Night over water

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.
|
|

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

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.

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

(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

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

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