Instrument rating with VFR airplane

Coinneach

Guest
Joined
Jun 27, 2021
Messages
105
Location
Phoenix
Display Name

Display name:
Coinneach
My Cherk is straight VFR - the KI-201s are trashed/inop (and partners don't care to replace them), no ADF, no GPS. I want to get my IR, but would obviously have to rent (eewww), and maintaining currency/proficiency after getting the rating would be problematic unless I move on to another airplane, which I don't see happening anytime soon. Should I even bother?

For the record and for what it's worth, I have 10 hours hood time, published and unpublished holds, a couple of ILS and RNAV. Haven't taken the written yet.
 
What do you mean by trashed?

Not being certified/legal IFR makes things difficult.
Not having the basic IFR avionics and instrumentation is going to be impossible.

Two VORs alone aren't going to let you get to the checkride anyhow.
 
By trashed I mean neither CDI will track any radial on any station. My plane's lack of equipment is why I mentioned renting - get the rating in a rental.
 
If I did not have the ability to maintain both currency and proficiency, I would not get the rating unless it was just to have a participation trophy.
 
^That's kind of where I was leaning. IR would drop our insurance a little, and I believe any learning is better than none, but it would be a very expensive participation trophy.
 
^That's kind of where I was leaning. IR would drop our insurance a little, and I believe any learning is better than none, but it would be a very expensive participation trophy.

How many insurance cycles before you get paid back on the rating cost?
 
Have you checked into what it would cost to fix what you have? That may be cheaper than renting.

As mentioned, my partners are averse to the idea of repairs that aren't strictly necessary (and we've had some LOUD arguments over the definition of "necessary"). Anything over $500 requires unanimous approval. Neither of them has IR so they don't see the need.
 
As mentioned, my partners are averse to the idea of repairs that aren't strictly necessary (and we've had some LOUD arguments over the definition of "necessary"). Anything over $500 requires unanimous approval. Neither of them has IR so they don't see the need.

Oof. I’d find a new partnership.
 
Note that unless all the named insureds get their instrument rating, it won't really change your premiums. I went through the same thing when I got my rating (Margy has no interest in doing so).
 
I think if I were in your shoes, I would take a ten hour aerobatics course or go after a tailwheel rating, something like that. If your airplane is not equipped, it would be pretty difficult to stay current after the rating (you would have to rent some more), and even if you were current, you would not be able to fly your airplane IFR should the need arise. I think you would be wasting your money pursuing the instrument rating at this time.
 
Already have my taildragger and complex, both of which I got mostly for shiggles last winter and neither of which applies to the Cherk (although getting the TW means my crosswind landings are now *chef's kiss*). I don't really have any interest in going inverted, and no need for HP or multi.
 
Already have my taildragger and complex, both of which I got mostly for shiggles last winter and neither of which applies to the Cherk (although getting the TW means my crosswind landings are now *chef's kiss*). I don't really have any interest in going inverted, and no need for HP or multi.
Seaplane?
 
Does one of the VOR’s have glideslope? If they aren’t working correctly it could be as simple as an antenna problem. If one of them has glideslope you could get by.

I consider my 140 my instrument trainer. It has an old but properly operating VOR with LOC/GS and a 420 non WAAS I bought on the cheap and traded an O-200A case for the installation. This gives more than enough for the checkride and something in which to shoot approaches for sport and currency.

You don’t need wall to wall glass to make an adequate IFR trainer.
 
Last edited:
Does one of the VOR’s have glideslope? If they aren’t working correctly it could be as simple as an antenna problem. If one of them has glideslope you could get by.
But if other maintenance issues exist, as it sounds like, no way I’d go near an examiner with the airplane.
 
I read all his posts and didn’t read anything about the plane not being airworthy. Not having sole ownership sounds like the biggest road block.
 
I read all his posts and didn’t read anything about the plane not being airworthy. Not having sole ownership sounds like the biggest road block.
Doesn’t sound to me like he’s limiting “necessary” to IFR equipment.

As mentioned, my partners are averse to the idea of repairs that aren't strictly necessary (and we've had some LOUD arguments over the definition of "necessary"). Anything over $500 requires unanimous approval. Neither of them has IR so they don't see the need.
 
The other maintenance issues have nothing to do with IFR; I mentioned them as an example of what I'm dealing with partner-wise (aside, why do pilots ALWAYS let themselves get distracted like this in discussions?). Neither CDI has glideslope; replacing #1 with, say, a KI-214, would cost $1500 plus labor, and $500 to replace #2 with a KI-208. The radios are both KX-170Bs that have seen better days as well.

The airplane is airworthy, if not up to my perfectionist standards. We're going into annual this weekend and we'll see what the A&P has to say about my other squawks. In the meantime, no instrument training/rating for me.
 
The airplane is airworthy, if not up to my perfectionist standards. We're going into annual this weekend and we'll see what the A&P has to say about my other squawks.
Unless the other squawks are properly deferred under 91.213, “airworthy” isn’t a given.
 
Where you plan on flying may increase or decrease the value of having an instrument rating. I'd guess that 95% of what I do for recreational and professional flying is done VFR and/or in VMC, and having an instrument rating doesn't really increase my flexibility.
 
Let's be honest here. Earning an IR is not terribly useful if you are not going to use it. And you can't use it, much less stay current or proficient in an airplane that is not IFR-capable. There is a sentiment that earning the IR will make you a better pilot--maybe--but those gains will lapse rapidly without regular reinforcement. Quite frankly, the point of having the IR is to use it regularly. The IR enhances safety-of-flight if and only if you are prepared to deploy those skills by requesting and flying an IFR clearance for a trip in MVFR or IFR conditions, or escaping from a potentially hazardous MVFR or IFR situation by filing IFR to avoid an increasingly bad flight situation. The idea that IFR training one completed years ago--in which one does not maintain regular competence--is going to save one in a VFR-into-IMC incident is questionable.

What IFR means for most often recreational GA pilots is the ability to dramatically reduce the stress and safety hazard of making trips in MVFR, and that can both enhance safety-of-flight as well as slightly increase dispatch reliability. It is a lot more comfortable (and safer!) to be flying on top of a 9000 foot undercast in smooth air with good vis than grinding along in the bumps under a 2000-3000 foot overcast and 5 mile visibility. Popping through layers to get on top or between layers is IFR-XC gold. Even flying in benign clag and rain for 3 hours is better than being AOG.

If one wants to earn and use an instrument rating, the ideal situation is to train in the airplane that you will eventually use for IFR operations, or one that is equipped very similarly. That will increase operational familiarity and ingrain the appropriate scan and knobology, which initially resembles juggling a chicken, bowling ball, and kitchen knife. :eek: Eventually, you figure out how to do it safely ad relatively effortlessly. :) If you have a capable plane AND a rating, you will use them.

A reality now is that the IFR system is very GPS-centric, and becoming more so as the VOR system is reduced in size to the minimum operating network. I haven't followed a VOR anywhere VFR or IFR in nearly 20 years except in training and IPCs. I have flown a few ILS approaches at metro airports, but otherwise its nearly 100% GPS, which is a godsend with LPV approaches at non-metro locations. I know that one probably doesn't want to hear that you need IFR GPS in a modern IFR-equipped plane, but with VOR/ILS only, IFR capability is significantly limited unless you frequent only large airports and they haven't shut down all your area VORs. In Central and Western NY where I am based, quite a few VORs are either temporarily out of service, permanently out of service, decommissioned, or scheduled for decommissioning. When they go down now, the FAA usually isn't in a hurry to fix or flight check them in our parts.
 
Last edited:
An IR doesn't expire so once you've got it, you've got it. Cost of an IR isn't likely to get any cheaper in the future so if you have the time and money now, you should consider it an investment. Sure, you'll probably go non current but an IPC is a whole lot easier to accomplish than getting the rating in the first place. The skills you acquire can improve your VFR flying and the practice dealing with ATC will make you more comfortable 'in the system' doing VFR flights. There are many things you can do to keep your IFR skills fresh even if you let your currency lapse until you decide to get current and actually fly IFR. Taking an aerobatic course, or getting a tailwheel endorsement are also fun ways to spend money flying. Seaplane rating is another idea but pretty useless unless you intend on purchasing one and can afford the insurance.
 
As mentioned, my partners are averse to the idea of repairs that aren't strictly necessary (and we've had some LOUD arguments over the definition of "necessary"). Anything over $500 requires unanimous approval. Neither of them has IR so they don't see the need.
You need unanimous approval for improvements over $500 if you pay for it yourself? If no, then no problem, cheaper than renting and makes you safer.

IMO, either way, it’s time to find a new plane. Either you dislike your partners so much you’d rather suffer than see them benefit, or they’d rather see you suffer even if it benefits them.
 
Find a different plane. This is a dumpster fire in my opinion.

I agree, find a plane you can own alone if possible. Although maybe it’s not as bad as a dumpster fire, this statement bothers me, “my partners are averse to the idea of repairs that aren't strictly necessary”. My philosophy is: take care of everything as it comes up unless it’s cosmetic and doesn’t affect flying. I guess it depends on what you consider “strictly necessary”. To me, if you use it for flying and you’re used to it working, it’s strictly necessary. But I tend to be OCD so there’s that.

I agree that the benefits of an IR decay fast if you can’t stay current and proficient but I also agree with Witmo that it’s not a waste if you don’t. I never got an IR but studied for it as if I were and don’t regret a minute of it. You just have to watch out for the trap of thinking you’re safer and getting into marginal situations (if rated but not current) you otherwise would avoid if never rated. But I find that that’s a weak argument for not getting instrument training. After all, you need some anyway to get your PPL. I see only good coming from getting more.

Not saying you should, only you know you total situation, finances, outlook for the future, etc. Sometimes there comes a point we have to make do with what we have.
 
this statement bothers me, “my partners are averse to the idea of repairs that aren't strictly necessary”. My philosophy is: take care of everything as it comes up unless it’s cosmetic and doesn’t affect flying. I guess it depends on what you consider “strictly necessary”.

I have 130 hours and I just bought into this deal in May. My partners have ~500 hours each and have been in the partnership for 15 and 30 years. When I point to something and say "That needs fixed" and they reply "It's been like that for years and several A&Ps have never mentioned it," what am I supposed to do? I'm very much the noob in this deal and have no experience to back myself up.
 
I have 130 hours and I just bought into this deal in May. My partners have ~500 hours each and have been in the partnership for 15 and 30 years. When I point to something and say "That needs fixed" and they reply "It's been like that for years and several A&Ps have never mentioned it," what am I supposed to do? I'm very much the noob in this deal and have no experience to back myself up.

you seem to be stuck with the normal aviation cost dilemma. plenty of people are content with having a plane that is barebones, borderline airworthy and don’t want to spend a dollar more than they have to. Then you have the people that have the excess cash and want every bell, whistle and new flashy thing on their plane, but some of them rarely fly more than 50 miles from their home. The middle of the road owner doesn’t have that excess cash to throw around, but want to have something nice and fits their mission. They can’t go for the $30K in upgrades, but they manage to find a way to get the $15k in upgrades.

I got a good deal on my plane, and it is in great shape. Luckily I have a great partner that we always come to meet in the middle on things. I don’t have the best plane on the field, but I don’t have the one other pilots look at and call it flying junk pile.

Aviation is an expensive hobby. But when you talk to a boat owner, it’s a close race. But depending where you live, you only get to use that boat a few months out of the year.
 
I'm the middle-of-the-road (or airway) guy. I don't need a GTN750 driving a GFC-600 to get me from KABC to KXYZ. I enjoy hand-flying and looking out the window. But I'm intolerant of any degree of mechanical defect in any of my vehicles and will happily pay whatever it takes to keep them squawk-free. From conversations with other owners and FBOs, apparently I'm in an extreme minority.
 
If I did not have the ability to maintain both currency and proficiency, I would not get the rating unless it was just to have a participation trophy.
I disagree. Getting the IR teaches you a ton about the entire system. Even if you never use it, getting it makes you a much more well rounded, knowledgeable pilot.
 
I disagree. Getting the IR teaches you a ton about the entire system. Even if you never use it, getting it makes you a much more well rounded, knowledgeable pilot.

I don’t disagree, I just believe the knowledge and experience can be gained without getting the rating.
 
I have 130 hours and I just bought into this deal in May. My partners have ~500 hours each and have been in the partnership for 15 and 30 years. When I point to something and say "That needs fixed" and they reply "It's been like that for years and several A&Ps have never mentioned it," what am I supposed to do? I'm very much the noob in this deal and have no experience to back myself up.

No judgement here, it sounds like that would be me too in your situation. I’m not one to give pushback to a group when I feel less experienced or knowledgeable, even if I’m sure I’m right. I guess that’s why I avoid groups. :) On the other hand, now you are gaining said experience about group ownership if nothing else. Even if it doesn’t work out in the long run you’ve learned something.

The excuse "It's been like that for years and several A&Ps have never mentioned it," was discussed just recently in one of the accident threads. That’s indicative of people having different levels of risk tolerance. Your lower level might save your life one day.

I'm the middle-of-the-road (or airway) guy. I don't need a GTN750 driving a GFC-600 to get me from KABC to KXYZ. I enjoy hand-flying and looking out the window. But I'm intolerant of any degree of mechanical defect in any of my vehicles and will happily pay whatever it takes to keep them squawk-free. From conversations with other owners and FBOs, apparently I'm in an extreme minority.

Again, we are just alike. I don’t require “bells and whistles” but I insist that the basics are kept in top condition, that is, stuff that keeps the spinny thing going, my steam gauges indicating correctly, and fuel and control systems working properly.
 
I considered being partners in the plane I inevitably bought, but we almost always disagreed on where to spend money. While he owned it, he replaced the carpeting, put in a leather interior, and new interior panels, resealed the fuel tanks. All good stuff to be sure, but I would have preferred to have the engine overhauled, which I did after I bought it from him. Might have been a good partnership despite that, we had different goals, but they all made the plane better, but I suspect we would have argued about it a lot.
 
As others mentioned, it kind of comes down to (the OP), do you want to get your instrument rating? If so, then, yes, it'd be nice to use the plane you (partially) own, That would require, as said, at a minimum, one working NAV and CDI, with glideslope. Nothing wrong with old KX170Bs, if they work. And, yes, it'd be really nice to have an IFR GPS, but, non-IFR partners that don't want to pop for $1500 for a new CDI sure aren't going to be interested in $10-15K for a GPS. Once rated, you can certainly stay proficient with a single NAV/CDI, but real-world IFR will be somewhat limited.
 
As mentioned, my partners are averse to the idea of repairs that aren't strictly necessary (and we've had some LOUD arguments over the definition of "necessary"). Anything over $500 requires unanimous approval. Neither of them has IR so they don't see the need.

This would bother the tar out of me. What other kinds of "unnecessary" maintenance are your co-owners avoiding? Inadequate maintenance is one of the avoidable factors that contribute to accident rates. This kind of thing is why I own my own plane. At least that way I know it is maintained to my safety standards. It seems like you and your partners have divergent goals and standards for ownership, which may prove increasingly challenging over time.
 
......... But I'm intolerant of any degree of mechanical defect in any of my vehicles and will happily pay whatever it takes to keep them squawk-free. .......

Allow me a moment to put on my Captain Obvious cape.

This, right here, is the source of the friction with you and your arrangement.

You're part owners of a plane that is being maintained "good enough" (you hope). Non functional avionics, and who knows what else, but... it flies. (until it doesn't).

This has to be driving you out of your mind.

You need to sell out and look for another partnership, or become a sole owner of something you can afford.
 
You're part owners of a plane that is being maintained "good enough" (you hope). Non functional avionics, and who knows what else, but... it flies. (until it doesn't).

This has to be driving you out of your mind.

The primary reason I hate renting is that, inevitably, half the panel is tagged inop, and of the other half, half *is* inop but not tagged. I was really looking forward to owning, at least in part, an airplane that's impeccably maintained and not being beaten to death by students every day. More fool me, I guess.
 
The primary reason I hate renting is that, inevitably, half the panel is tagged inop, and of the other half, half *is* inop but not tagged. I was really looking forward to owning, at least in part, an airplane that's impeccably maintained and not being beaten to death by students every day. More fool me, I guess.

Best of luck to you as you become aware of your situation and options.
 
Get out of the partnership. You now know of a lot more things to consider before you get into anything like this again.

Averse to renting because sometimes some of the instruments are inop? How is that worse than the plane you have where you don't even have the instruments that are sometimes marked inop in the rental?
 
Back
Top