Own vs Rent Break Even?

[digits_]

Well yes, you can definitely go expensive and crazy, but you don't necessarily have to, to fly a twin if you so choose.
...
Are we comparing a Bonanza to a twin comanche or a 152 to a Beech Baron? There will be different conclusions.

Well let's see what the OP wrote. In the first place he's looking at a $40k 172, then suddenly...

... I always wanted a twin piston, .... At least with a turbo-twin you can maintain altitude and reach an airport...
For IFR flying, i'd probably want max situational awareness through a good GPS and PFD, reduced workload from an autopilot and back-up steam gauges.

So I don't know what we're comparing. But for anyone who's so budget conscious they're looking at buying an old 172 to save six dollars an hour on rental prices, it seem a bit odd to suddenly be talking about turbo twins with autopilots and glass panels. Because you don't buy those when "$700 insurance" is worth even a mention as a line item in your flying costs.

Fair enough

[Archerboy]

If planes do not depreciate like cars, then the cost of acquisition could in theory be called an investment if the plane is maintained well enough to keep its value for potential future re-sale.

Don't look at it this way. It might work out that way, it might not. Buy the plane with the intent of using it well, and getting your value by "using it up". Sure, it is likely that you can sell it when you want to move on/up, but don't enter ownership with this as an expectation. Twenty years ago, yes, now, not so much. A major factor is that the legacy planes are getting more and more consideration for the effects of aging, and there are more inspections and what could be expensive fixes. Requiring an "unaffordable" repair is rare, but you may need to do a repair which eats up what you "hoped" would be a profit. A really great pre purchase inspection can really reduce such risk, but that puts up the purchase price for you, and more assures that you're actually paying what the plane is worth rather than getting a deal.

In the case were an airworthiness directive, or other inspection requirement is imposed upon the plane, at best it's just an additional inspection - wise and not terribly costly. But it could require a repair or parts replacement which may be costly, or at worst case, difficult parts availability. Knowledgeable buyers (which everyone should be) will know to offer what the plane is really worth, and not over pay. Perhaps that means buying a plane with a known defect, when you know what's involved in repairing it. My first airplane was this, and an awesome deal - but that was 35 years ago, and repair parts are not quite so available and low cost as those days.

I still encourage ownership for the reasons given here, but I also encourage buyers to buy the plane to use it, and get their value out of it in the use, rather than seeing it as an investment. If you sell it for a profit - bonus!

I mean, if over the course of ownership one looses 100K of initial purchase cost, big picture, would not make financial sense to own vs rent no matter how good the lifestyle and freedom might be. I was trying to look at the big picture financially. I understand that ownership adds financial risk compared to renting and if i really wanted to invest in something it'd be Stock Market, Gold or a house.

More flight training makes you a better student, not a better pilot. More flying makes you a better pilot.

My comment here is that having a CPL doesn't mean anything, and having a group 1 instrument rating doesn't make you a competent pilot to fly mult-engine IFR trips. And having an instructor rating doesn't make a competent instructor. All those things are entry tickets, not proofs of competence. all those things need a lot of work after receiving the licence. Unless you actually intend to devote a significant amount of time working at a flight training unit as an instructor, don't bother with an instructor rating.

That's fair. But there is no denying more advanced flight training can only be beneficial, as long as it's for a purpose. Multi training if you are not going to fly multi is pretty useless. But a CFI rating, even if you do not end up teaching, will make you a better pilot as you are supposed to achieve a level of knowledge and skill to be able to teach others, so it'll improve even knowledge of fundamentals.

But you still haven't worked out what you're going to *do* with 100 hours per year. Like I said, going to the practice area for stalls, steep turns and slow flight, solo, gets pretty dull, pretty quickly.

I believe competent pilots are created out of people who have a need to travel, and use a plane to do so. A lot. Not out of people whose travel is created by a desire to become a competent pilot. I could be wrong though.

My thoughts on the hours is like any skill, but even more so in aviation due to the complexity of the skill, the only way to become a safe pilot is to fly a lot. That's why clubs and FBOs that rent planes require 30, 60 or 90 day currency on an aircraft before they allow you to fly it solo. If you dont have that currency, back to the drawing board you go with an instructor checking on you.

You're fussing about the wrong things.

The most dangerous component of any aircraft flown by an amateur pilot is the thing holding the yoke. You're about 10 times more likely to die mishandling a small piston twin in unsuitable weather (and, frankly, most Canadian weather is unsuitable for a small piston twin) than in a single engine airplane. The benefit of a single engine VFR equipped airplane is that it stays on the ground when the weather is bad, and the pilot and the passengers don't get themselves into trouble they can't handle. If safety is important to you as you claim, don't buy a twin and don’t fly in weather: go by airline, like everyone else.

Yes agreed. I would rather board a plane with a 1000 hour pilot flying only on steam gauges rather than a 100 hour pilot who barely knows how to use his G1000 and has 30 hours of instrument time. But between two equally skilled pilots, having the extra equipment will make things safer as long as they dont become complacent and depend too much on the glass cockpit and forget the basics of aviation. It's very easy these days to forget how to read a Low Enroute IFR chart and maintain situational awareness without a GPS if you are so used to seeing your little plane on a map telling you exactly where you are and where you need to go.

What I understand from this statement is that your personal sense of danger is mitigated by having more engines and fancier equipment. This is a beginner attitude.

The more engines is a simple fact. If properly trained to handle a twin (which goes back to training), one working engine is better than no working engines when below you there is no place to land, or worse, when you are in IMC and cant see anything past your windshield.

Also: if budget is even a remotely a consideration, forget all about operating a small piston twin. Operating costs are through the roof: there’s a reason why they’re cheap to buy.

I understand there is a premium to be paid for that extra engine, just trying to figure out how much of a premium for the sake of "safety".

I seem to recall that stat from somewhere. While Twins are no more accident prone than singles, the fatality rate for light twins is way higher than that of singles and the probability of type of accident shifts away from the take off and landing type mishaps common to light singles, to approach and departure phase accidents. Not sure if 10 times is 100% accurate, but the point is true that its a lot more.

Edit: some quick googling finds this NTSB document which puts the engine failure fatality rate of light twins as 4 times higher than the same for singles.

http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-fu ... S79-02.pdf

But how many of those twin accidents are due to pilot error? And how many are due to IMC conditions or crash landings? It's well understood that twins are more complex and require more training and they will kill you faster than a single in the hands of of a bad pilot. But that could be said of any plane in the hands of a bad pilot.

So I don't know what we're comparing. But for anyone who's so budget conscious they're looking at buying an old 172 to save six dollars an hour on rental prices, it seem a bit odd to suddenly be talking about turbo twins with autopilots and glass panels. Because you don't buy those when "$700 insurance" is worth even a mention as a line item in your flying costs.

I was comparing single engine rentals vs single engine ownership, and then separately, twin engine ownership vs twin engine rentals. I do understand SE and ME are not comparing apples to apples in costs.

1974 Warrior - $79500 USD
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?ca ... e=aircraft#

1981 Seneca III - $85,000 USD
https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... n-aircraft

The warior is low time and brand new engine. The Seneca has one engine that has 200 hours remaining before overhaul.

This is not typical, as most older twins I see on controller are in the 100-150K range

[digits_]

I understand there is a premium to be paid for that extra engine, just trying to figure out how much of a premium for the sake of "safety".

If you compare a basic twin to a basic 172 or warrior, you'll be likely doubling the hourly cost, and pay about 30% more per mile flown. Purchase costs will likely only be slightly higher for a twin, but that twin will likely be better equipped.

You do expose yourself to more financial risk though. Double the chance of something major (engine) needing a repair. Then again, if the purchase price is similar, you'll never lose more than what you put into it. A twin with 2 engines needing overhaul is pretty worthless. You can sell off your avionics and engine cores, but that's about it. Then again, a single with an old engine and broken wing spar is equally worthless. If you're dabbling in old airplanes, it could go either way for any airplane.

Assume that whatever money you spend on your airplane, single or twin, is gone. If you can't do that, you better not buy an airplane. And don't go into debt to buy an old plane for personal use either. It doesn't make sense.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I was comparing single engine rentals vs single engine ownership, and then separately, twin engine ownership vs twin engine rentals. I do understand SE and ME are not comparing apples to apples in costs.

1974 Warrior - $79500 USD
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?ca ... e=aircraft#

1981 Seneca III - $85,000 USD
https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... n-aircraft

The warrior is low time and brand new engine. The Seneca has one engine that has 200 hours remaining before overhaul.

This is not typical, as most older twins I see on controller are in the 100-150K range

Air Power is quoting 77,000 USD for the TSIO 360EB engine in a Seneca III. With the cost of the re and re replacing ONE engine will equal the cost of the whole airplane....

[photofly]

But how many of those twin accidents are due to pilot error?

All of them. Every single one. That's the point. It's not the number of engines that's the danger, it's you. You are the danger. Adding another engine, an autopilot, two fat engines and de-icing increases the probability that you, the most dangerous part of the whole operation, will kill someone, most likely yourself but possibly your entire family too. Start there.

[digits_]

But how many of those twin accidents are due to pilot error?

All of them. Every single one. That's the point. It's not the number of engines that's the danger, it's you. You are the danger. Adding another engine, an autopilot, two fat engines and de-icing increases the probability that you, the most dangerous part of the whole operation, will kill someone, most likely yourself but possibly your entire family too. Start there.

It's interesting to see the personality or preference difference between pilots. You see this as a major con, I see this as a major pro: no technical issues leading to deaths.

Would you rather fly an airplane where you are in control of your faith, or where you might die due to technical issues beyond your control?

I am perfectly aware that a lot of people preferring twins might end up in that number. Maybe even myself someday. Very few pilots consider themselves incompetent. But still, it's a very interesting statistic.

[photofly]

Would you rather fly an airplane where you are in control of your faith, or where you might die due to technical issues beyond your control?

But nobody dies due to technical issues beyond their control. Not in single engine airplanes, and not in twin engine airplanes.

99.9% of all the risk involved in flying small airplanes comes from the decision-making of the pilot. And most of that comes from the decisions that were made before the aircraft left the ground. It's a waste of time and energy to fuss about the details of the airplane until the significance of those facts is understood.

It's interesting to see the personality or preference difference between pilots. You see this as a major con, I see this as a major pro: no technical issues leading to deaths.

I think it's important that to one own's self one is true. A low time pilot who is prepared to countenance putting his or her family in a self-flown piston powered airplane to fly through weather, cannot believe that safety is important. If safety was actually important to that pilot, they would not do that.

It's self-deception to think the endeavour gets safer by bolting more widgets to the airplane. Insufficent widgets is never the root cause of a fatality.

[Archerboy]

I understand there is a premium to be paid for that extra engine, just trying to figure out how much of a premium for the sake of "safety".

If you compare a basic twin to a basic 172 or warrior, you'll be likely doubling the hourly cost, and pay about 30% more per mile flown. Purchase costs will likely only be slightly higher for a twin, but that twin will likely be better equipped.

You do expose yourself to more financial risk though. Double the chance of something major (engine) needing a repair. Then again, if the purchase price is similar, you'll never lose more than what you put into it. A twin with 2 engines needing overhaul is pretty worthless. You can sell off your avionics and engine cores, but that's about it. Then again, a single with an old engine and broken wing spar is equally worthless. If you're dabbling in old airplanes, it could go either way for any airplane.

Assume that whatever money you spend on your airplane, single or twin, is gone. If you can't do that, you better not buy an airplane. And don't go into debt to buy an old plane for personal use either. It doesn't make sense.

Thanks for that insight. So what you are saying is this is akin to buying a brand new Toyota SUV vs a 1995 Ferrari 355 (probably one of my favorite sport cars of all time). They cost the same, except to do any maintenance on the 355 you have to remove the engine i heard. Operating costs are through the roof for any maintenance.

The other way to think of it, is the illusion of OPEX (Operating expenses) vs CAPEX (Capital expenses). The vast majority of people think of costs only in terms of CAPEX. For example, most people would rather buy a brand new BMW M3 rather than a used Ferrari 360. A 2022 M3 goes for what these days? 71K starting MSRP, with a few options and fees you are looking easy 80K. A 360 can be had for 60K. True, the new car may have only oil changes as the only opex cost, but if one budgets the same 80K for the Ferrari, how many years of enjoyment can one get if they budget 20K in maintenance costs? Probably more years than one would think.

Is it not the same with aircraft? If one were to budget 150K for a twin piston and buy it at 100K and plan for 50K in expenses, is that any different than buying a 140K single and budgeting for 10K expenses? (the numbers are just thrown out there).

Air Power is quoting 77,000 USD for the TSIO 360EB engine in a Seneca III. With the cost of the re and re replacing ONE engine will equal the cost of the whole airplane....

Wow...still getting familiar with overhaul costs. For single engine planes numbers I've come across are 20-30K. I had no idea a single engine overhaul could cost 77K. there's a Tomahawk for sale i've seen for 43K CAD....with not too many hours. Cant remember now cause the listing is gone, probably sold.

It's interesting to see the personality or preference difference between pilots. You see this as a major con, I see this as a major pro: no technical issues leading to deaths.

Would you rather fly an airplane where you are in control of your faith, or where you might die due to technical issues beyond your control?

I am perfectly aware that a lot of people preferring twins might end up in that number. Maybe even myself someday. Very few pilots consider themselves incompetent. But still, it's a very interesting statistic.

That's how i interpret those stats too. No accidents due to engine failure on a twin means the two engines are doing their job. Giving you one spare engine to survive.

I think it's important that to one own's self one is true. A low time pilot who is prepared to countenance putting his or her family in a self-flown piston powered airplane to fly through weather, cannot believe that safety is important. If safety was actually important to that pilot, they would not do that.

I'm pretty sure there are thousands of pilots that fly IMC with their families. I thought that was the whole point of IFR and instrument ratings. Why even have IFR if you dont plan to fly in weather. I believe someone mentioned (I believe it may have been you photofly) that the only way to get good as a pilot is not to train but actually fly for travel and gain cross country experience. If you wait for VFR conditions every time you want to go somewhere, then you'll never fly consistently.

So now we moved the discussion from multi vs single to IMC vs VMC sir, are you saying IMC flying is not safe?

Archerboy

[photofly]

I'm pretty sure there are thousands of pilots that fly IMC with their families.

Says the person who’s never flown in Canada. In this country there aren’t. We don’t have the nice gentle mild winters of Florida and Texas and California and Arizona, and airports so close together you are never out of visual range of several at the same time. We have icing above 3000 feet for eight months of the year and hundreds of miles between suitable outs. It’s the middle of May right now and the freezing level where you are is still only 5,000 feet - meanwhile the 100nm safe altitude for Springbank is 13,800.

I thought that was the whole point of IFR and instrument ratings.

The point of IFR in Canada is for multi-engine turbine aircraft flown by two professional pilots to climb above the weather and cruise at 400 knots and faster, and above FL260.

Why even have IFR if you dont plan to fly in weather.

Well, indeed. Why?

So now we moved the discussion from multi vs single to IMC vs VMC sir, are you saying IMC flying is not safe?

I’m saying for a low-time inexperienced pilot such as yourself it’s fraught with risks that are not mitigated by having fancier kit. You will be forced to deal with this fact when you try to buy insurance. You can put your family in the back and get your operating experience if you want. But don’t pretend their safety is important to you if you do so.

My advice is to stop worrying about an engine failure. The airplane accident that kills your family will not be caused by an engine failure, regardless of whether you have one, two or more of them. It will be caused by your own bad decision-making and nothing else. Use that as the basis for deciding how to proceed.

[Squaretail]

I thought that was the whole point of IFR and instrument ratings.

The point of IFR in Canada is for multi-engine turbine aircraft flown by two professional pilots to climb above the weather and cruise at 400 knots and faster, and above FL260.

While Private pilots flying their families around aren't restricted as such, I think its telling that to fly passengers single pilot IFR in this country TC mandates you have a 1000 hours, 50 hours of instrument time and 50 hours on type as per 723.86. There may be some wisdom behind requiing at least that experience level for such endeavors. That requirement is in addition to training beyond a basic IFR in Airborne Icing, High Altitude training (because I'm sure you also considered that flying IFR strictly below 10,000' would be sort of pointless) Initial flight training on said type, Surface contamination training, GPS training, and Emergency Procedures. None of which a Private pilot is required to have.

Remember that the rules are written because the regulator only really cares that you aren't charging money to people you're putting at risk, you are free put your family and friends at risk.

[final28]

Owning a plane will rarely make sense financially, you have to fly a lot to get anywhere near break even in terms of cost. Add dealing with maintenance, insurance, hangar or tie down rental, etc it all takes time.
Owning will give you better access to a plane on your schedule, short notice, staying away for multiple days (or weeks). Some types are also very difficult to rent (float planes, aerobatic and tail wheel) so there may be no other option than to own.
Owning with partners can work well but you all need to be on the same page regarding scheduling, maintenance, upgrades, etc.

[CpnCrunch]

That's how i interpret those stats too. No accidents due to engine failure on a twin means the two engines are doing their job. Giving you one spare engine to survive.

You seem to be implying that a fatal accident in a twin is due to extreme stupidity or negligence, but I don't see it that way. As squaretail pointed out above, the fatality rate is 4x higher for engine failures in a twin.

The key point is this: when an engine fails in a twin, even with the gear up, you're going to be descending at something like 100fpm until you feather the engine, even at full throttle. If the engine fails during takeoff and you don't quickly put the nose down, you risk slowing down below Vmc and spinning to your death.

Airline pilots have a number of advantages here: they have to do recurrent training in emergency procedures, they follow SOPs and checklists, twin turboprops generally have autofeathering props, and they have sufficient power to make engine failures less of an event.

I did my multi rating just over a year ago and haven't flown a twin since. Right now I wouldn't feel safe flying a twin without first reviewing all the procedures again and making sure I knew all the steps to handle various engine failure scenarios. But even then, if an engine failure happens at 500ft, are you sure that you push the nose down, and possibly kill the remaining engine if necessary, to avoid a Vmc spin? I imagine it's a bit different when it happens for real vs the instructor just putting the throttle to idle at 2000ft when you know it's about to happen. With a single engine it's a bit less of a challenge when the shit hits the fan...you push the nose down because there isn't really any other option, although many pilots still manage to screw that up.

I'm pretty sure there are thousands of pilots that fly IMC with their families. I thought that was the whole point of IFR and instrument ratings. Why even have IFR if you dont plan to fly in weather. I believe someone mentioned (I believe it may have been you photofly) that the only way to get good as a pilot is not to train but actually fly for travel and gain cross country experience. If you wait for VFR conditions every time you want to go somewhere, then you'll never fly consistently.

So now we moved the discussion from multi vs single to IMC vs VMC sir, are you saying IMC flying is not safe?

Archerboy

I think it just depends what your expectations are.
Edit: what I mean is, an instrument rating will only increase the days you can fly from something like 50% to 55%, not 95%. And you may find that your family doesn't like getting bounced around in clouds in a small plane. I've come to realise that it's usually better flying VFR with family for that reason. It's nice to have the ability to fly IFR, but it's not quite as useful as you might imagine unless you have at least a Navajo.

Having said all of that, if you have the time and money and inclination, I think it is useful to get multi IFR, CPL etc. It will give you more skills and (perhaps) discipline, reduce your insurance a bit, give you the option of flying commercially if you ever want to do that, and it's also an interesting and challenging goal.

[digits_]

It would really be beneficial to have access to the source data of the statistics that are being discussed.

As photofly suggested, it's likely there is a big VFR vs IFR factor present in those statistics.

In a similar way, I suspect there would be a big commercial vs ppl factor as well. I suspect the majority of the single engine flight hours are done by flight s hool aircraft or commercial aircraft. So by a CPL or under a fairly strict FTU regime. Likewise most piston twin hours are likely flown by private people. Not a lot of commercial piston twins flying around anymore.

So I suspect that if we were to compare singe engine private flying fatality rates vs multi engine priave flying fatality rates, the difference might not be as extreme.

I could be wrong of course.

[digits_]

The key point is this: when an engine fails in a twin, even with the gear up, you're going to be descending at something like 100fpm until you feather the engine, even at full throttle. If the engine fails during takeoff and you don't quickly put the nose down, you risk slowing down below Vmc and spinning to your death.

I don't fully understand why this argument so frequently pops up in single vs twin discussions. If your only engine in a single fails, your rate of descent will be mich worse than 100 fpm. If it fails on takeoff you also need to lower the nose. And you might be tempted into attempting the impossible turn.

Even if you are incompetent in single engine takeoffs, there is only a 20 second danger window. After that, you have significant more time to react and can very likely maintain flight on one engine.

[photofly]

I don't fully understand why this argument so frequently pops up in single vs twin discussions.

And I don't understand why everyone is so fixated on engine failures. They aren't the cause of most accidents and cause virtually no fatalities in single engine airplanes. Meanwhile this board is replete with deaths caused by pilots flying into bad weather, or doing other stupid things that kill themselves and others.

If you want to stay safe in small airplanes, understand the pilot is the weak link. Not the engines, regardless of how few or many you have.

In fact, here's a project for anyone who's interested. Go back through accidents that have been reported and discussed here, and try to find which ones, if any, were caused by engine failures. Then decide:

- could those engine failures have been prevented by better decision making?
- did a fatality result?
- could a second engine have prevented the accident?

[CpnCrunch]

I don't fully understand why this argument so frequently pops up in single vs twin discussions. If your only engine in a single fails, your rate of descent will be mich worse than 100 fpm. If it fails on takeoff you also need to lower the nose. And you might be tempted into attempting the impossible turn.

Even if you are incompetent in single engine takeoffs, there is only a 20 second danger window. After that, you have significant more time to react and can very likely maintain flight on one engine.

I would say that in a twin it takes a lot less incompetence to kill yourself during an EFATO. There are more things you have to do correctly to avoid death. In a single you just have to push the nose down a bit.

[Squaretail]

In a similar way, I suspect there would be a big commercial vs ppl factor as well. I suspect the majority of the single engine flight hours are done by flight school aircraft or commercial aircraft. So by a CPL or under a fairly strict FTU regime. Likewise most piston twin hours are likely flown by private people. Not a lot of commercial piston twins flying around anymore.

Actually I would suspect that the majority of both light single and light twin flying in Canada is done by flight schools. That said, depending on your definition of light twin, there is still a reasonable amount of them in commercial service. The few twins I know privately owned, don't do a lot of flying, at least not by comparison. Those two bits of information are why light twins have the statistics they do. Poor training, by low time pilots training lower time pilots, and private owners who don't fly as often as they should. The average private flyer flies less than 30 hours a year. That's not enough to stay proficient on the light twin, much less to be IFR proficient as well. Lots of times its not enough to stay proficient on a fixed gear, fixed pitch light single, though the chances of the last combination being fatal are less.

And I don't understand why everyone is so fixated on engine failures. They aren't the cause of most accidents and cause virtually no fatalities in single engine airplanes. Meanwhile this board is replete with deaths caused by pilots flying into bad weather, or doing other stupid things that kill themselves and others.

Indeed. If anything the light twin combo, like the higher performance singles, enable the pilot to get into far worse trouble, perhaps in part by bestowing a false confidence in the increased safety they feel the performance provides.

If you want to stay safe in small airplanes, understand the pilot is the weak link. Not the engines, regardless of how few or many you have.

It could be said that the worse the pilot and faster the airplane, the farther and quicker said pilot will get behind that airplane. The only possible way to make it worse is to have two poor quality pilots up front - which it might be said is more likely the case in a twin as opposed to a single.

[photofly]

It seems to me the reasons to have a twin are because you want to go a (little bit) faster than a single, or carry a bit more, or you must have (light) de-icing. Once those become requirements, then you have to suffer the safety and proficiency issues that come with two small engines.

The OP's reasoning is therefore backwards. One does not buy a twin to fly a trip more safely than in a single. There are trips that cannot be accomplished at all in a typical single-engine airplane; if one begins with the absolute requirement to fly that route then one must accept the risks of the twin engine airplane and the weather, and abandon the (much safer) alternatives of flying on an airline, ground transport, or, not going.

The use-case for private flying in most light twins has (in my opinion) been changed by and in favour of airplanes like the Caravan, Piper M-series and TBM700's.

[Squaretail]

The use-case for private flying in most light twins has (in my opinion) been changed by and in favour of airplanes like the Caravan, Piper M-series and TBM700's.

Exactly. If engine failures are what you're worried about, upgrade to a turbine rather than get a second piston. Additionally, one can argue that the better performance of the single turbine opens more possibilities when flight planning. The Meridians and TBMs have higher service ceilings, eye popping rates of climb, and a better pressurization system than any twin piston. While they have a steep purchase price, on the whole they have lower operating costs.

[WANP]

Greatest advantage of being IFR rated for some of us ( me included ) is not as much the ability to fly in terrible weather. But if already in flight, and it gets nasty, you have a reasonable chance of surviving. If you have no IFR experience, and without meaning to into fog or something, you're at a high risk of crashing. So even if you don't plan to use your rating to intentionally fly into a fog bank, if it ever happens you will be glad.