IFR at night in single engine airplane?

[Dead Stick]

It's about exposure. Like playing Russian Roulette with a 1000 round cylinder. The odds are in your favor on any given trigger pull, but sooner or later, if you do it often enough, the hammer is going to fall on that cylinder that had the cartridge in it.

In order to put that little airplane of yours back on the ground and walk away from it (I read somewhere that this is the definition of a good landing.) you've got to be able to see. Proficiency and skill give you the ability to do that in varying conditions and situations. How does one train for or gain proficiency in doing something like emergency, engine out off-airport landings at night over mountainous terrain? Some how in 50 years of active flying and a 40 year professional career in the cockpit I've managed to miss that course. If you ever end up finding yourself in that position, it's not going to be skill and proficiency that saves your butt, it will be luck. ["Turn the landing light on. If you like what you see, leave it on...] Read up on Tim Treadwell. There's another guy who rationalized and convinced himself that something was much safer than it really was. How many were surprised when he and his girl friend ended up as bear turd? ["Gee, I never saw that one coming."] Getting away with doing stupid things in airplanes doesn't mean it was safe, it just means that you were lucky. Granted, you'll never totally eliminate the risk in flying (or anything else for that matter) but where's the payout in adding to it by intentionally placing yourself in situations where there is no good out?

 

[dell30rb]

It's about exposure. Like playing Russian Roulette with a 1000 round cylinder. The odds are in your favor on any given trigger pull, but sooner or later, if you do it often enough, the hammer is going to fall on that cylinder that had the cartridge in it.

In order to put that little airplane of yours back on the ground and walk away from it (I read somewhere that this is the definition of a good landing.) you've go to be able to see. Proficiency and skill give you the ability to do that in varying conditions and situations. How does one train for or gain proficiency in doing something like emergency, engine out off-airport landings at night over mountainous terrain? Some how in 50 years of active flying and a 40 year professional career in the cockpit I've managed to miss that course. If you ever end up finding yourself in that position, it's not going to be skill and proficiency that saves your butt, it will be luck. Read up on Tim Treadwell. There's another guy who rationalized and convinced himself that something was much safer than it really was. How many were surprised when he and his girl friend ended up as bear turd? Getting away with doing stupid things in airplanes doesn't mean it was safe, it just means that you were lucky.

Lets consider your very strong opinion about the stupidity of single engine flying.

And your user name.

Do you sleep at night?

 

[wabower]

Any activity includes a bullet in one of the cylinders. You're trying to impute additional risk based on incaccurate assumptions in order to support your belief.

Walk-aways aren't based on being able to see, but it's obviously better than the alternative. They're based on a combination of survivable circumstances and luck. Wings level, under control, slowest speed, shoulder harness/restraint are the known contributors to survivability.

You want a list of all the guys who incorrectly thought two engines would insure their safety during a night flight?

It's about exposure. Like playing Russian Roulette with a 1000 round cylinder. The odds are in your favor on any given trigger pull, but sooner or later, if you do it often enough, the hammer is going to fall on that cylinder that had the cartridge in it.

In order to put that little airplane of yours back on the ground and walk away from it (I read somewhere that this is the definition of a good landing.) you've go to be able to see. Proficiency and skill give you the ability to do that in varying conditions and situations. How does one train for or gain proficiency in doing something like emergency, engine out off-airport landings at night over mountainous terrain? Some how in 50 years of active flying and a 40 year professional career in the cockpit I've managed to miss that course. If you ever end up finding yourself in that position, it's not going to be skill and proficiency that saves your butt, it will be luck. Read up on Tim Treadwell. There's another guy who rationalized and convinced himself that something was much safer than it really was. How many were surprised when he and his girl friend ended up as bear turd? Getting away with doing stupid things in airplanes doesn't mean it was safe, it just means that you were lucky.

 

[Lance F]

Dead Stick, I know you're just trolling, but there are those starting instrument training and looking at using SE airplanes for something other than floating around their local aerodrome on perfect VFR days reading this. It's a disservice to them to use baseless analogies about Russian Roulette and getting eaten by bears to dissuade them from getting more utility out of their GA flying.
The engine does not know it is night. It does not know what the terrain is. Properly maintained and fed an adequate supply of fuel and air it will purr along just fine in those conditions.
Proficiency and maintenance make this type of flying useful and not inherently unsafe. To preach otherwise is simply not accurate.

 

[Dead Stick]

Lets consider your very strong opinion about the stupidity of single engine flying.

And your user name.

Do you sleep at night?

I do not think flying single engine airplanes is stupid. I think flying single engine airplanes at night or in low IMC or extended over water is stupid. Oh and as for my user name, I also fly sailplanes and all of the good glider oriented names had been taken. Losing an engine doesn't particularly bother me. I make a lot of "no engine" landings on my days off. I'm actually quite good at it.

 

[Dead Stick]

Dead Stick, I know you're just trolling, but there are those starting instrument training and looking at using SE airplanes for something other than floating around their local aerodrome on perfect VFR days reading this. It's a disservice to them to use baseless analogies about Russian Roulette and getting eaten by bears to dissuade them from getting more utility out of their GA flying.
The engine does not know it is night. It does not know what the terrain is. Properly maintained and fed an adequate supply of fuel and air it will purr along just fine in those conditions.
Proficiency and maintenance make this type of flying useful and not inherently unsafe. To preach otherwise is simply not accurate.

Lance, I am just trolling and I do know that there are inexperienced people on this forum and that is precisely why I'm doing this. Who's said anything about SE airplanes only being useful for flying in the pattern on perfect VFR days? I certainly have not. Re read my posts. I talk about LOW IFR, I talk about night XC, I talk about extended over water flying. Stuff that leaves you with no GOOD options when the engine quits. Oh and I thought the analogies about Russian Roulette and being eaten by bears was pretty accurate. If you want to move this discussion up the ladder a rung or two, what about instrument pilots who consistently bust minimums? [/TROLL]

OK, I'm in a better mood now.

 

[dell30rb]

I do not think flying single engine airplanes is stupid. I think flying single engine airplanes at night or in low IMC or extended over water is stupid. Oh and as for my user name, I also fly sailplanes and all of the good glider oriented names had been taken. Losing an engine doesn't particularly bother me. I make a lot of "no engine" landings on my days off. I'm actually quite good at it.

Sure, and the average instrument rated private pilot might spend 3% of their total lifetime flying hours in conditions like you describe, where the only action you can take in the event of engine failure is buckle up, shut off fuel, crack the door, fly at 60kts and hope for the best. Maybe 60% chance of survival.

The odds are very, very low that you will experience a failure during that 3% of flight time.

BTW I don't consider at night to be an issue by itself. At night I cruise at 7000+ feet around here and am virtually always in gliding distance of a lit 5000 foot airport free of terrain.

 

[Ted]

So what's stupider, flying a single engine plane at night in IMC or flying a twin in same conditions without proficiency in OEI procedures?

I'd say the latter. Twice the probability of an engine failure and if you don't know what you're doing likely to have a massive crash. Think of it as Russian Roulette with a .45ACP instead of a .22LR.

 

[wabower]

If you're sleuthing out the risk of any flight operation I think you've identified the most likely suspect.

So what's stupider, flying a single engine plane at night in IMC or flying a twin in same conditions without proficiency in OEI procedures?

I'd say the latter. Twice the probability of an engine failure and if you don't know what you're doing likely to have a massive crash.

 

[Dead Stick]

Sure, and the average instrument rated private pilot might spend 3% of their total lifetime flying hours in conditions like you describe, where the only action you can take in the event of engine failure is buckle up, shut off fuel, crack the door, fly at 60kts and hope for the best. Maybe 60% chance of survival.

The odds are very, very low that you will experience a failure during that 3% of flight time.

BTW I don't consider at night to be an issue by itself. At night I cruise at 7000+ feet around here and am virtually always in gliding distance of a lit 5000 foot airport free of terrain.

Then 97% of the time when you're flying your single IFR you're not being limited are you? I would dare say that the average instrument rated private pilot probably has no business out screwing around in LIFR conditions anyway. Fortunately most of them realize that and avoid it.

 

[Ted]

If you're sleuthing out the risk of any flight operation I think you've identified the most likely suspect.

As we've both pointed out, the pilot is still less reliable than the engine.

 

[wabower]

When I read the comments from other pilots, it's somewhat common for them to mention their maintenance practices and standards as part of their comfort level with night ops.

For the life of me I can't recall ever talking to a pilot who said he takes a lackadaisical approach to MX because he only flies day VFR. Are they out there?

As we've both pointed out, the pilot is still less reliable than the engine.

 

[Dead Stick]

So what's stupider, flying a single engine plane at night in IMC or flying a twin in same conditions without proficiency in OEI procedures?

I'd say the latter. Twice the probability of an engine failure and if you don't know what you're doing likely to have a massive crash. Think of it as Russian Roulette with a .45ACP instead of a .22LR.

I don't know about you, but I spend a lot of time and the company spends a lot of money each and every year keeping me proficient in one specific multiengine airplane. If you assume that just having an extra engine (or two or three) is automatically going to make you safer, you are foolish. It takes, plenty of effort on your part and $$$, lots of $$$. Ask Wayne, I bet he know all about that.

 

[Ted]

When I read the comments from other pilots, it's somewhat common for them to mention their maintenance practices and standards as part of their comfort level with night ops.

For the life of me I can't recall ever talking to a pilot who said he takes a lackadaisical approach to MX because he only flies day VFR. Are they out there?

I've seen folks who've behaved that way even though they've never said it as such. In spite of the reputation of twin owners to cheap out because "I have two," I haven't seen much of that.

I don't know about you, but I spend a lot of time and the company spends a lot of money each and every year keeping me proficient in one specific multiengine airplane. If you assume that just having an extra engine (or two or three) is automatically going to make you safer, you are foolish. It takes, plenty of effort on your part and $$$, lots of $$$. Ask Wayne, I bet he know all about that.

Wayne and I have talked about that quite a bit. It's common knowledge that a properly executed engine failure isn't a big deal. I believe I can handle it properly, like you, so it should work in our favor should either of us have an engine failure. Based on my personal risk acceptance, experience, and skill, I'm happier flying in a twin in IMC, night, etc. There is a reason iFlyTwins and my logbook is full of twin time. I do put effort into keeping proficient although I will also admit that I need to go make time for sim time and some extra training since I'm no longer in the professional pilot world.

Before I flew twins I flew singles, and I did fine with night, IMC, etc. Did I have as many options? No. Would I do it today? Not as long as the 310 is sitting in the hangar. Would I do it if a single was what I flew? Oh, I'd probably get used to it again. Just like Lance, who flies some pretty cool stuff when he's not in his Mooney, or Wayne, who's flown some pretty cool things himself. Certainly wouldn't call someone stupid or unsafe for doing so.

 

[Dead Stick]

I've seen folks who've behaved that way even though they've never said it as such. In spite of the reputation of twin owners to cheap out because "I have two," I haven't seen much of that.



Wayne and I have talked about that quite a bit. It's common knowledge that a properly executed engine failure isn't a big deal. I believe I can handle it properly, like you, so it should work in our favor should either of us have an engine failure. Based on my personal risk acceptance, experience, and skill, I'm happier flying in a twin in IMC, night, etc. There is a reason iFlyTwins and my logbook is full of twin time. I do put effort into keeping proficient although I will also admit that I need to go make time for sim time and some extra training since I'm no longer in the professional pilot world.

Before I flew twins I flew singles, and I did fine with night, IMC, etc. Did I have as many options? No. Would I do it today? Not as long as the 310 is sitting in the hangar. Would I do it if a single was what I flew? Oh, I'd probably get used to it again. Just like Lance, who flies some pretty cool stuff when he's not in his Mooney, or Wayne, who's flown some pretty cool things himself. Certainly wouldn't call someone stupid or unsafe for doing so.

I guess anything is safe then just as long as the bear isn't eating you. Oh, I'm sorry, I need to be more PC I guess.

 

[wsuffa]

For the life of me I can't recall ever talking to a pilot who said he takes a lackadaisical approach to MX because he only flies day VFR. Are they out there?

Not in so many words, but they are out there. The "Kick the tires, light the fires" type. I've seen plenty of planes that appear to be maintained by folks with such an approach. And seen a few at flight schools where the attitude is "it's good enough for pattern work, just don't go too far away".... and I have heard that phrase used in so many words.

 

[wsuffa]

It's about exposure. Like playing Russian Roulette with a 1000 round cylinder. The odds are in your favor on any given trigger pull, but sooner or later, if you do it often enough, the hammer is going to fall on that cylinder that had the cartridge in it.

In order to put that little airplane of yours back on the ground and walk away from it (I read somewhere that this is the definition of a good landing.) you've got to be able to see. Proficiency and skill give you the ability to do that in varying conditions and situations. How does one train for or gain proficiency in doing something like emergency, engine out off-airport landings at night over mountainous terrain? Some how in 50 years of active flying and a 40 year professional career in the cockpit I've managed to miss that course.

And that becomes part of the risk calculation. As does altitude, availability of airports (and approaches) near the flight path, Cirrus-type parachute availability, etc.

If you ever end up finding yourself in that position, it's not going to be skill and proficiency that saves your butt, it will be luck. ["Turn the landing light on. If you like what you see, leave it on...] Read up on Tim Treadwell. There's another guy who rationalized and convinced himself that something was much safer than it really was. How many were surprised when he and his girl friend ended up as bear turd? ["Gee, I never saw that one coming."] Getting away with doing stupid things in airplanes doesn't mean it was safe, it just means that you were lucky. Granted, you'll never totally eliminate the risk in flying (or anything else for that matter) but where's the payout in adding to it by intentionally placing yourself in situations where there is no good out?

Define "safe".

Obviously our risk tolerances are different.

 

[Dead Stick]

It's obvious what your definition of safe is. You are correct, mine is different.

 

[Ted]

I guess anything is safe then just as long as the bear isn't eating you. Oh, I'm sorry, I need to be more PC I guess.

Nothing is safe. Life inherently has risk. If you believe otherwise, I don't want to fly with you.

 

[wsuffa]

It's obvious what your definition of safe is. You are correct, mine is different.

Actually, it's not obvious.

I deal with risk management all the time in a number of venues.... to me, this is an exercise in managing personal risks, not trying to make life risk-free. YMMV

 

[Hank S]

Dead Stick, I'd love to have a sit-down conversation with you about this. But I live in the middle of the mountains, where you say it's not safe to fly my SE plane. Almost every day I hear about fatal car accidents, so the roads must be very very dangerous, too, so I can't fly or drive to meet you.

Aircraft-wise, there have been two (2) fatal accidents near me in the last 7 years. The first was a VFR pilot in a twin who blundered into a snow storm with low fuel and could not fly a heading [even when ATC requested him to fly a heading, any heading]; the second was a Columbia/Corvallis who filed and took off into 800' ceilings, and during his first turn to heading hit the ground at full throttle, cause still undetermined.

Wait, does that mean flying is safer here in the mountains? More people have died in the river in the last year/two years/five years/seven years than have in airplane accidents. So you can't come see me in your boat, either, it's not safe. Better fly your twin.

It appears that few here agree with your definition of "safe" or "risk," even though you won't define them. Now it's time to go back to work so I can try to drive home without some idiot crossing the yellow line and killing me. It's happened twice this week that I'm aware of--durn roads are just not safe!

 

[dell30rb]

Then 97% of the time when you're flying your single IFR you're not being limited are you? I would dare say that the average instrument rated private pilot probably has no business out screwing around in LIFR conditions anyway. Fortunately most of them realize that and avoid it.

This does not really make sense. By limited do you mean Low IFR?

My 3% figure is a rough estimate of how much flight time I might spend in LIFR conditions or at night over the mountains out of gliding distance of an airport.

 

[Alexb2000]

I believe sim pilots have the best safety record even though they spill a lot of hot coffee.

If we were all just smart enough to limit ourselves to the air conditioned safety of a sim, I bet we could all fly 20,000 hours with no fatalities.

 

[Lance F]

DS, since you're also a glider pilot, your credibility with me has gone up a couple of notches . But I still think you're being overly dramatic.

The poor folks in the back of that Asiana Airbus thought they were safe. As it turns out they would have been better off on a LIFR day. Proficiency and maintenance are the keys to safety regardless of the number of engines, time of day or terrain.

BTW, is there anyone reading this thread anymore other than high time multiengine pilots?

 

[Ted]

I believe sim pilots have the best safety record even though they spill a lot of hot coffee.

If we were all just smart enough to limit ourselves to the air conditioned safety of a sim, I bet we could all fly 20,000 hours with no fatalities.

With any luck the 310 will have air conditioning in time for next summer. That will vastly improve my safety by allowing me to crash in comfort should the need arise.

 

[dell30rb]

BTW, is there anyone reading this thread anymore other than high time multiengine pilots?

Low time, single engine weenie reporting for duty

 

[saracelica]

If there is anyone interested in reading the book that started this whole discussion send me a PM with your address. I'll send it to whoever asks first and pass along the other requests.

 

[Terry]

That was the point of the author as well. Seemed a little restrictive but I'm a IR student pilot so I wasn't sure. I know I've come back home after dark on a couple of XC's but it was a beautiful clear night and had 2 other pilots on board with more experience to help if I needed.

WhenI first completed my IR, I was ready to take on any kind of weather I could legally fly in.

It changed when I was by myself and IFR. I became more conservative when I had my wife, daughter, and grandchild. Now I just don't fly hard IFR at all.

Unless you fly IFR frequently, I would advise staying on the safe and conservative side so you can keep on flying.

Terry

 

[Ted]

BTW, is there anyone reading this thread anymore other than high time multiengine pilots?

Nope, they were smart enough to leave!

Edit: Except Ren, but he'll learn.

 

[tmyers]

I am still here !!!

 

[Dead Stick]

I believe sim pilots have the best safety record even though they spill a lot of hot coffee.

If we were all just smart enough to limit ourselves to the air conditioned safety of a sim, I bet we could all fly 20,000 hours with no fatalities.

I guess, over the years, I've accumulated 500 or 600 hours of sim time. (That tends to happen, over time, in this profession.) But I'm pushing 20,000 hours in real, not simulated, airplanes and I've not killed anyone yet. And yes, I've had my share of SE and ME piston engine failures and a couple in transport jets. Some of you guys seem to equate good judgement with lessened utility. I don't believe that is true. I do subscribe to the theory that superior pilots use superior judgement to avoid having to demonstrate their superior skill. I prefer to save my superior skill demonstrations for those times when things happen that are completely out of my control. Light single-engine aircraft are amazing travel machines. I'd love to have a FIKI equipped Mooney Acclaim S. I just would not be using its cross country capabilities at night or under LIFR conditions. Like I said, I need to be able to see what I'm doing when that engine quits. I can't see in the dark or when the ceilings and visibility are down.

 

[Alexb2000]

I guess, over the years, I've accumulated 500 or 600 hours of sim time. (That tends to happen, over time, in this profession.) But I'm pushing 20,000 hours in real, not simulated, airplanes and I've not killed anyone yet. And yes, I've had my share of SE and ME piston engine failures and a couple in transport jets. Some of you guys seem to equate good judgement with lessened utility. I don't believe that is true. I do subscribe to the theory that superior pilots use superior judgement to avoid having to demonstrate their superior skill. I prefer to save my superior skill demonstrations for those times when things happen that are completely out of my control. Light single-engine aircraft are amazing travel machines. I'd love to have a FIKI equipped Mooney Acclaim S. I just would not be using its cross country capabilities at night or under LIFR conditions. Like I said, I need to be able to see what I'm doing when that engine quits. I can't see in the dark or when the ceilings and visibility are down.

I've lost several friends with A LOT of experience. The latest of which last week. I haven't lost any friends with any amount of experience due to engine failure. In fact I know a guy that lost his engine twice as a solo student he still flies the same airplane today.

I'll be the first to say the weakest link in my aircraft is me. Every time I fly I worry little about mechanical failure and a lot about my decisions. Superior judgement might start with accepting that.

 

[dell30rb]

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.

Its probably because you spend a lot of time learning to fly OEI in all types of situations and are very proficient. The average private twin driver's proficiency OEI at night or in IMC is probably not very good.

In a twin you have two engines and you are twice as likely to experience an engine failure. If you can't handle flying OEI this basically means you are twice as likely to die as a result of a catastrophic engine failure. Going into the trees at 60 kts at night sure has a heck of a lot better survival odds than a Vmc roll.

I got my instrument rating with 150 hours (I think) I have 400 now and a commercial certificate. I take 6-7 long trips a year and I have never actually had to fly an approach on any of them - though I have flown a few approaches as a precaution (Night approach to a mountain airport, VMC weather though)

I've probably only flown a handful of approaches in actual and the lowest was 600 -1 1/4. Days like that are so few, and I fly x/c so little that I have to seek them out to get some practice.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

BTW, is there anyone reading this thread anymore other than high time multiengine pilots?

Define high time....... If you count multi-engined helicopters I'm barely over 10k. I've already accepted that DS is the end all and be all when it comes to the truth about SE ops. I'm just here out of a morbid sense of curiosity.

 

[Wingsofglass]

OK guys this is going to be good...wait just a second while I put on the helmet and zip up the nomex. I fly a single engine at night, occasionally in IMC and over mountains. I have two batteries, I have two alternators, I have no vacuum-powered instruments. I fly with a 20 mile glade radius and with synthetic vision that can show me where the flat stuff is. I even fly with this EVS camera thing that makes it really easy to see clouds at night. If I loose an engine and I can't make it to an airport, I can find some flat land and pull the chute that is attached to my plane and have a really good chance of walking away.

I don't have a lot of hours. Around 800. Because of this, I spend much time and money on training but probably don't fly enough to be perpetually proficient in a piston twin.

So what's safer? My setup or a twin? Often times the answer for me is Delta as self loading freight.

I don't know where I'll end up on the risk spectrum as my hours build but I am already much more risk averse than I used to be and ending up only flying VFR in a single piston or flying a twin or a turbine somewhere down the road would not surprise me.

What's interesting to me is reading about guys posting who say they feel safer in twin piston than a single turbine. This I don't get but better pilots than me believe it.

 

[Velocity173]

OK guys this is going to be good...wait just a second while I put on the helmet and zip up the nomex. I fly a single engine at night, occasionally in IMC and over mountains. I have two batteries, I have two alternators, I have no vacuum-powered instruments. I fly with a 20 mile glade radius and with synthetic vision that can show me where the flat stuff is. I even fly with this EVS camera thing that makes it really easy to see clouds at night. If I loose an engine and I can't make it to an airport, I can find some flat land and pull the chute that is attached to my plane and have a really good chance of walking away.

I don't have a lot of hours. Around 800. Because of this, I spend much time and money on training but probably don't fly enough to be perpetually proficient in a piston twin.

So what's safer? My setup or a twin? Often times the answer for me is Delta as self loading freight.

I don't know where I'll end up on the risk spectrum as my hours build but I am already much more risk averse than I used to be and ending up only flying VFR in a single piston or flying a twin or a turbine somewhere down the road would not surprise me.

What's interesting to me is reading about guys posting who say they feel safer in twin piston than a single turbine. This I don't get but better pilots than me believe it.

I'd say your setup is on par with the safety of a basic twin. Would you still fly IMC at night without the redundancy, EVS, glass or chute?

 

[Fearless Tower]

So what's safer? My setup or a twin? Often times the answer for me is Delta as self loading freight.

Kind of depends on what malady strikes you. That is where the whole Fate is the Hunter thing comes into play. Engine or instrument failure...combined with pilot proficiency and how you handle the emergency. There is a lot you can do to minimize your risk....but you can't prevent everything. You have to decide what you are comfortable with.

 

[moonshine]

airline guys tend to get their balls snipped when they start flying the FMS and multi turbines.

Here's a theory

Guys in ME two pilot cockpit are flat out cozy most of the time. Same guys started flying in old beater 152/172, on the other hand, and for many that was scary first hundred hours or so (on and off).
So-o-o, SE night IMC might feel more scary because of the early pilothood trauma (Ramen noodles malnutrition as a contributing factor) and the relative comfort of the present ME.

Hell do I know, though, I'm PP ASEL/IA

 

[ronnieh]

I have been reading this thread since the beginning. This question comes up in one form or another on a regular basis. The basic question is twin vs single. I am in the camp with Ted and Deadstick. I have not flown any SE in any weather in at least 20 years.

For me it is less about the one engine and more the lack of redundancy. Some of the newer SE has good redundancy in equipment and I will admit that IFR in those aircraft may pose an acceptable risk even for me. For me, I accept that flying in small aircraft by low time pilots is in itself not safe. "Not safe" is a relative term. What is acceptable risk for one is not for another. My wife and I both ride street motorcycles. This is not a safe activity. I do accept the risk and for me it is acceptable. I have flown SE IFR and IFR at night. As I stated it has been a long time ago and fortunately I moved into twins early on and have not had to deal with that question except the first 5 years or so. To address the OP's question, at this stage of my life, I would not. Early on when I did, I did not take family or friends.

Some on this board will talk about how to mitigate the danger. I hear things like being proficient on partial pane. I am not nor do I need to be now. I was reasonably proficient when flying the SE. However, I did not relish the thought of losing a vacuum pump. (and I have lost several) Never did any partial panel in all of the years in sim schools. Other things like remaining in gliding distance of an airport, flat land only and so on. The bottom line is you do only have one engine. If it quits you are out of options. In a twin even the non proficient multi pilot has some options, especially in cruise. A pilot that is very proficient in engine out procedures has even more options. Also the model of the plane matters. You have more and better options in a turbojet than in an Apache. Nature of the beast.

If I remember correctly the OP did not ask if it was safe just who does and does not fly night/IFR in a single engine. If you are one of the ones that do that is fine and I do not in anyway look down on your intellect. You simply accept risks that others do not. Many people will not accept the risk of riding a motorcycle. In fact when I had kids at home I hung up the riding boots until they were on their own.

It is a simple question of risks. We all have different tolerances for risks and many times that changes with life's circumstances. Not a good idea to ignore or deny the risks, just understand we are all different. My $.02

 

[dell30rb]

However, I did not relish the thought of losing a vacuum pump. (and I have lost several) Never did any partial panel in all of the years in sim schools. Other things like remaining in gliding distance of an airport, flat land only and so on. The bottom line is you do only have one engine. If it quits you are out of options.

Most singles have a backup vacuum system. Even the 1980's vintage stuff. All of our club planes (1970's warrior II's, 172SP's and M20J's) have backup vacuum pumps and I check them during run up if I am filing IFR.

If the engine quits at night you are not out of options. If you think you are out of options, you need some training. The only option you are without is landing under power.

I haven't practiced a power off landing at night before but I don't think I would have any issue gliding into a lit runway as long as it is in range of course. At 8000 feet in a mooney I can glide 18 miles. Throw a dart at a sectional of my home state and 9/10 times you will be within gliding range of a lit airport. I carry extra altitude at night and prefer to cruise between 8-10k.

Just last week here in NC a guy ran a cherokee out of fuel at night and landed safely on the highway in between cars.

Ditching the airplane is also an option. I read in an article (sorry I don't have a better source for this) that a properly executed 'ditch' in the treetops has an 85% survival rate.

Now in LIFR conditions your only option is to slow to just above stall speed, full flaps, fuel off and door open. What you hit, you hit. But you still have a decent chance of walking away. Two years ago a club member ran one of our warriors out of fuel in low IFR conditions and went into the treetops. No serious injuries. He walked to a road and called 911 on his cell.