Confused on PPL night rating!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might very well be correct on that one IO540.
I was never at the right end of the country to be worried about the technicalities of French airspace in a single.
As you say there are few people flying at night which keeps the numbers down.
If you look at our rotary colleagues they have a completely different experience and training requirement.
I was never at the right end of the country to be worried about the technicalities of French airspace in a single.
As you say there are few people flying at night which keeps the numbers down.
If you look at our rotary colleagues they have a completely different experience and training requirement.
If only say, 10% of your flying is at night then statistically the chances of an engine failure at night are one tenth the chances of you having one at any time. You don't need to be a gambler to work that one out.
Most of my night flying is done deliberately for the sheer spectacle of it and the (usually) silky smooth air. There's also the lack of chatter on the radio. It all combines to produce a relaxed and enjoyable experience.
Anyone who considers the risks???? to be too high should simply stay on the ground and let those who wish to enjoy the experience do so, without any scaremongering. And I CAN see cloud at night.
Most of my night flying is done deliberately for the sheer spectacle of it and the (usually) silky smooth air. There's also the lack of chatter on the radio. It all combines to produce a relaxed and enjoyable experience.
Anyone who considers the risks???? to be too high should simply stay on the ground and let those who wish to enjoy the experience do so, without any scaremongering. And I CAN see cloud at night.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of the same safety arguments could be applied to SE IFR, and frequently are to SE over water, or even over mountains. You pay your money and take your choice; CPL's flying ME kit aren't a good measuring stick - they have the big toys, and quite frankly I'd suggest there's a little bit of willy waving and sensationalism going on - I'm quite sure most people would rather have a big comfortable twin at most times.
Yes, there's increased risk, no doubt. Granted I did mine in Australia where it takes 10 hrs, and the environs slightly different, however my personal opinion is it's a great thing to do. For those of us who aren't likely to ever do an instrument rating, it's liable to develop you as a pilot (instrument flying & nav skills, and planning) - that impacts your day VFR as well.
IO540 is correct of course - the right night can be as good as hard IMC. Mine included mandatory remote area work (black hole), and a lot of instrument appreciation. My answer would be that you are much more picky about your night weather than you are about day. In the UK and europe there's so much light around it's hard not to have a good visual reference if the weather is half decent.
I've used it several times where a delayed departure would otherwise have sunk the flight when on long trips, and for me it deletes the requirement to remain in sight of surface, allowing me to fly out of sight of ground using radio nav etc. I understand that's not so here and the IMCR is required however.
Yes, there's increased risk, no doubt. Granted I did mine in Australia where it takes 10 hrs, and the environs slightly different, however my personal opinion is it's a great thing to do. For those of us who aren't likely to ever do an instrument rating, it's liable to develop you as a pilot (instrument flying & nav skills, and planning) - that impacts your day VFR as well.
IO540 is correct of course - the right night can be as good as hard IMC. Mine included mandatory remote area work (black hole), and a lot of instrument appreciation. My answer would be that you are much more picky about your night weather than you are about day. In the UK and europe there's so much light around it's hard not to have a good visual reference if the weather is half decent.
I've used it several times where a delayed departure would otherwise have sunk the flight when on long trips, and for me it deletes the requirement to remain in sight of surface, allowing me to fly out of sight of ground using radio nav etc. I understand that's not so here and the IMCR is required however.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of the same safety arguments could be applied to SE IFR, and frequently are to SE over water, or even over mountains. You pay your money and take your choice; CPL's flying ME kit aren't a good measuring stick - they have the big toys, and quite frankly I'd suggest there's a little bit of willy waving and sensationalism going on - I'm quite sure most people would rather have a big comfortable twin at most times.
Twins run out of fuel often enough, and because they cost so much to run and maintain, and because most of those flying are so old, most of them are pretty knackered.In flying, you should always have an escape route.
Over land, it is a forced landing (daytime).
Over water, it is a life raft (ok we know few people carry one because they cost £1000+ but that is not the point)
At night, you don't have an escape route (unless you have NVGs and know how to use them
).That's why I don't normally fly at night. When I do I have no problem with it but one has to treat it as IMC. Especially "FAA night" which is sunset+1hr for the purpose of logging the 3+3 for passenger carriage.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I prefer to fly a non-autopilot, ancient avionics twin at night rather than my own autopilot equipped, modern radios complex single.
This is purely because I don't rate my chances of a succesful forced landing at night in the single.
This is purely because I don't rate my chances of a succesful forced landing at night in the single.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's illegal to fly at night in a single in France
Who said that? I cant see the post. You are wroing in any event.
I wouldnt want to have an engine failure in a SEP at night because there is a lot more luck involved in the outcome that during the day - but if you review the engine failures at night a surprising number are successful. My mate had one going into to Redhill not that long ago and was absolutely fine if a little shaken.
For that reason give me a twin any time at night - but as IO says a knackered twin with little single engine performance might not be a lot better. On the other hand a good twin will take an engine failure at night and the night landing in its stride.
It is illegal to fly a single at night in France
Who said that? I cant see the post. You are wroing in any event.
I wouldnt want to have an engine failure in a SEP at night because there is a lot more luck involved in the outcome that during the day - but if you review the engine failures at night a surprising number are successful. My mate had one going into to Redhill not that long ago and was absolutely fine if a little shaken.
For that reason give me a twin any time at night - but as IO says a knackered twin with little single engine performance might not be a lot better. On the other hand a good twin will take an engine failure at night and the night landing in its stride.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twas me that said that Fuji with a qualifier "I believe"
I have never done flying in France unless I have had 2 donks burning JetA. So I do apologise that my SEP knowledge in France is a bit lacking.
I have never done flying in France unless I have had 2 donks burning JetA. So I do apologise that my SEP knowledge in France is a bit lacking.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 - Well, I do 
I'd suggest that in flying you should always be cognisant of the risks, and make an informed decision - escape routes are not black and white.
- SE IFR quite possibly may not give you an escape route - an engine failure might mean gliding into cloud with rocks in it, or popping out of an unacceptably low base looking for somewhere to park it.
- Overwater you 'just' ditch and hop in the liferaft - er, yeah. Depends on a lot of things including the sea state.
- Overland it's a forced landing - terrain allowing. Mountainous? Rough? Desert? Not always straight forward.
I *completely* agree that the chances of a good outcome at night are severely reduced, but I'd contend that a night engine failure is no more an automatic death sentence, than a day engine failure is an automatic non-event.
You (sorry, we) *are* fortunate in having a lot of airfields scattered around this country - some smart routing and a sensible cruise alt can minimise the risks. It's also one place where (rarely for me), I'd highly advocate having a GPS - the 'Nearest' button can be very handy. I'd certainly rather have a second engine given the choice.
What I don't understand is how treating it as IMC makes any difference, particularly in the event of engine failures and the like? Or am I misunderstanding something about the UK NVFR - For night I expect to plan LSALT, alternates due lighting, weather, and suchlike - hence my comment that it improves the pilot, requiring a lot more rigorous approach than the usual daytime bimble.
I'd suggest that in flying you should always be cognisant of the risks, and make an informed decision - escape routes are not black and white.- SE IFR quite possibly may not give you an escape route - an engine failure might mean gliding into cloud with rocks in it, or popping out of an unacceptably low base looking for somewhere to park it.
- Overwater you 'just' ditch and hop in the liferaft - er, yeah. Depends on a lot of things including the sea state.
- Overland it's a forced landing - terrain allowing. Mountainous? Rough? Desert? Not always straight forward.
I *completely* agree that the chances of a good outcome at night are severely reduced, but I'd contend that a night engine failure is no more an automatic death sentence, than a day engine failure is an automatic non-event.
You (sorry, we) *are* fortunate in having a lot of airfields scattered around this country - some smart routing and a sensible cruise alt can minimise the risks. It's also one place where (rarely for me), I'd highly advocate having a GPS - the 'Nearest' button can be very handy. I'd certainly rather have a second engine given the choice.
What I don't understand is how treating it as IMC makes any difference, particularly in the event of engine failures and the like? Or am I misunderstanding something about the UK NVFR - For night I expect to plan LSALT, alternates due lighting, weather, and suchlike - hence my comment that it improves the pilot, requiring a lot more rigorous approach than the usual daytime bimble.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, several issues getting mixed up
My comments on an "escape route" are intended to mean that without one you have virtually no chance, and in that sense an escape route is close to black and white. Like flying over water in the winter without a raft - unless you get lucky, near a boat, or get the call in at FL180 on an airways flight and there is a S&R heli nearby.
A SE engine failure on a real proper night is russian roulette. It has to be, because you will see nothing until the last few seconds. But the odds with RR are pretty good - 1:20 probably
I have no problem flying at night, and have no fear or concern while doing do, but I have ~ 1100hrs TT of which about 30 were done at night, and it is obvious that my 1100hrs TT would have been done with a much higher risk profile had 550 of them been done in pitch black. So, in line with my policy on minimising risk, I avoid night flight. Practically, it causes me no problems because I normally fly to my own time schedule, generally departing at the earliest possible (airport opening) moment so as to give me the maximum time at the destination on the day of arrival, and returning late at night is not possible because my home airport will be shut.
The rest is attitude to risk. Lots of SE pilots make the SE v. ME decision, and I think it is rational to favour the SE option because the SE performance is similar (if not better), operating costs are much lower, and the downside (assuming comparable systems redundancy, which to be fair is hard though not impossible to find in a single) is the engine failure risk, which is very small.
I don't think there are that many airfield options in the UK or Europe - unless one is flying at pressurised airway levels with a slippery plane. There is a fair # of strips down there but one would never get out of many of them.
Anyway this is digressing
My comments on an "escape route" are intended to mean that without one you have virtually no chance, and in that sense an escape route is close to black and white. Like flying over water in the winter without a raft - unless you get lucky, near a boat, or get the call in at FL180 on an airways flight and there is a S&R heli nearby.
A SE engine failure on a real proper night is russian roulette. It has to be, because you will see nothing until the last few seconds. But the odds with RR are pretty good - 1:20 probably
I have no problem flying at night, and have no fear or concern while doing do, but I have ~ 1100hrs TT of which about 30 were done at night, and it is obvious that my 1100hrs TT would have been done with a much higher risk profile had 550 of them been done in pitch black. So, in line with my policy on minimising risk, I avoid night flight. Practically, it causes me no problems because I normally fly to my own time schedule, generally departing at the earliest possible (airport opening) moment so as to give me the maximum time at the destination on the day of arrival, and returning late at night is not possible because my home airport will be shut.
The rest is attitude to risk. Lots of SE pilots make the SE v. ME decision, and I think it is rational to favour the SE option because the SE performance is similar (if not better), operating costs are much lower, and the downside (assuming comparable systems redundancy, which to be fair is hard though not impossible to find in a single) is the engine failure risk, which is very small.
I don't think there are that many airfield options in the UK or Europe - unless one is flying at pressurised airway levels with a slippery plane. There is a fair # of strips down there but one would never get out of many of them.
Anyway this is digressing
I think I dragged this thread a bit off topic. To return to the originators question; Yes I think having a night rating is a good thing, first on the general principal that more (properly delivered) training makes you a better pilot all the time and second practical reason that if you do get stuck (headwinds ATC delays etc)and it is getting dark you have some options. However I do feel that in general the flight training establishments do not put enough emphasis on the pilot decision making elements of operating small singles at night, particularly for low houred PPL's. Night flight has to be undertaken with a robust understanding of the increased risks. Whether or not, and under what circumstances, a pilot chooses to to accept those undeniable risks is ultimately up to them. I personally no longer choose to accept the risks of single engine night flight (as a 6000 +hr ATPL) in my little Grumman AA1B but that is my decision and was not meant to imply anyone who did fly at night was stupid, only to point out the facts of the acccident statistics and what I thought were the risks factors.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent points (and by the way, I didn't mean that the willy waving was on this thread); particularly agree about decision making.
Also wasn't suggesting that one does not have an escape route, merely that they come in various levels of quality - as an extreme example, I'd rather suffer engine failure 5000ft overhead a nicely lit airfield in the dark (even if it's too short to fly out of), than in broad daylight overwater.
With that, I shall stop digressing/dragging it off topic too
Also wasn't suggesting that one does not have an escape route, merely that they come in various levels of quality - as an extreme example, I'd rather suffer engine failure 5000ft overhead a nicely lit airfield in the dark (even if it's too short to fly out of), than in broad daylight overwater.
With that, I shall stop digressing/dragging it off topic too
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO one should not fly at night unless fully instrument flight capable.
Obviously "instrument flight capable" does not need the 50-hour IR But it needs a lot more competence than what one gets in the PPL.
Obviously "instrument flight capable" does not need the 50-hour IR
But it needs a lot more competence than what one gets in the PPL.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night Flight
There's been much qouting of statistics, opinion and anecdotal reporting of accidents for night flight.
However, the actual statistics are that between 75-85% of accidents are related to pilot error. Of the remaining circa 20% it can be identified that the mechanical faults leading to the incident were, on too many occasions, apparent to the pilot before take-off (I don't know of any research that quantifies the percentage).
Whether flight by night or day it must be obvious that proper servicing, recording and identification of the aircraft faults including a thorough pre-flight inspection is paramount.
Flight by day or night requires carefull detailed pre-flight planning taking into account terrain, weather reports, icing levels and notified airspace. If this is not done then, day or night, you may enounter a problem irrespective of whatever rating you hold.
Multi engined flight brings with it its own problems owing to complexities; Handling characteristics following an engine failure, assymetric skills and of course the management of such things as fuel transfers which, particularly with some older types, can be complex. Add to that marginal in-flight conditions and strong gusts on approach with significant crosswinds and the two engine idea may not seem to simple a choice to make. The simplicty of one engine can at times be more attractive.
With regard to instrument skills it shouldn't be forgotten that instrument flight training was a requirement for the the Night Rating but was removed by JAA with the introduction of the Night Qualification.
To answer the original question. The 5 hours required for the Night Qualification may be included within the 45 hours minimum experience for the PPL but must be additional to the 25 hours dual/10 hours solo. If there is the opportunity to do it then it will be cost effective and increase the pilots level of safety that the skill and knowledge of flight at night adds.
However, the actual statistics are that between 75-85% of accidents are related to pilot error. Of the remaining circa 20% it can be identified that the mechanical faults leading to the incident were, on too many occasions, apparent to the pilot before take-off (I don't know of any research that quantifies the percentage).
Whether flight by night or day it must be obvious that proper servicing, recording and identification of the aircraft faults including a thorough pre-flight inspection is paramount.
Flight by day or night requires carefull detailed pre-flight planning taking into account terrain, weather reports, icing levels and notified airspace. If this is not done then, day or night, you may enounter a problem irrespective of whatever rating you hold.
Multi engined flight brings with it its own problems owing to complexities; Handling characteristics following an engine failure, assymetric skills and of course the management of such things as fuel transfers which, particularly with some older types, can be complex. Add to that marginal in-flight conditions and strong gusts on approach with significant crosswinds and the two engine idea may not seem to simple a choice to make. The simplicty of one engine can at times be more attractive.
With regard to instrument skills it shouldn't be forgotten that instrument flight training was a requirement for the the Night Rating but was removed by JAA with the introduction of the Night Qualification.
To answer the original question. The 5 hours required for the Night Qualification may be included within the 45 hours minimum experience for the PPL but must be additional to the 25 hours dual/10 hours solo. If there is the opportunity to do it then it will be cost effective and increase the pilots level of safety that the skill and knowledge of flight at night adds.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D*ckheads
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the majority of PPL accidents are down to pilot error rather than mechanical failure, unlike IO540 (whose opinion I value but with whom on this I disagree) I see very little problem with a PPL flying at night.
Like the IMCr, it is good additional training (never a bad idea), and can eliminate some bad habits people get into in the relaxation period after achieving the PPL.
Flying at night is something I personally really enjoy. The scenery is different (and pretty), the skies are less populated, other traffic is far easier to see, ATC are less hassled and more ready to have a joke and to tolerate those pilots who are slightly less slick in their R/T, it is easier to book a club (or shared) aircraft etc. etc. etc.
I would caution PPLs that they do need a certain amount of instrument flying capablility. Apart from anything else, they do need to be able to transfer to instruments and hold an attitude immediately after lift-off until a suitable outside reference is visible above the engine cowling, and need to be able to carry out an approach trusting the PAPIs or only the aspect ratio of the edge lighting.
And on a lighter note, the checklist in case of engine failure at night is:-
LANDING LIGHT....................ON
If you don't like what you see then:-
LANDING LIGHT....................OFF
End of checklist.
And in answer to madlandrover, I concur with the D*ckheads comment. Even if you can't see the terrain you're heading for, coming in under some sort of control at low vertical and horizontal speed can be easily survivable for the aircraft occupants, even if going into trees (c.f. Dundee golfcourse). A Vne crash is not, under any circumstances.
Like the IMCr, it is good additional training (never a bad idea), and can eliminate some bad habits people get into in the relaxation period after achieving the PPL.
Flying at night is something I personally really enjoy. The scenery is different (and pretty), the skies are less populated, other traffic is far easier to see, ATC are less hassled and more ready to have a joke and to tolerate those pilots who are slightly less slick in their R/T, it is easier to book a club (or shared) aircraft etc. etc. etc.
I would caution PPLs that they do need a certain amount of instrument flying capablility. Apart from anything else, they do need to be able to transfer to instruments and hold an attitude immediately after lift-off until a suitable outside reference is visible above the engine cowling, and need to be able to carry out an approach trusting the PAPIs or only the aspect ratio of the edge lighting.
And on a lighter note, the checklist in case of engine failure at night is:-
LANDING LIGHT....................ON
If you don't like what you see then:-
LANDING LIGHT....................OFF
End of checklist.
And in answer to madlandrover, I concur with the D*ckheads comment. Even if you can't see the terrain you're heading for, coming in under some sort of control at low vertical and horizontal speed can be easily survivable for the aircraft occupants, even if going into trees (c.f. Dundee golfcourse). A Vne crash is not, under any circumstances.
