Instrument rating vs Safe Pilots.

[gismo]

I recently read a question from a subscriber to an aviation magazine which pretty much asked "Does an instrument rating make a pilot safer or more likely to become a statistic?". There are several aspects to this, some of which are:

Instrument rated pilots tend to fly in worse weather than VFR only pilots on the average

Instrument proficiency is difficult to maintain.

Single pilot IFR has moments of very heavy workload.

Equipment malfunctions and other "mechanical" problems (like running out of fuel) have more severe consequences in IMC.

Some pilots obtain the rating and then never use it thinking they have a "get out of IMC jail card" in their pocket.

Severe weather is more difficult to avoid when in IMC.

So for all you IR pilots (and wannabe's / IR students), do you think that obtaining an IR made (would make) you a safer pilot, that is one that's less likely to end up hurting yourself and/or someone else in an airplane?

 

[Ken Ibold]

I think instrument flying made me a MUCH safer VFR pilot because of the first hand knowledge of how quickly conditions can deteriorate -- and how much I don't want to be in the scud in a VFR-only airplane. But you do increase your exposure to deadly weather and equipment failures. So I would say an IR probably increases your safety if you thereafter mostly fly VFR and decreases your safety if you launch into crappy weather often enough to expose yourself but not often enough to maintain true proficiency. Then, it also depends on the equipment you're flying. I know of several well-equipped singles I'd resist flying in IMC because I know how poorly they're maintained. It's quite a convoluted puzzle.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I think instrument flying made me a MUCH safer VFR pilot because of the first hand knowledge of how quickly conditions can deteriorate -- and how much I don't want to be in the scud in a VFR-only airplane. But you do increase your exposure to deadly weather and equipment failures. So I would say an IR probably increases your safety if you thereafter mostly fly VFR and decreases your safety if you launch into crappy weather often enough to expose yourself but not often enough to maintain true proficiency. Then, it also depends on the equipment you're flying. I know of several well-equipped singles I'd resist flying in IMC because I know how poorly they're maintained. It's quite a convoluted puzzle.

The knowedge & skills gained are more valuable than those of the simple VFR PPL no matter what weather environment or equipment they are used with.

IFR is a much more demanding flight realm none the less, and its penalties inflicted for incompetence are therefore that much closer, facilitating quick delivery to the offending PICs.

 

[AdamZ]

Lance, I think there are two issues in the questions posed in the article you read.

1) Q: Does getting your IR make you a safer pilot?
A: It depends. I think the IR has made me a much safer pilot as I am much more attuned to the plane, engine and instruments and am much less prone to go nuts in deteriorating weather. On the other had I know several VFR pilots who are better airmen than I, Primarily because they have much more experience than I. There are also some IR pilots I know with whom I would not get in a plane and fly 10 minutes in CAVU. I find them dangerous and reckless. Good judgment is something the FAA can't give you a rating for. Getting an IR does not magically impart good judgment on a pilot.

2) Q : Does an IR put you in more dangerous situations than a VFR pilot
A: Yes, by flying into IMC. Again however it is the judgment issue that often needlessly increases the risk level of any flight be it VFR or IFR

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Since I learned to fly courtesy of Uncle Sam, I've always had an instrument rating and a commercial license.

Can't imagine doing the type of long cross country flights I do without the rating. Weather can change pretty dramatically over a five or six hour time frame and a distance of 1,000 miles. I fail to see anyplace where I am more subject to an accident because of it. Yes, I will launch into worse weather, but have the systems and knowledge to deal with what I launch into. Of course, if something goes wrong, there is a much higher workload.

Having the IR gives one a much better of the system as a whole, how it works and how to get what you require better. Being in constant tough with a controller is sure a help if something goes wrong.

When flying VFR, it still provides a better ability to deal with changing conditions. VFR into IFR is almost insignificant for me, although, if conditions are marginal, I usually file IFR.

I can see how this could cause some problems for some folks, but do strongly feel that having the IR rating provides increased flexibility, proficiency and better understanding of the ATC system and its capabilities.

Best,



Dave

 

[John J]

Lance;

This is a very good question for I can remember when I started; most pilots in GA did not have instrument ratings for at the time the radios were not up to the job to be dependable. Also the weight of the gear was quite heavy and used up the useful load. I can remember my instructor at the time who flew transports during the 1930's through the 1950s' always stressed getting very good at flying long cross countries to hone flying by dead recogning. Flight planing and hitting the check points on time. The mood at the time late 1950's early 1960's was that the pilot would get a commercial ticket and then get the IR. The reason at the time was the pilot got much more cross country time in. So the transition to the IR was a little easierbecause of all that flight planing and x-c time. Also at that time we did not have a lot of radar coverage so we had to do our "Reporting Points" at the appropiate fixes and times. It was very interesing working those E6B's wiz wheels and flying in the soup.

I feel the IR does help make a safer pilotwith a big But. Again if the pilot gets out and flies on cross countries to new airports and practice with partial panal.
It really depends on how the rating is used and of course the amount of time keeping fresh.

Good question

John

 

[wsuffa]

Currency and experience are the biggest factors, IMHO, as to whether a pilot is "safer".

 

[bbchien]

Currency and experience are the biggest factors, IMHO, as to whether a pilot is "safer".

This is kinda like what Jeb Burnside was trying to foist on us in the current (and my last) Aviation Safety....that the single turboprop was going to be more dangerous.

That's a load of hogwash. "It's the pilot, stupid". He either has discipline or he has not. That simple.

 

[fgcason]

I think safety has more to do with the pilots attitude and behavior than the ratings themselves.

The -IR will improve one's overall attention to detail, weather knowledge and the ability to work the system to your advantage. OTOH, it'll allow one to safely go into situations that have a much lower tolerance for subtle errors. It can get you out of WX jams that the VFR pilot can't handle however it can also lure you into unsurvivable situations if the proficiency isn't maintained. It's a two edged sword however one's attitude can make all the difference.

I know a few long time VFR only pilots that, based on lots of observation, give every indication that they are FAR safer than just about any -IR pilot I've ever met. I know some -IR pilots that are exceptions to that statement. Safer in this context meaning said pilot, due to behavior, is far less likely to get into a situation where they're more likely to eventually run into anything hard and stationary. If the VFR pilot in this situation gets into the -IR pilots territory, he's likely in bad serious trouble however he has enough sense and smart enough to not go there or allow it to come to him. This does not necessarily mean that the -IR pilot is safer if he gets into the VFR pilots comfortable territory.

There nothing wrong with having more tools in the toolbox as long as one knows how to use them properly...and avoid the use of them when the situation calls for it.

Lots of variables. But IMHO, I think the piece of equipment between the headset earcups has a much bigger influence on safety than any number of pieces of paper in the flight bag.

Stay humble. Know your limits. Always have an out. Be a wimp when necessary. Thought before action if one has time.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

That's a load of hogwash. "It's the pilot, stupid". He either has discipline or he has not. That simple.

Amen. From the most simplistic point of view, keep the aircraft totally within the IFR rule set and you can't hit anything; keep the aircraft totally within the VFR rule set and you have virtually infinite ways by which you may smack the earth.

As Bruce wrote, it's the pilot, stupid.

 

[grattonja]

I fly more precisely since the IR training. I know the equipment in the aircraft 10 times better than I did during my PP training. I understand the system far better than I did. I understand the weather, have made myself specifically a student of the weather, in ways that I did not as a PP.

For me, I am a much safer pilot than I was without the IR. Of course, I fly approaches, go out and do partial panel, and maintain fairly high minimums for my IR flying. I also seek out IMC when I can find it, to gain more experience. IOW, I am doing my best to keep the rating current.

YMMV, but, for me, it is an increased safety factor.

Jim G

 

[Ghery]

This is kinda like what Jeb Burnside was trying to foist on us in the current (and my last) Aviation Safety....that the single turboprop was going to be more dangerous.

That's a load of hogwash. "It's the pilot, stupid". He either has discipline or he has not. That simple.

The next issue just landed in my mailbox yesterday. He got a number of reader letters taking issue with that foolishness. One, in particular, wanted to know, if turbines were so dangerous, when the airlines would give them up.

Damn, I miss Ken as the editor of that magazine...

 

[poadeleted20]

The insurance industry is the best at quantifying what makes you statistically safer, and they give substantial discounts when you get your IR, and for some planes, refuse to insure you without it. That said, if you are an idiot when it comes to making good decisions in flight, the IR itself won't make you smarter.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

The insurance industry is the best at quantifying what makes you statistically safer, and they give substantial discounts when you get your IR, and for some planes, refuse to insure you without it. That said, if you are an idiot when it comes to making good decisions in flight, the IR itself won't make you smarter.

For certain policies, underwriters want to see the IR PLUS a minimum average of 150 hours/year PIC to write coverage. That says a lot.

 

[Graueradler]

The two primary pilot factors are skill and judgement. Getting the IR rating did a lot to improvie my piloting skills. I don't know that it did anything for my judgement. Getting the IR also opened up the possibility of flying easy IFR in what would be marginal VFR .