Night Flying and Training (Merged)

[offshoreigor]

Crab:

We have already established that RW-1 knows the distances. I think if you recheck your regulations, you will find an 'independant artificial horizon source' is mandatory for night flying. This is the case in Canada and most ICAO countries.

I guess what it boils down to, is what RW-1 is comfortable with and what works best for him.

Cheers, OffshoreIgor

[RW-1]

Crab & Offshore,

Actually, while I didn't state where I was going into (it was coming back to FXE, in which I have a curved approach to a section of taxiway).

My actual post reflected that I had a problem, figured it out that night with my CFI, and wanted others to share their horror stories, and tips they use to combat nightime illusions that can cuase problems, this certainly has occurred!

You are correct Crab, for here.

While we can (in the US) do VFR night time, most R-22's have the smaller panel, and while some may have an AH installed there (owner thing), most do not including ours. However there are R-22's with larger panels, I believe they are certified for IFR, certainly we use ours for instrument practice (attitude instrument flying and approaches, that panel makes you feel more like you are in a 206 than a 22 )

Hey, never did a screaming Jesus approach yet (remember my issue was getting slow) Is that when the little statue hanging from the WC starts yelling "Whoa!" ?

But I also like the numbers bit too, I'm sure whn getting into mor advanced craft, if I know what they might expect me to use, I'll be familiar with it.

Ahh, more cramming this week, ugh !



------------------
Marc

[fishboy]

There are no IFR certified R22's. To be IFR certified, you have to have back up gyro systems along with various other things. It is possible to get an instrument rating in an R22 but flying actual IMC in one would be a very foolhardy thing to do.
Also, for the USA there are no regs requiring any special instruments (fitted in aircraft) for night flight. Depending on location, it's not always necessary. Flying over a busy downtown area for eg. Get away from a built up area and it can quickly feel like IMC. At night for long trips out of area, I used to file IFR flight plans in an instrument equipped Schweizer 300C then cancel near home base so didn't have to do the approach.

[B Sousa]

Interesting topic. Im sitting in the office in the Virgin Islands(where there arent any) waiting for it to get dark so i can fly some folks out to Peter Island (www.peterisland.com) They are on vacation and Im just going to go scare myself for fun......Kidding
It does get very dark down here in the Islands and this company Bell 206L just loves daylight.
Over the years I have found that the one thing that has kept me from balling one up at night is to take things a lot slower and not to make steep turns. Over water, no moon and Zero Horizon can be real fun...Luckily there is a moon out tonight.....
Stay Safe

[helimutt]

please correct me if I am wrong but having sat in what I regarded as a high hover OGE at approximately 6000' in an R22 HP, is this supposed to be impossible. Granted it was in the UK and OAT was 6 degrees C when we took off.
We were practising pirouettes too with zero speed at 5000' but letting the wind turn us!!
If you're gonna go, might as well go having fun!!

[212man]

No, as I said earlier, the graphs fully support that. What I was trying to say was that in fact if you recreated the same hover at ground level it would look far from tidy in all three 4 axes. Obviously it can be done as anyone with NI or AEW could testify, but needs practice.

------------------
Another day in paradise

[offshoreigor]

I guess I left out a few points, well here goes.

First, if you fly an approach based on an IAS for a given altitude, there is no guarantee that you will fly the same approach twice.

Second, by using the 'by the numbers approach' you will always fly the same glidepath to you LZ (in this case a 3 degree (G/S).

WRT VTOSS, yes it is only applicable to twins, however, if you consider that a single engine has an approach speed that if you go below for a given altitude, then you are S.O.L. if you lose your one stove and are not able to recover airspeed for the impending auto.

So to sum up my reference to VTOSS, a single engine driver can substitute, minimum safe autorotative speed.

To me, a known glidepath to a night site would always be preferable.

By the way, someone said the R22 doesn't have any way to determine distance back, ever heard of GPS?

Cheers, OffshoreIgor

[RW-1]

I agree with you offshore, numbers are preferable as you can always strive for them.

As for GPS, well unless you have a portable, most robbie owners (or more to the point, most training outfits 'round here) don't have it. Heck, I'm flying by pilotage, no VOR even !

Fishboy, If that's true, I stand corrected, I had called to ask if our trainer was certified, but our CFII is out sick. I can go with your statement though.

Helimutt, at least where I was saying the OGE hover at 5K might not be possible was due to regular temps here in south Florida (33-34C). What 212 meant was that keeping a precision hover over a point at that alt takes practice (if I read it correctly)

Still deep into cramming for the test ...
I'll be so glad when I ace that bugger! (at least that's my plan ...)

------------------
Marc

[[email protected]]

Offshoreigor - RW-1 is making a visual approach at night to a fixed point (presumably illuminated) so if he flys the LS in the same position in the windscreen and achieves speed v height gates - he will always fly the same approach (providing he is always approaching on the same heading. Trying to maintain minimum safe autorotative speed on a night approach would most likely end up with a quickstop to the hover with all the attendant problems of loss of references as the landing lamp shines upward due to the flare and ground proximity cues are lost completely! Frankly any kind of AI or AH would be better than nothing especially at night over the water - I have scared myself many times there even when I have had an AI to help me!

[212man]

I think minimum safe auto speed sounds a bit sporting! What speed are we talking about? constant attitude or min rate of descent? It's a bit academic in a single as the minute the donk quits you are no longer going to reach the destination, unlike a twin where Vtoss may well get you there.

I'd advocate the 10% of height=speed routine and suggest it if I see candidates having trouble with night deck landings. (It's not the only way, but it's predicatble and safe)

------------------
Another day in paradise

[RW-1]

Actually Crab, the approach in question is straight along a taxiway, however then at 50 Ft or so I follow the curve of that taxiway (rather I am alongside it over the grass) to the next section of taxiway. Hard to describe, Perhaps I'll find a A/D chart online.

Anyway picking up my line of the taxiway is no issue, I was losing the spot as it tends to draw my focal point away from the spot itself. Once I did pick up other things to use it became much easier for that particular approach.

The other one I was doing over in Pompano, was simply along a taxiway to an intersection, very easy to pick out, but in the beginning I succumbed to illusions and was using too much aft cyclic at the time.

I'll know if I have gotten over it the next time I do some night approaches. Hehe ..

------------------
Marc

[tech]

RW-1 : I have done alot of night approaches to verious kinds pf poorly lit helipads and I have experienced that same thing. You are on the approach every thing feels fine then all of a sudden in the last 1/4 mile it feels like you are over running the pad.This condition is much worse if you have a tail wind.

The method I prefer using is Altitude and Distance. Similiar to Off-shore Igor's technique but I use higher altitudes if flying to an on-shore helipad over rough terrain. I like 800 feet a mile back 400 to 500 feet half a mile back 200 to 300 feet a quarter mile back. Speed; slightly above VTOSS if multi-engine (50-to 60 knots)at the start of the approach.

At 1/4 mile back at 250 feet your airspeed should be slightly above translation and decelerating and don't forget POWER. From this point it is all visual and seat of the pants.

Best to try some of these approaches in day light to get the profile and then try it at night. Be really careful of long shallow approaches on black nights as you can end up flying into the ground (CFIT).

By the way : A continuous decent from 800 feet and 1 nm back to pad impact will result in a glide slope of approximately 7.5 degrees.

[Speechless Two]

Ah! Peter Island – what a glorious place, B Sousa – tried to convince the hotel management that they needed a 206 shuttle when I spent a couple of weeks on holiday there in ’86. Must be a wonderful job!

On the hovering at 5000 ft issue - how’s this for a daft exercise. We were required to do some transponder trials back in the late 70’s at London Heathrow. Requirement was to position a Bo105 on a cold clear NIGHT some 3 miles south of LHR at 500 ft and climb vertically up a searchlight beam to 5000 ft. The ground station at LHR shone a small searchlight at us and we shone one back at them from the open sliding door so they could keep track of our angular elevation with reference to them. We then had to fly south 7 miles sideways at 5000 ft to another searchlight beam which was also pointing vertically upwards, all the time keeping our searchlight on the LHR groundstation. It was February and –13C at top of climb. B****y cold going sideways with the door open!! Needless to say with the lack of any groundspeed info we fell out of the sideways manoeuvre many times. Ah! youth – where did it go……

Tech is quite right about shallow approaches over unlit areas at night – it’s too easy to cock it up, no matter how much experience you have. The “black hole” phenomenon when approaching a lit landing site at night over unlit terrain is well documented. There were photos posted on the PPRuNe R & N forum some months ago of a 707 that flew into the water on a visual night approach over Lake Victoria (I think). Bristow Australia lost a Puma some years back on a night VMC approach to an offshore rig – a very experienced crew flew into the water half a mile from the rig.

In my own case about 20 years ago, with about 30 miles to run to destination, with another experienced pilot as co-pilot, we started a long slow clear night VMC descent in a S76 from FL 50 to the Montrose platform in the North Sea and only realised at about 300ft that we were going into the water about half a mile from the platform. From that moment on, whenever similar descents were envisaged I levelled at 1000 ft for at least a minute before continuing the descent. This seems to break the visual brain pattern that nearly ended in a ditching that night. The problem on a “black hole” approach – especially a shallow one – is that you can be quite convinced that nothing is wrong and that the approach is fine, even with two pilots on board.


[This message has been edited by Speechless Two (edited 09 January 2001).]

[John Nussbaum]

Here are some things that that I learned early on and have served me well concerning night approaches

1. Keep your head on a swivel. you must scan to overcome the central night vision blind spot and most of the visual illusions

2. Treat all visual barriers as physical. I the lights on your LZ disappear there is something between you and the LZ.

3. On final limit your rate of descent to 300 fpm or less and your airspeed at or slightly above ETL. (settling)

4. Landing lights are useless above 200' AGL don't turn them on until then and leave them on when you do. They ruin your night vison.

5. Going to an unlit LZ without a serchlight you will be able to detect light at 25 ft and motion at about 15 ft using only the position lights. There is a tendency to drift to the right because of the brighter green light on that side.

6. There is a lag in the radar altimeter.

[John Nussbaum]

In re-reading your post the problem with zeroing out your airspeed on a dark night is most likely the result of poor visual refrence coupled with a poor instrument cross check.

Try following the moon cycle. Start night training on full moon nights and work down to lower levels of illumination.

Start by making approaches to fully lit airfields then dim down the lights and finally use no lights at all.

[The Nr Fairy]

The Australian Puma accident report can be found at http://www.basi.gov.au/acci/wof.htm for those interested, with a full downloadable report.

[This message has been edited by The Nr Fairy (edited 12 January 2001).]

[Grey Area]

RW-1,

The short answer to your question is yes. It is well documented in my world (Navy Lynx) and I have seen a lot of students exhibit the tendency. We teach pilots to reduce to 60kts ground speed by 500’ overland and 1 mile out for visual ship approaches, 2 miles for GCA. They are “strongly” encouraged to hold the selected airspeed! Between ½ and ¼ mile (depending on experience, wind etc) a gentle deceleration is commenced aiming to arrive at the hover without the need for a large attitude change (bad for the inner ear and forward vis etc).

From an instructors point of view the key to a good night approach is a good visual/instrument scan and faith in the instruments. The most common fault is improper trimming (generally aft) which stuffs speed stability as soon as the pilot relaxes on the cyclic. Second most common is “rubber left arm” where the collective is subconciously raised as altitude reduces with poor references, again only overcome by appropriate visual/instrument scan.

Note: This technique is military and probably breaks a whole load of public transport regs!

[RW-1]

Kewl Gray ... Thanks for your input!

[Roundagain]

Night remote area landings

Just curious to learn about others experiences and techniques in night approaches to remote landing sites.

We fly single pilot IFR SAR/EMS and at the present time we unfortunately cannot legally use NVG's. As I had previously used NVG in the military it was a real eye opener to have to operate without them.

We have developed a technique that begins with a 100,000 map appreciation of the area and the calculation of a 5nm LSALT around the landing site. We then fly to overhead at IFR en route LSALT and, if visual, identify the LS (we would expect someone on the ground with a light source). If still IMC at 5nm LSALT we would abort the task.

Once the LS is identified it is saved in the GNS and the W/V is established. A circuit pattern is then flown during which we descend to the 5nm LSALT whilst remaining within a 3nm radius to give a 2nm buffer. The co-pilot EHSI 5nm MAP is selected and the pilot EHSI is set to NAV with the course bar used to orientate circuit direction and the FMS needles selected to the LS waypoint.

On Xwind the nightsun is illuminated, angled to 45 degrees down and IAS reduced to 80 kt. On D/W the pre-land checks are completed. Base turn is begun within 3nm, IAS is reduced to 60 kt and the cabin doors are opened so that the rear crew can look out and down.

Final approach is begun at 3nm and the G/S is reduced to 45kt. A ROD of 5-700 fpm is initiated with the aim of being at 0.5nm and 500ft agl. The co-pilot rad alt is set at 500ft and the pilot radalt is incrementally reduced from 1500ft to 300ft. Once the rear crew have visual ground contact the nightsun is elevated for pilot reference and if the crew is happy with the approach it is continued to a high hover before a landing or winching is carried out.

The entire approach is flown with auto pilot coupled and the pilot only takes over when it is known that a safe landing can be carried out. If visual contact with the light source is lost at any time a missed approach is flown back to LSALT. This takes a fair bit of practice and requires a high level of crew co-ordination and trust but seems to work well.

Any other techniques or comments?

[paco]

Sheesh - that's a bit different to using crossed headlights!

Phil