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

kontiki 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?
>>
> 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.

You take risks every day and every flight.

Matt

> 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.

I understand that poor piloting and/or judgment is gonna kill you
faster in IMC than in VMC.

It's worth reading Collins' column this month, if for no other reason
than to read the IFR accidents he describes. It is pretty clear from
his narration that these pilots were not chumps, were not out of
currency, were not breaking any rules, and were definitely flying some
VERY nice equipment.

THAT is what I'm getting at here. I've flown 12 years in a lot of
different conditions, some of it IFR, some of it faux VFR, some of it
in very nice airplanes, some of it in rental beaters. Throughout,
I've endeavored to fly professionally and precisely, and I have always
been successful.

What worries me about pursuing the instrument rating is that the
pilots described in this column apparently behaved the same way I do.
Further, they were flying better-equipped aircraft than I can afford,
yet they still ended up killing themselves. There are many things --
too many? -- that can go wrong with a light GA piston aircraft, both
from a systems standpoint as well as from a personal piloting
standpoint, many of which can kill you in IMC.

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?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Is your objective minimum risk or acceptable risk?

Acceptable, of course. If I was going for minimal risk, my life would
be very different, indeed.

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?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> 3.3 accidents per 100,000 hours

The simple answer to the question is that I'm comfortable with these
odds. It doesn't matter to me if it's safer or more dangerous than some
other activity.

> 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.

I agree with everything you have said, Matt, except that your
comparison assumes that you don't have the third option, which is to
stay on the ground.

Obviously flying VFR into IMC is going to kill you. Good VFR pilots
stay on the ground when the weather goes to pot.

Given this fact, you can, indeed, compare the different missions. And
the fact remains (apparently, if we assume that Collins is correct)
that you will die twice as often flying on instruments, as you will
flying visually.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 14 Apr 2007 05:56:51 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:


>Rather, I am seeking a risk assessment from experienced IFR
>pilots who regularly fly IFR in light piston aircraft.

The basic flaw with this is you will only hear from those pilots that
are still alive. The pilots who can give you a negative view of the
risk are not available to reply to your thread. I think it is
appalling that you think it is ok to keep you wife and children in the
dark about the risks of flying. LSA aircraft carry a placard to warn
passengers that the plane is not certified because the FAA thinks they
have a right to know. Does your family deserve any less?

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"
>

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Is your objective minimum risk or acceptable risk?
>
> Acceptable, of course. If I was going for minimal risk, my life would
> be very different, indeed.
>
> 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.

His recommendation in that regard was for maintaining proficiency, the
hardest part of IFR flying.

> Do you guys do that?

Probably half of my flights.

Business (not Corporate) aviation is quite more likely to fly IFR, and their
accident rate is something like (I'm to lazy to look it up right now) four
times better than recreational flying.

One thing from the article (I "borrowed" a copy of the mag) is that Collins
was talking absolute numbers, but remember that the 30% of "bigger" iron
flys 70% of the hours.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> What worries me about pursuing the instrument rating is that the
> pilots described in this column apparently behaved the same way I do.
> Further, they were flying better-equipped aircraft than I can afford,
> yet they still ended up killing themselves.

You can find plenty of similar VFR examples where highly qualified pilots
crashed highly capable aircraft.

None of us should presume that his skill and caution makes flying as safe as
driving a car under *any* conditions.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> 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.
>
> I understand that poor piloting and/or judgment is gonna kill you
> faster in IMC than in VMC.
>
> It's worth reading Collins' column this month, if for no other reason
> than to read the IFR accidents he describes. It is pretty clear from
> his narration that these pilots were not chumps, were not out of
> currency, were not breaking any rules, and were definitely flying some
> VERY nice equipment.

Yeah...four out of how many?

Read a slew of the NTSB reports and notice how many pilots were on the
margin of currency.

>
> THAT is what I'm getting at here. I've flown 12 years in a lot of
> different conditions, some of it IFR, some of it faux VFR, some of it
> in very nice airplanes, some of it in rental beaters. Throughout,
> I've endeavored to fly professionally and precisely, and I have always
> been successful.
>
> What worries me about pursuing the instrument rating is that the
> pilots described in this column apparently behaved the same way I do.
> Further, they were flying better-equipped aircraft than I can afford,
> yet they still ended up killing themselves. There are many things --
> too many? -- that can go wrong with a light GA piston aircraft, both
> from a systems standpoint as well as from a personal piloting
> standpoint, many of which can kill you in IMC.

And equipment failure is such a tiny percent of accident causation.

>
> 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?

Jay, you're trying to fit the question to your predetermined answer.

What is the risk of doing something stupid?

> 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.

> The basic flaw with this is you will only hear from those pilots that
> are still alive. The pilots who can give you a negative view of the
> risk are not available to reply to your thread.

Great (if depressing) point.

> I think it is
> appalling that you think it is ok to keep you wife and children in the
> dark about the risks of flying. LSA aircraft carry a placard to warn
> passengers that the plane is not certified because the FAA thinks they
> have a right to know. Does your family deserve any less?

On the contrary, my wife is an experienced pilot who is all-too aware
of the risks of flying. Despite this, we routinely launch to all
points on the map, because we have accepted the risks inherent with
VFR flight. (In fact, we're launching for Florida tomorrow.)

My children are another thing entirely, and we have debated this since
birth. Subjecting them to the increased risk of GA has always been
problematic, but we've always decided on the side of "living" versus
"waiting to die", because GA has made it possible to give our kids so
much more than would otherwise have been possible.

Right now I'm trying to dispassionately assess the risks of IFR
flight, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Collins' article
was quite a wake-up call for me, in that regard.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> 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. I am not advocating scud running, but if you are in good
visual conditions and can =see= the weather ahead, and are not
constrained by IFR routings and altitudes, you can sometimes pick a
safer way to get from where you are to where you need to be, and then
you can pop up as needed.

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

> IFR pilots can more easily be lured into making riskier flights.

Therein lies the rub. My weather tolerance is already higher (or,
would that be lower?) than Mary's. In other words, I will launch on a
flight with higher winds and lower visibility than Mary will, and this
has held true since she got her ticket.

Why? I don't know. Her assessment of risk is more strict than mine,
and her comfort level is correspondingly lower.

Projecting ourselves into the instrument rating, say, three years from
now, I wonder how our preflight planning would go? Right now, she is
comfortable flying with me at my comfort level -- she has no problem
skipping a leg if the weather is below her comfort -- but will that
hold true in IMC?

I think if it were just me flying, getting the IR -- and using it --
would be a simple, logical next step. Factor in Mary and the kids,
and it becomes much more problematic.

Risk assessment of this sort is difficult.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Apr 14, 8:10 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >
> I understand that poor piloting and/or judgment is gonna kill you
> faster in IMC than in VMC.
>
> It's worth reading Collins' column this month, if for no other reason
> than to read the IFR accidents he describes. It is pretty clear from
> his narration that these pilots were not chumps, were not out of
> currency, were not breaking any rules, and were definitely flying some
> VERY nice equipment.
>
> THAT is what I'm getting at here. I've flown 12 years in a lot of
> different conditions, some of it IFR, some of it faux VFR, some of it
> in very nice airplanes, some of it in rental beaters. Throughout,
> I've endeavored to fly professionally and precisely, and I have always
> been successful.
>
> What worries me about pursuing the instrument rating is that the
> pilots described in this column apparently behaved the same way I do.
> Further, they were flying better-equipped aircraft than I can afford,
> yet they still ended up killing themselves. There are many things --
> too many? -- that can go wrong with a light GA piston aircraft, both
> from a systems standpoint as well as from a personal piloting
> standpoint, many of which can kill you in IMC.
>
> 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?
>

Good points mentioned in the thread - here's my distillation. Jay, if
you look at every flight whether VFR or IFR as an independant event,
each time you measure the risk then decide to fly or not. When flying
in weather there are more factors to consider because the margin for
error is reduced. The capability of the pilot & airplane have to be
considered in the decision process, and that requires an honest
evaluation of your own abilities and comfort level flying in IMC.

Assuming a well maintained airplane and a current (and proficient) IFR
pilot, the wild card ends up being the severity of weather conditions.
A 1000ft ceiling with a thin cloud deck that you'd be flying on top of
in the sunshine is a lot less risky IMO than getting bumped while
flying in the clag the whole trip and not seeing the ground between
takeoff and touchdown. Essentially I'm comparing light IFR to "hard"
IFR where you're flying the approach down to minimums.

This risk isn't limited to light pistons either - turbine aircraft get
balled up on occasion too, probably because their pilots are under a
schedule and that influences their decision, or they overestimate
their aircraft's capabilities and fly into weather they shouldn't. We
fly the PC12 in weather that I wouldn't fly in a piston single, but
there have been times when the weather was beyond that plane's safe
capability and the flight got scrubbed. The instrument rating gives
you more flexibility as a pilot, but it also gives you enough rope to
hang yourself if you're not vigilant. I've figured out over the years
that you'll usually be OK if you never exceed your own capabilities or
those of the airplane.

> I realize the latter benefit is obtained also with VFR flight following, but once you go that far, why not just file IFR?

Route and altitude flexibility.

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

On Apr 14, 9:26 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
[snip]
> I agree with everything you have said, Matt, except that your
> comparison assumes that you don't have the third option, which is to
> stay on the ground.
>
> Obviously flying VFR into IMC is going to kill you. Good VFR pilots
> stay on the ground when the weather goes to pot.
>
[snip]
Jay,

You are absolutely correct: ALL competent pilots choose to stay on the
ground sometimes.

Just because you have an instrument rating dosen't mean you have to
make a particular flight. You do have more options with the rating
(and proficiency!) than without.

I've read some of your other posts where you stated that something
under 5% of your potential flights were canceled by weather even
though you only choose to fly VFR. If that's true, my personal opinion
is you don't need the rating or the extra work to stay proficient. Why
bother if you're not going to use it?

I plan to start mine as soon as I can afford it. But I want to use
mine to travel on business, and I have the kind of business trips in
my future that make a lot of sense in GA: 200-300nm trips where
airlines take 4-8 hours door to door because of routing & security &
general hassle. Being able to fly when there is weather in between
here & there, or I have to punch out of a low cloud base here or
through an overcast there will help me a lot. I will have STRICT
personal minimums (as I do for VFR) that I WILL follow.

I personally am reconciled with the risks for two reasons: 1) I want
to live, not just survive 2) There is a lot of variability from pilot
to pilot that statistics can never cover.

John Stevens

On flights of say, 100 nm or more, I file on every flight. I'd guess that
80% of those flights end with an instrument approach.

I haven't read Collin's article, but my opinion of "blanket" statements or
articles comparing the safety of VFR to IFR, or more accurately flight in
VMC to flight in IMC, is that they do a serious disservice to both
non-instrument rated and instrument rated pilots alike. To paint a picture
that VFR flight vs IFR flight is as different as black and white leads the
uninformed to believe that every VFR flight is made in perfect clear, blue,
and a million conditions and that every IFR flight is conducted in
continuous imbedded thunderstorms, turbulence, and overcast stretching from
minimums upward and beyond the stratosphere. Most pilots, whether
instrument rated or not, know better. The general public may not.
Irresponsible media personalities may not. Government officials seeking a
new reason to impose user fees on GA may not.

Hopefully all pilots, whether instrument rated or not, progress through a
continual decision making process before and during each flight. Hopefully
after each flight they do a self evaluation and critic of the flight and
their performance. Hopefully they learn something that they carry forward
into their future flights.

The decision making process begins on the ground. Just as VFR only pilots
have a set of criteria which they apply to themselves, their airplane,
equipment, prevailing as well as forecast weather conditions, IFR pilots
also have their own personal criteria.

Much has been said about personal minimums for both VFR and IFR pilots.
Much has been said about pilot proficiency vs. legal currency. Without a
doubt an IFR pilot considering a flight in IMC has a longer list of criteria
and a more complex set of decisions to make. This is when the many shades
of gray between the black and white of VFR/VMC vs IFR/IMC come into play.
Most VFR only pilots can make a quick, accurate, and safe decision about
launching into calm CAVU conditions for a quick flight ending at a
destination forecast to be the same. Most IFR pilots can make an accurate
and safe decision to launch into a stable, layered, overcast well above
minimums, in non icing conditions, over flat terrain, in a IFR certified and
well equipped aircraft. See the difference? Just as many VFR pilots will
scrub a flight that would lead them towards or into MVFR conditions, IFR
pilots scrub flights for many reasons.

As conditions worsen decision making becomes harder. It becomes harder to
find our own personal minimum level of comfort. Human factors and outside
influences come into play. Airport services must be more closely
scrutinized. Weather must be considered to be worse than forecast. All
available information must be applied to one's honest personal proficiency
level. IFR flights in IMC present more opportunities for a pilot to make
poor decisions. Poor decisions can be deadly. Poor decisions made in VMC
offer a pilot more time to correct their poor decision. IMC is less
forgiving to poor decision making and a lack of proficiency. Does this make
it more dangerous? or does IMC simply require that more decisions be made
properly if the flight is to have it's intended outcome?

Jim

On 14 Apr 2007 07:07:07 -0400, (Frank Ch. Eigler)
wrote in >:

>> 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.

And recent experience.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Is your objective minimum risk or acceptable risk?
>
> Acceptable, of course. If I was going for minimal risk, my life would
> be very different, indeed.
>
> 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 file on every flight that is a cross country flight. I don't file if
I'm just going up for sight-seeing in the local area, but I do request
flight following.

I don't always end every flight with an instrument approach per se, but
I almost always tune in the ILS if the runway is so equipped and use it
for guidance even on visual approaches.

Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> 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.

I think it is logical that flying IFR will increase your overall risk of
flying if for no other reason being that you may fly more. You will now
make flights that would have left you grounded under VFR.

Matt

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?

I do not believe that is the correct way to interpret the statistics.
You have to make the comparison on a flight by flight basis and compare
the risk of making any given flight under VFR vs. IFR. I don't think
that is what Collins was doing. I read the article, but have to admit
that it really didn't even catch my attention. I may have to go back
and read it again if I didn't throw out the magazine yet.

I personally feel more comfortable being "in the system" than not now
that I've flown IFR for 12 years. Even in CAVU conditions (which are
rare in the northeast), I still file IFR almost every flight. It is
easier than filing a VFR flight plan as I don't have to talk to two
different organizations (ATC and FSS, just ATC). I don't have to worry
about forgetting to close my flight plan. And I'm always in
communication with someone so if the crap hits the fan, I only have to
press the PTT, no tuning to 121.5 or looking for another ATC frequency.
I realize the latter benefit is obtained also with VFR flight
following, but once you go that far, why not just file IFR?


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I agree with everything you have said, Matt, except that your
> comparison assumes that you don't have the third option, which is to
> stay on the ground.

No, that is just such an obvious option that I didn't mention it, at
least not in that post. I did mention the driving option later and,
obviously, staying home is always an option. However, if you consider
driving or flying the airlines, then, from purely a risk perspective,
you will NEVER fly in your airplane again as it is ALWAYS riskier than
driving or flying the airlines.

:-)

Matt

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
<...>
> It's worth reading Collins' column this month, if for no other reason
> than to read the IFR accidents he describes. It is pretty clear from
> his narration that these pilots were not chumps, were not out of
> currency, were not breaking any rules, and were definitely flying some
> VERY nice equipment.
<...>

I don't get Flying, so I have to ask... So, who are we talking about? Air
ambulances that fly "no matter what" - ice, below minimums, imbedded CB...?
Freight dogs that fly "no matter what"? What do you mean "VERY nice
equipment" - I've known guys who flew what sounds like nice equipment for
outfits that did most of their maintainence on paper (and paper only). Where
is Mr. Schnerd, RN and some of his stories about flying cancelled checks? "I
don't know why we bothered to check the weather - we flew anyhow..." That
kind of flying does not do much for one's life expectancy.

Then there are the guys that really have no buisness flying in IMC. Remember
when Bonanza's were called "Fork Tailed Doctor Killers"?

You don't strike me as someone who frequently falls victim to the number one
cause of death among pilots - "Get-there-ites". That has to make a HUGE
differnence in your odds - IFR or VFR...

True story: One of the old-timers at the airport (you probably know the guy
if you've spent any time at a small airport) who had an old Stinson. He
didn't bother with medicals any more because he didn't think he could pass.
He didn't bother with annuals on the Stinson any more either. One day, he
was talking about flying back from Oshkosh with the grandkids - he had
decided to fly across Lake Michigan. Well, as you might expect, it was a
little hazy and he had to resort to instruments. Now, instruments in the
Stinson consisted of needle, ball, airspeed, altimiter, and magnetic
compass. So, he's flying needle ball and airspeed and after a while starts
to wonder why he wasn't over land. So he checks the compass and realizes
that he has drifted off course and is flying south - the length of the lake.
So he makes a left turn to head for shore, and, obviously, makes it home OK.
Now, Jay, would you have tried to pull a stunt like that?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Jay,

> 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.
>

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 what you get for the price of the mag (it's basically free).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

I see a number of columns by Collins on the _Flying_ Web site for April; which
one is the one under discussion here?

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

Jose wrote:
>> I realize the latter benefit is obtained also with VFR flight
>> following, but once you go that far, why not just file IFR?
>
> Route and altitude flexibility.

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

Matt

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1176559225.748776.282140
@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

>> IFR pilots can more easily be lured into making riskier flights.
>
> Therein lies the rub. My weather tolerance is already higher (or,
> would that be lower?) than Mary's. In other words, I will launch on a
> flight with higher winds and lower visibility than Mary will, and this
> has held true since she got her ticket.
>
> Why? I don't know. Her assessment of risk is more strict than mine,
> and her comfort level is correspondingly lower.
>
> Projecting ourselves into the instrument rating, say, three years from
> now, I wonder how our preflight planning would go? Right now, she is
> comfortable flying with me at my comfort level -- she has no problem
> skipping a leg if the weather is below her comfort -- but will that
> hold true in IMC?
>
> I think if it were just me flying, getting the IR -- and using it --
> would be a simple, logical next step. Factor in Mary and the kids,
> and it becomes much more problematic.
>
> Risk assessment of this sort is difficult.

If she already trusts you to use good judgement now, I don't think that
will change just because the weather will be lower. Actually, the fact that
she already flies with you even when she wouldn't fly herself implies that
she would continue to do so if you had your IR. You'll have done the
training, and having your family with you will probably make you more
conservative, not more liberal. If you don't feel up to it, you'll probably
call it off rather than risk your whole family. But I suspect there will
also be plenty of times when you will be glad to be able to fly a
relatively relaxing IFR flight through a layer that you would have
otherwise had to scud run through or around.

Initially you may create some personal minimums that will keep you safe -
like not flying if you don't have a VFR alternate, or if the ceilings are
lower than 1000', etc. This way if something does go wrong, you have more
options. Then, as everybody gets more comfortable with the whole flying in
the soup thing, you may decide to reduce those minimums, or start being
slightly more flexible. Because your airport doesn't have a precision
approach, you're pretty much locked into 500' ceilings anyway.

After I had flown IFR for a while, I have become a little more liberal
with minimums when flying home, since it's an ILS and I'm extremely
familiar with the area and the approach and know what to expect from ATC.

But I haven't flown much IFR in the last 4 months or so, and even though
I'm still legally current for another month or so, I wouldn't fly home in
500' today... (I've been flying with a lot of tray tables in front of me
lately.)

Anyway, nothing is stopping you from making good decisions just because
you have your IR. And my guess is that Mary will be a good cross-check
without overly inhibiting you because she is a pilot too.

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

"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
:

> 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

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
<...>
> I think for Jay, the instrument rating is totally beneficial, and the
> added
> risks would be tempered by his judgement...

Mary's judgement. Which, apparently, he listens to. Not like some of us.
:-)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

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.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
> <...>
>> I think for Jay, the instrument rating is totally beneficial, and the
>> added
>> risks would be tempered by his judgement...
>
> Mary's judgement. Which, apparently, he listens to. Not like some of us.
> :-)

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

Matt

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 news:DW9Uh.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.

"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.

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?

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

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Given this fact, you can, indeed, compare the different missions. And
> the fact remains (apparently, if we assume that Collins is correct)
> that you will die twice as often flying on instruments, as you will
> flying visually.

You can only die once. :-/

And I'm not convinced that statistics provide valid prediction of
future events.

Manage the risks.

Flying IFR in IMC has a risk of weather going downhill enroute and/or
at the destination (we have a similar risk when VFR). You can decrease
the probability of arriving at your destination only to find the weather
below your capabilities by monitoring weather reports and forecasts,
diverting when needed.

Manage the risks.

Flying IFR in IMC has a risk of icing. You can decrease the probability
of inflight icing by never flying in visible moisture at or below freezing.
(one thing Atlas provides is power, you might take the chance of
descending thru a thin overcast - but that increases the risk of icing)

Manage the risks.

Flying IFR in IMC has a risk of CFIT, especially in mountainous terrain.
You can lower the probility of CFIT with a TAWS installation or a TAWS-like
capability.

Manage the risks.

Flying IFR in IMC has risks associated with the approach at the end of
the flight, where the pilot is most tired, and has diminishing options
due to fuel reserves. You can decrease the risks associated with
being tired when flying the approach by some combination of autopilot
use and self-imposed duty-day limitations.

Manage the risks.

CRM can help reduce pilot error on your flights, decreasing your risks.

Manage the risks.

Notice that most of the above can impact VFR flying as well, not just IFR
flying.


Have you read "Instrument Flying" by Taylor and "Weather Flying" by Buck?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article om>,
"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?

I still think you are misusing the statistics by not keeping them
in perspective.

In any case. If you are concerned about relative risks, I think
we can agree that the airlines have a much better safety record
than small GA. But so what? Safe enough is safe enough.

If the probability of being hit by lightning was, say, 0.00000001
and the probability of being killed by a tornado was, say 0.00000004,
would you care about the difference?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

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 om>,
"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.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:28:24 -0400, Pixel Dent >
wrote in >:

>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'.

That must have put within 500' of the surface terrain at some point.

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:28:24 -0400, Pixel Dent >
> wrote in >:
>
> >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'.
>
> That must have put within 500' of the surface terrain at some point.

No, not even within 1000'. It was coming out of Roanoke, VA which is
more or less surrounded by a circle of hills of greatly varying heights.
The Departure procedures and the IFR routes in the direction I was going
all took you right over a 4000' hill, but if you zig out to the East
like I did you just need to cross a 2000' hill before you're out of
mountains and over the lowlands.

Yeah, I suspect I could have eventually negotiated an IFR route which
took me over that 2000' hill instead, and maybe they would have even had
radar coverage at the lower altitude I wanted to fly (although they said
I was too low for flight following), but this is one case where I felt
safer picking my own route and altitude VFR than flying IFR.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:44:49 -0400, Pixel Dent >
wrote in >:

>this is one case where I felt
>safer picking my own route and altitude VFR than flying IFR.

Right. Why unnecessarily choose IMC over VMC when there is no
necessity.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Is your objective minimum risk or acceptable risk?
>
> Acceptable, of course. If I was going for minimal risk, my life would
> be very different, indeed.
>
> 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?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


I don't file IFR for VMC flights. I want to experience the freedom of
flight. However, I am very comfortable on the radio so enroute bantering
with controllers, I don't need. I do hold myself to IFR standards for course
and altitude. I will, however, ask for an approach at the destination, if I
don't think I'll get in the way.

The problem is that, when it is VMC, the vectoring and the approach are
about as simple as it can get. When the weather is iffy, that's when you get
turned outbound to fall in line with a string of other planes on the
approach or put into a hold or ...

I do agree that it is beneficial to file everytime until one is comfortable
with the system. After that, filing does not really do much to improve IMC
flying skills (while following instructions) which is the killer.
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > 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"
>

Just having the rating won't force you into higher risk situations. With
each flight, you still choose what level of risk you are willing to take.
Haven't flown IFR for a while? Then don't do a flight that will require hard
IFR enroute followed by an approach to mins.

There is still a lot of value in getting up or down through a deck or doing
an approach to a 1000 foot ceiling. Very managable risks.

For me, an IFR rating allows me to make more trips on my schedule. Not all.
But more.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

Ok, statistics say that you are twice as likely to die if you are IFR vs
VFR (apparently - at least that's what kicked off this thread). Also, there
was a recent thread comparing the statistics for GA vs scheduled airlines...

Some more to consider - You are 29 times more likely to die if you are
behind the wheel of an Acura RSX vs a Chevy Astro minivan. Jay - you drive a
Mustang, right? Did you know you are 21 times as likely to die compared to
the Astro? Here's another good one - The death rate for the Mercury Grand
Marquis is 66% higher than the Ford Crown Victoria - and they are the same
car!!!
(Based on driver deaths per number of registerd vehicles)

Correlation does not imply causality.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

> The death rate for the Mercury Grand
> Marquis is 66% higher than the Ford Crown Victoria -
> and they are the same car!!!

They are not, however, the same drivers. Consider who the brands appeal to.

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

Jose writes:

> They are not, however, the same drivers. Consider who the brands appeal to.

The same applies to aviation.

The raw statistics are only meaningful if you have absolutely no control over
the situation and your situation is identical to the average situation.
However, a pilot, like a car driver or motorcycle rider, has a great deal of
control over the situation, which means that overall statistics may be
entirely inapplicable to an individual pilot.

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

On 21 Apr, 23:06, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jose writes:
> > They are not, however, the same drivers. Consider who the brands appeal to.
>
> The same applies to aviation.
>
> The raw statistics are only meaningful if you have absolutely no control over
> the situation and your situation is identical to the average situation.
> However, a pilot, like a car driver or motorcycle rider, has a great deal of
> control over the situation, which means that overall statistics may be
> entirely inapplicable to an individual pilot.

How would you know, wannabe boi?


Bertie