IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
...
I think for Jay, the instrument rating is totally beneficial, and the
added
risks would be tempered by his judgement...

Mary's judgement. Which, apparently, he listens to. Not like some of us.
:-)

--
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.

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.

Jay, you are incorrectly citing the article.
Collins specifically says "single-pilot" IFR.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
...
I think for Jay, the instrument rating is totally beneficial, and the
added
risks would be tempered by his judgement...

Mary's judgement. Which, apparently, he listens to. Not like some of us.
:-)

And just why should we listen to Mary's judgment? :-)

Matt

The best arbiter of risk would seem to be the insurance companies who pay
claims against risk gone bad. The only better source to decide risk is the
individual pilot themselves for the particular flight.

Insurance companies give discounts for an IR and sometimes require it to fly
the plane at all.

The insurance company's assessment is that less people will get in an
accident with an IR rating, Collin's assessment is that if you do it will be
worse. People who have an IR rating file IFR at least some of time, so it
has to include at least some of the same population.

Ron


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Forgetting for the moment the "science" of the statistics, I don't think
there are more inherent dangers when flying IFR in IMC vs. when flying VFR
in VMC. Flying is flying.

So what might make flying in IMC cause more fatalities than flying in VMC?
I would say it relates to when things go wrong.

A couple of examples:

1) Navigation Errors
VMC: Unlikely to hit a mountain just because you flew a wide downwind.
IMC: If you're a two hundred feet low on an ILS, you might hit the
ground at 100kts.

2) Engine Failure (Fuel Starvation or otherwise)
VMC: Follow the ABCs, and aim for the nearest Runway, Par-5, or
pumpkin field.
IMC: You can do A and C, but you may not know where the best place to
land is until you're a few hundred feet off the ground... However, you
will
probably be on radio with ATC and be able to at least get a vector for
some
help.

3) Electrical Failure
VMC: Day - Non-issue. Night - if you have a flashlight, it's not much
more than a distraction. Being off course has minimal risk.
IMC: It could be a pretty big distraction, especially if you have
become dependent on your IFR-Approved GPS for navigation. Being off course
can have significant risks for both traffic and terrain avoidance.

4) Vacuum Failure
VMC: Distraction, but looking out the window will help.
IMC: We've all been trained to deal with it, but it's a lot of work,
and would warrant an immediate diversion to the nearest airport.

5) Pitot-Static Failure
VMC: Rarely happens in VMC anyway, but if it does, you may not know
exactly what altitude you're at. My guess is that pitot-static failures in
VMC are from bugs nests and other blockages that occur on the ground, so
the fact that your altimiter, airspeed indicator, and VSI don't work right
from takeoff will make detection pretty straightforward. Looking out the
window will tell you if you're going up, down, and your relationship to
the
ground, even if you don't know your exact altitude. Land fast and stay off
short runways.
IMC: The illusion of altitude and airspeed could be fatal, especially
if they go unnoticed because the blockage occurred at altitude, you
started
descending slightly, and never noticed it on your instruments. You could
find yourself unexpectedly breaking through clouds into the side of a
mountain. It's always good to have an electrical backup (like a digital
readout on your transponder or on your GPS)...

Of course there are certain flying situations that are unlikely to occur
in
VMC, but can certainly occur in IMC. Of course I am talking about Ice and
Thunderstorms. I don't know the statistics, but I've read at least one
very
scary story of a pilot who flew through a thunderstorm and cracked up his
plane midair. Give thunderstorms a wide berth. Apparently, not everyone
does.

I guess the bottom line is that with good equipment and good discipline,
there is nothing "inherently" more risky about flying IMC than VMC, even
in
most emergency situations. But I think there are certain situations that
are more dangerous in IMC and tougher to deal with even for pilots who
maintain IFR proficiency, let alone pilots who don't...

I also think - as the old adage goes - there are some pilots who are more
liberal in their own judgement than others. And one can individually
protect himself or herself from even the tough situations by having good
equipment in the plane, and being conservative about their own
preparedness
for a flight into IMC, taking into account all factors.

Separately from that, I think the nature of IFR flights vs. VFR flights is
a potential cause for pilots justifying themselves into situations that
are
more risky.

Think about it... What percent of VFR flights are training flights?
Canceling a training flight for weather is a non issue. The likelihood of
encountering a bad situation is inherently reduced.

On the other hand, I bet most IMC flights are flights to get somewhere -
eg: a business meeting, appointment, etc. Get-there-itis is probably a
much
bigger factor. It's a lot easier to cancel a flight that was being
conducted for the purpose of flying than it is to cancel a flight that is
being conducted to transport someone to a specific destination...

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



"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1176524912.751345.108110
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

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?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"netnews" wrote in newsW9Uh.55420$oV.49925@attbi_s21:

The best arbiter of risk would seem to be the insurance companies who
pay claims against risk gone bad. The only better source to decide risk
is the individual pilot themselves for the particular flight.

Insurance companies give discounts for an IR and sometimes require it to
fly the plane at all.

The insurance company's assessment is that less people will get in an
accident with an IR rating, Collin's assessment is that if you do it
will be worse. People who have an IR rating file IFR at least some of
time, so it has to include at least some of the same population.

Ron

Actuaries have a funny way of factoring in numbers.
Perhaps because IFR accidents lead to death more often, the insurance
companyies have fewer payouts. If you're dead, you're less likely to file a
claim for your hull value.

"Edwin Johnson" wrote in message
...
On 2007-04-14, 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.


------Courtesy snip if Edwins supurb reply------------

Jay, I posting under Ewin here because his thoughts express my feelings
exactly.

First, your demonstrated ability and desire to read in interpret the NTSB
data clearly sets you apart from most instrument pilots. Let that be your
guide in acessing your personal minimums. We both know that safe use of the
FAA limits are based on extremely current pilots, flying some of the best
equipment, in "have to if at all possible" situations. So increase them
based on known NTSB data, to temper your own personal limits based the
acessment of your own abilities, equipment and go/no go decisions, and stick
to them. When you encounter IMC, study your weather carefully, apply your
OWN minimums and decide.

Might sound to simple, but it has always been my approach. That's why I was
quizing you about the NTSB data on fuel starvation a couple of days ago. For
example, I ALWAYS use a 1 hour minimum fuel reserve on crosscounty flights
to decrease the odds of fuel starvation. Primarily because a fly a wide
varity of rental aircraft and don't want to assume the exact accuracy of
stated consumption figures for each one. If I ever buy an aircraft, and fly
the same bird all the time, perhaps I will relax it a bit based on my own
experience, but maybe not. But I apply the same logic to VMC weather, and
all aspects of VFR flight as well. I personally think that setting your own
limits equal to and often greater than the FAA requirements, and religously
sticking to them, is the best possible way to beat the ods of most any
study.

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

And just why should we listen to Mary's judgment? :-)

Matt, did you ever watch "Rumpole of the Baily"?

How did Rumpole refer to his wife?

On 4/14/2007 3:41:19 PM, Judah wrote:

If you're dead, you're less likely to file a
claim for your hull value.

And the estate wouldn't? Who would be willing to let stand that much money on
the table?


--
Peter

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Given this fact, you can, indeed, compare the different missions. And
the fact remains (apparently, if we assume that Collins is correct)
that you will die twice as often flying on instruments, as you will
flying visually.

You can only die once. :-/

And I'm not convinced that statistics provide valid prediction of
future events.

Manage the risks.

Flying IFR in IMC has a risk of weather going downhill enroute and/or
at the destination (we have a similar risk when VFR). You can decrease
the probability of arriving at your destination only to find the weather
below your capabilities by monitoring weather reports and forecasts,
diverting when needed.

Manage the risks.

Flying IFR in IMC has a risk of icing. You can decrease the probability
of inflight icing by never flying in visible moisture at or below freezing.
(one thing Atlas provides is power, you might take the chance of
descending thru a thin overcast - but that increases the risk of icing)

Manage the risks.

Flying IFR in IMC has a risk of CFIT, especially in mountainous terrain.
You can lower the probility of CFIT with a TAWS installation or a TAWS-like
capability.

Manage the risks.

Flying IFR in IMC has risks associated with the approach at the end of
the flight, where the pilot is most tired, and has diminishing options
due to fuel reserves. You can decrease the risks associated with
being tired when flying the approach by some combination of autopilot
use and self-imposed duty-day limitations.

Manage the risks.

CRM can help reduce pilot error on your flights, decreasing your risks.

Manage the risks.

Notice that most of the above can impact VFR flying as well, not just IFR
flying.


Have you read "Instrument Flying" by Taylor and "Weather Flying" by Buck?

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

In article . com,
"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 still think you are misusing the statistics by not keeping them
in perspective.

In any case. If you are concerned about relative risks, I think
we can agree that the airlines have a much better safety record
than small GA. But so what? Safe enough is safe enough.

If the probability of being hit by lightning was, say, 0.00000001
and the probability of being killed by a tornado was, say 0.00000004,
would you care about the difference?

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