The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Plane crash at Orange Airport

Old 18th May 2018, 09:27
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,311
There's a few pilots out there that probably wish their Cirrus had had a tail wheel when they scraped the tail on the ground when they didn flare.

The Cirrus is one of the easiest aircraft to land at night.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 18th May 2018, 12:15
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by On eyre View Post
KRa you are incorrect. Said jet jockey must have night currency as well as current MECIR - three night takeoffs and landings if to carry pax otherwise one of each.
or successfully participating in a recurrent training program approved by CASA under CASR 61.040.
roundsounds is offline  
Old 19th May 2018, 04:35
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Queensland
Posts: 19
Any night flying and the Night Visual Rating, should be done in a twin, with an instructor only and night circuits should be icus only.
Night flying, dual or solo, in a single is fine if you train and plan properly, know your limitations and practice.

Everyone is aware that night circuit training at a capital city airport,, shouldn't be done in a single,
as there's too much residential area around.
I'm not 'aware' of that. Maybe trucks and cars shouldn't drive down roads in residential areas either.

Night flying on dark nights away from extensive ground lighting needs a properly equipped aircraft, sound instrument skills and a good knowledge of sensory illusions and how to deal with them, it doesn't need a twin engine aircraft.
Stab Bar is offline  
Old 19th May 2018, 06:16
  #44 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: And once again, the fun and good times having come to an end for yet another year, back in the cold, cruel real world and continuing the seemingly never ending search for that bad bottle of Red
Age: 65
Posts: 2,560
Everyone is aware that night circuit training at a capital city airport,, shouldn't be done in a single,
as there's too much residential area around.
Nor am I 'aware' of that.

Night flying on dark nights away from extensive ground lighting needs a properly equipped aircraft, sound instrument skills and a good knowledge of sensory illusions and how to deal with them, it doesn't need a twin engine aircraft.
Definitely concur with the above. The first job I ever had after gaining my CPL and a MECIR was a casual job, six days on and four off IIRC, based in the Moomba Oil and Gas fields, flying a C206. I was allowed (indeed encouraged) to do one hours night circuits every three tours.

Taking off from RW 30 on a moonless night you were effectively IMC from passing the last runway lights until turning downwind.

I can still vividly recall the very first take off I did under those conditions. I suspect that anyone reading this who has had the same experience will know exactly what went through my mind at the time!
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 19th May 2018, 06:31
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by KRviator View Post
It's all well and good to say that 'proper' operators and the airlines will use a sim for riskier operations, and that is a valid claim when a suitable simulator is available...Most times, for GA anyway, this is simply not the case. That is the unfortunate reality, whether or not it is liked.
KR,
If it is good enough for organisations like Qantas to prohibit a range of exercises at night, not limited to asymmetric, when an actual aircraft is used, ii's good enough for me.
In the case of major airlines, I know the record that resulted in the introduction of such restrictions, and all these aircraft were/are FAR 25 or equivalent aircraft, not FAR 23 or earlier CAR light aircraft standards.

So it should be very clear what I am saying, and I repeat, any candidate for any test, in an actual aircraft, who is invited to conduct asymmetric exercises at night should refuse.

The fact that accidents happen in daylight is irrelevant, and as for crash mentioned at Darwin, people should acquaint themselves with the detailed causes ---- indeed, I would go so far as to say it "was caused" by unnecessarily risky training demands by CASA. I have a strong suspicion that similar, but not identical demands played a dominant role in the Renmark loss. Our steady death toll on asymmetric training/checking in Australia speaks for itself.

It is a nonsense to suggest that the additional risks of carrying out such training at night is trivial, and should be ignored.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Gupta, I just mentioned two night asymmetric training accidents that came immediately to mind, but we are not short of night accidents in GA aircraft.

Last edited by LeadSled; 19th May 2018 at 06:37. Reason: PS: added
LeadSled is offline  
Old 19th May 2018, 07:04
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 305
KRviator might I respectively suggest you look at Part 61.395 (2) which applies to all licences and ratings for passenger carriage at night.
On eyre is offline  
Old 19th May 2018, 07:17
  #47 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Next door to the neighbor from hell, who believes in chemtrails!
Age: 71
Posts: 1,625
Originally Posted by Pinky the pilot View Post
Taking off from RW 30 on a moonless night you were effectively IMC from passing the last runway lights until turning downwind.

I can still vividly recall the very first take off I did under those conditions. I suspect that anyone reading this who has had the same experience will know exactly what went through my mind at the time!
Same as taking off from RW 11 at YLEC on a moonless night - it's as black as the insides of the proverbial dog out to the east. At least taking off from RW 29 you have the town lights once you get airborne.

DF.
Desert Flower is offline  
Old 19th May 2018, 12:29
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 350
Originally Posted by On eyre View Post
KRviator might I respectively suggest you look at Part 61.395 (2) which applies to all licences and ratings for passenger carriage at night.
I added a post mentioning this yesterday but removed due relevance. 61.395 (2) is for passenger carriage, not two crew dual training flights?
Two_dogs is offline  
Old 19th May 2018, 12:52
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: adelaide australia
Posts: 270
With the Cirrus Perspective by Garmin fitted to the G5, i wonder if that has Synthetic Vision as standard ???
gileraguy is offline  
Old 19th May 2018, 12:59
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 305
Yes Two Dogs but the original reference by KRA was a response to Thorn birds first mentioning of corporate jet jockey.
My post responded to that not this particular training incident.
However maybe Part 61.395 (2) might apply to the instructor. An instructor on here might enlighten us.

Last edited by On eyre; 19th May 2018 at 13:21.
On eyre is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 07:09
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,383
Has anyone heard how the 2 pilots are going?
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 09:33
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania and High Wollemi
Posts: 399
One out of hospital was last report. https://www.centralwesterndaily.com....r-plane-crash/
catseye is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2019, 09:37
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 332
Cloudee is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2019, 12:30
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 24
NVFR Generally

guys. Apologies if this seems a stupid question but its something I’d like to get clarified. If we say that circuit training at night in a single under NVFR is an unacceptable risk, and this extends to doing this during a BFR, isn’t this a statement that single engine NVFR itself is an unacceptable risk and should not be undertaken (ie scrap the NVFR rating altogether and prohibit single engine ops to day VFR only)?

It seems to be that if recurrent training for a particular rating is too dangerous, doesn’t that make exercising the privileges of the rating also too dangerous? If recurrence training at night is stopped, but the NVFR is still available we are basically saying that once you have a NVFR you should never have your night flying reviewed or monitored? Doesn’t this make NVFR even more dangerous.

i want to be clear, I do not have the experience to give any informed view as to whether or not conducting recurrency training in a single at night is an unacceptable risk. However, if we accept that it is, doesn’t that make night flying in a single generally an unacceptable risk?

Denning
Denning is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2019, 22:47
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
In the USA every PPL license allows you to fly overnight. There are actually very few countries that have a separate night VFR endorsement.

Statistically the USA has more night incidents than what we do in Australia but I believe this is because there are just so many aircraft over there by comparison and the fact that their weather conditions are more volatile and mountains much higher.
mcoates is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2019, 12:39
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,837
Originally Posted by Denning View Post
guys. Apologies if this seems a stupid question but its something I’d like to get clarified. If we say that circuit training at night in a single under NVFR is an unacceptable risk, and this extends to doing this during a BFR, isn’t this a statement that single engine NVFR itself is an unacceptable risk and should not be undertaken (ie scrap the NVFR rating altogether and prohibit single engine ops to day VFR only)?

It seems to be that if recurrent training for a particular rating is too dangerous, doesn’t that make exercising the privileges of the rating also too dangerous? If recurrence training at night is stopped, but the NVFR is still available we are basically saying that once you have a NVFR you should never have your night flying reviewed or monitored? Doesn’t this make NVFR even more dangerous.

i want to be clear, I do not have the experience to give any informed view as to whether or not conducting recurrency training in a single at night is an unacceptable risk. However, if we accept that it is, doesn’t that make night flying in a single generally an unacceptable risk?

Denning
Terms like “unacceptable risk” and “too dangerous” are simply subjective value judgments. There are ways of putting objective numbers and costs on aviation risks, but those days are long gone in many places including, sadly, Australia.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2019, 13:07
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post

Terms like “unacceptable risk” and “too dangerous” are simply subjective value judgments. There are ways of putting objective numbers and costs on aviation risks, but those days are long gone in many places including, sadly, Australia.

i absolutely agree with the above, however, my question is different. I suppose the question I’m asking is that if (for the sake of argument) one does hold the view that NVFR recurrence training or including it as part of BFR is a risk they would not be prepared to take (and a number of people in the posts above do seem to hold this view), isn’t that person also saying that any single engine NVFR flight is too dangerous? Otherwise, it would seem odd to say that conducting SE NVFR ops generally is ok, but there is some added element of risk when undertaking circuits at night with an instructor on board.
Denning is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.