument rating can easily allow you to complete many trips you wouldn't have been able to otherwise, period. It will also make some flights much more comfortable and easier.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Then offer your proof. I see plenty of IR pilots in the NTSB database.
Click to expand...
An instrument pilot is much safer than an non-instrument rated pilot in IMC conditions.

Considering how much of the accidents are VFR-into-IMC there is obviously a safety advantage. But that safety advantage is only useful if the instrument pilot is current, proficient, in a capable airplane, and smart enough to utilize his rating.

If you're looking for absolute values or answers you're wasting your time. Most insurance companies will offer lower rates to an instrument rated pilot in capable airframes. In some airframes they won't ensure you at all without an instrument rating. I'm no rocket scientist, but I do imagine there is a reason.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Then offer your proof. I see plenty of IR pilots in the NTSB database.
Click to expand...

Idiots and *******s can still straighten up and fly right for an IR checkride. Doesn't mean they won't be idiots and *******s after they get their IR.

So, do we need a qualifier that the IR will make you a better pilot, as long as you aren't an idiot and an *******? Seems like a stretch to your assumption.
 
nddons said:
Idiots and *******s can still straighten up and fly right for an IR checkride. Doesn't mean they won't be idiots and *******s after they get their IR.

So, do we need a qualifier that the IR will make you a better pilot, as long as you aren't an idiot and an *******? Seems like a stretch to your assumption.
Click to expand...
Even without this, I see blanket statements made the automagically having an IR will translate into safety using the same logic that technology makes one safer. There is no direct correlation (though a strong inference).

I belive in the merits of having the rating, but I also believe it's possible that it's also oversold.

I flew with a guy in his SR-22 awhile back; made an assumption that he was Comm-IR based on his flying ability and conversation. Then I later discovered that he was not. He was just a very disciplined PP-IA who had honed his stick and rudder skills (and maybe the airplane was making him look good too).

Since then, I have come to believe that a disciplined PP can have the same (or better) level of ability to fly 'by the numbers'.
 
I've got about 2,500 hours now, been to almost every state in the country. Been stuck a few times, been flying a few times when I shouldn't have been. Keeping current is the big thing for me, the plane, and the pilot. Just does not seem worth it to me. If I have to sit for a few days I really don't care, and I don't have to be anywhere at a specific time. Flying IMC with no icing is not real smart.
 
jesse said:
An instrument pilot is much safer than an non-instrument rated pilot in IMC conditions.
Click to expand...

And a ninja is safer than my grandmother in a knife fight in a telephone booth. My grandmother shouldn't get herself in that situation and neither should the non-IR pilot.

jesse said:
Considering how much of the accidents are VFR-into-IMC there is obviously a safety advantage. But that safety advantage is only useful if the instrument pilot is current, proficient, in a capable airplane, and smart enough to utilize his rating.
Click to expand...
IR rated pilots are getting into VFR-IMC incidents at about the same rates as non-IR pilots, maybe even moreso (but that's unofficial data).

jesse said:
If you're looking for absolute values or answers you're wasting your time. Most insurance companies will offer lower rates to an instrument rated pilot in capable airframes. In some airframes they won't ensure you at all without an instrument rating. I'm no rocket scientist, but I do imagine there is a reason.
Click to expand...

Granted, but insurance companies don't have the luxury of deciding who gets better rates based on glowing letters of recommendation, flight checks, or other means. They are forced to categorize pilots into groups and base their financial risk on numbers.

I'm not going to engage in a discussion about insurance actuarial wishful thinking and outdated data (assumptions) - for it will be pointless for me to do so. Let's just say that insurance is a highly regulated industry and reluctant to change of any kind.
 
Jaybird180 said:
And a ninja is safer than my grandmother in a knife fight in a telephone booth. My grandmother shouldn't get herself in that situation and neither should the non-IR pilot.


IR rated pilots are getting into VFR-IMC incidents at about the same rates as non-IR pilots, maybe even moreso (but that's unofficial data).



Granted, but insurance companies don't have the luxury of deciding who gets better rates based on glowing letters of recommendation, flight checks, or other means. They are forced to categorize pilots into groups and base their financial risk on numbers.

I'm not going to engage in a discussion about insurance actuarial wishful thinking and outdated data (assumptions) - for it will be pointless for me to do so. Let's just say that insurance is a highly regulated industry and reluctant to change of any kind.
Click to expand...

It seems like you've already made your mind up -- what are you looking for people to say?
 
dell30rb said:
40 hours under the hood and the extra radio work will make you better at multi tasking, precise flying and holding altitudes n such. Still get a little hesitant to practice stalls and steep turns? Try doing them under the hood. The extra study of weather and aircraft systems helps a lot too.
Click to expand...
Under the hood, my stalls and steep turns are much more extreme because all I can see is the instruments. I tend to be much more hesitant when I can see nothing but sky above when doing power on stalls. Same at night - my pattern work is much better because I have no outside reference.
If you like to travel, get the rating. It is also a license to learn and with it comes responsibility to stay current or stay out of the clouds. As long as you have a few PPL or higher rated buddies this is no problem, most don't mind a free airplane ride as a safety pilot.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, living in Colorado, there's not much opportunity for IMC that doesn't include icing or TStorms or controlled flight into cumulo granite. I've got 800 hours, and work sporadically on my instrument (not as long as Nate, OMG!) My instrument training has improved my landings but not much else.

For me the Instrument is the required step to CFI, which is what I really want to do when I retire (again) so I'm suffering thru it (again).
 
Jaybird180 said:
I'm not going to engage in a discussion about insurance actuarial wishful thinking and outdated data (assumptions) - for it will be pointless for me to do so. Let's just say that insurance is a highly regulated industry and reluctant to change of any kind.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of any regulations that prohibit insurance companies from reviewing accident data and discriminating against riskier pilots. It's not like trying to kick a new mother out of the hospital after 12 hours. This just isn't the kind of thing that regulators will weigh in on.

Actuaries are pretty good at what they do, when not prevented from doing their job. I would suspect that their price rating is probably the best indicator of risk out there.
 
Meanee said:
So, I am a newly minted private pilot, who wants to be a bit better at what I do. So naturally, my next step would be Instrument Rating, I assumed.

Yesterday, my CFI had a small get together. Bunch of his friends came in. Some owners, some renters. And when I asked about IR, nobody is instrument rated. People with over 600 hours are still PPL (not even commercial). One guy has HP/Complex ratings, because his plane is HP and Complex.

I thought that instrument rating is more or less a required rating. In my opinion, it will make me a safer pilot. But looking around, I do not see that people actually have it. Is it some sort of a trend? Is IR at the end not worth it?
Click to expand...
It's definitely not a required rating. Whether or not it makes you a safer pilot depends on many factors such as your dedication to keeping current. You can also make just as many bad decisions as an instrument rated pilot, maybe more. Having an instrument rating will keep you from being stranded by weather to a certain degree depending on your abilities, the airplane's abilities and where you live. It probably makes more sense in the east than it does in the intermountain west.
 
Meanee said:
My goal is to be a safer pilot. And not to cancel plans because destination field has 1000' overcast.

I am in northeast. Live in NY, fly out of PA. Weather is mostly good, but can get hazy. I may be moving to Atlanta area around new year's, if I can transfer to a new position at work.

I asked people why they never went for IR. One said that he owns his plane and thinks it's pointless to him. Another one told me "I rent a plane, maybe once I get my own, I will get IR". So responses were no help at all.

I figured IR would give me, in addition to ability to fly in clouds, higher mastery of the aircraft, ability to think ahead, and give me more confidence in flying in general. And no, no right/left seats on a 737 in my future.
Click to expand...


In your area (I live in Northern VA and fly northeast frequently) an instrument rating will allow you to safely fly trips in the spring and fall that you wouldn't be able to make without it. It will also require you to be extra careful in the winter months and not be tempted to fly in conditions that your aircraft cannot handle (I'm talking about ice here).

And yes, completing the IR (often called the "Master's Degree" of aviation) will make you a broader pilot and should improve your risk management skills, because you'll now have more options to manage.
 
Is an instant insurance discount enough proof?

Yes the instrument rating is just a notation on your plastic flying card. You can get in trouble with it. But if you are rated, current and exercise good flight planning and decision making, it will drastically improve your GA experience if you like to travel. Remember that trip you (wisely) canceled to the outer banks earlier this year? Would have been a walk in the park...
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
It seems like you've already made your mind up -- what are you looking for people to say?
Click to expand...

Au Contraire! However I have given it a lot of thought, and I believe it's something that each pilot should decide for him or herself. Far too often I see the advice (sadly from CFIs) that tout the advice that it makes them safer. What they are actually saying is, 'I have not prepared you well enough for the real world.' and this is a tragedy.

My reasons for pursuing an IR is akin to what you pointed out in an above post.
 
PPC1052 said:
Actuaries are pretty good at what they do, when not prevented from doing their job. I would suspect that their price rating is probably the best indicator of risk out there.
Click to expand...

Recently a good number of people have made the experience that the IR bought them about $5 off their annual bill.

Instrument pilots die in different kinds of crashes from VFR only pilots.
 
weilke said:
Recently a good number of people have made the experience that the IR bought them about $5 off their annual bill.

Instrument pilots die in different kinds of crashes from VFR only pilots.
Click to expand...

For me, on a 152 it was 10%
 
Jaybird180 said:
Even without this, I see blanket statements made the automagically having an IR will translate into safety using the same logic that technology makes one safer. There is no direct correlation (though a strong inference).
Click to expand...

Of course there is a direct correlation. Why do you think insurance is less expensive for instrument rated pilots? Try googling "actuarial science techniques."

Further, the average private pilot can just barely begin to babble on the radio, because he is unfamiliar with the language. Knowing the language allows even a VFR pilot more access to "controlled" airspace, making his flight safer.

It is much easier and safer to transition difficult airspace IFR. Los Angeles basin, for instance.
 
What I'm getting out of this thread is the anti IFR posts seam very defensive.

Yes the IR is maybe the toughest mental thing that you will ever do in your life. Even if you do train for the IR it doesn't mean that you will be capable of passing the check ride. I know several PP that quit during training and now are always being defensive saying that the IR is not necessary.

IMO the instrument rating separates the men from the boys. Even if you get the IR and you have bad judgement you won't be any safer. However, with the IR you will have the knowledge to make better decisions.

I can think of more then ten times when the weather fools have forecast good VFR for my entire trip and then I end up flying the approach to minimums.

For those of us that have flown approaches and popped out at 200' and within seconds touching down on the runway at an airport that you have never been to then taxiing up to the FBO and have all the VFR pilots in the lounge just stare at you then you will know how important the IR is.
 
Garthur said:
For those of us that have flown approaches and popped out at 200' and within seconds touching down on the runway at an airport that you have never been to then taxiing up to the FBO and have all the VFR pilots in the lounge just stare at you then you will know how important the IR is.
Click to expand...

Now that's just funny :lol:
 
I find the IR soothing, in that it's a lot less likely I will find myself face down on concrete with a gun pointed at me after inadvertently busting a TFR. ;)
 
For a private pilot and commercial pilots who just get the rating because they have the hrs yet dont fly for a living (who I also categorize as private pilots) it only makes sense if you are going to do ALOT of IMC flying, it does make you more precise, BUT ONLY IF YOU KEEP UP ON IT!

If you just get your IFR ticket and rarely go IMC, its a waste of money and will make LESS SAFE of a pilot (see false confidence).
 
My favorite part of being current and proficient with my IR is departing into the soup on a 201' overcast crappy day and five minutes later popping through the layer into the warm sunshine CAVU and cruising on to my destination.

The majority of my flight time is cross country greater then 300 miles at an altitude of 8K-12K. Flying IFR makes the trip much easier not having to stress about staying VFR, worry about the destination weather (as much), or wandering into "no go" airspace. There are of course situations when VFR is better and that option is always available to the IR pilot.

Staying current and proficient isn't a problem at all. I do most of my "practice" at night as I find it better simulates true IMC conditions.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
If you just get your IFR ticket and rarely go IMC, its a waste of money and will make LESS SAFE of a pilot (see false confidence).
Click to expand...

They make these cool things called view limiting devices, and these other even cooler things called simulators... they make it so that you can't see this stuff called "the ground".

It's pretty neat. You should check it out. No IMC required. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top