Night over water

(Michael) wrote in
om:

But it could just as easily be forbidden. It's forbidden for
recreational pilots.

Could be, perhaps should be, but it isn't.

Most regulations
are designed to prevent harm to innocent passengers, and private
citizens are assumed to be responsible for themselves; if they want
to do something dangerous to themselves, it's permitted.

Then why is IMC flight in uncontrolled airspace not permitted for the
private pilot without an instrument rating? By your logic, the two
are equivalent.

Any logic in the FARs is purely coincidental and completely unintended.
Lots of things in the regulations are illogical.

I believe the difference is this - flying IMC, you will quite likely
need to execute an instrument approach, which is a skill set the
private pilot gets no training in. Flying night over water, you will
only need to maintain level flight on instruments, which is a skill
set the private (airplane) pilot is trained in. Once near the airport
(which is presumably lit) you can transition back to visual
references, and an instrument approach will not be required.

Maybe, but you have to get there safely, and it's an undeniable fact that
too many pilots don't get to the airport safely.

In some instances, it's not that difficult, because there are lights,
and perhaps bright moonlight. But that can change quickly.

In general, flying at night can put you in a situation where you must
transition to instruments quickly - and not just over water. Over
unlit terrain, you might as well be over water. If there is an
overcast and some scattered stuff below, you can fly into a cloud and
not know it until you are in it. Flying at night demands certain
limited instrument skills - basically the ability to hold heading or
rate of turn, and altitude or airspeed. Private pilots in airplanes
are taught those skills. Recreational pilots are not permitted to fly
at night. I have no idea what the FAA was thinking with regard to
helicopter night flight - the aircraft are far less stable, the
instrumentation is usually more limited, and the pilots are not
trained in its use anyway.

I agree that night flying anywhere is more demanding, and that is why most
countries don't allow night VFR. As for helicopters, it's no different
than for airplanes - the philosophy is to let people kill themselves if
they want. Many helicopters have more instrumentation, and more stability,
than most small airplanes. The problem is pilot judgement - as always.

--
Regards,

Stan

Stan Gosnell wrote
But it could just as easily be forbidden. It's forbidden for
recreational pilots.

Could be, perhaps should be, but it isn't.

But my point is that it's not an oversight - clearly the issue of
forbidding it at certain certificate levels came up, and was
considered. It's clearly not a matter of "nobody thought about it,
thus nobody thought to forbid it."

Any logic in the FARs is purely coincidental and completely unintended.
Lots of things in the regulations are illogical.

As little respect as I have for the FAA, I think that's a bit
overboard. There is some attempt made to acieve some sort of goals
with the regulations. There is a fair amount of logic there, though
it is often flawed.

Once near the airport
(which is presumably lit) you can transition back to visual
references, and an instrument approach will not be required.

Maybe, but you have to get there safely, and it's an undeniable fact that
too many pilots don't get to the airport safely.

Define too many. My understanding is that accidents like the Kennedy
fiasco are relatively rare, and an instrument rating seems to make
little difference. Most night accidents are the usual stuff - botched
takeoffs and landings. Meanwhile, night flight goes on. Most pilots
I know locally have done the Houston-New Orleans run at night, and
that might as well be over water. I think the people losing control
are a tiny minority - most pilots can handle it.

I agree that night flying anywhere is more demanding, and that is why most
countries don't allow night VFR.

I don't know about most countries. Canada and the UK allow it subject
to a night rating - which is, surprise - mostly focused on basic
attitude instrument flying. My understanding is that the situation is
substantially similar in Australia, Western Europe, and generally
every civilized country where GA exists in any significant amount.

As for helicopters, it's no different
than for airplanes - the philosophy is to let people kill themselves if
they want. Many helicopters have more instrumentation, and more stability,
than most small airplanes.

Really? Many helicopters? How many of those are rentals or
privately-owned pilot-flown pleasure craft? Based on everything I've
ever heard from those who fly both fixed wing and helicopters, most
trainer helicopters are a lot less stable and a lot harder to control
on instruments than most trainer airplanes. Are you suggesting this
isn't true?

The problem is pilot judgement - as always.

Well, can't argue with that...

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

Define too many. My understanding is that accidents like the Kennedy
fiasco are relatively rare, and an instrument rating seems to make
little difference. Most night accidents are the usual stuff - botched
takeoffs and landings. Meanwhile, night flight goes on. Most pilots
I know locally have done the Houston-New Orleans run at night, and
that might as well be over water. I think the people losing control
are a tiny minority - most pilots can handle it.

April 5, 2000

The Black Hole Approach: Don't Get Sucked In!

Whether you fly a piston single or a heavy jet, a long straight-in approach
at night over featureless terrain is a well-proven prescription controlled
flight into terrain. AVweb's Linda Pendleton examines the optical illusions
involved, and offers suggestions for making sure that you don't become a
thing that goes bump in the night.

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/182402-1.html

(Michael) wrote in
om:

Really? Many helicopters? How many of those are rentals or
privately-owned pilot-flown pleasure craft? Based on everything I've
ever heard from those who fly both fixed wing and helicopters, most
trainer helicopters are a lot less stable and a lot harder to control
on instruments than most trainer airplanes. Are you suggesting this
isn't true?

Trainers are not most helicopters. Any good trainer will be unstable, in
order to teach the pilots control skills. If you train in a very stable,
forgiving aircraft, then get into one that is twitchy, you may be in
trouble, no matter the type. Trainer = cheap, in most cases, and
helicopters used in commercial operations are usually more sophisticated,
as are their fixed-wing counterparts. Almost all transport-category
helicopters have stability augmentation and/or autopilots of some sort.

There are more helicopter accidents in poor weather because they can fly in
worse weather. To fly a helicopter in class G airspace (almost
anywhere below 700' AGL) under Part 91, all you need is clear of clouds.
Some pilots get in a bind doing that. It's not a helicopter problem, it's
a pilot problem.

This thread has staggered on long enough, and the horse is dead. You have
no problems flying over unlighted terrain at night, so go ahead. All I was
saying is that some pilots aren't prepared for it, and if they aren't
prepared, they will have major problems. Best of luck to you.

--
Regards,

Stan