I bring up this topic because it got some flak in the CPA forums after I put my video Tight grass strip take off and landing, trees both ends.

I said I feel sinlge engine IFR is more dangerous (and not as fun ) as bush flying.
There are thousands of IFR flights every day and no one point at them like you are going to have an accident, you are crazy and so and so.

Here I am trying to figure out a way to do both......

I don't think it's the number of engines as much as the lack of de-icing equipt. in little single engine planes and the type of pilots that fly them. A pilatus is a fine single engine ifr performer. Ironically, there's quite a few approaches around here that I can shoot to lower minimums with my skylane than the fast guys can because of approach speed and the climb rate per nautical mile on the missed. It's pretty easy to maintain a 300 foot per mile climb with a plane that climbs best at 60 knots. The risk in both types of flying is directly proportional to the margins you use.

I've done both. 5000 hours over 20 years and I have yet to bend metal... knock on wood.

Some guys fly single pilot IFR at night or into widespread low areas of IFR. My plane can do that but I don't. Some guys fly into 600' strips in the backcountry. My plane can do that but I don't. Both skill sets require precision flying and continuous robust assessment of your capabilities. I think IFR is harder to learn but easier to maintain proficiency in.

All boils down to your risk management. I listen to what other guys say but I make my own decisions. But, if I am outside the bubble on what every other pilot thinks, I reconsider. And, I have benefitted many times from the advice of others more experienced in each of the two disciplines. Find some experienced guys you trust and learn from them while you grow.

I would say it all depends on the risk choices you make. Are your chances of an engine failure any greater while flying IFR? I don't think so, unless you pick up so much ice you choke the engine intake. If that's the case you were doomed from the start.
Just like backcountry flying, IFR you need to know your aircrafts limitations and set realistic minimums for yourself. If you fly IFR over mountains in icing conditions in an under powered airplane that's not certified for flight in icing, your asking for it. No different than flying into Mile High at 3pm on a windy August afternoon.

The ability to fly IFR in the right conditions I think can be an increase to safety. Let's say your flying along over ruff terrain and there is a 1500 foot AGL ceiling? It's warm out, icing and thunderstorms are not a factor. VFR your down at 1000 AGL, IFR you climb on up into smooth air and maybe sunshine on top and your at 10000 AGL. Then the engine quits. VFR you got at most 2 minutes and your on the ground. IFR at 10000, 15 minutes maybe. You could likely glide to an airport, or a more hospitable area in 15 minutes, you will be talking to ATC and have declared an emergency. Someone will be looking for you from the time of the crash if you don't make it.

An instrument rating and a properly instrumented aircraft is a great tool. Just like a STOL kit and a bush wheels. But they must be used properly.

I was hoping MTV or Cary would answer this question for you. They are organized. Instrument Flight Rules are organized and legalized and practical and real, all stuff that I fail in frequently. Because Instrument Flight Rules are clear enough to make interpretation an non-issue, they are much safer.

The problem with Visual Flight Rules, for so many pilots, is that there are very few visual flight rules. Like the Pharisees, some pilots make the ten or so simple rules into over six hundred complicated, subjective rules by liberal interpretation. If "uncontrolled" is not as tough as we would like, lets call it "pilot controlled." Let's make "maneuvering flight" illegal, even when we expect crop duster to help farmers feed us. Stuff like that confuses the issue and causes anxiety that need not be there. Visual flight is less organized and less safe and many more people of all proficiency levels do it. And then we add all the anxiety of every pilots personal interpretation of what should and what shouldn't be done. The logical and practical reason there are so few rules is that there is no way to logically organize it. So one of the ten commandments, Real VFR Rules, is "SEE AND AVOID."

I'll use our family 185 as an example, since it is equipped for both of the operations you're describing - 8.50's and VG's for the bush and current pitot/static, VOR and GTN750 and standard 6-pack for IFR.

Let's start by making a couple of assumptions.

First, let's say that you are current and proficient in both operations.

Second, that your aircraft is properly equipped and that the maintenance is up to date for both operations.

Since we are using the same airplane for both examples, the statistical probability of the worst-case scenario - which I deem to be an engine failure - is the same. The rest of the problem becomes a relative threat analysis between the two engine-out scenarios.

Some general observations: IFR flying takes place in a very structured and controlled environment. There are many eyes on your flight as you make your way from Point A to Point B, and you are always flying on a flight plan with a specific clearance and under positive control - that is, in direct communication with ATC. Under most conditions, the time lag between a serious in-flight problem and external parties being aware of it and able to respond is almost nil. In addition, ATC is in a position to offer additional resources to enhance the pilot's decision-making with current information and weather, as well as some information about the ground underneath the pilot (roads, etc.). IFR flying necessarily also takes place at much higher altitudes AGL - increasing the time a pilot has between engine failure and touchdown/impact.

Bush flying takes place under practically the opposite set of conditions, and by definition, in and around terrain at much lower altitudes. Terrain usually precludes the possibility of ATC communication in an emergency, removing the possibility of access to those resources.

If you take the same day over the same terrain, let's say a 1000ft ceiling with good visibility underneath and tops that extend well above the Minimum Enroute Altitude (MEA), the risks for both flights are going to be similar. The bush pilot is already analyzing the terrain and should be aware of where he's going if "it" happens right now. The IFR pilot has some additional time and gliding distance available and can at least get help on the way a bit sooner with direct ATC communication. His problem now becomes getting in-between terrain in the blind until he can get under the overcast, then making an assessment on landing sites.

In this case, I give a slight edge to the bush pilot. When I'm in the backcountry, throughout the flight, I've always got my spot picked out from one moment to the next - the "where will I go" decision has already been made and now it's just the matter of getting myself there in one piece. Some of those spots allow the airplane to be reusable, some don't. The singular criteria for choosing one spot over another is the pilot and passengers' survivability, plain and simple. I believe the difficulty of keeping in-between terrain in the blind is the biggest negative for the IFR pilot. A moving map with terrain like we have on our 185 isn't ubiquitous equipment yet. Most airplanes with regular radios would be hard-pressed to find the down-drainage route to VFR underneath.

Now take that same day, with the IFR pilot over flat lands and the Bush pilot in the bush. Generally speaking, think I would give the edge to the IFR pilot, with the additional altitude, resources and time. If you start bringing the ceilings down, the edge to the IFR pilot over the flatlands gets progressively smaller, but still with the understanding that he probably has "help on the way" a lot quicker thanks to ATC.

Working through this, I think it really depends on the terrain the IFR pilot is flying over, once you take the engine failure probability and pilot currency out of the equation.

Good call Mike. Far worse than both are VFR at night over mountains. Statistically I am not sure but I guess with engine out scenario the night VFR over mountains is far less survivable. I stay away.

Tim

Great post Mike.

When I got to the cross-country phase during my instrument rating, my instructor had me plan a flight from Reno-Tahoe back to San Jose. His goal was for me to fully understand departure procedures, required climb gradients, engine performance, DA, etc. It was a good exercise especially when the 172 I was flying could not make the minimum climb requirements for any of the departure procedures without spending some time in a holding pattern to gain altitude before making the turn westbound. A good exercise in flight planning.

After we talked through the flight plan and scenario, he finished by imparting one of the most useful pieces of advice that I have heard.

"You can fly in the mountains, in IMC, and at night...chose one at a time!"

That might be old news to you folks, but that piece of advice stuck with me!

JB

CapnMike wrote:I'll use our family 185 as an example, since it is equipped for both of the operations you're describing - 8.50's and VG's for the bush and current pitot/static, VOR and GTN750 and standard 6-pack for IFR.

Let's start by making a couple of assumptions.

First, let's say that you are current and proficient in both operations.

Second, that your aircraft is properly equipped and that the maintenance is up to date for both operations.

Since we are using the same airplane for both examples, the statistical probability of the worst-case scenario - which I deem to be an engine failure - is the same. The rest of the problem becomes a relative threat analysis between the two engine-out scenarios.

Some general observations: IFR flying takes place in a very structured and controlled environment. There are many eyes on your flight as you make your way from Point A to Point B, and you are always flying on a flight plan with a specific clearance and under positive control - that is, in direct communication with ATC. Under most conditions, the time lag between a serious in-flight problem and external parties being aware of it and able to respond is almost nil. In addition, ATC is in a position to offer additional resources to enhance the pilot's decision-making with current information and weather, as well as some information about the ground underneath the pilot (roads, etc.). IFR flying necessarily also takes place at much higher altitudes AGL - increasing the time a pilot has between engine failure and touchdown/impact.

Bush flying takes place under practically the opposite set of conditions, and by definition, in and around terrain at much lower altitudes. Terrain usually precludes the possibility of ATC communication in an emergency, removing the possibility of access to those resources.

If you take the same day over the same terrain, let's say a 1000ft ceiling with good visibility underneath and tops that extend well above the Minimum Enroute Altitude (MEA), the risks for both flights are going to be similar. The bush pilot is already analyzing the terrain and should be aware of where he's going if "it" happens right now. The IFR pilot has some additional time and gliding distance available and can at least get help on the way a bit sooner with direct ATC communication. His problem now becomes getting in-between terrain in the blind until he can get under the overcast, then making an assessment on landing sites.

In this case, I give a slight edge to the bush pilot. When I'm in the backcountry, throughout the flight, I've always got my spot picked out from one moment to the next - the "where will I go" decision has already been made and now it's just the matter of getting myself there in one piece. Some of those spots allow the airplane to be reusable, some don't. The singular criteria for choosing one spot over another is the pilot and passengers' survivability, plain and simple. I believe the difficulty of keeping in-between terrain in the blind is the biggest negative for the IFR pilot. A moving map with terrain like we have on our 185 isn't ubiquitous equipment yet. Most airplanes with regular radios would be hard-pressed to find the down-drainage route to VFR underneath.

Now take that same day, with the IFR pilot over flat lands and the Bush pilot in the bush. Generally speaking, think I would give the edge to the IFR pilot, with the additional altitude, resources and time. If you start bringing the ceilings down, the edge to the IFR pilot over the flatlands gets progressively smaller, but still with the understanding that he probably has "help on the way" a lot quicker thanks to ATC.

Working through this, I think it really depends on the terrain the IFR pilot is flying over, once you take the engine failure probability and pilot currency out of the equation.

good stuff

I have a strong preference for flying twins in IMC or at night. It's not just the second engine that I like, but the second vacuum pump, alternator, and voltage regulator. An electrical failure in the soup would be a serious situation: No nav, no comms, loss of some instrumentation.

One perspective is that of the insurance industry. It costs more to insure a back country airplane than an IFR airplane (Hull value, pilot experience, etc being equal). However, monetary losses are not the most important aspect. There are a lot of bent airplanes that did not result in serious injury or loss of life that are the driving up the cost of insurance for backcountry airplanes. The number of bent airplanes for a given number of hours or operations is probably much lower for IFR flying, but the human cost of accidents that occur during IFR flying is generally much higher.

Safe maneuvering flight results in more incidents and accidents and fewer fatalities.

I'm not sure that I can add very much, other than to describe my own practices. Whether one is safer than the other is more a matter of perspective than accurate analysis.

My little airplane is marginal in both regimes:

I can get in and out of reasonable strips, but certainly not the hardcore that many here can handle. Part of that is that I fly a trike, and part of that is that the tire size is what Cessna stuck on it 52 years ago. And part of it is that as flying in back country goes, I'm a relative neophyte after only half a dozen years of doing it. I've certainly found that I enjoy it a lot, especially flying in and around the mountains and canyons.

I can fly in reasonable IMC. No 172 can handle any icing, so I'm especially careful to avoid that. But I have a pretty OK panel for modern IMC, including a 430W, a navcom, an ADF, a Stratus II feeding weather to my Foreflight. When I go long distances, it's almost always IFR, and I have no hesitancy in using it.

But I used to do things I wouldn't think of doing today. In years past, I flew over the mountains at night, and I flew in IMC at night. I won't do either today. Part of that, I think, is that until my engine came apart 11+ years ago, I never really thought such a failure could happen. Fly long enough, and one of two things happens, either you learn the hard way that engines do fail, or you build up a huge wad of complacency that it can't happen. I was complacent. I didn't look for places to land except during BFRs, I didn't worry about the terrain over which I was flying. Then I learned different, and although it was only an expensive lesson and not damaging, it caught my attention, kind of like the mule and the 2x4. So I've minimized the risk by flying in "gentler" IMC, and when I'm into the rocks, I'm constantly looking for places I might set down and still walk away.

So I can't really answer whether one is riskier than the other. My mind set is that they're relatively equal. Stay proficient at the kind of flying you do, maintain your equipment, and you minimize the risk of either, but you don't eliminate the risk of either. Flying is inherently more risky than not flying, but for me, that's not yet an appropriate option.

Cary

Agree that where you fly is the determining factor. Single engine IFR where I live means high probability of icing for 10 months out of the year due to MEA's above 10k. Much better odds low and slow on Bushwheels.

Mike, that essay could be published pretty much as-is in a magazine. Well done. I'd like your permission to re-post it in the COPA (Cirrus Owners and Pilots Assocition) forum where there is a current thread that is similar to this one.

I'll only add my equipment/flight rules procedures as another data point. My IFR plane is a 2006 Cirrus SR22-G2, so it has great avionics (including dual 430's, large color moving map with wx overlay and terrain page, Honeywell EGPWS, stormscope etc.) and lots of power. It has the older "non-hazard" non-FIKI TKS (glycol) anti-icing system with weeping wings and horizontal, a prop deicer, pitot heat, and a good defroster. Even with that setup, I do not venture intentionally into icing conditions except for a thin layer into a known approach for example.

A couple thousand hours ago, with my IFR training fresher in my mind, and a more aggressive mindset, I did fly what I guess amounts to night IMC in mountains in light icing. I used to commute into Truckee (about 6,000' MSL with some 9,000' terrain nearby) almost weekly from southern Nevada. A couple of times I shot the GPS 19 approach at night through thin clouds with the TKS shedding light rime. The bases were high, so it was pretty straightforward, except the missed approach requires a stiff climb gradient, so I only did it when I was "sure" I wouldn't have to go missed. Today, I'd probably wait until the next morning.

The Cirrus of course has the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) and now that the Cirrus pilots are actually using it, the Cirrus fatality rate has dropped to less than half of the rest of the comparable GA fleet. There have been many threads on the COPA forum about whether existence of the chute encourages taking more risky flights (so-called "risk homeostasis", like driving faster as highways and cars got better). It is true to some extent. As a long time Cirrus operator, I would no longer choose to fly a piston single without a chute for most of my Cirrus missions, especially night time. As long as I have 500' between me and the ground, I have the option to float down under canopy, which has a near perfect success rate so far. So I am taking flights that I wouldn't in a lesser equipped, non-parachute airplane.

My amphib/bush plane has no IFR equipment and for now I plan to keep it that way. It's a 1964 182 and it does have an attitude indicator and DG, but that's about it. It has three kinds of STOL mods (Wing-X extensions, Sportsman wing cuff, and now Micro-Aero VG's). I figure that with the stout landing gear and very low stall speed, and four point harness, the survivability of a forced off-field landing is decent and I'll live to compare crashing notes with Contactflying!

Whether it's on amphibs or 29" bush wheels, I plan and fly looking for LZ's and seek to minimize the amount of time I'm exposed to a "no good LZ" section. As others have pointed out, from here north, the MEA's put you into the freezing levels much of the year, which is a no-go. So, I've gradually shifted to feeling that flying VFR under ceilings, with the right airplane and attitude, can be lower risk than flying in the soup in a piston single. Several COPA members who could afford it recognized the risk and moved up to pressurized turboprops or small jets like the Eclipse or Mustang.

Back to the original post. I've only looked at one or two of his videos and decided not to look at any more, nor to comment on his flying and decision-making. Others here have and I believe are helping to develop his risk assessment toolbox. I'll bet that if he survives another thousand hours of flying, that he'll look back and say, like many of us "older folks", that he wouldn't do the same things today. So the thread has drifted a bit into broader comparisons of IFR vs. low VFR flying, which I have found informative. The kind of flying that I think was referred to in the original post though, is substantially higher risk than either well thought out and executed careful IFR or VFR flying.

Pierre

Pierre, if you think it would add to the discussion, it's fine by me. As we all know, the variables are what make these kinds of comparisons difficult, especially if you are really attempting an earnest, apples to apples assessment of risk. I didn't mention icing, just to take it out of the variable list.

Here is a very nasty example of the risk when flying single engine IFR no matter how good you are,loosing your engine in IMC would be terrible.
There is no-one to blame in this accident, just terrible luck.


http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Po ... 354566.php

Up here in western Canada, single engine piston IFR is basically non existent. The terrain is mostly mountainous (MEA's can be so high you need oxygen or a pressurized airframe), icing in cloud is a possibility 12 months a year and you are flying at altitudes where the weather can be most severe. Obviously, single engine piston aircraft are usually not certified to fly into known icing conditions, however if you find yourself in that situation, icing in cloud in general can be so severe that carb heat can't keep up with it and with no deicing and anti-icing equipment available you will not be able to maintain altitude because your wings and prop are covered in ice. After instructing my next step in my flying career was single pilot IFR on twin pistons and I had my share of scares in bad weather.

IMHO I think flying recreationally single engine piston IFR in IMC conditions is very high risk, considering the performance limitations of a single engine piston aircraft and the limitations of the pilot. With limitations of the pilot I mean flying irregularly, maintaining just minimum IFR currency and not flying much in IMC.

It all depends on who's doing the flying.

[emoji1]. Yup!

Gump