Question about an "NA at night" procedure.

[mondtster]

I've heard that claim about insurance quite a few times, but I am skeptical. Can anyone cite an actual incident where insurance backed out on what some might consider a "technicality"?

A number of years back a local pilot (who should have known better) hit one of the big towers we have in the area. The airplane was a Cherokee with an AD on the landing gear torque links which was overdue. Guess what happened to the claim even though the overdue AD would have had nothing to do with the accident?

That certainly is the exception, not the norm, but still an example.

 

[dans2992]

Interesting. Did he live? If so, I think he might have a case to go after the insurance company.

 

[Neil Rubin]

They should provide a usable approach for night, even if it means higher minimums.

Higher minimums don't really help you avoid unlighted obstacles close to the runway, which is what most often is the reason for these NA at night restrictions. If there is sufficient visibility, you can always go VFR or SVFR, assuming you have a legal way of getting below the clouds.

I think the FAA's real goal here is to nudge all of the proprietors of airports big enough to have instrument approaches to get the close-in trees trimmed and the other close-in obstacles lighted, if they want the airport to be usable at night. Waivers and alternate approaches with higher minimums don't fix the real safety issue.

 

[dans2992]

If that's the issue, then why would the runway be usable at night VFR? The same issue would exist.

 

[aterpster]

If that's the issue, then why would the runway be usable at night VFR? The same issue would exist.

The FAA is not liable if you hit a tree on short final when VFR. Liability, if any, rests with the airport owner.

 

[dans2992]

I didn't realize they were liable under IFR ether, if no VDP was indicated on the chart....?

 

[aterpster]

I didn't realize they were liable under IFR ether, if no VDP was indicated on the chart....?

Ever since a Lear hit some trees in the visual area at night, they have been on a crusade.

 

[Palmpilot]

Intent does not matter, as we learned with Hillary. An insurance company cannot deny a claim due to FAR violation.

I thought we weren't supposed to discuss politics.

 

[dans2992]

Ever since a Lear hit some trees in the visual area at night, they have been on a crusade.

Realistically, the exact same risks exist in night VFR and night IFR, so why wouldn't the runway just be NA at night, period? (Not that I want that, but logically, that would follow...)

 

[aterpster]

Realistically, the exact same risks exist in night VFR and night IFR, so why wouldn't the runway just be NA at night, period? (Not that I want that, but logically, that would follow...)

The FAA doesn't have that authority over a non-Part 139 airports. They have full authority over Pat 97 instrument approach procedures.

Having said that, familiarity with an airport for night ops is invaluable.

The bottom line is saving your posterior.

 

[Hank S]

They should provide a usable approach for night, even if it means higher minimums.

Some airports just don't have usable flight paths at night. For example, the approach to Runway 7 at Ona, WV (12V) has a hill in the way. No landings on that runway at night, even VMC. The pattern there has an angled base about halfway through base leg turn 45° towards the numbers, otherwise you'll be underground . . . There is an approach to 25 though; my IFR checkride ended there with the approach to 25 and circle to land on 7.