Night Flying and Training (Merged)

[RW-1]

Any one else notice a unconcious tendancy to pull more aft cyclic on a night approach? (lit or unlit pad)

I went last week, and dound myself around 100FT with AS headed down the tubes.

The only thing I could figure was with reduced references gave me a feeling that I was higher and I would unconciously add more aft than I normally would. (I first believed I wouldn't be doing this in response to reduces references, as that would make me think I'm slow too, which wasn't happening, or at least I wasn't reacting to a perceived slow condition)

Glideslope was not a problem at the time but I could see the issues that could develop being low on AS at that point in an approach.

After discussing it with my CFI and knowing I might be doing that, the next ones were great.

On another point we had a round table discussion, some CFI's and I about altitude and flying, I know why 2k makes me some what uncomfortable in the aircraft unlike a plane, and until Shumpei brought it out I would have never have looked at it this way:

75 kias at 500 ft - > you look and feel like you are doing 75knots.

75 kias at 2k ft or higher - > you feel like you are not moving at all (heck at 3k prepping for VTR demo I felt we were already stopped!), don't get the visual you get lower, wondered if anyone shared that thought.

Anyone have any night time stories of similar nature?

------------------
Marc

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: RW-1

Try referring to your airspeed indicator once in a while. That could help.

------------------
The Cat

[Mrs Doris Hot]

RW-1, do you have an 'unconcious tendancy' not to turn the steering wheel of a car enough when you are driving round a curve in the road? No, you look out and relate your position in the road to your hands on the wheel.(If you didn't you would crash the car.)

Do a similar thing in the air.

Unconcious tendancies lead to unconcious bodies.

[Whirlybird]

RW-1,

I haven't done any night flying in helis yet, but this sounds to me like one of those classic cases of spatial disorientation or visual illusions you can get with reduced visibility. Landing accidents in fixed wing aircraft have occurred because in poor visibility acceleration can be perceived as pitching up, causing a tendency to lower the nose, which of course worsens the illusion so that the aircraft flies into the ground. In a helicopter you slow down on the approach; would this be the exact opposite - perceived as pitching down, so you tend to unconsciously pull back. I'm not sure. Interesting though; does anyone else know?

I guess this is another case of trusting your instruments.

(Well done; you may have got us off the R22 discussions :) :) :) )

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

[HeloTeacher]

At night there is not only a reduction in visibility, but also in the light quality. Surrounding cultural lighting can be misleading at night as well, or cause glare. Depth perception suffers and as a result more cross-referencing is required.

Flying in Canada, often in very sparsely settled areas, the effects are even more pronounced and often we wind up flying IFR on nights with no cloud.

The safest approach I have found is to treat night VFR like it is ALWAYS marginal VFR and be very careful.

About the altitude, part of the problem is also geting accustomed to a particular height. Students I have had that have never flown seized-wing a/c are less accustomed to the height and like it less. From my military time, we all started on jets and so were never really bothered by it. Its actually a lot of fun to see the world from on high once in a while.

Fly safe, and have fun.

[RW-1]

Thanks Heloteacher and Whirly,

Doris: I solicited responses because that is just what one is doing referencing outside. Lack of visual clues at night tend to make you do things you wouldn't do if you had more references. In the case of your turn on the road, what would you do if you can no longer see the edge of the road to reference?
(IMO It's not like driving a car, if I think about moving the steering wheel in a car, I have thought about it, if one thinks in certain heli's about moving the cyclic, you've just moved it enought to affect a change.)

Anyway, as I stated in my post, I corrected my issue, I wanted to see how others were coping with it, and offered the altitude comfortability issue as another topic we could engage in.

Helo, I like altitude too, but boy I was not ready for the wide view, and not having doors likely doesn't help me any :) but I'm up to 2K FT now, and trying to get used to it. Rob my CFI wants to hit 5K one day himself :)

We get a lot of low vis days here, and occasionally I get up at night, I know what you mean going into a sparse lit area, it's like a lack hole, plus I fly on the coast, one side: nice, lit, etc. Other side: ocean, few liners lit, etc. In short - hole.
Every time we go up for night time, at least Doug and Rob have had me do several circles begining out to the ocean to both learn to get a feel for reduced ref's, and I'll tell you it's a confidence builder too!

------------------
Marc

[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 03 January 2001).]

[HOGE]

I'm reminded of the saying:

"Only Bats and Twats fly at night!"

Unfortunately, I don't appear to be a bat!

[fishboy]

Try hovering at 5000 feet (above ground level), looking straight down for a while. That will entertain you.

[RW-1]

Hmmmm, hovering at 5K, that would be interesting!

Would have to check the charts though, probably could do it now while its cool, but likely not when we have our normal temps (32-33C )

Met a redheaded **** (8 ona 1-10 scale) last week in stuart when we landed, if that's what up there, boy I want to meet more :)
(was that what you meant?)

------------------
Marc

[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 03 January 2001).]

[212man]

The graph I have (not monitored) shows OGE at 5000 ft and 23 C as okay at 1320 lb, so in theory you're fine. In practice, unless you have some very high terrain (obviously not in FLA) you'll be moving either backwards or forwards and almost certainly descending, so pointless exercise in an R22. Different with rad-alt etc.

Regarding the loss of a/s, that is a very common fault with inexperienced night flyers. During the day you rely on so many subconscious cues to adjust attitude that when you lose them at night or IMC, pitch control can become erratic. Having a small (or none?) ADI, poorly lit won't help at all either. Adding 5 degrees nose up over the normal approach attitude, at night with no horizon,is very difficult to spot unless you are monitoring closely. The rapid washing off of IAS is dramatic though. Try it in daytime from 40 kts, and see how long it takes to get to 0 kts. Then leave the power and watch the rate of descent build up. It's dramatic, and at night and low level it can be a killer. (BTW, don't get yourself into vortex ring recovering from the experiment!).

Flying onshore the effects can be ameliorated often with suburban lighting, roads etc. In remote areas or offshore it can be very easy to fall for it. Night deck landings in total blackness can end in a premature stop several hundred yards short, as the inexperienced pilot pays too much attention to the target and not enough to what's happening to the a/c.

With a/c that involve large attitude changes during the decelerative phase eg S76, you can be fooled by the apparent movement of the target down the windscreen, giving a false impression of overshooting or 'going high'. Obviously this can lead to problems, and the physiological cues can be very powerful, to the extent of disbelieving the instruments.

A particular problem you'll have in the R22 is its lack of cyclic trim, so you are reliant on a pitch attitude being maintained by your hand, rather than the stick being held in a trimmed position. This is where the importance of a good cyclic hand position can manifest itself.

The other phenomenom you may experience is the reverse ie you don't slow down soon enough and go sailing past the target. With no texture cues to gauge your groundspeed, a point source target can seem to remain distant with now change in aspect, until the last moment. Attempting to salvage the approach can then lead to the earlier problem, particularly if you lose sight of the target due to violent flaring.

As someone says above, treat night flying as semi IF, look out when you really have to, look in when you really have to and try to hone your other senses such as hearing. You can normally hear speed loss of that extent, similarly you can hear Nr decay or rise if you are mishandling the collective through overcontrolling. Remember that the a/c does not know it is night, so will require the same approach profiles etc. Don't drag it in slowly in the HV curve.

If in doubt, go round and try again.

------------------
Another day in paradise

[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 03 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 04 January 2001).]

[offshoreigor]

RW-1:

Most of the points above are good. You may also want to try a "By the numbers" approach at night to a black hole or single point of light reference. ie:

VTOSS, 500 feet at 1 mile
400 feet at 3/4 mile;
300 feet at 1/2 mile; and
200 feet at 1/4 mile.

This will ensure a 3 degree glidepath to your landing site.

You may also want to do some reading on the effects of night visual illusions.
Knowing the pitfalls is half the battle.

For 212: I'd sure like to see a RADALT that indicates up to 5000 feet! Short of installing a TCAS/GPWS I thought they only went to 2000'.

For Helo Teacher: All night approaches/night flying should be treated as IFR when there is no visible, usable horizon.

Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

[212man]

Well, mine go up to 2500 ft! I take the point, though some go that high. My point was he'd have a hell of job establishing a hover.

I agree with the numbers and gate bit, definately a good idea if not current even when experienced.

As a point of note, all night flying in the UK is IFR except in controlled airspace when it can be special VFR. It highlights the instrument element of night flying.

------------------
Another day in paradise

[RW-1]

Hey 212 ...

Lots of great stuff! I agree on the 5K hovering, in the real world, wouldn't hold it for long, certainly if were at 29-33C (but one can dream right? :) )

No AH on board, we do have one on the inst trainer. but you are purely visual on all the others :)

It's interesting that everywhere else (I believe) night flying is IFR, but here we can go VFR, I love night flying, just have to keep on top of everything.

Tried out the gate numbers offshore provided, worked out even better, now that I know what I was doing before, and using that as a gen guide. Much happier now.

>>A particular problem you'll have in the R22 is its lack of cyclic trim, so you are reliant on a pitch attitude being maintained by your hand, rather than the stick being held in a trimmed position. This is where the importance of a good cyclic hand position can manifest itself.<<

This is what I was referring to earlier, you don't have to do much but think to twitch your cyclic hand and move the nose further than you wanted, but I have found a spot for my hand on the leg/knee to anchor for approach once established, then hand movements only when needed I found works well (I hope you take my meaning there)


Ss for radalts:

AlliedSignal Bendix/King KRA-10A to 2500 FT (indicated)

A lot of the others I've seen also go to 2500

Can't remember if the APN-194 mil radalt went to 5K or not, (I think it did, from 2K to 5K you just had 1K increments, so it wasn't reliable, but would indiate, but I could be off).


------------------
Marc

[Reg C Elley]

RW-1
In answer to your question concerning the problems of reducing A/S on night approaches it's quite simple really.(No I'm not being condescending, it really is simple).
Mostly it's down to reduced visual cues. By day there are plenty of these available both consciously and sub-consciously. Loss of depth perception. Peripheral movement cues that disappear, ground rush etc. These are what usually give you a fairly accurate impression of both closing speed and rate/angle of descent. As these are unavailable at night the tendency is often to maintain too high a ground-speed for a given height. Then as you perceive the LS disappearing down the front of the w/screen the automatic response is to use aft cyclic to reduce speed, in a vain attempt to maintain your sight picture and/or to lower the collective with the same aim. This obviously puts you perilously close to the Vortex Ring regime so is often discouraged by instructors!!
A useful technique that avoids this is to adopt that as taught in the military. e.g. 500'/50kts, 400'/40kts, 300'/30kts, etc. It works every time and unlike the solution offered by offshoreigor does not rely on knowing your precise range from the LS.
BTW hovering at 5k is something you get used to, ask any Army Gazelle pilot.
offshoreigor
There are Radalts that read up to 5k, believe me the AN/APN 198 for example.
Oh yes Lu, thanks for a very short if totally unhelpful reply. :)

[Skycop]

Couldn't add much more than the good stuff already posted. I agree especially with the 400ft/40kts; 300ft/30kts etc. This works very well in poor weather as something to hang your hat on and encourages the scanning of the ASI which is half of the problem sorted.

We used to be required to hover at up to FL100 in a previous job. No radalt goes that high, although we did have a doppler "along & across" hovermeter for the RHS only. When flying from the LHS we used to watch the digital doppler readout and aim for "all the zeros". We flew at whatever altitude we could get at max. continuous power. All manual stuff, up to 2 and a half hours flight time depending on fuel load. Pretty unreal stuff at times. Improved the IF scan no end, though.

War stories again...sorry!

[This message has been edited by Skycop (edited 04 January 2001).]

[fishboy]

Wow! the 5000 feet hovering certainly pricked some egos. I was exaggerating when I said 5000 feet. I did spend a few weeks in a Schweizer 300, with 3 on board, hovering between 2 & 3000, 20 mins at a time for a total of around 5 hours a day, over one of the busiest airports in America. That was hard work, and very cramped.
Remember, hovering means one spot over the ground, not necessarily zero airspeed. If you're not comfortable with OGE hover, do it with an instructor for a while and practice engine failures in that situation.

[Skycop]

Well some of us aint exaggerating. Saw a few airliners at close range who didn't know we were there...

[offshoreigor]

Reg C Elley:

Although your Altitude vs Airspeed analogy may work on a good visual night, it does not provide the necessary safe VTOSS (most twin helicopters are 35-45 kts) nor does it give you a very good margin above translational speed, (25-35 kts on most helicopters).

The "by the numbers" approach is designed for offshore approaches to a black hole, based on Radar distancing and provide a sfe flight profile with regards to VTOSS.

If used to an onshore facility, then it is only relevent when the distance back is known, however the approach speed must remain above translational speed at night regardless of distance back so as to avoid an inadvertant OGE hover at an unacceptable altitude.

Unlike the Military, Civil night ops are predicated on a known approach gate. I also know that in the Military, outside of a combat situation, you would not be expected to transition into an unrecenoitered area. At least that was the case in the CF.

Ofcourse if you are equipped with a Night Sun, then it becomes an entirely different story.

My point is, that if you are doing your night approach to a "Rig" type environment or to a "Known" land based helipad, such as a Hospital Pad or established night pad, then the "by the numbers" approach has been proven to be the safest and most effective in eliminating the guess work.

Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif



[This message has been edited by offshoreigor (edited 05 January 2001).]

[RW-1]

Well this certainly has become a great topic for discussion, which is what I wanted, we have borne out a few types/methods of performing a night approach, dangers involved, etc. I'm pleased!

I believe if I know the distances, I would tend to go with offshore and use "the numbers", (why not? If I know my distance there shouldn't be much of a fudge factor)

When I don't however, the alt/AS seems to be a good substitute gouge for getting myself in the ballpark, as long as I stay atop of any other issues that may arise on the approach.

One thing I do know, the more you do 'em, the better you get at 'em! (shoot, at least I hope so :) )

Oh, and I did check, the 194 will go to 5K, but I've not really seen one that holds there, always locks out sporadically.

------------------
Marc

[[email protected]]

Offshoreigor - Rw-1 is having problems in an R22 which does not have a radar for precise ranging and, if I am correct, does not even have an artificial horizon as the aircraft is not certified for instrument flying (please correct me if I am wrong RW-1). The method suggested by RegCElley of matching height above the LS with airspeed is far more relevant in the light single engine helicopter - who cares about safe single engine speed when you are in the avoid curve all the way down?
RW-1 you dont say what sort of LS you were making approaches to and what arrangement of lights you were using to judge your approach perspective. The previous advice to scan regularly to the side during your approach to help assess your rate of closure is very valid and will avoid the 100' hover or the screaming jesus final approach.

[offshoreigor]

Crab:

We have already established that RW-1 knows the distances. I think if you recheck your regulations, you will find an 'independant artificial horizon source' is mandatory for night flying. This is the case in Canada and most ICAO countries.

I guess what it boils down to, is what RW-1 is comfortable with and what works best for him.

Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

[RW-1]

Crab & Offshore,

Actually, while I didn't state where I was going into (it was coming back to FXE, in which I have a curved approach to a section of taxiway).

My actual post reflected that I had a problem, figured it out that night with my CFI, and wanted others to share their horror stories, and tips they use to combat nightime illusions that can cuase problems, this certainly has occurred! :)

You are correct Crab, for here.

While we can (in the US) do VFR night time, most R-22's have the smaller panel, and while some may have an AH installed there (owner thing), most do not including ours. However there are R-22's with larger panels, I believe they are certified for IFR, certainly we use ours for instrument practice (attitude instrument flying and approaches, that panel makes you feel more like you are in a 206 than a 22 :) )

Hey, never did a screaming Jesus approach yet (remember my issue was getting slow) Is that when the little statue hanging from the WC starts yelling "Whoa!" ?

But I also like the numbers bit too, I'm sure whn getting into mor advanced craft, if I know what they might expect me to use, I'll be familiar with it.

Ahh, more cramming this week, ugh !



------------------
Marc

[fishboy]

There are no IFR certified R22's. To be IFR certified, you have to have back up gyro systems along with various other things. It is possible to get an instrument rating in an R22 but flying actual IMC in one would be a very foolhardy thing to do.
Also, for the USA there are no regs requiring any special instruments (fitted in aircraft) for night flight. Depending on location, it's not always necessary. Flying over a busy downtown area for eg. Get away from a built up area and it can quickly feel like IMC. At night for long trips out of area, I used to file IFR flight plans in an instrument equipped Schweizer 300C then cancel near home base so didn't have to do the approach.

[B Sousa]

Interesting topic. Im sitting in the office in the Virgin Islands(where there arent any) waiting for it to get dark so i can fly some folks out to Peter Island (www.peterisland.com) They are on vacation and Im just going to go scare myself for fun......Kidding
It does get very dark down here in the Islands and this company Bell 206L just loves daylight.
Over the years I have found that the one thing that has kept me from balling one up at night is to take things a lot slower and not to make steep turns. Over water, no moon and Zero Horizon can be real fun...Luckily there is a moon out tonight.....
Stay Safe

[helimutt]

please correct me if I am wrong but having sat in what I regarded as a high hover OGE at approximately 6000' in an R22 HP, is this supposed to be impossible. Granted it was in the UK and OAT was 6 degrees C when we took off.
We were practising pirouettes too with zero speed at 5000' but letting the wind turn us!!
If you're gonna go, might as well go having fun!!

[212man]

No, as I said earlier, the graphs fully support that. What I was trying to say was that in fact if you recreated the same hover at ground level it would look far from tidy in all three 4 axes. Obviously it can be done as anyone with NI or AEW could testify, but needs practice.

------------------
Another day in paradise

[offshoreigor]

I guess I left out a few points, well here goes.

First, if you fly an approach based on an IAS for a given altitude, there is no guarantee that you will fly the same approach twice.

Second, by using the 'by the numbers approach' you will always fly the same glidepath to you LZ (in this case a 3 degree (G/S).

WRT VTOSS, yes it is only applicable to twins, however, if you consider that a single engine has an approach speed that if you go below for a given altitude, then you are S.O.L. if you lose your one stove and are not able to recover airspeed for the impending auto.

So to sum up my reference to VTOSS, a single engine driver can substitute, minimum safe autorotative speed.

To me, a known glidepath to a night site would always be preferable.

By the way, someone said the R22 doesn't have any way to determine distance back, ever heard of GPS?

Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

[RW-1]

I agree with you offshore, numbers are preferable as you can always strive for them.

As for GPS, well unless you have a portable, most robbie owners (or more to the point, most training outfits 'round here) don't have it. Heck, I'm flying by pilotage, no VOR even ! :)

Fishboy, If that's true, I stand corrected, I had called to ask if our trainer was certified, but our CFII is out sick. I can go with your statement though.

Helimutt, at least where I was saying the OGE hover at 5K might not be possible was due to regular temps here in south Florida (33-34C). What 212 meant was that keeping a precision hover over a point at that alt takes practice (if I read it correctly)

Still deep into cramming for the test ... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif
I'll be so glad when I ace that bugger! (at least that's my plan ...)

------------------
Marc

[[email protected]]

Offshoreigor - RW-1 is making a visual approach at night to a fixed point (presumably illuminated) so if he flys the LS in the same position in the windscreen and achieves speed v height gates - he will always fly the same approach (providing he is always approaching on the same heading. Trying to maintain minimum safe autorotative speed on a night approach would most likely end up with a quickstop to the hover with all the attendant problems of loss of references as the landing lamp shines upward due to the flare and ground proximity cues are lost completely! Frankly any kind of AI or AH would be better than nothing especially at night over the water - I have scared myself many times there even when I have had an AI to help me!

[212man]

I think minimum safe auto speed sounds a bit sporting! What speed are we talking about? constant attitude or min rate of descent? It's a bit academic in a single as the minute the donk quits you are no longer going to reach the destination, unlike a twin where Vtoss may well get you there.

I'd advocate the 10% of height=speed routine and suggest it if I see candidates having trouble with night deck landings. (It's not the only way, but it's predicatble and safe)

------------------
Another day in paradise

[RW-1]

Actually Crab, the approach in question is straight along a taxiway, however then at 50 Ft or so I follow the curve of that taxiway (rather I am alongside it over the grass) to the next section of taxiway. Hard to describe, Perhaps I'll find a A/D chart online.

Anyway picking up my line of the taxiway is no issue, I was losing the spot as it tends to draw my focal point away from the spot itself. Once I did pick up other things to use it became much easier for that particular approach.

The other one I was doing over in Pompano, was simply along a taxiway to an intersection, very easy to pick out, but in the beginning I succumbed to illusions and was using too much aft cyclic at the time.

I'll know if I have gotten over it the next time I do some night approaches. Hehe ..

------------------
Marc

[tech]

RW-1 : I have done alot of night approaches to verious kinds pf poorly lit helipads and I have experienced that same thing. You are on the approach every thing feels fine then all of a sudden in the last 1/4 mile it feels like you are over running the pad.This condition is much worse if you have a tail wind.

The method I prefer using is Altitude and Distance. Similiar to Off-shore Igor's technique but I use higher altitudes if flying to an on-shore helipad over rough terrain. I like 800 feet a mile back 400 to 500 feet half a mile back 200 to 300 feet a quarter mile back. Speed; slightly above VTOSS if multi-engine (50-to 60 knots)at the start of the approach.

At 1/4 mile back at 250 feet your airspeed should be slightly above translation and decelerating and don't forget POWER. From this point it is all visual and seat of the pants.

Best to try some of these approaches in day light to get the profile and then try it at night. Be really careful of long shallow approaches on black nights as you can end up flying into the ground (CFIT).

By the way : A continuous decent from 800 feet and 1 nm back to pad impact will result in a glide slope of approximately 7.5 degrees.

[Speechless Two]

Ah! Peter Island – what a glorious place, B Sousa – tried to convince the hotel management that they needed a 206 shuttle when I spent a couple of weeks on holiday there in ’86. Must be a wonderful job!

On the hovering at 5000 ft issue - how’s this for a daft exercise. We were required to do some transponder trials back in the late 70’s at London Heathrow. Requirement was to position a Bo105 on a cold clear NIGHT some 3 miles south of LHR at 500 ft and climb vertically up a searchlight beam to 5000 ft. The ground station at LHR shone a small searchlight at us and we shone one back at them from the open sliding door so they could keep track of our angular elevation with reference to them. We then had to fly south 7 miles sideways at 5000 ft to another searchlight beam which was also pointing vertically upwards, all the time keeping our searchlight on the LHR groundstation. It was February and –13C at top of climb. B****y cold going sideways with the door open!! Needless to say with the lack of any groundspeed info we fell out of the sideways manoeuvre many times. Ah! youth – where did it go……

Tech is quite right about shallow approaches over unlit areas at night – it’s too easy to cock it up, no matter how much experience you have. The “black hole” phenomenon when approaching a lit landing site at night over unlit terrain is well documented. There were photos posted on the PPRuNe R & N forum some months ago of a 707 that flew into the water on a visual night approach over Lake Victoria (I think). Bristow Australia lost a Puma some years back on a night VMC approach to an offshore rig – a very experienced crew flew into the water half a mile from the rig.

In my own case about 20 years ago, with about 30 miles to run to destination, with another experienced pilot as co-pilot, we started a long slow clear night VMC descent in a S76 from FL 50 to the Montrose platform in the North Sea and only realised at about 300ft that we were going into the water about half a mile from the platform. From that moment on, whenever similar descents were envisaged I levelled at 1000 ft for at least a minute before continuing the descent. This seems to break the visual brain pattern that nearly ended in a ditching that night. The problem on a “black hole” approach – especially a shallow one – is that you can be quite convinced that nothing is wrong and that the approach is fine, even with two pilots on board.


[This message has been edited by Speechless Two (edited 09 January 2001).]

[John Nussbaum]

Here are some things that that I learned early on and have served me well concerning night approaches

1. Keep your head on a swivel. you must scan to overcome the central night vision blind spot and most of the visual illusions

2. Treat all visual barriers as physical. I the lights on your LZ disappear there is something between you and the LZ.

3. On final limit your rate of descent to 300 fpm or less and your airspeed at or slightly above ETL. (settling)

4. Landing lights are useless above 200' AGL don't turn them on until then and leave them on when you do. They ruin your night vison.

5. Going to an unlit LZ without a serchlight you will be able to detect light at 25 ft and motion at about 15 ft using only the position lights. There is a tendency to drift to the right because of the brighter green light on that side.

6. There is a lag in the radar altimeter.

[John Nussbaum]

In re-reading your post the problem with zeroing out your airspeed on a dark night is most likely the result of poor visual refrence coupled with a poor instrument cross check.

Try following the moon cycle. Start night training on full moon nights and work down to lower levels of illumination.

Start by making approaches to fully lit airfields then dim down the lights and finally use no lights at all.

[The Nr Fairy]

The Australian Puma accident report can be found at http://www.basi.gov.au/acci/wof.htm for those interested, with a full downloadable report.

[This message has been edited by The Nr Fairy (edited 12 January 2001).]

[Grey Area]

RW-1,

The short answer to your question is yes. It is well documented in my world (Navy Lynx) and I have seen a lot of students exhibit the tendency. We teach pilots to reduce to 60kts ground speed by 500’ overland and 1 mile out for visual ship approaches, 2 miles for GCA. They are “strongly” encouraged to hold the selected airspeed! Between ½ and ¼ mile (depending on experience, wind etc) a gentle deceleration is commenced aiming to arrive at the hover without the need for a large attitude change (bad for the inner ear and forward vis etc).

From an instructors point of view the key to a good night approach is a good visual/instrument scan and faith in the instruments. The most common fault is improper trimming (generally aft) which stuffs speed stability as soon as the pilot relaxes on the cyclic. Second most common is “rubber left arm” where the collective is subconciously raised as altitude reduces with poor references, again only overcome by appropriate visual/instrument scan.

Note: This technique is military and probably breaks a whole load of public transport regs!

[RW-1]

Kewl Gray ... Thanks for your input! :)

[Roundagain]

Just curious to learn about others experiences and techniques in night approaches to remote landing sites.

We fly single pilot IFR SAR/EMS and at the present time we unfortunately cannot legally use NVG's. As I had previously used NVG in the military it was a real eye opener to have to operate without them.

We have developed a technique that begins with a 100,000 map appreciation of the area and the calculation of a 5nm LSALT around the landing site. We then fly to overhead at IFR en route LSALT and, if visual, identify the LS (we would expect someone on the ground with a light source). If still IMC at 5nm LSALT we would abort the task.

Once the LS is identified it is saved in the GNS and the W/V is established. A circuit pattern is then flown during which we descend to the 5nm LSALT whilst remaining within a 3nm radius to give a 2nm buffer. The co-pilot EHSI 5nm MAP is selected and the pilot EHSI is set to NAV with the course bar used to orientate circuit direction and the FMS needles selected to the LS waypoint.

On Xwind the nightsun is illuminated, angled to 45 degrees down and IAS reduced to 80 kt. On D/W the pre-land checks are completed. Base turn is begun within 3nm, IAS is reduced to 60 kt and the cabin doors are opened so that the rear crew can look out and down.

Final approach is begun at 3nm and the G/S is reduced to 45kt. A ROD of 5-700 fpm is initiated with the aim of being at 0.5nm and 500ft agl. The co-pilot rad alt is set at 500ft and the pilot radalt is incrementally reduced from 1500ft to 300ft. Once the rear crew have visual ground contact the nightsun is elevated for pilot reference and if the crew is happy with the approach it is continued to a high hover before a landing or winching is carried out.

The entire approach is flown with auto pilot coupled and the pilot only takes over when it is known that a safe landing can be carried out. If visual contact with the light source is lost at any time a missed approach is flown back to LSALT. This takes a fair bit of practice and requires a high level of crew co-ordination and trust but seems to work well.

Any other techniques or comments?

[paco]

Sheesh - that's a bit different to using crossed headlights!

Phil

[tgrendl]

On the visual side of things.....

We have to have two way radio contact with the ground.

They have to look for wires, obstacles, wind direction and a suitable (100x100ft) landing zone.

If possible they will spotlight what they believe is the highest/most dangerous obstacle for us.

We circle the LZ until all satisfied that every obstacle has been identified.

We shoot an approach to a point in space 3-500 feet agl and set back on the approach course in. (power rechecked for lift ability)

The cockpit is sterile, breaking squelch or voice is a stop sign.

The approach is crabbed in for slightly better vis for the pilot.

Once on the ground we use the nightsun to look again for obstacles on the departure path.

A set of eyes is used to guard the tailrotor from personel.

The departure is actually a reverse of the approach until passing the single engine flyaway point. If we have any problems up to that point the acft goes back into the LZ (and the nice helpfull rescue type people there)

Past flyaway single we rotate forward and depart.

[SASless]

Cor' somewhere in there I would get completely addled and wonder who was flying the machine! Do you take box lunches on these flights?

Sounds very professional... but at least you have all the bells and whistles, crew etc....not much to add beyond suggesting the less knob twiddling the better...one can not have too many sets of eyes looking outside when near the ground at night in a strange location. Even the known locations can have some very nasty surprises erected between visits.

I advocate the mandatory go around at any time , any one, calls chicken....wires....go around....or utters unintelligible words in high octave ranges..... pull max allowable power and after at a safe altitude....sort out what had almost happened. With absolutely no regard towards admonishing a false call.

Also...make as steep an approach as I can and set my nightsun and aircraft landing/search lights for the angle I approach....and fly down the light column if at all possible...looking for those unreported wires.....and on takeoff....do just the reverse....set the landing light/searchlights off to the sides fractionally and fly up the nightsun beam....also looking for the wires. I am less concerned about takeoff profiles...h/v curves....than being able to see the wire that is going to kill me if I hit it.

[heedm]

I'd say push hard for NVG.

We acquired NVG about 5 years ago, but still maintain an unaided capability.

I'd be mindful of keeping eyes out of the cockpit when there is outside reference, but of course the instrument cross check must be maintained to a degree.

A steep approach provides the best obstacle clearance on average, but at the end of the approach the clearance is the same no matter how you get there. A shallower approach means the power change required to level/overshoot will be lower. Also, observing obstacles & wires from above can be difficult because they're hidden in ground clutter and depth perception is reduced at night. I'm not necessarily advocating a shallow approach, just pointing out some limitations of steeper approaches.

Once your recce is complete, if you can aim a focused night sun beam below your approach path (ie steeper) then you should be able to see most obstacles before they're a problem. This may seem counterintuitive, but imagine approaching a runway to the numbers with trees on short final. Aim the nightsun above your approach path and you'll see a clear runway. Aim it below and you'll see trees. If you aim it right where you're approaching, you should see a clear path, but you may not become aware of the obstacles that pass beneath.


This may seem obvious, but we have to remind ourselves often that maybe the best procedure is to ground transport the patient to a better area or to plan the mission to arrive on scene at daybreak.

[The Nr Fairy]

As an aside, there was an interesting article in Helicopter World, if I remember correctly, written by a Norwegian Super Puma pilot about NVG use and flying in snow.

I'll have a dig to see if I can find it on the net, if not I'll find out what issue it was in - very educational, even for me who's confined to overspeeding R22s at the moment.

[Go-Around]

Hi,
Just a few quick questions from a non-Ppruning friend;

1. Is a night rating/check flight necessary for each type e.g. R22-B206?

2. What is the correct name for the "flare tube thingies" that hang off the rear of Robbos, where in the UK are they available, and do they require any special modification and/or paperwork?

3. Would you, faced with a engine failure at night, inflate any floats that you had?

Many thanks,
GA

[widgeon]

On most helis the floats are above the skid ( don't know if robbo is the same ) , not sure what inflating over land would do for you , make make it handle a little worse if only one side inflated I would guess . I have heard interesting stories of people landing hard on fixed floats and bouncing up. Are the flare tube thingies optional chaff dispensers LOL.

[MBJ]

I certainly wouldn't blow the floats, I'd be quite busy enough trying to fire the flares, pick a site, call Mayday and get in a bit of quiet screaming, "Why me, God, why me?!"

They were called Schermuly flares, by the way. Bright light on a parachute. Bang one when the donk goes, find your field, pop the next at 1000ft or so. Not cheap to fit and the flares go out of date after a time. Inadvertent firing of flares by RadHaz was a danger, particularly in a hangar! :)

They were rendered uneccessary if you had two landing lights, one of them steerable. Phew!

[offshoreigor]

Hello All, sorry I haven't contributed in a while, but my girlfriend goes nuts everytime I go near the computer! I'm safe here in the United Lounge in Hong Kong, she'll never know!

Just completed some initial night deck training with a Local CoJo :confused: and I am glad that I insisted that the other Ex-Pat I was training, remain in the back for the initial training :D , the co-jo had great difficulty in landing :eek: Actually, two over shoots at almost Delta fuel!

What it boils down to is that if you are involved in the initial or recurrent training for offshore night, you should consider having a competent pilot along as safety pilot := for the landing seat.

In this case, we had 14-18 kts of wind :yuk:, left seat at night and running down to alternate fuel. The fact that I had a competent pilot in the back seat, I was able to get him to swap seats :O with the initial trainee and safely land the AC without having to divert to the land alternate.

This has given several of us a reminder that when you are on night standby :*, you had better think about which seat you will fly on a night callout with a local pilot that has not received sufficient training.

We all pay lip service :p to this duty and have thankfully not been called out. Maybe it's time our respective companies look at some serious expenditures on training of new hires, ie Flight Safety Night Rig, or actual aircraft on sight.

Cheers, OffshoreIgor

[heedm]

Agree with what you've said, Igor. I think of my crew when I consdier what limits I'll accept on a SAR mission.

Curious, though. Why couldn't you land the helicopter? Seems to me if you can't complete the mission without one pilot incapacitated then you don't have redundancy in the least reliable system in the helicopter (pilot).

Matthew.

[RoamingCyclic]

Obviously Flying an S76 Offshoreigor! One of the unfortunate limitations of our beloved machine - cross cockpit landings on difficult helidecks is almost impossible.

I had a night call out for a medivac a couple of years back during a Typhoon in a SE Asian location where I elected to leave the rostered night Co-Jo ( Local Chap ) behind and took another experienced Captain with me, a decision I was very pleased I had made as we had to make two offshore landings - 1 for Fuel the 2nd to pick up the patient at another location both in extremely difficult conditions.

As a training pilot myself I have mentioned several times that I believe that we conduct insufficient night currency training at offshore locations, true enough it is often difficult to organise with distance and time being a big contributor to accept the option of training onshore at the airfield instead, but at the end of the day in the companies eyes it always comes down to the $$$.

Perhaps its time the Operations Staff consider the possibilities and conditions when rostering inexperienced crews for night standby.

[Steve76]

I remember it being the some of the hardest flying I have seen. Light rain, pitch black/no moon, and a rough sea.
Felt like we were in outer space.
Igor: ask a certain rally driver we know about it. He has plenty of fond memories........:D

[offshoreigor]

Heedm:

As stated by Roaming Cyclic, I do in fact fly the venerable S76. And it is a bit of a booger to land cross cockpit. Try it sometime in the day, you'll be surprised. Add into the equation, night helideck, 14-18 kts of wind ( which would have been a tailwind if I landed) and you have the makings of a very interesting landing. I'm not one for practice bleeding so I got the other "Qualified Guy" in the back to do the landing, no biggy.

Steve76:

I can only imagine about Pooches' experience, it must have been a beauty! By the way, how's things in London?

RC:

Thanks for picking up on the S76. You must have "...been there, done that..."


Cheers, :eek: OffshoreIgor :eek:

[Shawn Coyle]

I'm curious to know the gymnastics involved in changing seats in an S-76 inflight...

[S76Heavy]

But surely, if a guy under training proves unable to land in the dark, he's been required to do night landings too soon? I would consider it a training deficiency to not pick up his inability, rather than the individual's problem? Not having worked in the Far East I cannot comment on any company pressures, so feel free to fill me in.

And I do sympathise with cross-controlled landings, as you can see from my handle..:cool:

[LAFalot]

Offshoreigor - can entirely sympathise with your predicament on the night, having also trained colleagues in the 76 for the same type of operation. Cross deck landings never a pleasant experience with the 76, though in the 'good old days' over the North Sea when we occasionally operated single pilot day and night, the following technique usually worked:
approach the deck crosswind (to improve your view), keeping sufficient airspeed on for a single engine go around if needed, and then as you slow down gradually let the aircraft turn into the prevailing wind coming over the deck so that you at least see enough of it for a hover reference. Sounds quite exciting but really does work (subject to under and overshoot paths), and by keeping the relative wind on the nose is actually just as safe as a conventional into wind approach. I'm sure you've seen it all before, so please don't think I'm trying to teach you to suck eggs. Others may not have tried this.....
I do have to admit though this technique doesn't work quite so well in the 757 I now fly.......!
Happy rotorvating.

[offshoreigor]

LAFalot:

I know the technique of which you speak. Works great under ideal conditions, but, on theis particular platform there just are not the required visual cues. It's a bit of a bug-ger to see the deck even cross-wind. Not the greatest design. Throw in a light, tail heavy 76 and it gets pretty interesting. By the way, I've flown this great machine since '90 and have about 4500 on type and it still never ceases to surprise me!

S76Heavy:

I hear what you are saying, but, offshore night landings are a very unique skill. I have had many a senior pilot walk away with the need for a change of undies after a night session. So it is not neccesarily the experience.

I myself did my first DDL's (Destroyer Deck Landings) at night with only 75 hours on SeaKings and a grand total of 160 hours RW time.

Thanks to all for the responses, this will always be an interesting job!

Cheers :eek: OffshoreIgor :eek:

[FlyAnotherDay]

Night: There's a lot of it about. Although the recent Night ops - is there a better way? thread indicates that night flying isn't necessarily good, it's something that I think it's good to have the ability to do.

So, I'm a doing a night rating. A search of the archives doesn't reveal much advice about night flying - with the exception of the thread this one's been merged into to prove my generalisation.

Would the panel care to share some of its wisdom?

edited to remove the (broken) link to the thread this has been merged into!

[robsrich]

The recent 2004 HAA Industry Conference in Australia had a night segment to look at night visual flying and flying with NVIS equipment. We were not knocking night flying – to the contrary. Just asking people to be more careful.

Night can bite.

As a past rescue pilot, I have probably flown more at night than day.

Lessons to pass on are few but important! Learn to interpret the weather forecasts correctly and when following your flight plan stick to it! If the weather gets ugly or you have to divert into an area you haven’t really done some map checking – you go home to your loved ones.

Not them to your funeral!

You must learn to say no! The hardest person to convince is yourself (ego).

Best of luck and enjoy cruising in the totally smooth air that sometimes is a gift to aviators.

Oh and a last tip! Get hold of a military text book which explains levels of illumination in relation to moon and stars. This reading may give you an awareness of the limits of the human eye.

Night can bite. But night is fun!

Enjoy!!

[IHL]

If you're going to leave the confines of an airport or the illumination of a city, get an instrument rating.

On a dark night (overcast no cellestial illumination) over sparsely settled areas or over water; there is no such thing as Night VFR.
Its IFR period.!

With out the proper IFR training or aircraft equipment you'll scare the crap out of your-self or worse.

[Ascend Charlie]

You need to be an instrument flyer at night.

Worst case of the leans i ever had was at night. A navex to Double Island Point, at the end of a sparsely-inhabited island on a moonless night. We got to the turning point, and rolled into the turn. I then turned my head to look at the lighthouse on the end of the island and got the coriolis effect (?? some other effect? I forget) when two of the ear canals are turning and induce movement in the third.

I looked at the fingers of light rotating through the mist and felt like I was falling backwards out of my seat.

Only by locking onto the clocks did I overcome these intense feelings of falling.

As Cap'n Rich says, night can be fun - all the ugly bits of a city disappear into the black, the lights look like fairyland, and it is only when you wonder about where you will go if the engine goes on holidays, that it becomes scary.

Do you head for a lit highway? Do you land WITH the flow of traffic? Or against it? If you go against, the cars have the best chance of seeing you coming, landing light in the eyes and such, and maybe avoid you. But the closing speed is much higher.

If you go with the flow, closing speeds are less, but the traffic will not see you until you appear in their window, in the flare, and they are up your clacker at 60 mph.

Any ideas?:confused:

[GLSNightPilot]

As others have said, it's instrument flight as soon as you get away from the city. Offshore, it's full-time instruments for sure. One other thing I would suggest is to do everything slowly. Make your approach very slowly, so that it seems to take forever. Engine failure is far from the most likely thing to kill you, so don't worry about that; keep your approaches slow, and I like a slightly steeper-than-normal approach, so I don't hit anything while dragging along. You're much more likely to hit obstacles at night, both during the approach and in or near the landing area. Stuff can be sticking up without your ever seeing it.

The leans is an interesting phenomenon. I experience it fairly often, especially at night. Get a line of lights at an angle, and it can seem like you're turning, or banking, and it can be difficult to overcome. At my home base, there is a causeway that angles across the localizer and is brightly lit. If I fly the ILS at night, getting glimpses of the ground, or with the lights shining up through thin fog, I get the leans almost every time from the lights. Here the S76, with its limited downward visibility, is a boon, not a drawback.

Flying at night without an instrument rating, at the very least, is courting death.

[Gaseous]

My PPL instructor told me only 2 things fly at night.

Bats and tw*ts.

[Heliport]

Your PPL instructor may not be a bat, but ........... ;)

[Devil 49]

There's physiological differences to be considered in becoming night proficient.
First, your vision has to be managed carefully. You can't just turn your gaze at something and see it. In fact, you WON'T see it that way, at all. One has to look "around" the object viewed, sort of peripherally view it, to see it. Scanning techniques become vital.
You have to learn how to conserve vision, too. Sufficient light to the purpose, and that grudgingly used, is my intent. A day pilot seems to buy the brightest flashlights available. Now, I have some pretty dim and small ones that I love. Dealing with over-illumination is an issue, too. It takes time to readjust, do you want to be picking your way out of the LZ while your eyes readjust? That's too much excitement for me, so if I can't avoid bright lights, and I know I'm going back into the dark- I close one eye.
You need to judge position with less external reference at night. That's not exactly correct- you need to learn to extract sufficient information from the larger picture, as you can't rely on detail being available. For instance, if there's a useful horizon, the inverse of how deep you are into the bowl of darkness outlined by the horizon is how high you are. Also, changing aspects of the shadows around you will be your clues to movement. It always strike me that my night touchdowns are harder but better- because I'm concentrating on fundamentals, I guess- stationary, slow descent.
If you're going to do serious nights, you have to spend considerable time shifting your body rhythms, or develop a strategy to deal with being sub-optimal, "jet-lagged," all the time. It reminds me of learning how to drink- how stupid will I allow myself to be before I hang up the keys? Hint- sooner is much better than later. If I'm reading the same WX report repeatedly trying to glean an understanding, the mental muscle isn't capable and we're not going.

Flight planning for nights is more critical than day flying. The world's asleep and unavailable, as far as facilities go.
Aircraft equipment becomes more important, too.
Night WX has a different dynamic than a day pilot is accustomed to. The WX goes down, down, down, over big areas, and won't get better until something changes it. At night you might not see WX until you're in it. Another hint- if you can't see through it, don't fly into it. It might be dark up ahead because something's obscuring the lights. The VFR helo pilots' natural inclination to reaquire reference to the surface by descending in reduced vis will kill you at night. I concur strongly that a professional has to be IFR trained, equipped and ready, to fly nights.
That said, vis frequently improves after sunset- less glare and light back scattered.

If you're new to it, take some time to fly with somebody who's experienced at night and can show you how to do it. Night flight has unique advantages and beauties. I prefer it, excepting the fact that it's so late!

[Helipolarbear]

Night VMC should be treated with the same level of planning and thought as IMC. You should also be very aware of the Human Factors, physiologically and mentally. Autokinesis, Relative Motion and the 'Night Blind Spot' are very real during night ops, and have contributed to accidents and scary incidents over the years. But Night Flying is safely accomplished with good pre planning and considerations for all aspects of the flight and is done every night all over the world by helicopter professionals even in R-22's. Why do you think they equip them with interior intrument lights and external position lights? There are many references to Helicopter Night Flying- Un-Aided, but nothing, but nothing can compare to the safe and efficient use of NVG's in a helicopter...when trained and provided!!!!;)

[WestWind1950]

Heli flying at night

Recently I read a thread about night flying with helicopters. It seemed that in general it’s not a good idea.

I would like some opinions about the following scenario:

A commercial heli company would like to pick up and transport passengers (performers for some kind of event) from a village without a heliport, let alone one with proper lighting. The 2 take-offs and landings take place shortly after sunset. The relatively large courtyard of a local fire department has been chosen as a landing site. The fire department plans to lighten the area with their spot lights. A twin-engine heli will be used; the company is a commercial operation under JAR-OPS.

So, my question: under these circumstances, is such a flight possible? My problem with it, among other things, is that any obstacles in the area, like trees or such, are not lighted, the pilot could get blinded by the spot lights, it is not a “legal” heliport”, etc. I don’t honestly see the sense in the flight (except a desperate need for income) since at this time of year the weather plays a big factor and according to JAR-OPS a minimum visibility of 5 km is required for night flying, so in the end those pax will be calling a taxi anyway.

Opinions from you all would be greatly appreciated. I'm no heli pilot, just a darn fixed wing one. ;)

Westy

[SASless]

Welcome to helicopter flying...no fully lit, fully instrumented, surveryed sites, for us.

Will only address the situation from a US standpoint...."and your point is?" EMS operators do this every single night. A fair number of commercial operators do night ops on a regular basis.

Apart from legal issues unique to the UK...it sounds safe enough.

[B Sousa]

Sort of sounds like normal Helicopter work to me. If its in the UK, the only difference is about a hundred folks who know squat about helicopters will enter into the picture with opinions and forms to be filled out. When finished they will have forms which would overgross a Chinook and the answer will be no with 487 reasons why it cant be done.......
In other places it would be considered a piece of cake.

[Devil 49]

Is the question one of legalities?
Critique of the plan?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with flying at night, helicopters or airplanes. You do want to be properly trained and equipped to do so, darkness presents unique challenges. Nights, too, are different, physiologically.
This charter, properly planned and prepared, is just another charter. Otherwise, it could be front page news.

Critique-
Unless the "relatively large courtyard" is a quarter mile or so on the side, do not try this landing without a pilot directable searchlight.
Visit the proposed LZ in daylight, look at size, access, security, obstacles. Keep in mind, all LZs are smaller at night.
Check legal issues and compliance methods.
Train firefighters regards helo ops. Physically brave, take charge personalities, ignorance, and helicopters are not a good combination. Really good when they know what's expected, however.
"Performers?" Get ready for time issues. If you can't arrange some flexibility on your part, expect unhappiness.
Arrange to have a tactful and competent handler to train, translate and guide.
I'm not a big fan of lighting LZs at night. Mark the bounds, as dimly as possible- think airport- they don't have a gazillion candlepower lights all over the place. Bright lights obscure obstacles on your high recon and dazzle you in the LZ.

[Brilliant Stuff]

I love flying at night.

If you land within 30 minutes of sunset it is still offically DAY.

Regarding lighting the pad one should make sure any of the lights should light down not up.

And if I remember correctly the CAA demand that have seen the Helipad during day time first before you land there at night.

Otherwise I think Devil covered all the right points.

[verticalhold]

Westwind 1950;

Welcome to AOC helicopter ops in the UK. Most of the legal points have been covered by the others. So long as the aircraft is correctly fitted, the pilot correctly licensed, a rule 5.1.C clearance is in place and the site surveyed and all ground personell properly briefed there is nothing wrong with this flight.

As for the visibility issue we fly IFR to the same limits as fixed wing, we just tend to do it on our own with the pax grumbling about landing at an airfield rather than their golf club (their much preferred destination) We also (fortunately) don't do it in icing, or if we do it tends to be only once and then very finally.:p

[WestWind1950]

Thanks for the answers so far. Since the flight is to take place in Euroland and not the USA (which I think is less strict with such things), I need the opinions of European Rotorheads.

I'm really sceptical about the whole thing, especially at this time of year. It's supposed to take place on the 29th so not much time left to get on-site visit and to get the permission from the local CAA people.

Any further opinions still welcome, and I'm sure it's interesting for everyone to know how other countries handle night-time flying. I've flown fixed wing at night in the USA and I just loved it! But fix wing goes ONLY from one properly lighted airfield to another. It's the legality of landing at a non-certified spot, at night, that worries me. During the day, no problem, but at night? :ugh:

Westy

[rotorspeed]

WestWind1950

Why are so bothered? What is your interest in this?

[WestWind1950]

Why are so bothered? What is your interest in this?

because I honestly want the honest opinion from real professional helicopter pilots... is that so terrible? That's what Pprune is for, isn't it?

I heard about this request and I'm interested if it's possible. The other night-flying thread (was in connection with the crash in the Potomac I believe) gave me the impression that most pilots were AGAINST night flying. Now the replies are different... now I'm all confused....

Westy

[rotorspeed]

Westwind 1950

Not sure how you came to think most pilots were against night flying. Really don't think a poll is required to prove it's not true.

Most of us are quite happy and indeed enjoy it, especially in a decent IFR twin, which is what your commercial operator will need (well, may not be IFR) to do the job.

I'd relax and assume that all is fine, unless you have reason to think the commercial operator is unprofessional. Do you?

[WestWind1950]

I'd relax and assume that all is fine, unless you have reason to think the commercial operator is unprofessional. Do you?
no, not at all. In fact it's a very experienced company.

I'm just wonder how you guys feel flying onto a courtyard at night, lighted by spotlights from the fire brigade, and if JAR-OPS allows it for commercial pax flights.

Westy

[XT244]

A few words to the situation in switzerland for non-commercial.

Most swiss-helo-pilots, PPL and CPL, has a general-permit for landings in non-certified spots.

The restrictions for non-certified spots are very simple:
No landings in urban areas (near as 300m).
No landings above 1’100m, except you have a mountainlicence. (MOA)
Minimum distance (300m) to jail’s etc.
No landings on waterareas.
No landings in private areas, except permit from property-owner.

For night you have to file a ATC-Flightplan.

For night below 2’000GND in class G radiocontact is recommend only.
Most pilots contact FIC for open and close the flightplan. That’s all.

For night in class E and D you must contact ATC for radarcontact. No route etc is required.
FREE flying! Most clearance sound as: „Report when misson complete“.

For night in class C you must contact ATC for radarcontact AND routeclearance, like as IFR.

For private night T/O and LDG at non-certified spots the pilot only is responsible.
Groundlighting, obstacle-clearence etc. is absolut your responsibility.

Have a funny nightflight in switzerland ..... I like it with my B47. :D

http://www.ils-online.ch/cgi-bin/album/data/media/44/ZBF-Nacht.JPG

[MD900 Explorer]

Westy

Just curious as to what size is the Fire Brigade courtyard is? and what type of helicopter is the twin being flown?

MD :ok:

[WestWind1950]

nice picture XT244


@MD900 Explorer
it's a BO 105.... I have no idea how large the courtyard is in meters, but it's fairly large from what I've been told. I assume the pilot has already been there to check it out. And I also assume he wouldn't want to risk his own life for any nonsense flight.

Actually, I have already asked at 2 regional CAA offices and THEY both said "no way" would they approve it! So that's another reason for asking you guys.... after all, you all have the "experience".... I assume :ok:

Westy

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

This is the same kind of guestion I get ask at my flying school as I am only 1 of 2 full time heli instructors compered to about 12 fix wing guys when I make an approach down wind.

A helicopter is a very differant beast to a fix wing which just goes up along then down between airports, think of a heli more like a JCB it does a job be it heli med,underslung loads,public transport or just as an airborne platform to bolt things onto, helis go out and do a job rather than just go places.

As to the night flying thing all my night flying is done in singles normaly an R44 and the only real issuse is the weather with no SAS or autopilot you have to pick your nights carefully so you dont run into anything to bad, but theres nothing wrong with this time of year go look out your window and tell me if you can see stars.Alot of my night flying by the way is done on and off a NATO T of lights which in a reasonable area such as 2/3 of a football field is a piece of cake evan for a novice.

So yeah night flying love it oh and when was the last time in the UK you heard of a public transport heli crashing at night??

[helmet fire]

why would any one risk their life flying a fixed wing to the ground at night at over 100 kts?
Now thats crazy stuff if you ask me........but the helo operation you talk of is straight forward and presents no particular challenge to an appropriately night rated and experienced pilot.
No real issues here westy. And he has a twin to boot.

But I am curious why you ask here claiming that you are just interested, curious and want to know what other professional helicopter pilots think, yet have already contacted two regional CAA offices to question the legality of the operation. I guess that narrows the operation down to the UK, so perhaps a UK heli pilot would like to comment an the legislation surrounding this.

[Gomer Pylot]

Flying a single-engine, single-pilot helicopter with only basic VFR instrumentation at night is not the same as flying a multi-engine, IFR capable helicopter at night. The crashes are almost all by VFR, single pilots who lose control and don't or can't use the instruments. Not all, but by far the vast majority. Night flight is safe enough, if done properly.

[212man]

Helmet fire,
I'd suggest it's probably Germany, looking at Westwind's home page.

Still not sure what the fuss is about. They will need to operate to Performance Class 1 standards though.

[WestWind1950]

yes 212 man, it is Germany, but does that matter? I want to know what the other JAR-OPS country think about it.

I get the impression that the strict JAR-OPS requirements are not observed the same everywhere. It's the same with JAR-FCL... no conformity, no harmonisation as was planned. Maybe the EASA will straighten things out, but at the moment?
As mentioned above, 2 CAA offices said no about the planned night flight... that's why I want some opinions of other countries and of heli drivers. Would YOU do the flight (flood lighting done by the fire brigade, courtyard big enough, no high buildings or such in the approach and depart area)? Would YOUR CAA give permission? I think the weather is going to kill the flight anyway, but I'm still interested in opinions about it.

Westy

P.S. I find very little discussion in Pprune about the pros and cons of JAR-OPS and JAR-FCL ... why? do you all think it's fine? (I doubt that and it would need a new thread to discuss that I think).

[The Nr Fairy]

CRAZYBROADSWORD:

The last UK night PT fatal I can recall is G-CFLT (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_502753.pdf) - the download is a PDF file, which you may be better to save then read later.

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

cheers fairy, so it looks like accidents may well be few and far between. To be honest guys I dont think this guy will be happy until he get the answers he wont's.....

[magbreak]

Is the 105 still certified for single pilot IFR?? Westwind1950 hasn't told us if it's single pilot or 2 crew yet.

or why he's really interested i.e he's a passenger, he's going along for the ride or he's a NIMBY..:p

[WestWind1950]

oh you guys are soooo distrustful :p

single pilot... completely qualified and experienced pilot. I don't know whether he's IFR rated or not (I don't know everything!!). No, I'm not a passenger.... but why are my reasons so questioned? no, I have no intention of getting anyone into hot water.... consider the whole situation hypothetical. Like I said, I'm a fixed wing pilot (and instructor) and would love to fly heli's ....enjoyed a 3/4 hour lesson once...loved it.. too expensive for me and now I'm too old :{

Westy

[MD900 Explorer]

Westy

Just a couple more questions please.

1. How many crew are there going to be and what is the experience in Hours and Licence type.

2. Are you a fare paying passenger on this flight or is it a jolly into the night. Is this a flight that is being paid for by fare paying customers or not.

3. Where is the nearest airport with night facilities, and why cant you meet up there instead.

4. What is your agenda here on Rotorheads, as you seem very pushy with your questions... (Just curious - Not meant as an attack of any sort).

5 Why dont you start a thread asking the differences between JAR-FCL and JAR-OPS, giving us an insight into your Aviation knowledge.

6 Which 2 CAA offices have you asked, and if any of them isnt the German CAA, why not.

It would not really be fair to offer much more info, without a clearer picture of events. In theory, as the others have said, it should be ok, but without specifics it is hard to make an opinion.

MD :uhoh:

[SASless]

Aroma of Stinkbait here.....some fishing going on?

[WestWind1950]

@MD900 Explorer

sorry if I appear pushy, I don't intend to... I'm just not getting any clear cut replies!! (our postings seemed to cross).

1. I have no idea how experienced the pilot is... I only know he has been in the business a loooong time

2. It is, as I have already stated, a fare payed flight. Entertainers at an event want a transfer from a town that has no heliport to an airfield with night certification about 10-15 min. away where they plan to pick up a fixed wing flight (as far as I know).

3. I ask myself, too, why they don't just order a taxi or other transportation because of the probable bad weather... the above mentioned airfield is about a half hour car drive away, maybe 45 min.

4. Pushy? I hope not... I have often been here in Rotorheads.. I have a number of Rotorhead friends... sorry if I dare tread where I am not welcome, being that I'm "only" a fixed wing bloke :(

5. I have asked JAR-FCL questions before in private flying but it got no replies. I am familiar with the German version of JAR-FCL and JAR-OPS and I have the impression that they are handled different in the various countries. The implementation of JAR-FCL in Germany was a catastrophy!! :uhoh:

6. I asked at 2 different German CAA offices (Regierungsbezirke). Both said they would not give permission for such a flight. I had no time to ask any other offices but will perhaps on Monday.... just for interest. I just find it fascinating, that all of you say "go for it!" and yet the "authorities that be" say no....

I have been a pprune for a long time... I wonder that a serious question is approached with such sceptism... I guess I'll stick to JetBlast in the future... :ugh:

Westy

[tecpilot]

@Westy,

sorry i couldn't understand your hard fingerpointing...

To ease you... I've made a lot of such flights, also in germany.
The company needs an approval from the local CAA that's right. They need a Twin, a night pilot and all the stuff according to JAR-OPS. May be they get some special restrictions, flying routes, altitudes by the CAA. But the CAA needs some real and serious reasons to refuse the approval. If the CAA doesn't have that reasons, i would talk to my lawyer and bring the whole thing to court. The described mission is part of the business in the helicopterworld and it's absolutely ok to perform such a mission. If M.Jackson or Mick Jagger, or any ex-president and of course their ordered helicopter companies could get such approvals, why should the CAA refuse the same to MR.X?
If the weather is ok, the landing site and obstacle situation too, the pilot and the ship according to law, i couldn't see a reason why not? The described mission is on the normal risk level, or other, could performed safe if well arranged.
I'm a rotorhead and i hate it, that a taxi or a plank should get our money and the client lose his time. Safe or unsafe? There is allways a risk in flying helicopters. If we try to lower the risk to the lowest level, we could only perform some sightseeing flights in IFR twins with IFR pilots around an airfield on day and phantastic weather. Cancel longline, EMS, off-shore, night flights, test and evaluation flights and the helicopter is dead. Is a car free of risks? The plank safer than a train?
We don't talk about cancelling parts of our business, we talk about the best way to perform our missions.

By the way, how many officers in the local CAA's in germany are
1. Helicopter qualified,
2. Turbine or twin turbine qualified,
3. HELICOPTER NIGHT QUALIFIED?
That's only the basics, how many of the poor officers have any kind of experience in such missions and night flying? Short, how many are able to give qualified and court proofed answers to such questions?

order a taxi or other transportation because of the probable bad weather... the above mentioned airfield is about a half hour car drive away, maybe 45 min

Ever seen the streets after a great event? Or only fear about the entertainer...:D :p :=

[Helinut]

So there you have it Westy.

It is a perfectly normal piece of public transport helicopter flying, as far as your description allows us to tell. Lots of us have done this sort of job hundreds of times.

Helicopter night flying has its special hazards, but if the rules concerning such things are followed, the risks are low.

By the sound of it you do not agree, but you suggest you don't know much about helicopters ...........

[John Eacott]

FWIW, this sort of operation as described would be quite normal and legal in Australia, with the only exception being that our Regs require a multi engine aircraft for night passenger carrying charter ops, plus an instrument rated pilot even though the operation would be NVMC.

But then again, we allow night ag spraying with fixed wing, too :rolleyes:

[MD900 Explorer]

SASLess

Aroma of Stinkbait here.....some fishing going on?
My thoughts exactly. Maybe WestWind1950 knows Linda Lovelace :E

WestWind1950
sorry if I appear pushy, I don't intend to... I'm just not getting any clear cut replies!!
I guess your quote at the start of the thread was that you wanted an opinion. I believe that you have had the benefit of some of the most experienced Rotorheads in the world giving you an Opinion. What Clear cut replies is it you need here? :confused:

As for the Pushy thing, i have three theories and here they are:-
1 You are really a journo and are pushing your luck.
2 Your cultural background and German nature precludes that people misunderstand your language translation, because of your language construction.
3 You state that you hang out on JetBlast alot. Which would also predispose you to being pushy, but then again i refere you back to 1 & 2


oh you guys are soooo distrustful
I guess it is like trying to marry into an italian mafia family. We stick together like mud, as it is a small industry and we are always looking out for each others backs. Enough journo's have tried their luck here, and been thwarted. So excuse us if we are just looking out for our fellow rotorheads backs. :sad:

212man
Still not sure what the fuss is about. They will need to operate to Performance Class 1 standards though
I think nearly everyone who has quoted an opinion on this have echoed your thoughts. :ok:

John Eacott
But then again, we allow night ag spraying with fixed wing, too
WTF? :E Now thats some crazy ****. :cool:

MD :eek:

[WestWind1950]

MD

No, I'm not a journo.... and I'm not even German! :} Born and raised in US of A! ;)

I only found a discrepancy between the answers I was getting here and in the heli crash thread (which was one of the reasons for starting this thread)... and of course the 2 answers from the "so-called" authorities (one of them a heli examiner!!).

I visited the site today... courtyard about 72 m x 29 m, approach and departure only possible from over the fire truck garages (2 stories high). During daytime, no prob, but at night? oh well, it was an interesting encounter with you guys! And yes, I can understand your support of each other... don't forget, I'm a pilot, too :p

Westy http://www.dorrie.de/images/action-smiley-085.gif

P.S. and no, I don't "hang out" in JetBlast that much... too much "nonsense" going on there.... but once in a while, when I'm extremely bored, I do admit to seeing what's up... which is then usually a real "downer"

[flyer43]

Westy,

Given the size of the courtyard and the height of the obstructions around it, I'm not surprised that approval has been turned down by the German CAA. The Bo105 may be a twin, but its performance is less than lacklustre when it loses one of them - the remaining one just gets you to the scene of the accident or incident a bit quicker!

Other than that, the normal requirements for approval to operate to an ad-hoc site in the UK is that you require all that has already been mentioned by many of the other respondees, plus you need to get permission from the owner of the site (which I believe the fire department has given in this instance) and inform the local police.

In London, there are pretty rigid controls regarding where you can fly, particularly at night. Maybe there is something similar in the part of Germany you are referring to.

Although many of the guys have said that this is a fairly "normal" sort of flight at night, I think that the site you describe would normally only be considered for an EMS type flight. Fare paying passengers should be offered something a little less risky........

[Helinut]

flyer 43 is right.

Now that Westy has provided hard information, it rather changes the picture.

If things are as quoted, it might well prove difficult to do what you suggest within the rules. I am not saying what was planned was wrong (I don't have all the info), and I am not familiar with the German variations to the EASA/JAR rules.

If I was involved, I would be looking for another better nearby site, just from a general risk perspective.

If the German CAA did not give the flight permission, then I guess that is what the operator did anyway

[MD900 Explorer]

WestWind1950

Thanks for clearing up the questions and putting us straight on a few pointers. :ok:

I apologise if i was a little way off the mark, but there always has to be a starting point eh?:\

I guess it would have been more useful to the thread if you had of asked the question with all the facts to hand. This may have answered your question a little easier and saved conflict. Just my thoughts. :hmm:

Safe Flying

MD :sad:

[WestWind1950]

hi MD900 Explorer (and the rest),

and thanks to you for your openess... if I had had all the facts from the start, then I would have presented them. I think that in the future I'll ask such questions less "public" via pm ;)

Westy

[MD900 Explorer]

Westwind1950

You may be an instructor and a regulator with the LBA, but had you actually asked the question like you should have then maybe you would not have ended in such a discussion. :E

I think that in the future I'll ask such questions less "public" via pm

If you actually knew who to ask the questions to you would have succesfully achieved your goal, without asking Rotorheads for your opinion. :uhoh:

Safe Flying

MD :ok:

[WestWind1950]

good morning MD!!

and a regulator with the LBA I'm not :cool:

If you actually knew who to ask the questions to you would have succesfully achieved your goal
that was my problem :(

thanks anyway ;)

Westy http://www.dorrie.de/images/action-smiley-085.gif

[MD900 Explorer]

WestWind1950

and a regulator with the LBA
Seems i am farting up the wrong tree here.... My apologies AGAIN. I swear i will shoot my informant....grrr :mad:

If you actually knew who to ask the questions to you would have succesfully achieved your goal
Seems like you knew that you had no clue :E

Maybe we should do lunch one day?
(I don't usully do this online dating thing...but i will make an exception this time? :ok: )

MD :uhoh:

[SASless]

Gosh, Crow at a Smorgasbord! Best eaten on a cold plate!

[tecpilot]

According to JAR-OPS 3 a not prepared and planned EMS landing site needs at night 2Dx4D, means round about, 26m x 52m. Therefore you can count that a well prepared night landing spot, observed by pilot and well arranged with fire brigade and crew, as described from westy, needs not more. A planned landing site (as on standard hospitals or factories) needs dimensions from 1,5xD + 0,25D safety on each side, means to a BO 105 round about 25m Diameter.

The courtyard is usable from dimensions

As obstacle situation is needed: a 8° degrees angle on approach and departure on the last 245m around the landing site.

But this rule is out of service in germany, otherwise nearly no EMS flights are possible, because nearly all hospital landing sites dont't according to this rules!

Therefore the old rules are still in service (up to 2009), with an angle from 16,7°.

Thats the situation. If you plan the FATO in the middle of the 72m distance and the garages are approx. 6m high, on the direct edge of the courtyard and into the approach sector, the field is to small.

But, i don't believe there is no free other approach sector to a fire brigade courtyard. Nearly all fire brigades have a training field or a soccer place. Also i'm shure there is a sport arena in the village or any kind of 245m free of obstacles grass field.

And: it's a questions who wants to fly. The CAA can allways give a special permission. If Eurocopter, the CAA himself or a well known VIP wants to fly... :) I have made certification flights with the german CAA to helipads, only allowed to twins, with a single engine helicopter, because the CAA officer was only single rated and needed some flight hours to hold his licence current (HO HO HO)

authorities (one of them a heli examiner!!).

They are all examiners! Because they do write the names of the examiners to the paper and they are in charge. Sometimes they don't need a type rating (helicopters) or a FI, they are checking out from the cabin or the middle seat, because they are CAA officers :) :) :)

[Thomas coupling]

Flyer 43: you don't need to inform the local police of your landing intentions. only the owner.

[JimL]

Tecpilot,

JAR-OPS 3 in the latest version is more specific than you indicate in your post; in the ACJ which contains the conceptual text it makes this distinction:7 HEMS operational sites

The HEMS philosophy attributes the appropriate levels of risk for each operational site; this is derived from practical considerations and in consideration of the probability of use. The risk is expected to be inversely proportional to the amount of use of the site. The types of site are:

HEMS operating base; from which all operations will start and finish. There is a high probability of a large number of take-offs and landings at this heliport and for that reason no alleviation from operating procedures or performance rules are contained in the HEMS appendix.

HEMS operating site; because this is the primary pick up site related to an incident or accident, its use can never be pre-planned and therefore attracts alleviations from operating procedures and performance rules - when appropriate.

The hospital site; is usually at ground level in hospital grounds or, if elevated, on a hospital building. It may have been established during a period when performance criteria was not a consideration. The amount of use of such sites depends on their location and their facilities; normally, it will be greater than that of the HEMS operating site but less than for a HEMS operating base. Such sites attract some alleviations under the HEMS rules.The recommended size for a HEMS Operating Site is given also in guidance (i.e. it is not a requirement):IEM to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d), sub-paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C)
HEMS operating site
See Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) sub-paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C)

When selecting a HEMS operating site it should have a minimum dimension of at least 2D. For night operations, unsurveyed HEMS operating sites should have dimensions of at least 4D in length and 2D in width.With regard to hospital sites; the Public Interest Site Appendix was written specifically with German hospitals in mind.

Jim

[tecpilot]

Hi Jim,

Germany doesn't have the latest JAR's. Still running on the first papers from 1999, fresh in national law. :) :( ;) with more special permissions than Einstein could still hold in mind.

The whole new paperwork isn't in national law and therefore couldn't be official used.

It's impossible in Germany to adopt the latest versions in national law (Ohoooo!!!). This 80 mio inhabitants country doesn't have enough CAA officers.

Now with EASA the interest in implementing JAR's, IEM, AMC is descending to sub zero. The "public interest sites " isn't an official thing in germany. Why? Version 1 JAR-OPS 3 doesn't have "public interest sites" and the german law therefore also not! May be you can have an CAA officer who knows the term" public interest sites". But i wouldn't bet.

[WestWind1950]

@tecpilot

you're right... in Germany we still have change 1 even though I believe change 4 is out (or 5, or 6???). The problem in Germany: it must get PROPERLY translated into German and there's no money for the translation... among other things! We are so way behind it's pitiful.
Over 80%, if not more, hospital sites are not certified and don't even meet the requirements put out in 1969 (minimum space of 15 m x 15 m + 10 m safty strip around it)! So, either the hospitals have to build "proper" sites, or the pilots fly at their own risk. The biggest problem is, most (all?) of these hospitals have no money for putting roof-top sites up or enlarging their present sites.
One hospital I know has an elevated site with 16 m diameter... much too small for the present regs... but it's being flown to (a person's life is often at stake).

ooooops, we're drifting off topic. :p but I'm quite intersted in this topic.

Westy

P.S. it looks like the "authorities that be" are going to approve the above mentioned flight.......

[flyer43]

TC

In general you don't have to inform the local police, but it depends on where you intend to operate. The local police should be informed if operating to the site could cause disruption to local traffic

Thanks anyway

[tecpilot]

the pilots fly at their own risk

yeah, that's the way to solve the problems, the confusion and the lack of money and officers inside CAA.

Got the same answer some weeks ago, "we (the CAA) can't do the certification because of personal problems, but if you agree to hold the responsibility personally, do what ever you want. Hello, hello... if germany is on this level,why they need aerial laws?

[MD900 Explorer]

Rumour has it the flight has been authorised.

MD :ok: