Data on IR pilots as better/safer?

A lot of us instrument rated weekend warriors mainly use it to climb and descend through a layer so we can fly on top and generally get in/out of places that wouldn’t be prudent even if legal VFR.

Most of my IFR flights I only log about .1 in IMC and that’s probably rounded up.

An instrument rating gives you more options to get yourself out of trouble.. or sometimes into more trouble. Either way it’s clearly better to have more options at your disposal than less
 
I've been a VFR only pilot for 30 years. I've got a fair bit of experience with long XC in sketchy weather.

I'm quite sure if I finally got my IFR rating, I would be a better pilot after the training, and I would be able to handle more situations safely.
 
When I did flight reviews for non instrument rated pilots one of the weakest areas was consistently the simulated instrument portion. About half had trouble with basic straight and level, turns, climbs, and descents.
Instrument training for the PPL is pretty perfunctory. While it's good to learn the idea of flying by instruments for the PPL, I don't recall being taught to fly instruments "by the numbers" like I was in my IR training. That makes all the difference in the world to fly by the gauges for more then a few minutes. Maybe my primary instructor was too old school.
 
You'll know the system better, radio work will improve, should be more precise in your flying, and more wx options. But unless you actually use it in IMC it expires fast, though modern autopilots can mask that a bit unfortunately.

While a typical flight might only be 10% IMC, some can be 50% or even once in a while 100%. Have to be able to deal with all clouds the whole flight if proficient IR.
 
A lot of us instrument rated weekend warriors mainly use it to climb and descend through a layer so we can fly on top and generally get in/out of places that wouldn’t be prudent even if legal VFR.

Most of my IFR flights I only log about .1 in IMC and that’s probably rounded up.

An instrument rating gives you more options to get yourself out of trouble.. or sometimes into more trouble. Either way it’s clearly better to have more options at your disposal than less
Exactly. I'm working on my IR to do exactly this. I have no desire to fly in hard IMC but want to pop up over the clouds and fly VFR-on-top without worrying about finding a hole to get back down.
Here in the PNW we have lots of cloud but an IR only helps so much. The big concern out here in the winter is ice.
LHM
 
Back in the day when I got my IR, Avemco gave me a 9% reduction in my insurance. So just assumed I was 9% safer according to the actuaries. I was pretty low time and it probably varies where you start. But that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
Trying to get a F4 pilot to slow to 60 knots in a 172 on short final is tough too.

A common overstatement. I do bigger equipment shifts in airspeed profiles than that in the same day and I'm still alive. Plenty other former/current pointy nosers who commute via spam can who can attest to the same on here. It's more a case of I'm capable of doing your job, you're not capable of doing mine.
 
It's more a case of I'm capable of doing your job, you're not capable of doing mine.
iu
 
Show me one crash report where NOT having an instrument rating would have led to a better outcome.
That would be the accident where the IFR rated pilot with marginal skills crashes, and the VFR pilot chose to stay on the ground.

But we know that insurance companies think instrument rated pilots are a better risk (which is why they offer them discounts), so presumably the statistics show that they have less crashes overall. But I have no idea how that would play out if you consider total time, other ratings held, mode of flight, etc. It seems obvious that learning to fly a plane with greater precision is a good thing for the average pilot, but would it improve safety for, say, the aerobatic pilot who only flies in good weather and has no gyro instruments in his plane anyway? Probably not, but I doubt the insurance companies' statistics are that granular.
 
One potential benefit I haven't seen mentioned is how the IR can enable someone to fly more frequently/regularly.

I've got a single-engine plane with no deice or real-time stormscope or radar (though I do have ADSB-in). I have no intention of going anywhere near icing or thunderstorms, and hope my judgment never lapses such that I end up near them unintentionally. My IR doesn't make me immune to the laws of physics.

But what the IR does do is make me unconstrained by simple clouds. I live in the south, and for 8+ months out of the year, most days you don't really want to linger down in the hot and bumpy air any longer than you have to--you want to get up to the cool, smooth stuff above the clouds. For the short time I was a VFR-only pilot, I learned not to fly on broken/overcast days in the spring/summer/fall, because it was going to be miserable getting bumped around in a sauna of a cockpit. That left me voluntarily grounded on a lot of VMC days.

With an IR, I don't care so much what the clouds are doing on hot days, as long as there's no serious convection involved. That opens up a LOT of days to go fly that I would pass on if I were VFR-only. And that means I fly more frequently/regularly, which is good for proficiency and experience, which hopefully helps me be a better pilot than if I flew less frequently and had longer lapses between flights.
 
Last edited:
But we know that insurance companies think instrument rated pilots are a better risk (which is why they offer them discounts), so presumably the statistics show that they have less crashes overall. But I have no idea how that would play out if you consider total time, other ratings held, mode of flight, etc. It seems obvious that learning to fly a plane with greater precision is a good thing for the average pilot, but would it improve safety for, say, the aerobatic pilot who only flies in good weather and has no gyro instruments in his plane anyway? Probably not, but I doubt the insurance companies' statistics are that granular.
It's not only a potential lack of granularity, it's also that there just aren't enough airplanes or enough accidents to make anything statistically significant! ;)

But I would think their data is pretty granular. There's only a few underwriters, and they surely keep their own data on accidents they've had to fork out money for. They know a lot about the pilots and the airplanes. And, they can look at the NTSB database which is pretty granular, though very dirty. Get some interns for a summer to clean it up and you can make pretty good decisions.

That said, yes, I don't expect the insurance on a Pitts or Super D is affected much by an instrument rating.
 
Exactly. I'm working on my IR to do exactly this. I have no desire to fly in hard IMC but want to pop up over the clouds and fly VFR-on-top without worrying about finding a hole to get back down.
Here in the PNW we have lots of cloud but an IR only helps so much. The big concern out here in the winter is ice.
LHM
While in some countries (I think) there's sort of a "partial" IFR rating that allows going up and down through clouds, in the US we have only the full rating. At least at the time of the check ride, it presumes that you can do anything on the gages - fly for hours in the soup, shoot an approach to mins, fly a random hold, and/or do all of the above partial panel.

The issue with IFR flying is that it is very perishable. Depending on experience level and pilot, skills can degrade in as little as 2-6 weeks, and we know that after 6 months you have to requalify with a safety pilot and after 12 do an IPC. So it's a use it or lose proposition.

There are plenty of IFR rated pilots who have lost it in the soup, presumably from either over dependance on the AP, or lack of currency. It's only useful if you stay current; it will help you a lot in terms of understanding the system and giving you another out if stuck on top. They give ice climbs in the PNW, though those are not always useful depending on the day.

All that said, it will still make you a better pilot as you'll be have to know all the phases of a flight and how they fit together. Most IFR flights do not have much IMC, maybe 10% of any given flight.
 
I got my commercial and instrument ratings years ago. I'm no longer IFR current, and have absolutely no interest in flying hard IFR anymore. The last time I flew an approach in actual IFR conditions, GPS hadn't been invented yet. Despite my lack of IFR currency, I still get a reduction in my insurance cost each year for having the rating. Even better, the one time I inadvertently flew from VRF into IFR conditions, I was able to reverse course and get back into VFR conditions without incident. I've also flown into controlled fields under a special VFR clearance and have used the ILS indications to align with the runway before it comes into view. Both the rating and the training required to get it are worthwhile even if you don't fly hard IFR afterwards.
 
I just know that a bunch of life insurance policies wouldn't write a policy without an exclusion if I didn't have my IR, and those that would had lower premiums for IR pilots. They cared not about commercial ratings and other such things.

So I don't have the statistics, but if you want to know what's going to kill you, don't ask your doctor, ask an insurance underwriter.
 
So I don't have the statistics, but if you want to know what's going to kill you, don't ask your doctor, ask an insurance underwriter.
I would say it’s more like if you want to know what kills the most people, ask an underwriter. They don’t look at individuals, but rather the population as a group.

Although I suppose that could be considered “invulnerability”. But then, Lindberg’s statement could be conserved “resignation.” ;)
 
I am here to learn about the safety benefits of IR.
Whenever this topic comes up, the loudest people are those that are very strongly opinionated that IR makes you a better pilot. I disagree, based on reading 100s of crash reports over the years. However, I do not have data to support my opinion.
Define "better pilot". There are good instrument pilots who have poor stick and rudder skills. There are pilots having good stick and rudder skills who can't (or don't, or never) fly on instruments. They are different skill sets. Some pilots (not many, but some) are proficient, current and skilled at both. There are also instrument pilots who are unable to fly the airplane themselves; if the GPS or autopilot fails, they're dead. They're not pilots, so much as they are "systems automation operators" or "children of magenta" as Warren Vanderburgh famously said. Such pilots shouldn't exist, their lack of skills should be caught during IPCs or flight reviews. But we read about them in NTSB reports, so some must slip through the cracks or find CFIs who pencil whip their paperwork. Don't be that guy!

All else equal, earning the instrument rating should make anyone a better pilot. One evidence for this is that insurance companies typically offer lower rates for IR pilots. But IME, the insurance rates aren't much cheaper, which suggests the safety benefits don't change the risks or statistics a lot. Earning the rating won't necessarily teach you to fly with better precision; maybe you already do. It won't necessarily improve stick & rudder skills either (if you want that, get a taildragger endorsement and commercial rating). But the IR will teach you more about how the airspace and ATC systems work, maybe get more comfortable talking with ATC, and go deeper / more thorough into most of the topics learned during private pilot (navigation, regulations, airplane performance, weather, how instruments work, flight planning, etc.).

If you use your airplane for pragmatic travel, earning the IR might also smooth your trips or improve your dispatch rates. But don't count on that, since in the small, simple, underpowered planes most of us fly, when ceilings & visibility are worse than VFR, there are sometimes other factors that make IFR a bad idea even if you could (strong winds, icing, etc). OTOH, maybe all you need to do is climb (or descend!) through a layer, in which case the IR is perfect and will put a big smile on your face every time you do it. But doing that means being current which requires exercising your IR skills regularly, even if you only occasionally expect to do it "for real".

In short, it might make you a better pilot (depending on how you define it), but it will make you a more educated and informed pilot. And maybe also expand the practical uses for your airplane, if only a little.
 
The way my instructor is training me for ifr. I do believe when I am done I’ll be a better pilot.

He’s been my instructor for most of my ppl. And he’s never been so strict before.

The flying itself like all flying has been not that hard. The details he insisted on. The decision making for emergencies. That’s where the biggest difference are.
 
The way my instructor is training me for ifr. I do believe when I am done I’ll be a better pilot.

He’s been my instructor for most of my ppl. And he’s never been so strict before.

The flying itself like all flying has been not that hard. The details he insisted on. The decision making for emergencies. That’s where the biggest difference are.
 
Define "better pilot". There are good instrument pilots who have poor stick and rudder skills. There are pilots having good stick and rudder skills who can't (or don't, or never) fly on instruments. They are different skill sets. Some pilots (not many, but some) are proficient, current and skilled at both. There are also instrument pilots who are unable to fly the airplane themselves; if the GPS or autopilot fails, they're dead. They're not pilots, so much as they are "systems automation operators" or "children of magenta" as Warren Vanderburgh famously said. Such pilots shouldn't exist, their lack of skills should be caught during IPCs or flight reviews. But we read about them in NTSB reports, so some must slip through the cracks or find CFIs who pencil whip their paperwork. Don't be that guy!

All else equal, earning the instrument rating should make anyone a better pilot. One evidence for this is that insurance companies typically offer lower rates for IR pilots. But IME, the insurance rates aren't much cheaper, which suggests the safety benefits don't change the risks or statistics a lot. Earning the rating won't necessarily teach you to fly with better precision; maybe you already do. It won't necessarily improve stick & rudder skills either (if you want that, get a taildragger endorsement and commercial rating). But the IR will teach you more about how the airspace and ATC systems work, maybe get more comfortable talking with ATC, and go deeper / more thorough into most of the topics learned during private pilot (navigation, regulations, airplane performance, weather, how instruments work, flight planning, etc.).

If you use your airplane for pragmatic travel, earning the IR might also smooth your trips or improve your dispatch rates. But don't count on that, since in the small, simple, underpowered planes most of us fly, when ceilings & visibility are worse than VFR, there are sometimes other factors that make IFR a bad idea even if you could (strong winds, icing, etc). OTOH, maybe all you need to do is climb (or descend!) through a layer, in which case the IR is perfect and will put a big smile on your face every time you do it. But doing that means being current which requires exercising your IR skills regularly, even if you only occasionally expect to do it "for real".

In short, it might make you a better pilot (depending on how you define it), but it will make you a more educated and informed pilot. And maybe also expand the practical uses for your airplane, if only a little.
Thank you. This is one of the best answers I have read, especially this part:
"All else equal, earning the instrument rating should make anyone a better pilot. One evidence for this is that insurance companies typically offer lower rates for IR pilots. But IME, the insurance rates aren't much cheaper, which suggests the safety benefits don't change the risks or statistics a lot. Earning the rating won't necessarily teach you to fly with better precision; maybe you already do. It won't necessarily improve stick & rudder skills either (if you want that, get a taildragger endorsement and commercial rating). But the IR will teach you more about how the airspace and ATC systems work, maybe get more comfortable talking with ATC, and go deeper / more thorough into most of the topics learned during private pilot (navigation, regulations, airplane performance, weather, how instruments work, flight planning, etc.)."
 
The way my instructor is training me for ifr. I do believe when I am done I’ll be a better pilot.

He’s been my instructor for most of my ppl. And he’s never been so strict before.

The flying itself like all flying has been not that hard. The details he insisted on. The decision making for emergencies. That’s where the biggest difference are.
Thank you for sharing. Can you define "better"? Is it the ability to hold altitude and heading with less variance than before?
 
For me (YMMV), better equates to:
1. Better stick and rudder skills - attitude flying, the core of the flying part of the IR, is about precision and understanding the inputs needed in order to get aircraft to perform as required.
2. Better navigational situational awareness.
3. Better understanding of how ATC and the NAS functions -- In many ways IFR is easier than VFR because airspace categories and their various requirements go away as you're always talking to ATC, plus they are providing you a second set of eyes and are right there if a problem arises and you need help.
4. Better understanding of the FARs - IFR is mainly about rules and procedures.
5. Better understanding of weather and its impacts on the NAS.

Ultimately most of this equates to better overall ADM. Now that's not to say any of this is exclusive to IFR (it's not), but the IR is a forcing function that IMO doesn't exist in the VFR world. That said, the IR is not a panacea -- you have to put the work in and it's a constant learning process that never ends.
 
For me (YMMV), better equates to:
1. Better stick and rudder skills - attitude flying, the core of the flying part of the IR, is about precision and understanding the inputs needed in order to get aircraft to perform as required.
2. Better navigational situational awareness.
3. Better understanding of how ATC and the NAS functions -- In many ways IFR is easier than VFR because airspace categories and their various requirements go away as you're always talking to ATC, plus they are providing you a second set of eyes and are right there if a problem arises and you need help.
4. Better understanding of the FARs - IFR is mainly about rules and procedures.
5. Better understanding of weather and its impacts on the NAS.

Ultimately most of this equates to better overall ADM. Now that's not to say any of this is exclusive to IFR (it's not), but the IR is a forcing function that IMO doesn't exist in the VFR world. That said, the IR is not a panacea -- you have to put the work in and it's a constant learning process that never ends.
Thanks. I think this is the core of what I was asking.
 
Your CFIi-I is being strict because you are about to drive the tractor further up the hill.
 
Back
Top