IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

In article . com,
"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!!!)

In article . com,
"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.

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

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 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

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

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!!!)

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"

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"

"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.