I left MYR (Myrtle Beach, SC) last night about 8PM, departing on rwy 18. A
VFR aircraft departed just before me, and he got departure instructions of
turn north on course as soon as able (over the land). I was continued 180
after takeoff on an IFR flight plan. I was about 1/2mile out over the water
before I got turned back inland and oncourse. I never seem to be able to
shake that feeling of 'wow' when I fly out over the ocean at night. Its so
very dark.

I was wondering if controllers intentionally steer VFR flights away from
this, and steer them toward land earlier?

My wife says she feels like she is going to fall off the earth out there.

Stuart

"Stuart King" > wrote in message
...
| I left MYR (Myrtle Beach, SC) last night about 8PM, departing on rwy 18.
A
| VFR aircraft departed just before me, and he got departure instructions
of
| turn north on course as soon as able (over the land). I was continued 180
| after takeoff on an IFR flight plan. I was about 1/2mile out over the
water
| before I got turned back inland and oncourse. I never seem to be able to
| shake that feeling of 'wow' when I fly out over the ocean at night. Its
so
| very dark.
|
| I was wondering if controllers intentionally steer VFR flights away from
| this, and steer them toward land earlier?
|
| My wife says she feels like she is going to fall off the earth out there.

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.

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.
>
>

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;
(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.
| >
| >

"Stuart King" > wrote in message >...
> 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.

I hope not. I don't want controllers screwing around with my vectors
because some guys aren't comfortable on the gauges.

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?

"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;
> (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.
> | >
> | >
>
>

"Brad Z" > wrote in
news:aDEVb.208748$nt4.986888@attbi_s51:

> 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. 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,

Stan

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 =---

Stan Gosnell <me@work> wrote in message >...
> "Brad Z" > wrote in
> news:aDEVb.208748$nt4.986888@attbi_s51:
>
> > 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. 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.

In the U.S. we can even log this as "actual instrument" time (even if
you only hold a non-instrument ticket) even though the weather is
CAVU. If the only way to keep upright is to use the gauges you'd
better be pretty comfortable with IMC.

I believe that's all he legally needs to do from the ATC Handbook (7-1-2-b):

"When, in your judgment, there is reason to believe that flight in VFR
conditions may become impractical, issue an alternative clearance which will
ensure separation from all other aircraft for which you have separation
responsibility."

If ATC vectors you and you lose your required visual cues for VFR flight,
then it's up to you to say "unable." Remember, being a pilot is not a
requirement for controllers. However, a good controller would know not to
vectore you over water if you're VFR.

Marco

"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
=---




----== 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 =---

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.
>> | >
>> | >
>>
>>
>

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
=---

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

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

"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.

(Michael) wrote in
om:


> 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.

The Robinson pilot was over 70 years old, had been flying for
most of his life, and had an instrument ticket. He was the
company owner, and he couldn't get anyone else to make the
flight. But it's just not possible to fly visually for long
periods under those conditions. I've had my copilot try to fly
me into the water, in an S76 on an IFR plan, after we broke out
and were maneuvering to land offshore, because he was trying to
fly visually and there was absolutely nothing to see. From
level flight at 500', to an 800'/min descent and < 200' took
perhaps 5 seconds. Helicopter or fixed-wing, trying to fly
under these conditions visually will kill you very quickly.

>> 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?

Correct. But we're talking about VFR here. We don't even try
it at night with anything less than a full IFR crew and
aircraft, even though our day weather minimums are 300/1 day
over land, and 300/2 over water. Our night VFR mins are 700/3,
but I don't even try it VFR anywhere close to that.

> 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.

You were incredibly lucky. Don't buy any lottery tickets,
you've used up what luck you had.

> 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.

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. The FAR requires
visual reference to lights on the ground, sufficient to control
the aircraft, to fly VFR. If you can't fly under VFR, then it's
VMC. 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.

--
Regards,

Stan

On 10 Feb 2004 16:17:54 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

>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.

Here's are better examples, and perhaps they're more to the point:

Years ago, before I had my IFR rating, I was returning over a route I
had flown earlier that day. I knew there was a forest fire about 20
miles to the west of my north-south route. Visibility was reported as
10 miles at various airports in the vicinity of the forest fire along
that route, ceilings all reported at about 8000 to 10,000, and this
number appeared to be realistic, based upon my earlier flight that
day.

So I took off and headed northward. I climbed to 5500. Once I'd
leveled off in cruise, I noticed that the airplane kept turning slowly
to the left. I'd reset my heading based upon the HI (and I double
checked it every time against my magnetic compass) and then continue
for another few miles, again notice I was off course and keep doing
this. There were city lights ahead of me on the horizon so I thought
I had a pretty good view.

But after about the third correction in five minutes, I realized
something wasn't right. It was the damned smoke cloud. A combination
of the pattern of city lights and the smoke was creating an illusion
as it ascended across my route. The horizon I thought I saw turned
out to appear as if it was one or two degrees to the left.

I set the autopilot to wing-level mode to check this suspicion, and
sure enough, the need for constant 20 and 30 degree corrections
stopped. Later, after the fire was well to the south of me,
everything "leveled out" and I was able to fly with reference to the
visual horizon.

That's an example of legal VFR flight creating a potential problem.

Another such VFR case was related to me by a pilot who did several
tours of duty in Vietnam flying F-4 Phantoms. He was patrolling on a
dark, moonless night, over very calm water in crystal clear CAVU
conditions. The stars were out. The water reflected everything
perfectly. Too perfectly. They were flying inside a bowl of stars
and it was nearly impossible to tell which way was up. You looked
down and saw stars, you looked up and saw stars. The horizon was
nearly indistinguishable.

He had to do a mid-air refueling that night and damned near didn't
make it because he couldn't see the horizon well enough to maintain
level flight. Again, this was nearly perfect VFR conditions, but not
for those who don't have instrument proficiency.

IIRC, Visual Flight Rules are mostly for keeping aircraft separated.
That's pretty much it. As long as you have the ability to see and
avoid other aircraft who may be headed in your general direction,
you're flying on VFR rules. That doesn't imply that you're not
watching your instruments carefully, or even that flying in these
visual conditions is a good idea. Those issues are rightfully left to
the pilot's discretion.


Jake Brodsky,
PP ASEL IA, Cessna Cardinal N30946, Based @ FME
Amateur Radio Station AB3A

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

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

(Michael) wrote in
om:

> 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.

Inadequate instruments, primarily. It's a VFR machine.

> When it comes to helicopters, you're probably right. But VFR airplane
> pilots are taught the instrument skills necessary to operate in those
> conditions.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. VFR airplane pilots continue to die
under these conditions, the most notable lately being JFK Jr.

--
Regards,

Stan

Stan Gosnell > wrote
> > When it comes to helicopters, you're probably right. But VFR airplane
> > pilots are taught the instrument skills necessary to operate in those
> > conditions.
>
> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. VFR airplane pilots continue to die
> under these conditions, the most notable lately being JFK Jr.

Actually, JFK Jr. was well on his way to an instrument rating, and
lost control in straight and level flight - which is pretty much the
first thing you learn. He also had an autopilot he could have
engaged. What's more, a disturbingly large fraction of thpse who die
in such conditions (as well as in inadvertent VFR-into-IMC accidents)
are instrument rated.

Personally, I think the difference between the pilots who die when
they encounter these conditions and the ones that shrug them off as no
big deal is not training (at least not for airplane pilots) but
something else entirely. Some people panic, and some don't. The
actual skill required to keep the shiny side up is pretty minimal.

Michael

On 12 Feb 2004 16:40:55 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

>Stan Gosnell > wrote
>> > When it comes to helicopters, you're probably right. But VFR airplane
>> > pilots are taught the instrument skills necessary to operate in those
>> > conditions.
>>
>> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. VFR airplane pilots continue to die
>> under these conditions, the most notable lately being JFK Jr.
>
>Actually, JFK Jr. was well on his way to an instrument rating, and
>lost control in straight and level flight - which is pretty much the

I would agree only in that he had a lot of hours which does not
necessarily mean he was well on his way.

Also the reported flight path would be pretty much typical of some one
turning the autopilot off and discovering they needed to watch the
instruments, but kept looking for the surface. That is one of the
most difficult things to do when starting out. Stay on the
instruments and occasionally look out, don't keep looking for the
surface or you will end up in a spiral.

>first thing you learn. He also had an autopilot he could have
>engaged. What's more, a disturbingly large fraction of thpse who die
>in such conditions (as well as in inadvertent VFR-into-IMC accidents)
>are instrument rated.

Being rated does not mean the pilot is proficient, or even current.

>
>Personally, I think the difference between the pilots who die when
>they encounter these conditions and the ones that shrug them off as no
>big deal is not training (at least not for airplane pilots) but

"To me" it is not staying proficient. The 3 hours of hood time
required for the PPL is woefully inadequate to save the pilot's butt,
particularly if those 3 hours were 10 years ago.

I'm rated, but if I don't fly under the hood or in actual for a couple
of months I'd be very uncomfortable just climbing into the clouds.

>something else entirely. Some people panic, and some don't. The
>actual skill required to keep the shiny side up is pretty minimal.

Here we disagree, but it may be semantics. Even without panic, a
pilot who is not proficient is going to have a devil of a time keeping
the shiny side up. It does vary from pilot to pilot and I do agree
that an hour every couple of weeks is all it takes to stay upright,
but 6 hours every six months may not if they are all done at the same
time. The pilot may be safe after the 6 hours, but it's highly
unlikely he or she would be the previous couple of months.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Michael

Roger Halstead > wrote
> I would agree only in that he had a lot of hours which does not
> necessarily mean he was well on his way.

Well, an examination of his logbooks showed him making progress.

> Also the reported flight path would be pretty much typical of some one
> turning the autopilot off and discovering they needed to watch the
> instruments, but kept looking for the surface.

Maybe. If you try to fly visually instead of using the instruments,
no amount of instrument training will help you.

But that still doesn't exaplain why he didn't use the autopilot until
he was close to the airport and had lots of lights and a solid horizon
reference.

> Being rated does not mean the pilot is proficient, or even current.

True, but you would think that being rated would mean enough
proficiency to reasonably hold heading and altitude (say +/- 30 deg
and 500 ft). Plenty of instrument rated pilots encounter IMC and fail
to do that.

>
> "To me" it is not staying proficient. The 3 hours of hood time
> required for the PPL is woefully inadequate to save the pilot's butt,

I had much less than 3 (my logbook shows 1.1) and it was plenty
adequate to save my butt, even when I had to fly an emergency ASR.

> >something else entirely. Some people panic, and some don't. The
> >actual skill required to keep the shiny side up is pretty minimal.
>
> Here we disagree, but it may be semantics. Even without panic, a
> pilot who is not proficient is going to have a devil of a time keeping
> the shiny side up.

I don't think it's semantics. I think that just keeping the shiny
side up is really pretty trivial, and something that requires very,
very little training in the average trainer. Now I will admit that
for a higher performance airplane that's not the case, and I suspect
that it goes double for rotorcraft.

I also think some pilots are just very reluctant to let go of visual
references and trust the gauges. When they lose visual references,
they panic. It takes some serious habituation to get them to fly on
the gauges, and for them that ability is very perishable.

I suspect early training is a big factor. There are still instructors
out there who insist that the integrated method of instruction (where
visual and instrument references are blended for aircraft control from
day one) is garbage, and that primary students should be taught to fly
by the seat of the pants - meaning by purely visual and somatic
references. These are the kinds of guys who will cover the panel with
a handkerchief if they catch the student looking at instruments. I
suspect that people trained that way will inevitably go to outside
references under stress, and will be forever at risk for loss of
control if they unexpectedly encounter conditions where visual control
is impossible, unless they practice instrument flight a lot and often.
On the other hand, I suspect those trained by the integrated method
are a lot more comfortable with using the instruments, and will not
revert to purely visual flight under stress.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Stan Gosnell > wrote
> > > When it comes to helicopters, you're probably right. But VFR airplane
> > > pilots are taught the instrument skills necessary to operate in those
> > > conditions.
> >
> > Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. VFR airplane pilots continue to
die
> > under these conditions, the most notable lately being JFK Jr.
>
> Actually, JFK Jr. was well on his way to an instrument rating, and
> lost control in straight and level flight - which is pretty much the
> first thing you learn. He also had an autopilot he could have
> engaged. What's more, a disturbingly large fraction of thpse who die
> in such conditions (as well as in inadvertent VFR-into-IMC accidents)
> are instrument rated.
>
> Personally, I think the difference between the pilots who die when
> they encounter these conditions and the ones that shrug them off as no
> big deal is not training (at least not for airplane pilots) but
> something else entirely. Some people panic, and some don't. The
> actual skill required to keep the shiny side up is pretty minimal.
>
> Michael


I'm not sure which comes first. Disorientation or panic. Either one will
cause the other. You seem to have an easy time keeping your perspective
without visual references. Many people are not that fortunate and have to
consciously fight the urge to fly by the seat of their pants when their
physical sensors gets confused. Given the accident statistics for VFR flight
into IMC, that seems to be true of instrument trained pilots and not.

JFK and many others have become victims because they were not able to
recognize the problem until it was too late. Once the problem develops,
panic probably prevented them from taking simple steps that would have saved
the day.

By tracking VORs, watching min altitudes and contour lines on sectionals,
VFR pilots have enough training to navigate and avoid the ground without
visual references. Presumably, by the time they have to descend below
surrounding min altitudes, there would be airport lights to guide them. How
often do VFR pilots pay that much attention to the section while trying to
fly the plane.

I think that flying in VMC in the dark is probably the scariest thing. You
are responsible for see and avoid and yet, you need to have your head in the
cockpit to control the plane. For me, swiveling my head for an outside scan
can be disorienting. Too dark to see the clouds you might be flying into?
Hmm. I hope that there is only one of you out there.

VFR pilot in a VFR plane at night in the dark. How accurate is the
altimeter. Pitot/static system been tested lately? Vacuum, gyro, turn
coordinator? That's an awful lot of things that can go wrong in a plane that
doesn't officially need most of it just when the pilot might.

-------------------------------
Travis

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote
> I'm not sure which comes first. Disorientation or panic. Either one will
> cause the other. You seem to have an easy time keeping your perspective
> without visual references. Many people are not that fortunate and have to
> consciously fight the urge to fly by the seat of their pants when their
> physical sensors gets confused.

I doubt that my situation is unique - I know lots of people who have
no problem trusting the instruments. As I said above, I suspect the
issue is one of initial flight training. If you learn to use the
instruments for aircraft control from day one, they are familiar. As
visual references become less and less useful, you just naturally rely
on the instruments to a greater extent. That's what the integrated
method of instruction is all about.

I suspect the people who have to consciously fight the urge to fly by
the seat of the pants were trained to do that. Such instructors start
covering up instruments the moment a student starts using them to make
his life easier. Thus they teach a lesson below the conscious level -
and that lesson is that the instruments are not reliable, and that one
can rely only on the seat of the pants. There are still plenty of
flight instructors who believe this is the right way. As you may have
gathered, I am not one of them.

> Given the accident statistics for VFR flight
> into IMC, that seems to be true of instrument trained pilots and not.

One of the fundamental principles of learning is the principle of
primacy. That which is taught first is best remembered. It's much
easier to learn it the right way from day one than to unlearn it
later, and there is a regrettable tendency to revert to the earliest
training under stress.

> JFK and many others have become victims because they were not able to
> recognize the problem until it was too late. Once the problem develops,
> panic probably prevented them from taking simple steps that would have saved
> the day.

I concur.

> By tracking VORs, watching min altitudes and contour lines on sectionals,
> VFR pilots have enough training to navigate and avoid the ground without
> visual references.

Absolutely.

> Presumably, by the time they have to descend below
> surrounding min altitudes, there would be airport lights to guide them.

Right - that's the idea.

> How
> often do VFR pilots pay that much attention to the section while trying to
> fly the plane.

I would imagine all the time. I can remember conducting more than a
few flights in exactly the manner you describe.

> I think that flying in VMC in the dark is probably the scariest thing. You
> are responsible for see and avoid and yet, you need to have your head in the
> cockpit to control the plane. For me, swiveling my head for an outside scan
> can be disorienting.

Trust me - it gets better with practice.

> Too dark to see the clouds you might be flying into?
> Hmm. I hope that there is only one of you out there.

You know, in the UK flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace, without a
clearance, is quite normal. I don't believe there has ever been a
midair due to this practice. There are only a very few areas where
airplanes congregate - basically just VOR's and busy airports. These
days, GPS makes it totally unnecessary to fly VOR-to-VOR, and busy
airports are well lit.

> VFR pilot in a VFR plane at night in the dark. How accurate is the
> altimeter. Pitot/static system been tested lately?

Who cares? The pitot-static check is of no value whatsoever in a slow
unpressurized airplane. So what if the static system leaks? About
the maximum error you will get from the venturi effect is maybe 100
ft. You can effectively check the altimeter at any airport with
weather reporting - just set it to the altimeter setting and check
against field elevation. If it's about right, it's plenty close
enough for cruising flight.

What you're doing here is spreading FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

> Vacuum, gyro, turn
> coordinator? That's an awful lot of things that can go wrong in a plane that
> doesn't officially need most of it just when the pilot might.

More FUD.

There are three gyros on two independent power sources in most
airplanes, and realistically a simple trainer only needs one of them -
any one. If they were working to begin with, what are the odds they
are all going to fail?

Besides, do you know what kind of gyro checks are required for Part 91
IFR? Right, none.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message om...

> I doubt that my situation is unique - I know lots of people who have
> no problem trusting the instruments.

Actually, what kills a lot of people in my opinion is not "not trusting
instruments" but rather, not realizing it's time to get on the gauges.
I never had any problem flying under the hood in my training.
I remember my first wander into IMC (an instructor was in the right
seat). Just a gentle drift off into the clouds. I was staring off into
the nothingness for several seconds until the instructor prompted me
with something with "don't lose it on me." And then I hunkered down
on the gauges and got to business. I've seen other pilots do the
same thing. I'm fairly convinced this is what got JFKJr. Had he
thought, I'm out over water, I'd better get on the dials, he probably
would be OK, but he was staring out at a non-existent (or false)
horizon until it was too late.

In article >,
"Ron Natalie" > wrote:
> Actually, what kills a lot of people in my opinion is not "not trusting
> instruments" but rather, not realizing it's time to get on the gauges.


Maybe, maybe not. In my experience, everyone seems to be a little
different regarding vertigo, and their reaction when they do encounter
it. During most of my instrument training, I NEVER had vertigo, even
when I was solid IMC and looked away from the panel. My wife, on the
other hand, gets vertigo more easily. I suspect that perhaps the only
ones still living who know best what may have happend to JFKJr are his
former flight instructors. We have no way to make meaningful guesses as
to whether his trouble keeping the shiny side up was a frequent
occurance or an usually rapid onset of fatal mistakes.


JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote:
> > Actually, what kills a lot of people in my opinion is not "not trusting
> > instruments" but rather, not realizing it's time to get on the gauges.
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. In my experience, everyone seems to be a little
> different regarding vertigo, and their reaction when they do encounter
> it. During most of my instrument training, I NEVER had vertigo, even
> when I was solid IMC and looked away from the panel. My wife, on the
> other hand, gets vertigo more easily. I suspect that perhaps the only
> ones still living who know best what may have happend to JFKJr are his
> former flight instructors. We have no way to make meaningful guesses as
> to whether his trouble keeping the shiny side up was a frequent
> occurance or an usually rapid onset of fatal mistakes.
>
>
> JKG

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).

-------------------------------
Travis

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Travis Marlatte" > wrote
> > I'm not sure which comes first. Disorientation or panic. Either one will
> > cause the other. You seem to have an easy time keeping your perspective
> > without visual references. Many people are not that fortunate and have
to
> > consciously fight the urge to fly by the seat of their pants when their
> > physical sensors gets confused.
>
> I doubt that my situation is unique - I know lots of people who have
> no problem trusting the instruments. As I said above, I suspect the
> issue is one of initial flight training. If you learn to use the
> instruments for aircraft control from day one, they are familiar. As
> visual references become less and less useful, you just naturally rely
> on the instruments to a greater extent. That's what the integrated
> method of instruction is all about.

I said "many" not "all."

>
> I suspect the people who have to consciously fight the urge to fly by
> the seat of the pants were trained to do that. Such instructors start
> covering up instruments the moment a student starts using them to make
> his life easier. Thus they teach a lesson below the conscious level -
> and that lesson is that the instruments are not reliable, and that one
> can rely only on the seat of the pants. There are still plenty of
> flight instructors who believe this is the right way. As you may have
> gathered, I am not one of them.
>
> > Given the accident statistics for VFR flight
> > into IMC, that seems to be true of instrument trained pilots and not.
>
> One of the fundamental principles of learning is the principle of
> primacy. That which is taught first is best remembered. It's much
> easier to learn it the right way from day one than to unlearn it
> later, and there is a regrettable tendency to revert to the earliest
> training under stress.

Learning to crawl and walk by trusting our physical sensations came before
that. Which training will respond first? Flight training and experience make
it easier.

The initial discussion got started by questioning whether ATC would give a
VFR flight a break and keep them over land versus dark water. Your claim is
that every pilot should have received sufficient training and be able to fly
comfortably without any visual references.

I just don't think that is the case. 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.

>
> > JFK and many others have become victims because they were not able to
> > recognize the problem until it was too late. Once the problem develops,
> > panic probably prevented them from taking simple steps that would have
saved
> > the day.
>
> I concur.
>
> > By tracking VORs, watching min altitudes and contour lines on
sectionals,
> > VFR pilots have enough training to navigate and avoid the ground without
> > visual references.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > Presumably, by the time they have to descend below
> > surrounding min altitudes, there would be airport lights to guide them.
>
> Right - that's the idea.
>
> > How
> > often do VFR pilots pay that much attention to the section while trying
to
> > fly the plane.
>
> I would imagine all the time. I can remember conducting more than a
> few flights in exactly the manner you describe.
>
> > I think that flying in VMC in the dark is probably the scariest thing.
You
> > are responsible for see and avoid and yet, you need to have your head in
the
> > cockpit to control the plane. For me, swiveling my head for an outside
scan
> > can be disorienting.
>
> Trust me - it gets better with practice.
>
> > Too dark to see the clouds you might be flying into?
> > Hmm. I hope that there is only one of you out there.
>
> You know, in the UK flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace, without a
> clearance, is quite normal. I don't believe there has ever been a
> midair due to this practice. There are only a very few areas where
> airplanes congregate - basically just VOR's and busy airports. These
> days, GPS makes it totally unnecessary to fly VOR-to-VOR, and busy
> airports are well lit.
>
> > VFR pilot in a VFR plane at night in the dark. How accurate is the
> > altimeter. Pitot/static system been tested lately?
>
> Who cares? The pitot-static check is of no value whatsoever in a slow
> unpressurized airplane. So what if the static system leaks? About
> the maximum error you will get from the venturi effect is maybe 100
> ft. You can effectively check the altimeter at any airport with
> weather reporting - just set it to the altimeter setting and check
> against field elevation. If it's about right, it's plenty close
> enough for cruising flight.
>
> What you're doing here is spreading FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
>
> > Vacuum, gyro, turn
> > coordinator? That's an awful lot of things that can go wrong in a plane
that
> > doesn't officially need most of it just when the pilot might.
>
> More FUD.
>
> There are three gyros on two independent power sources in most
> airplanes, and realistically a simple trainer only needs one of them -
> any one. If they were working to begin with, what are the odds they
> are all going to fail?
>
> Besides, do you know what kind of gyro checks are required for Part 91
> IFR? Right, none.
>
> Michael

I agree that it was a lot of U and D. That was my point. There are many
uncertainties that should cause some doubt. It is our role as pilots to
control the Fear.

-------------------------------
Travis

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote
> I said "many" not "all."

So what is many? 90%? 50%? 10%? 1%? There are 200,000+ private
pilots without instrument ratings out there. Even 1% of that is 2,000
- arguably "many" people. Should we be gearing procedures to that 1%?

> Learning to crawl and walk by trusting our physical sensations came before
> that.

I'm not convinced we have to learn to crawl, or even walk. Certainly
nobody has to teach us. The ability to do so is hardwired; it's
generally just a matter of getting the muscles to catch up. Most
people are taught to fly an airplane. It's a very different activity,
and much less physically complex.

Walking is an extremely complex operation. When people are paralyzed
due to a severed spinal column, it is possible to artificially
stimulate the nerves in their legs and get them to move. It's been
possible for decades, and 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.

> The initial discussion got started by questioning whether ATC would give a
> VFR flight a break and keep them over land versus dark water. Your claim is
> that every pilot should have received sufficient training and be able to fly
> comfortably without any visual references.

And I think that makes a lot of sense. It's a simple task, and
private pilots are trained for it.

> I just don't think that is the case. 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.

> I agree that it was a lot of U and D. That was my point. There are many
> uncertainties that should cause some doubt.

No, that's not what I said at all. I don't agree that there's a lot
of uncertainty and doubt - I think you are creating uncertainty and
doubt needlessly.

Michael

>> 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 et>,
"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

(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