And therein lies the rub TOM.
There is no doubt in my mind that a properly trained and tested instrument rated pilot is a far safer bet than a purely VFR pilot, but that only applies when the weather is marginal, on a moderate to severe CAVOK day there is very little difference from a safety perspective between a VFR pilot and an instrument pilot. Its that grey area of is it or is it not advisable to proceed with a VFR flight that the risk between them starts to diverge and the trouble starts.
With all the modern tools available today for weather assessment, one can, in real time, gain a very accurate "picture" of what the "weather" actually is, not like the old days when a TAF was an each way bet. But still VFR pilots get themselves in trouble by attempting to fly in marginal conditions. Perhaps a forensic examination of the mind set that leads pilots into these traps and an education program developed to change that mind set, and by that I don't mean the usual CASA lecture about the ROOLS and their penalties, but an educational exercise to change attitudes to risk. Finger pointing, brow beating and threats are never a really affective tool for learning.
I remember way back when, I think around lesson five, my instructor got me to fly into a bit of puffy Cu. Falling out the bottom, almost inverted after about 40 seconds, really set in my youthful mind the dangers of trying to fly in IMC.
There is also Australia's clap trap regulations that positively discourage private pilots from gaining an instrument qualification, too convoluted and expensive to gain and too expensive to maintain under Australian rules unlike the US where quite a majority of private pilots are instrument rated.
There is no doubt in my mind that a properly trained and tested instrument rated pilot is a far safer bet than a purely VFR pilot, but that only applies when the weather is marginal, on a moderate to severe CAVOK day there is very little difference from a safety perspective between a VFR pilot and an instrument pilot. Its that grey area of is it or is it not advisable to proceed with a VFR flight that the risk between them starts to diverge and the trouble starts.
With all the modern tools available today for weather assessment, one can, in real time, gain a very accurate "picture" of what the "weather" actually is, not like the old days when a TAF was an each way bet. But still VFR pilots get themselves in trouble by attempting to fly in marginal conditions. Perhaps a forensic examination of the mind set that leads pilots into these traps and an education program developed to change that mind set, and by that I don't mean the usual CASA lecture about the ROOLS and their penalties, but an educational exercise to change attitudes to risk. Finger pointing, brow beating and threats are never a really affective tool for learning.
I remember way back when, I think around lesson five, my instructor got me to fly into a bit of puffy Cu. Falling out the bottom, almost inverted after about 40 seconds, really set in my youthful mind the dangers of trying to fly in IMC.
There is also Australia's clap trap regulations that positively discourage private pilots from gaining an instrument qualification, too convoluted and expensive to gain and too expensive to maintain under Australian rules unlike the US where quite a majority of private pilots are instrument rated.