IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

Jay Honeck wrote:
Sorry, it sounds a little like you're trolling.
In other words, you disagree. Why not just say so instead of pretending that
there is something objectively wrong with someone else's expression of
opinion?

Actually, you're both wrong. I am neither trolling, nor expressing my
opinion. Rather, I am seeking a risk assessment from experienced IFR
pilots who regularly fly IFR in light piston aircraft.

If I am ever to proceed to the IR, it's must be with the full consent
of my co-pilot. If she and I determine that the risk of GA instrument
flight is simply too high to bear -- or, worse, if we disagree on that
risk, and she simply won't fly instruments with me -- there is no need
to proceed to that next rating.

I think it is logical that flying IFR will increase your overall risk of
flying if for no other reason being that you may fly more. You will now
make flights that would have left you grounded under VFR.

Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

This seems to be the bottom line: A slight increase in risk over
regular flying is one thing; a 100% increase in fatalities is
something different. Is it worth it?

I do not believe that is the correct way to interpret the statistics.
You have to make the comparison on a flight by flight basis and compare
the risk of making any given flight under VFR vs. IFR. I don't think
that is what Collins was doing. I read the article, but have to admit
that it really didn't even catch my attention. I may have to go back
and read it again if I didn't throw out the magazine yet.

I personally feel more comfortable being "in the system" than not now
that I've flown IFR for 12 years. Even in CAVU conditions (which are
rare in the northeast), I still file IFR almost every flight. It is
easier than filing a VFR flight plan as I don't have to talk to two
different organizations (ATC and FSS, just ATC). I don't have to worry
about forgetting to close my flight plan. And I'm always in
communication with someone so if the crap hits the fan, I only have to
press the PTT, no tuning to 121.5 or looking for another ATC frequency.
I realize the latter benefit is obtained also with VFR flight
following, but once you go that far, why not just file IFR?


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

I agree with everything you have said, Matt, except that your
comparison assumes that you don't have the third option, which is to
stay on the ground.

No, that is just such an obvious option that I didn't mention it, at
least not in that post. I did mention the driving option later and,
obviously, staying home is always an option. However, if you consider
driving or flying the airlines, then, from purely a risk perspective,
you will NEVER fly in your airplane again as it is ALWAYS riskier than
driving or flying the airlines.

:-)

Matt

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
...
It's worth reading Collins' column this month, if for no other reason
than to read the IFR accidents he describes. It is pretty clear from
his narration that these pilots were not chumps, were not out of
currency, were not breaking any rules, and were definitely flying some
VERY nice equipment.
...

I don't get Flying, so I have to ask... So, who are we talking about? Air
ambulances that fly "no matter what" - ice, below minimums, imbedded CB...?
Freight dogs that fly "no matter what"? What do you mean "VERY nice
equipment" - I've known guys who flew what sounds like nice equipment for
outfits that did most of their maintainence on paper (and paper only). Where
is Mr. Schnerd, RN and some of his stories about flying cancelled checks? "I
don't know why we bothered to check the weather - we flew anyhow..." That
kind of flying does not do much for one's life expectancy.

Then there are the guys that really have no buisness flying in IMC. Remember
when Bonanza's were called "Fork Tailed Doctor Killers"?

You don't strike me as someone who frequently falls victim to the number one
cause of death among pilots - "Get-there-ites". That has to make a HUGE
differnence in your odds - IFR or VFR...

True story: One of the old-timers at the airport (you probably know the guy
if you've spent any time at a small airport) who had an old Stinson. He
didn't bother with medicals any more because he didn't think he could pass.
He didn't bother with annuals on the Stinson any more either. One day, he
was talking about flying back from Oshkosh with the grandkids - he had
decided to fly across Lake Michigan. Well, as you might expect, it was a
little hazy and he had to resort to instruments. Now, instruments in the
Stinson consisted of needle, ball, airspeed, altimiter, and magnetic
compass. So, he's flying needle ball and airspeed and after a while starts
to wonder why he wasn't over land. So he checks the compass and realizes
that he has drifted off course and is flying south - the length of the lake.
So he makes a left turn to head for shore, and, obviously, makes it home OK.
Now, Jay, would you have tried to pull a stunt like that?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Jay,

One thing Collins recommends to help counter the dangers of instrument
flight is to file on every single flight, and to end every single
flight with an instrument approach.


That's because it's what HE does. ALL his articles are about what HE
does. A very narrow view on the world...

That's what you get for the price of the mag (it's basically free).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Judah wrote:

IFR pilots can more easily be lured into making riskier flights.

I adamantly disagree. In obtaining my instrument rating I learned MUCH
more about weather and weather analysis than I knew prior as a VFR only
pilot. And I am much less inclined to fly VFR in marginal weather or
IFR in weather than either I or my airplane aren't fit to fly.

I had far more weather close calls as a VFR only pilot than as an IFR
pilot. I actually can remember only one close call since getting my IFR
rating and that was an icing encounter lee of Lake Erie. And that was a
flight forecast to be VFR all the way and which I could have just as
easily encountered on a VFR flight and would have been much less capable
of dealing with.

Matt

I see a number of columns by Collins on the _Flying_ Web site for April; which
one is the one under discussion here?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose wrote:
I realize the latter benefit is obtained also with VFR flight
following, but once you go that far, why not just file IFR?

Route and altitude flexibility.

I've seldom had a problem with getting the route or altitude I wanted
when flying IFR in VMC.

Matt

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1176559225.748776.282140
@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

IFR pilots can more easily be lured into making riskier flights.

Therein lies the rub. My weather tolerance is already higher (or,
would that be lower?) than Mary's. In other words, I will launch on a
flight with higher winds and lower visibility than Mary will, and this
has held true since she got her ticket.

Why? I don't know. Her assessment of risk is more strict than mine,
and her comfort level is correspondingly lower.

Projecting ourselves into the instrument rating, say, three years from
now, I wonder how our preflight planning would go? Right now, she is
comfortable flying with me at my comfort level -- she has no problem
skipping a leg if the weather is below her comfort -- but will that
hold true in IMC?

I think if it were just me flying, getting the IR -- and using it --
would be a simple, logical next step. Factor in Mary and the kids,
and it becomes much more problematic.

Risk assessment of this sort is difficult.

If she already trusts you to use good judgement now, I don't think that
will change just because the weather will be lower. Actually, the fact that
she already flies with you even when she wouldn't fly herself implies that
she would continue to do so if you had your IR. You'll have done the
training, and having your family with you will probably make you more
conservative, not more liberal. If you don't feel up to it, you'll probably
call it off rather than risk your whole family. But I suspect there will
also be plenty of times when you will be glad to be able to fly a
relatively relaxing IFR flight through a layer that you would have
otherwise had to scud run through or around.

Initially you may create some personal minimums that will keep you safe -
like not flying if you don't have a VFR alternate, or if the ceilings are
lower than 1000', etc. This way if something does go wrong, you have more
options. Then, as everybody gets more comfortable with the whole flying in
the soup thing, you may decide to reduce those minimums, or start being
slightly more flexible. Because your airport doesn't have a precision
approach, you're pretty much locked into 500' ceilings anyway.

After I had flown IFR for a while, I have become a little more liberal
with minimums when flying home, since it's an ILS and I'm extremely
familiar with the area and the approach and know what to expect from ATC.

But I haven't flown much IFR in the last 4 months or so, and even though
I'm still legally current for another month or so, I wouldn't fly home in
500' today... (I've been flying with a lot of tray tables in front of me
lately.)

Anyway, nothing is stopping you from making good decisions just because
you have your IR. And my guess is that Mary will be a good cross-check
without overly inhibiting you because she is a pilot too.

I've seldom had a problem with getting the route or altitude I wanted when flying IFR in VMC.

If you need to fly low, especially below the MEAs, VFR makes a good option.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.