Night over water

The instrument training provided during primary training
is designed to give pilots a way out should they
inadvertently fly into a cloud - not to support a longer flight.

Nothing in the PTS supports this view. Instrument maneuvers are not
classed with emergencies, and they include tracking VOR radials which
certainly implies longer flights than are necessary to exit a cloud
that was entered inadvertenetly.

Note, though, that the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3, page 4-1)
does link basic instrument training with emergencies:

"When introducing basic flight maneuvers to a beginning pilot, it is
recommended that the integrated flight instruction method be used. When this
type of instruction is used, training in the control of an airplane by outside
visual references is integrated with instruction in the use of flight
instruments. When beginning pilots use this technique, they achieve a more
precise and competent overall piloting ability.

The use of this type of training does not, and is not intended to, prepare
pilots for flight in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). It does,
however, provide basic instrument skills to be used in an emergency. This
type of instruction also provides an excellent foundation for advanced
training for those seeking to obtain an instrument rating."

Walking is an extremely complex operation. [...] decades ago
computers were programmed to
stimulate their nerves and get the legs to move sufficiently to ride a
tricycle. Walking, however, is still out of the question despite
decades of improvement in computers.

Flying an airplane straight and level on instruments? I believe the
first autopilots were built in the 1930's. That gives you some feel
for the relative complexity of the tasks.


Standing (and walking) involves an inherently unstable situation. Flying a
(well designed) airplane involves an inherently stable situation. Compare
walking to flying a helicopter on instruments. That gets you closer.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

In article . net,
"Travis Marlatte" wrote:

If you are solidly flying on instruments, you should be able to maintain
control even during a spell of disorientation. If you try to tranisition to
the instruements after becoming disoriented, it is more likely to be too
late (not absolutely too late. Just more likely).


Transitions, especially unexpected ones, are undoubtedly tricky, but if
they're handled properly by a qualified and proficient pilot, they
aren't deadly. They are a necessary part of IFR flying, and they're
done safely every day by qualified and proficient pilots.

In the case of JFRJr, if he was properly qualified and proficient, he
would have been able to recognize the need to transition and
transitioned appropriately. Apparently, that didn't happen.



JKG

"Barry" wrote
The use of this type of training does not, and is not intended to, prepare
pilots for flight in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC).

Of course not. That would be illegal .

What does the book say about night overwater flight?

Michael

Jonathan Goodish wrote in
:

Transitions, especially unexpected ones, are undoubtedly tricky, but
if they're handled properly by a qualified and proficient pilot, they
aren't deadly. They are a necessary part of IFR flying, and they're
done safely every day by qualified and proficient pilots.

That is precisely the subject of the thread. If you plan to fly at night
over water, you had better be qualified and proficient at flying
instruments.

--
Regards,

Stan

(Michael) wrote in
om:

What does the book say about night overwater flight?

Which book? Buck's?

CFR Title 14 says far too little, IMO.

--
Regards,

Stan

Peter wrote in
:

I agree, but why can a PPL do this, then?

I am writing from the UK but I suspect it is the same in the USA.

In the US, by constitutional authority, everything is permitted unless
specifically prohibited by law, not the other way around. The FARs do not
prohibit flying at night over water, so it's allowed. 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.

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

--
Regards,

Stan

Stan Gosnell wrote
What does the book say about night overwater flight?

Which book? Buck's?

Um, no - the book the previous poster referred to: FAA's Airplane
Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3).

CFR Title 14 says far too little, IMO.

And with regard to helicopters, you may even be right. Certainly the
accident with the Robinson seems to indicate this.

Michael

Stan Gosnell wrote
Peter wrote in
I agree, but why can a PPL do this, then?
I am writing from the UK but I suspect it is the same in the USA.

In the US, by constitutional authority, everything is permitted unless
specifically prohibited by law, not the other way around. The FARs do not
prohibit flying at night over water, so it's allowed.

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

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.

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.

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.

Michael

What does the book say about night overwater flight?

Which book? Buck's?


Um, no - the book the previous poster referred to: FAA's Airplane
Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3).

Indulge me a brief meta-comment: One person's "previous poster" is not
everyone's "previous poster". Newsgroups don't guarantee in-order delivery to
everyone. That's why it really helps to include a little context when you're
replying or commenting on a "previous" post. Not sure whether the context was
there or not in this particular instance - just an observation about a pet peeve.

Carry on.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dave