IFR at night in single engine airplane?

I think we were discussing night IFR according to the OP. For me the loss of the only engine takes you to one option, you are going to land, very soon. So for me I would be out of options except where to land. Therefore I would need more training.
Your example is 8K feet. In fact go to 8500 feet sometime with a safety pilot while you are under the hood in VFR. Pull the power and don't take off the hood until you are at 2000 AGL (which would not even be IFR). See how that works out. Now do the same exercise in a light twin pulling just one of the engines. You say you have never tried it but it would not be a problem, well try it. Just stating the obvious to me, in that there is increased risk.
 
Wingsofglass said:
.....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.
Click to expand...
I've been through two propeller failures. 95 inch long Hamilton Standard affairs.

A propeller failure will certainly bring down a piston single.

It is unlikely that TWO propellors will fail at the same time. You simply have more options.
 
bbchien said:
I've been through two propeller failures. 95 inch long Hamilton Standard affairs.

A propeller failure will certainly bring down a piston single.

It is unlikely that TWO propellors will fail at the same time. You simply have more options.
Click to expand...
It will bring down a piston twin too. I know a guy who had a propellor failure in an Apache, in Colorado. Oh...
 
moonshine said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
opposite for me, started in piston twins, then moved to 2-engine turboprops, then 4-engine turboprops. All civilian time. Then decided to get a single engine license and rented a C-150 to do it. The 150 was the first time I really struggled flying an airplane, both mechanically and mentally.
 
If you want to decrease risk then only fly as a well trained two pilot crew. Data says if is significantly safer. What I am saying is that it isn't either/or. There is a continuum. The safest is to not fly at all (or fly a sim) followed by only flying as a passenger on major airlines.

As for redundancy I have dual alternators, 3 AI's, two GPS units, dual radios, two batteries, and two electrical busses with isolation. I only have one engine however but it does have dual magnetos. Then again I did fly at night when I flew a 172 so I guess I'm crazy. I do feel better now. :)
 
Couple things. First very few SE have the redundancy that Paul alludes to. As I said earlier that kind of redundancy would make me more inclined to use a SE in night IFR. Remember Sara did not ask about night IFR in a particularly equipped SE. Just night IFR in general in a SE. Also she used the term hard IFR. That definition varies by person. A one hour flight in light rain from stratus clouds followed by an approach to 600 and 2 is hard IFR to some. To another a one hour flight with embedded thunderstorms, moderate rime followed by a turbulent approach to a 200 and 1 fits the definition better.
Finally, I don't remember anyone stating a person was crazy to fly a SE in night IFR. It is a matter of risk acceptance. I do believe a person is better served by doing an objective assessment, accepting the different levels of risk associated with different actions and then act accordingly. To say SE IFR night flight is safe is just wrong. It is safer than perhaps some actions but, less safe than other actions. I firmly believe the night IFR in the SE is less safe than setting in your recliner watching TV. Conversely I think the SE night IFR is safer than playing Russian Roulette with three chambers loaded. It is all about risk assessment. I hope nobody disagrees that equipment does matter in flying IFR. It is not the only consideration but, it is a consideration in assessing the risk.
 
Low IMC, day or night, like 1/2SM FG OVC001 for hundreds of miles in all directions till gives me a pucker factor.

Flying over the Smoky Mountains with only the top of Mt. Mitchell sticking up through the overcast, with clouds at ground level, was my last trip under these conditions. All airports within gliding range, even assuming they offered an IAP, were well below minimums for any sort of approach.

Much more comfortable flying over the water to the Bahamas. I really thought nothing of taking the long way over water to Key West on my night IFR cross country with a CFII in a rented 172, with only a couple of vests and an out of date two man raft. But that was 1500 hours ago.

I get that engine failures are remote. I have redundancy with SB elec attitude, SB pressure and SB alternator, but then again, I fly behind a big bore Continental.

So by staying current and making sure my plane is maintained well, I think I have removed all the risk that I can...except for the God factor.
 
My point was that risk isn't a digital issue. The fact that we fly small planes says we accept more risk as does flying single pilot instead of a trained two man crew. On the red board a group of guys who fly twins had an extensive list of what they don't do in a single engine - no night, IFR if even moderately low, no mountains, no cities without engine out landing area, ... All of this is based on the potential to have an engine fail and yet they made no restriction on not flying single pilot. There is a huge accident rate difference between single and two pilot operation even when you look at data for a single aircraft type (compare CJ1 vs. CJ1sp). People get hung up on one thing and ignore more important ones. For example pilots get afraid of mid air collisions when, if you remove ones during formation flying, there are only about 4 each year that are fatal. Compared to other ways we kill ourselves that is low.

On a sliding scale night low IFR is very risky in any plane and particularly so when single pilot. It isn't just the small planes that crash. King Airs do it too. Planes with higher stall speed are at a greater risk during an engine out since they land at a higher speed. If I have an engine out I will feel much better in a Husky with tundra tires than in a Bonanza. Each person has to decide what he is willing to accept. I just find it inconsistent that twin drivers focus so much on engine outs when that isn't even vaguely close to the number one killer.

Think about takeoff in a single. You can't make the turn back. Straight ahead is a warehouse. You are running your engine at full power for the first time during the flight. I certainly feel better once I get a couple of thousand feet between me and the ground. Still, I do it because I love to fly. I accept the risk.

Of course I'm the outlier since I think having a chute makes me feel better at night, in the mountains and over low IFR. I'm not sure I fly any differently. I just feel better doing it. If I was terrified of an engine out I would't have become a private pilot in the first place. However, that doesn't mean I don't work diligently to minimize the risk.
 
Paul, do you think a equally qualified pilot is just as safe in a six pack 172 as a B200 in low IFR? If not then my point must be valid. Equipment must be at least a factor. There are always exceptions. I would submit that flying a 777 into a 11,000 foot runway in day VFR is reasonably safe, at least most of the time. As we have both said, if I am understanding you, is it is risk tolerance. To insinuate that all IFR operations present the same risk, regardless of equipment just does not make sense to me. But, equipment is just ONE factor. Perhaps not the most important one.
 
I agree that equipment makes a difference. My point is that people argue twin vs. single for night flying or mountains and miss other important things. For instance see my earlier comment about a Husky with tundra tires.

I do think there is more difference between the safety of a well trained two pilot crew vs. single pilot than between the 172 and the B200. The B200 may have two engines but it approaches faster and needs more runway. If it is equipped the same and there isn't an engine problem I might vote for the 172 all else being equal when flying an ILS to a 200' minimum.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Nope, they were smart enough to leave! ;)

Edit: Except Ren, but he'll learn. :D
Click to expand...

And me. Although I'm out of "The killing zone" or whatever they call it by a few hundred hours.
 
peppy said:
If you want to decrease risk then only fly as a well trained two pilot crew. Data says if is significantly safer. What I am saying is that it isn't either/or. There is a continuum. The safest is to not fly at all (or fly a sim) followed by only flying as a passenger on major airlines.

As for redundancy I have dual alternators, 3 AI's, two GPS units, dual radios, two batteries, and two electrical busses with isolation. I only have one engine however but it does have dual magnetos. Then again I did fly at night when I flew a 172 so I guess I'm crazy. I do feel better now. :)
Click to expand...

And a parachute. I would actually feel much better nighttime over mountains with a chute.

Listen to me, I'm getting soft on Cirrus. They are getting really good about correcting issues however. I don't mind them, and Peppy you are a good ambassador.
 
Most engines and other aviation systems don't care if it is night.

Before moving maps it was much more of an issue to hope to glide to open ground if needed. A good ATC can become a valuable asset for vectoring in any event.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Most engines and other aviation systems don't care if it is night.

Before moving maps it was much more of an issue to hope to glide to open ground if needed. A good ATC can become a valuable asset for vectoring in any event.
Click to expand...

Why? Maps didn't show open ground when you have to move them yourself?
 
denverpilot said:
Really? Do tell.
Click to expand...

Yes really, get some supervision and have them show you how to try with some reasonable chance to glide in IMC to the most hospitable landing site when out of useful range of non-GPS navaids.

But before that, tell us all how that is done just as well without GPS.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Yes really, get some supervision and have them show you how to try with some reasonable chance to glide in IMC to the most hospitable landing site when out of useful range of non-GPS navaids.

But before that, tell us all how that is done just as well without GPS.
Click to expand...

Where in CONUS is the average pilot out if range of non-GPS navaids when filed IFR?
 
denverpilot said:
Where in CONUS is the average pilot out if range of non-GPS navaids when filed IFR?
Click to expand...

I get unusable radials on VORs frequently on briefings, mostoften E/NE of HVQ (Charleston, WV, CONUS, not Alaska or Africa). If the VOR is unusable and your GPS shorted out, good luck finding your position within even a mile much less precisely enough to find that level spot on your sectional.

I'm pretty average, flying single engine, single pilot piston around & over the Appalachians, day, night, VFR, IFR, because I like it and it's so much nicer and safer than driving.
 
Last edited:
peppy said:
If you want to decrease risk then only fly as a well trained two pilot crew. Data says if is significantly safer. What I am saying is that it isn't either/or. There is a continuum. The safest is to not fly at all (or fly a sim) followed by only flying as a passenger on major airlines.

As for redundancy I have dual alternators, 3 AI's, two GPS units, dual radios, two batteries, and two electrical busses with isolation. I only have one engine however but it does have dual magnetos. Then again I did fly at night when I flew a 172 so I guess I'm crazy. I do feel better now. :)
Click to expand...

I don't know what you currently fly, but if I wanted redundancy, I sure don't need a backup GPS or a third AI. A secondary vac source would be on my list.
 
Hank, I think national statistics will disprove that statement. Part 91 aircraft in the hands of a private pilot are considerably more dangerous than driving based on a per mile traveled. On the BT board a while back a couple of people did some research and even leaving turbine aircraft flown under part 91 in the equation it seems that the risk is in the same range as riding a street motorcycle for all part 91 combined.
I think it is better to accept the risk as it is and act accordingly based on your risk tolerance.
 
When GPS databases are coded for terrain:
"hospitable for landout-->green"
and
"inhospitable for landout-->red"
Then I might consider that GPS improves SE/night safety.

But what really cuts it in the current age, is doing the work of planning a trip that is within engine failure range of a serviceable airport.

Not a lot of guys do that, or even engage in the exercise so that they know where the "vulnerable windows" are, or the "points of no return" are.

But in fact you can fly from Norwood to Bangor and aside from initial climb, NEVER be out of gliding range of an airport. I still remember the route.
 
Clip4 said:
I don't know what you currently fly, but if I wanted redundancy, I sure don't need a backup GPS or a third AI. A secondary vac source would be on my list.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at vacuum pump reliability? I'll take a second, isolated electrical system any day over a single electrical system and a vacuum pump. Add in having battery backup on both electrical systems and I see no need for a vacuum pump.
 
I concur with Paul. With a dry vacuum pump, it is not if but, when.
 
peppy said:
Have you looked at vacuum pump reliability? I'll take a second, isolated electrical system any day over a single electrical system and a vacuum pump. Add in having battery backup on both electrical systems and I see no need for a vacuum pump.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have looked a vac pump reliability. I can incorporate a couple of different options to deal with a vac pump failure at considerably less weight and cost than your solution.

I can also incorporate some solutions for nav/com at condiderably less cost than your solutions. If I can communcate with ATC, I can vectored and complete an ASR approach.
 
Wow! I did it for a couple thousand of the forty thousand hours I flew over the part 50 years, because that's what we did back then.
How would the mail have been flown? How would the astronauts found the moon with the computing power you probably are reading this?

Good old common brain sense. Every time you roll it down the runway past 40 mph, you take your life into your own ability to be aware and ready for any possible unintended occurance .

Reading these responses makes me so much more aware how the pilot population has become so dependent on gps technology.

I love all the new tools, but we did know how to keep up awareness of terrain surroundings and position awareness with just a chart, compass, and clock. Ya had to! Or die.
 
Hank S said:
I get unusable radials on VORs frequently on briefings, mostoften E/NE of HVQ (Charleston, WV, CONUS, not Alaska or Africa). If the VOR is unusable and your GPS shorted out, good luck finding your position within even a mile much less precisely enough to find that level spot on your sectional.

I'm pretty average, flying single engine, single pilot piston around & over the Appalachians, day, night, VFR, IFR, because I like it and it's so much nicer and safer than driving.
Click to expand...

So you're on an airway during all of this? Filing /G direct does have pitfalls if your toys fail.

Digging for NOTAMs is pretty weak sauce for saying there aren't any usable navigation signals in the IFR system as designed.

And definitely not a good reason to not know where you are if you're non /G.
 
Clip4 said:
Yes, I have looked a vac pump reliability. I can incorporate a couple of different options to deal with a vac pump failure at considerably less weight and cost than your solution.

I can also incorporate some solutions for nav/com at condiderably less cost than your solutions. If I can communcate with ATC, I can vectored and complete an ASR approach.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the discussion wasn't cost but what made you more comfortable. Not having a GPS is cheaper than having one but I like having one. Similarly, I like the idea that if an alternator goes out everything keeps working. I also like the idea that a failing AI generates large red X's over a black background rather than a slow roll of the AI. You are free to disagree. I'm just stating my preferences.
 
denverpilot said:
So you're on an airway during all of this? Filing /G direct does have pitfalls if your toys fail.

Digging for NOTAMs is pretty weak sauce for saying there aren't any usable navigation signals in the IFR system as designed.

And definitely not a good reason to not know where you are if you're non /G.
Click to expand...

Who said "digging for NOTAMS"? It's part of a standard briefing around here. There are things called "hills" whose granite blocks radio signals; I'm sure there are others in the Appalachians as well as the Rockies.

While I do fly /G, I still keep track of my position relative to VORs, the only non-GPS navigation system left, and it's slowly going away. Some are gone, sometimes they're only offline for a day or two.

I brought it up because you asked where in CONUS there are no usable non-GPS navigation signals. Guess you didn't want to know that they do exist.

If your idea of discussion is to ask a question then berate anyone who answers, I'll stop wasting my time on you.
 
Having started out SP IFR night with no GPS, it was just natural to do it but, when I saw a primitive Magellan armored brick with nothing but little dots on it's B&W screen, I sure grabbed it fast. Then promptly logged waypoints of most predetermined hospitable landing sites along routes out of glide from airports which was 80% of the time.

For a long time now GPS maps have "coded" possible emergency landing sites on moving maps: Interstate medians, lake shores, most level terrain, etc. and they allow precise glide positioning and line up on final attempts to the best site that is not possible with any other Nav aids. It's obvious that even if a pilot gets in the GENERAL vicinity of a desired site nondigitally, signal will be totally lost descending below mountains or even hills in IMC.

It's no contest between the two, and curious that some would even argue it.
 
100% agree with Dave. My experience closely mirrors yours.
 
Hank S said:
Who said "digging for NOTAMS"? It's part of a standard briefing around here. There are things called "hills" whose granite blocks radio signals; I'm sure there are others in the Appalachians as well as the Rockies.

While I do fly /G, I still keep track of my position relative to VORs, the only non-GPS navigation system left, and it's slowly going away. Some are gone, sometimes they're only offline for a day or two.

I brought it up because you asked where in CONUS there are no usable non-GPS navigation signals. Guess you didn't want to know that they do exist.

If your idea of discussion is to ask a question then berate anyone who answers, I'll stop wasting my time on you.
Click to expand...

I asked someone a question who stated it wasn't possible to know where an aircraft was, IFR, with enough certainty to find a "flat spot" to land in an engine out... If said airplane were not GPS equipped.

The excuses for not knowing where you are located without a GPS keep getting sillier and sillier in response.

While I know the FAA is getting lazy about repairing VORs, NOTAMs typically are for systems that are only temporarily not working properly. Relying on a NOTAM'd area to make the point that you'd be "lost" without a GPS, is really stupid.

The point about mountainous terrain is also not lost on me, but if you're on an IFR airway and using the VOR system as-designed and at or above the MEA (or MOCA), snd there's no NOTAM, you shouldn't have any excuse for not knowing where you are... Even without a GPS.

Get to 3000' AGL or so, and there's very few places in CONUS (hey, I'll spot you Alaska...) where you'd have any excuse, even off-airway.

The argument that you're not able to know right where you are with a paper chart and a VOR receiver (and ESPECIALLY if you have DME, which once was pretty bog-standard minimums for IFR), is just ludicrous.
 
denverpilot said:
I asked someone a question who stated it wasn't possible to know where an aircraft was, IFR, with enough certainty to find a "flat spot" to land in an engine out... If said airplane were not GPS equipped.

The excuses for not knowing where you are located without a GPS keep getting sillier and sillier in response.

While I know the FAA is getting lazy about repairing VORs, NOTAMs typically are for systems that are only temporarily not working properly. Relying on a NOTAM'd area to make the point that you'd be "lost" without a GPS, is really stupid.

The point about mountainous terrain is also not lost on me, but if you're on an IFR airway and using the VOR system as-designed and at or above the MEA (or MOCA), snd there's no NOTAM, you shouldn't have any excuse for not knowing where you are... Even without a GPS.

Get to 3000' AGL or so, and there's very few places in CONUS (hey, I'll spot you Alaska...) where you'd have any excuse, even off-airway.

The argument that you're not able to know right where you are with a paper chart and a VOR receiver (and ESPECIALLY if you have DME, which once was pretty bog-standard minimums for IFR), is just ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Most of us know how to use nondigital Nav aids well enough to pass IFR practical flight tests which also patently show their classic limitations, often total uselessness, especially at low altitudes typical of emergency landings.

Even though one obviously knew to nondigital equipment limits where they were at altitude, please tell us how to line up precisely on a short final IMC emergency glide to a shoreline, or curving road with VOR/DME after dipping below line of sight reception to the station.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Dave, for making my point. Flying an airway using only VORs will tell you approximately where you are. There's a reason airways are 4nm wide, but few suitable emergency landing spots are even a half mile wide in the mountains.

And the HVQ dead zone is pretty permanent below I forget how many thousand feet since I usually flysouth of it and theunusable radials are north east. Why permanent? Granite hills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top