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.
|
|