i believe your engine failure scared the crap out of you, thats all....
From your posts your lack of experience is clear, such that you can't really intelligently discuss that which you don't know...but until you've experienced these things, you truly won't appreciate how you'll react. Or how it will make you feel. Does an engine failure get your attention? Yes. Is a forced landing something that will stand out in your mind? You betcha. Ever had one? Clearly not.
We do not base our decisions in flying on statistics. We do not state that "it hasn't hurt anyone yet, so it must be okay." We are not that stupid.
We do not assume that because only few people have died, an act is okay. You make that assumption, and it is an idiotic assumption. We are not that stupid. Don't be like that.
Statistics regarding the number of persons who have died is irrelevant. If you take a chance and don't die from it, you have still taken a chance. That you did not die is not particularly important, if you have done something stupid. We are aviators; we eliminate risk. We plan, we counsel, we calculate, we preflight. We apply backups. We know exactly what we are going to do when we have an engine failure, an instrument failure, a component failure. We ensure that we have extra instruments, engines, power sources, and a place to land where applicable.
Again, the experience pilots will generally always anwer that single engine piston instrument flight is unwise, and unwarranted, whereas young, inexperienced pilots who don't know better will respond with affirmtions and blindness. Would an engine failure or forced landing scare you? It had better.
My own experiences on the matter go beyond one or two isolated incidents, and you could say that all of them, over many years, have certainly contributed to my own viewpoints. My experience (not my guesswork) has taught me some very important lessons. Among them are the stupidity and foolishness of single engine piston instrument flight, night cross country flight, and continued flight into icing conditions.
putting a gun to ones head is a bad comparison because a gun is made to kill, you tool..
My, what a mature thing to say. When you grow up, you may come to appreciate that an irresponsible act is an irresponsible act. Placing a gun to someone's head is a foolish act, much like flying into intrument conditions in a single engine piston powered airplane. You assert that merely because few people die from it, that it's an okay thing to do. Therein lies the point the analogy. You do a stupid thing, yet justify it becuase nobody got hurt. Much the same as putting a gun to a person's head and pressing the trigger...and when it doesn't go off, you're justified, because nobody died. it's still a foolish act, still just as dangerous, and the fact that nobody died is irrelevant. Do it a hundred times and have no deaths, you have a statistic before you that show that 100% of the time nobody has died. It's still a stupid, foolish thing to do. The statistic is meaningless.
We do not need accident data to know that something is unwise. We need not run out of fuel repeatedly, or fly into brick walls, to know this is a deeply stupid, idiotic act. If not a soul in a hundred years flies into a brick wall, we still know it is an unwise act, despite any fatality record that might confirm it for us. The lack of statistics showing that flying into a brick wall is fatal, doesn't change the fact that it's a dangerous, foolish thing to do.
A brick wall isn't made to kill. But it can. A cloud isn't made to kill. But it can. A firearm isn't made to kill. But it can. Flight into instrument conditions in a single engine piston engine airplane may not be rife with statistics showing loss of life...but it can certainly get you there. Once is enough.
Who and how many died isn't the gold standard for safety. We don't base safety on waiting until enough people die, to do something properly. We prevent it by doing something else.
