What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Woes of SEL IFR

David-aviator

Well Known Member
Last month (October), within 3 days, 2 Cirrus SR22's went down, both on IFR flight plans. Six fatalities. This is not good, not good at all.

I suppose some will tire of my harping on this subject, but it is serious business. The dream of loading an RV with double glass, neat IFR goodies, and going anywhere, anytime with the wife and kids begs for an injection of reality.

(Yes, RV's mostly have just 2 seats, but a pilot did slide to a safe stop in snow in their RV-6A about 35 miles from here several years ago when they iced up. They had a child legally strapped in the baggage compartment.)

Flying the RV is a wonderful experience, we all love it. But it is not the answer to a total transportation need. The IFR limitations of the airplane fit in a very small envelope and to foster an impression the situation is otherwise is not good. Money spent on modern IFR equipment, training, and flight proficiency will go a long way toward paying for a much safer mode of transportation when needed.

If anyone is interested in reading the bloody details of the Cirrus tragedies, go to:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=10&year=2006.

If that's not enough, look back through the months and years, there are many more. These reports average about 85 body bags a month.

What is most sad is the fact that wives, kids, and friends often don't have much of a say when a pilot brings them into his fantasy world of IFR flight in his expensive, but totally inadequate machine. If you are bent on doing this, do not ignor the limits of your airplane and youself. It's a very scary way to end life.

David Domeier
RV-7A N707DD
H6
Troy, Missouri
Retired TWA Captain
 
The SEL planes did not kill these people

The SEL planes did not kill these people.

On the first, the pilot flew into known icing conditions.

On the second, the pilot seems to have totally lost his situational awareness and basic IFR skills.

Two engines on a plane as smooth as a tour bus will not stop these types of accidents.
 
Deadly Serious Endeavors

David,

I am going to agree with you that flying is always a deadly serious endeavor, and the more options you remove from your plate, the more careful you need to be. I read the accident summaries from the FAA on a daily basis, and it is clear that many airplanes are bent on sunny VFR days while landing - in fact, it is statistically the single biggest time and place that accidents occur. It rarely, however, results in a fatality or serious injury.

IFR accidents are much more likely to end in fatality for all on board - but they also need to be analyzed for their root causes. It is easy to say "He was SEL IFR and dies, therefore, the cause of the fatality was flying SEL IFR." But that really doesn't help us much. Was the proximate or contributing cause a mechanical or electrical failure? Was it bad judgment on the pilot's part? Was it lack of skill or knowledge? Lack of information? Each accident needs to be looked at thoroughly to find the ROOT cause. Only then can we think about what actions can be taken to prevent those failures in the future.

Without a search for root cause, you can simply say "people die in airplanes, therefore, if we keep them out of airplanes, they won't die." (An admittedly extreme oversimplification, and I apologize if it sounds hyperbolic.)

I am in 100% agreement with you David that we need to do all we can to get people to stop killing themselves in airplanes. I think that I disagree with you that eliminating SEL IFR will achieve this goal. There are too many people doing it safely every single day (and every single night...) to say it can't work. I am not sure how you get a figure of 85 body bags per month from SEL IFR accidents by the way - maybe I am not reading the statistics correctly - that is a huge number!

I agree that the more risk we take, the more prepared we must be to deal with that risk. You have to be proficient, current, experienced, and have good judgment. you need to be ready to abort a flight, or turn toward an alternate at the appropriate time. You need to make sure that the world won't end if you don't get where you are going. And you need to have reliable, well-maintained equipment with a good redundancy scheme. Yup, in a single engine airplane, you have no redundancy if the mill quits. For that, you have to understand the bit about good maintenance and its affects on reliability.

And lastly, you need to realistically assess every situation and determine if you have "an out" if things don't go well. Understand the risk, have a back-up plan, be realistic - and SEL IFR is possible. It is, in fact, done every day.

I have a huge amount of respect for folks that have spent their working life in cockpits, big and small, and survived a career spent in the air. And I certainly respect your thoughts and opinions David. I may draw slightly different conclusions - but the goal is the same. Keep people safe, and make sure they understand the risks.

Paul
 
Right on the money, Paul.

Incidentally, it's interesting to note that an awful lot of IMC accidents have to do with flying straight into cumulous granite. Arguably, it's a lack of glass panels (or possibly the wrong kind of glass panels without intuitive terrain awareness) that is a contributing factor. Homebuilders have tremendous advantage here in terms of options and costs. Possibly, these will trickle into the certified world one day (Garmin/Avidyne etc panel don't count. They cost as much as most people spend on their whole plane...untouchable for most). We'll see :)
 
Last edited:
Is SEL the problem?

Why the emphasis on single engine?

There are plenty of twins out there with no more weather capability than a well-equipped single. Of course, there are also a lot of twins with deicing and radar, which I venture to say NO RV-anything has.

But perhaps what David meant is IMC in poorly-equipped airplanes, or IMC by poorly-qualified pilots, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

If your RV has dual power sources, dual attitude sources, dual nav sources, and dual comm sources, then I claim the airplane half of the safe IFR equation is the same as if you were in a similarly-equipped twin. Losing an engine, while a big deal, is unlikely compared to the probability that *I* as a pilot will screw up.

Does having dual-everything mean one is automatically safe? No, of course not. The pilot can still fly into weather that's beyond the airplane's or the pilot's capability, or fly into terrain. That can happen in twins, turboprops, jets, warbirds, homebuilts, ultralights, helicopters, gyrocopters, ornithopters, lighter-than-air, etc.
 
Ironflight said:
David,

I am not sure how you get a figure of 85 body bags per month from SEL IFR accidents by the way - maybe I am not reading the statistics correctly - that is a huge number!

Paul

That's the total count, Paul. It is not due to SEL IFR exclusively - nor did the message say so.

A key to safe flight is standardization. Set policy to limit the operation to known safe practices, use a check list, operate within a known envelope, frequent requalification, etc. etc.

The problem with loading up a small airplane with expensive equipment is the guy spending the money. These accidents are occuring outside the safe limits of the airplane and/or pilot. Did the pilot deliberately fly into the situation - probably not. He simply did not believe it could happen to him. He just spent mega bucks and off he goes, with his wife and kids. :(

It is dilemma, a sad one.

I just throw my 2 cents worth out there and hope someone gets the message. There's enough risk in this experimental business, as is, when the sun is shining.

dd
 
The Passengers

I guess I took David's original post in a different way. When I read the part about the "...wife, kids and friends..." I thought of some accidents where the passengers had total trust in the judgment, skills and abilities of the pilot, and then they died because he screwed up. In fact, I've been a trusting passenger and found myself asking how I got into this mess (before I became a pilot).
Don
 
Last edited:
see my post

really scary day,

Yup IFR is serious business and options run out in a hurry. For me I only intend to bust through layers in my RV...Flying somewhere in Winter in IMC for the most part is not something I ever intend to do...I seen way to many "Heavy" Cessnas land at my home field, whats more most of the pilots shrug off the spectacle of all the ice hanging from the airframe.

No thanks, and i hope it never happens unintentionally.

Frank
 
IFR- it's a choice.

There seems to be two camps re: IFR flying in small single engine aircraft. Those who are comfortable with the idea and those who are not. I guess if I were lucky enough to make a living flying transport category aircraft with all the redundancies at my disposal and other pilots on the flight deck to advise me, I probably would be uncomfortable in single engine IMC. Many of the good folks I encounter who do not fly IFR in RV's or production craft are transport-category drivers full time. I totally understand.

However, I am not lucky enough to fly for a living. I am lucky in that my employer reimburses me for business flying in my Moondy, which affords me countless opportunities to outsmart the weather as I get from point A to point B. I log between 200-300 hours per year, and I usually file IFR, even in VMC. I fly IFR or VFR; day and night. I really enjoy long hauls as they challenge me to stay out of bad weather all the while minding the fuel situation. I have hand-flown 3.5 hour legs in the clag that culminate with an ILS approach, but mostly an "IFR" flight is VMC between layers with intermittent IMC in and out of the cloud decks that finishes with a mild approach. I have launched into IMC when icing is forecasted, and I do not launch into 'known icing' but have picked up some of the frozen stuff from time to time enroute, even when icing has not been forecasted. I do not have radar, but I do have a Stormscope, which I have found only useful for the T-storm 'big picture', as I am not comfortable using it to penetrate a storm line while IMC. The scope does not refresh quickly enough, only gives me static discharges and cannot tell me where the heavy precip is. It has been a good teaching tool for me to calibrate my eyes, flying skills and most importantly negotiating skills to enlist the help of ATC in steering around the cells.

Many of the aircraft we are building today have the speed and range to cover in excess of 500 miles in a few hours. If you live anywhere (except maybe Southern California or the SW USA), during a 500-mile flight you will, in all probability, encounter less than perfect weather. This is the category of aircraft that I fly now and the same holds true for the one under construction. It is for this reason that I am a big proponent of weather flying. I mean, look at it this way. If you grew up in a place where it snows, did your Dad and Mom teach you to drive on frozen roads or sit at home? If you grew up near water, were you taught to maneuver in that medium, or were you admonished to stay as far from water deeper than 6? at all costs?

I have experienced the deepest personal satisfaction in instrument flying. Nothing beats the feeling of accomplishment after completing a long distance flight where I have had to cross swords with Mother Nature. I believe that fear is the ultimate teacher. On one polar extreme, fear can limit our experience if we do not seek to control it. On the other end of the scale, fear can perform the noble task of acting like an internal governor, reminding us that we are fallible.


I do not launch into really bad weather, a luxury most transport pilots do not have. Most times I find that the longest I have to wait for weather to lighten up is 2-6 hours. Within that amount of time, much has changed: a front has moved on and taken the T-storms with it. Or, snow has stopped, and noontime air has warmed the icing threat. In reality, I have been 'weathered' only twice in the last 2200 hours. Once was a trip to NC from Minneapolis and I was west of a line of t-storms went all the way from Dallas to Nova Scotia. It was VFR underneath the cloud deck, but I have been trained never to fly under possible T-storms so I landed for the night. The other was an ice storm over Washington DC that went from the surface to 17,000'. I started climbing in VMC over JFK to get over the top, but my ship couldn't get over 17,500 by the time I got to DC. Had to turn around.

An advantage that the small aircraft has at its disposal is that I can land just about anywhere. Transport aircraft do not have the same luxury. A 777 Captain friend of mine tells me that many times the distance from his destination to his IFRAlternate field is 500 miles! Five hundred more miles of instrument flying and fuel burn to get to a runway capable of handling the stress of that enormous ship is the reality of large craft operations. On many of my IFR flights, I have used the flexibility that my small single engine craft offers me. I?ll get as close to the bad weather as I like, then just divert to an airport nearby. On a hop from Raleigh, NC to Sarasota, FL this winter, I launched in VFR but had to cross a line of low ceilings with the possibility of icing foprecasted. I encountered ice, so I turned around and tried another altitude, but still came up with ice. What made this event stress free was, before I re-entered the clouds, I picked out an airport where the cloud deck was above the minimum enroute altitude and where the temp on the ground was above freezing. This was my escape door. Since I was in a small aircraft, I had the flexibility to make this decision enroute as the conditions demanded, and the distance to my alternate was 50 miles, not 500.

I write this to inspire other pilots to get their instrument ticket if they are so inclined. It?s not for everyone, but do not let your fear hold you back. If you dream of flying across your home state, or the USA, or taking a trip to Alaska someday, I want to invite you to try. Flying is all about personal decisions, and stretching or shrinking personal boundaries. There is no shame in not wanting to fly IFR, heck, I know that at some point I will not want to work that hard to get anywhere. My Dad used to be a full-on IFR guy, and now that he's older, he only flies in CAVU.


I encourage all who build and fly to seek our own truth regarding weather flying and configure our respective aircraft accordingly. If your plane is swift and you desire to fly some longer hauls, why do I suggest that you seek the Instrument Rating and learn to enjoy flying in the weather?

1) Once you?re acclimated and current, it?s fun, nothing compares with it.
2) It makes your airplane investment really useful.
3) It may save your life someday.

There is no single absolute answer, but whatever you do, give it your best and be safe. If you go for the instrument ticket, get the best instruction you can, preferably from a professional pilot who works the IFR system daily. Do it in your aircraft if you can. The level of cockpit professionalism you learn will serve to keep you safe. My instructor was a US Airways 25,000 hr Gold Check airman who kicked the daylights out of me for 40 hours under the hood. I'm glad he did. That was 2000 hours ago and the habits he instilled in me get used every time I push the throttle forward.

Still curious about flying in the clouds but feeling uncomfortable? Remember that IFR flying was invented around the time that mail was carried by guys like Lindbergh and Jeppesen in open cockpit airplanes without gyros. We've come a long way since then- airframes and engines are far more reliable and we enjoy a rich avionics vendor list that can supply robust, affordable tools to get the job done. Will my RV be at the same caliber as a 777? Never in a million years. Will I force myself to launch into some of the really severe weather that airlines fly through? Hardly. But, with some judicious planning and the ability to sit it out for an hour or two in an FBO somewhere, I?ll bet you that on any given day, I can get just about anywhere the airlines can, and I?ll land at a feeder airport closer to my final destination. Go out and fly safely.

Arthur
 
Cirrus Crashes

Well written Arthur. There is a lot to learn from the recent Cirrus crashes. As someone said in another forum "The airplanes did not let the pilots down, the pilots let the airplane down." Sadly, Cirrus' advertising is sometimes their worst enemy. While getting a customer to fork over $300K they are making some promises that won't hold up in the real world. None of this is new, Beechcraft went through it with the Bonanza in the early fifties. The buyers bank accounts were qualified but the pilots weren't. I know several very qualified, competent Cirrus owners but I also know at least one that scares me silly. It all comes down to training, judgement, currency, and experience. No amount of glass and gee-whiz avionics will cover for a lack of judgement.

Back to the thread. I am a retired ATP, current, with a reasonably equipped RV8. If the mission requires more than a climb thorugh the coastal clag and /or a straight forward approach. I'll stay home or take the airlines.

John Clark
 
David-aviator said:
The problem with loading up a small airplane with expensive equipment is the guy spending the money. These accidents are occuring outside the safe limits of the airplane and/or pilot. Did the pilot deliberately fly into the situation - probably not. He simply did not believe it could happen to him. He just spent mega bucks and off he goes, with his wife and kids. :(
I've often wondered if it really is expensive equipment, or the appearance of previously unobtainable/unaffordable technology that lure people into that false sense of security :confused:

I've read more than one post in the last year about the utilization of a Garmin 396, with all the bells and whistles, to keep them out of trouble and clear of the weather. And yet there was a distinct undertone of having a cool new tool to allow them to go where they couldn't go before.

It doesn't take a lot of technology to legally, or probably even safely fly IFR in many circumstances. I wonder if we unconsciously equate that additional technology as a 'license' to play in the same ball park as the big boys?
 
what?

I don't get the point of this post :confused:

Is there a point in here or are you just venting? Certainly flying is dangerous -no secret there. Certainly IFR flying is dangerous -single or multi -no secret there. But again, what's the point? Are we bashing Cirrus, IFR, SEL IFR or what? -let me know so I can get my football bat.

If you are going to get on your soapbox about something, how about all those innocent (non relative) people who get killed by drunk drivers every day--got a number on them? I bet the number is HUGE in comparison to stupid Cirrus pilot tricks. Just trying to understand.
 
Flag, Mom and Apple Pie

...OK, I feel much better now, thanks. I'm still going to fly my single engine land RV-6A in IMC with my wife by my side and I'm not going to feel any more or less comfortable because someone says it's dangerous. I KNOW IT'S DANGEROUS! You don't get any more competent by not flying when IMC prevails and you must recognize unacceptable risk situations.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Arthur that was well said. I have less than 160 hours of flying with about 35 hours of hood time and 6 hours of actual IMC. I enjoy flying in IMC. I feel very comfortable in it but I make sure that I am flying in good IMC. With today's technology at a reasonable price you should be able to plan and fly around any bad IMC. What amazes me is that one can get an IFR ticket without ever being in IMC. Under the hood and real IMC are two completely different things. I am lucky to have a building partner who is a CFII. Once in while he has to take trips to West Palm, Fort Myers or Atlanta. I get to tag along and fly for free. It never seems to fail that we will be in IMC at least one way during the trip. If it is severe IMC we sit and wait it out. We just make sure we find airports with nice pilot lounges. When is IFR much safer than VFR? A good example was leaving LOE this year. Paul was able to sneak out early through the cloud layer (good imc) and make home before the front started to really kick up. Us non-ifr fools had to wait for the clouds to lift before we could make it out. We were too late to get ahead of the front and hit a wall (0' agl to up over 20,000') of clouds just east of Abilene. Luckily nothing closed in behind us and we had no problem getting back to Abilene (which has one of the greatest FBO's I have ever been to.) Had I had my IFR ticket I would have felt much more comfortable getting out early and flying through the cloud layer than encountering the massive front. But it was fun being in a flight of four RV's buzzing the West Texas sky! I think IFR is a personal choice. My RV-10 will be fully IFR capable with multiple systems. I intend to learn them inside and out and practice, practice and practice. I think IFR can be safe in a SEL if you don't act like a fool, know your limitations and your planes limitations. If you don't have your IFR ticket find an excellent CFI who can train you in ACTUAL IMC. I can't wait to finish my plane and finish up my IFR training.
 
weather

At first I thought about this thread, it must mean "single pilot" IFR. Then after readiing the posts it dawned on me it was oriented at single "engine" IFR. Just last week, a professional pilot flying a cessna twin crashed in IFR conditions killing 5 souls. I once watched a boeing 720 with 4 big motors on it fly into IFR conditions, and 20 minutes later the radio announced that a Northwest Orient airline had crashed west of Miami killing all 43 souls on board. I dont think you can limit the danger to the single engine crowd.

Single pilot IFR is frought wiht hazard, even if you have 2 or more engines. I have always believed it is the weather itself that catches so many people by surprise. There is weather you can float thru safely in a cessna 150, and then there is weather no one would venture thru in a battle ship. Your survival requires you learn to know the difference. JMO :eek:
 
Last edited:
atreff said:
Many of the good folks I encounter who do not fly IFR in RV's or production craft are transport-category drivers full time. I totally understand.
Arthur

As some-one else very humourously stated recently....transport category pilots tend to view single engine solo IFR as an emergency situation....they're down to the last engine and the first officer is totally incapacitated.
 
Good post, Arthur. Obviously you know of what you speak. Perhaps your perspective is as necessary as mine, we don't want to scare everyone from the satisfaction of a job well done. :)

The comment about your Father not flying IMC anymore is interesting. We all get to that point eventually. Another retired guy (RV-4 driver) and I recently speculated that perhaps as few as 15% of retired pilots ever fly again - some never go to an airport again. Total burn out, I guess.

dd
 
Matter of perspective

I've read this thread with interest, and it appears that it's all a matter of perspective and experience. Most of us probably earned an instrument rating in a single initially, and we probably did some actual IFR in that airplane. We all probably worked on some instrument procedures/currency training in a single engine in actual conditions.

So what's the difference? Cross country comes to mind. Flying local IFR is far different than flying cross country. Also, the heavy iron guys probably have far more experience in hard IFR situations. It all comes down to the particular situation, airplane equipment and pilot experience. Most of us are probably more comfortable flying with 200nm of home then halfway across the country in unknown terrain and unkown airspace. I know I am.

For me, I have different limitations for every situation depending mostly on the airplane and my 'gut feeling'. My RV is a VFR machine, but several other planes I fly are good IFR airplanes, both SEL and MEL. The number of engines doesn't concern me as much the situation. Sometimes you just have to say NO.

Tim/ATP
 
w1curtis said:
I don't get the point of this post :confused:

It's about making decisions, William.

When a pilot takes off, does something really stupid and kills innocent people, the situation is difficult to ignor and not comment on.

If one wants to go out and do it himself solo, have at it, but when wives and kids are involved, it is not good.

dd
 
David-aviator said:
When a pilot takes off, does something really stupid and kills innocent people, the situation is difficult to ignor and not comment on.

If one wants to go out and do it himself solo, have at it, but when wives and kids are involved, it is not good.

dd
OK, fair enough. Then you must have some comment on this. Accidents like this take far more than 1,000 lives a year.
 
Wait a minute

William,
Mr dd is not going anywhere but SEL IFR and that's the discussion and so far it's been great. Don't get into suicides, homicides and all that. We're talking about generally well-educated men in a more-than-likely upper income brackets doing dumb things like killing their families because of lousy judgement by flying into known icing conditions and augering in, etc.

Let's try and keep this thread on flying IFR because I've already learned from it, even with 16,000+ hours, I'm IFR rated but rusty.
Smile....... :)
 
Study Everything!

Even though I might have a slightly different take on the topic of SEL IFR than David, it is clear from the thoughtful comments on this thread that we all share the desire to keep our flights, ourselves, and our passengers as safe as possible within the context of taking advantage of these marvelous machines. I want to thank Dave for stating the thread, because it gave me the idea to go and do a little studying - and that is always a good thing.

One of my "other duties as assigned" is to be the Flight Safety Officer for our mission operations team, and as such, I felt that it was a good use of an hour yesterday to peruse some accident report data. I highly recommend this for everyone - if you are reading this, you obviously have web access, and an hour spent reading about what has caused other pilots to come to grief is worth many hours of bouncing around the sky, trying to make your own mistakes...How does that saying go "Learn from the mistakes of others, because you'll never have time to repeat all of them yourself..."?

So yesterday I id a search on the FAA accident database for "RV" accidents that were listed with "Fatalities". The database defaulted to dates from 2001 until the present. It came back with 44 incidents, and I skimmed each one of the reports to see what kind of things are killing people in our particular types.

My notes are on my desk at the office, but from memory, here is a summary:

1) Low Level Acrobatics - this accounted for maybe ten of the cases.

2) Engine failure due to fuel starvation (mechanical) - another larger number, and most happened very near (or on) the airport. I suspect these were problems due to construction errors or modifications.

3) Engine failure due to fuel starvation (pilot error) - no fuel in the airplane - 'nuff said.

4) There was a significant number (five to ten?) of incidents involving loss of control where the pilot's blood chemistry was cited due to various pharmaceuticals being present....

5) Weather. I found five cases where the weather was cited as being IFR. One had the person on an IFR flight plan, the others were "continued VFR into IFR conditions. And two of those were formation flights where VFR was attempted in IFR conditions, and the accident pilot was not IFR rated.

This was not a scientific study, just things that stuck with me after an hour of study. I have just cited the facts, and will let you draw your own conclusions. And my point is....go do a little study yourself. Tired of bucking rivets? Hands cramped up from Cleco pliers? Do some refresher training on your own - these 44 accidents represent maybe 75 lives lost. If they can prevent a few more accidents by setting a bit in your mind, then maybe they were not lost in vain.

Once again David - good thread - it makes us think!

Paul
 
David-aviator said:
It's about making decisions, William.

When a pilot takes off, does something really stupid and kills innocent people, the situation is difficult to ignor and not comment on.

If one wants to go out and do it himself solo, have at it, but when wives and kids are involved, it is not good.

dd

While I agree with Paul that this thread is good because it causes us to examine our choices a bit better, I just can't wrap my head around your point.

Airline pilots do stupid things too and kill hundreds of people in one shot (the wives and kids included). They also hop into "little" airplanes and kill their familiys like that (some of the worst examples of airmanship have come from high time airline pilots for some bizaare reason).

Then there are non pilots that hop into their cars and kill themselves and others...some because of stupidity, and others are just plain 'ole unlucky and have an accident (and most, I suspect, are in between).

Then you have the wives and kids that follow Dad on the camping trip and slip down the hill hiking, drown or get eaten by a bear.

Own a compressor? Did you know those things blow up sometimes? Could easily take out a bunch of people, even wives and kids.

I hope you see where I'm going with this. Life, in general, is a series of calculated risks, and always will be. It's a little arrogant, and frankly one of my pet peeves, to suggest imposing any additional restrictions on what a family decides to do. Life with no risk is BORING, and those who take no risks rarely succeed in life.

Thanks to this kind of thinking...the "I know what's good for you and your family" kind of thinking....even the simple Lawn Dart has dissapeared from life. Sheesh...

This is SUCH a slippery slope...

edit: In the interest of adding something constructive to my post, I think I know where you're coming from, Dave. IFR is risky in any circumstance. In my opinion, though, a much better way to approach this is from the angle of what we can do as pilots to reduce that risk regardless of what we fly, how many engines we have or how many people there are in the cockpit.

Personally, I fly with an instructer 3 or 4 times a year at least, regardless if I'm going for a rating or not. I also spend a LOT of time just studying, reading and brushing up, doing touch and goes in nasty crosswinds, etc etc etc.

I do the same thing at work because what I work on is enourmously complex and therefore it's very easy to cause incredible amounts of damage with a couple of seconds of inattention.

There's no reason flying can't be safe and increasing safety should be our focus, not limiting activities.
 
Last edited:
w1curtis said:
OK, fair enough. Then you must have some comment on this. Accidents like this take far more than 1,000 lives a year.

Sorry, William, my plate is full with aviation stuff.

Thanks for the kudos, Paul. Your interest in the subject will go a long way toward causing pilots to think about it. You and Arthur are very accomplished single pilot IFR guys - your input demonstrates that it can be done safely. That story needs to be told as much as the "reality wake up call".

I was in your world at one time maintaining flying skills doing Part 135 work while sitting in a F/E seat. I hold in highest regard the guys I knew then who flew solo day and night in the NY and BOS ATC systems. The only approach we had was an ADF circle. Single pilot IFR CAN BE SAFE and gratifying, but pilots must know the limits of themselves, the operation and what's going on with the weather. (Part 121 is a piece of cake compared to IFR under Parts 135 and 91)

Perhaps that message will come across. Again, thanks for your input.

dd
 
Last edited:
jcoloccia said:
There's no reason flying can't be safe and increasing safety should be our focus, not limiting activities.[/I]

Hey, John, we're on the same page. I do listen to Rush now and then although seldom agree with him. :)

dd
 
Last edited:
SEL IFR

David: Paul's posts make a lot of sense to me. Risk is always present in flying but most of us think it manageable or we wouldn't continue to fly. I've flown SEL IFR for 30 years with my wife, friends and family and, happily, have had no accidents or incidents that were seriously threatening. Ice scared me in my younger and bolder days and I treat it with great respect. My RV-8 will be better equipped than any other single I've flown IFR, with more redundancy as well as generally higher performance (especially as regards take-off and ldg distance, climb rate and service ceiling). We plan to fly IFR with it but will choose conditions with care and be prepared to abort or use alternate transportation as appropriate. Like many other pilots, I feel IFR in marginal VFR weather is generally safer than attempting to "scud run." Clearly the demands on the pilot are higher, in terms both of flying experience/currency and judgment. The IFR ticket and well-equipped single make it possible to safely complete many flights that would be impossible or unsafe without that capability, at least in my opinion. Thanks for starting this thread, which has inspired a lot of thoughtful comment. Bill
 
Accident Reports are very redundant

I don't know why this thread inflames me so much but it does.

The same things happen over and over to the point that after a few years there wasn't anything new until new systems were introduced. Once you have an instrument rating you should be able to read standard instruments and stay upright except in two cases, 1) the instruments fail or 2) you think they fail. Ice and thunderstorms are certainly to be avoided so the remaining met conditions are what an instrument rated pilot has to worry about on a properly planned IFR flight. The most demanding ones in that category are those affecting landing. I don't know about others, but the biggest pucker intensifier for me is when I take off on a VFR flight and IMC conditions develop in route. Getting "into the system" is not like flipping a switch there are significant challenges physically, mentally and operationally. I suspect poor preflight planning and poor flight plan execution are the root cause for accidental death more often than they are given credit for. I know pilots that think nothing of jumping in their plane and planning the flight real time with progressive "direct to" GPS inputs. OK, I do it to but if things go bad the opportunity for planning a way out minimize and surplus time for considering the possibilities evaporates. Anything that you can think of that may allow you to survive is locked onto with the smallest diameter tunnel vision.

OK, OK I'll stop now.
Bob Axsom
 
I don't know why this thread inflames me so much but it does.
Ditto!

Thanks to this kind of thinking...the "I know what's good for you and your family" kind of thinking.... Sheesh...
Agree 100%!

This thread probably "pushed my button" because so often these multi thousand hour X-professional armchair pilots, turned Internet know-it-all think that their wisdom beats the collective wisdom of the FAA and everyone else and that they are "educating" us on something we don't know. At best their statistics are without context, and at worst their messages dis-ingenious.

This is beyond reminding folks to be careful. First the title of the thread is "Woes of SEL IFR." To a causal observer, it may seem like 85 people per month are dying in Cirrus crashes. Or is it 85 people per month in SEL IFR mishaps? The actual number is more like 85 per month for ALL of aviation in the NTSB database for ALL types of flying. Or maybe because fully 10% of my 1100 hours is in actual SEL IMC conditions and somebody is trying to say I shouldn't be doing that despite what the FAA says.

Personally I am very comfortable in solid IMC as long as there is no ice or thunderstorms in those clouds. With advances such as cloud top indicators and Nexrad via XM or other source, you can mitigate these risks, in summer and winter. As long as you follow the procedures and there are no major systems failures, it can be a safe endeavour, relatively speaking. Flying is still dangerous, IFR flying additionally so -this shouldn't be news to anyone.
 
soap box derby

A friend of mine was a Navy Carrier pilot during the Korea conflict. He flew the Douglas Skyraider, and the Grumman Banshee in combat. After the war, he flew just like the rest of us, under part 91 IFR and VFR. He told me the reason he quit flying IFR was because one night on a low ceiling approach in his Cessna he got vertigo, and were it not for his friend in the right seat who recovered he might have died. I dont think it matters how many engines you have.
 
ddurakovich said:
I've often wondered if it really is expensive equipment, or the appearance of previously unobtainable/unaffordable technology that lure people into that false sense of security :confused:

I've read more than one post in the last year about the utilization of a Garmin 396, with all the bells and whistles, to keep them out of trouble....

I've thought Garmin GPS's were near bullet proof - until this year. About 35 miles out of OSH, sitting calmly in beautiful VFR conditions while Navaid navigated and Altrak did its thing, the GPS froze up. Like what it this? Am I going to have to find my way to OSH without a GPS? Have not done that in 20 years! Where is that sectional!?

I shut the unit down, hit the restart button, and opened a chart to find myself over all those little lakes and cow farms south of Rippon - they all look alike! How come that pond is not on the chart? If nothing else, get behind an airplane and follow it but there wasn't a flight in sight, bummer. I wonder it that road goes to Rippon? I still draw lines on charts, but nothing looked connected to the chart line.

SAVED! About 2 minutes after restart, Garmin came back to life and shortly after found itself - and there was Rippon and Fisk on the glass straight ahead. WHEW! Thought I was time warped backward 30 years.

We sure are spoiled with the marvel of GPS and lots of other neat electronic stuff. :)

dd
 
David-aviator said:
I've thought Garmin GPS's were near bullet proof - until this year. About 35 miles out of OSH, sitting calmly in beautiful VFR conditions while Navaid navigated and Altrak did its thing, the GPS froze up. Like what it this? Am I going to have to find my way to OSH without a GPS? Have not done that in 20 years! Where is that sectional!?



Any chance your charts and perhaps a Fight Guide happened to be sitting on the Garmins glare sheild mounted antenna? :D

That's what happened to us. Once that was figured out, all returned to normal.
 
David-aviator said:
...the GPS froze up. Like what it this? Am I going to have to find my way to OSH without a GPS? Have not done that in 20 years! Where is that sectional!?

I shut the unit down, hit the restart button, and opened a chart to find myself over all those little lakes and cow farms south of Rippon...
I had my Garmin 396 freeze up once to the point where I had to remove the battery in flight.

Last weekend my other GPS (Apollo 360), panel mount with antenna on the top of the fuselage, went off line for about 10 seconds. Now this is in an area of pretty much constant notams for GPS issues due to military testing, but the whole time my 396, with no external antenna, was dead solid. The 396 with the built-in antenna occasionally goes off line for a few seconds but the 360 never has before.

Go figure, but don't rely on these things!
 
statistics

The 85 fatalities per month in the initial post got my attention, so I reviewed the 2005 Nall Report: "General Aviation (GA) accident rates continue gradually down. In 2004, the rate was 6.2 accidents for every 100,000 flight hours, with 1.2 of those fatal. In all, there were 1,413 GA accidents in 2004, with 290 fatal accidents. 510 total fatalities. "

Interesting statistic in the weather section: "Of the 22 total SEL weather related fatal accidents 19 were VFR in IMC." (Only 3 were IFR in IMC.) This stat alone is far from the whole story and should be reviewed in contrast with the entire report.

We as a flying community should strive to reduce the count to zero. I reviewed the Nall Report at AOPA to see what the statistics revealed. Each accident seems to have it's own set of circumstances. The Nall Report: If you haven't already, I would strongly recommend that you take a look at it.
 
n5lp said:
I had my Garmin 396 freeze up once to the point where I had to remove the battery in flight.

Last weekend my other GPS (Apollo 360), panel mount with antenna on the top of the fuselage, went off line for about 10 seconds. Now this is in an area of pretty much constant notams for GPS issues due to military testing, but the whole time my 396, with no external antenna, was dead solid. The 396 with the built-in antenna occasionally goes off line for a few seconds but the 360 never has before.

Go figure, but don't rely on these things!


I would gently point out that while you are absolutely correct ("Don't rely on these things"), the same can be said about any single piece of equipment I have ever used in an airplane. My previous generation of avionics, for instance....dual VOR/LOC/GS receivers and ADF. I've had nylon gears break so that you couldn't turn the OBS. ADF with thunderstorms around? Forget it! Ever had them turn the Glide slope transmitter off on you? Or it just went away due to power failure? Man, how did we ever cope? :eek:

My point is not to be contentious....it is simply to say that you should never depend on a single "anything". Always have a backup plan. I have three GPS's. And VOR/LOC/GS. And two Comms, so that if everything else goes to P00 (that's "program zero zero", which means the machine isn't processing :rolleyes: ), I can still call ATC and ask for vectors, help, etc.

Saying that we shouldn't depend on GPS just makes us the latest in a long line of those who mistrust the new while forgetting that the old had similar problems.

Paul
 
Last edited:
If all else fails

This might be a poem, or maybe not.

If I was Roscoe Turner, Ill tell you what I see, a big ole radial engine sticking out in front of me.
My panel is a work of art, 4 gages that I need, a gyroscopic turn and bank, a ball thats floating free.
Altimeter with a barometric window I can change, I set my elevation like i'm down home on the range.
My airspeed is my buddy, it looks me in the eye, when my nose drops down to far I know ive got to change
My compass swings from left to right, I try not to let it wander, I have a clock too, hey, Im in the wild blue yonder.
My cat is here beside me, he wonders where we are, I would talk on the radio, but I think that Im way to far.
I have this little gadget that says Im going up, If Im not quick to catch its drift it says Im going down.
It does no good to look ahead or look out of the window, the only thing that I can see is my Cat and he has a frown.
The weather man was really great, he gave me this synopsis, if you get as far as Pheonix, expect that it gets worse, if you see some ice, then try to land if you can find some place that's nice
Im doing 200 mph.
doolottle.jpg
 
Last edited:
Build9A said:
The 85 fatalities per month in the initial post got my attention, so I reviewed the 2005 Nall Report: "General Aviation (GA) accident rates continue gradually down. In 2004, the rate was 6.2 accidents for every 100,000 flight hours, with 1.2 of those fatal. In all, there were 1,413 GA accidents in 2004, with 290 fatal accidents. 510 total fatalities. "

Interesting statistic in the weather section: "Of the 22 total SEL weather related fatal accidents 19 were VFR in IMC." (Only 3 were IFR in IMC.) This stat alone is far from the whole story and should be reviewed in contrast with the entire report.

We as a flying community should strive to reduce the count to zero. I reviewed the Nall Report at AOPA to see what the statistics revealed. Each accident seems to have it's own set of circumstances. The Nall Report: If you haven't already, I would strongly recommend that you take a look at it.

Statistics! I should know better than to throw out a number that will be challenged for sure.

The 85 evolved from some basic research into the NTSB files some years back when canard airplanes were killing not a few people on a regular basis. I was trying to emphasis that we needed to slow down and try not to have so many accidents.

For example, in 1999, May (90), Jun (81), Jul (77), Aug (107) (fatalities). For that same period this year, the respective numbers are (37) (58) (91) (60). The Nall Report is correct in concluding things are getting better. If the assumed number of hours flown is anywhere near accurate, the rate is better.

But as you say, it is not the total picture. There were more people killed in GA IFR accidents last month than all of 2004. The problem is not going away.

We have a choice - accept what is happening as part of the risk of flying OR raise an awareness of the issue with some hope of making it better.

As pilots, we really have nothing to loose by kicking this stuff around. If you don't like what you read, don't read it.

dd
 
jcoloccia said:
I hope you see where I'm going with this. Life, in general, is a series of calculated risks, and always will be. It's a little arrogant, and frankly one of my pet peeves, to suggest imposing any additional restrictions on what a family decides to do. Life with no risk is BORING, and those who take no risks rarely succeed in life.
[/I]


John, I'm with you....well said.

As far as private GA goes I suspect that the "safety brigade" are in fact simply suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome....they've been terrorized by the FAA with the safety stick for so long they've finally become brainwashed into sympathising with their oppressors.
 
Ironflight said:
if everything else goes to P00 (that's "program zero zero", which means the machine isn't processing :rolleyes: ), I can still call ATC and ask for vectors, help, etc.

Man, you're really reaching back into spaceflight history with that line! I love it! However, to be perfectly accurate, if your GPS, ILS, and VORs fail, you'd have to rely on P64: "Landing Maneuvre Approach Phase."
 
Something wrong with the Nail Report

Build9A said:
Interesting statistic in the weather section: "Of the 22 total SEL weather related fatal accidents 19 were VFR in IMC." (Only 3 were IFR in IMC.) This stat alone is far from the whole story and should be reviewed in contrast with the entire report.

I must call into question the Nail Report. Specifically, "Only 3 were IFR in IMC", whatever that means. (Could be I do not understand how these things are reported, but the "Only 3" seems misleading. I do believe there were more than 3)

I began a check of the NTSB file for 2004 and never got past January 1. On the very first day of that year, there were 3 fatal accidents, all related to weather. All IMC. (7 people dead)

Below are the summaries for those 3 accidents. For sure there were more for 2004.

(ed - actually there were 2 more SEL IFR accidents on the 19th with 4 more fatalities. I don't want to beat this to death or make aviation seem more unsafe than it is, but if I can read, the NTSB numbers are different than those in the Nail Report. Just to keep apples in the apple barrel, one of the January 1 accidents was a Piper twin with 2 fatalities. The others were SEL)

dd
(Your friendly, self appointed flight safety officer. Have a great turkey day. We are off to visit a gaggle of grandkids. :)

1. The failure of flight/navigation instruments while in instrument meteorological conditions (in-cloud flight and low ceilings) resulting in spatial disorientation. A contributing factors was the prevaling instrument meteorological conditions (low ceiling and in-cloud flight) (1-1-04)

2. Loss of aircraft control resulting in an in-flight collision with terrain. Factors include marginal weather and dark night conditions. (1-1-04)

3. Both the pilot-in-command and the co-pilot allowing the aircraft to enter into an area of adverse weather (icing conditions at low [-20 degrees C] temperatures) resulting in sequential induction icing, induction filter blockage, carburetor icing and the subsequent partial loss of power in both engines followed by tree impact and collision with terrain during an emergency descent/approach. Contributing factors were icing conditions, low temperatures, night conditions and trees. (1-1-04)
 
Last edited:
Captain Avgas said:
As far as private GA goes I suspect that the "safety brigade" are in fact simply suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome....they've been terrorized by the FAA with the safety stick for so long they've finally become brainwashed into sympathising with their oppressors.

Give me a break, Avgas.

Real pilots ARE concerned about safety. Certainly, you fit it this senario somewhere.

Brainwashing (not really an appropriate word here) goes both ways. Some stick their head in the sand with regard to risk management and the consequences of poor decisions. They get away a poor decision (or plan ignorance) once or twice and the head goes deeper in the sand. Eventually it's so deep, they are six feet down.

Others try to know what's going on and have some control over the outcome of every flight. Flying is most fun when this happens.

dd
 
Risk Assesment.

I've followed this thread with interest. I'm not a high time pilot but I have participated in my share of risky ventures (Racing motorcycles). I see one common thread to any such activity and in fact to most things we do and that is risk assessment.
Risk is the chance of misadventure in any activity and that risk usually has little to do with how much experience or how good the equipment we have in undertaking that activity. In the context of this discussion, It is simply the chance of Mother Nature doing what mother nature does. We as pilots have little impact on how Mother Nature will act, we simply must accept the risk that these things do happen.
Your experience and equipment however do play into your decision in accepting to deal with that risk and that decision is yours to make every time that risk presents itself.
The risk doesn't change with experience and with the equipment you've provided yourself. Icing will always be a risky proposition. Training, experience and equipment may however make you more or less capable to deal with some risk of icing.
David has simpy been clear in stating that risk is present and we need to assess the risk when we chose to fly, as we do our other activities. This is not a question of we shouldn't fly but simply we need to make informed decision about flying and enjoy every minute of it. :)

My choice at the moment is to stay VFR simply because I'm not qualified or equipped for IFR conditions. If my training improves and I can equip my aircraft sufficiently to handle certain situation then that decision may change. I'm only thankful that we can have these discussions so we can all fly smarter and all get home safely.
 
w1curtis said:
This thread probably "pushed my button" because so often these multi thousand hour X-professional armchair pilots, turned Internet know-it-all think that their wisdom beats the collective wisdom of the FAA and everyone else and that they are "educating" us on something we don't know. At best their statistics are without context, and at worst their messages dis-ingenious.
Certainly did not mean to so rattle your cage, William. Your opinion of old arm chair pilots may reflect some truth but there is more to it than that. (Incidently, I know of no pilot who professes to know more than the FAA. It is a most unwise position to take. :))

Some years ago, I knew a pilot in his mid 70's who has since, as he would say, gone west.

He was a fixed base operator in southwest New England; owned the airport, the airplanes, the hangars, the Part 135 certificate, shared the maintenance operation with a life long friend, and was a charter member of the QB's. He spent most every day in his old rocker arm chair, dispensing much wisdom managing his business and the guys flying his airplanes. Five or six pilots, myself included, worked for him full and/or part time. He flew only in his capacity as an FAA check airman, we flew the grunt single pilot IFR work day and night, mostly to Boston and New York.

The point being, we respected this man. He earned the position of "old arm chair pilot" by much hard work and experience going back to WWII when he was a civilian test pilot on the Corsair project. We were mighty lucky to have his council and knew it. He was a savvy survivor in a tough business.

Perhaps I am not in this man's league, but some of the stuff I've learned over the years came from him, some from the airline, and some from the military. That is the basis of my arm chair status today. If it irritates you, OK, but do think about some of the other messages on this forum from other very qualified writers. There is much collective wisdom here on this an other subjects.

No matter how you feel about me, you must admit there are too many people dying doing what we do. I believe we can make a difference and not impose any undo restructions on anyone by simply encouraging a thought process that may cause a pilot to make better decisions. That's all.

dd
 
David-aviator said:

Real pilots ARE concerned about safety.

Concerned, yes.....obsessed, no.

We need to put this matter of air safety into some perspective.

Every year in the United States approximately 96,000 people are killed in some form of accident.

Roughly 44% of those accidental fatalities (approx 42,000 deaths) occur on the roads.

Per passenger mile an auto ride is 10 times more likely to result in fatality than an aircraft journey. And believe it or not the death rate per passenger mile is more than 35 times higher for motorcycles than it is for motor cars.

Of greater concern is that fully 40% of traffic fatalities can be directly attributed to excessive alcohol consumption.

And how many people died in civil aviation accidents last year. In fact only 600. That's approximately one half of one percent of all accidental deaths. The figure is so small it hardly raises a blip on the radar.

So why is it that people who would never in their lifetime consider posting an email to any forum about the national carnage and slaughter on US roads see fit to pontificate endlessly and obsessively about the need for improved safety in aviation.

Beats me.
 
Captain Avgas said:
Per passenger mile an auto ride is 10 times more likely to result in fatality than an aircraft journey. And believe it or not the death rate per passenger mile is more than 35 times higher for motorcycles than it is for motor cars.
I beg to differ on your facts. For accident comparisons, RVs are classified as part of general aviation - which has a much worse accident rate than any form of transportation except motorcycling. Here's one set of figures and the source where I got them:

An Australian review[1] of transportation cross-modal safety studies
listed the following statistics:

Code:
               Travel Mode
               -----------
Fatalities   General Aviation  All Car Occupants  Motorcycle  GA vs Car
-----------  ----------------  -----------------  ----------  ---------
Per 100M km     13.45                1.64            17.75      8.2
Per 1M hrs       1.34                0.37             8.84      3.6
Per 1M trips     7.46                0.12             2.74     62.

(From columns 1, 5, and 7 of table 4 of reference [1].)

So for every hour of time in a GA flight your chance of being fatally
injured is on the order of about 4 times greater than every hour of time
in a car.

[1] http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/Cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf
 
JimLogajan said:
So for every hour of time in a GA flight your chance of being fatally
injured is on the order of about 4 times greater than every hour of time
in a car.

With all due respect the statistics from Australia are relatively meaningless because the sample base is so small. The reality is that so far in 2006 there have been only 34 fatalities in all Australian VH registered aircraft. And that includes ballooning, gliding, aerial agriculture, mustering, helicopter ops, aerobatics and all other forms of high risk aviation.
 
Last edited:
Statistics!?

JimLogajan said:
I beg to differ on your facts. For accident comparisons, RVs are classified as part of general aviation - which has a much worse accident rate than any form of transportation except motorcycling. Here's one set of figures and the source where I got them:

An Australian review[1] of transportation cross-modal safety studies
listed the following statistics:

Code:
               Travel Mode
               -----------
Fatalities   General Aviation  All Car Occupants  Motorcycle  GA vs Car
-----------  ----------------  -----------------  ----------  ---------
Per 100M km     13.45                1.64            17.75      8.2
Per 1M hrs       1.34                0.37             8.84      3.6
Per 1M trips     7.46                0.12             2.74     62.

(From columns 1, 5, and 7 of table 4 of reference [1].)

So for every hour of time in a GA flight your chance of being fatally
injured is on the order of about 4 times greater than every hour of time
in a car.

[1] http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/Cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf

Vernon W. Lowell did a similar comparison of accident statistics in the US back in 1968 and published a book, "Airline safety is a myth". He also co-authored with Jaci St Aubrey, "An Explosive Matter".

I read the former when it came out. It is an interesting point of view on accident statistics, obviously not embraced by government or industry. It created a minor stir at the time but nothing came of it.

There also was published some years later a fact sheet on travel from New England to Florida during the winter months. Many people loved to jump in their little airplane and fly to Florida in one day rather than spend 2 or 3 days driving. Based on the number of wrecked airplanes along the coast each year, it was concluded it was 10 times safer to drive that to fly a small airplane. Nothing much came of that report either. Winter weather along the east coast remains a significant safety factor for light airplane travelers.

dd
Flew the RV twice this past week end, defied the odds again. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top