Night Flying

[Niladri]

Posted a new document: "Night Operations" prepared by the New Mexico Wing of the Civil Air Patrol, at http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com/search/label/Night Flying

Feel free to check it out.

- Niladri
Free Info For Student Pilots

 

[dmccormack]

I'm surprised the easiest tip for landing at night wasn't mentioned -- don't level off until you can see tire marks on the runway.

This slide is a real gem:

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]1. Night flying has more risks because you can[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]t see well.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]2. You can[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]t see well because there[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]s less light.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]



[/FONT]

 

[Clark1961]

I'm surprised the easiest tip for landing at night wasn't mentioned -- don't level off until you can see tire marks on the runway.

This slide is a real gem:

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]1. Night flying has more risks because you can[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]t see well.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]2. You can[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]t see well because there[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]s less light.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]



[/FONT]

We hold these truths to be self evident...

 

[Flyparrothead]

I'm surprised the easiest tip for landing at night wasn't mentioned -- don't level off until you can see tire marks on the runway.

This slide is a real gem:

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]1. Night flying has more risks because you can[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]t see well.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]2. You can[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]t see well because there[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]s less light.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]



[/FONT]

Great tip about looking for the tire marks. I always had a hard time with night landings until I flew with a CFI and pointed that out. Now, using that tip, the landings are nice and smooth.

 

[dmccormack]

Great tip about looking for the tire marks. I always had a hard time with night landings until I flew with a CFI and pointed that out. Now, using that tip, the landings are nice and smooth.

It's funny how for some folks, night landings are easier -- I think it's due to the limited number of cues (less distractions)

 

[twdeckard]

It's funny how for some folks, night landings are easier -- I think it's due to the limited number of cues (less distractions)

I have noticed the same. In my case perhaps the anxiety about wheelbarrowing it in, and the limited visual cues -- reinforce the need to establish a good landing attitude after arresting the descent over the runway surface.

Hmmmm. Maybe that landing attitude thing would work for me in the daytime?

 

[N801BH]

Posted a new document: "Night Operations" prepared by the New Mexico Wing of the Civil Air Patrol, at http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com/search/label/Night Flying

Feel free to check it out.

- Niladri
Free Info For Student Pilots

During my time with the Civil Air Patrol night flying was not allowed.. Funny they offer tips on something that is forbidden and they have no experience at....

It is the old " do as I say, not as I do"

 

[dmccormack]

During my time with the Civil Air Patrol night flying was not allowed.. Funny they offer tips on something that is forbidden and they have no experience at....

It is the old " do as I say, not as I do"

Hunh?

I flew a CAP 172 quite a few times at night...

 

[Kelvin]

Maybe they just outlawed landing?

Hunh?

I flew a CAP 172 quite a few times at night...

 

[Nav8tor]

During my time with the Civil Air Patrol night flying was not allowed.. Funny they offer tips on something that is forbidden and they have no experience at....

It is the old " do as I say, not as I do"

Must've been a local thing. There's no prohibition on a national level or within my Wing. In fact it wouldn't make a lot of sense given CAP's Emergency Services mission.

 

[N801BH]

Yeah. That's what I thought too. I couldn't get a straight answer from the top people. After two fatal crashes by their "most qualified" pilots I quit the Wyoming wing before another one of the highly rated pilots could take me out...


The CAP mission is noble, the statewide structuring here is anything but.

YMMV.

 

[Geico266]

Hunh?

I flew a CAP 172 quite a few times at night...

Maybe they just outlawed landing?

They just outlawed landings at night after they saw Dans!

Sorry Dan, I just could not resist. Too much Christmas egg nogg. Lets just say I won't be doing any flying for 8 hours.

 

[dmccormack]

They just outlawed landings at night after they saw Dans!

Sorry Dan, I just could not resist. Too much Christmas egg nogg. Lets just say I wouln't be doing any flying for 8 hours.

How would they see me?

Remember CAP Night Flying Truth #2??

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]1. Night flying has more risks because you can[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]t see well.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]2. You can[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]t see well because there[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]s less light.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Merry Christmas!!!

(I didn't fly today and instead was wonderful, helpful husband :smile

 

[Niladri]

I'm surprised the easiest tip for landing at night wasn't mentioned -- don't level off until you can see tire marks on the runway.

This slide is a real gem:

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]1. Night flying has more risks because you can[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]t see well.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]2. You can[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]t see well because there[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]’[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]s less light.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]



[/FONT]

Granted that slide is hilarious!

Considering it may have originally been meant for a live presentation, however, it's possible the presenter was trying to make a point with some facetious humor... I'd cut 'em some slack

- Niladri
Free Info for Student Pilots

 

[SkyHog]

There is a lot of great information in that presentation. I think anyone flying at night in New Mexico should really read the slide about Retro-Reflective Lighting....its pretty common out here.

Btw, I have a question:

• [FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Once on final, only a landing or a full go-around are allowed [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Avoid straight-ins: difficult to judge altitude and distance at an unfamiliar runway[/FONT]

1. What other option besides a landing or go around is there?
2. Why avoid straight ins - much much easier for obstacle clearance, and this contradicts the other slides suggesting the use of ILS.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yes, as an organism you rely simply on innate predilections which lend themselves to an expedient survival, all the while subconsciously operating under a nonprofessed karma system only found in nite flying.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

1. What other option besides a landing or go around is there?

Bounce and go?

 

[Trapper John]

1. What other option besides a landing or go around is there?

Maybe they mean no touch-and-goes or no low passes?

2. Why avoid straight ins - much much easier for obstacle clearance, and this contradicts the other slides suggesting the use of ILS.

Maybe they want you to avoid a very long shallow descent. That could be a problem with obstacle clearance.


Trapper John

 

[flyingcheesehead]

1. What other option besides a landing or go around is there?
2. Why avoid straight ins - much much easier for obstacle clearance, and this contradicts the other slides suggesting the use of ILS.

1. Touch and go, stop and go. Low approach if you consider that to be different from a go-around.

2. Probably to avoid the black hole approach. ILS would avoid that by providing a glideslope, whereas a purely VFR approach would risk the black hole (unless there's a VASI of some sort).

 

[gismo]

There is a lot of great information in that presentation. I think anyone flying at night in New Mexico should really read the slide about Retro-Reflective Lighting....its pretty common out here.

Btw, I have a question:

• [FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Once on final, only a landing or a full go-around are allowed [/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Avoid straight-ins: difficult to judge altitude and distance at an unfamiliar runway[/FONT]

1. What other option besides a landing or go around is there?
2. Why avoid straight ins - much much easier for obstacle clearance, and this contradicts the other slides suggesting the use of ILS.

1. No low approaches? It may be the intent of this statement was that you shouldn't try to salvage a bad landing but that's certainly unclear.

2. I don't go so far as to avoid straight in approaches but I am aware that it's a lot more difficult to assess your descent angle at night especially at an unfamiliar airport with runway dimensions you aren't used to. It's also more difficult to see obstacles that might cause you to use a steeper than normal angle in daylight. Working from downwind provides the opportunity to establish a fairly normal descent procedurally if the wind's not too strong. If there's any visual guidance for the "glidepath" (e.g. VASI, PAPI, etc) this is less of an issue.

 

[Ted]

2. I don't go so far as to avoid straight in approaches but I am aware that it's a lot more difficult to assess your descent angle at night especially at an unfamiliar airport with runway dimensions you aren't used to. It's also more difficult to see obstacles that might cause you to use a steeper than normal angle in daylight. Working from downwind provides the opportunity to establish a fairly normal descent procedurally if the wind's not too strong. If there's any visual guidance for the "glidepath" (e.g. VASI, PAPI, etc) this is less of an issue.

One other thing that I've been known to do is if I'm going into an unfamiliar airport at night that has a straight-in instrument approach that won't add much time to my flight, I'll just ask to do that. I've found myself landing at more and more unfamiliar airports at night as my travels have expanded (and as winter has reduced the available daylight), and have been happy using this. It lines you right up with the runway and makes finding the airport much easier, plus it gives you a path that you know won't take you in the way of obstacles - you just need to get from the final altitude to the runway, easy on a non-precision and easier still on an ILS.

 

[dmccormack]

One other thing that I've been known to do is if I'm going into an unfamiliar airport at night that has a straight-in instrument approach that won't add much time to my flight, I'll just ask to do that. I've found myself landing at more and more unfamiliar airports at night as my travels have expanded (and as winter has reduced the available daylight), and have been happy using this. It lines you right up with the runway and makes finding the airport much easier, plus it gives you a path that you know won't take you in the way of obstacles - you just need to get from the final altitude to the runway, easy on a non-precision and easier still on an ILS.

Except for Runway 13 at KCSG. I was 2 miles from the runway end and saw nothing -- no lights, no nothing (this was CAVU at 0200 EST).

Then I spotted taxiway lights. The runway lights are listed as "Medium intensity."

No flippin way. I've seen brighter chem lights.

Now, unless there's an incredible tail or crosswind, I'm flying the ILS into unfamiliar airports with multiple nearby obstructions at night.

 

[Ted]

Now, unless there's an incredible tail or crosswind, I'm flying the ILS into unfamiliar airports with multiple nearby obstructions at night.

Straight-in GPS or other non-precision approaches can also be good for this. KEST, for example, doesn't have an ILS.

 

[dmccormack]

Straight-in GPS or other non-precision approaches can also be good for this. KEST, for example, doesn't have an ILS.

I was IFR and requested the GPS 13 Approach precisely for that reason -- didn't help in this case! (And the warnings about circling approaches at night due to nearby towers really upped the ante)



The ILS at CSG would have been to the runway with real working runway lights and some sort of approach lighting. I could see it across my path once I spotted the parallel taxiway lights.

That's not always the case with GPS approaches which can be to some very non-precision (read -- no lights) runways).

 

[Ted]

That works fine, but if an airport doesn't have an ILS, you can't shoot it. If the runway in question had an ILS, then yes that would've made more sense to shoot, and would've been my preference as well).

But I have historically found it difficult to shoot ILSs that don't exist.

 

[dmccormack]

That works fine, but if an airport doesn't have an ILS, you can't shoot it. If the runway in question had an ILS, then yes that would've made more sense to shoot, and would've been my preference as well).

But I have historically found it difficult to shoot ILSs that don't exist.

Let me break it down....

CSG has an ILS. Winds made the GPS 13 the better choice, but since that experience (poor lighting on that runway), on a night flight to a new airport with an ILS I will choose the ILS unless the winds require some other runway.

 

[Ted]

Dan, I'm agreeing with you (although I'll personally not add a significant amount of time to shoot an ILS if there's a more convenient GPS approach).

But my point, which still stands, is that an airport doesn't have an ILS, it's remarkably difficult to shoot it.

 

[azure]

I can think of a few airports I wish had IAPs for exactly this reason. When I was based out of 76G I would never plan to return at night unless the winds favored 22 or at least were weak enough that a downwind landing on 22 was safe. That's because 4 has 100 ft power lines too close for comfort to the approach end, and no VASI. I think the A/FD still lists a VASI, and there's no NOTAM about it, but I have it on good authority that the airport owner accidentally dug up the power cable to it many years ago and never got around to replacing it. Bill has his own homegrown "IAP" for getting into 4 at night, you round the church at the intersection at 1200 and then go inbound for 45 seconds before descending, or something like that. I practiced it during the day a couple of times -- that was enough for me to decide I wouldn't try it except in an emergency.

Then there's 3DA, a neat little airpark with a 2500 ft runway not far from FNT. There's 75 ft trees on either end so the threshold is displaced by about 800 feet. Of course, you can't see the markings at night. No VASI, not even a beacon. The PCL is pretty bright though. I'd land there at night if there was snow on the ground and a full moon. But if there was snow, there'd be nowhere to park to walk down to the very nice Italian restaurant down the road. Dommage, as the French say.

 

[SkyHog]

Ok - then if it is suggesting touch and goes or low approaches are a bad idea, the slide should read that. I'm irritated to see it suggest that they are prohibited. The rest of the slideshow is good info, but that makes me mad. A new round of New Mexican pilots were just given really bad information.

 

[dmccormack]

Dan, I'm agreeing with you (although I'll personally not add a significant amount of time to shoot an ILS if there's a more convenient GPS approach).

But my point, which still stands, is that an airport doesn't have an ILS, it's remarkably difficult to shoot it.

Right, but alot of folks are touting GPS Approaches as "Equal to an ILS!"

Sorta.

You don't necessarily have the same lighting, markings, and overall runway environment cues available on a GPS approach that you will an an ILS.

 

[Trapper John]

Ok - then if it is suggesting touch and goes or low approaches are a bad idea, the slide should read that. I'm irritated to see it suggest that they are prohibited. The rest of the slideshow is good info, but that makes me mad. A new round of New Mexican pilots were just given really bad information.

Well, they're presentation slides, not a book. So you really can't really say anyone was given bad information without hearing the actual presentation, can you?


Trapper John

 

[SkyHog]

Well, they're presentation slides, not a book. So you really can't really say anyone was given bad information without hearing the actual presentation, can you?


Trapper John

But it has now been posted on the internet....and the wording is clear: using "only" suggests that all other options are not allowed.

 

[Trapper John]

But it has now been posted on the internet....and the wording is clear: using "only" suggests that all other options are not allowed.

If you say so. But I doubt the authors of the slides anticipated anyone who didn't attend the presentation would nitpick so.

Or maybe they're really smart and wanted you to have to think...


Trapper John

 

[gismo]

Straight-in GPS or other non-precision approaches can also be good for this. KEST, for example, doesn't have an ILS.

There's still a visual portion to the approach and unless there's vertical guidance you are likely to be faced with making a descent at an unknown angle. Also FWIW, the "advisory" vertical guidance available on a lot of LNAV approaches is aimed at the runway threshold, not the touchdown zone further down the runway and AFaIK there's no guarantee of obstruction clearance below the MDA if you're following the psuedo glideslope.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Ok - then if it is suggesting touch and goes or low approaches are a bad idea, the slide should read that.

I have no idea what the intent was without actually seeing the live presentation. But I don't really believe that is what they were suggesting. A slide that looks strange on the surface may be perfectly logical/makes perfect sense when seen in context with the presentation.

I'm irritated to see it suggest that they are prohibited.

Well, a touch and go is just a landing, followed by a takeoff. I don't see that as being prohibited.

A new round of New Mexican pilots were just given really bad information.

Without seeing the live presentation, you don't know that.

But it has now been posted on the internet

So???

....and the wording is clear: using "only" suggests that all other options are not allowed.

Again, you really need the live presentation to provide context.

 

[gismo]

That's because 4 has 100 ft power lines too close for comfort to the approach end, and no VASI. I think the A/FD still lists a VASI, and there's no NOTAM about it, but I have it on good authority that the airport owner accidentally dug up the power cable to it many years ago and never got around to replacing it. Bill has his own homegrown "IAP" for getting into 4 at night, you round the church at the intersection at 1200 and then go inbound for 45 seconds before descending, or something like that. I practiced it during the day a couple of times -- that was enough for me to decide I wouldn't try it except in an emergency.

One useful trick is to use GPS distance to the runway threshold in nm (caution: the GPS distance to the airport "reference location" is not the same) and multiply that by your desired descent angle to get the target height above the airport elevation at that point. For example at 2nm from the threshold you should be 800 ft above the airport for a 4 degree slope. Of course you still need to know what angle will keep you clear of any obstacles while accounting for altimeter errors. But IMO this is a lot better than any homegrown procedure that involves timing because in the presence of a significant headwind (which is likely the reason for choosing the runway you're headed for) timing will put you closer to the ground further out.

Note: this is a VFR procedure only. I'm not suggesting anyone use this technique to fly a homebrew approach in IMC.

 

[Ted]

Right, but alot of folks are touting GPS Approaches as "Equal to an ILS!"

Sorta.

You don't necessarily have the same lighting, markings, and overall runway environment cues available on a GPS approach that you will an an ILS.

Well, I never said that and I don't believe it. I'll make my point again... it's hard to shoot an ILS that doesn't exist.

There's still a visual portion to the approach and unless there's vertical guidance you are likely to be faced with making a descent at an unknown angle. Also FWIW, the "advisory" vertical guidance available on a lot of LNAV approaches is aimed at the runway threshold, not the touchdown zone further down the runway and AFaIK there's no guarantee of obstruction clearance below the MDA if you're following the psuedo glideslope.

Correct, which is why I agree an ILS is better if it's available. If it's not available, then... well...

The GPS or non-precision approach, to me anyway, is better than nothing. I'd rather be lined up straight with the runway on a path that shouldn't be too bad as far as obstructions go. Around here, it's very common to have airports with ridges right next to them, frequently right around traffic pattern altitude. Williamsport comes to mind as one of those airports.

 

[dmccormack]

The GPS or non-precision approach, to me anyway, is better than nothing. I'd rather be lined up straight with the runway on a path that shouldn't be too bad as far as obstructions go. Around here, it's very common to have airports with ridges right next to them, frequently right around traffic pattern altitude. Williamsport comes to mind as one of those airports.

Absolutely -- I'd think long and hard before flying into Williamsport at night IMC if I'd never been there before. KAVL and KEKN are a couple of others I've flown into VFR which make me appreciate precision approaches.

This doesn't mean I won't. But instead of just whipping out the chart a few miles before the FAF, I'd probably bring up the airport in X-plane and fly it a few times, then do some reviewing on a Sectional or even Google Earth long before take off.

I have that luxury because I'm not flying charter, freight, or ambulance. But since I have it, might as well use it.

 

[Ted]

Well, flying into Williamsport at night in IMC is no big deal so long as you follow the ILS. If you're coming from the south and start descending prior to seeing the airport, you may end up in a ridge. So long as there's an instrument approach that ought to get me in, I don't worry about it too much. John and his guys do a good job, and if they don't, well, I'm in the clouds anyway and wouldn't really know it until I saw the mountain goat in the cloud.

A lot of my flights are run on tighter schedules and various things come up that mean I make it at a certain time or I'm not going. Sometimes that means I'm not going, sometimes that means I end up getting a good learning experience.

 

[azure]

One useful trick is to use GPS distance to the runway threshold in nm (caution: the GPS distance to the airport "reference location" is not the same) and multiply that by your desired descent angle to get the target height above the airport elevation at that point.

But for that to work I'd have to get the runway threshold into the GPS database as a user waypoint. I wonder if I could do that with the necessary precision in flight. If I knew exactly where the airport reference location was I could calculate it, but I'm not confident enough that I wouldn't overlook some correction that would put the waypoint far enough off to make it dangerous to fly for real.

OTOH, if the obstacles to be cleared are within 1nm of the airport reference location (so that the GPS is displaying the distance in hundredths), and as long as the reference location is somewhere well past the threshold, I don't see why I couldn't just use the reference location, noting the distance to that point along the extended centerline upon passing over the last obstacle and then when flying for real, beginning my descent from a predetermined "MDA" that has sufficient obstacle clearance (taking into account altimeter errors). That should definitely work at 3DA and probably at 76G too.

For example at 2nm from the threshold you should be 800 ft above the airport for a 4 degree slope. Of course you still need to know what angle will keep you clear of any obstacles while accounting for altimeter errors.

And that's exactly why IMO it's easier to just know a "MSA" within a certain radius of the airport and descend to an "MDA" once aligned with the runway and past some visual reference point, using the homegrown "DME" to mark the invisible obstacle after which you can make a safe descent to the runway. Dive and drive, in other words, instead of a calculated glidepath descent.

But IMO this is a lot better than any homegrown procedure that involves timing because in the presence of a significant headwind (which is likely the reason for choosing the runway you're headed for) timing will put you closer to the ground further out.

Exactly.

Note: this is a VFR procedure only. I'm not suggesting anyone use this technique to fly a homebrew approach in IMC.

That would be illegal of course, not to mention pretty stupid.