If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?
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" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?
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" |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?
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" |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?
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? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?
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" |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?
"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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
IFR Flight Twice as Deadly as VFR?
"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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 32 | February 5th 04 02:34 PM |
Deadly Rhode Island Collision in the Air - KWST | John | Piloting | 0 | November 17th 03 04:12 AM |
Town honors WWII pilot who averted deadly crash | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 1st 03 09:33 PM |
Flak, Evasive Action And the Deadly games we played | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 1 | August 8th 03 09:00 PM |
Flak, Evasive Action And the Deadly games we played | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 2 | August 8th 03 02:28 PM |