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.

I haven't seen the report you reference but I would suspect it is not
comparing IFR vs VFR flights. It is more probably comparing IMC vs VMC
flying condition accidents. Many fatal accidents occur to a VFR only
qualified pilot accidentally (or sometimes on purpose) leaving VMC and
entering IMC flight conditions for which he is not qualified.

Many General Aviation aircraft are minimally outfitted for IMC flight. Add
to that a pilot who is not IFR/IMC qualified and you have a recipe for
disaster when that pilot continues flight into adverse weather conditions.
He most frequently tries to stay below the clouds pushing him closer to the
terrain.

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler Web Site
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
Cadet Class 55-I Web Site
http://pilotclass55india.org/



"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"

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.

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.

I'm on my way out the door to SNF here, but I saw this and had to take
a minute to respond.

"Single-pilot IFR" (notwithstanding my unusual two-pilot family) is
precisely what I mean when I refer to flying IFR in light GA
aircraft. Since few of us have CRM training, dual controls, or
redundant flight systems, "single pilot IFR" is the only IFR flying I
care about.

The statistics in Collins' column are especially relevant because he
has filtered out the professional airline pilots.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 13 Apr 2007 21:28:32 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

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?

Statistics in GA are questionable, in part because we have no real idea
what the denominator is. I have no idea if his statistics are valid when
applied to "me".


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

Maintenance to a high standard of both airplane and pilot. If either is
not performing to standard, it gets looked at pretty closely and pretty
quickly.


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?

No.

How do you feel about
strapping your family into a light aircraft and launching into the
clag?

I feel fine g.

--ron

I picked up an interesting bit of info yesterday...

More fatalities occur during flights with a 'mission' as opposed to flights 'in the local area.' What this is saying is
that when someone has a flight scheduled and there are commitments made, the pilot is more likely to make risky judgment
calls - the old 'get homeitus' syndrome. IFR flight is made for those with a need to accomplish the mission - when it
absolutely positively has to get there overnight. How many operations daily are 'in the system' vs. those vfr flights
that are just for convenience.

Now, from a statistics point of view, do those 'ifr' flights reflect more occasions where there is a commitment the
pilot has made? Is there more pressure to accomplish the mission at all costs? Probably, but the stats need to be dug
through to find out.

I didn't read the article in question, but of course there accidents by well qualified pilots with the best equipment.
Are these the rule? Absolutely not.

I am surprised by the sensationalistic presentation of these stats. I suppose that is why I don't subscribe to Flying
magazine any more...