Confused on PPL night rating!

[RITZER82]

Greetings folks,

I am in the process of almost completing my PPL and my instructor adviced me to undertake a PPL night rating as it all goes towards hour building anyway in order to achieve your fATPL/CPL.

Has anyone completed a night rating, if so would you recommend me to undertake this extra privilege as my instructor is trying to sell the idea to me but for obvious reasons I should not entirely take his word!

Many thanks once again:)

[OneIn60rule]

count as Pilot in Command time.

It will count as dual time.

You need 100 Pilot in Command time and if memory is right then you also need dual time of 150.


You need the night Qualification anyway as you can't proceed towards an IR without it.


1/60

[av624]

There is no point in rushing to get it done. You do need it for CPL/IR. My advice would be to get some more experience under your belt first and then go for it. :ok:

[Coffin Corner]

I would advise getting it done as your instructor is doing. If you achieve your PPL in the winter and you want to fly then you have the Night Qual as a back-up should you get back a bit late. Also it is a fantastic experience, people will tell you not to do it as it's dangerous, some will tell you it's fine. There's inherent dangers with all flying so do your own risk assessment based upon your own personal circumstance.
Personally I would think twice about purposely flying a single at night now, but that's only because I have children.

Anyway, you need the qualification, so you may as well do it, and you do get some PIC time when you do your solo circuits. The whole thing is only 5hrs anyway. Do it, and enjoy it :ok:

There was a thread running some time ago over on Private Flying, do a search.

CC

[mad_jock]

I would agree with the rest.

Also night flying is a pain in the UK. No doud't you will be going of to do some hour building in the states, do the training over there it is alot more pleasant cheaper and safer than doing it in the UK. You only have to do the ICAO training for night you don't have to have it issued for the IR.

You better check that though things might have changed since I went through they system. Personally I did it as part of my 45 hours PPL.

All instructors at the moment are on a maximise their income operation. They and the school just want your money.

[Captain-Random]

Do it now... or you might have to wait til next winter because not many airfields stay open till 23:000 in summer:} I've had 3 lessons in a row cancelled now due to bad weather. I've got 3 next week to finisdh off but so far its beating day flying:ok:

[Deano777]

Safer in the States rather than the UK? Got any statistics to back up that claim?

As far as I remember you only need the NQ for CPL issue, check LASORS.

[VFR Transit]

Get it done now, as you would need to pay an extra £84 to have it added to your PPL (like i am about to do :eek:)

Done 2.5 hours two days ago and another 2.5 hours tonight so will have it completed, the QUALIFICATION is a right hoot.

Go for it!!

VFR

[destinationsky]

Ive started doing it and its very good! Its nice to see the world from a different perspective and as previously mentioned its a good back up if you get caught out and get home late!
Its not so good when you have just taken off and your panel lights decide to quit! Happened to me! Its amazing how much you learn in a quick time....!

[BackPacker]

How far along are you with your PPL? Have you met the minimum requirements of 25 dual/45 total already?

Doing your NQ as part of your PPL training has the advantage of counting towards the 25/45 hours PPL requirements as well as counting towards the NQ requirements. And if you have all the required night hours and solo take-offs and landings before you send the PPL exam paperwork to the CAA, it doesn't cost anything extra to get the NQ added to your license.

On the way to an ATPL you're going to need an NQ anyway, whether that's for CPL or IR is irrelevant. Might as well do it as part of a bigger program, so that it doesn't cost anything extra. And you might want to do it when it gets dark at five, so you have long hours of darkness before the airports close and your body wants to go to sleep. Although I would advise you to wait a month or so, when winter is properly here. Calmer and more importantly, more predictable weather.

[ab33t]

I would recomend getting it down now , you are busy with PPL so have been doing circuits and the training is still fresh , you will have to pay extra to add i to your licence and you can use these hours towards you PPL . The sun does set rather early in the winter so that is a added bonus.

[mad_jock]

Nope no facts apart from the fact that you have multiple airfields all with pilot controlled lighting virtually every 20 miles if not less up and down the FL east coast.

Added to the fact that when I taught NQ's the previous year a student and instructor had ditched and even though they were 50 miles away from a SAR base next to an easy location point the student drowned. If you have a engine failure at night in the UK you are very likely not live to tell the tale.

But then again maybe I am just a big girls blouse a couple of thousand hours flying around the Highlands of Scotland be it in rain, sleet, snow and up to 90knts of wind. The risk is unacceptable for me now in a SEP. But then again I am not wondering if I can afford to eat on a FI wages and I have a bit more experience of operating at night than your average blind leading the blind FI who maybe has 20 hours if your lucky operating at night.

[XXPLOD]

I've just done it. Great fun, focusses the mind and night flying is useful if you're hour building as it gives you greater flexibility.

[madlandrover]

There's no particular right or wrong time to get the NQ done, as long as it's done before CPL/IR skills test. Winter does give you advantages though as mentioned by other posters when it comes to airfield opening times - having had a few late nights earlier in the year at Coventry getting people done in time for CPL courses!

I'd tend to agree with MJ about the survival rates for night incidents in singles, especially knowing a (very) little about the case mentioned. Some instructors even suggest pitching to Vne and waiting in the event of an engine failure, it makes the waiting go faster... Terrain especially has to be considered, bearing in mind that night flight involves complying with IFR - I do get a little worried sometimes hearing aircraft transiting around below 2000' at night round the edge of built up areas, over unknown terrain, etc!

[1800ed]

That's a slightly depressing proposal :(

[robin]

At our airfield I've heard lots of CPLs with multi-engine experience all say much the same thing...

Don't fly SEP over water
and don't fly SEP at night

Just out of interest, how many fatals have happened over, say, the last 10 years by an SEP flying at night? Given the low numbers who do anyway, I would guess the answer is not many.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The last statistics I have seen were for the USA. Measured on a fatal accidents per 100,000 hrs basis, a night flight for non Instrument Rated PPL's, is approximetely 20 times more likely to result in a fatal accident than a comparable flight during the day. After personal experience flying with 4 pilots who held UK PPL's I did not see that they were better pilots in any significant way, than the US PPL's I have also flown with. Therefore I would suggest that the overall statistical picture would be the same for UK PPL's who fly at night. Personnally I no longer fly single engine aircraft at night and file IFR for every night flight I do in a multiengine aircraft regardless of the reported weather.

[mad_jock]

I wouldn't have thought there were many either.

The chances of something happening are the same as during the day.

Structural failure the out come is going to be the same day or night.

During the day from my limited knowledge your chances of walking away are pretty good in the UK from a power plant failure. The aircraft/pride might be a bit hurt but that's not the end of the world.

The only thing different at night is choosing your crash site and being able to deal with all the other good stuff of putting it down with a crappy landing light showing you the way. Night it will be more luck than judgement.
You then get into the realms of the emergency services being able to find you.

Now I have a link to the report of the crash up at my old school please be aware that the best friend of the lad that died is an active PPruner. If sir you wish me to remove the link please don't hesitate to PM me.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/G-BWPG.pdf

And to add I believe it's illegal to fly at night in a single in France. And that info that Big piston provided is worse than I expected!!!!!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Aside from the fact that a forced landing is much more likely to be unsuccessfull at night, other factors which also appear to also have contributed to the very poor night flying accident record are:
1)Spacial disorientation (due to a lack of a visible horizon)
2)CFIT (due to be inablility to see obstacles untill it is too late) and
3)Loss of control due to inadvertantly entering IMC (you cannot see clouds at night)

[IO540]

Some instructors even suggest pitching to Vne and waiting in the event of an engine failure, it makes the waiting go fasterD*ckheads :ugh:

Aside from the fact that a forced landing is much more likely to be unsuccessfull at night, other factors which also appear to also have contributed to the very poor night flying accident record are:
1)Spacial disorientation (due to a lack of a visible horizon)
2)CFIT (due to be inablility to see obstacles untill it is too late) and
3)Loss of control due to inadvertantly entering IMC (you cannot see clouds at night) Agree totally.

It is a bit of an anomaly that a plain PPL is allowed to fly at night. A proper dark night is IMC. So how does this work??? Logically it would never be allowed. It works because

- few PPLs fly at night
- of those that do, few fly late at night (sunset+30mins is still bright, for a quick local jolly to log the takeoff and landing)
- 99% of the country is just fields, so a forced landing will quite often "work"

Engine failures are so rare (on the certified front; not so sure about the Rotax scene) that they barely feature in the accident stats.

it's illegal to fly at night in a single in France

I would seriously want to see a reference for that.

In many countries, night is IFR and one needs an IR, but not 2 engines.

[mad_jock]

You might very well be correct on that one IO540.

I was never at the right end of the country to be worried about the technicalities of French airspace in a single.

As you say there are few people flying at night which keeps the numbers down.

If you look at our rotary colleagues they have a completely different experience and training requirement.

[Flyingmac]

If only say, 10% of your flying is at night then statistically the chances of an engine failure at night are one tenth the chances of you having one at any time. You don't need to be a gambler to work that one out.

Most of my night flying is done deliberately for the sheer spectacle of it and the (usually) silky smooth air. There's also the lack of chatter on the radio. It all combines to produce a relaxed and enjoyable experience.

Anyone who considers the risks???? to be too high should simply stay on the ground and let those who wish to enjoy the experience do so, without any scaremongering. And I CAN see cloud at night.

[Mark1234]

Many of the same safety arguments could be applied to SE IFR, and frequently are to SE over water, or even over mountains. You pay your money and take your choice; CPL's flying ME kit aren't a good measuring stick - they have the big toys, and quite frankly I'd suggest there's a little bit of willy waving and sensationalism going on - I'm quite sure most people would rather have a big comfortable twin at most times.

Yes, there's increased risk, no doubt. Granted I did mine in Australia where it takes 10 hrs, and the environs slightly different, however my personal opinion is it's a great thing to do. For those of us who aren't likely to ever do an instrument rating, it's liable to develop you as a pilot (instrument flying & nav skills, and planning) - that impacts your day VFR as well.

IO540 is correct of course - the right night can be as good as hard IMC. Mine included mandatory remote area work (black hole), and a lot of instrument appreciation. My answer would be that you are much more picky about your night weather than you are about day. In the UK and europe there's so much light around it's hard not to have a good visual reference if the weather is half decent.

I've used it several times where a delayed departure would otherwise have sunk the flight when on long trips, and for me it deletes the requirement to remain in sight of surface, allowing me to fly out of sight of ground using radio nav etc. I understand that's not so here and the IMCR is required however.

[IO540]

Many of the same safety arguments could be applied to SE IFR, and frequently are to SE over water, or even over mountains. You pay your money and take your choice; CPL's flying ME kit aren't a good measuring stick - they have the big toys, and quite frankly I'd suggest there's a little bit of willy waving and sensationalism going on - I'm quite sure most people would rather have a big comfortable twin at most times.

I don't think so :) Twins run out of fuel often enough, and because they cost so much to run and maintain, and because most of those flying are so old, most of them are pretty knackered.

In flying, you should always have an escape route.

Over land, it is a forced landing (daytime).

Over water, it is a life raft (ok we know few people carry one because they cost £1000+ but that is not the point)

At night, you don't have an escape route (unless you have NVGs and know how to use them :) ).

That's why I don't normally fly at night. When I do I have no problem with it but one has to treat it as IMC. Especially "FAA night" which is sunset+1hr for the purpose of logging the 3+3 for passenger carriage.

[Kiltie]

I prefer to fly a non-autopilot, ancient avionics twin at night rather than my own autopilot equipped, modern radios complex single.

This is purely because I don't rate my chances of a succesful forced landing at night in the single.

[Fuji Abound]

it's illegal to fly at night in a single in France
It is illegal to fly a single at night in France

Who said that? I cant see the post. You are wroing in any event.

I wouldnt want to have an engine failure in a SEP at night because there is a lot more luck involved in the outcome that during the day - but if you review the engine failures at night a surprising number are successful. My mate had one going into to Redhill not that long ago and was absolutely fine if a little shaken.

For that reason give me a twin any time at night - but as IO says a knackered twin with little single engine performance might not be a lot better. On the other hand a good twin will take an engine failure at night and the night landing in its stride.

[mad_jock]

Twas me that said that Fuji with a qualifier "I believe"

I have never done flying in France unless I have had 2 donks burning JetA. So I do apologise that my SEP knowledge in France is a bit lacking.

[Mark1234]

IO540 - Well, I do :} I'd suggest that in flying you should always be cognisant of the risks, and make an informed decision - escape routes are not black and white.

- SE IFR quite possibly may not give you an escape route - an engine failure might mean gliding into cloud with rocks in it, or popping out of an unacceptably low base looking for somewhere to park it.

- Overwater you 'just' ditch and hop in the liferaft - er, yeah. Depends on a lot of things including the sea state.

- Overland it's a forced landing - terrain allowing. Mountainous? Rough? Desert? Not always straight forward.

I *completely* agree that the chances of a good outcome at night are severely reduced, but I'd contend that a night engine failure is no more an automatic death sentence, than a day engine failure is an automatic non-event.

You (sorry, we) *are* fortunate in having a lot of airfields scattered around this country - some smart routing and a sensible cruise alt can minimise the risks. It's also one place where (rarely for me), I'd highly advocate having a GPS - the 'Nearest' button can be very handy. I'd certainly rather have a second engine given the choice.

What I don't understand is how treating it as IMC makes any difference, particularly in the event of engine failures and the like? Or am I misunderstanding something about the UK NVFR - For night I expect to plan LSALT, alternates due lighting, weather, and suchlike - hence my comment that it improves the pilot, requiring a lot more rigorous approach than the usual daytime bimble.

[IO540]

OK, several issues getting mixed up :)

My comments on an "escape route" are intended to mean that without one you have virtually no chance, and in that sense an escape route is close to black and white. Like flying over water in the winter without a raft - unless you get lucky, near a boat, or get the call in at FL180 on an airways flight and there is a S&R heli nearby.

A SE engine failure on a real proper night is russian roulette. It has to be, because you will see nothing until the last few seconds. But the odds with RR are pretty good - 1:20 probably ;)

I have no problem flying at night, and have no fear or concern while doing do, but I have ~ 1100hrs TT of which about 30 were done at night, and it is obvious that my 1100hrs TT would have been done with a much higher risk profile had 550 of them been done in pitch black. So, in line with my policy on minimising risk, I avoid night flight. Practically, it causes me no problems because I normally fly to my own time schedule, generally departing at the earliest possible (airport opening) moment so as to give me the maximum time at the destination on the day of arrival, and returning late at night is not possible because my home airport will be shut.

The rest is attitude to risk. Lots of SE pilots make the SE v. ME decision, and I think it is rational to favour the SE option because the SE performance is similar (if not better), operating costs are much lower, and the downside (assuming comparable systems redundancy, which to be fair is hard though not impossible to find in a single) is the engine failure risk, which is very small.

I don't think there are that many airfield options in the UK or Europe - unless one is flying at pressurised airway levels with a slippery plane. There is a fair # of strips down there but one would never get out of many of them.

Anyway this is digressing :)

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think I dragged this thread a bit off topic. To return to the originators question; Yes I think having a night rating is a good thing, first on the general principal that more (properly delivered) training makes you a better pilot all the time and second practical reason that if you do get stuck (headwinds ATC delays etc)and it is getting dark you have some options. However I do feel that in general the flight training establishments do not put enough emphasis on the pilot decision making elements of operating small singles at night, particularly for low houred PPL's. Night flight has to be undertaken with a robust understanding of the increased risks. Whether or not, and under what circumstances, a pilot chooses to to accept those undeniable risks is ultimately up to them. I personally no longer choose to accept the risks of single engine night flight (as a 6000 +hr ATPL) in my little Grumman AA1B but that is my decision and was not meant to imply anyone who did fly at night was stupid, only to point out the facts of the acccident statistics and what I thought were the risks factors.

[Mark1234]

Excellent points (and by the way, I didn't mean that the willy waving was on this thread); particularly agree about decision making.

Also wasn't suggesting that one does not have an escape route, merely that they come in various levels of quality - as an extreme example, I'd rather suffer engine failure 5000ft overhead a nicely lit airfield in the dark (even if it's too short to fly out of), than in broad daylight overwater.

With that, I shall stop digressing/dragging it off topic too :)

[IO540]

IMHO one should not fly at night unless fully instrument flight capable.

Obviously "instrument flight capable" does not need the 50-hour IR :) But it needs a lot more competence than what one gets in the PPL.

[Tim Dawson]

I've never flown at night. I always wondered how one was expected to remain clear of cloud, when one cannot see them.

[homeguard]

There's been much qouting of statistics, opinion and anecdotal reporting of accidents for night flight.

However, the actual statistics are that between 75-85% of accidents are related to pilot error. Of the remaining circa 20% it can be identified that the mechanical faults leading to the incident were, on too many occasions, apparent to the pilot before take-off (I don't know of any research that quantifies the percentage).

Whether flight by night or day it must be obvious that proper servicing, recording and identification of the aircraft faults including a thorough pre-flight inspection is paramount.

Flight by day or night requires carefull detailed pre-flight planning taking into account terrain, weather reports, icing levels and notified airspace. If this is not done then, day or night, you may enounter a problem irrespective of whatever rating you hold.

Multi engined flight brings with it its own problems owing to complexities; Handling characteristics following an engine failure, assymetric skills and of course the management of such things as fuel transfers which, particularly with some older types, can be complex. Add to that marginal in-flight conditions and strong gusts on approach with significant crosswinds and the two engine idea may not seem to simple a choice to make. The simplicty of one engine can at times be more attractive.

With regard to instrument skills it shouldn't be forgotten that instrument flight training was a requirement for the the Night Rating but was removed by JAA with the introduction of the Night Qualification.

To answer the original question. The 5 hours required for the Night Qualification may be included within the 45 hours minimum experience for the PPL but must be additional to the 25 hours dual/10 hours solo. If there is the opportunity to do it then it will be cost effective and increase the pilots level of safety that the skill and knowledge of flight at night adds.

[madlandrover]

D*ckheads

It's an opinion, not something they (or in this case he - quite experienced but lacking in personality) teach in any way. It's just their personal strategy for an engine failure alone at night over hostile terrain with no way out. Never something I'd teach, but possibly a consideration given the alternatives, even in some areas of the UK. Sad but true.

[Captain Stable]

Given that the majority of PPL accidents are down to pilot error rather than mechanical failure, unlike IO540 (whose opinion I value but with whom on this I disagree) I see very little problem with a PPL flying at night.

Like the IMCr, it is good additional training (never a bad idea), and can eliminate some bad habits people get into in the relaxation period after achieving the PPL.

Flying at night is something I personally really enjoy. The scenery is different (and pretty), the skies are less populated, other traffic is far easier to see, ATC are less hassled and more ready to have a joke and to tolerate those pilots who are slightly less slick in their R/T, it is easier to book a club (or shared) aircraft etc. etc. etc.

I would caution PPLs that they do need a certain amount of instrument flying capablility. Apart from anything else, they do need to be able to transfer to instruments and hold an attitude immediately after lift-off until a suitable outside reference is visible above the engine cowling, and need to be able to carry out an approach trusting the PAPIs or only the aspect ratio of the edge lighting.

And on a lighter note, the checklist in case of engine failure at night is:-

LANDING LIGHT....................ON
If you don't like what you see then:-
LANDING LIGHT....................OFF
End of checklist. :ooh: ;)

And in answer to madlandrover, I concur with the D*ckheads comment. Even if you can't see the terrain you're heading for, coming in under some sort of control at low vertical and horizontal speed can be easily survivable for the aircraft occupants, even if going into trees (c.f. Dundee golfcourse). A Vne crash is not, under any circumstances.