The real dangers of Black Night VFR.

[Centaurus]

Just read the excellent ATSB report on the Bell 407 night VFR flight which culminated in the pilot losing control on a black night flight from Mackay killing all on board.

The pilot who did not have an instrument rating had logged only 12 hours instrument flight in a total of 2570 flying hours.

The Findings (in part) included: "While the forecast weather conditions could be interpreted to meet regulatory requirements for flight under the night VFR.....the lack of celestial or surface/ground-based lighting precluded visual reference to the horizon during the over water portion of the flight.....the regulatory requirements for flight under night VFR did not include considerations for celestial or surface/ground-based lighting availibility or visual reference to the horizon"

One of the ATSB recommendations to CASA was that helicopters operating Night VFR should have a standby AH in case the primary AH fails. Currently a Turn Coordinator covers that eventuality but flying solely on the Turn Cordinator in a helicopter takes exceptional instrument flying skills. I can well believe that, too.

CASA knocked that recommendation back by saying that it had talked to the Helicopter Association of Australia and the general helicopter industry and those bodies said it wasn't necessary. Well they would, wouldn't they - because it would cost money and we all know that money comes before safety. However CASA did say they would legislate for more recurrent training and prof checks. That's like saying that you don't need to be taught to how to swim, but it is better to teach you not to go near the water...

The ATSB report is well worth reading as it brings out the long standing suspicion among pilots that there is a continuing war of words between ATSB and CASA over ATSB Recommendations.

Those of us who have flown on pitch black nights during a Night VFR cross-country have most certainly relied upon instrument flight to stay right side up. Of course you should then be able to log specific portions of the flight as instrument flight time, even though the conditions are legal VMC.

As for the penny pinching decision which was meekly accepted by CASA not to install a second AH in a helicopter used for Night VFR missions, it is clear that the people involved with that sort of short sighted decision have never flown an aeroplane or helicopter for real on a totally black VMC night with only a Turn Coordinator for reference. I have had that experience and even with a current instrument rating was lucky to get away with it. For a non-instrument rated pilot it would be curtains for sure.

The passengers and pilot of the Mooney that went in like a bomb near Mildura on a Night VFR flight a few years back, when the only AH failed due vacuum pump failure, would attest to the almost insurmountable difficulty of flying on instruments at night soley on the Turn Coordinator. Only they are dead.

I strongly recommend that flying school operators who teach Night VFR read the report which is No: 200304282. Bell 407 VH-HTD, Cape Hillsborough, Q'LD.

[Otto2]

How sad.

I am fortunate to have flown at night in helos, IFR with an Instrument Rating. Night VFR is hard yakka. Lets not throw nasturtiums.

[4Greens]

Night VFR is an oxymoron. As far as I am aware the rating only exists in Australia. It should be scrubbed before it contributes to any more accidents.

[flyby_kiwi]

Night VFR is a rating which exists here aswell.

The part of it that doesnt do alot for me is that if your VFR the chances are that your going to be flying in a single which if all goes quiet is not going to be alot of fun.

The scenarios mentioned above (lack of visual reference, terrain awareness) have cropped up in NZ in recent times and (assuming its still the case) as of last year some time all night VFR flights on an Air Transport Operation (ie part 135) requires prior approval from the CAA.

The fact that IFR flights can not make a visual approach without the runway lights in sight, nor take own terrain sep. during the hours of darkness says it all really.

[Blip]

Obviously there needs to be SOME ambient light if there is to be a horizon from which to maintain orientation. The whole point of VFR is that you do not rely on instruments to remain right side up, or to navigate.

The only way to ensure there is ambient light is to take the phase of the moon in to account. Perhaps there should be a 7 day period per 28 days while the moon is less than one quarter full, when Night VFR is not considered possible.

P.S. And of course you would have to take in to account moonrise and moonset. Thankfully humans now have the ability to predict this sort of thing! :)

[lineupandwait]

To avoid another thread, I 'll ask the question here.

I'm approaching the NVFR rating as part of my CPL training. Can I skip the NVFR rating and just do the Instrument Rating after completing the CPL?

[Keg]

Absolutely and it will probably save you some money and give you a 'better' qualification as well! :}

[A1BUGSMASHER]

lineupandwait,

To do the instrument rating you still need 5hrs night command, which alot of flying schools send students for 5hrs of night circuits.

The topic of wether or not to do the rating also comes down to what you want to do to build hours after your CPL. If you are going to become an instructor then I suggest you do the NVFR. If you don't you can still teach night circuits with a valid instrument rating. If your prepared to go bush to get charter then skip the rating and go straight to the CIR.

Just my two cents worth. Hope it helps.

:ok: BUGS

[The Messiah]

Sorry but I think the rating is fine because it is affordable and then allows you to do Sydney scenics at night(kidding) but it must be taken seriously and the training must be thorough.

It doesn't kill as many people as sheer incompetence.

[DUXNUTZ]

Well in the States you don't even have to do a NVFR rating! Hows that for safe?

[Transition Layer]

The NVFR also gives you good exposure to a lot of navaid work and basic IF skills that will come in very handy during the CIR training.

Regardless of the route you take (instructing v. charter) a lot of employees will require one and may be the little extra thing that you have over another applicant.

TL

[Centaurus]

An edited quote from the accident report by ATSB makes interesting reading about the history of Night VFR.

"When flight under the night VFR was first approved in Australia in 1967, it was developed with the intent that pilots would still be conducting the main part of their flying in daylight hours.

It appears that this has altered over time to include a much broader use of the rating. Flights are now routinely undertaken and completed between the hours of last light and first light by pilots with Night VFR ratings alone.

Night VFR flying is more demanding on the pilot and in some cases requires substantial instrument flying skills. A night VFR rating does not require a pilot to haveany substantial instrument flying experience. Studies have indicated that less experienced and non-IFR rated pilots are more susceptible to spatial disorientation when inadvertently entering IMC than more experienced pilots."

A Night VFR rating may get you ahead of the mob in the hunt for a job but under dark night weather conditions with no horizon it can be a risky business. Far better to save your money and get a command IR where your instrument flying skills will increase with IMC flight. In fact it could be argued that a pilot would be wiser to get an IR first then proceed on to a Night VFR rating later. The skills gained in the IR may save your life on a Night VFR trip outback.

[Obiwan]

The part of it that doesnt do alot for me is that if your VFR the chances are that your going to be flying in a single which if all goes quiet is not going to be alot of fun.

Once heard an instructor's thoughts on forced landing in tiger country at night.

"Turn on the landing light when you're close to the ground. If you don't like what you see - turn it back off again..." :eek:

[chalk one]

The complete ATSB report can be downloaded at this link for anyone interested.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/pdf/200304282.pdf

[McGowan]

I have been a long time reader of pprune but never made any comments. The thing with NVFR in Aussie is (as far as I'm concerned anyway)is that it is as safe as you want to make it. The V stands for "visual", and to me that has always meant that if I can't see a horizon or enough to get the job done with out killing myself and others, don't go. Going some where with my bum sucked onto the seat with fear has ever been an option for me either, but I have never been pressured into doing something I can't or won't do. Yes there have been times where I've gotten off the ground only to find there is nothing to see, so get back on the ground, job is off.
There has never been a need for two engines, auto pilots, dual AH's, (these would be very good to have, but who is paying for it)only because you should be able to do the job with what you have and if you don't have an IFR cockpit, don't go IFR. I've always been of the opinion that if there is any doubt about the weather or conditions say no.

[The Messiah]

I agree with your sentiment but one of the biggest killers in night VFR has been somatogravic illusion during initial climbout. No matter how clear the skies even flying out of a major airport the horizon (due to surrounding lights only) will not appear until about 500', which is why thorough training is what is required together with a serious approach to the operation.

A single serviceable AH and a VSI is all that is needed to tackle the problem. Remember many of these accidents have happened in adequately equipped aircraft on CAVOK nights without any commercial pressures.

[imabell]

messiah,

A single serviceable AH and a VSI is all that is needed to tackle the problem. Remember many of these accidents have happened in adequately equipped aircraft on CAVOK nights without any commercial pressures.

if a single serviceable ah and a vsi is all that we need why have many of these accidents, as you contend, happened in adequately equipped aircraft. surely that's a contradiction.

i'm remembering, as you asked, and to my knowledge, nvfr helicopter accidents have nearly all been in crap weather or pitch black no moon nights. all of these accidents involved ems machines with no commercial pressure. in fact i know of no other accidents, private or commercial, involving helicopters operating under the nvfr.

none of the pilots in any of these accidents were themselves adequately equipped for their flights.

i would be interested to know of the night cavok instances.
:confused:

[The Messiah]

I only contend that thorough training and a serious approach and understanding of the dangers are important. I don't fly choppers sorry so can't speak of them, but the old drill after takeoff in fixed wing was 'pitch attitude, positive rate of climb, check'. Adequately equipped aircraft can still crash when the basics are ignored. If a pilot is not adequately equipped for a flight I would say that comes under a 'lack of thorough training'.

One accident I remember in particular is the Air Ambo's Kingair out of North QLD on a moonless night. The finding was a clear case of somatogravic illusion. There have been many others and you can find them in the crash comics if you wish.

I realise the original post was about a chopper but this a real danger in fixed wing also.

[McGowan]

Looking at what information is available, the common thing seems to be NVFR pilots in NVFR helicopters in either IFR conditions or very close to it...............

[Capt W E Johns]

Posted in reply to the question by Lineupandwait: I'd recommend you get your IFR rating first.

The whole point of VFR is that you do not rely on instruments to remain right side up, or to navigate.

Not at all the case by night (note there is no reference to the horizon in the definition of VMC). It's dead common to be night VFR and be unable to maintain the flightpath without reference to instruments (lack of discernable horizon, even on an unlimited vis night). The point of VFR is to allow aeroplanes to "see and avoid", even by night.

On a dark night the pilot must use instruments to control his flightpath, and therefore needs at the very least instrument training, if not (preferably) a rating. Attempting flight in these conditions without the appropriate training would be unwise.

Moreover, the night pilot must both look outside to get his visual cues, and look inside to keep the right side up. Quite a unique skill.

[Super Cecil]

A branch of aviation that does a fair bit of NVFR in this country is AG. There is an odd accident (1 this year?) but for hours flown (very demanding work) I would think the accident rate is a lot lower than normal NVFR? All this with very basic instrumentation, up until a few years ago an AH was unusual and the only instruments were a T+B or turn coodinator, Airspeed and Altimeter. Thankfully now most have an AH even if it is ventui driven.

[dirtylittlefokker]

Duxnutz

"Well in the States you don't even have to do a NVFR rating! Hows that for safe?"

I do not know if your question was meant to be rhetorical or not?

Presuming that it was not, the answer is "extremely safe"

If you do not have a NVFR Rating, then I guess you do not consider yourself qualified to fly at night.

If you do have a NVFR Rating then the "Authorities" are saying to you, by default, "Go for it".

I spent many a year , with an instrument rating, flying Nomads around the NT, in all sorts of weather, to any port I was required to go into, aeromedical.

The scariest nights were those with no moon at all!!

It is extremely easy to get "the leans". For a novice it would without doubt lead to a bingle.

My vote is to get rid of NVFR and singles at night

IMHO

['AEROWASP' HELICOPTERS]

I have to agree with McGowan on this one! I teach NVFR Ratings in Helos and have considerable experience doing so BUT I will not venture out if the weather is in anyway questionable (including moon phase). Working over water at night (and in some of the remoter areas of Australia) is not an easy job for anybody and I personally feel overwater work at night should be reclassified as requiring an IFR rating and IFR aircraft.
On the other side of the coin, in helicopters in particular because they are so hands-on machines, the NVFR rating is an exceptional confidence/skill builder with most pilots displaying considerably improved pilotting skills after having completed a NVFR rating.
For the unitiated; the NIGHT AUTOROTATIONS can be a very interesting serial!!!
:ok:

[Matt-YSBK]

. My Night VFR training was mostly been focused on IFR type flying but introducing a look outside as part of the scan. My Instructors have always taken me off to dark areas away from city lights and on dark nights so I could gain the experience and skills to fly safely even with no moon. My unusual attitude practice has always been off the coast over water recovery on instruments turns on instruments. Is that not how others are taught night VFR. My next step is PIFR and it seems sensible that night VFR is a logical step. The introduction of Flight following should give us more time to spend eyes inside I would think. I do have the luxury of a twin with a full modern IFR package including dual HIS. I certainly feel safer then the night VFR work I have done in singles. However if singles should be band for night VFR should they also not be banned in all types of Instrument Operations I don’t think this would go down well. All types of flying has risk so does crossing the street.

Like all aviation, Is not recently and good training and a sensible airspace system the key.

[Capn Bloggs]

Aerowasp,

For the unitiated; the NIGHT AUTOROTATIONS can be a very interesting serial!!!

After reading this thread, I intend to remain uninitiated!:ok: :ok:

[DomeAir]

dirtylittlefokker

Re the US requirements for night flying, I think you may be surprised at how "basic" they are in comparison to the NVFR in OZ...I know I was. Having said that, you just hope that a degree of common sense is used by someone with minimal night flying experience...

The following is an excerpt on the syllabus for the US PPL which can include night training.

Sec. 61.109 Airplane Rating: Aeronautical Experience

An applicant for a private pilot certificate with an airplane rating must have had at least a total of 40 hours of flight instruction and solo time which must include the following:

(a) Twenty hours of flight instruction from an authorized flight instructor, including at least--

- Three hours of cross country;
- Three hours of instrument flight training;
- Three hours at night, including 10 takeoffs and landings for applicants seeking night flying privileges; and
- Three hours in airplanes in preparation for the private pilot flight test within 60 days prior to that test.

An applicant who does not meet the night flying requirement in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is issued a private pilot certificate bearing the limitation "Night flying prohibited." This limitation may be removed if the holder of the certificate shows that he has met the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

[Centaurus]

Messiah. How do you define "thorough training?" Can you quantify the hours required to meet the standard of "thorough training". if a student has been trained to a competent standard then there is little more an instructor can do unless he is the type who is happy to keep on bashing up flying hours at extra cost to the hapless student.

Matt YSBK: You wrote: "My unusual attitude practice has always been off the coast over water recovery on instrument turns on instruments"

CASA would be interested why your instructor sees fit to teach unusual attitude recoveries at night, particularly with lack of a horizon over water. I suggest that unusual attitude recovery training is best done in daylight VMC because your instructor is sure sticking your neck out doing it at night on instruments. Better still, do it on instruments in a synthetic trainer where extreme attitudes can be attained at no risk. It's cheaper, too!

['AEROWASP' HELICOPTERS]

MATT YSBK,

Have to agree with Centaurus entirely concerning UA's overwater with no horizon at night! I think the risks far outweight the advantages in this case; especially in a helicopter which is inherently unstable and incredibly unforgiving in certain flight regimes - mast bumping is one phenonema I would not even like to consider in such an exercise! Some people appear to forget that it is a NVFR rating and to convince people that they can do more than that through minimal exposure to those conditions could be quite dangerous!
It is generally when pilots take their aircraft outside the scope and strict limits of the rating that they find themselves in trouble and for the most part, this falls back squarely to sensible, realistic training with clear advice to pilots about the limits of the rating.
I stress those limits to my trainees and advise them in the first briefing that the rating is really designed to finish a flight after dark when the weather permits or conversely, to commence a flight before first light in good conditions. For that reason, their first navex is commenced before last light so the candidate can experience the transition into darkness.

Capn Bloggs, Feel free to pop down anytime for a night auto's serial - it's no more dangerous than driving through Redfern at 2am with the windows down!

[The Messiah]

Centaurus

Thanks for your question.

Thorough training is something different to box ticking training and there is not an hours figure that goes with it. Quality rather than quantity basically.

Hope you get my drift.

[McGowan]

Training is very important I agree, but with that flying you must also add the "mental training" or "mental ability"(not sure these are the right terms so hope you get my meaning).
I've done a little bit of NVFR training for pilots in the past and some can do the physical bit but the mental stuff is beyond them.
No matter how much you explain the fact that NVFR is "visual", not "instrument" flying, that the use of instruments is really for an emergency, such as inadvertant flight into IMC which should be pretty rare if you check the weather before heading off into the dark or loss of the natural horizon for some reason, and that these types of flights require far more pre flight planning than a lap around the block after lunch, some people still look at it as just another flight.
The biggest problem I had when conducting tests for the issue of a NVFR rating was the simple fact that you can't fail a candidate because you know he is a ********.
If he comes up with the required skills, flys to the required standards and answers the questions correctly on the night of the test, then he is a pass......
Glad I am out of the area now.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Before the RAAF sent me night solo 20 years ago, I had done 8 IF rides.
Much the same requirement still exists today in the ADF's basic syllabus - for a damn good reason I believe.;)

[Capt W E Johns]

McGowan, if you think using instruments by night is an emergency, I'm glad you're out of the area too.

[150Aerobat]

The cost, the syllabus and the term "night rating" implies a whole new set of priviledges, and that is the problem with it. The US system of making it a small part of the PPL is more sensible, rightly implying it is a small part of the day VFR syllabus designed for leaving a little early, or getting back a little late. The fact more night VFR only pilots don't end up in a hole 2km upwind is because most people are sensible enough during the training to realise it's a poor man's instrument rating and either are good IF pilots anyway, or don't use the rating for entirely-at-night flights.

Mcgowan -- what do you mean "the use of instruments is really for an emergency"? Where are you looking after rotation?

[Counter-rotation]

I realise this is a liitle off the current discussion in this thread, but there seems to be some here who will have the answer...

I am wondering about the logging of I.F. time, while operating N.V.F.R.

For example:
you depart in VMC, before first light;
there's no horizon to speak of, ie you are handling the aircraft with reference to the instruments (the definition of instrument flight);
the weather is VMC (wrt vis and cloud);
the a/c has a VFR Maint. Release, or you're IFR but not current...

Can you log instrument time?

CR :confused:

P.S. Someone stated earlier, that in the definition of VMC there is no mention of an "external horizon" being available for orientation - and I reckon that is the key to this. Problem is, how do you "measure" it?

[Not_Another_Pot]

You must be under IFR to log IF time therefore NVFR means you cannot log IF.

NAP

[blade root]

Having flown Marine Pilot Transfers in North Aust. in underpowered (single engined) helicopters. I can assure you, nothing raises the heart rate more than lifting from a well lit moving ship into the BLACK.

With no visible horizon and no external lights (towns etc.) they call it night VFR......................

CASA was looking at changing the Regs. sometime ago to outlaw this sort of activity......pity they were just looking.

[Arm out the window]

How can you seriously say that you're flying VFR if there's no discernible horizon? The whole concept of letting non-instrument trained pilots launch off into the darkness with no reference to how much ambient light there is (ie moon phase, cloud cover, time of night) is an absolute joke, as Roy and HG would say.
Night flying in most conditions, if you have good instrument skills and a good understanding of how you're going to get down again once you get up there, is fine, but the whole concept is badly flawed when you consider the minimal training that is required to give someone a night VFR rating.

[Capt W E Johns]

Arm out the window - I agree, letting untrained pilots loose by night is not appropriate. That doesn't change the rules though, and the rules do not require you to be able to discern a horizon to be VFR (by night or day).

NZ CAA Rules Part 91 Subpart D — Visual Flight Rules,
91.301 "VFR meteorological minima" refers. Unsure of the Oz equivalent.

(edited sp)

[bushy]

Many years ago when I was in England, there was so much smog that you had to use instruments to fly a circuit, and one day the parachuting was discontinued as visibility was not good enough. Nil cloud, poor vis. The local flying instructor told us that "if you can see the ground you know which way is down, so you should be able to fly." The tower had a VHF direction finder, and could help aircraft get home. (Strange that Australian towers do not have it)

[Captain Sand Dune]

Point Cook tower used to (used to = > 25 years ago) have a CADF (commutated antenna direction finder, I think it stood for). Don't know if any other military ATC centres had them though.

[cjam]

I have to agree with arm out the window / blade root etc.... to be honest I am surprised that more people don't get into strife. Mc Gowan....do your comments apply to fixed wing or choppers? I have never flown choppers but the use of instruments flying fixed wing at night is key in staying alive...particularly between V1 and 1500ft. Would be interested to know if it's that different when in a chopper....are they 'eyes outside' most of the time?
Cheers.

[Pinky the pilot]

Having never flown Rotary wing (except for a Huey Cobra simulator at a military base in Japan, but that's another story)
I can only speak for fixed wing;
Back when I completed my CPL in 1985 a Night VMC as it was then known was a required part of the CPL; ie no night VMC, no CPL.
And when doing the training required for the Night VMC my then Instructor made it quite clear that there may be times when I may find myself in positions where although conditions may be 'VMC' there would be no moonlight, no lights from towns/settlements/anything on the ground and no discernable horizon. In short, (and the following is his words to me verbatim) "technically you will be totally dependent on instruments and therefore before I pass you as proficient to hold a Night VMC rating you will be capable of flying in those conditions"
However the first real 'black night' experience I had was after I gained a MECIFR so the NVMC training was never really put to the test.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[compressor stall]

N_A_P...not quite true. You CAN log IF when flying NVFR - and conversely you can be IMC and not be legally logging IF!

Without repeating all the regs, read the thread here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=109353&perpage=15&highlight=I.F&pagenumber=3)

How's things over west?

CS :ok:

[helmet fire]

A couple of points:
1. NZ and the USA both have a requirement for ground visual during NVFR, and that is why they dont have NVFR LSALTs and those sorts of restrictions. If you can see the ground, you shouldn't hit it. Oz, as we know, has no such requirement. Nor, contrary to some of the posts here, is there a requirement for a visible horizon. Thus we have LSALT, ratings, and instrument proficiency requirements during training and ratings. As AOTW implies, this situation could certainly be revised.

2. I too disagree with McGowan's call on the instruments, though his other comments are spot on. NVFR is ALL about instruments, bith helo and fixed wing. Ideally, all changes should be made using the instruments, backed up by looking outside. The blacker it is, the more time you spend on instruments. Sorry Terry.

3. Contrary to imabell, some of the NVFR helo accidents have involved pilots with significant IFR experience, and have been unrelated to the weather.

4. Somatographic illusions are far less relevant in the helo, though far from irrelevant. Helicopters accelerate only to about 60 to 80 kias on climb out, and they rarely accelerate level to a positive rotate. Generally they increase speed and altitude simultaneuosly.

5. Centaraus: I think UA training in the actual aircraft must be part of the training to ensure that vestibular inputs are experienced: critical in my view.

6. Centaraus: you alledge that CASA claim the Helicopter Association of Australasia said a standby AI was not required. Where do I substantiate that claim? The HAA drafted a response to the intial recommendations of the Mackay accident last year, which has yet to be answered by the ATSB, and I can post that if required. To my knowledge, the HAA has made no formal position known to CASA (or the ATSB for that matter) on standby AIs.

7. The NVFR rating is currently the only rating I can think of that is perpetual. Renewals could be created, and a defined requirement for instrument profficiency introduced. Personnly, I think that until we change NVFR to require a visible horizon and or ground visual, we must insist on instrument profficiency.
Why dont we look at those issues too?

[NOtimTAMs]

Perhaps those with longer beards than mine may be able correct me, but wasn't the night VFR rating originally a Grade IV Instrument rating or somesuch? Perhaps that explains the mishmash of IFR and VFR procedures that we have with this rating.....

[McGowan]

Just a Couple of replies,
150Areobat, my comments are aimed at or relate to Helicopters, I'm not an aeroplane pilot to speak of, only PPL. I hope that explains something, I don't rotate, for me it's just "positive rate of climb, positive increase in AIS" (much bigger windows in a helicopter) and keep looking outside most of the time. cjam, hope that also helps you.
helmet fire, please disagree, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but being the coward I am, if it is not a great night for NVFR you will find me tucked up in bed. Also the regs mention that if you operate the aircraft soley by instruments, you are operating by IFR, not VFR.
Basic instrument flight is demonstrated and practiced by day under a hood during training for a NVFR rating. You might also notice that the basic IF stuff does NOT count to your rating. When training someone, unfortunately they usually don't have endless money, so you give them as much practicle knowledge as possible for the dollar (yes I know, it all comes down to the dollar). While doing that you try to explain how extremely hard it is to fly IFR in a small single with no stability augmentation of any kind and how very, very easy it is to get yourself and whoever is with you into neck deep trouble because you are not trained for IFR...........

[Pinky the pilot]

NOtimTAMS; Leafing through my old pasteboard licence, the one that fitted neatly into a shirt pocket, I note that the Night VMC rating was indeed referred to as a 'Class Four' instrument rating and carries the endorsement 'Class Four valid while licence is valid'
BTW I don't have a beard, grey or otherwise. :D Mrs Pinky would boot me out if I grew one!

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[150Aerobat]

Cheers McGowan. I assumed you were talking fixed-wing night VFR training for some reason. I agree wholeheartedly regarding your other sentiments also.

[cjam]

MCGOWAN,
cheers for that, I didn't realise that you looked out the window more than us fixed wing pilots at night. Do you ever get the somotogravic (sp) illusion?

[Centaurus]

Cjam. This "somotographic illusion" thingy that happens on take off, must be pretty horrible. What I can't understand is why it seems only to happen to light aircraft pilots at night, but not to airline pilots who are flying aircraft that accelerate a great deal faster on take off than a typical Cessna 172, Baron etc?

[compressor stall]

Good point Centaurus,

Personally, I think it could happen, but at the higher end of experience you are on instruments after departure, and if you are monitoring the dept, then you won't get the illusion.

Experienced and inexperinced pilots get the leans, but that is because the fluid in the ear moves too slowly (<.05ms2) one direction and sloshes back faster the other. This sensation cannot be overridden by scanning and believing the instruments.

In the acceleration case, the fluid moves back in the semicircular canals exactly the same way as the pitch up sensation. Depending on what you expect to feel you will feel it. Expect to be going faster as the AH is 7deg nose up and past V2 and all ops normal, then your neural pathways will tell you that. Have an open mind about it, don't consult the AH and, who knows... :confused:

I had the SGI one night out of a place in western vic on my first night solo flight. Did not know what it was at the time, but all went wierd for a while, felt very confused as to what the a/c was doing. Eventually looked at the AH and it was wings level, nose down a bit and ASI accelerating (as much as a 172 does)... Only years later in ATPL study did I come across the illusion in a textbook and what happened to me made sense.

In recent years, flying turboprops in pitch black moonless nights from reflectorised ALAs in the outback I have never had it. But, I still get the leans occasionally (when handflying in IF. :ugh: ) That's cos my ears can't override the cause of the leans, but my mind can override the cause of SGI.

CS

[helmet fire]

cjam, check previous page for your somatographic answer, and a contrary opinion on helicopter pilots looking out the window more than the fixed wing pilots.

centarus, any answer to the question I asked on the previous page?

Terry, NEVER would I call you a coward mate, I agree with the climb back into bed statement you mentioned for NVFR, that's for sure. I wasn't suggesting that you only look at the instruments, I was saying that it all changes are made with reference to the instruments, backed up by a visual check outside. As opposed to "sole reference".

[McGowan]

There has been some mention that the regs have no requirement for a visible horizon, a sad but true fact. But I seem to recall that I've seen something in a flight manual that requires some sort of light, "sufficient celestial illumination" I think. Now what this means is porberbly up to the person reading it, but I would be inclined to say ground lights, moon or stars. Something like the ammount of light you get even on an overcast dark night in the Sydney basin......... Being a flight manual requirement would mean it needs to be complied with for NVFR.
Any thoughts?????

cjam, not really sure about the somatographic effect, I doubt anything I can fly will accelerate fast enough for it to occur, or as I look outside, this could prevent it from happening.

[Counter-rotation]

Still looking for a reference regarding (in)ability to log IF time in a NVFR operation. My personal thought was in line with CS, but it appears others disagree. What I'm hoping for is to (re)discover a regulation that applies.
I logged IF during NVFR once, and was told by CP "you can't do that..." and from memory shown a CAR or similar that dealt with it - never could find it again.

Let me get this straight -

(1) one night I depart, with details filed IFR, into the inky black, and log IF.
(2) the next night I leave for the same flight (wx permitting ie no cloud good vis), having lodged only SARTIME details, say nothing to centre, depart INTO THE SAME CONDITIONS, IN THE SAME A/C, USING THE SAME TECHNIQUES, and it is forbidden to log IF?

On both occasions (for a certain period anyway), are you not handling WRT INSTRUMENTS ALONE, as you establish climb, reconfigure, turn to intercept, then intercept track and establish enroute climb?

:confused: CR is confused...
:} Not for the first time!

The whole NVFR thing is a bit sketchy eh...

[pall]

Heard a story from many years ago. NVFR PPL pilot goes to coastal airport to collect his Cessna after 100hrly. Leaves late as AC was not ready when he arrived to collect it.

The flight becomes NVFR over 30 min to return to home base. Oil pressure drops suddenly, engine seizes. Oil drain not properly closed.

The forced landing that resulted was amazing. Pilot picked the darkest patch of ground and put the AC down into a perfect grassy & flat field. Survived to tell the tale.

[bushy]

I have not heard of a fatal accident concerning a single engine night forced landing in Australia.

[tinpis]

I have not heard of a fatal accident concerning a single engine night forced landing in Australia

Funnily enough Bushy I cant recall ever hearing about a fatal single engine forced landing in PNG

Does this mean if youre ever lost at night /in cloud it may be better to turn the engine off? :hmm:

[pall]

VMC4ME, what are you suggesting? I am sure many of us have done a NVFR landing being caught after last light.

There is a vast difference between such a situation and deliberately flying at night without the rating.

Not that I condone the former. We can all be harmed just as easily landing NVFR without the skills and experience a rating brings.

I tend to agree with many postings here. The NVFR rating potentially is one of the most dangerous rating we can do.

I remember a fligt of 30 min duration NVFR. I was passenger. We flew into a cloud without warning and were non visual for about 30 sec. Very fightening as there was no way of telling how thick or deep the cloud was. We flew out the other side and encontered no further cloud en route.

[compressor stall]

The "reg" you can no longer find was one of the blue AIP RAC supplements that had guidance on how to fill in your logbook. The supp was withdrawn some years ago, but in any case it was not a legally binding document anyway.

If it's that dark it's IF. Simple.

:ok:

[Onewordanswer]

Having early in my training been caught IMC on VFR I was kinda glad of the instrument and Night components and think its best included.

[Not_Another_Pot]

Stallie, I think you'll find that you can't book IF time when under NVFR.

NAPpy

[compressor stall]

G'Day N_A_P,

As Denis Denuto said it's the "vibe your honour", but I challenge you to show me the law in ink.


There are several parallel issues here floating around in this thread.

Can you log IF on a dark night outside of the cloud
Can you log IF when NVFR - or even VFR (those who have flown in a Territory dry know what I mean)
Can you fly NVFR with no horizon
And should you fly NVFR with no horizon?

Yes, yes, yes and no!

:ok:

[Not_Another_Pot]

Well if that is the case mate, I'm many IF hours short in my log book!

What about this then. Not current NVFR but are current IFR.

Can you fly NVFR?

I'll try to find the reg where I saw it and then you can buy me a beer..... Well Gin only these days;)

NAPpy

[Counter-rotation]

Yeah that's another funny one, you can go IFR at night if you're current for IFR (duh) but in "being current" there is no night requirement.
3 t/o and landings is for your LICENCE, and only applies if others are on board with you...

Currency for NVFR has a certain amount/type of night required...

To fly NVFR with the authority of IFR rating requires recency which is at least equal to that of NVFR.

So, if you're not current for NVFR, then no NVFR regardless of your IFR currency status.

If you are current IFR, you can fly at night, regardless of how much night you've flown in the past month/year/decade. But you've got to be in an IFR machine, complying with the IFR, and if it's not going to be just you on board (plus maybe your freight of choice), you've got to have your 3 ups/downs in 90 days.

Hows that?
:confused:

CR

[McGowan]

I could well be wrong, certainly wouldn't be the first time, but, if you are IF at night and are on approach to somewhere in cloud, do you not go IFR to NVFR once you are visual???? I know that this is really splitting hairs but you are not IF all the ay to the ground. Every time you finish an approach at night from IFR you end up NVFR, with that in mind, the currency requirements for NVFR would be met!!

[Counter-rotation]

I think I see what you're getting at, but I disagree...

In the scenario you've described, I would think that you are still "IFR", but now also satisfy the requirements of being "visual" (you can of course be visual whilst IFR - it's defined in AIP.). Circling is described for both day and night.

You haven't changed category from IFR to (N)VFR...

Only my thoughts...

CR.

[jb05]

i think all u guys are getting too technical here, its obvious that all pilots are rated for day VFR and if u are also rated for IFR and are current for this then it should stand to reason using common sense(not saying here that the law makers have any of this!) that u should be allowed to fly night VFR.afterall night VFR is really a combination of both disciplines when flown correctly,visual flightbacked up by a good secondary scan of the instruments and in some cases where there are no visual cues(eg rotation or turning base in a high wing ac at a location with no surrounding visual cues as jfk jr found out)can be momentarily pure IFR..what it all comes down to is being honest with yourself about your own ability before setting off or continuing if conditions aren't within your capability.this is not just applicable to night flying either.maybe the crosswind that night is ok for day operations but at night it makes the whole thing just not worth attempting.in my opinion there are too many pilots who believe that just because they are current and the regs say its within limits then that makes it ok to go even though the flight may not be within their capabilities.another thing about single engine night flight, a mate of mine the other day told me i was a pessimist and the chances of engine failure were remote and you'd have to be unlucky. then another mate who is an experienced fighter pilot and instructor came up with the best reply. Give murphy a chance....