IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1176556394.244027.92260
@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

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?

Yes. However, there are certain exceptions.

1) I am on the maintenance committee of my flying club. We fly planes on
short hops to neighboring airports for certain service. I don't file for
those flights unless the weather legitimately requires me to. I often fly
the approaches even if I flew VFR. In thinking about it, there is probably
no reason not to file every one of these flights, too...

2) Although it's been a while, if I take a friend or family member for a
sightseeing flight, we go VFR. I don't think a request to "Circle the
Lady" would be appreciated by NY Approach at 2000'.

3) I had been flying into and out of BWI a bunch. Flying IFR from HPN to
BWI they send you quite the long way around (they add about 20% on a 175
mile trip). A couple of times I flew VFR (or cancelled IFR after getting
outside the ADIZ) because I didn't want to spend the extra time or money
taking the long way around. In some cases, I asked for VFR on Top and a
direct clearance to avoid some of the delay. But in at least 1 case they
wouldn't give it to me so I canceled.

4) There have been a few other occassions where filing IFR would have put
me into situations that I prefered to avoid, so I went VFR. On one
memorable occassion, there was a significant wind change at the cloud bases
about 5000'. I wanted to stay underneath it at 3000', and filing IFR would
have put me up into the unfavorable winds. So I didn't file and flew
underneath it at 3000'. This type of situation also holds true for icing. I
have flown VFR underneath weather because the typical/minimum IFR altitude
would have put me into clouds with known icing. In this area, even though
the MEA is 4000', there are some handoff agreements with NY approach that
everyone comes in at 6000'. I would guess if there were real issues at
6000', they would break their agreement and let me fly lower, but I have
not ever been bold enough to try to find out.



Other than that, I file. It certainly doesn't hurt having an extra set of
eyes watching you..

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

Thomas Borchert writes:

That's because it's what HE does. ALL his articles are about what HE
does. A very narrow view on the world...

That's why they call them columnists.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

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.

Jose wrote:
I've seldom had a problem with getting the route or altitude I wanted
when flying IFR in VMC.

If you need to fly low, especially below the MEAs, VFR makes a good option.

Jose

Certainly. I generally don't fly low on cross country flights, but for
local flights I do, but then I generally can't get radar coverage anyway
so flight following falls off the option list also.

Matt

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

Mxsmanic,

That's because it's what HE does. ALL his articles are about what HE
does. A very narrow view on the world...

That's why they call them columnists.


Have you even read a simulated edition of Flying?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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"

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...

On Apr 14, 7:14 pm, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
Mxsmanic,

That's because it's what HE does. ALL his articles are about what HE
does. A very narrow view on the world...

That's why they call them columnists.

Have you even read a simulated edition of Flying?


Down down down he goes..

Bertie