IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

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

Matt Whiting wrote in news:s96Uh.3933$Oc.194163
@news1.epix.net:

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.

I agree that the instrument rating is an asset for understanding and
dealing with weather situations.

But pilots who fly to "get somewhere" as opposed to just for training or
for fun are more likely to suffer from mild cases of "get-there-itis" and
make a bad decision. Someone who is just going up for fun will be much less
inclined to choose between beating out a front vs. driving. And someone who
is doing training may never even leave the local area and be able to have a
much better handle on the weather than one might get from a briefing.

My perception is that more IFR flights are trying to "get somewhere" than
for training or fun, and that more VFR flights are for training and fun
than for the purpose of transportation to a specific destination.

Judah wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in news:s96Uh.3933$Oc.194163
@news1.epix.net:

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.

I agree that the instrument rating is an asset for understanding and
dealing with weather situations.

But pilots who fly to "get somewhere" as opposed to just for training or
for fun are more likely to suffer from mild cases of "get-there-itis" and
make a bad decision. Someone who is just going up for fun will be much less
inclined to choose between beating out a front vs. driving. And someone who
is doing training may never even leave the local area and be able to have a
much better handle on the weather than one might get from a briefing.

My perception is that more IFR flights are trying to "get somewhere" than
for training or fun, and that more VFR flights are for training and fun
than for the purpose of transportation to a specific destination.

Well, Jay flies a lot of cross country flights VFR and I was mainly
addressing his question for his situation. What you say may be true in
general, but I know a lot of people who fly long distances VFR and their
get-home-itis is just as strong as anyone's ... and they have fewer safe
options lacking the instrument rating.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
news
Well, Jay flies a lot of cross country flights VFR and I was mainly
addressing his question for his situation. What you say may be true in
general, but I know a lot of people who fly long distances VFR and their
get-home-itis is just as strong as anyone's ... and they have fewer safe
options lacking the instrument rating.

I agree that Jay is likely not at extraordinary risk for this factor. In
fact, that was one of my points. Collins' is talking about IFR vs VFR in
general, which can be accounted for in part because of the nature of IFR vs
VFR flight.

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

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.

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

"Peter R." wrote in
:

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?

It was meant as a dark sadistic joke... If I take it much further, it will
become too tasteless even for me.

1. Do you agree with Collins' statements?

I haven't read the article, but on the face of it it seems quite
reasonable. IFR flying often takes you =through= inhospitable weather -
that's the whole point. Weather flying is inherently more risky.
Although there can be bad VFR days, the biggest hazards occur in the
clouds, and where you can't see the weather coming. IFR there are fewer
outs if you get into trouble.

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

By getting a good weather briefing, by not flying if the weather isn't
good enough for me or my equipment, by staying in practice with MSFS (at
least for procedures and scan, which is actually the least of it), by
being continually on top of developing weather, to the extent possible,
and sometimes by flying VFR over the top with Flight Following, getting
an instrument approach at the end of the flight (allowing me more route
flexibility)

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 always have second thoughts - that's the point of getting a weather
briefing, making the go/no-go decision, and keeping options open should
things go sour during the flight. If I am comfortable going myself, I
am comfortable taking my family.

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

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.

First, let me state I haven't read the article and am a great admirer of
Richard Collins.

However, that is a large leap in logic to make a blanket statement that IFR
is twice as dangerous as VFR. In fact, I don't see logic there at all and it
seems one can take a statistical average and fit it to any statement you wish.

Individually, risk in IFR flying goes up with types of weather, experience
level, and equipment reliability (This is the smallest percentage.).

I think how you intend to use an IFR rating determines the amount of risk.
Some, for instance, only use IFR in the intermediate or cruise part of the
trip and only then to get above or descend below an overcast with no
appreciable weather. Obviously, the risk is minimal in comparison with a
person who departs in low IFR or lands in low IFR or a person who is
threading around thunderstorms. There are many degrees of risk, of course,
between these two extremes.

But experience and judgment factors play a very large part in amount of
risk, as well as your alternate plans (give yourself an out) and how much
you push your ability level.

So the original statement about inherent danger of IFR really doesn't
logically say much about any one person nor their flying. And the statistics
merely give percentages of accidents related to flying hours so doesn't
really relate to your personal flying.

When you get an instrument rating you then have to assess your competency
and use good judgment in choosing your limits in accordance with all factors.

....Edwin
--
__________________________________________________ __________
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward, for there you have been, there you long to
return."-da Vinci http://bellsouthpwp2.net/e/d/edwinljohnson