Do you think night flying should require a sing-off?

[Hank S]

There is always a proper glide slope. Usually about 3 degrees, but can be a bit more. One should always calculate this, especially at night. It's approx 300 feet per mile.

Yeah, that'll put you in the trees. On a half mile pattern there, it's best to roll wings level on final by 1100 msl, or 533' agl. Worked in the Skyhawk, works in the Mooney, but the trees are still growing. I used to level off at 650, but that would drag my tires through the branches now.

I don't recommend landing there the first time at night, go to the Class D. They have radar, multiple approaches, 4-light PAPI, and a rabbit if you need it to find 30.

 

[Kritchlow]

Yeah, that'll put you in the trees. On a half mile pattern there, it's best to roll wings level on final by 1100 msl, or 533' agl. Worked in the Skyhawk, works in the Mooney, but the trees are still growing. I used to level off at 650, but that would drag my tires through the branches now.

I don't recommend landing there the first time at night, go to the Class D. They have radar, multiple approaches, 4-light PAPI, and a rabbit if you need it to find 30.

Well, there is always something to be said for local knowledge and knowing your home airfield.
That said, the slope should be published in th AFM, and anything greater than 3.5 degrees should be well noted.

If the PAPI would be obstructed at 1,000 feet down the runway, I would dare to say that's one heck of a glide path.

 

[Hank S]

and I see you're instrument rated, as am I.

Yep, have been for several years. But flew lots of night VFR first, over fairly dark places like West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, etc.

Charlotte is beautiful at night, watching the airliners come and go while they hold you low. Then you climb to clear the dark terrain where NC, TN and VA come together. It's magical. Just pay attention to those big numbers on the sectional, they'll keep you out of the trees.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Also... If a VASI/PAPI would be obscured, by definition it's not a safe approach.

I what world?? You are not serious are you? What about airports that don't have them? You think everyone that lands there at night is flying unsafe approaches?

 

[Hank S]

Well, there is always something to be said for local knowledge and knowing your home airfield.
That said, the slope should be published in th AFM, and anything greater than 3.5 degrees should be well noted.

If the PAPI would be obstructed at 1,000 feet down the runway, I would dare to say that's one heck of a glide path.

No clue what's published in the AFD. Do you visit many 3000' fields with lights 1000' down them? That's a third of the way down the runway, the Go Around spot. My original CFI pounded into me to land in the first third of the runway.

All that's there is two rows of white lights, 200' apart, with a 75' strip of asphalt in the southern half so that taildraggers can land in the grass beside it.

 

[Kritchlow]

I what world?? You are not serious are you? What about airports that don't have them? You think everyone that lands there at night is flying unsafe approaches?

No... I'm just saying that if there is a VASI/PAPI, and it's obscured by trees, how can yo possibly have a proper glide path?

Look.. I trained and instructed at 7B9. One of the smallest airports in the U.S. Mark midlife flyer can attest to that.

I'm not a wimp about this stuff, just talking math with the slope angle and path.

 

[Kritchlow]

No clue what's published in the AFD. Do you visit many 3000' fields with lights 1000' down them? That's a third of the way down the runway, the Go Around spot. My original CFI pounded into me to land in the first third of the runway.

All that's there is two rows of white lights, 200' apart, with a 75' strip of asphalt in the southern half so that taildraggers can land in the grass beside it.

Hank, although it may have seemed we were worlds apart, I really don't think we are.

And yes, small fields were my passion.

 

[Hank S]

Hank, although it may have seemed we were worlds apart, I really don't think we are.

Good, we agree! Night flying, VFR, with just a PPL.

No more regulations, training or euro-crest required. It's fun, too, as well as being legal, as long as you meet currency requirements. You know, like for all flying, regardless of certificate, endorsements, ratings, etc.

 

[Kritchlow]

Good, we agree! Night flying, VFR, with just a PPL.

No more regulations, training or euro-crest required. It's fun, too, as well as being legal, as long as you meet currency requirements. You know, like for all flying, regardless of certificate, endorsements, ratings, etc.

Yup... Never suggested anything different other than a bit more night requirements during training. Not necessarily extra training, but instead of some day training (which I think is too much).

 

[Hank S]

Yup... Never suggested anything different other than a bit more night requirements during training. Not necessarily extra training, but instead of some day training (which I think is too much).

Many people here are advocating more night training either IN ADDITION to the PPL, or going euro-style and creating a separate Night Rating.

As you can tell, I am strongly against either. The other idea being discussed is to require an Instrument Rating to conduct Night VFR flight, which is, to me, too foolish to discuss.