I think one can do a lot more "low end IFR" in the USA, simply because they have so many more instrument runways, usually H24, avgas is everywhere, and there is no need for Customs.
In Europe, the avgas/customs matrix is sparse and a 172 has poor utility for European touring. Most of my European trips would have been much more effort in a 172, due to range alone, and I would have never bothered. Even one fuel stop is a major hassle.
Of course a 172 will be fine for short range stuff but I think there is little utility value in that in Europe unless you are working an unusual scenario e.g. flying between Bournemouth (where you live) and Bordeaux (where you work). Both have ILS, decent opening hours, and reasonable alternates. An easy 2hr flight and a horror by any other transport.
Richard Collins in the 1970's operated a C172 IFR for several years to demonstrate the practicality and utility of SEP IFR. I think he gathered statistics on days lost to weather, etc, but in general for trips of up to 400~500 nm, especially with intermediate stops he was quite pleased with the outcome.
A modern 172 with improved crashworthiness seats, seat belts (with air bags?), glass cockpit and a FI Lycoming arguably may be a less risky proposition for IFR than a legacy piston twin.
A forced landing in a 172 is at 45 mph with reasonably good probability of emerging with only minor injury. Legacy twin piston accidents have a much higher probability of serious injury/fatality.
Not sure my risk appetite extends to SEP IFR at night, or VFR except for very good conditions.
The last one to happen on its way to the Isle of Man was a Twin Comanche and it wasn't due to lack of fuel - the AAIB actually recovered the wreck and still found usable fuel in it despite it having sat at the bottom of the sea for three months. (I know the pilot, and she was coming from the Channel Islands - any time you do that you fill it to the gunnels because it's much cheaper there). The other notable one that springs to mind was a Baron that crashed not long after takeoff when the pilot lost control in IMC.
As for fuel I still fill it to the top it off at Ronaldsway before leaving rather than falling to the temptation of cheaper fuel elsewhere, because it gives me options should the weather turn sour.
Superficially, it seems that a number of recent twin ditchings in the Channel were due to people running with low fuel to get the maximum benefit of cheap fuel.
But I don't think the IOM has cheap fuel. The Channel Islands certainly do have.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
PS Starting Multi-Engine tomorrow...
