Night over water

"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

(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

"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