IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

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!!!)

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"

"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.

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.

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.

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

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