The International Cessna 170 Association

How many of you have certified IFR planes and utilize the certification to punch through a layer of clouds or file to just stay current?

I love flying tailwheels! I really enjoy flying the 170 I have access to (my club has a 170). At some point, I want to own a tailwheel and would like to get an IFR rating.

Just trying to get a feel for what my options are that would allow me to do both. It seems like there isn't as many options for tailwheels like tri gear planes. Especially since I like flying the older planes.

Many 170s are IFR capable. My airplane has dual venturis driving an attitude indicator and DG. I've got a single nav radio with VOR, LOC, and GS, and the airplane gets the 91.411 IFR inspections. Perfect for the two uses you want.

I just did an instrument rating in mine. All old school. Single com, dual VOR (one with a GS), and a marker beacon receiver. Worked great! The only downside is that I was limited in the number of approaches I could do as more and more are going to GPS now. But regardless it was good enough for getting the rating, and it would be ok for popping on top or shooting an approach if the weather closes in under you. I wouldn't fly hard IFR with it.

The DPE commented that he was impressed I hand flew the entire checkride (1.5hrs). Didn't think that was a big deal, but in the age of Cirrus' and G1000 Cessnas I guess that's becoming a bit unusual.

DEM

I've been in the clouds legally with this panel and dual venturis. Even better, it had an ADF at one time.

We live in about the same area, middle of MIchigan's lower peninsula, I fly out of Cadillac. I don't, but my concerns are more with the ice in the fall and spring, lots of moisture in those lake effect clouds, and the in-bedded thunderstorms in the summer. So that you don't think I don't fly in the winter, there is just too little moisture in the clouds or too cold to stick, and no thunderstorms. It is either VFR or the blowing snow makes it below approach minimums . Unless the wind shifts out of the east you don't have quite the problem with lake effect. I think that some places the 170 (or for that matter a 172 or a Cherokee) is a more useful IFR plane. Places where coastal fog is 20 miles from VFR, or the freezing level is FL120 but I personally don't want to fly for a couple of hours over four hundred overcast and a mile, knowing that if something goes wrong my options are severely limited.

That being said I believe that everyone should have an Instrument rating. And in the current world of certified glass attitude indicators for less than $4000 I probably would not do it with a venturi driven gyro. I would want a heated pitot and an alternated static source also.

As time goes on it will be more difficult to operate without an IFR certified GPS, with the FAA and airports phasing out ground based nav approaches to control cost. The problem with that is the data base cost is $500 or more per year. For a guy like me that flys for fun that is $50 dollars an approach if you do one a month, except to maintain currency you probable won't, I wouldn't.

Just so you don't think this was written by a guy with no experience, I have a few thousand hours of instrument time including a couple of CAT2 approaches, almost all of that time in transport category airplanes. I also have, early in my flying, done a couple of approaches in a 172 with more ice than I would have liked if a missed approach had been required.

So, yes the 170 can be equipped and yes it can be done, it just isn't practical for me.

Tim

Good input Tim. Just to be clear I've I've been in Michigan less than 10 months, and my 170 has been in rebuild since long before that, so I have no IFR experience up here. The majority of my IFR was getting an early start on those "clear and one" mornings we often got when I lived on the Gulf Coast. My only winter IFR experience as PIC was leaving Crossville, TN headed for Mississippi on a single-digit morning in January 1993. We climbed through several thousand feet of clouds to -20F at 7500 feet, and didn't pick up a speck of ice. After the first hour of the trip the under cast dissipated and were VMC the rest of the trip.

After moving to the California desert in 1996 I didn't have much use for the rating and let my currency lapse, only the occasional hood time and practice approach on BFRs.

I guess the point is that I've filed and flown IFR with my 170, mostly as what I feel is a safer alternative to scud running, but I've pretty much avoided flying real weather in it.

Miles brings up an important point I need to clarify. I do not feel that scud running is a safe alternative to flying IFR with a 170. Many will disagree with me but with visibility of a mile or three if you really want to travel somewhere and don't want to wait IFR is a better choice. For that marginal VFR flying a 170 is fine. I also believe for flying in marginal VFR being a qualified and current instrument pilot could be a life saver.

Tim

Thanks for the good discussion! If I get a new rating, I am the kind of person that wants to use the rating. Honestly my desire to fly tailwheel is greater than getting the IFR rating, that said, I will probably start the process next year. I just want to be able to continue to use the skill, even if it only means filing on VFR days to stay current.

In the club I belong to, I have the choice of the 170, which I am exclsively flying right now, and two other IFR certified planes, a 172 and an Archer II. So getting the rating and flying IFR in those planes will not be a problem. At some point, I will want my own plane and I want to be able to continue with flying tailwheel, that is my passion. I would just like to keep an IFR rating current and continue to practice the skill set.

While I understand the 170 is not the best IFR capable plane, it is good to know that there are planes out there that have the basic capabilities and are certified.

Bryce, IFR capability of the 170 is only limited by one's bank account. To a certain extent anyway. One would hardly want to pay the cost of having a 170 certified for known icing but I doubt you are thinking you airplane, if not a 170, would be.

bat443 wrote:Miles brings up an important point I need to clarify. I do not feel that scud running is a safe alternative to flying IFR with a 170. Many will disagree with me but with visibility of a mile or three if you really want to travel somewhere and don't want to wait IFR is a better choice. For that marginal VFR flying a 170 is fine. I also believe for flying in marginal VFR being a qualified and current instrument pilot could be a life saver.
Tim

+1
Scud running last year over Pennsylvania was my first introduction to VFR into IMC. I had very low ceilings with a broken layer below and 3 miles vis. Flying up to the next ridge to see how bad it was on the other side, I flew right into a layer...never saw it coming.
The level of anxiety, panic and task saturation while trying to execute a 2 minute turn (and resisting the urge to bank it over and turn faster) was incredible.
I don't recommend it.

After scud running for years, I finally got my instrument rating in my 170 in 1979. It had a basic King IFR package with VOR, ADF, and basic instrumentation. I flew it 150 hours in actual IFR conditions in the 1980s, mostly in Texas year round, and most always felt comfortable doing it. With that said, I had several conditions I would never fly in. Ice, thunderstorms, and fog were the three conditions I completely avoided. I also never flight planned into deteriorating conditions. There were lots of times I drove instead of flying because of poor conditions but when everything lined up, it was very enjoyable. Most of the time it was a quick climb to clear on top or between layers and descend in clouds to a fairly good ceiling well above minimums. About half of the time was at night and there were a few approaches to minimums which were not forecast. But by staying current, those times were easily handled and very satisfying after shooting a good minimums approach.

Like everything else, it boils down to good equipment you can trust, good training in actual conditions if possible, use of good judgement to make good decisions, and set your own personal limits and never exceed them. You will have unexpected weather conditions and possibly problems with radios or the plane, but if you really want to do it, the risk is definitely worth the reward.

Richard, you just described exactly how I would use an IFR rating. I appreciate your response! I also appreciate that basic IFR flying can be done in these fine planes.

You're welcome Bryce, that's a good goal to strive for. The 170 is a very comfortable IFR airplane and I still fly it IFR regularly, still using the same limiting criteria I have always used. Years of flying IFR have not made me any braver. Although I have upgraded the radios and panel again with new instruments and WAAS GPS, there was nothing wrong with the old King radios and instruments other than being 35 years old. I even left the old KR86 ADF in the plane since I had the room and it was still working good.

I would love to see a picture of your panel hilltop. I am toying with upgrading my panel to IFR with one of those new IDF 440 or maybe a used garmin 430w. My 170 is straight VFR and would love to see your layout. I fly big planes for a living and don't really want to use the 170 for hard IFR. But like others have said it would be nice to have the equipment if you need it. So far if the wx looks bad we just drive but flying is way more fun. I think in 3 years we only had to drive once but I normally always give us an extra day on each end of the trip to avoid wx if needed and it seems to always work out. I fly enough hardcore IFR at work to not have a desire to do it in the 170. With that said if you can equip it properly the 170 should be a good platform. If you can add a 2 axis autopilot then it would be a great platform. Not sure if this helps at all but good luck with your decision.

Here is a picture of mine, just never certified.

John