Reducing risk at night

[TexasAviation]

I haven't done any night flying since my training about six months ago. I want to reduce as many risks as possible, and flying in the dark is one that I'm able to eliminate.

One pilot I really look up to thinks the same thing. He's an amazing guy who started flying in World War II and was a military test pilot and instructor for decades after the war — and remains sharp and skilled in the cockpit at over 90 years old, believe it or not. He doesn't like flying at night. He's had two engine-out landings in his many, many, many years of flying, and he wouldn't want that to happen after dark. Makes sense.

Personally, I'm confident I could walk away from an engine failure in the daytime. I can see where to put the plane down and am always looking for decent emergency landing spots on cross-countries. But the idea of having to do that at night terrifies me.

That said, I can see the advantages of night flying: less traffic, smooth air and gorgeous views over the cities. I'd like to do it.

I think I could be comfortable with it if synthetic vision worked like the name implied. From the videos I was watching of ForeFlight's new synthetic vision feature, though, I'm not sure it would have enough detail to actually know what structures are below you (e.g. land just looks like a plain green expanse, with no way of knowing whether you'd be putting the plane down on top of a barn or in the middle of a forest).

Is there a way to have it show satellite imagery, sort of like Google Earth? What do you guys do to reduce the risk of emergency landings at night?

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

Plan your route with a nice high cruise altitude and around lots of airports! In the wise words of Rod Machado, turn on the landing light. If you don't like what you see, turn off the landing light.

 

[jordane93]

What do you guys do to reduce the risk of emergency landings at night?

The same thing I do during the day. Always have a field picked out in case my engine quits, get FF that way you have someone talking to you or watching you in case there is an emergency, and don't skimp on the pre flight or runup

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

In many places where I fly there is not always an airport or even smooth ground within 15 minutes. A person might try to follow the highways (or know where they are as you cross them) but the only lights are the rare passing car except for the major highways so you might still miss them.
It would be cool if the new SV thing displays the hills and mesas... but some are only 100' high so I doubt it...and if you don't know where they are there is a good chance of hitting something.
Another approach around here is to fly the flat valleys and go around the clusters of high or rough ground. Years of doing that usually wears on most pilots I think, and most end up going direct after a while.
It wasn't around here but we lost a local pilot in a 172 at night, flew into bad weather til he ran out of gas...plowed into one of the few trees in a pretty decent sized flat field.

 

[James331]

Get some IFR training.

Nowadays most of my flying ends up being at night.

 

[jhoyt]

Agree with problems at night. That's all I have left to get my PPL--night cross country. I'm planning on a full moon flight and just follow freeway. I'm in Yakima, WA, and there aren't fields within gliding distance for long periods, so night flying has little glamour.

 

[wby0nder]

Single engine night or IFR... There's always parachutes.

I once read that parachutes were required for single engine night in the Air Force.

Having made several off airport landings in gliders in broad daylight I can tell you that doing it in an airplane at night aint going to be easy. And that's here in the upper Midwest farm country. Full moon would help especially in the winter with snow cover. Lighted runway power off tricky to say the least (go ahead try it sometime).

In my view engine out at night or low IFR survival is possible but unlikely.

 

[dans2992]

Why is it that the military will send single engine jets out over hostile territory? Always thought that was a bit suspect. (ok, it's a tangent, I know)

 

[Neal Howard]

Well, if your single engine night flying is in a Cirrus, that'll reduce some of the risk..

 

[James331]

It's not that bad....

I had a night engine failure on a cross country, put the plane down on a runway without even scratching it.

Situational awareness comes into play BIG TIME.

 

[Henning]

Add a second engine or a parachute to the program.

 

[sarangan]

Thermal imaging cameras are coming. Some of the systems have already come down in price significantly. Its a matter of time before night vision goggles are in every pilot's bag.

Until then, plan your route over airports. Although you won't always be within gliding distance, at least it increases your odds of making an airport if you do have an engine problem. Then consider the fact that engines don't fail any more at night than they do during day.

 

[weirdjim]

Richard Bach, "Found at Pharisee". "There is not an *outlaw* here who would fly without a parachute unless the moon was so bright that he had constantly a landing place in sight. We don't believe that engine failures never happen, and if we can't see to land and if we don't carry a parachute, we don't fly. There is not a pilot here...who would fly over an undercast or a fog or over a ceiling lower than he can shoot a forced landing from."

You really need to read Bach. He speaks to your questions directly.

Jim

 

[Henning]

Thermal imaging cameras are coming. Some of the systems have already come down in price significantly. Its a matter of time before night vision goggles are in every pilot's bag.

Until then, plan your route over airports. Although you won't always be within gliding distance, at least it increases your odds of making an airport if you do have an engine problem. Then consider the fact that engines don't fail any more at night than they do during day.

FLIR and thermal imaging does have some limitations when temperatures are homogenous.

 

[OkieFlyer]

I'm assuming you are in Texas. If you're area is anything like here in OK, there are towns spaced every 10-15 miles in nearly every direction. All those towns are connected by landing strips, nearly all of which are running north-south or east-west. Flying at night is my favorite, although I don't do it much since I have been renting, but when I do, I do it IFR. I Follow Roads.

Obviously the geography in your area may be different, but pretty much the eastern 2/3 of Texas is laid out about like OK from what I've seen.


Edit: Oklahoma is laid out like Texas. My bad. Forgot I was addressing a Texan.

 

[TexasAviation]

I do it IFR. I Follow Roads.

Why? For navigation or because you want to land on them in an emergency?

I've heard before (and I think my flight instructor mentioned this) that roads make terrible landing spots because of power lines. You can't see the wires until the last second. And the roads you'd see lit up at night would definitely have electrical lines around them.

So I could either aim for the dark and hope for the best, or aim for the roads and hope I miss the lines. Neither one sounds like a good option to me.

The airport-to-airport route makes a lot of sense.

 

[James331]

Why? For navigation or because you want to land on them in an emergency?

I've heard before (and I think my flight instructor mentioned this) that roads make terrible landing spots because of power lines. You can't see the wires until the last second. And the roads you'd see lit up at night would definitely have electrical lines around them.

So I could either aim for the dark and hope for the best, or aim for the roads and hope I miss the lines. Neither one sounds like a good option to me.

The airport-to-airport route makes a lot of sense.

Beats landing into black nothingness. Also you're probably going to be found sooner near a road.

 

[Henning]

Wires won't necessarily kill you.

 

[cowman]

I have been thinking about this a bit lately with the days being short this time of year.

I love the views and calm air/smooth rides that come with night but that engine out dagger is always hanging over your head. For that reason I don't do it often, but I kind of want to do it occasionally if for no other reason than to gawk at all the pretty lights.

Getting up as high as possible seems like one of the best suggestions... at least you have some more time and options to find a nearby airport to set down at. The idea of trying to make a runway at an unfamiliar field with no power(unfamiliar descent rate/speed) the first time with no chance at a go-around isn't really appealing but it's got to be better than random spot on the ground.

 

[denverpilot]

The hard part is when the airports get few and far between.

On my recent trip back from Nebraska I had to decide if I wanted to stay high enough to glide to the next airport or come down 2000' to get below the whipping west headwind.

I could also land in Akron for fuel. Another option. Staying high would have made that non-optional.

Calculated risk, I decided to descend. Lots more accidents from running out of fuel in headwinds than engines quitting.

That said, a CFI buddy sent me the photos of the piston that melted a hole in itself in a C-175 that he and a student were doing night instrument training in. They just barely made it to a runway.

He jokes, "Thought I was going to drag a wingtip during the turn to line up with the runway."

He's had two night engine outs. The other happened turning final and was a non-event.

So do the math and decide for yourself... That's all anyone can say.

I chose to descend and carefully check and re-check the numbers and watch the gauges. I sticked the tanks after landing. I landed with exactly one hour of fuel on board which I had calculated and eyeballed carefully for the last two hours of the flight where all the airports disappear in Eastern CO and you'd have to be at 12,500 to glide to one anyway.

One hour is right at my personal minimums. If it had calculated out to arrive at 45 minutes, I would have diverted into Akron.

Calculations matched reality, which matched (as close as anything can match) the crappy Cessna gauges.

I was at an altitude that put me at risk of an off airport landing for roughly 1/3 of the time for the last hour of the flight. The other 2/3s were within gliding distance of a runway.

I was *acutely* aware of this and paying real attention to it. That's the key. Know what you're doing and why you're doing it. Just like during the daytime.

 

[steingar]

Where I live there is population everywhere so lots of light at night. Makes night flying quite facile. I don't go out of my way to avoid nor do I go out of my way to do it. If flying at night is part of the trip I just do it.

That said, I doubt I will ever fly at night over water or unpopulated areas, as one can encounter spatial disorientation with the removal of visual clues for horizon, or up and down for that matter.

 

[MBDiagMan]

To the Original Post, I added Synthetic Vision to Foreflight with the idea that it might IMPROVE my chances of survival in a night engine out scenario, but it is not something that makes me feel much more comfortable flying at night. I do very little of it. When I hit the lottery and end up with a twin or a Cirrus, I will reevaluate.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Whole nother bag of worms. Go look at EMS operators struggles with NVGs. Gadgetry doesn't automatically increase safety.

Thermal imaging cameras are coming. Some of the systems have already come down in price significantly. Its a matter of time before night vision goggles are in every pilot's bag.

Until then, plan your route over airports. Although you won't always be within gliding distance, at least it increases your odds of making an airport if you do have an engine problem. Then consider the fact that engines don't fail any more at night than they do during day.

 

[CharlieTango]

On a dark night crossing the Sierra Nevada can be quite intimidating but in the winter with a full moon and big snow pack it can be like daytime flying only far more beautiful.

 

[woodchucker]

I don't believe any bit of technology will save your bacon in an engine out scenario, other than already knowing where the nearest airport might be. There isn't anything that will guide you to a smooth landing in a soybean field. It's a risk, that you either accept or not. I rarely fly at night, but I think if you are in the habit of carrying passengers you better maintain night currency at the very least, not for regs necessarily but for peace of mind.

 

[Henning]

I don't believe any bit of technology will save your bacon in an engine out scenario, other than already knowing where the nearest airport might be. There isn't anything that will guide you to a smooth landing in a soybean field. It's a risk, that you either accept or not. I rarely fly at night, but I think if you are in the habit of carrying passengers you better maintain night currency at the very least, not for regs necessarily but for peace of mind.

When you have steep slopes in the vicinity rather than soybean fields, then you start seeing more advantage to SVT. When you can steer into the black valley between the black mountains you have a better chance of surviving than if you glide into a big chunk of granite.

 

[woodchucker]

When you have steep slopes in the vicinity rather than soybean fields, then you start seeing more advantage to SVT. When you can steer into the black valley between the black mountains you have a better chance of surviving than if you glide into a big chunk of granite.

I am looking at it from the perspective of night flight planning. Here in Salt Lake we have mountains up and down all over the place. At least with me, night flights are planned nowhere near those mountains, and I wouldn't want to rely on technology to avoid them either.

Imagine 3000 agl, loss of engine over mountains. You need a place to land. Will SVT help? Maybe. Or maybe while you are staring at the screen things get worse under stress? I think that could go either way, and OP's post was sort of like will it "keep me from hitting a barn or a tree". No, it won't.

 

[Henning]

I am looking at it from the perspective of night flight planning. Here in Salt Lake we have mountains up and down all over the place. At least with me, night flights are planned nowhere near those mountains, and I wouldn't want to rely on technology to avoid them either.

Imagine 3000 agl, loss of engine over mountains. You need a place to land. Will SVT help? Maybe. Or maybe while you are staring at the screen things get worse under stress? I think that could go either way, and OP's post was sort of like will it "keep me from hitting a barn or a tree". No, it won't.

Lets say you are between SLC & DEN on a dark night at 17,500 on a Victor Airway all nice and secure in where you are and the engine dies with a bang. Where are you going to go? Having something to provide guidance between the big rocks is better than looking into the black.

 

[bflynn]

I don't believe any bit of technology will save your bacon in an engine out scenario, other than already knowing where the nearest airport might be. There isn't anything that will guide you to a smooth landing in a soybean field. It's a risk, that you either accept or not. I rarely fly at night, but I think if you are in the habit of carrying passengers you better maintain night currency at the very least, not for regs necessarily but for peace of mind.

Only for experimentals, but here's some good tech
http://www.popsci.com/xavion-ipad-app-can-make-emergency-airplane-landing-autopilot

Would it be too much more to add the locations of other fields that might make good landing locations? I wonder how much coverage they could get.

The aircraft that I did most of my private training in was wrecked by someone running it out of gas at night in IFR after going missed; he was looping back to restart the approach. You can say it was luck that he broke out at 400' and had a 400' clearing in the woods right in front of him to set down in, but if he had made a right turn before descending, he would have had a 10 acre cornfield to land in. Absolute luck that he lived.

Something like this app, with some extra non-airport landing sites on it might have saved the aircraft and a serious injury.

 

[Henning]

You live through landing in a corn field. The plane may not, but you will.

 

[sarangan]

Whole nother bag of worms. Go look at EMS operators struggles with NVGs. Gadgetry doesn't automatically increase safety.

Very true. But the same things have been said about GPS; and if we step back in time, about VOR and even the ADF.

At night, seeing something is better than seeing nothing. If we have to make an emergency approach towards a dark patch of land, it is good to know if that is a corn field or a forest full of trees.

The technology for making useful night vision displays in the cockpit is here. There are low-cost microbolometer cameras which have more than enough sensitivity for cockpit use. However, designing and manufacturing a system that is not going to be an impediment in the cockpit still has some ways to go.

 

[Bonchie]

I fly high. Since DC is surrounded by Class B, I request a clearance when necessary, with a quick mention of being SEL and needing some altitude for safeties sake. I've never been turned down yet (this is up by Baltimore, they'd never give me DCA Class B clearance for obvious reasons).

 

[coloradobluesky]

I really cant fly safely on a dark night in the mountains below the IFR MEA's. I just cant see enough to be comfortable doing it. Now on a moonlit clear night, that's different. Not really "night" at all, well technically it is, but with moonlight and snow its doable. I just avoid it. Cant tell whats lurking in those shadows.

 

[petrolero]

To the Original Post, I added Synthetic Vision to Foreflight with the idea that it might IMPROVE my chances of survival in a night engine out scenario, but it is not something that makes me feel much more comfortable flying at night. I do very little of it. When I hit the lottery and end up with a twin or a Cirrus, I will reevaluate.

This is my thought as well. I haven't practiced it, but maybe someone here has??

I've always imagined - maybe hoped - that at night in the absence of an airport I could spot a long straight road - there are plenty of section and county roads like this out west - on my sectional and glide to it based on FF/WAAS. WAAS is extremely accurate - at least as accurate as the map. So in theory it could work. I would like to try this during the day under foggles with a safety pilot. The tough part would be doing the descent properly so that I don't overshoot or undershoot. What I imagine is finding a long road, gliding to it then circling/S-turning down to touch at the right spot. Easier said than done but what isn't.

As the saying goes, I'd glide down, flip on the landing light and if I didn't like what I saw, flip it off again.

Has anyone out there tried this? Shirley it's harder than it sounds - most things are.

Seems like synthetic vision & hazard advisor in FF would help me avoid hills and towers.

As others have said, I avoid night flying when I can. In the winter it's harder obviously because the days are short.

 

[Henning]

"Night" is not a solitary set of conditions. There are nights I can land just fine with no runway or landing lights. There are nights where you can make out the center stripe on a F&M road. When the Moon is out, the Sun is out, albeit in reflected form. There are nights and places where it is like looking out into an abyss. Are you urban or rural? That makes a bid difference as well. There is no such thing as 'night flight' in the SoCal basin or up the NE seaboard, not in any real sense.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

You get over central penna. At night and have an engine out, you have big problems in many many cases. Lots of woods, lots of darkness. That's in the east for sure. Many other areas as well in the east. Single engine at night is a gamble. The airline pilots I know look at you like your nuts if you say you've done it.

 

[Henning]

Woods is not my fear. If I know I'm going into trees, I'm fairly happy. Trim the nose up, full flaps, and hold minimum airspeed into the impact. My chances of coming out ok are fairly good. Rocks is what I want to avoid most, big rocks that do not move a mm when I hit them. I want to go into things that bend and break easily. While tree trunks suck when they jump out in front f your car, tree tops are not nearly so rigid.

 

[dans2992]

Woods is not my fear. If I know I'm going into trees, I'm fairly happy. Trim the nose up, full flaps, and hold minimum airspeed into the impact. My chances of coming out ok are fairly good. Rocks is what I want to avoid most, big rocks that do not move a mm when I hit them. I want to go into things that bend and break easily. While tree trunks suck when they jump out in front f your car, tree tops are not nearly so rigid.

Doesn't minimum airspeed usually = high descent rate though?

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Trees don't bother me is silly talk. Of course they are not only a bother,they will kill you! Tell that to the husband and wife in a tripacer that deer hunters found 20 years later in the allaganey state park. Or the c46 years ago that hit a ridge of trees, (a non sked airline going from Florida to buffalo. Flying VFR, blundered into IFR conditions at night) Killed half of the 46 passengers, one who survived finally struggled thru deep snow to a farm house a day and a half later. They had two engines but stupid pilot. If you have engine failure in a single at night or in a twin without hi time in type , your probably toast. But........."tough guys" keep doing the same dumb things. You'll join the idiotic " he was doing what he loved" crowd.

 

[Henning]

Doesn't minimum airspeed usually = high descent rate though?

Minimum speed is minimum total energy I can enter a blind situation with, that gives me my best odds. If I can see to target my deceleration zone and choose, then that figure can be modified.