IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

"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.