IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jay please get a grip. IFR flying demands a higher level of
all skills and attributes that a pilot can have. It is very
_unforgiving_ of someone having those negative aspects (you know
gota-get-there-itis, "I don't need to follow the rules",
yadda yadda) It is unforgiving of someone who does poor flight
planning.

I understand that poor piloting and/or judgment is gonna kill you
faster in IMC than in VMC.

It's worth reading Collins' column this month, if for no other reason
than to read the IFR accidents he describes. It is pretty clear from
his narration that these pilots were not chumps, were not out of
currency, were not breaking any rules, and were definitely flying some
VERY nice equipment.

Yeah...four out of how many?

Read a slew of the NTSB reports and notice how many pilots were on the
margin of currency.


THAT is what I'm getting at here. I've flown 12 years in a lot of
different conditions, some of it IFR, some of it faux VFR, some of it
in very nice airplanes, some of it in rental beaters. Throughout,
I've endeavored to fly professionally and precisely, and I have always
been successful.

What worries me about pursuing the instrument rating is that the
pilots described in this column apparently behaved the same way I do.
Further, they were flying better-equipped aircraft than I can afford,
yet they still ended up killing themselves. There are many things --
too many? -- that can go wrong with a light GA piston aircraft, both
from a systems standpoint as well as from a personal piloting
standpoint, many of which can kill you in IMC.

And equipment failure is such a tiny percent of accident causation.


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?

Jay, you're trying to fit the question to your predetermined answer.

What is the risk of doing something stupid?