Ron Garret writes:

Then you are missing something very fundamental: there is more to IFR
flight than simply flying by reference to instruments. It is also
flying according to a much more rigidly planned and stylized repertoire
of routes and maneuvers designed to keep you from hitting not only other
airplanes but also (and more importantly) terrain. That is why even
instrument-rated pilots flying instrument-equipped planes die on a
regular basis as a result of VFR flight into IMC.

If you have the right instruments, and an instrument rating, and ATC
to provide separation, why would it be dangerous?

I know that most IFR flights are rigidly planned, but it appears that
they don't have to be. You need to know where you are and where you
are going, but you don't have to plan every detail in advance.

That takes time. How are you going to keep from hitting things in the
meantime?

All it takes is a call to ATC. If you already know your instruments
and you already have your navaids and what-not set up, you already
know where you are and where you are going, irrespective of what you
can see out the window. You just look out the window for separation
and as an additional sanity check on your navigation, or just for
sightseeing. If visibility drops, you're covered, except for
separation--whence the call to ATC when you approach IMC.

Flying using instruments is NOT the same thing as flying IFR.

What are the differences? ATC provides separation and guidance for
IFR flights, but besides that, what changes?

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