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.

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!!!)

"Jay Honeck" writes:

[...] Twice as many deaths occur while flying under instrument
flight rules as they do in visual flight rules, per hour flown.
[...] 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.

Sorry, it sounds a little like you're trolling.

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?

Assuming the data was gathered and analyzed correctly, it's not a
matter of opinion.

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

The same way one minimizes non-IFR risks: good planning, equipment,
maintenance, judgement, performance. Remember, even two times a small
number is a small number.

3.Since IFR flight is statistically among the most dangerous things
you can do in a light GA aircraft [...]

Since when? The Nall report gives a broader analysis, listing for
example VFR-into-IMC as a popular way to end one's career.


- FChE

"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?

In general, yes, if you are talking about flying in *IMC*.

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

Training to stay proficient, not making more than two approaches to minimums,
avoiding circling approaches at night or when the weather is at minimums,
avoiding IMC that has imbedded CBs, being extremely conservative about
possible icing conditions.

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 don't do it at night or if the weather is really down over large areas
around my departure, route or destination.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Frank Ch. Eigler writes:

Sorry, it sounds a little like you're trolling.

In other words, you disagree. Why not just say so instead of pretending that
there is something objectively wrong with someone else's expression of
opinion?

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

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?

Not really... ait is all in the interpretation of the data.

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

I stay current, I use good judgement and keep my
airplane and equipment in as good shape as I can.
I also do not take risks.

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 please get a grip. IFR flying demands a higher level of
all skills and attributes that a pilot can have. It is very
_unforgiving_ of someone having those negative aspects (you know
gota-get-there-itis, "I don't need to follow the rules",
yadda yadda) It is unforgiving of someone who does poor flight
planning.

You must constantly (and honestly) assess you capabilities and
skill level not only month by month but even day to day and
make decisions accordingly. If you are uncapable of doing this
you are taking a risk.

Those are the facts and I'm sticking to them.

Sorry, it sounds a little like you're trolling.

In other words, you disagree. Why not just say so instead of pretending that
there is something objectively wrong with someone else's expression of
opinion?

Actually, you're both wrong. I am neither trolling, nor expressing my
opinion. Rather, I am seeking a risk assessment from experienced IFR
pilots who regularly fly IFR in light piston aircraft.

If I am ever to proceed to the IR, it's must be with the full consent
of my co-pilot. If she and I determine that the risk of GA instrument
flight is simply too high to bear -- or, worse, if we disagree on that
risk, and she simply won't fly instruments with me -- there is no need
to proceed to that next rating.
--
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.

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?

I have no idea where he got his stats or if they are valid. Having said
that, I wouldn't be surprised as you are flying in much more difficult
weather. It is just like flying in gusty cross-winds VFR. More landing
accidents happen VFR in cross winds than on calm or head-wind only days.
It just makes sense.

To me the only real comparison though is VFR vs IFR IN THE SAME WEATHER.
You can't compare different missions, in my opinion. I'll bet that
flying VFR in weather that is easy in IFR has a higher accident rate
than the same weather flown IFR. Comparing all of the easy VFR flights
against IFR isn't meaningful to me.

As for accepting the risk, I don't see it any differently than accepting
the risk of flying GA vs. driving, the latter which is many times safer.
Did you feel you were putting your family in peril on your recent
spring break tour? I believe that driving is now something like 7X
safer than flying a light airplane so you exposed your family to 7 times
a greater risk of dying than had you driven. I'm only doubling the risk
flying IFR rather than VFR, and that is only in the situation I describe
above which simply isn't legitimate.

If I'm planning to fly a given trip on a given day in given weather
conditions, the real question is: which is safer, IFR or VFR? If the
weather is VFR, then I don't see how there could be any significant
difference in the risk of filing IFR vs. VFR with a VFR flight plan.
Personally, I'd bet the former is actually safer. If the weather is
marginal VFR and requires flight in poor visibility or requires scud
running under the clouds and through the valleys, then I'll bet that IFR
is much safer than VFR. And if the weather is solid IFR, then VFR would
be impossible or quickly fatal making IFR not only much safer, but also
likely the only viable alternative.

I believe this is what matters, not a global VFR vs. IFR comparison as
that simply isn't relevant to real life trips or risk assessment.

Lastly, IFR is like VFR in the sense that most accidents are a result of
pilot error and thus preventable. If I maintain my proficiency, I feel
very comfortable flying IFR. If I'm not proficient (as at the moment,
unfortunately), then I don't fly if the weather is bad. Judgment is
still the biggest factor in risk management and that is true IFR or FVR.

Matt