|
SE CAT flights at Night quiz
I was reading about this historic CFIT accident:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_...ie_Ray_Vaughan I wondered are single engine commercial flights with passengers at night such as that above still allowed now in the USA? they were banned in the UK from around 1985 I think, I met the pilot who claimed he did the last ever charter on the last day allowed just before midnight, but he didn't tell me what year it was. |
Yes, still allowed.
|
What does a CFIT accident have to do with SE flight?
|
Maybe having a second engine allows you to see through the fog?
|
What does a CFIT accident have to do with SE flight? Maybe having a second engine allows you to see through the fog? seems to me that whether the aircraft stabilised is stabilised or not is more relevant than the number of engines |
I'm with Mike on this one, how does the aircraft being twin engine make is less likely to experience CFIT? Furthermore how does a SE helicopter know that it is flying at night, therefore more likely to suffer an engine failure?
When I fly at night (non CAT) my only pre-requisite is an aircraft with a good panel fit, there are certain aircraft only a true nutter would fly at night (thinking R22), but as for the SE or ME argument, is see no more risk from day CAT to night CAT for SE ops |
You folks in the UK and Europe can never claim to be "under regulated" can you?
You also operate one very expensive Aviation Infrastructure....with a Fee for everything you do, buy, and use. At least in the USA we see Aviation as being something that benefits the entire population and support it with Tax monies from non-aviation sources as well as those uniquely applying to aviation unlike you folks. Our system is far more user friendly to boot. It is not perfect and in time as our amount of bureaucracy begins to catch up with yours in its ability to stifle operations.....we will be burdened as well. |
Originally Posted by JackJones
(Post 10258795)
I'm with Mike on this one, how does the aircraft being twin engine make is less likely to experience CFIT? Furthermore how does a SE helicopter know that it is flying at night, therefore more likely to suffer an engine failure?
When I fly at night (non CAT) my only pre-requisite is an aircraft with a good panel fit, there are certain aircraft only a true nutter would fly at night (thinking R22), but as for the SE or ME argument, is see no more risk from day CAT to night CAT for SE ops So how does flying at night make it more likely to suffer an engine failure? |
Originally Posted by Robbiee
(Post 10259006)
Well then call me pistachio because I flew an R22 up to the city a few nights ago on a sight seeing flight.
So how does flying at night make it more likely to suffer an engine failure? |
All of my night training for PPL-H was in an R22. I noticed no particular challenges maintaining stability at night. You either have a sufficient horizon or you don't. If you don't then you are not VFR := If you start getting into questions about how much of a horizon you have, or needing "a good panel fit", then perhaps it is time to file IFR ;) YMMV, personal minimums and all that sort of thing...
|
Possibly true regarding horizons VFR IFR etc, however I've personally flown (legally) VFR day with no discernible horizon at all - should that too have been IFR? I completed my night rating here in the U.K. at Gloucester in an R22, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I found it difficult. Had it been a larger or more stable machine would I have found it easier? Yeah maybe. Our point about the 22 is pointless to this thread anyway, as the R22 is not a CAT machine |
Just as any helicopter, the 22 is as stable as the pilot's abilities make it. The first time I flew a Sikorsky S55 I was rocking a bit while hovering, that wasn't the machines fault, then in time I hovered it perfectly fine.
So what's a CAT helicopter anyway? |
seems to me that whether the aircraft stabilised is stabilised or not is more relevant than the number of engines |
Originally Posted by JackJones
(Post 10259078)
Possibly true regarding horizons VFR IFR etc, however I've personally flown (legally) VFR day with no discernible horizon at all - should that too have been IFR? No, not if WX was within VFR limits and you had sufficient visual references to fly without reference to instruments. However those same conditions would likely be effectively IFR at night, regardless of the legalities. No need to split hairs. You can either see good enough to safely fly without instruments or you can't, depending on your personal minimums and capabilities. It can be severe clear but over rugged terrain with no lights on the ground or moon in the sky that might not be enough. But I'm sure I'm writing the obvious. Our point about the 22 is pointless to this thread anyway, as the R22 is not a CAT machine |
Originally Posted by Robbiee
(Post 10259006)
Well then call me pistachio because I flew an R22 up to the city a few nights ago on a sight seeing flight.
So how does flying at night make it more likely to suffer an engine failure? |
But landing from autorotation in the dark is pretty difficult! Really? If the engine fails in a single engine aircraft....day or night....you are guaranteed a landing. The difficulty at night particularly is making a safe landing. |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 10259863)
If the engine fails in a single engine aircraft....day or night....you are guaranteed a landing.
The difficulty at night particularly is making a safe landing. |
Originally Posted by krypton_john
(Post 10259496)
It doesn't. But landing from autorotation in the dark is pretty difficult!
|
Hmmm… have half of us here switched of their brains or just acting stupid? Luckily a few made some sense in the end.
In a SE when your engine fails... you go down... during the night it's pretty damn hard to see WHERE until its too late....(unless you are flying NVGs or over a big City where there are less options to safely land...). In a Twin, you say "oops one of my engines failed, let's lower the collective a little and head to the nearest airfield where a SAFE landing can be made." Not a somewhat controlled crash (yes… you can be stabilised….still going down!) into the unknown…. Of course it is a seperate discussion about the chance of an engine failing…. cause indeed the SE`s nowadays are pretty reliable. But then we can challenge a lot of operations… we could even argue to build a big airliner with 1 engine… might be more efficient, but I wouldn´t get on one. |
Cut the crap lads. SFIM hit the nail on the head...it's all about stabilised or unstabilised platforms.
The guy took off in a Jet Box (probably unstabilised). He took off in fog FFS! He turned left abruptly....Smacks of a UP to me. The end. The brits did away with the last of our SE helos many years ago which was a Jet box with AP. The brits (CAA) did away with SE helos for CAT @ night for a number of reasons, not only stab/unstab or SE Vs ME. They looked at the stats over the years and came to the conclusion that fee paying pax deserved more of a safety margin than an unstabilised SE helo at night. Argue all you like about Robbo's Vs Twinstar's. Stab Vs unstab, VFR Vs IFR, night Vs day. The ONLY place for an unstabilsed SE helo in this (safety conscious) day and age is day VFR, COCISS. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:18. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.