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.

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?

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

3.Since IFR flight is statistically among the most dangerous things
you can do in a light GA aircraft, and flying a GA aircraft is already
approximately as dangerous as riding a motorcycle, do you ever have
any second thoughts about what you're doing? How do you feel about
strapping your family into a light aircraft and launching into the
clag?

I have no idea where he got his stats or if they are valid. Having said
that, I wouldn't be surprised as you are flying in much more difficult
weather. It is just like flying in gusty cross-winds VFR. More landing
accidents happen VFR in cross winds than on calm or head-wind only days.
It just makes sense.

To me the only real comparison though is VFR vs IFR IN THE SAME WEATHER.
You can't compare different missions, in my opinion. I'll bet that
flying VFR in weather that is easy in IFR has a higher accident rate
than the same weather flown IFR. Comparing all of the easy VFR flights
against IFR isn't meaningful to me.

As for accepting the risk, I don't see it any differently than accepting
the risk of flying GA vs. driving, the latter which is many times safer.
Did you feel you were putting your family in peril on your recent
spring break tour? I believe that driving is now something like 7X
safer than flying a light airplane so you exposed your family to 7 times
a greater risk of dying than had you driven. I'm only doubling the risk
flying IFR rather than VFR, and that is only in the situation I describe
above which simply isn't legitimate.

If I'm planning to fly a given trip on a given day in given weather
conditions, the real question is: which is safer, IFR or VFR? If the
weather is VFR, then I don't see how there could be any significant
difference in the risk of filing IFR vs. VFR with a VFR flight plan.
Personally, I'd bet the former is actually safer. If the weather is
marginal VFR and requires flight in poor visibility or requires scud
running under the clouds and through the valleys, then I'll bet that IFR
is much safer than VFR. And if the weather is solid IFR, then VFR would
be impossible or quickly fatal making IFR not only much safer, but also
likely the only viable alternative.

I believe this is what matters, not a global VFR vs. IFR comparison as
that simply isn't relevant to real life trips or risk assessment.

Lastly, IFR is like VFR in the sense that most accidents are a result of
pilot error and thus preventable. If I maintain my proficiency, I feel
very comfortable flying IFR. If I'm not proficient (as at the moment,
unfortunately), then I don't fly if the weather is bad. Judgment is
still the biggest factor in risk management and that is true IFR or FVR.

Matt