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.

...safe as?
 

A branch of aviation that does a fair bit of NVFR in this country is AG. There is an odd accident (1 this year?) but for hours flown (very demanding work) I would think the accident rate is a lot lower than normal NVFR? All this with very basic instrumentation, up until a few years ago an AH was unusual and the only instruments were a T+B or turn coodinator, Airspeed and Altimeter. Thankfully now most have an AH even if it is ventui driven.

Duxnutz

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

I do not know if your question was meant to be rhetorical or not?

Presuming that it was not, the answer is "extremely safe"

If you do not have a NVFR Rating, then I guess you do not consider yourself qualified to fly at night.

If you do have a NVFR Rating then the "Authorities" are saying to you, by default, "Go for it".

I spent many a year , with an instrument rating, flying Nomads around the NT, in all sorts of weather, to any port I was required to go into, aeromedical.

The scariest nights were those with no moon at all!!

It is extremely easy to get "the leans". For a novice it would without doubt lead to a bingle.

My vote is to get rid of NVFR and singles at night

IMHO

I have to agree with McGowan on this one! I teach NVFR Ratings in Helos and have considerable experience doing so BUT I will not venture out if the weather is in anyway questionable (including moon phase). Working over water at night (and in some of the remoter areas of Australia) is not an easy job for anybody and I personally feel overwater work at night should be reclassified as requiring an IFR rating and IFR aircraft.
On the other side of the coin, in helicopters in particular because they are so hands-on machines, the NVFR rating is an exceptional confidence/skill builder with most pilots displaying considerably improved pilotting skills after having completed a NVFR rating.
For the unitiated; the NIGHT AUTOROTATIONS can be a very interesting serial!!!
:ok:

. My Night VFR training was mostly been focused on IFR type flying but introducing a look outside as part of the scan. My Instructors have always taken me off to dark areas away from city lights and on dark nights so I could gain the experience and skills to fly safely even with no moon. My unusual attitude practice has always been off the coast over water recovery on instruments turns on instruments. Is that not how others are taught night VFR. My next step is PIFR and it seems sensible that night VFR is a logical step. The introduction of Flight following should give us more time to spend eyes inside I would think. I do have the luxury of a twin with a full modern IFR package including dual HIS. I certainly feel safer then the night VFR work I have done in singles. However if singles should be band for night VFR should they also not be banned in all types of Instrument Operations I don’t think this would go down well. All types of flying has risk so does crossing the street.

Like all aviation, Is not recently and good training and a sensible airspace system the key.

Aerowasp,

After reading this thread, I intend to remain uninitiated!:ok: :ok:

dirtylittlefokker

Re the US requirements for night flying, I think you may be surprised at how "basic" they are in comparison to the NVFR in OZ...I know I was. Having said that, you just hope that a degree of common sense is used by someone with minimal night flying experience...

The following is an excerpt on the syllabus for the US PPL which can include night training.

Sec. 61.109 Airplane Rating: Aeronautical Experience

An applicant for a private pilot certificate with an airplane rating must have had at least a total of 40 hours of flight instruction and solo time which must include the following:

(a) Twenty hours of flight instruction from an authorized flight instructor, including at least--

- Three hours of cross country;
- Three hours of instrument flight training;
- Three hours at night, including 10 takeoffs and landings for applicants seeking night flying privileges; and
- Three hours in airplanes in preparation for the private pilot flight test within 60 days prior to that test.

An applicant who does not meet the night flying requirement in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is issued a private pilot certificate bearing the limitation "Night flying prohibited." This limitation may be removed if the holder of the certificate shows that he has met the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

Messiah. How do you define "thorough training?" Can you quantify the hours required to meet the standard of "thorough training". if a student has been trained to a competent standard then there is little more an instructor can do unless he is the type who is happy to keep on bashing up flying hours at extra cost to the hapless student.

Matt YSBK: You wrote: "My unusual attitude practice has always been off the coast over water recovery on instrument turns on instruments"

CASA would be interested why your instructor sees fit to teach unusual attitude recoveries at night, particularly with lack of a horizon over water. I suggest that unusual attitude recovery training is best done in daylight VMC because your instructor is sure sticking your neck out doing it at night on instruments. Better still, do it on instruments in a synthetic trainer where extreme attitudes can be attained at no risk. It's cheaper, too!

MATT YSBK,

Have to agree with Centaurus entirely concerning UA's overwater with no horizon at night! I think the risks far outweight the advantages in this case; especially in a helicopter which is inherently unstable and incredibly unforgiving in certain flight regimes - mast bumping is one phenonema I would not even like to consider in such an exercise! Some people appear to forget that it is a NVFR rating and to convince people that they can do more than that through minimal exposure to those conditions could be quite dangerous!
It is generally when pilots take their aircraft outside the scope and strict limits of the rating that they find themselves in trouble and for the most part, this falls back squarely to sensible, realistic training with clear advice to pilots about the limits of the rating.
I stress those limits to my trainees and advise them in the first briefing that the rating is really designed to finish a flight after dark when the weather permits or conversely, to commence a flight before first light in good conditions. For that reason, their first navex is commenced before last light so the candidate can experience the transition into darkness.

Capn Bloggs, Feel free to pop down anytime for a night auto's serial - it's no more dangerous than driving through Redfern at 2am with the windows down!

Centaurus

Thanks for your question.

Thorough training is something different to box ticking training and there is not an hours figure that goes with it. Quality rather than quantity basically.

Hope you get my drift.

Training is very important I agree, but with that flying you must also add the "mental training" or "mental ability"(not sure these are the right terms so hope you get my meaning).
I've done a little bit of NVFR training for pilots in the past and some can do the physical bit but the mental stuff is beyond them.
No matter how much you explain the fact that NVFR is "visual", not "instrument" flying, that the use of instruments is really for an emergency, such as inadvertant flight into IMC which should be pretty rare if you check the weather before heading off into the dark or loss of the natural horizon for some reason, and that these types of flights require far more pre flight planning than a lap around the block after lunch, some people still look at it as just another flight.
The biggest problem I had when conducting tests for the issue of a NVFR rating was the simple fact that you can't fail a candidate because you know he is a ********.
If he comes up with the required skills, flys to the required standards and answers the questions correctly on the night of the test, then he is a pass......
Glad I am out of the area now.

Before the RAAF sent me night solo 20 years ago, I had done 8 IF rides.
Much the same requirement still exists today in the ADF's basic syllabus - for a damn good reason I believe.;)

McGowan, if you think using instruments by night is an emergency, I'm glad you're out of the area too.

The cost, the syllabus and the term "night rating" implies a whole new set of priviledges, and that is the problem with it. The US system of making it a small part of the PPL is more sensible, rightly implying it is a small part of the day VFR syllabus designed for leaving a little early, or getting back a little late. The fact more night VFR only pilots don't end up in a hole 2km upwind is because most people are sensible enough during the training to realise it's a poor man's instrument rating and either are good IF pilots anyway, or don't use the rating for entirely-at-night flights.

Mcgowan -- what do you mean "the use of instruments is really for an emergency"? Where are you looking after rotation?

Quick question
 

I realise this is a liitle off the current discussion in this thread, but there seems to be some here who will have the answer...

I am wondering about the logging of I.F. time, while operating N.V.F.R.

For example:
you depart in VMC, before first light;
there's no horizon to speak of, ie you are handling the aircraft with reference to the instruments (the definition of instrument flight);
the weather is VMC (wrt vis and cloud);
the a/c has a VFR Maint. Release, or you're IFR but not current...

Can you log instrument time?

CR :confused:

P.S. Someone stated earlier, that in the definition of VMC there is no mention of an "external horizon" being available for orientation - and I reckon that is the key to this. Problem is, how do you "measure" it?

You must be under IFR to log IF time therefore NVFR means you cannot log IF.

NAP

Having flown Marine Pilot Transfers in North Aust. in underpowered (single engined) helicopters. I can assure you, nothing raises the heart rate more than lifting from a well lit moving ship into the BLACK.

With no visible horizon and no external lights (towns etc.) they call it night VFR......................

CASA was looking at changing the Regs. sometime ago to outlaw this sort of activity......pity they were just looking.

How can you seriously say that you're flying VFR if there's no discernible horizon? The whole concept of letting non-instrument trained pilots launch off into the darkness with no reference to how much ambient light there is (ie moon phase, cloud cover, time of night) is an absolute joke, as Roy and HG would say.
Night flying in most conditions, if you have good instrument skills and a good understanding of how you're going to get down again once you get up there, is fine, but the whole concept is badly flawed when you consider the minimal training that is required to give someone a night VFR rating.

Arm out the window - I agree, letting untrained pilots loose by night is not appropriate. That doesn't change the rules though, and the rules do not require you to be able to discern a horizon to be VFR (by night or day).

NZ CAA Rules Part 91 Subpart D — Visual Flight Rules,
91.301 "VFR meteorological minima" refers. Unsure of the Oz equivalent.

(edited sp)

Many years ago when I was in England, there was so much smog that you had to use instruments to fly a circuit, and one day the parachuting was discontinued as visibility was not good enough. Nil cloud, poor vis. The local flying instructor told us that "if you can see the ground you know which way is down, so you should be able to fly." The tower had a VHF direction finder, and could help aircraft get home. (Strange that Australian towers do not have it)

Point Cook tower used to (used to = > 25 years ago) have a CADF (commutated antenna direction finder, I think it stood for). Don't know if any other military ATC centres had them though.