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!!!)