Thanks for that, it is really interesting.
As I said above, I hardly 100% trust statistics.
Why ? Because they only have the value they have, but numbers can be torned in all directions to make them say what you want them to say.
Your documents says that UK and US have approximately the same rate of accidents per hours, and France twice.
We studied some statistics 6 months ago to compare France and USA, which were very different, and all based on official sources (NTSB + BEA).
It appeared that the rate between France and USA was not 2... it was even worse!!!!!
Here are our results :
Commercial flights
- USA : 0.4 accidents for 1000 000 flight hours
- Europe : 0.7 accidents for 1000 000 flight hours
- Africa : 13 accidents for 1000 000 flight hours ...
General Aviation
USA : 600 000 pilots, 1.31 deaths / 100 000 flight hours (source NTSB)
Switzerland : 19 000 pilots, 4.63 deaths / 100 000 flight hours (source OFAC)
France : 7.67 deaths / 100 000 flight hours (source BEA + DGAC)
These statistics were done with the help of the BEA.
And they depict a real big difference with the numbers given in the other article.
I have to check the exact result we had for UK, because it was not the subject we were studying during that brainstorming (but I'll go and find it), but I remember we did not find the same as the US, absolutely not... it was more like France !
So you understand now why I do appreciate statistics, but always keep a kind of distance with them.
Whatever, one thing is sure : the more you limit the "sophistication" of the learning of piloting available to pilots, the more you increase your accidents rate.
Developping the IFR for private pilots is one of the keys, and I work actively on that.
But also, did you compare the accident rate of IFR-rated pilots with the one of VFR-only pilots ?
The IFR-rated have more accidents than VFR-only...
Does this mean that it is safer not to get an instrument rating ?
Of course not !!
But this means that the more you learn to fly in bad conditions, the more you fly in bad conditions.
So the more risks you take.
And if you take those risks, you have better be trained correctly and fully.
For me, entering in bad weather conditions SHOULD BE with a real IFR qualification, and with a real IFR equipped airplane !
You cannot be "half pregnant" : you need a real full IFR to fly in IMC !
And this IMC rating just make some pilots (not all of them I assume, I believe there are some serious.... but too many in my opinion and experience) think they are what they are not, without telling the other what's happening, just cow-boys through the clouds...
They just forget the sky does not belong only to them, and maybe the other do not want to get killed by them, especially in other countries were they do not expect to meet them, especially in controlled areas.
So at least, keep your IMC rating for your own country, fly VMC abroad, thanks !
Frog go to sleep
Remarks : About the one above telling that when you enter IMC in VFR you should lie to the ATC, he has better not having me as ATC next time he does that "joke" in France...