The real dangers of Black Night VFR.
 

Just read the excellent ATSB report on the Bell 407 night VFR flight which culminated in the pilot losing control on a black night flight from Mackay killing all on board.

The pilot who did not have an instrument rating had logged only 12 hours instrument flight in a total of 2570 flying hours.

The Findings (in part) included: "While the forecast weather conditions could be interpreted to meet regulatory requirements for flight under the night VFR.....the lack of celestial or surface/ground-based lighting precluded visual reference to the horizon during the over water portion of the flight.....the regulatory requirements for flight under night VFR did not include considerations for celestial or surface/ground-based lighting availibility or visual reference to the horizon"

One of the ATSB recommendations to CASA was that helicopters operating Night VFR should have a standby AH in case the primary AH fails. Currently a Turn Coordinator covers that eventuality but flying solely on the Turn Cordinator in a helicopter takes exceptional instrument flying skills. I can well believe that, too.

CASA knocked that recommendation back by saying that it had talked to the Helicopter Association of Australia and the general helicopter industry and those bodies said it wasn't necessary. Well they would, wouldn't they - because it would cost money and we all know that money comes before safety. However CASA did say they would legislate for more recurrent training and prof checks. That's like saying that you don't need to be taught to how to swim, but it is better to teach you not to go near the water...

The ATSB report is well worth reading as it brings out the long standing suspicion among pilots that there is a continuing war of words between ATSB and CASA over ATSB Recommendations.

Those of us who have flown on pitch black nights during a Night VFR cross-country have most certainly relied upon instrument flight to stay right side up. Of course you should then be able to log specific portions of the flight as instrument flight time, even though the conditions are legal VMC.

As for the penny pinching decision which was meekly accepted by CASA not to install a second AH in a helicopter used for Night VFR missions, it is clear that the people involved with that sort of short sighted decision have never flown an aeroplane or helicopter for real on a totally black VMC night with only a Turn Coordinator for reference. I have had that experience and even with a current instrument rating was lucky to get away with it. For a non-instrument rated pilot it would be curtains for sure.

The passengers and pilot of the Mooney that went in like a bomb near Mildura on a Night VFR flight a few years back, when the only AH failed due vacuum pump failure, would attest to the almost insurmountable difficulty of flying on instruments at night soley on the Turn Coordinator. Only they are dead.

I strongly recommend that flying school operators who teach Night VFR read the report which is No: 200304282. Bell 407 VH-HTD, Cape Hillsborough, Q'LD.

How sad.

I am fortunate to have flown at night in helos, IFR with an Instrument Rating. Night VFR is hard yakka. Lets not throw nasturtiums.

Night VFR is an oxymoron. As far as I am aware the rating only exists in Australia. It should be scrubbed before it contributes to any more accidents.

Night VFR is a rating which exists here aswell.

The part of it that doesnt do alot for me is that if your VFR the chances are that your going to be flying in a single which if all goes quiet is not going to be alot of fun.

The scenarios mentioned above (lack of visual reference, terrain awareness) have cropped up in NZ in recent times and (assuming its still the case) as of last year some time all night VFR flights on an Air Transport Operation (ie part 135) requires prior approval from the CAA.

The fact that IFR flights can not make a visual approach without the runway lights in sight, nor take own terrain sep. during the hours of darkness says it all really.

Obviously there needs to be SOME ambient light if there is to be a horizon from which to maintain orientation. The whole point of VFR is that you do not rely on instruments to remain right side up, or to navigate.

The only way to ensure there is ambient light is to take the phase of the moon in to account. Perhaps there should be a 7 day period per 28 days while the moon is less than one quarter full, when Night VFR is not considered possible.

P.S. And of course you would have to take in to account moonrise and moonset. Thankfully humans now have the ability to predict this sort of thing! :)

To avoid another thread, I 'll ask the question here.

I'm approaching the NVFR rating as part of my CPL training. Can I skip the NVFR rating and just do the Instrument Rating after completing the CPL?

Absolutely and it will probably save you some money and give you a 'better' qualification as well! :}

lineupandwait,

To do the instrument rating you still need 5hrs night command, which alot of flying schools send students for 5hrs of night circuits.

The topic of wether or not to do the rating also comes down to what you want to do to build hours after your CPL. If you are going to become an instructor then I suggest you do the NVFR. If you don't you can still teach night circuits with a valid instrument rating. If your prepared to go bush to get charter then skip the rating and go straight to the CIR.

Just my two cents worth. Hope it helps.

:ok: BUGS

Sorry but I think the rating is fine because it is affordable and then allows you to do Sydney scenics at night(kidding) but it must be taken seriously and the training must be thorough.

It doesn't kill as many people as sheer incompetence.

How's this?
 

Well in the States you don't even have to do a NVFR rating! Hows that for safe?

The NVFR also gives you good exposure to a lot of navaid work and basic IF skills that will come in very handy during the CIR training.

Regardless of the route you take (instructing v. charter) a lot of employees will require one and may be the little extra thing that you have over another applicant.

TL

An edited quote from the accident report by ATSB makes interesting reading about the history of Night VFR.

"When flight under the night VFR was first approved in Australia in 1967, it was developed with the intent that pilots would still be conducting the main part of their flying in daylight hours.

It appears that this has altered over time to include a much broader use of the rating. Flights are now routinely undertaken and completed between the hours of last light and first light by pilots with Night VFR ratings alone.

Night VFR flying is more demanding on the pilot and in some cases requires substantial instrument flying skills. A night VFR rating does not require a pilot to haveany substantial instrument flying experience. Studies have indicated that less experienced and non-IFR rated pilots are more susceptible to spatial disorientation when inadvertently entering IMC than more experienced pilots."

A Night VFR rating may get you ahead of the mob in the hunt for a job but under dark night weather conditions with no horizon it can be a risky business. Far better to save your money and get a command IR where your instrument flying skills will increase with IMC flight. In fact it could be argued that a pilot would be wiser to get an IR first then proceed on to a Night VFR rating later. The skills gained in the IR may save your life on a Night VFR trip outback.

Once heard an instructor's thoughts on forced landing in tiger country at night.

"Turn on the landing light when you're close to the ground. If you don't like what you see - turn it back off again..." :eek:

Helicopter NVFR
 

The complete ATSB report can be downloaded at this link for anyone interested.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/pdf/200304282.pdf

I have been a long time reader of pprune but never made any comments. The thing with NVFR in Aussie is (as far as I'm concerned anyway)is that it is as safe as you want to make it. The V stands for "visual", and to me that has always meant that if I can't see a horizon or enough to get the job done with out killing myself and others, don't go. Going some where with my bum sucked onto the seat with fear has ever been an option for me either, but I have never been pressured into doing something I can't or won't do. Yes there have been times where I've gotten off the ground only to find there is nothing to see, so get back on the ground, job is off.
There has never been a need for two engines, auto pilots, dual AH's, (these would be very good to have, but who is paying for it)only because you should be able to do the job with what you have and if you don't have an IFR cockpit, don't go IFR. I've always been of the opinion that if there is any doubt about the weather or conditions say no.

I agree with your sentiment but one of the biggest killers in night VFR has been somatogravic illusion during initial climbout. No matter how clear the skies even flying out of a major airport the horizon (due to surrounding lights only) will not appear until about 500', which is why thorough training is what is required together with a serious approach to the operation.

A single serviceable AH and a VSI is all that is needed to tackle the problem. Remember many of these accidents have happened in adequately equipped aircraft on CAVOK nights without any commercial pressures.

messiah,

if a single serviceable ah and a vsi is all that we need why have many of these accidents, as you contend, happened in adequately equipped aircraft. surely that's a contradiction.

i'm remembering, as you asked, and to my knowledge, nvfr helicopter accidents have nearly all been in crap weather or pitch black no moon nights. all of these accidents involved ems machines with no commercial pressure. in fact i know of no other accidents, private or commercial, involving helicopters operating under the nvfr.

none of the pilots in any of these accidents were themselves adequately equipped for their flights.

i would be interested to know of the night cavok instances.
:confused:

I only contend that thorough training and a serious approach and understanding of the dangers are important. I don't fly choppers sorry so can't speak of them, but the old drill after takeoff in fixed wing was 'pitch attitude, positive rate of climb, check'. Adequately equipped aircraft can still crash when the basics are ignored. If a pilot is not adequately equipped for a flight I would say that comes under a 'lack of thorough training'.

One accident I remember in particular is the Air Ambo's Kingair out of North QLD on a moonless night. The finding was a clear case of somatogravic illusion. There have been many others and you can find them in the crash comics if you wish.

I realise the original post was about a chopper but this a real danger in fixed wing also.

Looking at what information is available, the common thing seems to be NVFR pilots in NVFR helicopters in either IFR conditions or very close to it...............

Posted in reply to the question by Lineupandwait: I'd recommend you get your IFR rating first.

Not at all the case by night (note there is no reference to the horizon in the definition of VMC). It's dead common to be night VFR and be unable to maintain the flightpath without reference to instruments (lack of discernable horizon, even on an unlimited vis night). The point of VFR is to allow aeroplanes to "see and avoid", even by night.

On a dark night the pilot must use instruments to control his flightpath, and therefore needs at the very least instrument training, if not (preferably) a rating. Attempting flight in these conditions without the appropriate training would be unwise.

Moreover, the night pilot must both look outside to get his visual cues, and look inside to keep the right side up. Quite a unique skill.