WAS: How safe is it, really?

[June]

I really appreciate you all taking the time to express you opinions.
Some very good points were made that I hadn't considered.

So, I will try not to worry so much and not give him any more grief
about his hobby. I'm sure he'd thank you guys for your efforts!

June

[G.R. Patterson III]

June wrote:
>
> So, I will try not to worry so much and not give him any more grief
> about his hobby. I'm sure he'd thank you guys for your efforts!

He has a great wife.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[tony roberts]

Hi June

I only just found this thread so my comments are a little late.

> So, I will try not to worry so much and not give him any more grief
> about his hobby. I'm sure he'd thank you guys for your efforts!

I honestly believe that you are making a good decision.

My family did a lot of research into this, prior to me taking my licence
and purchasing a plane.

Here is what we found.

The typical aircraft accident rate is comparable to the typical
motorcycle accident rate.

BUT:
Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.

Then we have all of the pilots who fly drunk/doped.

When you remove those from the equation - If you can trust that he CAN
remove those from the equation - and they represent most of the
accidents, what is left is pilot error and mechanical failure.

Pilot error comes down to training/aptitude
Mechanical error is rare - the standards for maintaining aircraft, and
for rebuilding engines, are tough.

So we started out with an accident rate similar to motorcycles,
But we do have a lot of control over a lot of those accidents.

At the end of the day?
A consciencious pilot, who is not taking risks, and is flying a well
maintained aircraft, is very safe.

He's not cast iron - but he is as safe as he can be.

Worth thinking about

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE








In article >,
(June) wrote:

> I really appreciate you all taking the time to express you opinions.
> Some very good points were made that I hadn't considered.
>

>
> June

[Darkwing Duck]

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-357D7A.20020930112004@shawnews...
> Hi June
>
> I only just found this thread so my comments are a little late.
>
>> So, I will try not to worry so much and not give him any more grief
>> about his hobby. I'm sure he'd thank you guys for your efforts!
>
> I honestly believe that you are making a good decision.
>
> My family did a lot of research into this, prior to me taking my licence
> and purchasing a plane.
>
> Here is what we found.
>
> The typical aircraft accident rate is comparable to the typical
> motorcycle accident rate.
>
> BUT:
> Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
> IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
>
> Then we have all of the pilots who fly drunk/doped.
>
> When you remove those from the equation - If you can trust that he CAN
> remove those from the equation - and they represent most of the
> accidents, what is left is pilot error and mechanical failure.
>
> Pilot error comes down to training/aptitude
> Mechanical error is rare - the standards for maintaining aircraft, and
> for rebuilding engines, are tough.
>
> So we started out with an accident rate similar to motorcycles,
> But we do have a lot of control over a lot of those accidents.
>
> At the end of the day?
> A consciencious pilot, who is not taking risks, and is flying a well
> maintained aircraft, is very safe.
>
> He's not cast iron - but he is as safe as he can be.
>
> Worth thinking about
>
> Tony
>

Another thought I have had. Think about all the hours that your CFI puts in
during the week/month/year when your not around. I have been doing this
flying thing for 2 years and those guys are always there when I show up.
They demonstate emergency engine outs, low altitude manuvering, have
unqualified people at the wheel and deal with distractions all the time and
at the end of the day instructional flying is one of the best safety records
in flying. Good CFI's don't take chances, they understand the aircraft, they
are current as it gets yet they spend a lot of time in the pattern, in the
vicinity of the airport/VOR's and also low level manuvers, all things most
of agree are "risky". It just all comes back to being proficient and smart
and always have an "out".

Just a thought.

[zatatime]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:59:48 GMT, tony roberts >
wrote:

>BUT:
>Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
>IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.


To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions. For June's understanding,
these are people that only have the license your husband got first.
Since he is now working toward his instrument ticket these statistics
are greatly reduced.

Just don't want you to think that the added training he is going for
makes this far more dangerous. It will actually make him safer
overall.

z

[Dave Stadt]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:59:48 GMT, tony roberts >
> wrote:
>
> >BUT:
> >Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
> >IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
>
>
> To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
> weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
> aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions. For June's understanding,
> these are people that only have the license your husband got first.
> Since he is now working toward his instrument ticket these statistics
> are greatly reduced.
>
> Just don't want you to think that the added training he is going for
> makes this far more dangerous. It will actually make him safer
> overall.
>
> z

I don't believe statistically IFR rated pilots have a better safety record.
It is a false assumption.

[tony roberts]

Hi June

Zatatime is right.
Sorry - I didn't mean that ANY pilot flying into IFR is a major risk.
I meant to say that pilots who were not certified IFR, and who are not
flying IFR equipped aircraft , who do fly into IFR are an accident
waiting to happen.

IFR certified pilots flying IFR certified aircraft are safer.

tony

In article >,
zatatime > wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:59:48 GMT, tony roberts >
> wrote:
>
> >BUT:
> >Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
> >IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
>
>
> To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
> weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
> aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions. For June's understanding,
> these are people that only have the license your husband got first.
> Since he is now working toward his instrument ticket these statistics
> are greatly reduced.
>
> Just don't want you to think that the added training he is going for
> makes this far more dangerous. It will actually make him safer
> overall.
>
> z




--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Bob Fry]

Almost all people need some escape from "reality", men more than
women.

Most men follow sports too intensely, some booze, some chase women,
some do all three.

A few are pilots. With very few exceptions I find being active pilots
aren't chasing girls, boozing, and so on.

So be thankful your hubby wants to take up a relatively clean way to
escape. His risks increase while flying, but I believe risk of other
negative things decrease.

[Dave Stadt]

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-9878D2.21284130112004@shawnews...
> Hi June
>
> Zatatime is right.
> Sorry - I didn't mean that ANY pilot flying into IFR is a major risk.
> I meant to say that pilots who were not certified IFR, and who are not
> flying IFR equipped aircraft , who do fly into IFR are an accident
> waiting to happen.
>
> IFR certified pilots flying IFR certified aircraft are safer.
>
> tony

The leading cause of fatal accidents is maneuvering flight at 30%. The
second leading cause is takeoff and climb at 18%. Third is weather related
at 12%. The Nall report indicates IMC flight has marginally fewer accidents
but those accidents are much more likely to be fatal. There is no
indication IFR pilots flying IFA aircraft are safer.


>
> In article >,
> zatatime > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:59:48 GMT, tony roberts >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >BUT:
> > >Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
> > >IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
> >
> >
> > To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
> > weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
> > aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions. For June's understanding,
> > these are people that only have the license your husband got first.
> > Since he is now working toward his instrument ticket these statistics
> > are greatly reduced.
> >
> > Just don't want you to think that the added training he is going for
> > makes this far more dangerous. It will actually make him safer
> > overall.
> >
> > z
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tony Roberts
> PP-ASEL
> VFR OTT
> Night
> Cessna 172H C-GICE

[tony roberts]

Hi Dave

Could you give me a link to that info?

Thanks

Tony

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

> "tony roberts" > wrote in message
> news:nospam-9878D2.21284130112004@shawnews...
> > Hi June
> >
> > Zatatime is right.
> > Sorry - I didn't mean that ANY pilot flying into IFR is a major risk.
> > I meant to say that pilots who were not certified IFR, and who are not
> > flying IFR equipped aircraft , who do fly into IFR are an accident
> > waiting to happen.
> >
> > IFR certified pilots flying IFR certified aircraft are safer.
> >
> > tony
>
> The leading cause of fatal accidents is maneuvering flight at 30%. The
> second leading cause is takeoff and climb at 18%. Third is weather related
> at 12%. The Nall report indicates IMC flight has marginally fewer accidents
> but those accidents are much more likely to be fatal. There is no
> indication IFR pilots flying IFA aircraft are safer.
>
>
> >
> > In article >,
> > zatatime > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:59:48 GMT, tony roberts >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >BUT:
> > > >Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
> > > >IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
> > >
> > >
> > > To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
> > > weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
> > > aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions. For June's understanding,
> > > these are people that only have the license your husband got first.
> > > Since he is now working toward his instrument ticket these statistics
> > > are greatly reduced.
> > >
> > > Just don't want you to think that the added training he is going for
> > > makes this far more dangerous. It will actually make him safer
> > > overall.
> > >
> > > z
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tony Roberts
> > PP-ASEL
> > VFR OTT
> > Night
> > Cessna 172H C-GICE




--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Dave Stadt]

"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-50EC3C.21560030112004@shawnews...
> Hi Dave
>
> Could you give me a link to that info?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tony

It's the Nall report on the AOPA WEB site

[Dan Luke]

"June" wrote:
> I really appreciate you all taking the time to express you opinions.
> Some very good points were made that I hadn't considered.
>
> So, I will try not to worry so much and not give him any more grief
> about his hobby. I'm sure he'd thank you guys for your efforts!

Your husband's a lucky guy, June.

Best,
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[CV]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> The leading cause of fatal accidents is maneuvering flight at 30%. The
> second leading cause is takeoff and climb at 18%. Third is weather related

Takeoff and climb is not a cause of accident.

Perhaps you mean that 18% occur during takeoff and climb,
which is something very different than cause.

Simplistically we could claim that takeoff causes 100% of
accidents, since if you hadn't taken off there would have
been no accident. This is like claiming getting out of bed
in the morning as the cause for 100% of traffic accidents
(and aviation and most other accidents for that matter).

Cheers CV

[G.R. Patterson III]

zatatime wrote:
>
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:59:48 GMT, tony roberts >
> wrote:
>
> >BUT:
> >Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
> >IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
>
> To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
> weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
> aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions.

According to AOPA, more instrument rated pilots get into this situation than VFR
pilots.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Happy Dog]

"zatatime" > wrote in message news:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:59:48 GMT, tony roberts >
> wrote:
>
>>BUT:
>>Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
>>IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
>
>
> To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
> weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
> aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions.

Not just VFR pilots. Happens to a surprising number if instrument rated
pilots (flying VFR) as well. I'll try to find some stats.

m

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> According to AOPA, more instrument rated pilots get into this situation
> than VFR pilots.

That statement was made during an ASF presentation I attended a while ago.
It puzzled me. Why would a IR pilot fly VFR into IMC?

Lack of currency, perhaps? Is there a breakdown of how many of those IR
pilots were current?

Something other motivation?

- Andrew

[C Kingsbury]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > >BUT:
> > >Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
> > >IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
> >
> > To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
> > weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
> > aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions.
>
> According to AOPA, more instrument rated pilots get into this situation
than VFR
> pilots.

This is similar to how my CFII explained the double-edged sword of the
rating. On one hand, it makes you much more capable of flying in
less-than-perfect weather. On the other, it means you're much more likely to
encounter weather beyond your abilities. If you scrupulously limit yourself
to trips of no more than a few hours in good day VFR there is really very
little that can get you. And there are whole categories of stuff like
t-storms and icing, that really only happen in the instrument environment.

-cwk.

[Andrew Gideon]

C Kingsbury wrote:

> On the other, it means you're much more likely to
> encounter weather beyond your abilities.

What was said during the ASF presentation is that this is a problem not of
pilots under IFR encountering weather but IR pilots continuing VFR into
IMC.

- Andrew

[Mike Rapoport]

I'm not sure what "reasearch" you did. Only 13% of fatal accidents are
attributed to weather. http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/03nall.pdf

Mike
MU-2


"tony roberts" > wrote in message
news:nospam-357D7A.20020930112004@shawnews...
> Hi June
>
> I only just found this thread so my comments are a little late.
>
>> So, I will try not to worry so much and not give him any more grief
>> about his hobby. I'm sure he'd thank you guys for your efforts!
>
> I honestly believe that you are making a good decision.
>
> My family did a lot of research into this, prior to me taking my licence
> and purchasing a plane.
>
> Here is what we found.
>
> The typical aircraft accident rate is comparable to the typical
> motorcycle accident rate.
>
> BUT:
> Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
> IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
>
> Then we have all of the pilots who fly drunk/doped.
>
> When you remove those from the equation - If you can trust that he CAN
> remove those from the equation - and they represent most of the
> accidents, what is left is pilot error and mechanical failure.
>
> Pilot error comes down to training/aptitude
> Mechanical error is rare - the standards for maintaining aircraft, and
> for rebuilding engines, are tough.
>
> So we started out with an accident rate similar to motorcycles,
> But we do have a lot of control over a lot of those accidents.
>
> At the end of the day?
> A consciencious pilot, who is not taking risks, and is flying a well
> maintained aircraft, is very safe.
>
> He's not cast iron - but he is as safe as he can be.
>
> Worth thinking about
>
> Tony
>
> --
>
> Tony Roberts
> PP-ASEL
> VFR OTT
> Night
> Cessna 172H C-GICE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In article >,
> (June) wrote:
>
>> I really appreciate you all taking the time to express you opinions.
>> Some very good points were made that I hadn't considered.
>>
>
>>
>> June

[zatatime]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:05:47 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
> wrote:

>
>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:59:48 GMT, tony roberts >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >BUT:
>> >Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
>> >IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
>>
>>
>> To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
>> weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
>> aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions. For June's understanding,
>> these are people that only have the license your husband got first.
>> Since he is now working toward his instrument ticket these statistics
>> are greatly reduced.
>>
>> Just don't want you to think that the added training he is going for
>> makes this far more dangerous. It will actually make him safer
>> overall.
>>
>> z
>
>I don't believe statistically IFR rated pilots have a better safety record.
>It is a false assumption.
>

IFR pilot's have a better safety record in IFR conditions than VFR
pilots do in IFR conditions, which is all I was trying to say. I may
not have been perfectly clear.

z

[Dave Stadt]

"CV" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > The leading cause of fatal accidents is maneuvering flight at 30%. The
> > second leading cause is takeoff and climb at 18%. Third is weather
related
>
> Takeoff and climb is not a cause of accident.
>
> Perhaps you mean that 18% occur during takeoff and climb,
> which is something very different than cause.
>
> Simplistically we could claim that takeoff causes 100% of
> accidents, since if you hadn't taken off there would have
> been no accident. This is like claiming getting out of bed
> in the morning as the cause for 100% of traffic accidents
> (and aviation and most other accidents for that matter).
>
> Cheers CV

Go read the Nall report then come back once you have educated yourself. If
you don't believe you can get killed during the takeoff and climb portion of
flight you should stay far away from airports.

[Newps]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "zatatime" > wrote in message news:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:59:48 GMT, tony roberts >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>BUT:
>>>Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
>>>IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
>>
>>
>>To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
>>weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
>>aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions.
>
>
> Not just VFR pilots. Happens to a surprising number if instrument rated
> pilots (flying VFR) as well. I'll try to find some stats.
>

Here's what you'll find...Instrument rated pilots are far more likely to
get into farming by scud running than VFR only pilots.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
> Go read the Nall report then come back once you have educated yourself.
> If
> you don't believe you can get killed during the takeoff and climb portion
> of
> flight you should stay far away from airports.

CV was simply pointing out that takeoffs and climbs are not CAUSES of
accidents. And they aren't.

I have no idea why you insist on claiming that they are, or why you insist
on berating someone that simply pointed out the fact that they are not. But
the fact remains that none of the things you described (maneuvering flight,
takeoff and climb, weather, etc.) are CAUSES of accidents.

They are certainly ways to describe categories of accidents (though,
inasmuch as they are not orthogonal, I've always felt the chosen categories
are a little odd...in what category does an accident that occurred during
maneuvering after takeoff in poor weather belong?), but they are NOT causes.

Pilot error and mechanical failure are examples of CAUSES, and they can
CAUSE an accident during any of the kinds of flight you mention.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> That statement was made during an ASF presentation I attended a while ago.
> It puzzled me. Why would a IR pilot fly VFR into IMC?

I'm not sure myself, but I do remember an incident that was presented in a
safety videotape. The pilot involved intended an IFR flight from Frederick, MD
to the west. She was delayed in a business meeting and discovered when she got
to the airport that her flight plan had expired. Rather than file a new one, she
took off VFR under low ceilings intending to file in the air.

Frederick is under the control of the Baltimore ATC. The ground rises to the
west. Baltimore wouldn't clear her until they could pick her up on radar, and
you have to get pretty high for them to do that in that area. While trying to
get clearance and climbing to avoid terrain, the windshield went opaque.

She came out of the clouds in a spiral at over a 70 degree bank, recovered a few
hundred feet above the ground, and returned to Frederick to file a flight plan.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[vincent p. norris]

>The typical aircraft accident rate is comparable to the typical
>motorcycle accident rate

Comparisons like that are tricky. Is that accidents per hour, or per
mile? Those two ways would give drasticaly different answers.

But I recall a discussion of that topic in Flying mag, years ago. In
a subsequent issue, a letter to the editor from an insurance adjuster
said, "The only more dangerous way to get from point A to Point B than
by motorcycle is by being shot from a cannon."

However, there's an important difference; bikers are at the mercy of
automobile drivers, who open doors in their path, pull out in front of
them, etc. Pilots, however, are rarely killed by someone else.

So a careful, "unbold" pilot is less likely to become a statistic than
an equally careful biker.

vince norris

[Matt Barrow]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
> >
> > That statement was made during an ASF presentation I attended a while
ago.
> > It puzzled me. Why would a IR pilot fly VFR into IMC?
>
> I'm not sure myself, but I do remember an incident that was presented in a
> safety videotape. The pilot involved intended an IFR flight from
Frederick, MD
> to the west. She was delayed in a business meeting and discovered when she
got
> to the airport that her flight plan had expired. Rather than file a new
one, she
> took off VFR under low ceilings intending to file in the air.
>
> Frederick is under the control of the Baltimore ATC. The ground rises to
the
> west. Baltimore wouldn't clear her until they could pick her up on radar,
and
> you have to get pretty high for them to do that in that area. While trying
to
> get clearance and climbing to avoid terrain, the windshield went opaque.
>
> She came out of the clouds in a spiral at over a 70 degree bank, recovered
a few
> hundred feet above the ground, and returned to Frederick to file a flight
plan.
>

She had originally filed a IFR flight pan, but lost control in the clouds?
Certainly the flight plan was a small part of the problem.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> C Kingsbury wrote:
>
> > On the other, it means you're much more likely to
> > encounter weather beyond your abilities.
>
> What was said during the ASF presentation is that this is a problem not of
> pilots under IFR encountering weather but IR pilots continuing VFR into
> IMC.

Icing? T-Storms?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> >>>BUT:
> >>>Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
> >>>IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
> >>
> >>To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
> >>weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
> >>aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions.
> >
> > Not just VFR pilots. Happens to a surprising number if instrument rated
> > pilots (flying VFR) as well. I'll try to find some stats.
>
> Here's what you'll find...Instrument rated pilots are far more likely to
> get into farming by scud running than VFR only pilots.

Which has nothing to do with the rating, but rather is a result
of pilot stupidity.

--
Bob Noel

[Happy Dog]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:05:47 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
>>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:59:48 GMT, tony roberts >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >BUT:
>>> >Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
>>> >IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
>>>
>>> To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
>>> weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
>>> aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions. For June's understanding,
>>> these are people that only have the license your husband got first.
>>> Since he is now working toward his instrument ticket these statistics
>>> are greatly reduced.
>>>
>>> Just don't want you to think that the added training he is going for
>>> makes this far more dangerous. It will actually make him safer
>>> overall.
>>
>>I don't believe statistically IFR rated pilots have a better safety
>>record.
>>It is a false assumption.
>
> IFR pilot's have a better safety record in IFR conditions than VFR
> pilots do in IFR conditions, which is all I was trying to say. I may
> not have been perfectly clear.

VFR pilots don't legally fly in IFR conditions. Your statement "To be more
clear: The accidents of this type [continued illegal flight into IMC] are
for VFR (good weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate
an aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions." is quite clear and
substantially incorrect.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Newps" > wrote in message
>> Not just VFR pilots. Happens to a surprising number if instrument rated
>> pilots (flying VFR) as well. I'll try to find some stats.
>>
> Here's what you'll find...Instrument rated pilots are far more likely to
> get into farming by scud running than VFR only pilots.

You got stats on this? All I've seen are stats on continued flight into
IMC.

moo

[zatatime]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:11:42 -0500, "Happy Dog"
> wrote:

>"zatatime" > wrote in message
>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:05:47 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
>>>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:59:48 GMT, tony roberts >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >BUT:
>>>> >Most light aircraft accidents are caused through continued flight into
>>>> >IFR (read - don't even attempt to fly there there) weather.
>>>>
>>>> To be more clear: The accidents of this type are for VFR (good
>>>> weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate an
>>>> aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions. For June's understanding,
>>>> these are people that only have the license your husband got first.
>>>> Since he is now working toward his instrument ticket these statistics
>>>> are greatly reduced.
>>>>
>>>> Just don't want you to think that the added training he is going for
>>>> makes this far more dangerous. It will actually make him safer
>>>> overall.
>>>
>>>I don't believe statistically IFR rated pilots have a better safety
>>>record.
>>>It is a false assumption.
>>
>> IFR pilot's have a better safety record in IFR conditions than VFR
>> pilots do in IFR conditions, which is all I was trying to say. I may
>> not have been perfectly clear.
>
>VFR pilots don't legally fly in IFR conditions.

Exactly.

>Your statement "To be more
>clear: The accidents of this type [continued illegal flight into IMC] are
>for VFR (good weather) pilots without training on how to effectively operate
>an aircraft in IFR (bad weather) conditions." is quite clear and
>substantially incorrect.
>
Do you have any statistics to back this up? You're saying VFR pilot's
who continue into IFR conditions have a better safety record than IFR
pilot's operating legally in IFR conditions?

I'd love to see the facts to back this one up.

z

[Newps]

Yep, AOPA. Every year they publish a summary of accident stats and
their accident guy writes the occasional article on scud running. The
only thing that makes sense to me is the attiutde that "I have the
rating, I can always get a clearance."



Happy Dog wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
>
>>>Not just VFR pilots. Happens to a surprising number if instrument rated
>>>pilots (flying VFR) as well. I'll try to find some stats.
>>>
>>
>>Here's what you'll find...Instrument rated pilots are far more likely to
>>get into farming by scud running than VFR only pilots.
>
>
> You got stats on this? All I've seen are stats on continued flight into
> IMC.
>
> moo
>
>

[Newps]

zatatime wrote:

You're saying VFR pilot's
> who continue into IFR conditions have a better safety record than IFR
> pilot's operating legally in IFR conditions?

No, not the legal flights. The stats clearly show that an instrument
rated pilot is much more likely to die by continued VFR into IMC than a
nonrated pilot.

[zatatime]

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:56:42 -0700, Newps >
wrote:

>
>
>zatatime wrote:
>
> You're saying VFR pilot's
>> who continue into IFR conditions have a better safety record than IFR
>> pilot's operating legally in IFR conditions?
>
>No, not the legal flights.
Thank you. This was my point.

>The stats clearly show that an instrument
>rated pilot is much more likely to die by continued VFR into IMC than a
>nonrated pilot.

Agreed. Possibly for the reason you posted in the other thread.

z

[Happy Dog]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> Happy Dog wrote:
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>Not just VFR pilots. Happens to a surprising number if instrument rated
>>>>pilots (flying VFR) as well. I'll try to find some stats.
>>>
>>>Here's what you'll find...Instrument rated pilots are far more likely to
>>>get into farming by scud running than VFR only pilots.
>>
>> You got stats on this? All I've seen are stats on continued flight into
>> IMC.

> Yep, AOPA. Every year they publish a summary of accident stats and their
> accident guy writes the occasional article on scud running.

Got a cite?

> The only thing that makes sense to me is the attiutde that "I have the
> rating, I can always get a clearance."

Makes sense, how? The hardest time to get a clearance is when a bunch of
people need one at once.

m

[Happy Dog]

"Newps" > wrote in message
> zatatime wrote:
>
> You're saying VFR pilot's
>> who continue into IFR conditions have a better safety record than IFR
>> pilot's operating legally in IFR conditions?
>
> No, not the legal flights. The stats clearly show that an instrument
> rated pilot is much more likely to die by continued VFR into IMC than a
> nonrated pilot.

But they don't compare the frequency of this event for each rating. So the
stats don't say much about ability to handle IMC. But if anyone bases an
opinion that VFR pilots are safer in IMC, they're crazy.

moo

[Newps]

Happy Dog wrote:

>
> Got a cite?

AOPA.org


>
>
>>The only thing that makes sense to me is the attiutde that "I have the
>>rating, I can always get a clearance."
>
>
> Makes sense, how? The hardest time to get a clearance is when a bunch of
> people need one at once.

They don't die trying to get a clearance, they never bother to try.

[zatatime]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:26:13 -0500, "Happy Dog"
> wrote:

>But if anyone bases an
>opinion that VFR pilots are safer in IMC, they're crazy.

I haven't seen anyone say that in the thread.

z

[Happy Dog]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
>>But if anyone bases an
>>opinion that VFR pilots are safer in IMC, they're crazy.
>
> I haven't seen anyone say that in the thread.

Me neither. My point is that it's not a really helpful stat.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Newps" > wrote in message
> Happy Dog wrote:
>>
>> Got a cite?
>
> AOPA.org

Can you be a bit more specific? I assume that you have a reference in mind.
>
>>>The only thing that makes sense to me is the attiutde that "I have the
>>>rating, I can always get a clearance."
>>
>> Makes sense, how? The hardest time to get a clearance is when a bunch of
>> people need one at once.
>
> They don't die trying to get a clearance, they never bother to try.

Again, you have some stats on this? Are you saying that, in almost all
cases, IFR pilots just fly into IMC and keep going until they hit something?
Or is it mostly scud-running?

moo

[Peter]

G.R. Patterson III wrote>
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
>>That statement was made during an ASF presentation I attended a while ago.
>>It puzzled me. Why would a IR pilot fly VFR into IMC?
>
>
> I'm not sure myself, but I do remember an incident that was presented in a
> safety videotape. The pilot involved intended an IFR flight from Frederick, MD
> to the west. She was delayed in a business meeting and discovered when she got
> to the airport that her flight plan had expired. Rather than file a new one, she
> took off VFR under low ceilings intending to file in the air.
>
> Frederick is under the control of the Baltimore ATC. The ground rises to the
> west. Baltimore wouldn't clear her until they could pick her up on radar, and
> you have to get pretty high for them to do that in that area. While trying to
> get clearance and climbing to avoid terrain, the windshield went opaque.
>
> She came out of the clouds in a spiral at over a 70 degree bank, recovered a few
> hundred feet above the ground, and returned to Frederick to file a flight plan.

Is there some part of this story that I'm missing? Apparently she
almost immediately lost control of the plane once she got into
the clouds. So when she gets down on the ground she files a
flight plan and presumably then goes right back up into the same
clouds.
What assurance is there that she won't again become disoriented?

[Dave Stadt]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> > Happy Dog wrote:
> >>
> >> Got a cite?
> >
> > AOPA.org
>
> Can you be a bit more specific? I assume that you have a reference in
mind.

Search for nall.

> >
> >>>The only thing that makes sense to me is the attiutde that "I have the
> >>>rating, I can always get a clearance."
> >>
> >> Makes sense, how? The hardest time to get a clearance is when a bunch
of
> >> people need one at once.
> >
> > They don't die trying to get a clearance, they never bother to try.
>
> Again, you have some stats on this? Are you saying that, in almost all
> cases, IFR pilots just fly into IMC and keep going until they hit
something?
> Or is it mostly scud-running?
>
> moo
>
>

[CV]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>>Takeoff and climb is not a cause of accident.
>>
>>Perhaps you mean that 18% occur during takeoff and climb,
>>which is something very different than cause.
>>
>>Simplistically we could claim that takeoff causes 100% of
>>accidents, since if you hadn't taken off there would have
>>been no accident. This is like claiming getting out of bed
>>in the morning as the cause for 100% of traffic accidents
>>(and aviation and most other accidents for that matter).
>>
>>Cheers CV
>
>
> Go read the Nall report then come back once you have educated yourself. If
> you don't believe you can get killed during the takeoff and climb portion of
> flight you should stay far away from airports.

Go back to primary school, take some reading classes and come
back when you have educated yourself with basic reading skills.
If you are incapable of comprehending simple everyday sentences
you should stay away from newsgroups.

Regards CV

[Dave Stadt]

"CV" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> >>Takeoff and climb is not a cause of accident.
> >>
> >>Perhaps you mean that 18% occur during takeoff and climb,
> >>which is something very different than cause.
> >>
> >>Simplistically we could claim that takeoff causes 100% of
> >>accidents, since if you hadn't taken off there would have
> >>been no accident. This is like claiming getting out of bed
> >>in the morning as the cause for 100% of traffic accidents
> >>(and aviation and most other accidents for that matter).
> >>
> >>Cheers CV
> >
> >
> > Go read the Nall report then come back once you have educated yourself.
If
> > you don't believe you can get killed during the takeoff and climb
portion of
> > flight you should stay far away from airports.
>
> Go back to primary school, take some reading classes and come
> back when you have educated yourself with basic reading skills.
> If you are incapable of comprehending simple everyday sentences
> you should stay away from newsgroups.
>
> Regards CV

I will leave it at "Accident causes single engine fixed gear."

[Newps]

Happy Dog wrote:

>
> Again, you have some stats on this? Are you saying that, in almost all
> cases, IFR pilots just fly into IMC and keep going until they hit something?
> Or is it mostly scud-running?

Apparently the IFR pilot will just keep scud running into ever worsening
conditions and then hit something or lose control. The thought is in
the back of their mind that I'll just get a clearance if it gets bad.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter wrote:
>
> Is there some part of this story that I'm missing?

Transition to flying by instruments when you've been flying visually is not
simple and takes time. The airlines learned this in the 30s and will have one
pilot already on the gauges during takeoff when the aircraft will be in IMC
shortly.

An instrument rated pilot goes on the gauges before entering IMC and can be
expected to do well at it. Those who enter IMC unexpectedly may lose control of
the aircraft during the transition to instrument flight.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Peter]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
>>Is there some part of this story that I'm missing?
>
>
> Transition to flying by instruments when you've been flying visually is not
> simple and takes time. The airlines learned this in the 30s and will have one
> pilot already on the gauges during takeoff when the aircraft will be in IMC
> shortly.
>
> An instrument rated pilot goes on the gauges before entering IMC and can be
> expected to do well at it. Those who enter IMC unexpectedly may lose control of
> the aircraft during the transition to instrument flight.

I'd still be concerned to fly IMC without reasonable confidence in the
ability to recover from any disturbance that causes momentary loss of
control. And in the case cited it doesn't sound as if the entrance into
IMC should have been that unexpected.

[Happy Dog]

"Peter" > wrote in message
> G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>> Transition to flying by instruments when you've been flying visually is
>> not
>> simple and takes time. The airlines learned this in the 30s and will have
>> one
>> pilot already on the gauges during takeoff when the aircraft will be in
>> IMC
>> shortly.
>>
>> An instrument rated pilot goes on the gauges before entering IMC and can
>> be
>> expected to do well at it. Those who enter IMC unexpectedly may lose
>> control of
>> the aircraft during the transition to instrument flight.
>
> I'd still be concerned to fly IMC without reasonable confidence in the
> ability to recover from any disturbance that causes momentary loss of
> control.

Aerobatics under the hood.

> And in the case cited it doesn't sound as if the entrance into
> IMC should have been that unexpected.

It isn't unexpected. It's denied. This scenario happens to everyone that
flies in marginal weather, especially at night. If you're VFR, one
shouldn't *have* to be flying almost solely by the gauges. So, as the
weather gets worse, instead of acknowledging the defeat of their visual /
balance sensory systems, the pilot tries ever harder to maintain visual
reference. It takes discipline and training to make the correct decision as
to when you're no longer in VMC, whether you're legal or not. (And, if
you're not IFR, you aren't. But, too bad. Get over it and deal.) Hazy
nights with no moon, in unpopulated areas are an invitation to trouble
whether you're flying under VFR or IFR. It's so easy to be using some
random light source (a streetlight or building light, bright star, etc.) as
a reference. It works fine until the pilot is distracted for a moment and
then mistakenly chooses some other light source at a slightly different
angle as a reference. The pilot, now thinking that the difference in angle
is due to their wings not being level, begins a set of manoeuvres based on
erroneous information. If the error isn't quickly, the results are, at
best, sobering. I've personally experienced something like this when, on a
night X/C in a deserted area, no moon, haze, I mistook another aircraft for
a bright star. Now, the unobscurred moon or an unmistakable mass of bright
lights on the ground, like a city, are the only visual refs I trust at
night. And, even then, at the first hint of upcoming IMC (it's often like
looking for a ghost or a cloaked Romulan Vessel by noticing subtle anomalies
in the sky ahead) I'm psyched to transition to instruments.

le moo

[Jeremy Lew]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
> >
> > Again, you have some stats on this? Are you saying that, in almost all
> > cases, IFR pilots just fly into IMC and keep going until they hit
something?
> > Or is it mostly scud-running?
>
> Apparently the IFR pilot will just keep scud running into ever worsening
> conditions and then hit something or lose control. The thought is in
> the back of their mind that I'll just get a clearance if it gets bad.

How would anyone know this? Do they record their back-of-mind thoughts
before pancaking into a mountain?

[Newps]

Jeremy Lew wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Happy Dog wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Again, you have some stats on this? Are you saying that, in almost all
>>>cases, IFR pilots just fly into IMC and keep going until they hit
>
> something?
>
>>>Or is it mostly scud-running?
>>
>>Apparently the IFR pilot will just keep scud running into ever worsening
>>conditions and then hit something or lose control. The thought is in
>>the back of their mind that I'll just get a clearance if it gets bad.
>
>
> How would anyone know this? Do they record their back-of-mind thoughts
> before pancaking into a mountain?



Yes. At the military desk.

[Kyler Laird]

Andrew Gideon > writes:

>That statement was made during an ASF presentation I attended a while ago.
>It puzzled me. Why would a IR pilot fly VFR into IMC?

not Instrument rated in the aircraft

not current

insufficient instrumentation in the aircraft

not confident in handling clearance

lacking appropriate charts

lacking sufficient fuel reserves

lacking sufficient flight planning

not willing to give up VMC

--kyler

[Matt Barrow]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter wrote:
> >
> > Is there some part of this story that I'm missing?
>
> Transition to flying by instruments when you've been flying visually is
not
> simple and takes time. The airlines learned this in the 30s and will have
one
> pilot already on the gauges during takeoff when the aircraft will be in
IMC
> shortly.
>
> An instrument rated pilot goes on the gauges before entering IMC and can
be
> expected to do well at it. Those who enter IMC unexpectedly may lose
control of
> the aircraft during the transition to instrument flight.

I think your conflating the transition to instruments with the transition to
visual after and approach.

Keeping the aircraft upright , during transition, is not that difficult (not
the easy, but not that difficult either).


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[tony roberts]

Thanks Dave - interesting report

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:

> "tony roberts" > wrote in message
> news:nospam-50EC3C.21560030112004@shawnews...
> > Hi Dave
> >
> > Could you give me a link to that info?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Tony
>
> It's the Nall report on the AOPA WEB site