My VFR training was very conservative. I learned to always lookout for a suitable field for a forced landing. A lesson was cancelled if there was any chance that the weather would be less then "perfect VFR". Flying over open water was strongly discouraged. Night VFR is not allowed in my country, but even if it was I am sure part of the training would be to teach you how unsafe it is :-)
This method obviously produces safe pilots, who just cancel a flight if there is a PROB30 RA in the TAF. In wintertime I hear them complain that they could not fly for months. I guess that the "weather frustration" is part of the flying fun: You really appreciate it if the planned flight actually goes on.
How controversial was my IFR training... Taking off with a 700ft cloudbase. Training ILS approaches at EHKD, where the whole IAP is flown at low level over sea. Returning home after sunset. Purposely picking up ice so you know "how it feels".
In the beginning, IFR flying felt very unsafe, but I slowly got used to it and now I am quite comfortable flying in conditions where a VFR-only pilot would shit his pants..
How dangerous is single engine IFR flying? Is it statistically unsafer then VFR? Are you cancelling a flight if the cloudbase on your route is below, lets say, 1000ft? When crossing water, are you taking the shortest crossing or are you taking the most efficient route? What about crossing mountainous terrain over an overcast?
Lenthamen: I know of one good instructor at EHLE that would actually have a good share or real SEIFR flying experience and would share this with you if you took flying lessons from him. Some of the others would indeed cancel the flight if the clouds were overcast at EHLE (or for that matter even at EHGG) at below 700 feet, which is ridiculous, but of course their freedom to do so.
I just read a report about night flying in a single engine aircraft and that the FAA statistics show that most of the accidents that happen are not due to engine failures, but due to loss of control and other pilot errors. It also showed that having an IR improved safety.
Are you cancelling a flight if the cloudbase on your route is below, lets say, 1000ft?
Indeed, I am. But I must say that the only occasion on which I fly SE IFR is as an instructor. If you know what an instructor gets paid per flying hour (and nothing for everything else like waiting for students who come late, waiting for the airplane that comes back late from the previous flight, briefing, debriefing, endlessly waiting at the holding point and so on) you would not risk your arse either. Our FTO mandates double minima for SE training flights (i.e. 400ft cloudbase for ILS approaches) and no lower clouds than 500ft along the route. I doubled that figure for me, because 500ft is really not enough for spotting a landing site around here. And of course I don't fly SE at night any longer, VFR or IFR dosn't matter. If a student wants to fly with me at night, over mountains or in low overcast conditions he can book a multiengine lesson. I spent a lot of effort and money to get the necessary qualifications...
And regarding statistics: Statistics derived from small samples (and luckily we do have a very low accident rate in aviation) are almost meaningless. Piston engines do fail, that's a fact. I had three fail on me so far, always with lucky outcome, therefore these events didn't find their way into statistics. One of our SE IR training aircraft crashed about two years ago due to an engine failure (google may find an accident report for D-ENBU) it could have been me an hour before or an hour later. Luckily again, that failure occured in good weather with two experienced pilots on board (it was an IR checkride of one of our instructors with an examiner from LBA) and yet they overturned during their forced landing and totalled the aircraft with only very minor injuries to themselves. So for me: better safe than sorry,
Two comments.
1) How training is conducted depends hugely on instructor and school attitudes. I had two IFR instructors, one would not go up in a single if cloud base was less than 1,000ft; the other one was happy to fly in OVC005 [not lower, on account that he did "not fancy the lounge at Southend to wait for the weather to clear, I would rather have weather sufficient to get back to base"].
As far as your VFR training is concerned, ask for your money back ;-)
2) I do not have any numbers on the safety of it, but I presume the largest accident factor in SE IFR is not the SE bit, but the IFR bit, so I focus on managing the IFR bit [currency, personal minima etc.], and accept the risk that if the engine fails over a fog bank or a low undercast, I am as dead as when the engine fails at night. Hence, if I could afford it, I would buy a Cirrus even though I do not care for it too much as an aircraft.
Having said that, while I do not religiously avoid flying in situations where an engine failure would be catastrophic, I try to minimize exposure, for example even when flying from the UK to north Germany, I fly over the channel instead of the North Sea.
PS Starting Multi-Engine tomorrow...
I think it depends on your exposure to the risk.
I was told by one UK IR examiner (who flew almost daily) that so many of the FTO planes were in poor conditions and in some cases only just airworthy, that he would not fly over water in a SE. Indeed I recall that was the UK initial IR test policy, and may still be current.
It seems reasonable, given the condition of the planes I did my PPL in...
At the other end, I am happy to cross the Alps above an overcast
on the basis that
Engine failures of certified engines in certified engine installations are not a major statistical item. If they were, the whole of SE GA would be dead or crippled.
I have read a lot of the risk statistics and continue to believe that mechanical failure is low on the list of likely problems in flight that will try to kill me. The biggest potential problem is me which is why I spend a lot of money on training.
I flew the Mirage all winter over Europe at night and in poor weather. I don't wear a lifejacket or immersion suit crossing the North sea/channel and actually didn't crossing the Atlantic last year either.
But I flew most of that at FL230-250, in an aircraft with a good glide ratio and I always flew those long legs with full fuel so I had plenty of weather diversion options. I was also flying an aircraft I knew well and one that only I flew. I managed its maintenance and hence had as much confidence as you can in a piston aircraft.
I would prefer to be well trained flying a good IFR single than a clapped out twin.
But my perspective is different from what next's. If I was receiving a small hourly rate for flying time with students I would also take a different view on the risks.
If I was receiving a small hourly rate for flying time with students I would also take a different view on the risks.
When I chose to start flying IFR Single Engine, and indeed before each flight, I was completely free to not do it. When I chose to instruct (VFR), I chose to accept the risk that comes with that job in general.
If you fly because you have to, for example because you need the hours, or the higher IFR instruction pay, the risk equation can come out differently. Also, the theoretical risks tend to materialise a lot quicker if you fly hundreds of hours a year instead of 50. I had an engine failure (in VMC) and had to stuff it into a field with a student on board...
But while I understand what_next's position, but I would still ask for my money back if he had been my instructor. ;-)
I agree with Jason and Peter on the need for a decently maintained aircraft, which unless you own are rare as hen's teeth.
I am not sure flying a twin will solve the problem. The problem is for the most part with you, the pilot flying. So, if you do not learn while training for your instrument rating how it is to fly to minima, then how are you going to do it afterwards? Get an instructor who actually has himself good experience flying IFR in Europe and ignore the ones that only fly IFR while teaching and in between 2 known nearby airports all the time flying the same procedures and only in good weather conditions.
I used to fly reasonably often in the US in a fairly ratty old S35 Bonanza and made ILS approaches to minimums. The risk of engine failure (the engine on that particular aircraft was fine, and I was in my mid 20s and therefore invincible). I figured to be quite small in the risk factors I faced. The far bigger risk was the awful avionics the aircraft had (the old mechanical digital display King stuff - KX125 if I remember right) and the lack of autopilot in an aircraft in which you can easily get into an unusual attitude if you don't keep your instrument scan up. But these risk factors were also present in most of the light twins that were within my reach.
I don't fly an IFR capable aircraft here, my strictly VFR Auster costs almost as much to run in Britain as the ratty Bonanza cost in the US (although the Auster is in much, much nicer condition both cosmetically and mechanically and I have no problem with spending money to keep it that way - I didn't get into GA to save money). However, I do fly it over water reasonably often. It's impossible to avoid if I want to actually go anywhere given I live in the Isle of Man. In terms of flying overwater and risk factors:
If I'm going to the eastern half of the UK from Andreas I'll go via St Bees Head which keeps the crossing time down, and if going to Scotland, I go via the shortest route that way since it doesn't add much to the journey. However this weekend going to Gloucester (and especially since I was going from Ronaldsway) I just took off and aimed directly towards Gloucester which results in quite a long crossing - but going back up to the north then to St Bees Head would be an enormous excursion (and probably involve going down the Manchester low level route which I really don't like), so going direct was worth it.
