Night VFR following highways

gatt writes:

My father-in-law (ANG helicopter crewman) takes "IFR" to mean "I Follow
Roads " (or rivers)

There is a sobering story right along those lines at

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2008/na0801.html

I find it interesting that the author says this VFR flight scared him more
than any of his combat missions in Vietnam.

Sure. For example, Interstate 5 runs from Canada to Mexico, and the stretch
through most of Oregon looks like somebody drew a straight line with a
pencil across the landscape. If you were flying from Portland (possible
Seattle) to Eugene, Medford, Sacramento, etc, day or note you could follow
the freeway the entire route.

You'd still use your VFR navigation aids and checkpoints to make sure know
how far you are enroute, and also to avoid controlled airspace, etc, but
having that road, railroad, river makes for a more-enjoyable flight.

Good. I wanted to make sure I'm not missing some risk or danger to following
highways. From the article above I learned that things like wires and cables
are a real risk if you're very close to the highway, but only a helicopter
would be that low.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

gatt writes:

My father-in-law (ANG helicopter crewman) takes "IFR" to mean "I
Follow Roads " (or rivers)

There is a sobering story right along those lines at

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again/2008/na0801.html

I find it interesting that the author says this VFR flight scared him
more than any of his combat missions in Vietnam.

Sure. For example, Interstate 5 runs from Canada to Mexico, and the
stretch through most of Oregon looks like somebody drew a straight
line with a pencil across the landscape. If you were flying from
Portland (possible Seattle) to Eugene, Medford, Sacramento, etc, day
or note you could follow the freeway the entire route.

You'd still use your VFR navigation aids and checkpoints to make sure
know how far you are enroute, and also to avoid controlled airspace,
etc, but having that road, railroad, river makes for a more-enjoyable
flight.

Good. I wanted to make sure I'm not missing some risk or danger to
following highways. From the article above I learned that things like
wires and cables are a real risk if you're very close to the highway,
but only a helicopter would be that low.


Wow, hittign a virtual wire in a virtual airplane could really ruin your
day if you were insane!


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:

From the article above I learned that things like wires and cables
are a real risk if you're very close to the highway, but only a helicopter
would be that low.


Why would you say that?

There are no differences in the allowed altitudes for fixed wing and
rotary wing aircraft. And in a helo, just like in fixed wing, the more
altitude the more options when there is a failure.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Why would you say that?

Helicopters can move more safely at very low altitudes because they are not
obligated to move forward at any minimum speed.

There are no differences in the allowed altitudes for fixed wing and
rotary wing aircraft.

There are big differences in flying over a road at 25 feet and 3 knots, and
flying over a road at 25 feet and 95 knots.

And in a helo, just like in fixed wing, the more altitude the
more options when there is a failure.

But at extremely low altitudes, the number of options required is reduced. If
the engine fails in a helicopter at ten feet above the ground, it's not really
a crisis. On a large flat area of ground, this can be true for an airplane,
too, but airplanes have the added danger of rapid forward movement.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Why would you say that?

Helicopters can move more safely at very low altitudes because they are not
obligated to move forward at any minimum speed.

We aren't talking about hovering over the highway we are talking about a
VFR flight between two points. In that case one could expect both
fixed and rotary wing aircraft to be traveling at a reasonable cruise
speed.




There are no differences in the allowed altitudes for fixed wing and
rotary wing aircraft.

There are big differences in flying over a road at 25 feet and 3 knots, and
flying over a road at 25 feet and 95 knots.


No not really. Both would be a violation in almost all cases.



And in a helo, just like in fixed wing, the more altitude the
more options when there is a failure.

But at extremely low altitudes, the number of options required is reduced. If
the engine fails in a helicopter at ten feet above the ground, it's not really
a crisis. On a large flat area of ground, this can be true for an airplane,
too, but airplanes have the added danger of rapid forward movement.

Once again you show your ignorance. An engine failure in a helo hovering
at 10 feet is just about the worst place that such a failure could happen.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

We aren't talking about hovering over the highway we are talking about a
VFR flight between two points.

In the article that gave rise to my comment, the pilot was indeed hovering
over the highway, in a helicopter.

Once again you show your ignorance. An engine failure in a helo hovering
at 10 feet is just about the worst place that such a failure could happen.

Explain.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

We aren't talking about hovering over the highway we are talking
about a
VFR flight between two points.

In the article that gave rise to my comment, the pilot was indeed
hovering over the highway, in a helicopter.


That's not what you said fjukktard, you said forward speed doesn't matter.

You were wrong.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

We aren't talking about hovering over the highway we are talking about a
VFR flight between two points.

In the article that gave rise to my comment, the pilot was indeed hovering
over the highway, in a helicopter.

Just for the record here is your first post in this thread. Nowhere do
you mention helicopters.

Mxsmanic wrote:
"Is it a bad idea to fly VFR at night and navigate by following
highways? At
night outside large cities, there doesn't seem to be much else that's
visible.
It seems to me that if you can clearly see the highway, it can guide you and
you can get a good idea of where you are with respect to terrain, so it
should
work. Are there hidden dangers in this? Do night VFR pilots ever/often
navigate by following highways? What other forms of visual navigation are
usable at night?"



Once again you show your ignorance. An engine failure in a helo hovering
at 10 feet is just about the worst place that such a failure could happen.

Explain.


It is high enough to kill you and too low to perform a proper
auto-rotation. As forward speed increases the ability to perform a
proper run-on landing increases. In a run-on landing you are pretty much
treating the helo like a fixed wing.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Just for the record here is your first post in this thread. Nowhere do
you mention helicopters.

I said "in the article that gave rise to my comment," meaning an article to
which I provided a pointer. That article described the experience of a
helicopter pilot in marginal VFR at night.

It is high enough to kill you and too low to perform a proper
auto-rotation.

Ten feet? I've seen helicopters fall to the ground from this height in videos
and while the helicopters may not survive if they don't remain upright, it
looks as though the occupants often can walk away from it. An engine failure
would be more gentle than a simple fall.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Why would you say that?

Helicopters can move more safely at very low altitudes because they
are not obligated to move forward at any minimum speed.

Wrong, fjukktard.



Bertie