IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

john smith wrote:
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

And just why should we listen to Mary's judgment? :-)

Matt, did you ever watch "Rumpole of the Baily"?

How did Rumpole refer to his wife?

Never heard of it!

How did Rumpole refer to his wife?

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

john smith wrote:
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

And just why should we listen to Mary's judgment? :-)

Matt, did you ever watch "Rumpole of the Baily"?

How did Rumpole refer to his wife?

Never heard of it!

How did Rumpole refer to his wife?

She who must be obeyed.

"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.

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.

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

On 14 Apr 2007 06:13:14 -0700, "Jay Honeck" 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 do not in the local area. I almost always file IFR on a trip to an
unfamiliar location, or if there is any question of weather.
--ron

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"

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...

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

This seems to be the bottom line: A slight increase in risk over
regular flying is one thing; a 100% increase in fatalities is
something different. Is it worth it?

100% of a small number is still a small number.

Assuming that 3 fatal accidents in 100,000 hours is correct, and that
the average age of an instrument rated pilot is about 40 years of age (I
saw the actual number in IFR recently and it's something like that) then
by flying 50 hours a year of IFR you're reducing your expected lifespan
by about a week.

If you're worried about it lose 10 pounds, limit yourself to two beers a
day, or floss every day. Statistically, the positive effects on your
expected lifespan of these acts dwarf the negative effect of flying IFR.

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.