Reasons not to fly a VFR only, Single-engined helicopter offshore at night

[McGowan]

Investor, well said, but I also agree with blade root, on a black night, it's IFR. The regualtions point out the simple fact that if you fly "by sole reference to the instruments" it's IFR not NVFR.

[helicfii]

VFR Off-shore at night is an IFR operation- it is a weird hybrid of IFR and VFR that is like no other kind of flying that I have experienced.

The potential for disorientation on take-off and while setting up for an approach is very real. Not to mention all the false horizons that you encounter out there due to platform lights and weather.

I did it for about a year, and would never, ever consider doing it in anything other than a medium with an IFR certified crew of 2.

Off-shore weather at night- very hard to see the scud most nights, or decreasing visibility (until after you are in it)...the chances of going inadvertant IMC out there are too great to ignore.

[INVESTOR]

The potential for disorientation is actually a certainty given a number of take offs . It is to greatly reduce the frequency of disorientations that our NVFR pilots are directed to do instrument take offs. Even then we can occasionally expect the leans to be induced from peripheral vision inputs. As part of our training our applicants have to demonstrate instrument flight to normal parameters while having the leans . CASA and BASI in Australia agree with flying on the instuments for all take offs towards dark ground at night to avoid somatogravic illusion [ even with a good horizon ] .So the concept of a NVFR pilot doing instrument take offs has official approval as a procedure .

We seem to agree that NVFR flight over water requires instrument flying and instrument equipment . From all the concerns expressed on the flight and legislative sides I think we have indicated where the greatest hazards are and there may be a drift towards the concept that the biggest problem is not that the one engine is going to fail . In fact unless you get the basics right , you are going to impact with the water long before your engine gets a chance to quit .

I agree that NVFR regulations are weird . But then again , instrument ratings and IFR are not magical panaceas that will prevent water impacts . Need I remind you that a Puma crewed by a captain and a check captain doing a night marine pilot transfer flew into the water , and IFR multi crewed flights terminating in the water continues to be a problem around the world .Reading the accident reports there seems to be a perception by some operators that an instrument rating automatically bestows an ability to handle the night visual portion of the flight and that more crew and eqipment somehow decreases the need for flying ability and airmanship .



I probably need to restate that we operate in very benign weather conditions here and that I support twin engine IFR for less fortunate operators .

[800]

can you or not?

The fact still remains;[LIST][*]Can you fix your position visually as required for VFR flight?[*]Can you maintain the minimum required horizontal visibility distance (for the whole flight) as required for VFR?[*]Can you maintain visual contact with the ground or water, at your cruise height, as required for VFR flight?[*]Can you maintain the minimum horizontal and vertical distance from cloud (can you see the cloud) as required for VFR flight?[*]Can you fly without assistance from the artificial horizon (remember its a VFR flight)?[*]Remember that NVFR has the same MINUMIM requirements for navigation and the conduct of the flight as for DVFR with some extra lights and insturments thrown in. The Instruments are for a back up, not intended as a means of completeing the flight if the weahter conditions are not suitable for NVFR.[LIST][*]Do you have sufficient moon to assist you in any of the above when there is insufficient ground lighting?

• If you do conduct a flight with a moon and no other ground illumination, say at 45 degrees above the horizon, what happens when you conduct a 180 deg turn - now no moon, no horizon, no VFR!

• If there is insufficient ground or moon illumination, how can you see a horizon. If you cannot see a horizon, how can it be NVFR?

Lets face it, those who have not had the opportunity to fly at night under the IFR with an appropriately configured aircraft will always think NVFR is OK

This argument/debate will continue forever

[INVESTOR]

I think I have this right

Yes , yes , yes , yes , yes , yes , and no .

When we take off from the base helipad we climb to cruise height and look 10 miles ahead to a bunch of ships , we procede to the ships and land , or if chasing a departing ship we look ahead another 10 miles to the lights of the departing ship and go and land on it .

Can we do the whole flight without relying on the AH . Blowed if I know . I have never tried to . I always assumed the AH was there as a necessary tool to be used .

[helmet fire]

Can we do the whole flight without relying on the AH . Blowed if I know . I have never tried to

Great answer - I am with you! Why would you????

Australia has long had an issue with the NVFR rating and rules, they almost unique in the world. We have no requirement for a visual horizon, but employ a LSALT instead to ensure ground separation. This means you HAVE to be proficient with instrument skills to take advantage of the rating - despite the fact that it is called a "VFR" situation and that that label seems to make people believe that they should be looking out the front for orientation.

The CAO controlling the NVFR training and rating standards clearly details the requirements for instrument proficiency in terms of limitations on heading, altitude and airspeed control - all of which are to be demonstrated to the examiner "with sole reference to the flight instruments". What has been lacking in Australia are those standards being applied to the applicants undergoing the test, and the fact that a perpetual rating is issued absolving the applicant of ever having to demonstrate instrument competency right up until he/she eventually demonstrates that he doesn't have any by producing a smoking hole and another pprune thread slinging crap at him/her!

We need to harden up on the cost issue and change NVFR in Australia to that of the rest of the world - a visual horizon and ground MUST be present, otherwise go and invest in the instrument rating that has been proven again and again to help. And what about NVG....just kidding!

Why don't MPT and GOM VFR ops at least install something like the max viz uncooled IR system? Weights about 2kg, costs US$60K and would be perfect for showing up the rig/boat overwater at night and therefore provide a good spatial tool during the descent phase?

And BTW, I am a solid supporter of the twin theory. I can just imagine going down over water at night believing in the comfort of "only 2%" worse off, or 2 in 100,000 or what ever. Can those who like to perpetuate such points of view please jump on board at that time so that I might get off?

[McGowan]

As 800 says, this discussion can go on for ever, and most opinions will be correct or close to it.
I don't think it is a single/twin engine issue as it is an IFR/NVFR issue.
I also recon it's a Pilot issue, is he/she trained, current and capable to conduct the flight.
The issue of how much training, what kind of training, who does it, how often do you do it and of course, minimum equipment to do the job has to be taken into account. Again, here in Aussie it is only a matter of time before the insurance companies step in and say "we won't insure you off shore in an aircraft that doesn't meet the following minums". Then they will dictate what we will be flying.
With unlimited money and time we have no accidents or incidents, in the real world where money isn't plentiful, we do it in a single with one a/h, one Pilot and only when the sun is shinning. I suppose it's just what you can afford and good luck..........................

[eagle 86]

In the days of Yore, when HF was only dreaming of Hueys, the term was "Class 4 Instrument Rating" and that's what over-water night ops is about.
GAGS E86

[800]

Guidlines - unfortunately not many

From the B206 RFM limitations section;

NIGHT FLIGHT LIMITATIONS

Night flight operation is limited to visual contact flight conditions. Orientation shall be maintained through visual reference to ground objects solely as a result of lights on the ground or adequate celestial illumination.

So, if your flying a B206 then this limiation applies to you. If your flying some other type of aircraft, then maybe this should be used in your risk management decision making guide.



800

[Capt SFB]

800,

Not having a B206 Flight Manual handy, what does it say if your machine is equipped and certified IFR ??

Capt SFB

[800]

All I can say is that it was a VFR RFM, so that would mean it applies to VFR operations.

When you find the RFM with the IF supplement in it then all would be explaned and you can tell us all.

Normally when flying IFR you would not have to look outside except in the takeoff and landing phases of flight, so the VFR limitation would probably not apply (my opinion) but YOU better check.

[Shawn Coyle]

To the best of my knowledge, there has only been one 206B that was certified for IFR and that wasn't even a full IFR certification (it's the Bristow's one in the UK).
Problem with certifying the 206 is only one generator, no force trim and doesn't meet some of the handling requirements without a stabilization system.
It will, for all intents, forever remain a VFR machine - and people who try to fly the thing IFR or in very poor vis will continue to suffer the consequences.

[Capt SFB]

Ifr B206b

Shawn,

I've flown a full IFR 206B here in Australia, a 2nd battery installation met the requirements there and an auto pilot was also fitted. There have been a few others also on the VH reg over the years, together with some 206L's.

Our MPT NVFR 206's and 120 feature autopilots, the 120 with full flight director, alt capture, etc.

Cheers,

Capt SFB

[800]

Thats Great Capt SFB.

Improved safety and reduced fatigue during those missions.

BUT, Do you still fly fulfulling the requirements of NVFR on those missions?

[spinwing]

Mmmmmm .......

Well I still think that flying ANY single engined Heilcopter over water at night VFR or IFR is a task that will eventually "end in tears".

Yes I have done .... No I didn't like it ..... No I'm not gunna do it again!

Thankfully I'm way too old for that **** .... I guess I'm now one of those "Old but NOT bold" types ....

Cheers

[Gomer Pylot]

The US Army goes IFR regularly in 206s, no autopilot, just stock, with new instrument students. Of course, they aren't bound by the FARs, but they've had no accidents in that regime over the years. It's not as dangerous as some would claim, but that doesn't mean I want to do it.

[heliski22]

On the other hand, Spinwing, old men do like to give good advice when no longer able to give bad example!!

Just teasing!!!

[spinwing]

Oooh .... Oooh .....

Yes thats me ........ now!