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