End of night VFR coming?

I flew from Paso Robles to Livermore last night, in the dark - no outside horizon for the first half of the flight.
I had no problem spotting other traffic by looking outside every now and then. If you cannot look out - at all - when flying in IMC. Maybe you need to practice a bit more. Or fix your plane. I'd say when I'm flying in night IMC (that is: VFR but no outside reference for horizon), I look out 70% of the time, and 30% of time I'm head down.
 
James331 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not at all in fact the gov should stay out of it and let the pilot decide if he is competent. It's hypocritical to say you can legally fly vMC VFR at night but not day.
 
Last edited:
Grum.Man said:
It's hypocritical to say you can legally fly IMC VFR at night but not day.
Click to expand...

You got me lost here.

It's VMC or IMC, when VMC I'm VFR and vise versa
 
Grum.Man said:
EXACTLY! You are slowly making my point one post at a time ;-)
Click to expand...

Not really. You're trying to say that someone who's VFR only should be able to fly in the clouds. Many people have died that way and will continue to.

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.
Click to expand...

Being in contact with ATC does not change the fact that you're still VFR. Just because you're talking to them does not change the fact that they are not required to provide you with separation services. Yes, most of the time ATC will provide you with separation services if you're talking to them.

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...

That already exists. You can call up ATC and ask for an IFR clearance to climb above a layer. I remember getting one leaving Tony's graduation party in 2008.
 
Make NVGs required for all night VFR operations. Problem solved.
 
Velocity173 said:
Make NVGs required for all night VFR operations. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

I already have to wear the silly nomex junk

200w.gif
 
James331 said:
I already have to wear the silly nomex junk

200w.gif
Click to expand...

Please. You and I both know chicks dig Nomex. Personally I don't mind the one piece. Even sleep in it.

Seriously though, while NVGs are a crucial item for most helo ops, the cost, aircraft modification, training and currency for GA fixed wing would be prohibitive.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Not really. You're trying to say that someone who's VFR only should be able to fly in the clouds. Many people have died that way and will continue to.
Click to expand...

Yet the FAR allow a pilot that is VFR only to fly in VMC conditions at night. I'm only pointing out that the skills required are the same for both and the risk involved is equal.



Being in contact with ATC does not change the fact that you're still VFR. Just because you're talking to them does not change the fact that they are not required to provide you with separation services. Yes, most of the time ATC will provide you with separation services if you're talking to them.
Click to expand...

That communication is all that separates a pilot on an IFR flight plan flying in the clouds from a pilot flying VFR in VMC at night. That's why I propose that VFR pilots be allowed to fly in clouds as long as they are in contact with atc in the same mannor that IFR pilots are.



That already exists. You can call up ATC and ask for an IFR clearance to climb above a layer. I remember getting one leaving Tony's graduation party in 2008.
Click to expand...

That is not legal if you are not IFR rated. You cannot accept an IFR clearance if you are a VFR pilot only. If you did get one they assumed since you requested it that you held the proper ratings.
 
Last edited:
Grum.Man said:
RotorDude said:
Night flying on a moonless night over dark terrain is "actual instrument conditions" by definition (and may be legally logged as such). See this thread for more information.
Click to expand...

My point exactly which should require an IFR certificate.
Click to expand...
Either I'm confused or you're confused, Grum.man.

Night flying on a moonless night over dark terrain is actual IMC. Thus, it is not legal for VFR flight. It already *does* require an IFR certificate. (And an IFR flight plan. And an IFR clearance. And an IFR-certified plane. Etc. Etc.)

So what's that got to do with flying VFR at night when not in IMC?
 
Grum.Man said:
Yet the FAR allow a pilot that is VFR only to fly in IMC conditions at night. I'm only pointing out that the skills required are the same for both and the risk involved is equal.
Click to expand...

Er, no they don't. Flying in IMC is not permitted under Visual Flight Rules.
 
Jim_R said:
Either I'm confused or you're confused, Grum.man.

Night flying on a moonless night over dark terrain is actual IMC. Thus, it is not legal for VFR flight. It already *does* require an IFR certificate. (And an IFR flight plan. And an IFR clearance. And an IFR-certified plane. Etc. Etc.)

So what's that got to do with flying VFR at night when not in IMC?
Click to expand...
My mistake. I was referring to flying VFR in VMC conditions.
 
Jim_R said:
Either I'm confused or you're confused, Grum.man.

Night flying on a moonless night over dark terrain is actual IMC. Thus, it is not legal for VFR flight. It already *does* require an IFR certificate. (And an IFR flight plan. And an IFR clearance. And an IFR-certified plane. Etc. Etc.)

So what's that got to do with flying VFR at night when not in IMC?
Click to expand...

You're confusing IMC with actual instrument conditions. Two completely separate things.
 
Okay. It's in my mind to not fly into "black hole" situations as a VFR pilot, but in my extensive 2 minutes of digging, I can't actually find a reg that says VFR requires sight of the ground or any other orientation cue out the windows. So nevermind.
 
Jim_R said:
Either I'm confused or you're confused, Grum.man.

Night flying on a moonless night over dark terrain is actual IMC. Thus, it is not legal for VFR flight. It already *does* require an IFR certificate. (And an IFR flight plan. And an IFR clearance. And an IFR-certified plane. Etc. Etc.)
So what's that got to do with flying VFR at night when not in IMC?
Click to expand...

No. IMC is determined by visibility and cloud clearance, not darkness. Read Ron Levy's post that I linked above.
 
GeorgePerry said:
"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
Click to expand...

Thank you!
(Long time AOPA member)
 
I guess my thought process is this...

It's legal to log Instrument flying without an IFR certificate. To do that you are flying by only reference to your instruments. This usually happens at night over water or secluded spaces on a moonless or overcast night. My only point is that, the act of doing so is no different than being in the middle of a cloud. The one exception is that yes... if you look up from your instruments you will see another aircraft or lighted object to avoid at night versus in the clouds you cannot. The simple solution is to allow a VFR rated pilot to be in the clouds as long as they are in communication with ATC AND they are providing separation services.

Now I know this will never happen but it's logical and would make summer flying much more bearable. Not to mention this conversation is helping to raise my post count ;-P
 
Jim_R said:
Okay. It's in my mind to not fly into "black hole" situations as a VFR pilot, but in my extensive 2 minutes of digging, I can't actually find a reg that says VFR requires sight of the ground or any other orientation cue out the windows. So nevermind.
Click to expand...

Well for you no, no requirement. For some of us, 135.207 restricts us a bit.
 
Grum.Man said:
Now I know this will never happen but it's logical and would make summer flying much more bearable
Click to expand...
Flying through summertime cumulonimbus build ups would be bearable if you could legally as a VFR pilot? I don't think so.
 
Jim_R said:
Night flying on a moonless night over dark terrain is actual IMC.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. The "M" in IMC stands for meteorological. It may constitute instrument flight conditions for logging purposes, but it does not constitute instrument meteorological conditions.

Thus, it is not legal for VFR flight. It already *does* require an IFR certificate. (And an IFR flight plan. And an IFR clearance. And an IFR-certified plane. Etc. Etc.)
Click to expand...

Not true. VFR minimums are stated in 91.155, which specifies flight visibility in miles and distance from clouds. There's no mention of whether there is a moon out or lights on the ground.

[Edit: I see that others jumped in to make the same points while I was agonizing on getting just the right wording and references! ;)]
 
Last edited:
Grum.Man said:
The simple solution is to allow a VFR rated pilot to be in the clouds as long as they are in communication with ATC AND they are providing separation services.
Click to expand...

If you allow a VFR pilot "to be inside a cloud", you assume he/she knows all about icing, weather, what to do if the cloud continues to the ground (or nearly so, i.e. instrument approaches), ATC communications, routings, altitudes, etc. IOW, you are assuming most of the knowledge required for an IFR rating.
Also, staying in contact with ATC is not a sure thing by any means. You might fly out of radio range, your radio might go on the fritz, or you might just misdial a handoff freq.
So this is why we have the IFR rating, to deal safely and professionally with all those issues when visibility goes low (or inside clouds). OTOH, if you are simply flying VFR/VMC in a moonless night over dark terrain, you'll be able to see traffic far enough to avoid it (hopefully), and our government assumes you are smart enough not to venture into such conditions unless you know how to use your gyroscopic instruments to stay upright. Most other governments don't, so let's cherish what we have.
 
Palmpilot said:
It seems like the level of misinformation on this board has gone way up since Ron left!
Click to expand...

As I noted elsewhere, I think Ron was one of the greatest assets/resources of this site and losing him is a major setback.
 
Ryanb said:
Flying through summertime cumulonimbus build ups would be bearable if you could legally as a VFR pilot? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
That is only one scenario.... There are other clouds that form in the summer that are not cumulonimbus build ups in case you haven't noticed.
 
RotorDude said:
If you allow a VFR pilot "to be inside a cloud", you assume he/she knows all about icing, weather, what to do if the cloud continues to the ground (or nearly so, i.e. instrument approaches), ATC communications, routings, altitudes, etc. IOW, you are assuming most of the knowledge required for an IFR rating.
Also, staying in contact with ATC is not a sure thing by any means. You might fly out of radio range, your radio might go on the fritz, or you might just misdial a handoff freq.
So this is why we have the IFR rating, to deal safely and professionally with all those issues when visibility goes low (or inside clouds). OTOH, if you are simply flying VFR/VMC in a moonless night over dark terrain, you'll be able to see traffic far enough to avoid it (hopefully), and our government assumes you are smart enough not to venture into such conditions unless you know how to use your gyroscopic instruments to stay upright. Most other governments don't, so let's cherish what we have.
Click to expand...

You were taught about icing, and weather and demonstrated proficiency in those topics when you got your pilots license. There are obvious common sense precautions that have to be followed just like any other type of flying. I don't need to know instrument approaches, or routings if i'm flying through a cloud layer at 8k agl. Staying in contact with ATC isn't a sure thing while on an IFR flight plan either. They are all risk that a few basic ground rules could mitigate or a sub category could handle like other countries have..
 
A big problem with the idea of eliminating night VFR is that the ATC workload in major metropolitan areas could create unreasonable delays. Another is that in some places, especially in the western mountain ranges, getting in touch with ATC to get a clearance can be a real problem, and impossible in some cases. Also, it's not that unusual to find situations in which VFR is safer than IFR.

It would also render police helicopters virtually useless at night.

There are just too many drawbacks. If accident rates are sufficient to justify a change (and I'm not sure they are), I think it would be a lot more palatable to include night refresher training in BFRs.
 
I think the term missing here is "flight solely by reference to instruments" to describe the moonless dark night.. not IMC.
 
Grum.Man said:
You were taught about icing, and weather and demonstrated proficiency in those topics when you got your pilots license. There are obvious common sense precautions that have to be followed just like any other type of flying. I don't need to know instrument approaches, or routings if i'm flying through a cloud layer at 8k agl. Staying in contact with ATC isn't a sure thing while on an IFR flight plan either. They are all risk that a few basic ground rules could mitigate or a sub category could handle like other countries have..
Click to expand...

The issue is not so much theory as practice. It's true that even while training for the IR most pilots get precious little real world experience, but at least they get to appreciate the risk of entering into clouds. The way you talk it sounds like you have never been inside one. I can assure you that although you may be able to choose to enter a cloud, leaving it is another matter. You might enter something that seems benign to you, but then get trapped inside, as the initial cloud merges into others, with a lowering ceiling as you continue, or icing as you try to outclimb it. I would hope that your cavalier attitude is just bravado for the internet and not something you truly believe.
 
Brad Z said:
I think the term missing here is "flight solely by reference to instruments" to describe the moonless dark night.. not IMC.
Click to expand...

The FAA calls it "actual instrument flying", which is loggable as such. IMC is not officially loggable, per se.
 
Grum.Man said:
...I don't need to know instrument approaches, or routings if i'm flying through a cloud layer at 8k agl...
Click to expand...
One problem is that you would need to know that you weren't going to need an instrument approach to get down, and forecasts are not 100% reliable. When you're in VFR conditions, you can usually see whether cloud heights and/or visibility under the clouds are deteriorating, so that you can land or turn back before you get in over your head.
 
RotorDude said:
The issue is not so much theory as practice. It's true that even while training for the IR most pilots get precious little real world experience, but at least they get to appreciate the risk of entering into clouds. The way you talk it sounds like you have never been inside one. I can assure you that although you may be able to choose to enter a cloud, leaving it is another matter. You might enter something that seems benign to you, but then get trapped inside, as the initial cloud merges into others, with a lowering ceiling as you continue, or icing as you try to outclimb it. I would hope that your cavalier attitude is just bravado for the internet and not something you truly believe.
Click to expand...

I have about 20 hours of simulated and actual combined so I know exactly what I am talking about. Being in a cloud is no different than being under the hood during my primary flight training when it comes to flying the aircraft. Again, there has to be common sense just like there is in any other flying. You don't fly at night in mountainous terrain bellow the peaks do you? There is no rule that tells you not to, it's just common sense. Obviously I wouldn't enter a cloud if there was cumulus activity in the area, or if the bottoms were even close to being MVFR. It's not a ticket to be stupid, it's common sense.
 
Grum.Man said:
...You don't fly at night in mountainous terrain bellow the peaks do you?...
Click to expand...
There are circumstances in which that can be done safely. A clear night with a well-traveled freeway below is an example. (One must check elevations on a chart, of course.)
 
Palmpilot said:
One problem is that you would need to know that you weren't going to need an instrument approach to get down, and forecasts are not 100% reliable. When you're in VFR conditions, you can usually see whether cloud heights and/or visibility under the clouds are deteriorating, so that you can land or turn back before you get in over your head.
Click to expand...

Again, common sense has to come into play. If you are on a 2 hour flight with clouds forecast and predicted to be 3500 agl it's fairly un likely that you it will deteriate that quickly. It's probably the same probability that you could fly into adverse conditions at night.
 
Well, everybody sees risk differently, that's for sure.
 
Palmpilot said:
There are circumstances in which that can be done safely. A clear night with a well-traveled freeway below is an example. (One must check elevations on a chart, of course.)
Click to expand...
And there are circumstances that flying in clouds can be done safely too. Like high ceilings, no cumulous activty. So you made a risk analysis for flying into mountainous terrain assuming you can follow a road and that the night will remain clear, what if that changes?
 
Grum.Man said:
I have about 20 hours of simulated and actual combined so I know exactly what I am talking about. Being in a cloud is no different than being under the hood during my primary flight training when it comes to flying the aircraft. Again, there has to be common sense just like there is in any other flying. You don't fly at night in mountainous terrain bellow the peaks do you? There is no rule that tells you not to, it's just common sense. Obviously I wouldn't enter a cloud if there was cumulus activity in the area, or if the bottoms were even close to being MVFR. It's not a ticket to be stupid, it's common sense.
Click to expand...

Not jumping on the pile here but I can guarantee that there is in fact a huge difference being under the hood and being in a cloud. Under the hood you can absolutely see out and grab references for a brief second that reset the brain. In a total cloud immersion, there is no reference for the brain and will get you eventually as to where a hood will likely never get you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top