Night Engine Failures

[Bob Noel]

>> 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.
>
> That depends entirely on the skill and experience of the pilot along with
> the challenge at hand.

huh? "depends entirely"? I don't think so. The safety of a night flight also
depends on the failure rate of the aircraft. While the airplane won't fail
more often because of the time of day, the consequence of some failures
is more likely to be catastrophic at night then during the day (assuming good
VMC).


> Note the line in my signature below.

There was no signature, thus nothing to note.

 

[gprellwitz]

> Note the line in my signature below.

There was no signature, thus nothing to note.

I think he was referring to this in his signature:
Legal & Current ≠ Safe & Proficient

 

[Trapper John]

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.

Vectors weren't an option - the radar was out of service.


Trapper John

 

[wby0nder]

That credit card check thing is hilarious!

 

[KennyFlys]

>> 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.
>
> That depends entirely on the skill and experience of the pilot along with
> the challenge at hand.

huh? "depends entirely"? I don't think so. The safety of a night flight also
depends on the failure rate of the aircraft. While the airplane won't fail
more often because of the time of day, the consequence of some failures
is more likely to be catastrophic at night then during the day (assuming good
VMC).


> Note the line in my signature below.

There was no signature, thus nothing to note.

My statement assumes the aircraft is "ENTIRELY" airworthy. We'd never proceed in an aircraft that was found not to be unairworthy, right? If we did, we've already had a challenge on the "Safe" in my signature line.

Add to that, the Nall Report typically categorizes about 85% of accidents as "pilot error." Hence, 85% are preventable. Right?

I don't mean to be sarcastic. It's just that so many accidents start out with a link involving something that should be an automatic verification the pilot. ADM starts the night before the flight. It doesn't end until the flight plan is closed and the aircraft is properly secured.

Actually, ADM should apply to 100% of our lives if we are to be responsible pilots. There are no gaps in its use and application.

 

[KennyFlys]

Vectors weren't an option - the radar was out of service.


Trapper John

Then the only option... "Unable". Period. Climb and reestablish. Do not continue an unbriefed and unverified set up of a procedure.

 

[sdflyer]

In a poorly operated circumstance, yep. In a properly operated circumstance, it takes you to the next runway.

When your single engine absolute ceiling about 3000 to 5000 feet and you fly in the mountains, each flight can be poorly operated circumstances

 

[Trapper John]

Then the only option... "Unable". Period. Climb and reestablish. Do not continue an unbriefed and unverified set up of a procedure.

Completely agree. The should have done a 180 and climbed and put themselves in a hold while they sorted things out. But it seemed from the cockpit conversation that they really didn't realize that they'd totally lost their situational awareness. But it's easy to Monday morning quarterback, I suppose.


Trapper John

 

[vontresc]

That credit card check thing is hilarious!

Yeah but it doesn't work....

 

[KennyFlys]

Completely agree. The should have done a 180 and climbed and put themselves in a hold while they sorted things out. But it seemed from the cockpit conversation that they really didn't realize that they'd totally lost their situational awareness. But it's easy to Monday morning quarterback, I suppose.


Trapper John

They didn't have a clue. He accepted an entry without verifying. That was already a few links down the line with the first letting themselves be pushed or accepting an approach they were far from ready for.

Situational awareness was lost to the extent they were established on course to a fix completely unrelated to the existing approach; bringing through across to a parallel valley and no longer toward the final course. CFIT was a given based on those actions. They should have had some understanding of terrain along that approach to realize the turn they made was not correct. This was a chance to recognize an error but they ignored it.

Altitude and course changes can't be simply accepted, especially when coupled. Each change must be verified.

 

[wby0nder]

You know, if airplane wings sometimes failed during night flights I bet people wouldn't fly single engine at night without parachutes.

Flame away!

MM

 

[John Baker]

Out of San Diego with all the foothills covered by large boulders and numerous reservoirs, if your flying at night, my instructor says to keep a freeway in sight.

Once you are away from the city lights, it all just looks like a black hole, you can not tell a field from the side of a mountain. Your best bet is a highway.

John

 

[Bob Noel]

>My statement assumes the aircraft is "ENTIRELY" airworthy.

I assumed the same starting condition of an aircraft being airworthy

>We'd never
> proceed in an aircraft that was found not to be unairworthy, right?

I hope not.

>If we did, we've already had a challenge on the "Safe" in my signature line.

right (I guess I have turned off some setting that displays sigs)

> Add to that, the Nall Report typically categorizes about 85% of accidents as "pilot
> error." Hence, 85% are preventable. Right?

pretty much.

> I don't mean to be sarcastic.

I didn't take it to be sarcastic (and I wasn't being sarcastic either).

> It's just that so many accidents start out with a link involving something that
> should be an automatic verification the pilot. ADM starts the night before the
> flight. It doesn't end until the flight plan is closed and the aircraft is properly
> secured.

concur

I'm pretty much reacting to the whole notion of single-engine night flying
to be unsafe while single-engine day is ok. I don't think we are on the
edge of acceptable safety that the additional problems of night flight
would put it over the edge.

 

[KennyFlys]

I'm pretty much reacting to the whole notion of single-engine night flying to be unsafe while single-engine day is ok. I don't think we are on the edge of acceptable safety that the additional problems of night flight would put it over the edge.

It's unsafe only if the pilot is not prepared for the task. Some are not.

 

[Trapper John]

I'm pretty much reacting to the whole notion of single-engine night flying
to be unsafe while single-engine day is ok. I don't think we are on the
edge of acceptable safety that the additional problems of night flight
would put it over the edge.

I suppose we have to compare what the day conditions are. If it's day IFR, let's say conditions are 500 & 1. If I have an engine failure under those conditions and I'm too far away from an airport with a suitable approach, I'm going to have to land off-airport. Since I'm flying IFR, I probably don't have a sectional open telling me where obstructions are. Maybe I have a GPS that does, maybe not. If I have the presence of mind to set up for best glide speed, when I break out at 500 feet, I'm going to have something less than a mile of glide left (assuming the terrain in front of me is flat, of course). Let's say I'm in a 172 with a best glide speed of around 65 kt, that means I have about one minute before contact with the ground. So, I'm going to scan the field of view and pick the best spot. There may be a good spot, there may not. Not much time to make a decision in any case. Plus, I need to extend whatever flaps setting I think is right, decelerate to just above stall speed to manage my kinetic energy, shut off the fuel, turn off the master, pop the door...that's a lot of stuff to do in one minute.

To me, the above scenario is probably worse than a night VFR engine failure. At least I'd have more visibility (i.e., picking out a road from the lights, etc.), albeit in the dark, and more time to pick the spot. The ultimate outcome could be the same, though.

I agree with Ken that being prepared is important, but to some extent it's going to come down to luck. I do find it interesting that there's a pretty good sized group of people that categorically say, "No night IFR, period" or "No night flight, period", yet we tend not to shy away so much from single engine day IFR.

Trapper John

 

[Dave Siciliano]

There's a similar thread on AvSig. Fella in a 210 lost an engine; put the plane in a field in the San Jose area and walked away. The plane had some damage, will need a new engine and prop as the crank had failed.

Another fella chimed in and had put a Sierra down at night on a road and walked away. Here's his comment: Years ago, landed on HWY 40 in a Beech Sierra at night, over mountains after a blown oil line, not a scratch on the plane or us.

Best,

Dave

 

[gismo]

I suppose we have to compare what the day conditions are. If it's day IFR, let's say conditions are 500 & 1. If I have an engine failure under those conditions and I'm too far away from an airport with a suitable approach, I'm going to have to land off-airport. Since I'm flying IFR, I probably don't have a sectional open telling me where obstructions are. Maybe I have a GPS that does, maybe not. If I have the presence of mind to set up for best glide speed, when I break out at 500 feet, I'm going to have something less than a mile of glide left (assuming the terrain in front of me is flat, of course). Let's say I'm in a 172 with a best glide speed of around 65 kt, that means I have about one minute before contact with the ground. So, I'm going to scan the field of view and pick the best spot. There may be a good spot, there may not. Not much time to make a decision in any case. Plus, I need to extend whatever flaps setting I think is right, decelerate to just above stall speed to manage my kinetic energy, shut off the fuel, turn off the master, pop the door...that's a lot of stuff to do in one minute.

Trapper John

JOOC why not get the flaps out and door unlatched etc before breaking out assuming you're not trying to reach some particular point (like a runway). Best glide is important when range matters but if you don't know what's ahead what's the point in going further?

 

[AirBaker]

My life is not worth more than the family on the ground that is killed or maimed when my plane crashes into them, especially considering I could have probably had a chance at surviving and there being 0 fatality by landing the place where I could.

Amen brother...

 

[dmccormack]

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)

So you flew with Elaine?

I did my CFI prep with Larry Long.

 

[dmccormack]

As far as GA pilots using Night Vision (IR or Image Intensification)...

No way.

You have zero depth perception, and it takes many hours to really know how to use them well. One bright light or hot spot can ruin the entire image at just the wrong moment.

Unless you have a line on some 5th Gen super-duper technology, none of the current NVDs are adequate.

 

[Henning]

As far as GA pilots using Night Vision (IR or Image Intensification)...

No way.

You have zero depth perception, and it takes many hours to really know how to use them well. One bright light or hot spot can ruin the entire image at just the wrong moment.

Unless you have a line on some 5th Gen super-duper technology, none of the current NVDs are adequate.

I did some night spraying with a NVG monocle for orientation through the turn until the worklights hit the ground. It takes setting it up just right, and a heck of a lot of practice to get comfortable with, that's for damn sure. I didn't much care for it and I don't really recommend it as "Emergency Equipment". A FLIR or NVG display on the panel, or even better, a HUD may be a better thing.

 

[gismo]

I did some night spraying with a NVG monocle for orientation through the turn until the worklights hit the ground. It takes setting it up just right, and a heck of a lot of practice to get comfortable with, that's for damn sure. I didn't much care for it and I don't really recommend it as "Emergency Equipment". A FLIR or NVG display on the panel, or even better, a HUD may be a better thing.

How bout a parachute flare out the storm window? Sure'd hate to see the thing go off inside the cabin though. My old Bonanza came from the factory with 3 launch tubes but they were disabled long before I got the plane. AFaIK that's because a few had been launched inside hangars.

 

[wby0nder]

Amen brother...

I agree, mostly. There is no guarantee that you wont kill someone on the ground if you stay with the plane though it does improve the odds. YOU are still more likely to die in my view than if you bail in most instances.

There is no sure answer. To each their own.

MM

 

[bbchien]

That's an interesting idea. Have known survivable waypoints keyed into the GPS. It'd still be tricky setting up the approach.

I figure if you can land at Gastons at night, why not anywhere else!

The "Oh $*%#!!!" approach.

Yup, turn to, best glide, hope to get there with a smidge of altitude, manever into wind.....maybe.

 

[wabower]

Fatalities due to engine failures at night in single-engine airplanes during IFR (don't remember the exact criteria relative to actual IMC) was studied in depth by one of the magazines a few years ago. Their research indicated the number was so small that it didn't warrant a separate category, just a footnote in the "misc" group.

My policy for many years was to take off before sunset, based on some information (whether true or not) that a statistically high percentage of engine failures occurred within the first 10 minutes after takeoff. My friend whose Malibu crank broke after an hour in cruise didn't buy the story.

My statement assumes the aircraft is "ENTIRELY" airworthy. We'd never proceed in an aircraft that was found not to be unairworthy, right? If we did, we've already had a challenge on the "Safe" in my signature line.

Add to that, the Nall Report typically categorizes about 85% of accidents as "pilot error." Hence, 85% are preventable. Right?

I don't mean to be sarcastic. It's just that so many accidents start out with a link involving something that should be an automatic verification the pilot. ADM starts the night before the flight. It doesn't end until the flight plan is closed and the aircraft is properly secured.

Actually, ADM should apply to 100% of our lives if we are to be responsible pilots. There are no gaps in its use and application.

 

[Trapper John]

JOOC why not get the flaps out and door unlatched etc before breaking out assuming you're not trying to reach some particular point (like a runway). Best glide is important when range matters but if you don't know what's ahead what's the point in going further?

Good point. I guess the only thing that would make sense in stretching the glide would be to buy time to be able check the terrain/obstructions on the GPS...otherwise, yeah, why delay the inevitable.


Trapper John

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Since I'm flying IFR, I probably don't have a sectional open telling me where obstructions are.Trapper John

Why not?

 

[sdflyer]

Out of San Diego with all the foothills covered by large boulders and numerous reservoirs, if your flying at night, my instructor says to keep a freeway in sight.

Once you are away from the city lights, it all just looks like a black hole, you can not tell a field from the side of a mountain. Your best bet is a highway.

John

 

[steingar]

I personally wouldn't fly at night without either a starry sky or lights on the ground. I'm a VFR flyer and doubt I could fly on instruments for that long.

 

[Trapper John]

Why not?

To me a low altitude IFR enroute chart is more useful than a sectional if I can't see the ground.

Do you normally track your IFR flight progress on a sectional?


Trapper John

 

[sdflyer]

To me a low altitude IFR enroute chart is more useful than a sectional if I can't see the ground.

Do you normally track your IFR flight progress on a sectional?


Trapper John

How do you guys can fly instruments with VFR sectional in IMC?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

To me a low altitude IFR enroute chart is more useful than a sectional if I can't see the ground.

Do you normally track your IFR flight progress on a sectional?


Trapper John

You bet I do always have a VFR sectional prefolded to my IFR route. The practice comes from the concept that I may find the airplane deciding it no longer wishes to be in the IFR system and is heading downward from ice, mechanical problems, etc. and I'll need to pick the smoothest spot whether breaking out into VMC or remaining IMC. Also, the most landing friendly spots are waypointed into the GPSs when the route is over particularly hostile terrain.

It's also the way I was taught and the way I teach, wasn't everybody?

 

[sdflyer]

You bet I do always have a VFR sectional prefolded to my IFR route. The practice comes from the concept that I may find the airplane deciding it no longer wishes to be in the IFR system and is heading downward from ice, mechanical problems, etc.

Sound like a great concept, but I have a hard time imagining myself descending "iced" airplane at night and trying to look a place on sectional where I could safely crash. In this situation I would probably be more worry about positive control of airplane, how not to stall it or how not to accelerate pass Vne. Perhaps once in while I would try use cross radials to update my location, check altitude/MEA/MOCA...

The only realistic scenario for me would be actually prior the flight look at the route and determine possible emergency places.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I have to say, I don't carry VFR charts when IFR. I do have terrain on the 496 and on the 530/430 but those don't show much detail when higher up. On flights from Dallas to San Diego, Wisconsin, Orlando and Greenville, SC, I'd sure be carrying a lot more charts. I have to carry High Altitude and Low Altitude Enroute charts now along with all the terminal procedures booklets. Can't imaging keeping all the VFR charts aboard and current.

I do carry all that on a laptop computer in the plane, but could never get to it in time to be of any use in an emergency. I can look at them for preflight and post flight planning or if going somewhere VFR unexpectedly.

Best,

Dave

 

[gismo]

You bet I do always have a VFR sectional prefolded to my IFR route. The practice comes from the concept that I may find the airplane deciding it no longer wishes to be in the IFR system and is heading downward from ice, mechanical problems, etc. and I'll need to pick the smoothest spot whether breaking out into VMC or remaining IMC. Also, the most landing friendly spots are waypointed into the GPSs when the route is over particularly hostile terrain.

It's also the way I was taught and the way I teach, wasn't everybody?

I generally have an Airchart sectional book in the cockpit but about the only time I use it is if I decide to cancel IFR part way through a trip or to help locate an airport when planning a visual approach.

In an emergency, I'd head for a nearby airport if I was high and if I was low the last thing I'd be doing is looking at a chart in my lap.

 

[wabower]

Isn't that why they went to all that trouble to put the NRST button on there?

I have to say, I don't carry VFR charts when IFR. I do have terrain on the 496 and on the 530/430 but those don't show much detail when higher up. On flights from Dallas to San Diego, Wisconsin, Orlando and Greenville, SC, I'd sure be carrying a lot more charts. I have to carry High Altitude and Low Altitude Enroute charts now along with all the terminal procedures booklets. Can't imaging keeping all the VFR charts aboard and current.

I do carry all that on a laptop computer in the plane, but could never get to it in time to be of any use in an emergency. I can look at them for preflight and post flight planning or if going somewhere VFR unexpectedly.

Best,

Dave

 

[KennyFlys]

How do you guys can fly instruments with VFR sectional in IMC?

They are looking for the towers sticking up between layers.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I generally have an Airchart sectional book in the cockpit but about the only time I use it is if I decide to cancel IFR part way through a trip or to help locate an airport when planning a visual approach.

In an emergency, I'd head for a nearby airport if I was high and if I was low the last thing I'd be doing is looking at a chart in my lap.

I fly IFR over and through mountainous terrain where there is simply no way to make airports in an emergency. Provided one knows what one is doing, it is NO problem to glance at a sectional for the best, closest place for an emergency landing, such as meadows, forest roads, creek beds, -whatever is available that is better than the prevailing granite, glaciers and trees. Preflight review of terrain under the selected IFR route is obviously highly valuable.

Also, decending valleys are a very welcome aiming point not depicted on IFR charts the last I knew. They often not only allow one to continue to descend for many more miles but get one closer to civilization and non-alpine conditions.

In these instances the go to nearest GPS function is also great, provided the less hostile waypoints have been previously entered, as I spoke of.

 

[KennyFlys]

I fly IFR over and through mountainous terrain where there is simply no way to make airports in an emergency. It is NO problem to glance at a sectional for the best, closest place for an emergency landing, such as meadows, forest roads, creek beds, -whatever is available that is better than the prevailing granite, glaciers and trees.

Also, decending valleys are a very welcome aiming point not depicted on IFR charts the last I knew. They often not only allow one to continue to descend for many more miles but get one closer to civilization and non-alpine conditions.

In these instances the go to nearest GPS function is also great, provided the less hostile waypoints have been previously entered, as I spoke of.

No argument on that point. Sectionals do give you great information during an IFR flight should a forced landing be necessary.

During last week's GPS seminar by FAST she discussed entering user waypoints for just such a purpose.

 

[gismo]

I fly IFR over and through mountainous terrain where there is simply no way to make airports in an emergency. Provided one knows what one is doing, it is NO problem to glance at a sectional for the best, closest place for an emergency landing, such as meadows, forest roads, creek beds, -whatever is available that is better than the prevailing granite, glaciers and trees. Preflight review of terrain under the selected IFR route is obviously highly valuable.

Also, decending valleys are a very welcome aiming point not depicted on IFR charts the last I knew. They often not only allow one to continue to descend for many more miles but get one closer to civilization and non-alpine conditions.

In these instances the go to nearest GPS function is also great, provided the less hostile waypoints have been previously entered, as I spoke of.

I wasn't aware that Sectionals depicted meadows, what's the symbol for that?

Seriously though, I doubt that I could make much use of a sectional while descending through the clag in a mountainous area. For one thing if I can't see the ground and I'm not on an airway I think it would be pretty tough to line up with a depicted road or creek because it's not going to be all that obvious exactly where you are on the chart. Besides that, while a road or creek is no doubt a better place to touch down than the face of a cliff, I don't think that such places are odds on favorites for a successful off airport landing either. In any case I think I could do as well using the relative terrain on my 296 and the absolute terrain shading on my MFD. Neither has the contour lines found on a sectional but both units do display roads relative to the airplane's position so lining up would be a lot easier IMO.

It would be interesting to try this under the hood sometime and see how it really would work out.