IR(R) - Is it worth it?

[tobster911]

Hello all. After I complete my PPL, I know I am adding the night rating because it would be lovely to fly at night (or so I believe), and it's not too expensive. I am interested in being able to fly in non VFR, and at some point (probably in 10 years), will go on to get my IR(A)... Is it worth getting my restricted rating to be able to fly in IMC in the UK? Does it have any major restrictions to it, and if so, what are they?


I apologise in advance to everyone on the forum as, now I have started my PPL training, there will probably be a lot more threads from me asking questions, either like this, or about the technical side to flying.


Thank you


T

[piperboy84]

Is it worth learning to fly by instruments? I suppose you could view it the same way you view the value of say buying a car with disc brakes with ABS versus bog standard drum brakes.

Do you need the disc/ABS to drive? NO

Can i afford the option ?

Does the Disc/ABS reduce the chances of things going wrong when conditions get bad? Yes

Is the extra money for the disc/abs worth the benefit of increasing you and your passengers odds of completeing the journey safely ? Up to you

I could go on and on

[Curlytips]

Apart from the obvious point that you will no doubt save your life one day because you know how to get out of trouble, the IR(R) will open your horizons to a lifetime of flying. No more restrictions in marginal weather (except your own personal minima - choose your own carefully!).

When I got my (ancient) IMC it opened the world to me. I could go anywhere, and did. Thirty years later and I've still only logged 150 hours real instrument time, but just being able to get above the cloud, knowing I can get down at the end of the flight, meant the world was my oyster (at least a UK oyster).

I'm now thinking of doing the en-route IR and reckon that will give me everything. Don't hold back. Do it as soon as you can.

[Johnm]

If you plan to go and get an IR in due course then an IR(R) is certainly worthwhile. However this route requires a mind set change. Many pilots see themselves effectively as VFR pilots with some instrument skills if it goes foggy out of the window. This doesn't really work.

You have to learn to fly using instruments all the time and look out of the window when it's not foggy:)

[Maoraigh1]

I got an IMC in 1989, but let it lapse. I didn't stay current. A still-valid piece of paper, if you haven't flown on instruments for several weeks, and have only a few hours total on instruments, is for the AAIB.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes. For me it's one of the best courses I've ever done - I have a pile of notes here I need to knuckle down and study towards my full CBM IR, but for now, my IR(R) is fantastically useful for all the reasons said above.

However, it's only useful because I use it. If I didn't maintain currency in instrument flying, it would be of no real value in an emergency - and I have used it both planned, and unplanned. But the second I only got away with because I'd been practicing.

I've used it abroad also. No, you're not supposed to - but when stuff was going mildly aft-a-gley, the ability to say "I have a problem, could I take vectors to the ILS" was priceless, and ultimately caused nobody any trouble. The alternative - stooging around at low level to a diversion I'm sure I'd have succeeded in, but was a lot less appealling.

G

[India Four Two]

Yes from me too. Over the course of my flying career, I've had quite a bit of instrument training (PFIG at a UAS, IMC rating and a Canadian IR).

I've never flown solo IFR, but have always felt I could cope in an emergency if I got trapped and had to climb in cloud. That is unlikely to happen though, given my innate caution and high personal weather limits. :E

However, a couple of weeks ago, when a checkout trip was scrubbed due to high winds, I spent an hour in a Redbird simulator configured as a Seneca. I hadn't flown instruments for many years and my instrument flying was not up to passing standard, but I managed to fly the ILS down to a 200' cloud base and transition to land.

So as the others have said, any instrument training is valuable, but you have to become really comfortable flying on instruments and figuring out where you are and where you will be in a few minutes time. The aviating bit has to become almost sub-conscious, so that you can concentrate on the navigation and communication bits.

[thing]

Absolutely. Apart from the added safety benefits if you're like me you'll enjoy flying on instruments. It's a different way of flying and has it's own rewards. Besides that, as I've said many times on here before one of the best moments in flying for me is ploughing through a crappy overcast and popping out into a fairyland of brilliant white cloud below you and azure blue above. It's worth the cost of doing it just for that.

However I stay current. I give myself a sixty day limit for approaches, if I haven't done one in that time I grab an instructor and go and shoot a few. Same with the IMC bit. Even if you have to go and search for some cloud to get on instruments with it's something you need to do.

[150 Driver]

I did my IRR very soon after ppl.

It has probably already saved my life when in the air but it has probably also saved my life by encouraging more conservative weather minima, perverse though that sounds

What is more it sharpened up my flying immeasurably, eg professionalism of radio, not being shy of atc help, crossing controlled airspace etc

So yes, absolutely worth doing

[tobster911]

Thank you everyone, I shall get it done when I get my license...


thing... you mention you set yourself a 6 day max, I gather you fly a hell of a lot then? And Genghis, you too? I will probably only be doing a couple of hours per month to begin with, whilst the money isn't rife. I hope to buy a share in an aircraft very soon, so if you know of any relatively cheap shares or groups in East Anglia, I would be very interested to possibly make purchasement...

Realistically, and I know figures vary hugely, but what is the 'average' dry cost for something like a 172, and how much in fuel does it cost per hour?

Thank you

T

[Johnm]

Don't underestimate the role of flight Sim in currency. It's the scan that decays and with it precision, so flying some approaches on x-plane or Microsoft Flight Sim on a regular basis will help a lot.

Just set cloud base at minimums and tops above the level you'll fly and vis at 1.5 miles and off you go!

[thing]

thing... you mention you set yourself a 6 day max,I don't fly that much! It's a sixty day self imposed limit...:). It's not the actual flying bit of the approach I get rusty on, it's the procedures. There's a certain lingo and way of doing something like an NDB hold and approach and I don't like to be one who goes 'Err...' on the radio, I like to keep it sharp.

but what is the 'average' dry cost for something like a 172, and how much in fuel does it cost per hour?
It varies wildly. I pay £96 hr for our 172's and Warriors, that's wet and brakes off/brakes on. Further south the price goes up substantially for some reason. Most (in fact all hire rates I've seen) are wet, but if you do find a dry rate then you can reckon on burning around 30 litres/hour with something like an 0320 engine ie your average 172, Warrior type a/c. Fuel is around 1.50 a litre up here so £45 an hour fuel burn. An 0360 will give you on average around 35 litres/hour and an 0540 around 40 litres. This includes start up, taxi, climb etc. The actual cruise burn will be less.

This of course assumes you know how to operate the engine correctly. One of our club members took our 182 to Germany and he was getting around 60 litres an hour burn because he never bothers twiddling the red knob. It's like burning £20 notes. I fly an Arrow on occasion which usefully has a fuel flow gauge. The difference between running it fully rich at 3,000' and leaning out properly is around 18 litres an hour, or £27 worth of fuel...

[tobster911]

Thank you johnm, I may well get FSX re-installed on my system, been a very long time since I last had a jolly on there...

[funfly]

Being able to fly on instruments will save your life one day.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If you were correct Funfly, the hedgerows would be littered with the bodies of VFR only PPLs - they clearly aren't. I highly value my IR(R), but I also managed happily without one for years, and for that matter have a lot of microlight hours - and they are just not capable of safe instrument flight. So, I think you're overstating the case somewhat.


Re: recency - I do fly quite a lot - my worst year out of the last 10 was 35 hours, and my best 110. This year I hope I might even beat 110. Since holding the IR(R), I have made a point of doing a reasonable amount of IMC flight when opportunity arises, and an approach whenever it's convenient to do so at the end of a trip. I probably manage an approach every 1-2 months on average: I've done four this year, three planned, one unplanned.

Unplanned IMC flight, or an unplanned approach, are incredibly stressful and hard work. BUT, they are readily survivable, so long as those skills have been kept adequately current. Even a planned approach is likely to be scruffy and sub-optimal without reasonable currency in your instrument flying skills.

G

[funfly]

Genghis,

I started off in microlights.

I remember well the microlight people, some of whom were very responsible flyers but there were still a number who flew on the margin, didn't believe in radio's or transponders or ATC etc.

These days responsible flying is important. A PPL should be seen as a starting point and, apart from you, everyone else seems to agree that instrument training makes for a better and safer pilot.

When someone asks the question "should they have instrument training?" then most pilots would say it's the best thing to do in order to progress to be a better and safer pilot.

FF

[Genghis the Engineer]

No, read either my, or your own posts more carefully.

I absolutely do think that an IR(R) makes for a better safer pilot. It *might* save your life.

I do not believe that it *will* save everybody's life - many people manage to fly safely, without instrument training. That includes everybody who only flies microlights (and doesn't have an IMC related fatal crash, which is most microlight pilots, despite perhaps a few of their own best endeavours).

G

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Apart from the added safety benefits

Being able to fly on instruments will save your life one day.


Not always the case it seems, as four people in the UK have found out to their cost already this year!

[India Four Two]

I pay £96 hr for our 172's and Warriors, that's wet and brakes off/brakes on.

... because he never bothers with twiddling the red knob. It's like burning £20 notes.

thing,
Why should he? If it's a wet rental, he won't save any money by leaning.

[cockney steve]

pedant alert! and for that matter have a lot of microlight hours - and they are just not capable of safe instrument flight.

Shirley you meant to say "flexwingmicrolights ?

I think it's very important that people understand that a conventional, 3-axis "aeroplane" can be legally classified as a Microlight and still give considerably reduced costs. As a conventional airframe, I am sure they are capable of safe instrument flight.;)



Not often you make a careless slip, G. :}

[Gertrude the Wombat]

As a conventional airframe, I am sure they are capable of safe instrument flight
Really? - I thought there was a whole bunch of stuff, including instrument reliability, behaviour on being hit by lightning, airframe structural integrity under various nasty not-quite-loss-of-control scenarios, etc etc, which was not always guaranteed to the same standard in microlights?

[Genghis the Engineer]

My understanding also. Yes, some 3-axis microlights could potentially be made safe for instrument flight, but none have (legally) been demonstrated to be that I know of.

For a start, an artificial horizon would be a jolly good idea, along with a heated pitot - before even thinking about reliability and handling qualities.

G

[daxwax]

I would certainly agree that doing the IR(R) was one of the best things I've done and has made me a better pilot in more general terms than just flying in IMC.

One thing that I have found is that because I fly from Stapleford slap bang between Stansted, London City, Heathrow TMA and now Southend I have found it hard to find days where I can get into real IMC without busting Class A (which starts from 2500' overhead) and/or without the cloud base being so low as to make it difficult to get back through the cloud without descending below MSA (no approved instrument approach back in to Stapleford).

I'm basically looking for a day when the cloud base is exactly between 1500' and 2000' and with no prospect of it dropping down much below that.
Of course I could always shoot an ILS into Southend if the need arose but then it starts to get costly and complicated.

I suppose all I'm saying is that depending on where you are in the country can make it harder or easier to get use out of it. But still do it.

[thing]

Dax:

I've always felt a bit sorry for people such as yourself, it's nearly all class G up here. I remember a couple of guys coming up from Kenley gliding club to buy a two seater off an old club of mine. We got them set up for a test flight and as they were strapping in one said to me 'What's the airway ceiling around here?'

'There isn't one' I replied. He was almost in tears of joy poor bloke, I think he said they were limited to 2,000' at Kenley.

How the hell can you run a gliding club with class A 2,000' above?