Night Engine Failures
- Thread starter Tristar
- Start date
Nope, just a realist. Luckily for you, you live in a region where the black hole may very well be survivable, but don't count on walking away. Even a haybale or cow near touchdown speed is gonna leave you in a world of hurt.
Last edited:
Most planes aren't equipped to allow pilot egress, and most pilots aren't wearing a chute.
Show me the proof and I'll believe you. I've already buried friends from the scenario.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,762
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Actually, Bruce, they've let me in a couple of times after 2300 local, generally transitioning from the east. And I definitely liked being above 5000' coming over the city at night!
Not only is it safer, it's also strikingly beautiful.
Same here.I wuz wondering what a student is doing flying at night....maybe in Alaska, but otherwise?
My CFI was sweating bullets hoping I'd get back from v-e-r-y long cross country before sunset.
I was never signed off for night flight.
flyersfan31
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 14,269
- Display Name
Display name:
Freiburgfan31
I have no reason to doubt you. I look at terrain all the time when I fly during the day. There's a lot of places, even in a relatively heavily settled area like New England, where you ain't going to set down without a world of hurt, lit or unlit.
sba55
En-Route
If you look in the Nall reports, you'll find that accidents at night are less frequent per 100,000 hours. They mention that this could be due to higher levels of proficiency for pilots who fly at night than only during the day. Additionally, I'm sure it has something to do with pilots choosing higher safety margins at night.
I also really like what John Deakin has to say about this.
Like everything else in aviation, it all depends. In my area, I doubt that night engine failure at cruise would cause airplane damage yet along fatalities. During takeoff - maybe, but I'd think that the chances of survival below pattern altitude are similar at night compared to day. I definitely don't believe that night time engine failure = likely death.
-Felix
Trapper John
Ejection Handle Pulled
I'm no expert on the regs, but as I remember, a CFI can sign off a student for night operations if there is training at the specific airport(s) that the student is going to use. I think the visibility minimum is 5 miles for students at night, also.
Trapper John
Trapper John
Ejection Handle Pulled
The incident rate may be lower per 100,000 hours, but what about the fatality rate?
Trapper John
kevin47881
Final Approach
And I've seen friends walk away. Your point?
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Come to think of it, it's happened once to me, too....Actually, Bruce, they've let me in a couple of times after 2300 local, generally transitioning from the east. And I definitely liked being above 5000' coming over the city at night!
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Flying to Hartzell field to meet Ted Depuis last night I had a lot of time to think about this (strong headwind in the way there). No matter what you do, if the mill quits you're in Murphy's hands. Maybe you're high enough and close enough to make it to an airport, but even here in the land of airports it would be shear luck. You hit something or you don't; that's all there is to it. If you really think you can exert some level of control over that by heading for this dark patch or that road, you're deluding yourself. Whatever is there won't be seen until you're right on top of it, and then it's too late. You either hit something or don't.
Last edited:
bullwinkle
Pattern Altitude
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,634
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
The glass is twice as big as it needs to be...
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Henning definitely has a dark streak. No denying that.
sdflyer
Pre-takeoff checklist
Tristar
Pattern Altitude
It really wouldn't surprise me if Cessna came up with an aircraft capable of night vision. They already have the same toys the airliners have on the G1000.
"Cessna has just announced their newest product to their aircraft fleet, the Cessna 172 G1000-NV. The night vision capable aircraft allows pilots to see in the darkest of nights. Customers have the option to view NV on the MFD or project it on the windshield itself! Reports conclude this will increase safety both in normal operations as well as emergencies. Stay tuned for their next improvement....drink holders!"
I should have been an aircraft designer.
"Cessna has just announced their newest product to their aircraft fleet, the Cessna 172 G1000-NV. The night vision capable aircraft allows pilots to see in the darkest of nights. Customers have the option to view NV on the MFD or project it on the windshield itself! Reports conclude this will increase safety both in normal operations as well as emergencies. Stay tuned for their next improvement....drink holders!"
I should have been an aircraft designer.
sdflyer
Pre-takeoff checklist
It really wouldn't surprise me if Cessna came up with an aircraft capable of night vision. They already have the same toys the airliners have on the G1000.
"Cessna has just announced their newest product to their aircraft fleet, the Cessna 172 G1000-NV. The night vision capable aircraft allows pilots to see in the darkest of nights. Customers have the option view to NV on the MFD or project it on the windshield itself! Reports conclude this will increase safety both in normal operations as well as emergencies. Stay tuned for their next improvement....drink holders!"
I should have been an aircraft designer.
Now imagine you have all this fancy technology in the cockpit. You use it and on depend on it when all of a sudden it fails. You are back to square one!
Tristar
Pattern Altitude
Wait, you mean that hasn't happened yet? You are absolutely right, technology can fail at any time. It is very possible to become so saturated in the cockpit that you forget to fly the plane. It's also possible to become so complacent due to the PFD and MFD doing everything for you up to that point that you've forgotten how to do the basics. There are a couple factors to remember; I have nothing against technology because it has saved many people in the past and tends to make the process of flying a little bit smoother. However, as I mentioned earlier, it also tends to keep pilots in a heads down attitude even on CAVU days. If you notice that the airplane is getting to a point that your head hasn't arrived 5 minutes earlier, then you need to "turn off the automation" as they say. I still think that the idea of having night vision would be a neat idea for emergencies or even to pick out airplanes/objects but you do need to still set up an emergency like you would had you not had the technology. This way, if it does fail, you're still going where you planned to go and prepared to the best of your ability.
Here is a great example of what happens when confused pilots make rushed decisions instead of climbing, turning off the automation, and resorting back to the basics.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=623278629162006668
Here is a great example of what happens when confused pilots make rushed decisions instead of climbing, turning off the automation, and resorting back to the basics.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=623278629162006668
sdflyer
Pre-takeoff checklist
I agree with you new technologies improve overall safety, but at the same time make people more dependent on "electronic luxuries".
Tristar
Pattern Altitude
Yes, I mentioned that. It's a love-hate relationship. Technology will always advance with or without you.
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
Let's not forget how these synthetic vision systems work. Would they show an abandoned car parked on a highway? A cow's position in an open field or recently bailed hay? Power lines or fences in off-airport locations?
Best,
Dave
Best,
Dave
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,762
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
As you say, it would depend on how they work. Something like Garmin's that relies on databases would be pretty useless, though it might indicate that the dark spot is, in fact, a quarry. But what about something like forward-looking infra-red, maybe combined with the technology used in night-vision goggles?
Dave Siciliano
Final Approach
Grant: the DB technology is definitely the cheapest and will be more available for GA. Light amplification takes some level of ambient light; so, don't rely on the sales hype of it being bright as day on the darkest night. IR actually transmits light, as you know. Will it work if the landing light doesn't? Will be be bright enough on the battery if that is available? There are also issues the military had with the night vision devise not having the same view perspective as the pilot. All things to consider.
Even the DB has some advantages over nothing out a window on a dark night, but there are also shortcoming to consider. Some folks think these DBs are an actual view of the airport or landing area. Of course, they are not. Does the DB contain off airport landing sites?
Best,
Dave
Even the DB has some advantages over nothing out a window on a dark night, but there are also shortcoming to consider. Some folks think these DBs are an actual view of the airport or landing area. Of course, they are not. Does the DB contain off airport landing sites?
Best,
Dave
sdflyer
Pre-takeoff checklist
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,762
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
It's possible, but in order to fly it cheap you need to join military
Oh, I'm quite certain that there are a lot of impediments to its use in GA. It would probably be a lot more cost effective to add a second engine.
As to the IR Dave, at least I would expect it to help see the cow or deer. But only the second engine would help you avoid them!
sdflyer
Pre-takeoff checklist
I see a lot of "thinks" and "believes" there, and the Nall report is about frequency of accidents day to night, not proportion of fatalities vs. walk aways. I really don't care if you delude yourself about your chances of survival or not.
The streak gets longer with each friend I bury. I just don't delude myself into thinking something is safe when it's not. I don't personally have to consider something to be safe to do it, so I don't delude myself about it. I accept my mortality as imminent and it will happen when it's going to happen, but if I accept risks at face value, I can be more prepared to deal with them. To think flying a single engine plane at night no more hazardous than during the day is not a healthy perspective. I still partake in the activity because I enjoy the beauty of it, but I fully accept the increased risk to my mortality, perhaps there is some beauty to be found in that as well.
sba55
En-Route
Your point? Fewer accidents = less risk.
There's no delusion going on. Unlike you, I like to refer to knowledgeable sources instead of making absolute statements out of thin air. Thus the "thinks" and "believes"
-Felix
Second engine in light twin will take you to the crash site
In a poorly operated circumstance, yep. In a properly operated circumstance, it takes you to the next runway.
Your point? Fewer accidents = less risk.
There's no delusion going on. Unlike you, I like to refer to knowledgeable sources instead of making absolute statements out of thin air. Thus the "thinks" and "believes"
-Felix
It is not addressing Tristans original circumstance though is it? The question was WHEN it happens, not IF which is what you are addressing.
Last edited:
ATCT_
Filing Flight Plan
I was based at Rostraver flying a Cessna 152 (N94820) out of Aero Executive Services. Prior to my accident I had roughly 8-10 hours of night flying. (some of it solo, id say 2 or 3). My instructor was worried sick and she actually beat my parents to the hospital. Sadly she passed away in 2006 in a Mooney crash in Southwest PA.
I still fly almost daily in my J3 and other friends assorted aircraft. (I make it a point to fly my cub at least 5 hours a week, many weeks I push 10 hours in her). I do very very little night
Clint
Formerly of Finleyville, PA (Rostraver & Finleyville Airports)
I still fly almost daily in my J3 and other friends assorted aircraft. (I make it a point to fly my cub at least 5 hours a week, many weeks I push 10 hours in her). I do very very little night
Clint
Formerly of Finleyville, PA (Rostraver & Finleyville Airports)
K
KennyFlys
Guest
During a flight with a primary student two weeks ago in IMC, I told him... "We don't need no stinkin' MFD. We got needles!"
It's just a matter of learning how to properly and efficiently sticking those needles where you want 'em.
It's just a matter of learning how to properly and efficiently sticking those needles where you want 'em.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,968
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
> To think flying a single engine plane at night no more hazardous than
> during the day is not a healthy perspective.
I don't disagree that flying at night is more hazardous (single engine, multi engine,
it's still more hazardous at night). To me, the more important question is whether
or not flying at night is safe enough.
> during the day is not a healthy perspective.
I don't disagree that flying at night is more hazardous (single engine, multi engine,
it's still more hazardous at night). To me, the more important question is whether
or not flying at night is safe enough.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
That depends entirely on the skill and experience of the pilot along with the challenge at hand. Note the line in my signature below.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
Good example!
Today, I was on a XC with a student learning VOR intercept and tracking. He has a tendency to rush through things. I don't know how many times I said the phrase, "Slow down."
In total, it's "Slow down, inspect what you have. Before you push a button, don't assume the setting is correct. Verify it. Then, inspect for what you expect."
Next, don't leave a known and verified navigation aid before being certain of what you want and need to change to. If that verified source is on one Nav indicator, leave it there. Use the other Nav indicator if you have two.
The pilots of this flight should have rejected the approach assigned or requested vectors to allow for a proper briefing and VERIFIED set up of the procedure. They let themselves be rushed and it cost them dearly.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
I've had one of each. One friend landed safely in my club's Cardinal RG without even damaging the airplane beyond a couple cylinders pushed through the cowling and a bunch of broken engine mounts (all of which occurred in the air creating the need for an immediate landing). BTW on that one he had been cruising fairly high but when the engine came apart gliding to a nearby airport wouldn't have been an option even if it was only a few miles away. IOW altitude may improve your chances but it's no panacea.
The other appeared to run out of fuel at night just short of his destination in a Velocity and died in the subsequent crash into trees.
Last edited: