If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:10:31 GMT, "Brad Z"
wrote: Are you suggesting that flying over the water at night is not VFR? By your logic, all night flying is not VFR, since CAR 602.114(a) states that the aircraft must be operated with visual reference to the surface, which is difficult over land as well when its dark. Is this why Canada has a night rating? There are large areas of Canada and the upper peninsula of Michigan where the ground is absolutely invisible at night and it is strictly "on the gauges". I'm sure there are many other sparsely populated areas around the US where it just isn't possible to fly at night and maintain visual reference to the ground/surface/something. For example, I took off from Newberry after dark. I looked up after the runway lights disappeared under the wing and could see...absolutely nothing. I thought I had flown into a cloud. I immediately went on the gauges and called. Uhhhh...Minneapolis Center, I'd like to activate my IFR flight plan. It was cleared as filed, direct from Newberry to Midland @ 7000. I love that "Cleared as filed. Climb to and maintain 7000, proceed on course". It was only after passing though 5000 I realized I could see scattered lights on the ground. Looking back over my shoulder I could see the lights of Newberry in the distance. By the time I reached 7000 I could see a number of cities in the distance. It was actually a beautiful clear evening with unlimited visibility for most of the trip. Some where between Grayling and Houghton Lake a full moon peaked over the Eastern horizon. What a beautiful site. No moon, and no lights in my frame of reference. It was strictly on the gauges from take off until I reached 5000. After that it was like any other night flight, except periodically I'd receive a call from Minneapolis Center. I don't remember hearing another plane on frequency for the whole trip. I landed at Midland (3BS) right at 11:00 PM. The point though is, had I not been instrument rated, or at least proficient on the gauges, I would have been in deep doggie do with no visual reference when in reality, ceiling and visibility were unlimited. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com "Randy at Home" wrote in message .cable.rogers.com... And the Canadian (CARS) perspective: 602.114 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight within controlled airspace unless (a) the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface; In the US we just need a visual reference. (b) flight visibility is not less than three miles; (c) the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet vertically and one mile horizontally; and (d) where the aircraft is operated within a control zone, (i) when reported, ground visibility is not less than three miles, and (ii) except when taking off or landing, the distance of the aircraft from the surface is not less than 500 feet. 602.114 (a) in the CARS implies that visual reference to the surface is required for VFR pilots. Flying over the ocean (or low altitude over the Great Lakes for that matter), at night, is very likely to put that requirement in serious doubt. IMHO, a controller wouldn't deliberately give a VFR pilot a vector that the pilot would have to refuse on the basis of flying into IMC, according the definition in the regs. A pilot on an IFR flight plan isn't subject to that. I don't think it's a hazard issue for VFR pilots as much as a regulation issue. "Stuart King" wrote in message m... | Yes, I am qualified. I am, however, going to maintain a healthy respect for | all things that have killed others. A VFR pilot is also allowed to fly over | the water at night in the US, as long as he maintains vis/cloud separation. | | I guess what I was wondering is if controllers are aware of the night VFR | over water hazard and if so, do they make special allowances for this. | | SK | CP IA -EI EI O | | | As an IFR pilot, you're qualified to fly without visual references to the | horizon (e.g., over the ocean, facing away from land, at night). A VFR | pilot | isn't (e.g., JFK Jr.). Sounds like common sense to me. | | |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I think he was, but it did prompt me to ponder the question.
SK "pr" wrote in message ... Stuart King ) wrote: I was wondering if controllers intentionally steer VFR flights away from this, and steer them toward land earlier? Or perhaps the controller was simply separating your aircraft from the VFR aircraft? -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Au contraire, it *IS* VMC, in terms of the ability of the pilot to maintain
visibility and cloud clearance minimums. Does it require flight solely by reference to instruments... probably so. My point was that Randy made a suggestion that the inability to see the ground prevented a flight from being conducted under VFR in Canada. If that were true, night VFR would not be allowed any time there was a moonless night over unpopulated terrain. I agree that flight over water at night (especially with overcast or no moon) is basically flight by reference to instruments. However, you are still able to see and avoid, and therefore an IFR flight plan is not required. IMC and flight by reference to instruements get confused a bit around here. Basically: VMC = Visual Meteorological Conditions moonless night or unpopulated terrain are not meteorological conditions... ....clouds, haze and snow are. You can fly VFR when flight by reference to instruments is required. You can IFR in conditions below VFR minimums without reference to instruments, such as when descending through a scattered cumulus layer. I log actual only when I'm in IMC *and* flying by reference to instruments. "Stan Gosnell" me@work wrote in message I do this for a living, and I'm here to tell you that flying over water at night is mostly *NOT* VMC. If you're not capable of, and completely prepared for, flying on instruments, you had best not be there. People die that way. Not that long ago, a very experienced helicopter pilot died trying to fly VFR in a Robinson offshore at night. On a dark night with no surface lights, it's just like being inside cloud - there is absolutely no horizon for reference. We only fly in IFR-capable aircraft with an IFR-current crew. I wouldn't do it alone. -- Regards, Sta |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Stan Gosnell me@work wrote
Are you suggesting that flying over the water at night is not VFR? I do this for a living, and I'm here to tell you that flying over water at night is mostly *NOT* VMC. That's simply not true. VMC exists when there is sufficient visibility and clearance from clouds to make visual (see-and-avoid) separation between aircraft practical. It does not imply that either navigation or control of the aircraft by visual references is practical or even possible. If you're not capable of, and completely prepared for, flying on instruments, you had best not be there. That's another matter entirely, and I absolutely agree. People die that way. People die doing a lot of things that are absolutely legal, and that other people with the same paper qualifications do routinely with little risk. Not that long ago, a very experienced helicopter pilot died trying to fly VFR in a Robinson offshore at night. On a dark night with no surface lights, it's just like being inside cloud - there is absolutely no horizon for reference. This is an area where the FAA is a bit schizophrenic. On the one hand, flight in IMC in uncontrolled airspace requires an instrument rating and IFR aircraft, even though no flight plan or communication with ATC is required, and thus there is no question of protecting other users of the system. On the other hand, flight in controlled airspace in conditions that make navigation and/or aircraft control by visual references impossible is legal for a pilot without instrument training in an aircraft that can't be flown IFR. It's inconsistent, but that's the way the rules are, and that causes a great deal of confusion. However, the FAA does make some provision to prepare the private (non-instrument) pilot to exercise the privileges of his certificate and fly in conditions that require a level of instrument proficiency. Even a private pilot in airplanes does receive a minimum of 3 hours of instrument training. Many people refer to it as emergency instrument training, but this is incorrect. The PTS calls it testing on basic instrument maneuvers - not sufficient to shoot approaches, hold, or operate under IFR in the system, but entirely adequate for flying on instrument at night over water. I suspect the situation is far worse with helicopters, since they are less stable on instruments than airplanes and helicopter pilots are not required to have ANY instrument training or to demonstrate ANY instrument proficiency at all. What happened to the Robinson pilot is tragic, but with the right training and equipment (and I certainly do not mean a full-blown instrument rating) entirely avoidable. We only fly in IFR-capable aircraft with an IFR-current crew. I wouldn't do it alone. Aren't most helicopters not sufficiently stable for single pilot IFR flight without an autopilot? This aside, I flew at least 30 hours at night in conditions that made aircraft control by visual references impossible before I ever got an instrument rating. Most of that time was over swamps rather than water, but the idea is the same. I did inadvertently penetrate clouds that weren't supposed to be there (not forecast) a couple of times, but the vast majority of that time I was legally VFR. My airplane was not IFR certified, but in fact it did have radio nav and a full gyro panel. I would not even have tried it in a no-gyro or no-radio airplane. I know plenty of other pilots who do the same. I think you're really overstating your case. There is a huge difference in the skill level required to fly on a clear night without visual references in cruise, but land at a well lit field in good VMC, and what is required to fly the same trip in weather, and terminate the flight with an approach to minimums. The former is a skill set that (at least in a simple airplane) can be taught in a few hours; the latter will require an order of magnitude more training. Michael |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Stuart King" wrote in message m... Yes, I am qualified. I am, however, going to maintain a healthy respect for all things that have killed others. A VFR pilot is also allowed to fly over the water at night in the US, as long as he maintains vis/cloud separation. I guess what I was wondering is if controllers are aware of the night VFR over water hazard and if so, do they make special allowances for this. You are responsible for only going when it is safe to do so. The controller is concerned with traffic flows. However, if you ask the controller may be able to give you an early turn. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Stan Gosnell me@work wrote
The Robinson pilot was over 70 years old, had been flying for most of his life, and had an instrument ticket. So why did he not simply transition to instruments and fly that way? Was the Robinson not instrument equipped? Too unstable? Forgive my ignorance, but my rotary wing time is measured in minutes. But it's just not possible to fly visually for long periods under those conditions. Nobody said it was. Flying by instrument reference and flying IFR are not at all the same thing. IFR refers to separation, not aircraft control. This aside, I flew at least 30 hours at night in conditions that made aircraft control by visual references impossible before I ever got an instrument rating. You were incredibly lucky. No, I simply had the necessary instrument skills. I did not fly those 30 hours visually. I flew on instruments, looking out the window only enough to spot other airplanes. Every private pilot in airplanes learns to do what I did and demonstrates the skills on the checkride. I don't think so. The skill set is almost identical. I do it night after night, and while there is the occasional bright night with a full moon, remove the moon, put clouds over the sky, remove the lights on the ground, and there is no difference at all between being in or out of cloud. But there is a huge difference between the skill set required to fly straight and level at altitude on insturments, and to fly an instrument approach to mins. Of course this may not be the case when trying to land a helicopter on an offshore platform - I have no idea - but landing at a reasonably lit land airport at night in good vis is absolutely trivial. The FAR requires visual reference to lights on the ground, sufficient to control the aircraft, to fly VFR. What FAR is that? Perhaps something in Part 135? Part 91 only requires that you have 3 miles flight visibility and the prescribed cloud clearances (1000 abv/500 blo/2000 horiz) to fly VFR (below 10,000 ft). It is perfectly legal to fly VFR in conditions where aircraft control without reference to instruments is impossible, and private pilots receive the training necessary to do it. Recreational pilots do not, and can't legally fly in those conditions. There are many places where you can't control the aircraft by reference to surface lights, and if you're a VFR pilot under those conditions, you're going to die sooner or later. When it comes to helicopters, you're probably right. But VFR airplane pilots are taught the instrument skills necessary to operate in those conditions. Michael |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Jake Brodsky wrote
Years ago, before I had my IFR rating.......... I write...I fly under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) taking advantage of my Instrument Rating (IR). Bob Moore |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Removing water repelent from fiberglass lay-up? | Roger | Home Built | 2 | December 2nd 04 11:15 PM |
Supercooled Water - More on Icing | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 50 | December 11th 03 01:20 PM |
Night Currency | Doug Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 21 | October 17th 03 10:53 PM |
water bombers | Stew Hicks | Home Built | 2 | September 8th 03 11:55 PM |
water bombers | Stew Hicks | Home Built | 0 | September 7th 03 04:27 PM |