Reasons not to fly a VFR only, Single-engined helicopter offshore at night
Thread Starter
Reasons not to fly a VFR only, Single-engined helicopter offshore at night
Am I alone here in my heartfelt belief.....that single-engine, VFR only, single piloted helicopters have no place offshore at night? Am I alone in thinking this is a very risky endeavour?
Would you ever consider routinely flying a single-engine helicopter offshore at night? What would be the minimum equipment you would have if you did?
A collateral issue.....what responsibility does company management bear in dispatching single engine, VFR only, single piloted aircraft on overwater flights? Should they be subject to punitive damages if found negligent in their dispatch responsibilty and authority under the pertinent airlaw?
Would you ever consider routinely flying a single-engine helicopter offshore at night? What would be the minimum equipment you would have if you did?
A collateral issue.....what responsibility does company management bear in dispatching single engine, VFR only, single piloted aircraft on overwater flights? Should they be subject to punitive damages if found negligent in their dispatch responsibilty and authority under the pertinent airlaw?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
night offshore
I'm with you SASLESS!
As someone else on this board said in another discussion..."it's just going backwards"!
The helicopter industry has progressed to where we have twin engine, glass cockpit, efis/defis, two pilot op's, .......and so on.....
Why put an aircraft with basic equipment into an environment that demands more? I appreciate technology and what it has to offer us, but I respect what my predecessors have accomplished with basic a/c.
Having said that, I fully realise what had to be done in the past to get the job done. I hope the majority of us are beyond that!
My humble thoughts!
D.K
As someone else on this board said in another discussion..."it's just going backwards"!
The helicopter industry has progressed to where we have twin engine, glass cockpit, efis/defis, two pilot op's, .......and so on.....
Why put an aircraft with basic equipment into an environment that demands more? I appreciate technology and what it has to offer us, but I respect what my predecessors have accomplished with basic a/c.
Having said that, I fully realise what had to be done in the past to get the job done. I hope the majority of us are beyond that!
My humble thoughts!
D.K
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never done it but . . . . .
it sounds like something I wouldn't feel comfortable doing under any circumstances. Maybe under really nice weather and a little moon, not to far offshore it could even be nice, but since I am dreaming I would also like to have a pony.
Last edited by BlenderPilot; 2nd Jun 2003 at 11:13.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NVFR
In Australia their are a number of operators who fly Single Engine helicopters off shore (single pilot) conducting Marine Pilot Transfers (on and off ships)
The rules allow ops up to 10nm off the coast, belond this an auto pilot is required, or a twin.
Types in use include B206, H500, MD520 and AS350
Hard to get Night command time, so it is a good way to probably get soe hours.
As I understand a lot of the flight is done in reference to the instruments, especially the take off (into the Black)
Sounds like fun.
The rules allow ops up to 10nm off the coast, belond this an auto pilot is required, or a twin.
Types in use include B206, H500, MD520 and AS350
Hard to get Night command time, so it is a good way to probably get soe hours.
As I understand a lot of the flight is done in reference to the instruments, especially the take off (into the Black)
Sounds like fun.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The takeoff from a ship, or platform, or drilling rig, or whatever else, at night, is difficult at best. You're going from a very brightly lit pad into solid blackness. It's an instrument takeoff, completely, every time. We do it dual pilot, & I consider it an ITO. The PNF calls out positive rate of climb, airspeed increasing, & rate of climb in 100' increments, altitude in 100' increments, & airspeed in 10 kt increments, plus Vtoss, Vmin, and Vy. I wouldn't want to try it alone, nor the approach. The PF has to be on instruments until at least 500', & I just fly them full time.
Some nights, with clear skies and a full moon, are relatively easy & fun. Others aren't so bright, and you can be dead before you know what happened.
Some nights, with clear skies and a full moon, are relatively easy & fun. Others aren't so bright, and you can be dead before you know what happened.
What is difficult to understand is how the requrement of FAR 135.207 is met "..at night, visual surface light reference sufficient to safely control the helicopter".
Isn't it true that most loss of control accidents are in part caused by a reduced visual cue environment. Some of the above commenters discuss flight on instruments...at some stage of the flight.
There is a duty of care involved here whether it be by the operator or by the oil company - or is that asking too much.
What part has the regulator to play in the enforcement of existing rules - or the generation of some specifications that have to be agreed and met.
Isn't it true that most loss of control accidents are in part caused by a reduced visual cue environment. Some of the above commenters discuss flight on instruments...at some stage of the flight.
There is a duty of care involved here whether it be by the operator or by the oil company - or is that asking too much.
What part has the regulator to play in the enforcement of existing rules - or the generation of some specifications that have to be agreed and met.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
In UK there is technically no night VFR and so that type of operation isn't allowed for civilian Public Transport.
I used to fly unstabilised aircraft in the police role (no stick trim), OGE night hover was bread and butter stuff and this is still being done. It requires training, experience and currency to be safe. It is classed as "visual contact" flight and has additional weather and visual parameters laid down. However, this was using a twin engined machine.
When I first began my RAF career, our boys were carrying out night offshore SAR using the Whirlwind. Single engine, unstabilised, no stick trim. Good on 'em, I grew to respect them an awful lot; in my SAR time we had fully IFR aircraft with DDAFCS, auto transition, auto hover, mark on target, climb, remote hover trim etc. Still bloody risky in poor conditions. Insurance companies realised that; the Australian ones I tried refused to sell me any life cover at all.
I used to fly unstabilised aircraft in the police role (no stick trim), OGE night hover was bread and butter stuff and this is still being done. It requires training, experience and currency to be safe. It is classed as "visual contact" flight and has additional weather and visual parameters laid down. However, this was using a twin engined machine.
When I first began my RAF career, our boys were carrying out night offshore SAR using the Whirlwind. Single engine, unstabilised, no stick trim. Good on 'em, I grew to respect them an awful lot; in my SAR time we had fully IFR aircraft with DDAFCS, auto transition, auto hover, mark on target, climb, remote hover trim etc. Still bloody risky in poor conditions. Insurance companies realised that; the Australian ones I tried refused to sell me any life cover at all.
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point Shy. I wonder how long we would have a viable operation if we printed on the emergency procedures card, "The pilot of this helicopter has been refused life insurance for this flight."?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I totally agree that single pilot night offshore in a single engine helicopter is bloody dangerous.
BUT pilots who need to make a living can be forced into it by Regulatory Authorities who care more about the commercial aspects of an operation than they do about it's safety. Curious that the two countries that are the worst offenders in this way apply totally different standards to Fixed Wing and Helicopter Public Transport Operations; and this is reflected in the relative pay and conditions of the two industries there.
You can't blame the operator; it's the duty and responsibility of the Regulator to ensure a Safe and Efficient industry, not to pander to powerful commercial and political interests. IT'S ALL DOWN TO THE REGULATOR.
Governments don't normally care unless somebody embarrasses them in public with a campaign; and this is a cultural thing in the country in which you live, people may or may not approve. You'll be accused of trying to create more jobs for pilots and trying to destroy the economics of the industry. We went through all this in the North Sea a long time ago, and frequently again since; but safety is a high-profile item in Europe. Many countries where commercial interests rule don't share that view when it comes to helicopter operations and Regulation is correspondingly slack.
BUT pilots who need to make a living can be forced into it by Regulatory Authorities who care more about the commercial aspects of an operation than they do about it's safety. Curious that the two countries that are the worst offenders in this way apply totally different standards to Fixed Wing and Helicopter Public Transport Operations; and this is reflected in the relative pay and conditions of the two industries there.
You can't blame the operator; it's the duty and responsibility of the Regulator to ensure a Safe and Efficient industry, not to pander to powerful commercial and political interests. IT'S ALL DOWN TO THE REGULATOR.
Governments don't normally care unless somebody embarrasses them in public with a campaign; and this is a cultural thing in the country in which you live, people may or may not approve. You'll be accused of trying to create more jobs for pilots and trying to destroy the economics of the industry. We went through all this in the North Sea a long time ago, and frequently again since; but safety is a high-profile item in Europe. Many countries where commercial interests rule don't share that view when it comes to helicopter operations and Regulation is correspondingly slack.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: No Fixed Abode
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow!
Well Night Pilot, I'm impressed. My PNF's usually too busy moaning about the fact he/she got a salad.
Seriously though, I'm with NP on this one. After being 'Blinded by the Light' lifting from a rig I would'nt give much chance to smooth ditching on a dark and gloomy night, especially after losing your one and only donk. Two's surely better than one, unless it's sore ears after the verbal bashing I got this morning after a late and drunken appearance last night...
Seriously though, I'm with NP on this one. After being 'Blinded by the Light' lifting from a rig I would'nt give much chance to smooth ditching on a dark and gloomy night, especially after losing your one and only donk. Two's surely better than one, unless it's sore ears after the verbal bashing I got this morning after a late and drunken appearance last night...
Last edited by Blue Rotor Ronin; 2nd Jun 2003 at 07:21.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: International
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy Torque
Although there is no 'night VFR' in the UK - it, in concert with other States, permits such practices by allowing flight in accordance with pseudo VFR by helicopters when operated below 3000' (of course there are additional provisions for instruments and training) - no singles of course.
Mr Toad
I am all for regulator bashing (my favourite sport) but in this case it is a little harsh to say that 'pilots are forced into it by Regulatory Authorities'. In fact the Operator is to blame - they are ultimately responsible for running a safe operation.
You are correct in stating that the culture of the country is the ultimate arbiter of what is an acceptable accident record. Such an accident in Europe would have been (close to) headline news.
There is also the non-compliance with FAR 135.207 as pointed out by JimL above.
Blue Rotor Ronin
Would you have got away with losing one on rotation?
Although there is no 'night VFR' in the UK - it, in concert with other States, permits such practices by allowing flight in accordance with pseudo VFR by helicopters when operated below 3000' (of course there are additional provisions for instruments and training) - no singles of course.
Mr Toad
I am all for regulator bashing (my favourite sport) but in this case it is a little harsh to say that 'pilots are forced into it by Regulatory Authorities'. In fact the Operator is to blame - they are ultimately responsible for running a safe operation.
You are correct in stating that the culture of the country is the ultimate arbiter of what is an acceptable accident record. Such an accident in Europe would have been (close to) headline news.
There is also the non-compliance with FAR 135.207 as pointed out by JimL above.
Blue Rotor Ronin
Would you have got away with losing one on rotation?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Am I alone here in my heartfelt belief.....that single-engine, VFR only, single piloted helicopters have no place offshore at night? Am I alone in thinking this is a very risky endeavour?”
I’m of the belief that the ‘single engine’ part is not the major problem, for close offshore ops at least, but the problem lies in non IFR equipped helicopters flown but non IFR equipped pilots flying supposedly NVFR ops in IMC.
As Clearleft rightly points out, here in Oz, these operations occur right around the country every night, moon or no. How do you keep ‘visual reference to land or water’ on such nights? You can’t. It’s IMC.
I think that for a VFR aircraft to be conducting such op’s IAW the regulations, a min of 1/3 moon and a visible horizon should be a requirement.
If you can’t afford the equipment required to do the job safely, get out.
Here’s an interesting read along those lines:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=473
Mack
I’m of the belief that the ‘single engine’ part is not the major problem, for close offshore ops at least, but the problem lies in non IFR equipped helicopters flown but non IFR equipped pilots flying supposedly NVFR ops in IMC.
As Clearleft rightly points out, here in Oz, these operations occur right around the country every night, moon or no. How do you keep ‘visual reference to land or water’ on such nights? You can’t. It’s IMC.
I think that for a VFR aircraft to be conducting such op’s IAW the regulations, a min of 1/3 moon and a visible horizon should be a requirement.
If you can’t afford the equipment required to do the job safely, get out.
Here’s an interesting read along those lines:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=473
Mack
Do the oil companies not have their own safety standards or do they simple adapt the regs of the country they are operating in?
I've seen some large discrepencies by major oil companies depending on where they are operating. It would be nice if they took the highest standard and applied it to all their ops, but no doubt that would hurt their bottom line.
I've seen some large discrepencies by major oil companies depending on where they are operating. It would be nice if they took the highest standard and applied it to all their ops, but no doubt that would hurt their bottom line.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
Another KOS,
I concur, the title does say single engine; that's what I referred to. Sorry for any confusion.
(My last job included writing a UK PAOM part 2).
I concur, the title does say single engine; that's what I referred to. Sorry for any confusion.
(My last job included writing a UK PAOM part 2).
Join Date: May 2002
Location: No Fixed Abode
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blade ol' boy, beer chits be the devide between safety and accountibility as far as I've encountered.
KOS, how dare you suggest I could have evaded an ear-bashing by a bit of rotation. She refuses, I've tried........
KOS, how dare you suggest I could have evaded an ear-bashing by a bit of rotation. She refuses, I've tried........
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avon, CT, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several regulations that apply:
135.207 - night, visual surface light reference sufficient to safely control the helicopter.
135.159 – helicopters with a gross weight of 6,000 lbs. or less that carry passengers under VFR at night need to have a slip skid indicator, artificial horizon and a directional gryo.
Under 135.159 you can carry cargo only and would not need any of that equipment.
Operating at night in the GOM would surely be a fertile environment for spatial disorientation.
Hopefully pilots that fly at night in the GOM or elsewhere have an instrument rating but it’s not required by the regulations. Even having an instrument rating is no guarantee if one does not keep his/her currency.
135.207 - night, visual surface light reference sufficient to safely control the helicopter.
135.159 – helicopters with a gross weight of 6,000 lbs. or less that carry passengers under VFR at night need to have a slip skid indicator, artificial horizon and a directional gryo.
Under 135.159 you can carry cargo only and would not need any of that equipment.
Operating at night in the GOM would surely be a fertile environment for spatial disorientation.
Hopefully pilots that fly at night in the GOM or elsewhere have an instrument rating but it’s not required by the regulations. Even having an instrument rating is no guarantee if one does not keep his/her currency.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do any of the pilots in OZ who regularly conduct this type of operation (with only NVFR) have any comments to make on the difficulty or ease of this type of operation and maybe on the training they have received.
Thanks
Thanks
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CH
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night flight in Australia is a little different to other places. There is no requirement to have any visual contact with anything. The aircraft shall be equipped with gyro instruments and radio navaids. I have always wondered, if flight is conducted using these instruments, is it still VFR? No, because in Australia it is Night VMC not Night VFR. There is no Night VFR as the rest of the planet interprets it, in Australia. A helicopter placarded as Night VFR capable by the FAA cannot be flown by night in Australia.
FI, if you are flying along in your Bell 206B with a bunch of gyro's and navigating by ADF/VOR or whatever, if you can't see anything outside the window which is entirely legal if it's not IMC, are you still VFR?
What difference would it make if you were IMC? How would you know?
I know in the US there are flight visibility and celestial and terrestrial lighting requirements.
The "marine pilot" thing in Aus has evolved like Topsy, wasn't born, I just growed.
There are loopholes that are fully exploited. In a lot of cases the "passengers" actually own and operate the aircraft - we won't go there!
FI, if you are flying along in your Bell 206B with a bunch of gyro's and navigating by ADF/VOR or whatever, if you can't see anything outside the window which is entirely legal if it's not IMC, are you still VFR?
What difference would it make if you were IMC? How would you know?
I know in the US there are flight visibility and celestial and terrestrial lighting requirements.
The "marine pilot" thing in Aus has evolved like Topsy, wasn't born, I just growed.
There are loopholes that are fully exploited. In a lot of cases the "passengers" actually own and operate the aircraft - we won't go there!
Last edited by John Bicker; 2nd Jun 2003 at 13:15.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"John, this might be a refresher for you:
AIP ENR States:
1.1 The Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
1.1.1 VFR flight may only be conducted:
a. in VMC;
b. provided that, when operating at or below 2,000FT above the
ground or water, the pilot is able to navigate by visual reference
to the ground or water;
c. at sub-sonic speeds; and
d. in accordance with the speed restrictions identified at ENR 1.1,
Section 76.
(John, this applies to both VFR by day and VFR by night)
1.1.2 Unless the pilot in command holds a Command Instrument Rating
or night VFR (NGT VFR) rating and the aircraft is appropriately
equipped for flight at night, a VFR flight must not depart from an
aerodrome:
a. before first light or after last light; and
b. unless the ETA for the destination (or alternate) is at least 10
minutes before last light after allowing for any required holding.
“A helicopter placarded as Night VFR capable by the FAA cannot be flown by night in Australia”
Why and where’s that written?
I believe that so long as it complies with CAO 20.18 Appendix 8 and certified under the NVFR in the RFM is all that’s required.
Mack
AIP ENR States:
1.1 The Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
1.1.1 VFR flight may only be conducted:
a. in VMC;
b. provided that, when operating at or below 2,000FT above the
ground or water, the pilot is able to navigate by visual reference
to the ground or water;
c. at sub-sonic speeds; and
d. in accordance with the speed restrictions identified at ENR 1.1,
Section 76.
(John, this applies to both VFR by day and VFR by night)
1.1.2 Unless the pilot in command holds a Command Instrument Rating
or night VFR (NGT VFR) rating and the aircraft is appropriately
equipped for flight at night, a VFR flight must not depart from an
aerodrome:
a. before first light or after last light; and
b. unless the ETA for the destination (or alternate) is at least 10
minutes before last light after allowing for any required holding.
“A helicopter placarded as Night VFR capable by the FAA cannot be flown by night in Australia”
Why and where’s that written?
I believe that so long as it complies with CAO 20.18 Appendix 8 and certified under the NVFR in the RFM is all that’s required.
Mack
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CH
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mack,
Thanks for the "refresher". The point is that above 2000' there is no requirement to be able to navigate by visual reference as you clearly state.
As for VMC - well it may be VMC and if anything was to be seen that was lit you probably could.
A helicopter certified by the FAA as Day/Night VFR would have nothing additional in it. No gyro's no navaids. Night VFR in the U.S. in addition to Day VFR only requires:
(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section. (Day VFR)
(2) Approved position lights.
(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems initially installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type certificate was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter, as applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the color may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft may be continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made.
(4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.
(5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical and radio equipment.
(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight.
This is of course operation under Part 91 and is all you need and is definitely not in compliance with CAO 20.18 Appx 8.
Even your neighbours only require:
Night VFR instruments and equipment
(a) Each powered aircraft with an airworthiness certificate operated
under VFR by night shall be equipped in accordance with 91.509 and
haveÑ
(1) except as provided in paragraph (b), a means of indicating rate
of turn and slip; and
(2) position lights; and
(3) an anticollision light system; and
(4) illumination for each required instrument or indicator.
(b) An aircraft equipped with a third attitude instrument indicator that is
usable through 360¡ of pitch and roll does not need to be equipped with a
means of indicating rate of turn.
Where the difference is would be in the Flight Manual as part of certification. For instance in the Bell 206B.
Section 1
Operating limitations
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.
I would guess that there are plenty of times where this could not be achieved in parts of Australia.
This is a flight manual requirement under FAR Part 27.1525 Kinds of operations and shall be demonstrated.
To go further the 206B Supplement for the Night Flying Kit clearly states:
This helicopter has not been demonstrated to comply with the standards for instrument flight.
Being equipped to CAO 20.18 Appx 8 would not remove this requirement.
To quote the ATSB via your posted link the B407 which found a reef in the dark:
Night VFR operations
There were no aviation regulatory requirements for pilots to consider the amount of external visual reference that was likely to be available for a flight conducted at night under VFR, with the exception of considering forecast cloud below the lowest safe altitude. The pilot was not required by the regulations to consider the amount of celestial illumination, amount of terrain lighting, and/or the presence of a visual horizon. Aviation weather forecasts did not provide information on the amount of celestial illumination nor were they required to do so.
I would guess that statement would be incorrect inasmuch as the aircraft may not have been operated in accordance with the Flight Manual which is in the regulations.
My point has always been that the aircraft can be operated NVFR without meeting all the requirements of CAO 20.18. These requirements may be beneficial but if you are operating solely by reference to instruments or put another way, cannot operate without them then you are IFR in a non IFR aircraft.
Evidently the following applies as well:
for other than night VFR flights except that in the case of such flight which will
involve more than 30 minutes flight over water or over land areas where
aircraft altitude (attitude?) cannot be maintained by reference to ground lighting, an approved autostabilisation system or a two pilot crew shall be carried.
So now we are VFR with an autopilot or 2 pilots or put another way we must be IFR but only for a maximum of 30 minutes. So that means you can fly between adequately lit places not further than 30 minutes apart, technically IFR which you must be as it isn't really VFR or is it? If 2 pilots are mandated then one will need an ATPL at least and they both will have to have done a CRM course no doubt or will in the near future. Also nobody need have an instrument rating. Gets wierder by the minute.
But definitely not in a Bell 206 even if it has an autopilot or 2 pilots unless it is IFR equipped and certified, crewed, and operating IFR.
Sounds a bit half-arsed to me and is written to satisfy someones interest. The Aussie regulations are a minefield written by lawyers for lawyers who probably own the helicopter company anyway.
Had a classic one stated to me the other day. UKCAA ANO's first sentence:
Thou shall not fly, unless.....................
Kinda somes up the first priority doesn't it.
Thanks for the "refresher". The point is that above 2000' there is no requirement to be able to navigate by visual reference as you clearly state.
As for VMC - well it may be VMC and if anything was to be seen that was lit you probably could.
A helicopter certified by the FAA as Day/Night VFR would have nothing additional in it. No gyro's no navaids. Night VFR in the U.S. in addition to Day VFR only requires:
(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section. (Day VFR)
(2) Approved position lights.
(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems initially installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type certificate was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter, as applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the color may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft may be continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made.
(4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.
(5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical and radio equipment.
(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight.
This is of course operation under Part 91 and is all you need and is definitely not in compliance with CAO 20.18 Appx 8.
Even your neighbours only require:
Night VFR instruments and equipment
(a) Each powered aircraft with an airworthiness certificate operated
under VFR by night shall be equipped in accordance with 91.509 and
haveÑ
(1) except as provided in paragraph (b), a means of indicating rate
of turn and slip; and
(2) position lights; and
(3) an anticollision light system; and
(4) illumination for each required instrument or indicator.
(b) An aircraft equipped with a third attitude instrument indicator that is
usable through 360¡ of pitch and roll does not need to be equipped with a
means of indicating rate of turn.
Where the difference is would be in the Flight Manual as part of certification. For instance in the Bell 206B.
Section 1
Operating limitations
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.
I would guess that there are plenty of times where this could not be achieved in parts of Australia.
This is a flight manual requirement under FAR Part 27.1525 Kinds of operations and shall be demonstrated.
To go further the 206B Supplement for the Night Flying Kit clearly states:
This helicopter has not been demonstrated to comply with the standards for instrument flight.
Being equipped to CAO 20.18 Appx 8 would not remove this requirement.
To quote the ATSB via your posted link the B407 which found a reef in the dark:
Night VFR operations
There were no aviation regulatory requirements for pilots to consider the amount of external visual reference that was likely to be available for a flight conducted at night under VFR, with the exception of considering forecast cloud below the lowest safe altitude. The pilot was not required by the regulations to consider the amount of celestial illumination, amount of terrain lighting, and/or the presence of a visual horizon. Aviation weather forecasts did not provide information on the amount of celestial illumination nor were they required to do so.
I would guess that statement would be incorrect inasmuch as the aircraft may not have been operated in accordance with the Flight Manual which is in the regulations.
My point has always been that the aircraft can be operated NVFR without meeting all the requirements of CAO 20.18. These requirements may be beneficial but if you are operating solely by reference to instruments or put another way, cannot operate without them then you are IFR in a non IFR aircraft.
Evidently the following applies as well:
for other than night VFR flights except that in the case of such flight which will
involve more than 30 minutes flight over water or over land areas where
aircraft altitude (attitude?) cannot be maintained by reference to ground lighting, an approved autostabilisation system or a two pilot crew shall be carried.
So now we are VFR with an autopilot or 2 pilots or put another way we must be IFR but only for a maximum of 30 minutes. So that means you can fly between adequately lit places not further than 30 minutes apart, technically IFR which you must be as it isn't really VFR or is it? If 2 pilots are mandated then one will need an ATPL at least and they both will have to have done a CRM course no doubt or will in the near future. Also nobody need have an instrument rating. Gets wierder by the minute.
But definitely not in a Bell 206 even if it has an autopilot or 2 pilots unless it is IFR equipped and certified, crewed, and operating IFR.
Sounds a bit half-arsed to me and is written to satisfy someones interest. The Aussie regulations are a minefield written by lawyers for lawyers who probably own the helicopter company anyway.
Had a classic one stated to me the other day. UKCAA ANO's first sentence:
Thou shall not fly, unless.....................
Kinda somes up the first priority doesn't it.