IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?

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.

"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.

Do you guys do that?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



I don't file IFR for VMC flights. I want to experience the freedom of
flight. However, I am very comfortable on the radio so enroute bantering
with controllers, I don't need. I do hold myself to IFR standards for course
and altitude. I will, however, ask for an approach at the destination, if I
don't think I'll get in the way.

The problem is that, when it is VMC, the vectoring and the approach are
about as simple as it can get. When the weather is iffy, that's when you get
turned outbound to fall in line with a string of other planes on the
approach or put into a hold or ...

I do agree that it is beneficial to file everytime until one is comfortable
with the system. After that, filing does not really do much to improve IMC
flying skills (while following instructions) which is the killer.
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sorry, it sounds a little like you're trolling.

In other words, you disagree. Why not just say so instead of pretending
that
there is something objectively wrong with someone else's expression of
opinion?

Actually, you're both wrong. I am neither trolling, nor expressing my
opinion. Rather, I am seeking a risk assessment from experienced IFR
pilots who regularly fly IFR in light piston aircraft.

If I am ever to proceed to the IR, it's must be with the full consent
of my co-pilot. If she and I determine that the risk of GA instrument
flight is simply too high to bear -- or, worse, if we disagree on that
risk, and she simply won't fly instruments with me -- there is no need
to proceed to that next rating.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Just having the rating won't force you into higher risk situations. With
each flight, you still choose what level of risk you are willing to take.
Haven't flown IFR for a while? Then don't do a flight that will require hard
IFR enroute followed by an approach to mins.

There is still a lot of value in getting up or down through a deck or doing
an approach to a 1000 foot ceiling. Very managable risks.

For me, an IFR rating allows me to make more trips on my schedule. Not all.
But more.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

Ok, statistics say that you are twice as likely to die if you are IFR vs
VFR (apparently - at least that's what kicked off this thread). Also, there
was a recent thread comparing the statistics for GA vs scheduled airlines...

Some more to consider - You are 29 times more likely to die if you are
behind the wheel of an Acura RSX vs a Chevy Astro minivan. Jay - you drive a
Mustang, right? Did you know you are 21 times as likely to die compared to
the Astro? Here's another good one - The death rate for the Mercury Grand
Marquis is 66% higher than the Ford Crown Victoria - and they are the same
car!!!
(Based on driver deaths per number of registerd vehicles)

Correlation does not imply causality.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

The death rate for the Mercury Grand
Marquis is 66% higher than the Ford Crown Victoria -
and they are the same car!!!

They are not, however, the same drivers. Consider who the brands appeal to.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose writes:

They are not, however, the same drivers. Consider who the brands appeal to.

The same applies to aviation.

The raw statistics are only meaningful if you have absolutely no control over
the situation and your situation is identical to the average situation.
However, a pilot, like a car driver or motorcycle rider, has a great deal of
control over the situation, which means that overall statistics may be
entirely inapplicable to an individual pilot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 21 Apr, 23:06, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jose writes:
They are not, however, the same drivers. Consider who the brands appeal to.

The same applies to aviation.

The raw statistics are only meaningful if you have absolutely no control over
the situation and your situation is identical to the average situation.
However, a pilot, like a car driver or motorcycle rider, has a great deal of
control over the situation, which means that overall statistics may be
entirely inapplicable to an individual pilot.

How would you know, wannabe boi?


Bertie