Night Qualification as a "get you home"

[Final 3 Greens]

I think that there's too much mystique put about about night flying.

I don't think that there is much mystique about night flying in a SEP, but there are a few things that (IMHO) make it more challenging

- inadvertent pentration of IMC, requiring instrument flying skills
- potential icing in the above case
- entering dark areas without a clear horizon, requiring instrument flying skills
- judging landings without the normal daytime clues
- forced landings with less visual clues about the potential site

As a night rating holder, I agree that we are trained to cope with these aspects of flying, but equally believe that an important part of the risk mitigation process is to accept that night flying requires a little more prep than a simple x-country potter around the local area.

Whereas I would be happy to land 20 minutes after official dark from what started out as a VFR jaunt, I would wish to be rather more organised to take off after dark.

Just my tuppence.

[Genghis the Engineer]

F3G - yes.

G

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Small light aircraft are not usually equipped with Minimum Equipment Lists.

Wrong. All aircraft (registered in the UK anyway) have a minimum equipment fit depending on what type of flight it's doing and it's all listed in the Air Navigation Order under Section 1, Schedule 4 'Aircraft Equipment'.

For night flying in, say a C.150, you need at the minimum:

Nav lights
A turn & slip indicator
Cockpit lighting
A torch
A landing light

I must get out more


Night flying is whatever you want to make it. I enjoy it, but at my home airfield, the portable runway lights only come out very rarely so don't get to do it as much as I would like.

And I also agree about cloud... On one of my first long night X-countrys, I was flying up the East coast in perfect viz and wondered why all the lights had suddenly gone out...

Navigation is 'different', Towns and lights from 40+ miles distant appear to be a lot closer and this can sometimes put off your navigation if flying a slow aeroplane.

And then there's always the "What if the engione stops" question? My own view is that if it does happen, and there's no reason it should any more than flying by day, then just deal with it at the time and do your best.

[Gargleblaster]

Also, most nights you can land on an unlit airfield without lights - it's not ideal, and some nights you can't (so you divert); again I'd not plan for it, but on a moonlit night having gone late a little, I've landed on a grass strip that I could see clearly and at no point felt that I was putting the aircraft in danger. (That said, if at any point I felt that I couldn't see it clearly, then I had a diversion plan and I'd have used it).

Night take-offs without runway lights are different, and I'd not attempt that. For that reason, and more routine ability to perform night landings, I'd love to see pilot controlled lighting at far more (any?) UK airports - it would make a huge different to our ability to use GA aircraft for transport, particularly in the winter.

Brilliant ! Just a pity that it's forbidden where I live.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Night flying, pilot controlled lighting, or something else?

G

[DFC]

Chuffer,

You need to look up what a Minimum Equipment List is.

----------

Properly planned and conducted Night Flying is no more dangerous than flight by day.

Some risk factors increase while many others reduce - the most notable being the risk of collision.

Even single engine overwater is no more dangerous - people have survived ditchings at night.

All flying entails managing risk. If you will not fly by night single engine then you will not fly IMC by day in a single engine and of course since every twin becomes an overloaded single when the (twice as likely) engine failure happens you will not fly by night in a twin either.

I have instructed at all levels for many many years. In terms of forced landings many people would be no worse off not being able to see a field.

Night flying simply needs some practice (familiarity perhaps being a better word) and it becomes more enjoyable than day flying..........unless it is 3 AM and you are on your 3rd long sector!

Regards,

DFC

[Cusco]

Backpacker:

3 AAA batteries last +/- 100 hours
4 LEDs with adjustable brightness (3 levels + flashing setting)
Integrated red filter which you flick in front
Lightweight; adjustable angle; elastic headband.
Approx. 30 euros.

Perfect.

http://en.petzl.com/petzl/LampesProduits?Produit=482
]

BP: Thanks for the heads-up: Mine arrived today: what a fantastic piece of kit.

Cheers

Cusco

[BackPacker]

Glad you like it. Good luck with it.

Be wary of one effect though. After wearing it for too long (5 days backpacking in winter comes to mind) you automatically reach for your forehead when it gets too dark. Even at home - instead of reaching for the light switch you reach for the Petzl.

At my hiking club we even have a word for it: Petzlmoment. This is the time when it gets too dark to see and everybody switches their Petzls on. Also known as sunset.

[Cusco]

I actually hope I won't need it:

Doing my NQ soon..........

Cusco.

[mostlytossas]

Have to agree with DFC. Those people that say night flying in single engine a/craft is too dangerous are the same ones that say don't fly over water, mountains, desert,forests ,etc. Tell them to take up a nice safe hobby like knitting. Today's engines are very reliable and failures are very rare indeed. Most being caused by some kind of human error. With an attitude like some have, the pioneers of the past would never had got off the ground in their gypsy moths and the like.
I have 100's of hours night flying all in s/e cessnas and pipers and so long as you prepare for any marginal weather with an out route it is not much different to day flying,in fact navigation is usually easier as towns stand out for 50 odd miles away, the turbalance is less, and so is the radio chatter. If the big fan stops head for dark areas as this at night usually means open paddocks (fields to you poms ) or water and in that case you should know it is so aim for the beach. Get your cabin lights off, landing light on and work the rudder when within 300 or so feet to fan the area in front you will be surprised the amount you can see from that height. Practice it over an airstrip and see. Enjoy the experiance of night flying it is one of the pleasures of flying.

[Final 3 Greens]

DFC

You say Properly planned and conducted Night Flying is no more dangerous than flight by day.

Is this based on a statistical approach or is it just your opinion presented as fact?

Before anyone attacks me, I do not know whether the above is true or not, but such assertions require support IMHO.

[mostlytossas]

I believe what he meant is overall the risks are not greatly increased and I agree. Here in OZ the 2 biggest causes of fatalities are VFR flying into IMC and flying too close to the ground ie scud running over rising terrain or silly actions like showing off and stalling at a very low altitude. These 2 causes are far and away the major causes. Fatalities following engine failures are very rare indeed. I suspect this would be the case in most countries. Night flying makes these 2 events much less likely due to lowest safe requirments and the higher weather minimums required for night flying, the need to provide for an alternate etc.
Unfortunately some people and it is usually airline types or the regulators will only be happy when single engine aircraft become 100% safe and are locked away in the hangar.

[Final 3 Greens]

I believe what he meant is overall the risks are not greatly increased and I agree

I understand that, but DFC has a habit of making assertions as if they were fact.

Your opinion is clear and I can see the underpinning logic, but can anyone support this with facts?

I am quite prepared to believe that more people are killed during day ops, but how about per Km flown?

Having suffered a partial engine failure at night in an SEP (multiple spark plug failure), it changed my view on night flying.

Although it is very unlikely to occur, finding yourself with partial power shortly after takeoff at 500' over a built up area, with little comprehension whether the dark areas were parks or industrial estates etc is a sobering experience.

Having said that, I didn't add to the safety stats, that particular flight turned out to be no more dangerous than any other

[bookworm]

You say Properly planned and conducted Night Flying is no more dangerous than flight by day.

Is this based on a statistical approach or is it just your opinion presented as fact?

Statistically, it's rather hard to filter on "properly planned and conducted"! Overall, the fatal accident rate is higher at night than during the day. E.g. the Nall report 2007 has a daytime fatal accident rate of 1.4 /100,000 hrs, a nighttime rate of 2.6.

[mostlytossas]

Well all I can say to that is quote a doctor who once said to me about cancer treatments ( and I wasn't the patient a family member was ) that 1 or 2 % difference was hear nor there as it depends on size of sample taken over what period of time, country, etc, and the vagaries of any given sample. For instance there may have been 6 fatalities over a given period but the night one was a 6 seat Lance with 5 on board.
Certainly IF the worst happens you are better off in daylight but the risk is minimal and not worth worrying about to prevent anyone going for and enjoying night flight. If it is then they have the wrong hobby and may I suggest knitting.

[DFC]

The probability of having an accident on a properly planned and executed flight by a proficient pilot is not greather at night than by day.

If one is unlucky enough to have an accident at night then it is more likely to be fatal.

----------

Final 3 Greens,

I understand that, but DFC has a habit of making assertions as if they were fact.

I always simply express opinions unless I am quoting from an official source.

If you find my opinions to be factual then that may be the case if not then that may also be the case but they are still simply opinons.

Just the same for every other poster.

No one should take any opinion expressed by any poster as fact. If you find it is true/ a fact then you are happy ( or not depending on your position in the debate) if you find it not to be a fact then you are quite welcome to express an alternative opinion which may or may not be fact.

Does every poster have to start every single post that is not a quote with in my opinion?

This comes up on a regular basis and I remind everyone of the paragraph at ther bottom and that everyone here is expressing opinions and that no one should base anything on those opinions without first checking it out first.

--------

Back to the debate.

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

Well all I can say to that is quote a doctor who once said to me about cancer treatments ( and I wasn't the patient a family member was ) that 1 or 2 % difference was hear nor there as it depends on size of sample taken over what period of time, country, etc, and the vagaries of any given sample.

You might like to notice that the difference in quoted rates is not 1 or 2% but rather 85%, almost a factor of 2. You're correct to be wary of statistics, but that doesn't mean that a particular risk is "not worth worrying about". What you decide is a reasonable risk may not be reasonable for someone else.

If you want to look at the error margins, you do need the sample sizes. There were 229 Day accidents and 44 Night fatal accidents in the study. That makes the night rate 2.6 +/- 0.4 and the day rate 1.4 +/- 0.1 (each fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours).

The numbers are remarkably similar, year on year. The 2005 numbers were 2.6 and 1.5

For instance there may have been 6 fatalities over a given period but the night one was a 6 seat Lance with 5 on board.

The figures I quoted are fatal accident rates, not fatality rates. Your Lance counts as one accident. That's the correct statistic to use in looking at such risk -- you want to know the probability of dying on a particular flight, not the number of people who will die with you.

I make no judgement on whether night flying is a reasonable risk for any individual. But if you believe it's "no more dangerous than flight by day", you should have a reason for believing that you can beat the odds in the way that others haven't. "Properly planned and conducted" sounds like a very good start.

[mostlytossas]

1/I agree statistics can be made to say pretty well anything. Another way of looking at it is during the day you have a .000014% chance of a fatality if you fly or at night a .000026% chance. Not a figure would stop many
from flying I would think and that has to be over an hour.
2/ I may be wrong here but I think in OZ the stats are actually in reverse in so far as there have been less fatallities at night than day. Many vagaries come into it for eg crop dusting a mainly day time occupation has a fairly high fatality rate given the amount of operators and especially cattle mustering seem to crash regularly due to flying close to ground. The weather here is much better for night flight than in the UK also.
If this keeps on going it will soon be safer to cross the road outside the airport than go flying

[Final 3 Greens]

Bookworm

Thanks for sharing the stats.

[BeechNut]

- inadvertent pentration of IMC, requiring instrument flying skills
- potential icing in the above case
- entering dark areas without a clear horizon, requiring instrument flying skills
- judging landings without the normal daytime clues
- forced landings with less visual clues about the potential site

I would add: the black hole effect as well, upon landing.

I am night rated (Canadian PPL), and keep night current. I last flew passengers at night last summer, a VFR tour of Montreal. The route into Montreal from my home field follows a relatively straight, flat, autoroute. Yes there are cable crossings and overpasses... but it's probably better than a black field.

That said I agree with the risk management approach. I would not attempt a long night cross country over mountains, for example, or in Wx that is near the published night VFR minima. I have flown in 6 miles vis. at night, and while that might seem OK in the daytime, it is remarkably poor at dusk and at night.

One point I didn't see mentioned in this thread but that is of vital importance when checking weather: make sure you note the temperature/dew point spread, and the trend.

If the temp. and dew point are within a degree or two of each other, I would not take off even if it's crystal clear out. You run the very big risk of running into fog or having the field obscured by a fog layer.

I've had some outstanding flights at night. As others have said, preparation, keeping skills up-to-date, etc. In Canada we need 5 night takeoffs and landings every 6 months. I do night circuits to keep current, I try landing in different configurations, and I practice landing without a landing light, just in case. And I never take off at night unless conditions are near perfect.

I learned a powerful lesson about night flying about 25 years ago in a C-150. I took off from Kingston, Ontario, and made a left turn out over Lake Ontario. For the first time in my life, I found myself in very real conditions where there was no horizon, so this was pure instrument flying. I had less than 100 hours total flying experience at the time. Fortunately I was sharp on the gauges and as you can see I am here to write this, and the plane was sold in airworthy condition with NDH, but it was a good lesson to not take anything for granted, and I finally understood why my night instructor had my head under the hood so often.

You really have to approach night flying in a thoroughly professional manner, and of course, have an airworthy bird to fly. For some reason, even my own aircraft's engine seems to run rougher at night than in daylight

Beech