End of night VFR coming?

When I learned to fly in 1991, night training was optional. If you didn't choose that option, your pilot certificate was marked "Night flying prohibited."

Maybe continued night VFR privileges should require recurrent night training in the flight review.
 
Palmpilot said:
When I learned to fly in 1991, night training was optional. If you didn't choose that option, your pilot certificate was marked "Night flying prohibited.".
Click to expand...

It still is.
 
Shawn said:
I recall during my PPL training before starting night training that my CFI sayin how I would likely need a LOT more dual night time to be proficient...then we flew. I took right to it and actually performed better at night..and we were in the dark of centra florida. Many of my VFR flights post PPL were at night. While others may have issues with depth perception, dark conditions, and so on...that is not true for all pilots.
Click to expand...

My instructor also told me that the PPL night flying requirements are not good enough to claim proficiency. I can definitely agree with that. I haven't done night flying since, but I fly as a hobby and I don't own an aircraft so I never felt the need.

I am perplexed how one would navigate at night over rural areas (assuming no navigation aids) without cities, towns, etc. to reference. That would be a lot like instrument flying to me.
 
There are a lot of things a private pilot can legally do that require more proficiency than what's needed to initially get the certificate. I don't think the solution is to attempt to regulate every one of those situations.
 
Where I fly, flying at night isn't bad. Around Atlanta everything is lit up pretty and I found the min for the PPL to be sufficient. Now the last time I flew back from Knoxville at night over the mountains on a moonless night, I was glad I had been doing lots of ifr training and was keeping a good instrument scan up.

I like how it is now, let the pilot evaluate the situation and make a call.

I do see the concern about how easy it is to inadvertently to fly into a cloud on a dark night though.
 
flyingron said:
The UK is not Europe, but you are correct. The EASA states have a separate night rating as well as three different flavors of instrument rating.
Click to expand...


UK is STILL part of Europe, for better or worst.
 
kayoh190 said:
I don't think the solution is to attempt to regulate every one of those situations.
Click to expand...

How else do we grow our government though? More rules, more laws, more government programs, more regulation...
 
Yeah this would have screwed me over so many times. IDK about the rest of the country but here in the midwest it's really common for weather to go from marginal VFR in the afternoon to crystal clear after the sun goes down.

I don't know how many times I waited out scattered-broken 2000-3000 type conditions in favor of waiting for "sky clear" after dark. In my judgement, night VFR cruising a good 5-6000 AGL under the stars is safer than 1000AGL day under a cloud deck. The night flight option can add to safety by increasing flexibility.

Now, I have a lot higher standards for what I'll fly in at night and only to familiar fields but with that in mind, I feel completely comfortable making night flights with the training I have here in the midwest.
 
I think night flying in general is more dangerous than 90% of IMC flights requiring an IFR rating. The only real thing that makes IMC/IFR flying more dangerous is the likely hood of encountering severe weather. At least in day time IMC/IFR you break out of the clouds and can see the runway when you land, at night you may not be able to.

If anything I feel like the rules that govern requirement of an IFR certificate needs to be changed. If you can fly in the dark, you can fly in the clouds...
 
A_Valkyrie said:
I am perplexed how one would navigate at night over rural areas (assuming no navigation aids) without cities, towns, etc. to reference. That would be a lot like instrument flying to me.
Click to expand...
Those two statements seem contradictory, since instrument flying usually involves the use of navigation aids.

If, for some reason, ground-based navigation aids were not available, your GPS battery ran down, and you weren't able to see enough familiar landmarks to stay oriented, that might be sufficient reason to postpone the flight until daylight.

As my late cousin, who was a pilot for a major airline for many years, used to say, "Know your limitations."
 
For all the folks saying how dangerous night flying is, how much night flying experience do you have?

Sounds a lot like the base to final spin boogie man that inexperienced CFIs keep passing on.
 
Grum.Man said:
I think night flying in general is more dangerous than 90% of IMC flights requiring an IFR rating. The only real thing that makes IMC/IFR flying more dangerous is the likely hood of encountering severe weather. At least in day time IMC/IFR you break out of the clouds and can see the runway when you land, at night you may not be able to.

If anything I feel like the rules that govern requirement of an IFR certificate needs to be changed. If you can fly in the dark, you can fly in the clouds...
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with that. The danger in IMC according to every statistic I've ever seen is spacial disorientation which isn't a factor at night unless you're over open water or a desert or somewhere really remote with an overcast sky. You can plainly see the horizon at night... spacial disorientation isn't going to be a factor for most.

The other big reason for having an IFR rating is traffic... you can't see traffic in the clouds but it's actually easier to find traffic at night vs day.
 
Grum.Man said:
I think night flying in general is more dangerous than 90% of IMC flights requiring an IFR rating. The only real thing that makes IMC/IFR flying more dangerous is the likely hood of encountering severe weather. At least in day time IMC/IFR you break out of the clouds and can see the runway when you land, at night you may not be able to.

If anything I feel like the rules that govern requirement of an IFR certificate needs to be changed. If you can fly in the dark, you can fly in the clouds...
Click to expand...
The instrument rating involves a lot more than flying in the clouds!
 
About 80 hours night flying. Been all over with and without low-ish ceilings, all VFR, including Colorado (Denver), Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa most of it was flying airplanes < 160 horsepower and not much speed to compete with thunderstorms.

The most uncomfortable I've been was departing an with thunderstorms about 25 miles away in three directions, looking straight up was stars but lighting was distant and on three sides of the airplane. We landed at an alternate destination and tied and a bout 15 minutes later it was pouring rain.

I'm pretty good at noticing changes in groundspeed which is a good clue storms are near (VFR day or night).

I don't think we need more laws to protect the lowest common denominator.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
cowman said:
I have to disagree with that. The danger in IMC according to every statistic I've ever seen is spacial disorientation which isn't a factor at night unless you're over open water or a desert or somewhere really remote with an overcast sky. You can plainly see the horizon at night... spacial disorientation isn't going to be a factor for most.

The other big reason for having an IFR rating is traffic... you can't see traffic in the clouds but it's actually easier to find traffic at night vs day.
Click to expand...

The point is though that there is no differentiation of how dark the night is or where you are at. There is no regulation that says you have to be able to see the horizon at night to fly at night. So legally one can fly in the same conditions that would require an IFR license.

It's easier to see the traffic IF you are looking out side instead of at your instruments when you cannot distinguish a horizon.
 
Grum.Man said:
The point is though that there is no differentiation of how dark the night is or where you are at. There is no regulation that says you have to be able to see the horizon at night to fly at night. So legally one can fly in the same conditions that would require an IFR license.
Click to expand...

Right but you can also legally fly along at 250' with a 700' cloud deck and 1mile of visibility and be VFR and it's legal in G airspace over a non-congested area. At some point you have to leave things to the judgement of the pilot or we would have to be so heavily regulated that nobody would be able to fly for all practical purposes.
 
I don't agree that an IFR rating should be required for night flight, I'm saying there needs to be some consistency. I don't think it should be required to have an IFR rating to fly through a cloud layer that is over 1000 feet off the ground for the same reason you can fly at night in the pitch dark without one.

What I am proposing is that as long as the ceiling is at pattern altitude or above it shouldn't matter if you fly in the clouds as long as you are in radio contact with a controller.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I see a lot of pilots take night VFR flying pretty casually. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to do without an instrument rating. I've had too many times that I've (unexpectedly) flown into a cloud at night to recommend night VFR flight to VFR only pilots. This has even happened on days when I've flown 1400 miles over the same route I then backtracked on at night and didn't see a single cloud for the entire trip. This can be surprising if you don't expect it.
Click to expand...

This happened to me a while ago. Got a vector from Miami towards the ocean on a moonless night. Then suddenly my strobes started flashing everywhere. It really does surprise you when it happens.
 
Thanks to all the contributors in this thread and thanks for being engaged pilots. As the SVP in charge of AOPA's Air Safety Institute one of the programs I oversee are the nearly 200 free safety seminars we provide GA pilots each year. As such, I'd like to address the issue . Often times what is just "hanger talk" can be misconstrued as an "official" position. I belief that may be the case here.

I want to reassure everyone that AOPA fully supports the current rules for night VFR flying as they are. I am not aware of ANY effort by any agency or organization to make changes to them.

Thanks again for asking for clarification. AOPA is are dedicated to serving our members and love the feedback.
 
Last edited:
GeorgePerry said:
Thanks to all the contributors in this thread and thanks for being engaged pilots. As the SVP in charge of AOPA's Air Safety Institute one of the programs I oversee are the nearly 200 free safety seminars we provide GA pilots each year. As such, I'd like to address the issue . Often times what is just "hanger talk" can be misconstrued as an "official" position. I belief that is the case here.

I want to reassure everyone that AOPA fully supports the current rules for night VFR flying as the are. I am not aware of ANY effort by any agency or organization to make changes to them.

Thanks again for asking for clarification. AOPA is are dedicated to serving our members and love the feedback.
Click to expand...

Why would AOPA present false information to its members?
 
Grum.Man said:
The training does, but the phenomenon that drives IFR times is mostly visibility attributed to clouds or fog.
Click to expand...
I was mainly referring to the fact that IFR training goes way beyond what is required for safe night VFR.
 
"Glider Dude"

AOPA, the Air Safety Institute, or any of my presenters would never deliberately state information that is inaccurate. If an "honest" miscommunication or misunderstanding occurred, I sincerely apologize on behalf of the presenter and AOPA.

George
 
GeorgePerry said:
Thanks to all the contributors in this thread and thanks for being engaged pilots. As the SVP in charge of AOPA's Air Safety Institute one of the programs I oversee are the nearly 200 free safety seminars we provide GA pilots each year. As such, I'd like to address the issue . Often times what is just "hanger talk" can be misconstrued as an "official" position. I belief that may be the case here.

I want to reassure everyone that AOPA fully supports the current rules for night VFR flying as they are. I am not aware of ANY effort by any agency or organization to make changes to them.

Thanks again for asking for clarification. AOPA is are dedicated to serving our members and love the feedback.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I kind of assumed this was the case seeing as how we hadn't heard anything like it anywhere before.
 
Grum.Man said:
I don't agree that an IFR rating should be required for night flight, I'm saying there needs to be some consistency. I don't think it should be required to have an IFR rating to fly through a cloud layer that is over 1000 feet off the ground for the same reason you can fly at night in the pitch dark without one.

What I am proposing is that as long as the ceiling is at pattern altitude or above it shouldn't matter if you fly in the clouds as long as you are in radio contact with a controller.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the part about the pilot needing to be able to competently fly in IMC, the aircraft also needs to have a current pitot-stat for flight into IMC. This is important for separation requirements, since the aircraft actually needs to be where the pilot thinks it is.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Ignoring the part about the pilot needing to be able to competently fly in IMC, the aircraft also needs to have a current pitot-stat for flight into IMC. This is important for separation requirements, since the aircraft actually needs to be where the pilot thinks it is.
Click to expand...

None of that is required for night flying for which flying solely by instruments could be required and is apparently perfectly legal for a VFR pilot to fly in. All that is required is that the aircraft has position lights, and the pilot has self certified him self night proficient. Fundamentally there is no difference flying in a cloud layer at 2000 agl versus flying in the pitch dark except one takes an IFR rating and the other does not.
 
Grum.Man said:
None of that is required for night flying for which flying solely by instruments could be required and is apparently perfectly legal for a VFR pilot to fly in. All that is required is that the aircraft has position lights, and the pilot has self certified him self night proficient. Fundamentally there is no difference flying in a cloud layer at 2000 agl versus flying in the pitch dark except one takes an IFR rating and the other does not.
Click to expand...

Night VFR you can see other aircraft quite easily. Hard to do in IMC.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Night VFR you can see other aircraft quite easily. Hard to do in IMC.
Click to expand...

Not if you are having to do your instrument scan because there are no visual outside references.

If that's the issue, just make a rule that says when in IMC with a VFR rating the pilot must be in contact with ATC.
 
Grum.Man said:
Not if you are having to do your instrument scan because there are no visual outside references.
Click to expand...

By that token, a typical pilot with synthetic vision in day VFR is also not looking outside.

If that's the issue, just make a rule that says when in IMC with a VFR rating the pilot must be in contact with ATC.
Click to expand...

ATC is not required to provide separation for VFR aircraft.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
By that token, a typical pilot with synthetic vision in day VFR is also not looking outside.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! You are slowly making my point one post at a time ;-)


ATC is not required to provide separation for VFR aircraft.
Click to expand...

I know, that's the only difference between a VFR Pilot flying in Pitch dark vs. an IFR pilot flying in the clouds. So if hitting other aircraft is the only difference then just make it a rule that a VFR pilot can fly in the clouds as long as they are in contact with ATC.... problem solved.
 
I can see having a rule that says if in contact with ATC you can be cleared to climb or descend through a scattered layer during the day... that would actually be really handy... but VFR into IMC kills so many people that I don't think it's to be taken lightly.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I realize plenty disagree with me, and that's fine. My issue isn't with depth perception, dark, etc., it's with inadvertent VFR into IMC and subsequent loss of control. There is CFIT awareness to consider as well, which is part of why I make a point of shooting instrument approaches at night unless it's at an airport I know incredibly well. Even then, sometimes I specifically shoot an instrument approach because I know it well enough to know there are obstacles.

Of course, I also flew a lot in the northeast where clouds are common. There are parts of the country where clouds are not common.
Click to expand...

Yes but typically those parts without clouds have lots of tall dark rocks.
 
cowman said:
I can see having a rule that says if in contact with ATC you can be cleared to climb or descend through a scattered layer during the day... that would actually be really handy... but VFR into IMC kills so many people that I don't think it's to be taken lightly.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% and the only reason flying at night doesn't is because it's not done as often and the scenario where it's completely pitch black is even less likely. It's legal regardless...
 
As for night vs IMC

For one, frickin' ICE, that's a a game changer

Two, on a clear night I can see a beacon and runway, city, etc lights for miles and miles.

For the helo guys NVGs are a game changer for night ops, IMC not so much.

If you're comparing night to IMC, I doubt you know much about ether.
 
James331 said:
As for night vs IMC

For one, frickin' ICE, that's a a game changer

Two, on a clear night I can see a beacon and runway, city, etc lights for miles and miles.

For the helo guys NVGs are a game changer for night ops, IMC not so much.

If you're comparing night to IMC, I doubt you know much about ether.
Click to expand...

My airport beacon never works and only about 5 runway lights work yet it's still legal to land VFR at night. You can land on a grass runway in the middle of nowhere if you want to. For the purpose of flying night flying and IMC can require the same exact skill set. To say one is legal just because it's at night is just stupid. When flying IFR you likely aren't spending the majority of your time in IMC conditions either and you are landing and departing visually.. Landing on a dark runway with a blown landing light is much more risky than landing with a 600 ft ceiling.
 
flyingron said:
It still is.
Click to expand...
I never had the option to decline night flight during my primary training.

I personally feel like the 3 hours required for a PPL is anything but sufficient for "night proficiency". You would have never saw me flying solo at night with only 3 hours. :no:
 
Grum.Man said:
My airport beacon never works and only about 5 runway lights work yet it's still legal to land VFR at night. You can land on a grass runway in the middle of nowhere if you want to. For the purpose of flying night flying and IMC can require the same exact skill set. To say one is legal just because it's at night is just stupid. When flying IFR you likely aren't spending the majority of your time in IMC conditions either and you are landing and departing visually.. Landing on a dark runway with a blown landing light is much more risky than landing with a 600 ft ceiling.
Click to expand...

So you need a government official to hold your hand and walk you through what you should and shouldn't do?

Maybe some adult daycare too?

And for me, if I'm filing IFR it's because I'd be illegal without being IFR, VFR is faster, IFR is a completely different tool in my belt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top