Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

182 crashed into trees at Porepunkah

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

182 crashed into trees at Porepunkah

Old 20th Jan 2023, 04:33
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,138
Received 79 Likes on 40 Posts
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
Besides the usual GNSS navigation gumpf (no different to day VFR), I've been put through (and had to demonstrate) VOR intercepts and tracking, NDB tracking, navaid and NVFR position fixes and diversions, pilot-calculated LSALTs, overhead departures above LSALT (always), full and partial panel instrument flying (loss of AH & DG at least), UPR on instruments (stall and spiral dive recovery) and all hand-flown in Class C. If you want to check, it's all there on CASA Form 61-1505.
So the only difference really is whether the cockpit lights are on or off!
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2023, 05:34
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 362
Received 31 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
So the only difference really is whether the cockpit lights are on or off!
Lighting failure is part of the Flight Test also. I must say a head torch strapped to your forehead ("to be available immediately.." etc. etc.) isn't the most comfortable way to fly. After a few hours of that, I'd rather fly IFR!

Actually the only real difference is whether it's black outside.. or white. Either way, you can't see sh***.

PiperCameron is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2023, 06:43
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 795
Received 169 Likes on 99 Posts
By the looks of all the training required to reach those competencies, I'm kinda wondering why you're bothering with NVFR when you could do PIR for the same price?
tossbag is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2023, 07:25
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 500
Received 50 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
Lighting failure is part of the Flight Test also. I must say a head torch strapped to your forehead ("to be available immediately.." etc. etc.) isn't the most comfortable way to fly. After a few hours of that, I'd rather fly IFR!

Actually the only real difference is whether it's black outside.. or white. Either way, you can't see sh***.
If you canít see sh***, youíre not flying NVFR.
From the CASA NVFR AC:

2.1.5 The rules augment visual navigation with navigating using instrument navigation systems. Flight under VFRóby day or nightómust be conducted in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and in compliance with minimum inflight visibility standards and prescribed vertical and horizontal distances from cloud.

2.1.6 NVFR operations are not the same as flying at night under IFR, even though proficiency in instrument flying and use of radio navigation systems is required. It is important to remember that NVFR flight is based on visual procedures in VMC.

2.1.7 CASA strongly recommends that NVFR operations take place only in conditions that allow the pilot to discern a natural visual horizon or where the external environment has sufficient cues for the pilot to continually determine the pitch and roll attitude of the aircraft.
Cloudee is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 20th Jan 2023, 08:00
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,138
Received 79 Likes on 40 Posts
When I fly IFR either at Night or during the Day, my natural instinct is to actually be able to see the ground occasionally, just to confirm where I am. Iím not overly comfortable with Ďnot being able to see s*** all the time. And itís not often that happens!
Capt Fathom is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 20th Jan 2023, 08:31
  #186 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,620
Received 93 Likes on 45 Posts
ďStrongly recommendedĒ

Thatís just a suggestion :-)
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2023, 09:12
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 521
Received 84 Likes on 47 Posts
I suspect CASA’s ‘strongly recommended’ might become closer to ‘required by law’ at or below the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL when operating NVFR in G. Hopefully CASA’s ‘Guidance Delivery Centre’ will respond to my question, soon.
Clinton McKenzie is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2023, 11:20
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 795
Received 169 Likes on 99 Posts
Hopefully CASA’s ‘Guidance Delivery Centre’ will respond to my question, soon.
Good luck with that. I hope you're not at the stage of life where you don't buy green bananas?

I sent an email to reg services to clarify an audit item, that was in September last year............crickets.
tossbag is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2023, 16:45
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,494
Received 226 Likes on 115 Posts
If you can’t see sh***, you’re not flying NVFR
You certainly can be.
2.1.5 Flight under VFR—by day or night—must be conducted in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and in compliance with minimum inflight visibility standards and prescribed vertical and horizontal distances from cloud
Decrees the weather standard, atmospheric transparency, not a level of illumination, see 2.1.7.
2.1.6 NVFR operations are not the same as flying at night under IFR, even though proficiency in instrument flying and use of radio navigation systems is required. It is important to remember that NVFR flight is based on visual procedures in VMC
Proficiency in instrument flying is required, guess why, because you may not have the conditions to fulfill the recommendations of 2.1.7.
2.1.7 CASA strongly recommends that NVFR operations take place only in conditions that allow the pilot to discern a natural visual horizon or where the external environment has sufficient cues for the pilot to continually determine the pitch and roll attitude of the aircraft
Recommendation, not a requirement.

As with any rating, to utilise the skill to the full you require good training, experience and recency. All 260 night hrs of mine were NVMC, I can only recall having a natural horizon on one occasion, the view out any window on most occasions was (over water where most of my work was done),



megan is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by megan:
Old 20th Jan 2023, 20:57
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 521
Received 84 Likes on 47 Posts
What do you say about the operational requirement in row 4 of Table 2.07 of the Part 91 MOS? Is it applicable to NVFR flights in aircraft in G at or below whichever is the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL? If yes, what does it require in substance? If no, why no?

My experience is that the law tends to become relevant when things go pear shaped. But for all I know there’s some exemption buried somewhere.
Clinton McKenzie is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2023, 23:12
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 4,190
Received 51 Likes on 25 Posts
IĎbe always interpreted that as a visibility issue. You have to be able to see the ground or water - if there is something to see. Itís not to be able to discern the ground or water.
Thought experiment to explain- Youíre flying along the edge of an outback town on a dark night. If you have to discern the ground features for VMC, then youíre VMC out the left window but IMC out the right?
compressor stall is online now  
Old 20th Jan 2023, 23:45
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 362
Received 31 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by tossbag
By the looks of all the training required to reach those competencies, I'm kinda wondering why you're bothering with NVFR when you could do PIR for the same price?
Now THAT, is a really good question! ..but the answer is that if I could get a PIR at the same price, I would have.

It's been a really great learning experience to enhance my VFR flying (in particular the design and operation of navaids older than me. Anyone here know what a "goniometer" is and what it's used for?!? I do!) ...but if I had the time over again a PIR would definitely be both easier to obtain and more useful in the end.

The grass is always greener.. (except at night)
PiperCameron is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2023, 04:27
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Victoria
Posts: 76
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
Now THAT, is a really good question! ..but the answer is that if I could get a PIR at the same price, I would have.

It's been a really great learning experience to enhance my VFR flying (in particular the design and operation of navaids older than me. Anyone here know what a "goniometer" is and what it's used for?!? I do!) ...but if I had the time over again a PIR would definitely be both easier to obtain and more useful in the end.

The grass is always greener.. (except at night)
PIFR still needs a night FPA to fly at night. It isn't included as it is with a CIR.
Egipps is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 21st Jan 2023, 04:29
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,494
Received 226 Likes on 115 Posts
I‘be always interpreted that as a visibility issue. You have to be able to see the ground or water - if there is something to see. It’s not to be able to discern the ground or water.
Exactly, there can be occasions flying day VMC where you can be confronted with exactly the same situation as you are with NVMC. Two examples, one of which CS would probably be more than familiar with.

Took a ride to Antarctica with QF and at one point the crew pointed out the phenomena of "whiteout", something they made a point of as it was post the Erebus crash, we were flying beneath an 18,000' overcast and over featureless all white (snow) terrain with unlimited visibility, no matter where you looked it was the same all white colour, you were at the centre of a sphere with the exact same colour to be seen no matter the direction you looked. We had the terrain in sight as the regs require, but there was nothing to "see", that would have required something to provide contrast. Oh, and no horizon to be seen.

Flying off shore in my day job during a period of massive bushfires which had left a pall of smoke from sea level to 10,000' over the ocean, ocean was like a mill pond, not a ripple, no cloud, visibility well in excess of VMC minima, but no matter which direction you looked, up, down, sideways, it was all the same bluish/grey colour, once again we were at the centre of that sphere. The ocean was in sight as called for by the regs once again, but there was nothing to provide the necessary contrast for you to "see". Once again, no horizon.

In both cases you have ticked every box to meet the VMC requirements, just as you have on a pitch black night, the ground/water is in sight but because it's night there is nothing to provide contrast for you to "see". but if you don't have solid IMC skills you'll be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. How long do they say for an untrained pilot to lose control upon entering IMC, about thirty seconds I seem to recall.
What do you say about the operational requirement in row 4 of Table 2.07 of the Part 91 MOS? Is it applicable to NVFR flights in aircraft in G at or below whichever is the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL? If yes, what does it require in substance?
The table says
Aircraft must be operated in sight of ground or water
You are doing just that, operating in sight of the ground or water, but because of the lack of contrast there is nothing to "see". I think you're over thinking the problem Clinton, IMHO.

Be careful out there, fly safe, be mindful of your skill and proficiency.

Last edited by megan; 21st Jan 2023 at 04:39.
megan is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 21st Jan 2023, 08:46
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by KRviator
Works wonders for the Experimental crowd, especially when displayed on the EFIS with PFD data overlaid on it.



Nice..

Iíve had my system for over 20 years now. Went the CAR35 route. Not integrated unfortunately - next panel mod perhaps..


I often wonder why more aircraft owners donít fit the systems. Apart from situational awareness of terrain, coming into bush strips of a night you can see water on the runway, animals, and people or vehicles. FLIR will see through dry smoke though fog and clouds can not be looked through as such.


Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2023, 10:36
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 521
Received 84 Likes on 47 Posts
I instead ran CS’s ‘thought experiment’ for a day VFR flight in severe CAVOK. If I’m flying along below the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL in e.g a Bonanza or RV9A, I cannot see the vast areas of ground (or water) under the fuselage or wings or behind me from time to time. Does that mean I’m not in VMC? I think not. And, most importantly, I can see the ground or water that will rise up and smite me: The stuff I’m flying towards.

If you’re really flying NVFR in G at or below 3,000’ AMSL or 1,000’ AGL and really “can’t see sh*t” - nothing, even in the direction you’re flying - I really wish you luck. Count me out. You’ve taken the V out of VFR in G at or below 3,000’ AMSL or 1,000’ AGL.

Be careful out there, fly safe, be mindful of your skill and proficiency.
Hear! Hear!
Clinton McKenzie is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2023, 11:04
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,676
Likes: 0
Received 54 Likes on 25 Posts
Aircraft must be operated in sight of ground or water
So, if the ground or water can see the aircraft, you're compliant.
Checkboard is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 21st Jan 2023, 20:37
  #198 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,620
Received 93 Likes on 45 Posts
Originally Posted by Clinton McKenzie
I instead ran CSís Ďthought experimentí for a day VFR flight in severe CAVOK. If Iím flying along below the higher of 3,000í AMSL and 1,000í AGL in e.g a Bonanza or RV9A, I cannot see the vast areas of ground (or water) under the fuselage or wings or behind me from time to time. Does that mean Iím not in VMC? I think not. And, most importantly, I can see the ground or water that will rise up and smite me: The stuff Iím flying towards.

If youíre really flying NVFR in G at or below 3,000í AMSL or 1,000í AGL and really ďcanít see sh*tĒ - nothing, even in the direction youíre flying - I really wish you luck. Count me out. Youíve taken the V out of VFR in G at or below 3,000í AMSL or 1,000í AGL.

Hear! Hear!
Sighted every 30 minutes otherwise you need to be endorsed for VOR or GPS (when youíre above cloud).

Is that still the case these days?
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2023, 22:03
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 521
Received 84 Likes on 47 Posts
I think you’re referring to ENR 1.1-4.2. I see a distinction between the requirement to ‘operate’ in sight of the ‘generic’ ground or water whenever VFR at or below the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL, which I think is a requirement mainly aimed at reducing the general risk of colliding with the ground or water, and navigation and position fixing requirements, which I think are mainly about not getting lost (but will help you to know whether you’re above or below that line in the sky).

I’ll try to overthink this in a different way: If the operational requirement to operate in sight of the ground or water when operating VFR below that line in the sky has an exception - “unless the pilot can’t see any ground or water” - it’s a meaningless requirement, is it not?
Clinton McKenzie is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 21st Jan 2023, 23:24
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 257 Likes on 140 Posts
In the old days you could be DR'ing along in 8/8ths cloud with no nav-aid coverage at all for 30 minutes then pick up an NDB/DME and fix and be legal IFR. VFR same thing you could DR above 8/8th cloud in VMC and just ensure you had ground fixes (gaps in the cloud) every 30 minutes as long as you were above 3000amsl/1000agl. No need for GPS/navaids. The key was knowing that after 30 minutes or more importantly at your destination you could descend clear of cloud. There used to be a small warning note about extended flight above overcast cloud for VFR aircraft.
43Inches is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.