IFR at night in single engine airplane?

[Everskyward]

You'd probably say unkind things about the 9-year old truck that just replaced my 17-year old car. But you probably routinely fly jetsthat someone else has preflighted, without checking the fuel on board. Sure, you check the paper that has the fuel that someone else says is there, but we both know that's not the same thing.

I like new vehicles and I would never buy a truck but that has little to do with safety, it has more to do with not wanting to bother with something that needs a lot of attention. As far as the fuel goes, no one takes the caps off to look in the tank. The gauges are accurate unlike in a small airplane and there is no paper that says anything. Unlike some of the people I work with I have no problem flying a single or in a single in the mountains since I did it routinely back in the day. I only added the comment about MO and IL to forestall comments since people know I live in Colorado now. Guess it didn't work.

 

[douglas393]

Did it last night, 600 miles and over the mountains too!
Not for one moment was I nervous, scared or concerned.
Was great, especially since it was so quiet on the radio
Except to hear the ATC call of someone who ran out of gas and landed 3 miles short.

Willing to bet it's more dangerous to be a dumbass than to fly at night!

Or the dumbass that flies at night!

 

[Z06_Mir]

I avoid the mountains at night but that's about it. Living in Arizona I don't get the opportunity to fly IMC often, and when I do it's never been at night. But I sure wouldn't rule it out depending on where I'm going. I love night flying. You folks that avoid it are missing out on the smoothest, most relaxing flying there is IMO.

 

[RotorAndWing]

But you probably routinely fly jetsthat someone else has preflighted, without checking the fuel on board.

Apologies for the thread drift, but just how does one fly a jet that "someone else has preflighted"? Are you saying someone other than the flight crew does the preflight?

Also, how does the crew do a preflight without "checking the fuel onboard"? Most jet (and turbine) operations require two methods of determining the onboard fuel. Fuel remaining plus fuel added should equal fuel onboard +/- a predetermined error. If not then the next step would typically be doing a "drip stick" method to determine quantity or defueling and refueling with a known amount.

Sure, you check the paper that has the fuel that someone else says is there, but we both know that's not the same thing.

So are you saying that the fuel truck meter readings are inaccurate or perhaps the lineman doing the fueling would just make up numbers and write them down on the receipt??

 

[Z06_Mir]

So are you saying that the fuel truck meter readings are inaccurate or perhaps the lineman doing the fueling would just make up numbers and write them down on the receipt??

Didn't you see the thread where linepersons can't be trusted?

FWIW, meters are calibrated annual by the state in most states. Airlines require us to fill out slip with beginning meters and end meters in gallons. Normally, I would do the math in my head for pounds and once I was close to that number I babysat the auto fuel function (assuming it was working) incase it goes haywire.

 

[JoseCuervo]

People fly around trying to keep a runway in gliding distance?


Ever been backcountry ?

 

[Tom-D]

I guess I value my sweet cheeks a little more than some.

Why should I trust my a$$ to my poor proficiency, an aircraft that is nearly as old as I am and some ATC that I don't know with my safety?

There are those that believe when you are down to 1 engine, 1 vac system, 1 electrical system, and 1 pilot, simply declare the emergency.

 

[Tom-D]

Apologies for the thread drift, but just how does one fly a jet that "someone else has preflighted"?

Forgiven,,, because that is a great question, Who the He// forgot who was in charge.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've been doing it safely and successfully for over 40 years. It's just a matter of risk management and acceptance of a certain level of risk.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Why is it that it's usually just the low-time guys that are willing to stick their necks out when it comes to stupid stuff like SE night and LIFR? It sure seems that once a person gets a few thousand hours in their logbooks they tend to know better.

I must be stupid then. I'm not low time by most standards,(15k+), but I'd guess I've got a few hundred hours of LIFR, at night, in a single engined helicopter...over water

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Didn't you see the thread where linepersons can't be trusted?

Damn ramp monkeys! lol

 

[FORANE]

One man's "stupid" is another man's acceptable risk. Some would consider you stupid for getting in ANY airplane and actually leaving the ground. People get killed do that, you know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWPCE2tTLZQ

 

[Ted]

True.

I'm surprised that no one mentioned this yet, but among the old timers and even many current professional twin guys, the argument against flying a piston singe IFR at night has more to do with the lack of redundancy than worrying about a simple engine failure.

Many perceive the twin as safer because of dual vacuum pumps, dual alternators/generators...etc, so you in theory have greater protection from instrument failure and subsequent disorientation in the twin.

If the airplane is available and I can afford it, I'd take the twin over the single for that reason.....but nothing is a guarantee. Plenty of pro pilots have augered in after instrument failures in twins (the OSU King Air crash in CO comes to mind). Plus with all the aftermarket redundancy add ons available, I see no problem flying a single IFR at night.

I think that's a good summary. More than anything, I like having all the backuups afforded with two engines, which have proven very useful over time. I could get pretty close with one engine, though. After that, it comes down to other preferences and my tendency to fly over large expanses of nothingness or water, which I just am not interested in doing in a single. Personal preference and all.

Then I try to reduce my risk of crashing through various other factors.

 

[Velocity173]

If you have an autopilot and an AOA indicator, single engine piston can be flown safely in any weather condition.

 

[dell30rb]

If you have an autopilot and an AOA indicator, single engine piston can be flown safely in any weather condition.

My autopilot actually climbs out of the panel and scrapes the ice off of the leading edges, then comes back inside and makes me a cup of coffee.

 

[Ted]

When I was flying the Part 91 Navajo, the (non-pilot) boss wanted the two of us to wear official pilot shirts with bars on the shoulders.

He bought us both 3-bars. We joked the AP was the captain.

 

[wsuffa]

I've been doing it safely and successfully for over 40 years. It's just a matter of risk management and acceptance of a certain level of risk.

My view too. It's all about risk management, confidence in yourself & plane, and currency.

Then again, I've also done the Shark route (MANTA intersection) to New England in a single....

 

[Ted]

My view too. It's all about risk management, confidence in yourself & plane, and currency.

Then again, I've also done the Shark route (MANTA intersection) to New England in a single....

When I was in Cozumel a few years back (I forget which trip) there was a Mooney there that had come from New Orleans, via direct.

That's about 500 nm of water, with no land anywhere nearby.

 

[danhagan]

I avoid the mountains at night but that's about it. Living in Arizona I don't get the opportunity to fly IMC often, and when I do it's never been at night. But I sure wouldn't rule it out depending on where I'm going. I love night flying. You folks that avoid it are missing out on the smoothest, most relaxing flying there is IMO.

Anyone in the desert southwest probably does a LOT of night flying. I'm at about 75 hours night and 500 total. Flights are never direct, nearly 100% of the time near one of the highways close enough to glide. Flying daytime this time of year gets old. Went to California last week and could only leave at 1pm ... not bad at 10500, total blast furnace landing to refuel in Arizona

I've been doing it safely and successfully for over 40 years. It's just a matter of risk management and acceptance of a certain level of risk.

You Da Man! Well, being a Tiger pilot obviously doesn't hurt either

My autopilot actually climbs out of the panel and scrapes the ice off of the leading edges, then comes back inside and makes me a cup of coffee.

I extended the exhaust to run through the wings and I now have fulltime de-ice summer and winter

 

[Lance F]

This isn't a poll, but I will jump in with the "yes, I fly IFR, at night, over the mountains in a single engine plane." Why? Generally because a) I almost always file IFR when I fly, b) because sometimes it's night when I want to go somewhere, and c) because sometimes there are mountains between where I am and where I want to go.
I fly quite frequently, so I am current. It's my plane, so I know and trust the maintenance.
I make no judgements about what others may or may not do. However, there are so many of these operations that go on every night without incident, I do not see why some would call this categorically "unsafe" or those that do it "stupid."

 

[Fearless Tower]

My autopilot actually climbs out of the panel and scrapes the ice off of the leading edges, then comes back inside and makes me a cup of coffee.

Is that the S-TEC Spouse model?

 

[gismo]

I extended the exhaust to run through the wings and I now have fulltime de-ice summer and winter

Your autopilot has an exhaust?

 

[Threefingeredjack]

This isn't a poll, but I will jump in with the "yes, I fly IFR, at night, over the mountains in a single engine plane." Why? Generally because a) I almost always file IFR when I fly, b) because sometimes it's night when I want to go somewhere, and c) because sometimes there are mountains between where I am and where I want to go.
I fly quite frequently, so I am current. It's my plane, so I know and trust the maintenance.
I make no judgements about what others may or may not do. However, there are so many of these operations that go on every night without incident, I do not see why some would call this categorically "unsafe" or those that do it "stupid."

They have mountains in Georgia???? Who knew?? If the MEA is under 10k they are hills. (just kidding, hills are just as dangerous as mountains)

 

[Headspace]

People fly around trying to keep a runway in gliding distance?


Ever been backcountry ?

I do it because it's an option out here. In fact, if you look at a sectional for certain parts of Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio, it's almost unavoidable past a certain altitude.

It's not exactly a bad problem to have.

 

[Velocity173]

They have mountains in Georgia???? Who knew?? If the MEA is under 10k they are hills. (just kidding, hills are just as dangerous as mountains)

According to the AIM we do. I agree though, it's not really mountainous flying as far as weather hazards but we do have some stretches of pure wilderness. I'd much rather attempt an engine out landing over the plains or desert than down the side of a 4,000 ft "mountain" at night.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

According to the AIM we do. I agree though, it's not really mountainous flying as far as weather hazards but we do have some stretches of pure wilderness. I'd much rather attempt an engine out landing over the plains or desert than down the side of a 4,000 ft "mountain" at night.

Exactly. (with the exception of DA considerations) It's all relative. If your drome is at 100 MSL 4k is a significant obstacle.

I think the whole argument about single ops over mountains night/IFR is bogus. Flying is all about risk management coupled with proficiency.

 

[Dead Stick]

Exactly. (with the exception of DA considerations) It's all relative. If your drome is at 100 MSL 4k is a significant obstacle.

I think the whole argument about single ops over mountains night/IFR is bogus. Flying is all about risk management coupled with proficiency.

Shooting an ILS to minimums is all about proficiency. Landing in a 25 knot direct crosswind is all about proficiency. Losing your engine in a single over mountains night/IFR isn't about proficiency, it's about luck. You're playing the odds and if you do it often enough it will come back to bite you.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Shooting an ILS to minimums is all about proficiency. Landing in a 25 knot direct crosswind is all about proficiency. Losing your engine in a single over mountains night/IFR isn't about proficiency, it's about luck. You're playing the odds and if you do it often enough it will come back to bite you.

Maybe. But if you want to stay totally risk free then flying isn't for you. Balancing utility with risk is what life is all about. If you are uncomfortable with a risk don't take it. But for pete's sake don't label those who choose a different set of risk values stupid. I would wager that as you build your experience level you will eventually modify your views.

 

[Clip4]

I have flown a significant amount of night XC IFR in SEL planes over the last 25 years. There are lot of different technologies that has made night IFR safer and less demanding, but anyone who believes night IFR is as safe as day IFR is not well informed.

 

[Ted]

Shooting an ILS to minimums is all about proficiency. Landing in a 25 knot direct crosswind is all about proficiency. Losing your engine in a single over mountains night/IFR isn't about proficiency, it's about luck. You're playing the odds and if you do it often enough it will come back to bite you.

And with most crashes being caused by pilot error, it's clear that proficiency is a bigger problem than luck.

 

[Lance F]

And with most crashes being caused by pilot error, it's clear that proficiency is a bigger problem than luck.

All right Ted! +100

 

[wsuffa]

Shooting an ILS to minimums is all about proficiency. Landing in a 25 knot direct crosswind is all about proficiency. Losing your engine in a single over mountains night/IFR isn't about proficiency, it's about luck. You're playing the odds and if you do it often enough it will come back to bite you.

It's about managing risk.

Remember that twins carry risks of their own, especially if the pilot is not proficient. With some twins a lack of proficiency can also come back to bite in the mountains at night. If you want risk-free, then stay on the ground & hibernate. Pilot error causes more accidents than IFR at night.

 

[Everskyward]

It's about managing risk.

Remember that twins carry risks of their own, especially if the pilot is not proficient. With some twins a lack of proficiency can also come back to bite in the mountains at night. If you want risk-free, then stay on the ground & hibernate. Pilot error causes more accidents than IFR at night.

I think it's also about managing fear logically. Right after 9/11 I read an article which made the argument that most people are afraid of things out of proportion to the probability the are going to happen. People were afraid of dying in a terrorist attack but not in a car accident which is statistically more likely. I see this trait displayed here on the board and in real life a lot, not about terrorists and car wrecks, but about other things. Of course I could point a finger at myself too...

 

[wsuffa]

I think it's also about managing fear logically. Right after 9/11 I read an article which made the argument that most people are afraid of things out of proportion to the probability the are going to happen. People were afraid of dying in a terrorist attack but not in a car accident which is statistically more likely. I see this trait displayed here on the board and in real life a lot, not about terrorists and car wrecks, but about other things. Of course I could point a finger at myself too...

I agree. And there are those that would push us into a "culture of fear" in order to gain power or control... or to deter people from doing things that would be safe if the risk were managed correctly. It's manifested in phrases like "out of an abundance of caution" or "think of the children". Or folks that say "I'll never set foot in an experimental airplane".

Excess redundancy, too, comes from fear - but carries with it certain risks (one is good, two is better, but three would really make it safe). You can put so many rules, restrictions, and redundancies into a system that it becomes totally unusable & so complex that one can't possibly remember what to do if something fails.

So, yes, managing fear is a big part of it. I'd also postulate that experience helps people better manage fear.

 

[Velocity173]

While I'm on board with those that say single engine IFR is a minimal risk there are far more people against it that what is posted here. I've heard from plenty of guys that they'd never put their family in a single engine piston plane at all. They'd only fly a single turbine or piston twin. Also, plenty of people who'll fly only a Cirrus because of the chute. I guess on POA we don't have too many of those types.

I can understand a concern for the added risk but it's still low and acceptable. Know your aircraft, know your area, and know the odds are in your favor.

 

[wsuffa]

While I'm on board with those that say single engine IFR is a minimal risk there are far more people against it that what is posted here. I've heard from plenty of guys that they'd never put their family in a single engine piston plane at all. They'd only fly a single turbine or piston twin. Also, plenty of people who'll fly only a Cirrus because of the chute.

And that's their choice. No issue with them deciding that they wish to manage the risk that way.

 

[Ted]

I agree. And there are those that would push us into a "culture of fear" in order to gain power or control... or to deter people from doing things that would be safe if the risk were managed correctly. It's manifested in phrases like "out of an abundance of caution" or "think of the children". Or folks that say "I'll never set foot in an experimental airplane".

Excess redundancy, too, comes from fear - but carries with it certain risks (one is good, two is better, but three would really make it safe). You can put so many rules, restrictions, and redundancies into a system that it becomes totally unusable & so complex that one can't possibly remember what to do if something fails.

So, yes, managing fear is a big part of it. I'd also postulate that experience helps people better manage fear.

Part 25 is all about risk management for aircraft certified under it. There are no single engine part 25 aircraft for a reason and never will be. ETOPS isn't automatic for a reason. So when looking at what I want to do for aircraft, I do think about what the Part 25 requirement would be and balance that against cost and other factors. I think it makes sense and provides a good framework for how to make a more reliable plane. I also look at how airlines manage their maintenance for similar reasons. It's worked well.

But from the other end of reality, the pilot is the least reliable part of the plane and always will be. Our planes will never have Part 25 performance or reliability. We can try to improve things, but we aren't going to get there.

I know a lot of people who manage their risk by not flying at night or over mountains in a single. The reality is their proficiency is such that they probably shouldn't do it in a twin, either. If they had an engine failure, they likely wouldn't get back on the ground in one piece with that combination.

 

[wabower]

Yeah, the MTBF statistics suggest you're going to be at signficant risk if you fly until you're 200 years old. Since I'm almost there I'm being much more careful. But the odds of being hurt or killed on a flight of stairs is much higher than engine failure in a single, so I now take the elevator.

Shooting an ILS to minimums is all about proficiency. Landing in a 25 knot direct crosswind is all about proficiency. Losing your engine in a single over mountains night/IFR isn't about proficiency, it's about luck. You're playing the odds and if you do it often enough it will come back to bite you.

 

[wsuffa]

Part 25 is all about risk management for aircraft certified under it. There are no single engine part 25 aircraft for a reason and never will be. ETOPS isn't automatic for a reason. So when looking at what I want to do for aircraft, I do think about what the Part 25 requirement would be and balance that against cost and other factors. I think it makes sense and provides a good framework for how to make a more reliable plane. I also look at how airlines manage their maintenance for similar reasons. It's worked well.

Yep, and that works well for you. No issue from my end. Personally, I think adhering to Part 25 is overkill for the kind of flying I do - after all, it was designed to "protect" those passengers that don't have the knowledge, experience, or ability to manage risk - but I get where you're coming from (and would never say that you're being overly cautious).

That said, I do manage risk by maintaining my plane well above the Part 91 requirements & I do a lot more training/proficiency work than is required by the regs. My goal is to manage the risks that I can control & evaluate the others such that I know where the limits are. Knowing the risks is half the battle.

But from the other end of reality, the pilot is the least reliable part of the plane and always will be. Our planes will never have Part 25 performance or reliability. We can try to improve things, but we aren't going to get there.

I know a lot of people who manage their risk by not flying at night or over mountains in a single. The reality is their proficiency is such that they probably shouldn't do it in a twin, either. If they had an engine failure, they likely wouldn't get back on the ground in one piece with that combination.

Concur completely.

 

[Ted]

Yeah, the MTBF statistics suggest you're going to be at signficant risk if you fly until you're 200 years old. Since I'm almost there I'm being much more careful. But the odds of being hurt or killed on a flight of stairs is much higher than engine failure in a single, so I now take the elevator.

Of course the lack of exercise from taking the elevator increases your chance for bone and heart problems.

Yep, and that works well for you. No issue from my end. Personally, I think adhering to Part 25 is overkill for the kind of flying I do - after all, it was designed to "protect" those passengers that don't have the knowledge, experience, or ability to manage risk - but I get where you're coming from (and would never say that you're being overly cautious).

We don't adhere to Part 25, I just use it as a reference for ideas on how to do things. I think it provides a useful perspective to consider. I think you knew my point, just wanted to clarify.

That said, I do manage risk by maintaining my plane well above the Part 91 requirements & I do a lot more training/proficiency work than is required by the regs. My goal is to manage the risks that I can control & evaluate the others such that I know where the limits are. Knowing the risks is half the battle.

The extra training is definitely the way to go. On the maintenance, it might be worth considering the airline maintenance philosophy, which views maintenance as a risk that needs to be taken into account vs the benefit of the repair. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your maintenance philosophy, it's just another perspective that I've found helpful.