In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

In the current issue of "Flying" magazine Richard Collins states that
flying on instruments is approximately twice as dangerous as flying
VFR. Twice as many deaths occur while flying under instrument flight
rules as they do in visual flight rules, per hour flown.

This statistic seems stunningly high.

In this same article Collins remarks that the only way for the
government to improve this statistic would be for it to "stifle the
activity" itself, implying that IFR flying is simply inherently that
dangerous.

Needless to say I've been hiding this column from Mary (my wife; also
a pilot) because she's already pretty skeptical about flying IFR in
anything short of a PC-12. Over the years I have done my best to
convince her and my family that IFR flight in GA aircraft is not
unduly or inherently dangerous -- but that is pretty hard to prove in
the face of these statistics.

You (and Mary) need to determine acceptable level of risk. You still
ride motorcycles, right? Some days and some rides are just not worth
the risk, right? A rainy cold day makes riding more dangerous, especially
if you'll have to make a lot of left turns when there is a lot of traffic.
You can manage your risk a bit by making your bike more visible
(e.g., tons of lights), wearing contrasting jacket, etc. Conversely,
riding in the middle of a dry clear day with light traffic is safer.

Remember that the FAA defines *minimums* for training, for passing
the initial checkride, for maintaining currency, for aircraft equipment,
and pilot preparation. For example, in-flight weather equipment
such as radar or XM weather is not required, but I think you'd
agree that it helps you manage your risk even with just VFR flying
and would clearly be useful to pilots flying in IMC.



Therefore, for those of you who regularly fly IFR in light piston
singles and twins, a few questions:

1. Do you agree with Collins' statements?

No. He is making the same mistake that a lot of people make.
Comparing accident statistics does not provide a conclusive measure
of danger.

The way to compare the danger of VFR flying vs IFR flying is to perform
a safety analysis of each. Service history (including accident statistics)
is just one type of input for such a study. Determine the hazards, identify
mitigations, and then measure the residual risk.

You also want to determine if you are interested in danger/risk before
mitigation or after. Flying without a comm radio presents risks in a
high traffic area, these risks can be reduced by having one or more
working radios. Flying in the clouds is less risky if you have pitot heat
to reduce the probability of your pitot-static system freezing. Carb heat
is available to reduce the probability of your engine quitting. Is an engine
with carb heat more dangerous to fly than one that doesn't need carb heat?


2. Assuming the statistics are true, how do you minimize your risk?

Is your objective minimum risk or acceptable risk?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)