IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

kontiki wrote:

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?

Not really... ait is all in the interpretation of the data.

2. Assuming the statistics are true, how do you minimize your risk?

I stay current, I use good judgement and keep my
airplane and equipment in as good shape as I can.
I also do not take risks.

You take risks every day and every flight.

Matt

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.

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.

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 Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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"

3.3 accidents per 100,000 hours

The simple answer to the question is that I'm comfortable with these
odds. It doesn't matter to me if it's safer or more dangerous than some
other activity.

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 14 Apr 2007 05:56:51 -0700, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


Rather, I am seeking a risk assessment from experienced IFR
pilots who regularly fly IFR in light piston aircraft.

The basic flaw with this is you will only hear from those pilots that
are still alive. The pilots who can give you a negative view of the
risk are not available to reply to your thread. I think it is
appalling that you think it is ok to keep you wife and children in the
dark about the risks of flying. LSA aircraft carry a placard to warn
passengers that the plane is not certified because the FAA thinks they
have a right to know. Does your family deserve any less?

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"

"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.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

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.

You can find plenty of similar VFR examples where highly qualified pilots
crashed highly capable aircraft.

None of us should presume that his skill and caution makes flying as safe as
driving a car under *any* conditions.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"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?