(Michael) wrote in message . com...
The basic difference between flying VFR (at least by visual contact
with the surface - I'm not talking about 'pretend' VFR where you still
have to fly on the gauges and navigate with radios) and flying IFR is
this - when you are VFR, you can see what the weather around you is
doing and bail out when it gets scary. Airports are usually only a
few minutes apart in most of the US, and in a pinch most light singles
can be landed in a field. When you fly IFR, you often can't see the
weather. You have to determine what it's doing by other means, and
this is more complex. IFR flying is NOT for the pilot who isn't good
at figuring out what the weathe is doing. In most cases, this is
something that only develops with experience, so in general IFR flying
is not for the inexperienced pilot. The FAA used to require 200 (or
maybe 250) hours for the instrument rating, and I think that made a
lot of sense as an absolute minimum.

Michael has, IMO, a very valid point here. (in the post below,
"you" and "you're" are intended as general terms not referring
to Michael)

We do both -- fly VFR under the clouds in crud/file IFR and
stay over them.

There's no question in my mind that VFR flight under the clouds
requires a much higher degree of piloting skill and situational
awareness to manage safely. It's tough. It's uncomfortable.
And having a GPS helps, but only somewhat -- the best route is
often not "GPS direct" but along a river to a highway, through
the pass then left through the valley to the airport. Flying
on the centerline of a course directly into a terrain or obstacle
used to be called "the mark of Loran-guided death" now one could
substitute "GPS-guided".

From that POV, filing IFR and getting into a system where the
minimum safe altitudes are mapped out and navigation is easy,
looks much safer.

On the other hand, IFR flight is often deceptively easy. You can
file, pop through a layer into glorious sunshine, and go on
your way fat, dumb, and happy. It's very easy to get lulled into
complacency by how easy and comfortable it is, and stop asking
hard questions: what is the weather enroute? is there space between
the cloud base and terrain where I could maneuver to a survivable
landing if the engine quit? where is the nearest VFR weather where
I could land if my electrical system quit? What's the weather at my
destination and is it honestly within my capabilities for that
approach? What's the freezing level? How does it relate to the
MIAs on my route?

It's tough and uncomfortable to ask those questions when flying a
SE plane IFR. It makes it seem like maybe what you're doing is
no safer, maybe even not as safe, as bucking along in the crappy
vis under the clag. But IFR is safer, everyone "knows" that. It
feels safer. So pilots don't ask.

So then we get these sad accidents where someone flying a C182
crashes from fuel exhaustion on the way to his alternate airport
because he tried 3 ILS to his destination and couldn't make it in,
or where someone has an engine failure over inhospitable terrain
at night, or where someone picks up icing descending through clouds
on approach.

Cheers,
Sydney