Does the IFR Rating Make Us Safer Pilots?

drgwentzel

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
287
Location
NJ
Display Name

Display name:
Kobra
Flyers,

I remember the day I passed my IFR checkride; I was walking out to my car and boosted to one of the CFI’s of my accomplishment. He congratulated me and immediately purported, “…now you’re 3 times safer!”

Hmmm, I had never heard that before. I wondered if that was true, and still do. The question is difficult to answer because you’d be comparing apples-to-oranges, but let’s talk about it.

First, it’s easy to conceive that more training of any kind adds to your experience and flying skills. Second, the IFR rating imparts enhanced abilities to control and navigate an aircraft solely by reference to the instruments. You learn to fly with extreme discipline and precision, and being 10 degrees off your heading or 100’ off your altitude is simply unacceptable. Third, you are more aware of the weather because you experience what it’s really like to be in clouds, and not simply flying under the hood with all your cheating and subliminal side references. It’s different folks! Next, you’re prepared to obtain a “pop-up” IFR clearance if you find yourself inadvertently blundering into IMC and you’ll have the skills and tools to safely fly an approach and land at an airport with low ceilings and restricted visibility. But does all of that really translate into you being a safer pilot? I will only offer anecdotal evidence for the purpose of this post. I reviewed some NTSB reports and did some googling and found the results mixed and equivocal.

I will assert that if all other variables are equal, an IFR pilot is a safer aviator than his VFR brethren as it relates to VFR flying. This is because he or she will have more options if things turn bad with respect to the weather. Remember, VFR flying into IMC is one of the deadliest types of accidents there is. It usually concludes in an unusual attitude, loss of control and a stall-spin crash.

Now, some things need to be stated. An IFR pilot can be more dangerous to themselves and their passengers simply because they CAN fly into IMC. IFR skills are wonderful and can get you out of weather conditions that could kill a VFR pilot, but it can also lure the unsuspecting IR flier into the teeth of Mother Nature when she’s having a bad hair day with no brush in hand. The system also has a much higher workload, demands proficient multitasking, and it will allow you to penetrate into conditions that has no open-mindedness to subtle mistakes.

Proficiency and currency are critical to IFR safety. Rusty IFR pilots who blunder into low IMC, unaware of such obvious oxidation, are the most dangerous pilots around! The rating requires regular use, training and re-currency to be safe. Some IFR pilots learn the hard way that the rating alone does not immune them from spatial disorientation. This is an insidious enemy which assaults you only when you are thoroughly unware of its company...and it's unimportant how I know this. My next point is that IFR pilots find themselves in some pretty crappy weather, and let’s face it, that’s whole the reason we obtained the ticket! But this weather can veil two very ominous cohorts. One of which I already met, and the other I haven’t had the pleasure, but have no inclination or desire to rub elbows with.

In the wintertime, clouds and cold precipitation conceals moisture that can turn your ride into a winged ice cube and then ultimately into a lawn dart if nothing is done to exit the conditions. In the summertime, IMC is very adept at disguising embedded thunderstorms to resemble a simple dark cloud. These ogres are very real threats that will totally ruin your perfectly good time on an otherwise innocent, merrymaking flight.

So, in conclusion, it is my opinion within a reasonable degree of aviation certainty, that you should have as many arrows in your quiver that will possibly fit, but if you want to know who is a safer pilot, whether IFR or VFR, I purport that it is the one who has learned that discretion is the better part of valor; it is the one who possesses a proper and respectful attitude toward the weather, the airplane, and their true piloting skills. Lastly, the safer pilot is the one who holds an unpretentious decision making process as the best instrument in their panel.

Gene Wentzel, CFI, CFII
 
Last edited:
Well said.

During my instrument oral I was asked about my personal minimums and I really didn't know what to say. I picked some pretty high minimums simply because I didn't have much time in actual but now I think that I understand what the rating means to us low time pilots with basic systems onboard.

It is pretty easy for me to look at my IFR skills in much the same way as I look at my Jeep. I have a 1977 Cherokee sport with a built 401 cu engine, 4 wheel on demand conversion (not quadra-trak) and 33" tires. I've never really been stuck even though
I take her everywhere and have pulled many other people out of terrible situations and I think that I know why. I assume that it is a 2 wheel drive and attack each situation like I'm limited. I only use the 4 wheel drive if my skill or judgement is not up to the task at hand because if you get stuck in 4 wheel drive, you are stuck. I look at the instrument rating in much the same way. If I need to file to get in or out of an airport, cool. If I need to file IFR because of wide spread IMC, I might want to go fishing.....
 
As Dad used to say..."If you're not careful, 4-wheel drive just gets you stuck further from the road."
 
Flyers,

I will assert that if all other variables are equal, an IFR pilot is a safer aviator than his VFR brethren as it relates to VFR flying.

Gene Wentzel, CFI, CFII

Interesting observation.
 
It's just not ratings that make you a safer pilot. Without proficiency and recurrent training the safety factor goes down tremendously.

GA pilots in general do not like and do not take any kind of recurrent training once rated and their newly learned skills atrophy quickly. In many cases this is actually worse than not having the rating at all.
 
According to the safety reports, there is a higher rate of accidents for IFR pilots, I would say because they're performing riskier operations. Are they safer because they're more experienced and understand the system better or are they less safe because they make flights that have a higher risk? Of the two, the report data suggests to me that the kind of flying is more important and therefore IFR pilots are less safe.

The simple rules are still more critical than a rating: Don't fly near thunderstorms, don't fly into the ice, assume the gas won't be there and when you're slow, be absolutely aware of your airspeed and don't stall it. Doing these four things will do more to preserve your life in an airplane than having every ticket and every type rating in existence.
 
100%


IFR gives you more options, but doesn't do jack for safety.

From what I've seen safety is more of a quality found in the individual.
 
GA pilots in general do not like and do not take any kind of recurrent training once rated and their newly learned skills atrophy quickly. In many cases this is actually worse than not having the rating at all.
Truth. Most BFRs I give are painful.
 
Truth. Most BFRs I give are painful.
I had the same impression when I became a CFI and was doing checkouts for a club.

I don't think a rating automatically makes anyone safer, although it may make them more knowledgable. I think the key to being safe is to stay in situations within your own abilities and the capabilities of the airplane. But there is sometimes no bright line, and this point can be hard to determine.
 
I agree with James331. You see it over and over again the accident stats. GA pilots tend to be their own worst enemy.

Having said that, I think the IR has a great value in increasing one's airmanship. The aircraft control developed, planning, weather awareness, SA, and just spending another 30 or so hours with an instructor are nothing but good things.

Here's an interesting read on vfr vs ifr pilots. In the time frame studied, more VFR pilots died, but the rate of IFR fatal crashes is higher.

http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueSO02/Hangar91002.html

From the article

"he main cause of fatal accidents for the VFR-rated pilots fell into the category of Stall/Spin/Loss of Control (15 accidents or 42%) (Figure 1). In contrast, IFR-rated pilots fared much better with only 21% (7) of the accidents falling in this category. It may be that this reduced accident rate for the IFR-rated pilots reflects the additional training and the emphasis placed on coordinated turns."
 
Nothing like a little patting oneself on the back. Have it it. Perhaps you can start a nice little mutual admiration society.
 
"actuaries" (from google}
An actuary is a business professional who analyzes the financial consequences of risk. Actuaries use mathematics, statistics and financial theory to study uncertain future events, especially those of concern to insurance and pension programs.


Aviation insurance policies give discounts for those with an instrument rating.
 
The rating is good,as long as you keep up your skills. I don't think it makes you a safer pilot,if you don't keep practicing.
 
I think it makes you a better pilot. If you're a dumbass with an instrument rating, you'll still kill yourself.
 
Very well written. I hope to get my instrument rating soon but know that I will likely still be a fair weather flyer. Sometimes I wonder what the point is because like you said, a rusty IFR pilot in IMC are an extremely dangerous form of pilot. But again, it sharpens your skills in VFR conditions so thankfully, it's not all for not.
 
Aviation insurance policies give discounts for those with an instrument rating.

True.

Many years ago a good friend (private pilot) bought a G35 Bonanza and his insurance company told him if he was instrument rated they would lower his rates.

So he went to an advanced instrument course and got the Instrument rating, then got his discount.

A few months later he died in that airplane as he attempted to cross a line of weather.

But he did get that discount.
 
"actuaries" (from google}
An actuary is a business professional who analyzes the financial consequences of risk. Actuaries use mathematics, statistics and financial theory to study uncertain future events, especially those of concern to insurance and pension programs.


Aviation insurance policies give discounts for those with an instrument rating.

They do but it's not a big discount. Certainly not what you would expect if I were really statistically 3x safer after the IR. :D
 
They do but it's not a big discount. Certainly not what you would expect if I were really statistically 3x safer after the IR. :D
That was definitely my experience. There's a lot of "noise" in my insurance premiums from year to year anyway, and whatever the discount was when I got my IR, it was lost in that noise.

My premium this past year was MUCH lower than previous years, two years after getting the rating. In fact, my broker said it was due to something internal to the insurance industry (I don't remember the details if she even told me), and had nothing to do with the specifics of my airplane, ratings, or risk assessment.
 
I believe that the IFR training does make you safer, only if it points out the hazards of the occupation. and gives you tools to save your bacon.
 
Interesting observation.

I know. I completely disagree with him.

IFR pilots in VMC are more prone to have their head inside the cockpit looking at stuff than a VFR pilot. That includes me. I have to smack myself sometimes to look outside dumdass.

iPads and glass panels really exacerbate the problem.

That's my observation.
 
True.

Many years ago a good friend (private pilot) bought a G35 Bonanza and his insurance company told him if he was instrument rated they would lower his rates.

So he went to an advanced instrument course and got the Instrument rating, then got his discount.

A few months later he died in that airplane as he attempted to cross a line of weather.

But he did get that discount.

Yeah, but did they have a claim? :idea:
 
Where do you have statistics that backs that claim?:no:


How can you stat that? Stats don't mean ****,and you know it. Most stats are bull**** anyway. It's my opinion based on my observations.

You claiming that's not true?
 
I'm claiming that it an unknown, and to state it were true is just conjecture.:yes:

Yea...ok... Well, your obviously not a lawyer because you didn't actually read my first post, but I'll play.

I object to your conjecture......

(in my best voice from the bench) SUSTAINED. Mr. GRUBER, PLEASE REPHRASE YOUR CONJECTURE BECAUSE ITS MORE CONJECTURE THAN HIS CONJCTURE. HE HAS STATED AN OPINION TO WHICH YOU OBJECT BUT YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY FACTS TO REBUT HIS OPINION. THUS, HIS OPINION REMAINS HIS AND YOURS, WELL, YOURS.
 
Some of you mother scratchers will argue anything. :rolleyes:

Safe pilots don't make a lot of dumb decisions. There are safe VFR pilots and un-safe IFR pilots and vice-versa. Depends upon the pilot.
 
Some of you mother scratchers will argue anything. :rolleyes:

Safe pilots don't make a lot of dumb decisions. There are safe VFR pilots and un-safe IFR pilots and vice-versa. Depends upon the pilot.

Sing it Sista Mary!
 
I'm getting my instrument rating because I want to be a more well-rounded pilot with more options than a VFR pilot. I'm already a safe pilot.
 
so....will an instrument rating also lower your insurance policy costs?:goofy::idea:
 
so....will an instrument rating also lower your insurance policy costs?:goofy::idea:


Yea, dropped mine pretty good. When I was shopping I got quoted on a Bo and one place wouldn't quote me without one!
 
I'd rather fly with a very proficient VFR that has knowledge and skills over a mediocre IFR pilot who got his rating just for lower insurance or to put another rating on his license.
 
Back
Top