Plane crash at Orange Airport
@ Leadsled
Sure, night is higher risk than day
Twin can be safer than single. Certainly if failure when established in the circuit. Twin may not be much better if one fails at or immediately after take off.
Have to wait and see what happened here. Single failure immediately after take-off? - twin may (or may not) have helped. Other failure? - twin would probably not have helped. Loss of orientation and CFIT? - twin would not have helped.
Sure, night is higher risk than day
Twin can be safer than single. Certainly if failure when established in the circuit. Twin may not be much better if one fails at or immediately after take off.
Have to wait and see what happened here. Single failure immediately after take-off? - twin may (or may not) have helped. Other failure? - twin would probably not have helped. Loss of orientation and CFIT? - twin would not have helped.
Flying at night is one thing. Practising emergencies and abnormal operations at night is another.
I hadn’t realised CASA had dealt with a perceived risk by mandating more risk. Well done 61!
I hadn’t realised CASA had dealt with a perceived risk by mandating more risk. Well done 61!
Flying in any type of aircraft is not without its dangers. So no point singling out night single-engine ops.
Be it a single/twin, night/day, VFR/IFR or a jet at 35,000', hitting the ground or water in an uncontrolled state is going to hurt!
Let's not get carried away!
Be it a single/twin, night/day, VFR/IFR or a jet at 35,000', hitting the ground or water in an uncontrolled state is going to hurt!
Let's not get carried away!
LS. Please post the number of twin and single night crashes including noting if CPL, PPL, IFR versus NVFR ratings from the last 10 years to demonstrate your point. Otherwise it's moot.
Leadsled:
"We have on the books some very serious/fatal accidents during training at night, that probably would have been less serious/wouldn't have happened at all, in daylight --- think Metro at Tamworth, light twin at Camden, just for two."
I call BS on your statement.
We also have an Embraer at Darwin Airport, 2010, and a Conquest at Renmark 12 months ago - both in broad daylight.
The aircraft doesn't know if it is day or night. You may describe this as a "glib statement" but it is a fact.
"We have on the books some very serious/fatal accidents during training at night, that probably would have been less serious/wouldn't have happened at all, in daylight --- think Metro at Tamworth, light twin at Camden, just for two."
I call BS on your statement.
We also have an Embraer at Darwin Airport, 2010, and a Conquest at Renmark 12 months ago - both in broad daylight.
The aircraft doesn't know if it is day or night. You may describe this as a "glib statement" but it is a fact.
So forced landing practise at night would be no riskier than forced landing practise during the day? EFATO practise?
Try 29 May 1989, C210 FMW at Alice Springs
That wouldn't have happened in daylight either
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done quite a bit of night instructing I see flight reviews to keep a night rating as overkill and an increase in overall risk for little gain. (And expensive)
Last edited by Tankengine; 18th May 2018 at 06:00.
Whether you like it or not, flying a training/checking ride at night adds an extra element of risk ---- simple fact.
This is why legitimate airlines will not conduct asymmetric or a number of other exercises in non-normal configuration at night, outside a simulator.
We have on the books some very serious/fatal accidents during training at night, that probably would have been less serious/wouldn't have happened at all, in daylight --- think Metro at Tamworth, light twin at Camden, just for two.
Glib statements like "the aeroplane doesn't know it night" do no more than reveal a distinct lack of understanding of risk management --- but we know there are no shortages of smart -a ---s (alecks) in aviation.
This is why legitimate airlines will not conduct asymmetric or a number of other exercises in non-normal configuration at night, outside a simulator.
We have on the books some very serious/fatal accidents during training at night, that probably would have been less serious/wouldn't have happened at all, in daylight --- think Metro at Tamworth, light twin at Camden, just for two.
Glib statements like "the aeroplane doesn't know it night" do no more than reveal a distinct lack of understanding of risk management --- but we know there are no shortages of smart -a ---s (alecks) in aviation.
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.
Some of you blokes need to get a reality check. Of course flying at night has more risk than day, but only slightly and mainly if the aircraft should suffer an engine failure (a rare event in a certified GA aircraft ) or due to spacial disorientation. The key to most of the risk minimization IMHO is currency on type. I have seen a 747 captain with 1000's hrs experiance nearly crash a C172 on landing by flaring way too high and wash his airspeed off because he was not current on type. How do we know if the Orange crash was not due to simular? There is a risk in all flying be it very small. What do you blokes want? A rule that prohibits all flying unless the aircraft has 4 jet engines, 4 aircrew and capable of auto land at all airports. Better make it freight only too far to risky for passengers.
How do we know if the Orange crash was not due to simular?
The aircraft doesn’t [know it’s night] but the pilots do! Aircraft also doesn’t know where the ground is.
Having done quite a bit of night instructing I see flight reviews to keep a night rating as overkill and an increase in overall risk for little gain. (And exspensive)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This.
Nobody is saying don’t practise.
Just don’t practise in circumstances in which the gain is not justified by the increased risk.
This.
Nobody is saying don’t practise.
Just don’t practise in circumstances in which the gain is not justified by the increased risk.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is night currency required in the USA?
If not, one wonders why its not raining aluminium over there given CAsA's insistence its a "Safety" issue.
Never really seen the point of a high end corporate jet jockey
having to front his local flying school to do his mandatory three
circuits in a C150 because their out of Australian night currency.
Easy for the mainlines I guess "Bloggs shoot down to the sim and do three night circuits will you".
For a GA operator of a high end global thats a very expensive exercise in the aircraft.
If not, one wonders why its not raining aluminium over there given CAsA's insistence its a "Safety" issue.
Never really seen the point of a high end corporate jet jockey
having to front his local flying school to do his mandatory three
circuits in a C150 because their out of Australian night currency.
Easy for the mainlines I guess "Bloggs shoot down to the sim and do three night circuits will you".
For a GA operator of a high end global thats a very expensive exercise in the aircraft.
Is night currency required in the USA?
If not, one wonders why its not raining aluminium over there given CAsA's insistence its a "Safety" issue.
Never really seen the point of a high end corporate jet jockey
having to front his local flying school to do his mandatory three
circuits in a C150 because their out of Australian night currency.
Easy for the mainlines I guess "Bloggs shoot down to the sim and do three night circuits will you".
For a GA operator of a high end global thats a very expensive exercise in the aircraft.
If not, one wonders why its not raining aluminium over there given CAsA's insistence its a "Safety" issue.
Never really seen the point of a high end corporate jet jockey
having to front his local flying school to do his mandatory three
circuits in a C150 because their out of Australian night currency.
Easy for the mainlines I guess "Bloggs shoot down to the sim and do three night circuits will you".
For a GA operator of a high end global thats a very expensive exercise in the aircraft.
Is night currency required in the USA?
If not, one wonders why its not raining aluminium over there given CAsA's insistence its a "Safety" issue.
Never really seen the point of a high end corporate jet jockey
having to front his local flying school to do his mandatory three
circuits in a C150 because their out of Australian night currency.
Easy for the mainlines I guess "Bloggs shoot down to the sim and do three night circuits will you".
For a GA operator of a high end global thats a very expensive exercise in the aircraft.
If not, one wonders why its not raining aluminium over there given CAsA's insistence its a "Safety" issue.
Never really seen the point of a high end corporate jet jockey
having to front his local flying school to do his mandatory three
circuits in a C150 because their out of Australian night currency.
Easy for the mainlines I guess "Bloggs shoot down to the sim and do three night circuits will you".
For a GA operator of a high end global thats a very expensive exercise in the aircraft.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.57
The FAA only require night proficiency for passenger carrying but it is only 3 takeoff and landings in the last 90 days. No passengers no requirement.
Also have a read of the requirements to keep an instrument rating current over there. If you fly regularly no need for an IPC... They must have carnage in the skies...
I think you will find that is only if you are exercising the privilege of the NVFR rating. If you are conducting ops under the NVFR by virtue of your CIR the requirements of Part 61.965 do not apply.