End of night VFR coming?

Night flying requires a separate currency - 3 takes offs and landing to a full stop at least 1 hour after sunset. Living here in the PNW that is tough to do in the summer - sunset is very late in the evening. Much of the rest of the year it is tough to do as the weather stinks and I wouldn't be flying day or night. And I have the IR. But, when possible, it is fine. Know your limitations, set your minimums. I won't fly nighttime across the Cascades. VFR or IFR, doesn't matter. I won't fly in the clouds across the Cascades (IFR). I know what I am comfortable with and what I'm not comfortable with. Flying for me is fun, not something I have to do. Besides, if I ever scare my wife while flying she won't fly with me again. And that is not something I'm willing to risk. She knows my weather decisions are conservative, and I don't want to change that.
 
cowman said:
So night flying has 4 basic challenges over day that I see...


4. The single engine failure scenario. For me this is the big one because it's the one I don't really have a good answer for dealing with it. Try to find a road by car headlights or see an open field(you actually can on a moonlit night), point at it, and hope it's what it looks like and there are no obstructions is the likely answer. Maybe glide to a field? The only comfort here is complete power failures don't happen very often and the engine doesn't care about light. I would say this is probably the most valid reason not to fly at night..... but an IFR rating isn't going to really be much help with this.
Click to expand...

There's a very good rational way to deal with that one. Fly high enough and plan the route that minimizes time out of reach of a gliding landing to a known safe place to do so. That many pilots refuse to do this, isn't really the fault of the environment, or the lack of another engine, it's simply the fault of the pilot in poor planning and situational awareness.

Once you switch your thinking to that mode, then you can determine how many minutes out of glide range is "too long" for you personally.

I've got more night time than I probably should, at lower altitudes than I probably should have accepted, but as I've gotten older, higher and a route that'll let me glide to an airport have slowly crept into my old brain as the way to do it "safer" than just mimicking a daytime flight.

Frankly over densely populated areas even in daytime the same thought process can apply if one lets it. Or the "where's the golf courses?" game.
 
denverpilot said:
There's a very good rational way to deal with that one. Fly high enough and plan the route that minimizes time out of reach of a gliding landing to a known safe place to do so. That many pilots refuse to do this, isn't really the fault of the environment, or the lack of another engine, it's simply the fault of the pilot in poor planning and situational awareness.
Click to expand...
Well you can always minimize time spent out of glide distance to an airport, to the extent possible, but in many parts of the country it isn't possible in a NA piston single to go very far and remain always within glide distance because airports are too few and far between. That's pretty much the case here in VT - in my Cardinal, I couldn't get high enough to always be within glide distance of an airport, and even if you could eventually get high enough, in the meantime you'd be out of glide distance during the climb. With a turbo, it is perhaps different, if your climb performance is good enough, and if you're willing to always fly high. But with most piston singles you'd be limited to pattern work or at best a few select routes to a few select destinations, so you can reduce your exposure to some extent but never completely eliminate it if you want to use your plane for transportation.
 
azure said:
Well you can always minimize time spent out of glide distance to an airport, to the extent possible, but in many parts of the country it isn't possible in a NA piston single to go very far and remain always within glide distance because airports are too few and far between. That's pretty much the case here in VT - in my Cardinal, I couldn't get high enough to always be within glide distance of an airport, and even if you could eventually get high enough, in the meantime you'd be out of glide distance during the climb. With a turbo, it is perhaps different, if your climb performance is good enough, and if you're willing to always fly high. But with most piston singles you'd be limited to pattern work or at best a few select routes to a few select destinations, so you can reduce your exposure to some extent but never completely eliminate it if you want to use your plane for transportation.
Click to expand...

Yup. Understood. The less population density the less airports and options. One gets to choose their own risk level.

A friend had an engine destroy itself at night doing practice approaches with a student. They went missed and climbed a little from a non-precision approach on a turn away from the runway doing a published missed and boom.

The CFI managed to put it back on the runway. He says he was just shooting for on the airport property inside the fence. Got lucky and with the left wingtip nearly dragging the ground on the turn to line up, which was continuous to nearly touchdown, he landed it on the numbers.

Some days you're the windshield, some days you're the bug.
 
azure said:
Well you can always minimize time spent out of glide distance to an airport, to the extent possible, but in many parts of the country it isn't possible in a NA piston single to go very far and remain always within glide distance because airports are too few and far between.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sometimes it's fun to try to plan a flight that will never be out of gliding distance of an airport. It's probably possible over California's central valley, but there are definitely places where it's not.

That's pretty much the case here in VT - in my Cardinal, I couldn't get high enough to always be within glide distance of an airport, and even if you could eventually get high enough, in the meantime you'd be out of glide distance during the climb.
Click to expand...
If one really wanted to go all out, one could spiral up over the departure airport, and down over the destination. Probably wouldn't be allowed under class B, though.
 
jspilot said:
I can't legally fly at night do to the red/green color deficiency and have literally only ever flown the minimum hours for the PPL. I'll just add this, I don't want the FAA legislating or governing any right we who hold private pilot licenses already have previously been deemed qualified to have. It's a slippery slope to go down and it won't be long before the FAA says something like, "you know, we don't think 1,000 foot ceilings are high enough. We want to raise it to 3,000 feet." Or, "you know, lots of pilots have entered into stall/ spin crashes during landings so it is now illegal for a single engine plane to land in a highly densely populated area."

It is never a good idea to willingly give up rights in the hopes that the greater good can be protected from there own stupidity and have instead there stupidity legislated into safety. It simply never plays out that way and we just sacrifice rights instead!
Click to expand...

Read Part 61 and tell me where your rights are listed. What you will find are privileges and limitations.
 
Removing the activity is a very poor way to practice safety. If we extend that, we should probably remove day VFR first since that's when all the accident really happen. I can 100% assure you that if we remove day and night VFR flying there will be 0% VFR accidents.
 
We used to drive cars without seat belts and let toddlers crawl around on car back seats... there is a long list of habits we've changed in the last 50 years and a lot more people live a lot longer as a result. Aviation is no different. Here are a few of my items...

1) in a single I won't fly over an area of widespread low IFR (no time for finding landing spot if engine fails). Listen to last years crash in MA atc tapes - heartbreaking. You'll adopt the same limit.

2) won't fly without a backup AI in hard IMC. I've had one fail, I'm sure many of you have too. Listen to the tapes of the recent bonanza crash on LI. I have a dynon pocket panel panel mounted to give this redundancy, there are many ways to achieve it.

3) I don't fly without my handheld radio fully charged when flying IFR.

4) ForeFlight is a great navigation backup, I make sure it is up to date on both my iPad and iPhone, because it's easy to do, and would save me in IMC if I ever had say an electrical fire and needed to shut down the radios.

5) I don't fly over hostile terrain at night. If i fly at night it's usually here local in the NE and with a little altitude a Mooney can glide to a lot of airports. Frankly I generally don't fly at night if I can plan it differently. I would feel differently in a twin or if I had a ballistic parachute.

6) when I'm cross country I'm usually minimum 5000agl. Altitude = time to troubleshoot.

Generally I get hives any time I'm aware that I'm one simple failure away from oblivion. Anyone else have self imposed safety items like this?

Greg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
We used to drive cars without seat belts and let toddlers crawl around on car back seats... there is a long list of habits we've changed in the last 50 years and a lot more people live a lot longer as a result. Aviation is no different. Here are a few of my items...

1) in a single I won't fly over an area of widespread low IFR (no time for finding landing spot if engine fails). Listen to last years crash in MA atc tapes - heartbreaking. You'll adopt the same limit.

2) won't fly without a backup AI in hard IMC. I've had one fail, I'm sure many of you have too. Listen to the tapes of the recent bonanza crash on LI. I have a dynon pocket panel panel mounted to give this redundancy, there are many ways to achieve it.

3) I don't fly without my handheld radio fully charged when flying IFR.

4) ForeFlight is a great navigation backup, I make sure it is up to date on both my iPad and iPhone, because it's easy to do, and would save me in IMC if I ever had say an electrical fire and needed to shut down the radios.

5) I don't fly over hostile terrain at night. If i fly at night it's usually here local in the NE and with a little altitude a Mooney can glide to a lot of airports. Frankly I generally don't fly at night if I can plan it differently. I would feel differently in a twin or if I had a ballistic parachute.

6) when I'm cross country I'm usually minimum 5000agl. Altitude = time to troubleshoot.

Generally I get hives any time I'm aware that I'm one simple failure away from oblivion. Anyone else have self imposed safety items like this?

Greg
Click to expand...

I agree with many of your points. I think each of us has to try to maximize the chances of a successful outcome of each flight, using all reasonable available means. But I have no hard taboos. I weigh each flight's necessity against its risk factors. If a flight is not crucial, I'll schedule it during good weather in daytime. If it is important, I'll decide in each case how much risk I'd like to take. If there are passengers involved, I'll consider their risk too and add it into the equation. As far as backups, I try to completely avoid "single points of failure" and have multiple backups for navigation and communication.
As bottom line, flying is a dangerous activity: travelling high above the ground at high speeds in (sometimes) bad weather can be dangerous to our health. So we can avoid it altogether by staying in bed (or under it) all day long, or try to mitigate the risks to the best of our ability.
 
I'm sorry, Greg, that you get hives on every takeoff and every instrument approach. There are times in both activities where you are one simple failure from oblivion. It's a longer time flying into and out of airports in dense urban areas, as there are not always conveniently located rivers like Sully took advantage of.
 
Please, you're missing the point. I fly single IFR but avoid unnecessary risks. Too many don't bother to think about and mitigate risks. Those ones failure from oblivion moments should get your attention enough to say, "what would I do" or "is there another way" or "could I have a backup".

And no even there I have options. I know where the options are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Ghery said:
Night flying requires a separate currency - 3 takes offs and landing to a full stop at least 1 hour after sunset. Living here in the PNW that is tough to do in the summer - sunset is very late in the evening.
Click to expand...

Night flying with passengers requires three currency landings at night in the last 90 days. Unlike instrument currency, where the approaches and hold are required for any flight. Also easier to freshen up before a trip, I can usually knock them out at my untowered home drome in 0.5 hours; on a calm night, I'll take off and land one way, roll out to the end, turn around and blast off again. Once more and I'm current for my upcoming trip. And unlike my approaches that may be spread over several months, they are all at once and just before I go, so I'm recent and sharp.
 
Palmpilot said:
Yeah, sometimes it's fun to try to plan a flight that will never be out of gliding distance of an airport. It's probably possible over California's central valley, but there are definitely places where it's not.
Click to expand...
If I were planning a trip to southern New England and wanted to do that I probably could, once I reached within glide distance of KCON (Concord, NH). But north and west of there a safe altitude would be well above my service ceiling.
If one really wanted to go all out, one could spiral up over the departure airport, and down over the destination. Probably wouldn't be allowed under class B, though.
Click to expand...
True - spiraling up to cruise altitude is an option I've used when visiting island destinations, both back in Michigan and out here - last time was at Block Island a couple of years ago. At somewhere like Block Island that really could eliminate my open water exposure window if I was determined enough, because Block Island Sound is fairly narrow. But to eliminate my "out of glide distance to an airport" window at home, it wouldn't work. I could enlarge my "safe space circle" around home base, but not enough to touch any nearby airports except KMVL - at least, counting only airports with a paved runway. (If I included grass strips I could reach a private strip about 12 nm SE of home base, and might even be able to stay within glide distance on the way to KCON, but grass strips are unusable much of the year around here.)
 
Hank S said:
Night flying with passengers requires three currency landings at night in the last 90 days. Unlike instrument currency, where the approaches and hold are required for any flight.
Click to expand...

Not to get too pedantic, but it requires 3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop. While some might jump to the assumption that you can't have the landing without the take off, it is quite possible to take off in daylight and then land at night. This isn't really disagreeing with what you said, but just clarifying for others.
 
jspilot said:
I'm stumped by your logic. Of course not crashing a plane is the best way to keep GA under the radar. What does that have to do with the FAA attempting to regulate safety and interference with our rights as pilots? It seems like your solution is, "if we stop all plane crashes just by luck, the FAA and the government will leave us alone." Again, I just don't concur. It's been proven that this is not true( see the medical reforms that were recently overturned as evidence of previously assured interference.)
Click to expand...
Which medical reforms would those be?
 
EASA2.JPG
flyingron said:
It's no longer part of the EU, and more specifically, it's not part of EASA.
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble but until article 50 is filed which starts the divorce process.... until then they are firmly planted in EU membership.

Once article 50 is file, it can take up to 2 years to separate from EU

As for not being part of EASA, see attachment.
 
Last edited:
The instrument rating covers so vastly much more than is necessary for night VFR that requiring it for such would just be massive and stupid and expensive overkill. Plus we all (those of us with a PPL) for training, including night XC, at night. Then there is the night currency that was so pedantically covered above. So an extra add-on is overkill too.

But is this even really a real proposal in reality? I read page 1 and page 5 (come on) and didn't see anyone either confirm or refute the reality of this.
 
petrolero said:
The instrument rating covers so vastly much more than is necessary for night VFR that requiring it for such would just be massive and stupid and expensive overkill. Plus we all (those of us with a PPL) for training, including night XC, at night. Then there is the night currency that was so pedantically covered above. So an extra add-on is overkill too.

But is this even really a real proposal in reality? I read page 1 and page 5 (come on) and didn't see anyone either confirm or refute the reality of this.
Click to expand...
An AOPA representative refuted the rumor in post #65.
 
Cold at night. Hangar poorly lit. If cross country away from home base, hotels are harder to get to, FBOs tend to be closed. Coming back to base on a cross country late at night is ok. Safe landing fields are hard to see. Lots of reasons not to. I like the warm sun and being able to see things on the ground.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Read Part 61 and tell me where your rights are listed. What you will find are privileges and limitations.
Click to expand...

I love semantics too but privileges and rights can often be confused. Privileges limited are rights removed. Removing rights entirely precludes the requirement to remove privileges(I.e I have the right to pursue a pilots license, once obtained, I am able to excercise the privileges attached to that.). If you willingly allow rights to be limited, the regulating of privileges becomes not required. It's easy to regulate privileges because, well you are not inherently given them until you take steps to earn them so you may be more likely to give them up under the false premise that, it's not a big deal, I'll just work with te new rules. However, I'd argue, sacrificing privileges is more damaging to the private pilot than taking away his or her right to become one. If you don't have the right to become a pilot, you don't sacrifice hours and money to get a license-- so that's far less damaging than investing time and money only to see your privileges limited or removed entirely. If private pilots allow privileges to be limited or removed even more we seriously run the risk of making the right to become a private pilot, essentially meaningless!

Ben Franklin said the following which is a quote many should consider in times like this. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
 
azure said:
Which medical reforms would those be?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the third class medical reform and how, a previously held belief by the FAA that pilots were safer because a doctor that hardly knew them and saw them once every 5 years, checked a few boxes and ran a few tests, is no longer required.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Read Part 61 and tell me where your rights are listed. What you will find are privileges and limitations.
Click to expand...
Rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution, statutes, or regulations are sometimes found in case law. An example is Shapiro v. Thompson, in which the Supreme Court concluded that there is a right to travel, and that that right must not be unreasonably burdened or restricted. (Of course, determining what's reasonable and what isn't probably occupies a lot of judges' and lawyers' time!)
 
Thread turn: End of day VFR coming to an end soon....


.... In Barrow, Ak. From sunset on 18 November until the next sunrise on 23 January flying will be night VFR or IFR. Of course there is still civil twilight, so it won't be all dark.
 
jspilot said:
I was referring to the third class medical reform and how, a previously held belief by the FAA that pilots were safer because a doctor that hardly knew them and saw them once every 5 years, checked a few boxes and ran a few tests, is no longer required.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I'm even having trouble parsing this. What exactly is no longer required? To see a doctor every five years? To my knowledge that was (is) only the case if you are under 40, but I'm not sure whether that was ever part of any reform. And it's still required if you want to hold a 3rd class medical certificate. Or are you saying that the medical reforms that were originally part of PBOR2 but were signed into law apart from that measure this July by President Obama have been overturned? If so, that is news to me.

I know of no medical reform that was overturned. Even the "driver's license medical" that was originally part of PBOR2 was not overturned, but was given up in negotiation, and it was certainly not FAA (or not FAA alone) that was opposed to it.
 
flyingriki said:
Yeah right, like pilots agreeing to anything will stop the heavy hand of the feds! Keep putting these big government, globalist scumbags in office and kiss your liberties Sayonara.
I'll be leaving the country soon. You that ignore the warning signs will get what you deserve. There are plenty of places that may not quite have the amenities but sure as hell have liberty and pretty girls!
Click to expand...
Like where? ...so I can consider retirement there...
 
azure said:
Sorry but I'm even having trouble parsing this. What exactly is no longer required? To see a doctor every five years? To my knowledge that was (is) only the case if you are under 40, but I'm not sure whether that was ever part of any reform. And it's still required if you want to hold a 3rd class medical certificate. Or are you saying that the medical reforms that were originally part of PBOR2 but were signed into law apart from that measure this July by President Obama have been overturned? If so, that is news to me.

I know of no medical reform that was overturned. Even the "driver's license medical" that was originally part of PBOR2 was not overturned, but was given up in negotiation, and it was certainly not FAA (or not FAA alone) that was opposed to it.
Click to expand...

Prior to July, everyone needed to maintain their medical by going to the doctor-- not their doctor, an FAA doctor to get certified as healthy to fly. Now, that regulation has been changed entirely to more logical legislation. But for years,pilots suffered under absolutely mind boggling lesgilation.

I'm not sure what is confusing about what I said. I know the government actually stepped in to help pilots in my example with medical reforms and that works counter to the idea of limiting night VFR but in both cases, Govermental interference occurred.
 
Okay - just that you wrote:
It seems like your solution is, "if we stop all plane crashes just by luck, the FAA and the government will leave us alone." Again, I just don't concur. It's been proven that this is not true( see the medical reforms that were recently overturned as evidence of previously assured interference.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's just me, but to me that sounds as if you were saying that "the FAA and the government" will not leave us alone even when we do not crash planes and the "fact" that medical reform has been overturned due to FAA interference is evidence that they will continue to interfere with pilots' rights to fly. Now you are saying that you meant essentially the opposite and I just can't read that first quote as saying that at all.

Doesn't matter - you've clarified your meaning and I don't have a problem with it.
 
azure said:
Okay - just that you wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but to me that sounds as if you were saying that "the FAA and the government" will not leave us alone even when we do not crash planes and the "fact" that medical reform has been overturned due to FAA interference is evidence that they will continue to interfere with pilots' rights to fly. Now you are saying that you meant essentially the opposite and I just can't read that first quote as saying that at all.

Doesn't matter - you've clarified your meaning and I don't have a problem with it.
Click to expand...
I understood the first post the same way as you did.
 
I have only 26 hrs. night, but it's one of the reasons I moved from Sport Pilot to Private. It's safer not to be rushing to get back before nightfall, or to be able to take off early to avoid incoming weather. As another poster wrote, it's your own assessment of risk. Personally, I don't like to fly day or night without a parachute or ADS-B, but your concerns might be different.

If there's a rule change requiring an endorsement for night VFR, might we not be grandfathered in the way tailwheel endorsement works now?
 
Hank S said:
Night flying with passengers requires three currency landings at night in the last 90 days. Unlike instrument currency, where the approaches and hold are required for any flight. Also easier to freshen up before a trip, I can usually knock them out at my untowered home drome in 0.5 hours; on a calm night, I'll take off and land one way, roll out to the end, turn around and blast off again. Once more and I'm current for my upcoming trip. And unlike my approaches that may be spread over several months, they are all at once and just before I go, so I'm recent and sharp.
Click to expand...

Correct. Heck, how could you regain currency otherwise? Go up with a CFI? That would be silly.

PPC1052 said:
Not to get too pedantic, but it requires 3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop. While some might jump to the assumption that you can't have the landing without the take off, it is quite possible to take off in daylight and then land at night. This isn't really disagreeing with what you said, but just clarifying for others.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Otherwise you could easily wind up with 2 takeoffs and 3 landings after night. Oops.
 
For everyone that missed it, there is no apparent truth to the premise of this post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
For everyone that missed it, there is no apparent truth to the premise of this post.
Click to expand...

Since when do we need "truth" (whatever that is) to start a 5-page (and counting) thread?
 
Zeldman said:
No single answer here. In the southwest for the last few nights the moon is so bright it is almost daylight. I have also flown here at night where it is darker than the inside of a cow. Same in Alaska. And it is still all done safely.
Click to expand...

Agree ... but here in the southwest, most of our highways lack power lines to worry about ... fly IFR (I Follow Roads)

stratobee said:
Minority opinion, but I think FAA are doing the right thing here. It should be a separate add-on endorsement or rating like in Europe. Night flying without visual references is IFR. Not saying you need to be IFR, but you need to have had enough training to be able to fly entirely on instruments alone - and recover from an upset. Nowhere near enough training of that is done today in the PPL. Not even close. It's a joke.
Click to expand...

If you feel deficient, get a CFI and go. I do have 40 hours hood time (need to complete the IR rating still) and about 100 hours of night. In my area (desert SW) it can get dark on moonless nights. During PPL, my CFI spent extra ground time (he never charged) showing how to read MEA's and to fly that altitude to start especially if not in the home area. I've done a ton of night XC. If you plan ahead, and use VORs and altitude you'll know exactly what's under you even if you can't see it (e.g. CNM and SFL VOR in my area, connect the radials between the two and stay south at all times by 20 miles minimum and at least 8500 MSL clears everything). The "disappearing lights" trick is good for knowing if you'll clear a ridge. Good training in PPL **OR** training equivalent to a mountain flying check out should be the maximum necessary. Knowing about autokinesis is real important ... if you fly a lot at night, you'll see this effect at least once. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be flying at all.

Edit" Forgot to add, most of you guys have so many gadgets and are head down so much anyway they ought to just GRANT you the IR rating!;):eek:
 
Not more than a few days after getting my PPL, I ended up having to make an hour-long flight home at night. Granted, there were a ton of airports under me the entire flight, but I really felt unprepared. Two years later, I still only have about twenty hours of night, and maybe fifty night landings in the books. I think I would support night flying being an add-on rating requiring a few more hours of training to be conducted at night. I don't think it would inconvenience too many pilots, as many of the pilots I know never fly at night simply because they don't feel the additional risk is warranted for their situation and needs.
 
Think of the children . . .
Not in MY backyard!

Y'all are killing me!! We trained at night as students, I've yet to have a problem flying at night, and generally only lose night currency in the summer, when it gets dark so late. Night XC isn't a problem, but I'm very, very careful mixing night and IMC.

A large part of your comfort at night is the quality of your training. It's not something to be endured, or rushed through to get the required hours. Just like maneuvers and general navigation, it's something you need to learn--if you don't feel you are learning it, push your CFI for more training. If you're already licensed and don't feel you learned it well, or have forgotten, find a CFI and make them actually teach you.

Don't push your fears into restricting other people from doing what makes you uncomfortable. Unless you want other nervous people to be able to stop you from doing what makes them uncomfortable, like flying a small plane . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top