IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

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"

I believe it is. You are flying in weather that is not so perfect.
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.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"

"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.

Well... page 20 of the 2006 Nall Report provides stats on VMC vs. IMC (not
VFR vs. IFR, though). On one hand the report at
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf states:

"Flights conducted at night and/or in adverse weather are
more challenging than daytime and/or VMC operations.
In spite of this, accidents are more likely to occur during
the day than at night (7.9 vs. 7.1 accidents per 100,000
hours), and are also more likely to occur in VMC than
IMC (8.0 vs. 5.0 accidents per 100,000 hours)."

But on the other hand, _fatal_ accidents are more likely to occur in IMC
than VMC (3.3 vs. 1.4 _fatal_ accidents per 100,000 hours). (From Fig. 29
on page 20 of that report.)

If one assumes IMC/VMC ratio is comparable to IFR/VFR then Collins'
assertion is probably correct. But since an unknown number will be flying
IFR in VMC (and almost none should be flying VFR in IMC!) then strictly
speaking IFR should show less than 3.3 fatals per 100,000 hours.

3.3 accidents per 100,000 hours

The simple answer to the question is that I'm comfortable with these
odds. It doesn't matter to me if it's safer or more dangerous than some
other activity.

On Apr 14, 1:45 am, Jim Logajan wrote:
"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.

Well... page 20 of the 2006 Nall Report provides stats on VMC vs. IMC (not
VFR vs. IFR, though). On one hand the report athttp://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdfstates:

"Flights conducted at night and/or in adverse weather are
more challenging than daytime and/or VMC operations.
In spite of this, accidents are more likely to occur during
the day than at night (7.9 vs. 7.1 accidents per 100,000
hours), and are also more likely to occur in VMC than
IMC (8.0 vs. 5.0 accidents per 100,000 hours)."

But on the other hand, _fatal_ accidents are more likely to occur in IMC
than VMC (3.3 vs. 1.4 _fatal_ accidents per 100,000 hours). (From Fig. 29
on page 20 of that report.)

If one assumes IMC/VMC ratio is comparable to IFR/VFR then Collins'
assertion is probably correct. But since an unknown number will be flying
IFR in VMC (and almost none should be flying VFR in IMC!) then strictly
speaking IFR should show less than 3.3 fatals per 100,000 hours.

I think you mean 'IFR should show higher than 3.3 fatals per 100,000
hours'. Out of the 1.4 accidents in VMC, some could be IFR operations,
which would then have to be added to the 3.3.

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!!!)

Is your objective minimum risk or acceptable risk?

Acceptable, of course. If I was going for minimal risk, my life would
be very different, indeed.

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.

Do you guys do that?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Is your objective minimum risk or acceptable risk?

Acceptable, of course. If I was going for minimal risk, my life would
be very different, indeed.

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.

His recommendation in that regard was for maintaining proficiency, the
hardest part of IFR flying.

Do you guys do that?

Probably half of my flights.

Business (not Corporate) aviation is quite more likely to fly IFR, and their
accident rate is something like (I'm to lazy to look it up right now) four
times better than recreational flying.

One thing from the article (I "borrowed" a copy of the mag) is that Collins
was talking absolute numbers, but remember that the 30% of "bigger" iron
flys 70% of the hours.

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.

Do you guys do that?

I not only don't do that, I don't advocate it either. Sometimes better
safety is found by not filing - flying VFR until you actually need the
clearance. I am not advocating scud running, but if you are in good
visual conditions and can =see= the weather ahead, and are not
constrained by IFR routings and altitudes, you can sometimes pick a
safer way to get from where you are to where you need to be, and then
you can pop up as needed.

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

In article ,
Jose wrote:

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.

Do you guys do that?

I not only don't do that, I don't advocate it either. Sometimes better
safety is found by not filing - flying VFR until you actually need the
clearance.

Absolutely. On a recent flight I took the ceiling was about 4500' and
there was ice in the clouds, but the MEA was about 5000' due to some
hills which were easily avoidable VFR. If I had filed I would have been
forced into icing conditions instead of enjoying a safe VFR flight at
3500'.

Now the previous leg I had flown IFR even though it was CAVU because it
was good practice and my family likes being able to track me on
flightaware.