SEL Night Flight

How often do you fly SEL at night?

  • Never!

    Votes: 4 3.8%

  • Occasionally, but I prefer not to...

    Votes: 15 14.2%

  • Every so often -- it doesn't bother me.

    Votes: 60 56.6%

  • Night? Day? It's all the same!!!

    Votes: 27 25.5%
  • Total voters
    106
My old eyes have made me give up night flight in general......the depth perception at night is quickly eroding.....
 
sba55 said:
That's exactly what I said, actually. It doesn't adapt fully, though, does it?
Click to expand...

Ummm, good question...I know my adaptation was better when I lived at 8,000 feet versus living at 5,500 feet now. Most sea level folks aren't even on the radar in comparison...
 
dmccormack said:
I've been a US Army Infantry Company Commander, an M1 Abrams Tank Platoon Leader, fathered and raised three kids to maturity, still ride a liter bike very fast, have spent more days hunting and fishing than most have spent in hunting and fishing stores, and can shoot and ride (horses -- but I can't rope).

My Man-Card has plenty of punches.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, I knew there was something I liked about you, but since we haven't met, I couldn't put my finger on it. I probably served well before you, but commanded three different infantry companies for short periods as they rotated troops home from RVN. Of the different career things I've done in life, commanding an infantry company was at the top of my list.

Best,

Dave
 
dmccormack said:
Right -- the word "likely" means "assumption that some, not all" of some batch of X contains equipment Y.

Thus, if I say "Bonanzas are likely to have better avionics than Ercoupes," it's usually the case.

Nearly every twin at the three fields I fly from have very nice panels, boots, hot plates, 430s or better -- etc. They are owned by well-heeled owners who have moved up from nice singles (though a 421 is owned by a student pilot who takes along a rated and hour-qualified CFI for insurance purposes).

And then every once in a while a twin shows up that isn't so equipped.
Click to expand...

The twins at my airport tend to be very nice outside and have pretty shoddy avionics. When I get my Aztec back from the avionics shop, it will have the nicest panel of all the twins on the field with a KLN 94, KX 155, MX 170, and B&W radar. Not exactly top of the heap. All the twins on there have de-ice, though.

I suppose I don't particularly like generalizations when there are so many variations that can poke holes in it. For most of the flying I do, the Aztec's single engine service ceiling works just fine. I can think of several flights, though, where if one of the engines quit I would be looking for the nearest airport and, if I couldn't make that, landing spot. If I go out to Colorado this winter with a full crew, that will definitely be the case.
 
Dick's argument was that the number of fatal accidents in IFR singles at night was so small it was just part of the miscellaneous category, and that there was no proof that either variety was safer. For every situation in which the twin is safer, the opposite could be argued in favor of a single. No redundancy if an engine fails in a single, but no VMC roll if the pilot doesn't handle the failure properly in a twin. If you read all the posts on all the forums, it's hard to come away with any logic other than that pilots fly what they like to fly. The "over water, over the mountains, IFR" crowd gets all worked up about the number of engines, but the actual accident reports in twins look a lot like those in singles. Dumbass pilots fly them into the ground.

Trapper John said:
That's something that Dick Collins argued for years, and IIRC he had the data to support his argument.



There have been a number of cases where the remaining engine did a fine job of delivering the aircraft to the scene of the crash...


Trapper John
Click to expand...
 
Bob Noel said:
I prefer to be current for instrument flight when flying at night because it's harder
to avoid clouds at night.

That's my only concession to night flying vs day.

I love flying at night, when I can.
Click to expand...

I'm not IR yet, but you just nailed my reason for prefering to fly during the day - I can see and avoid clouds. My weather minimums go way up for night flying for that very reason.
 
Living out here with massive cumulo granite (the Rockies) I make it a point to be on the preferred side
of the hills by dusk - which ever side I need to be on. I will not fly SEL at night, even with a full moon. IFR is out of the question since I can't reach published altitudes, even at night. And yes, I've
spent the night someplace other than home because I will never violate that rule.

Now, as to night flying - out here in the AZ/CO/NM summers, night flying is the best! And sometimes, the only practical time to fly, unless you want heat stroke.

Welcome to Density Altitude.

The Blue Angels were supposed to be in the Denver area this past weekend but cancelled (about 6-8 weeks ago) due to density altitude (among other reasons). When they came out for the survey, it was January.
 
Last edited:
Night flying is lovely.

However, though I have on occasion, I prefer not to fly SEL at night without a parachute and I live and fly often over Iowa, land of endless corn and bean fields.

If you think that you are likely to survive a forced landing at night over farm country, I question what you are smoking. Try practicing forced landings at night over a lighted runway and see how well you do. Than, imagine doing it over totally dark farm country. You don't even know when to flare much less when to zig and zag to miss powerlines, trees, fences, gullys... You could do everything right and get lucky and make a perfect landing in the middle of a huge bean field and still burn to a crisp upside down in your harness. I'd say your survival is a coin toss at best.

We routinely do forced landings during the day in gliders here. It's an adventure but something one can do reliably. Doing it at night? Insane.

Sure bailing out has it's hazards but it's going to be a much lower energy landing (as long as the chute opens)

If you've got a full moon especially over snow, or interstate highways (watch out for those overpasses) you have better odds but unless you are delivering a life saving serum for thousands why take the risk?
 
I don't think twice about flying at night. I accept the fact, that even in the flat lands, it will be a coin toss. I try not to worry myself over "what could happen" and just enjoy life.

We all have different levels of risk acceptance -- and I imagine -- if I had a child depending on me..I would change what I consider acceptable.
 
jesse said:
I don't think twice about flying at night. I accept the fact, that even in the flat lands, it will be a coin toss. I try not to worry myself over "what could happen" and just enjoy life.

We all have different levels of risk acceptance -- and I imagine -- if I had a child depending on me..I would change what I consider acceptable.
Click to expand...

Every pilot should be thinking "What could happen?" and then plan to mitigate the risk, avoid the action, or ignore the consequences.

It's not "worry" -- it's risk assessment.
 
wabower said:
The "over water, over the mountains, IFR" crowd gets all worked up about the number of engines, but the actual accident reports in twins look a lot like those in singles. Dumbass pilots fly them into the ground.
Click to expand...

Correct, but the key there is not being a dumbass, which has always been my argument.
 
dmccormack said:
Every pilot should be thinking "What could happen?" and then plan to mitigate the risk, avoid the action, or ignore the consequences.

It's not "worry" -- it's risk assessment.
Click to expand...
Relax...Does it not sound like I assessed the risk? I did that years ago -- the risk hasn't changed..therefore I accept it and don't worry about it. The day a big variable changes will be the day I reconsider the risk and make a new decision.
 
I have about 1/4th of my total hours at night. Most of my hours are XC, and the return trip is often at night. In the Midwest, flying at night does not bother me much. I just fly high (strive for 8-12k feet) to maximize glide range, and stay hyper aware of enroute airports and highways for alternate landing sites.

Worst case, a huge percentage of the Midwest is corn or bean fields. Even on a moonless night... If you had a landing light - you could land a plane and walk away.

Risk aside, flying at night is wonderful. The air is usually quite smooth. Winds aloft are less. Traffic can be seen 10+ miles away. Airport beacons are easy to find. Plus, the number of stars that can be seen out the windscreen is pretty amazing. Seeing a shooting star from the plane at night is definitely one of the 'coolest' things we pilots get to do.

One aspect of night flying is the ground logistics. Often, FBOs close at 5-8pm, so phone calls ahead are necessary to make certain fuel and rental cars will be available at enroute fuel stops and destination.
 
nyoung said:
I have about 1/4th of my total hours at night. Most of my hours are XC, and the return trip is often at night. In the Midwest, flying at night does not bother me much. I just fly high (strive for 8-12k feet) to maximize glide range, and stay hyper aware of enroute airports and highways for alternate landing sites.

Worst case, a huge percentage of the Midwest is corn or bean fields. Even on a moonless night... If you had a landing light - you could land a plane and walk away.
Click to expand...

I dunno -- a CFI buddy of my dad's flew his Mooney XC across the midwest at night.

He lost power and then crashed into one of 10 trees in Kansas. He suffered 3rd degree burns, and lost his dog (see http://www.saljournal.com/rdnews/story/Phillipsburgplanecrash12_18_07 and http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20071226X01986&key=1)
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Correct, but the key there is not being a dumbass, which has always been my argument.
Click to expand...

How many of the pilots who for whatever reason appear to have qualified for that category based on the outcome of their final flight would have considered themselves as such had they been a part of this discussion group?

The accident stats show that only 20% of the accidents are due to mechanical failures. Not all of those are engine-related, so figure 1 in 6, maybe 1 in 7 are due to engine problems? So the big number is (and always will be) due to pilot mistakes, not airplane failures. But since every pilot thinks of himself as a good stick who maintains his airplane to the highest standards, why are they so fixated on this tiny little piece of activity?
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
How many of the pilots who for whatever reason appear to have qualified for that category based on the outcome of their final flight would have considered themselves as such had they been a part of this discussion group?
Click to expand...

To Monday Morning Quarterbacks "they" are always idiots, and "I" would "never do that."
 
wabower said:
How many of the pilots who for whatever reason appear to have qualified for that category based on the outcome of their final flight would have considered themselves as such had they been a part of this discussion group?

The accident stats show that only 20% of the accidents are due to mechanical failures. Not all of those are engine-related, so figure 1 in 6, maybe 1 in 7 are due to engine problems? So the big number is (and always will be) due to pilot mistakes, not airplane failures. But since every pilot thinks of himself as a good stick who maintains his airplane to the highest standards, why are they so fixated on this tiny little piece of activity?
Click to expand...

I agree with your point as a rule for most people. This is the same reason why ABS, traction control, etc. are good for most people. For others, they aren't, at least not in the incarnations we get from the factory. It still comes down to the user. Saying that however many percentage of people can't handle an engine failure in a twin without crashing doesn't mean you specifically have that percentage of having a problem. You're either in the category that ends up handling it fine (and lands successfully), or you aren't (and you crash). I'd still like to see the numbers that say how many engine failures in a twin result in a successful landing vs. not.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You're either in the category that ends up handling it fine (and lands successfully), or you aren't (and you crash).
Click to expand...
I disagree. It's not as cut and dried as that. There are many variables. Good pilots can have bad days and bad pilots can be lucky. There are also many shades of grey in between.
 
Everskyward said:
I disagree. It's not as cut and dried as that. There are many variables. Good pilots can have bad days and bad pilots can be lucky. There are also many shades of grey in between.
Click to expand...

Right -- there's the drunk who survives the horrific 100 MPH crash, and there's the flawless driver who dies after encountering a patch of black ice at 40.

Skill can take you so far -- in all risky endeavors, there's always an element of chance.

This was brought home one day as I looked at the wreckage of a 172 that was balled up in a hangar on the field. The flaps were set at 10 degrees. The way the wings folded back, the flap cut directly into the cockpit like a ginsu through a shoe at neck level, right through the back of the crumpled pilot's seat.

If the pilot had been wearing an over-the-shoulder harness he would have been decapitated. Instead, he survived.
 
Hay guyz!

Flight at night is like drunk driving.

:rolleyes:
 
dmccormack said:
When I first starting flying I loved night flight -- it's usually less busy, snmoother, and towns and cities look like sparkling jewels floating below.

But the more I fly, the more I learn all the little things that come togther to allow a flight to safe -- and how many little things can conspire to force and early, unintended landing.
Click to expand...

Your observations parallel my experience.

When the kids were little, Mary (also a pilot) and I decided to limit our night flying to absolute necessity, since flying at night so dramatically reduced our options in the event of engine trouble. The end result was that we simply didn't fly at night for the next 14 years.

Now that the kids are nearly grown (one at college, one in high school) we could go back to flying at night -- but now we can't stay awake that long!

:p
 
If you are scared to fly at night, you should be scared to fly during the day, and shouldn't be flying at all. Why not just eliminate all the risks, leave it in your hangar, and polish it. Tell people you are a pilot and aircraft owner, but are too scared to go anywhere.
 
EdFred said:
If you are scared to fly at night, you should be scared to fly during the day, and shouldn't be flying at all. Why not just eliminate all the risks, leave it in your hangar, and polish it. Tell people you are a pilot and aircraft owner, but are too scared to go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Hunh?

Who said anything about "Scared?"

Do you fly in all weather, in all conditions?

Probably not.

Why not?

You did a risk assessment and decided "not today" for some reasons.

For some pilots flying SEL at night over inhospitable terrain is stacking the deck on the side of "no options."
 
dmccormack said:
Hunh?

Who said anything about "Scared?"

Do you fly in all weather, in all conditions?

Probably not.

Why not?

You did a risk assessment and decided "not today" for some reasons.

For some pilots flying SEL at night over inhospitable terrain is stacking the deck on the side of "no options."
Click to expand...

I've taken off 0/0. I've flown IMC at night, during the day, over water, over mountains, over urban areas, over open fields. I've shot approaches to minimums at an unfamilar field. I've flown over the Great Lakes in every season, and anwhere from 1300z to 0500z, both in vmc, imc, hazy, and clear. I've flown to 47 of the CONUS, from -20C to 50C. I've flown when it's calm, and I've flown then it's been G40. I've taken off from an unlit grass strip at night, and I've landed at an unlit grass strip at night. Oh yeah, all in a single engine plane, and I *shock* I didn't die in a fiery mass of aluminum and avgas!!!!!

I don't fly in T-storms, and I don't fly in ice, but that's because those conditions can cause the plane to "fall out of the sky" whether it be in one piece, or mulitple pieces - and my plane isn't FIKI Flying at night will have no effect on the plane, other than an increased amp load for the nav lights.

If I wanted to be a weenie, I'd stick to flight simulator where my only risk might be carpal tunnel, and a few extra bucks on my electric bill.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I've taken off 0/0. I've flown IMC at night, during the day, over water, over mountains, over urban areas, over open fields. I've shot approaches to minimums at an unfamilar field. I've flown over the Great Lakes in every season, and anwhere from 1300z to 0500z, both in vmc, imc, hazy, and clear. I've flown to 47 of the CONUS, from -20C to 50C. I've flown when it's calm, and I've flown then it's been G40. I've taken off from an unlit grass strip at night, and I've landed at an unlit grass strip at night. Oh yeah, all in a single engine plane, and I *shock* I didn't die in a fiery mass of aluminum and avgas!!!!!

I don't fly in T-storms, and I don't fly in ice, but that's because those conditions can cause the plane to "fall out of the sky" whether it be in one piece, or mulitple pieces - and my plane isn't FIKI Flying at night will have no effect on the plane, other than an increased amp load for the nav lights.

If I wanted to be a weenie, I'd stick to flight simulator where my only risk might be carpal tunnel, and a few extra bucks on my electric bill.
Click to expand...

Good for you.

I don't fly to prove my manhood.

I got that covered serving in the Infantry.
 
I was smart enough not give my life up to the government. :D
 
Interesting. A testosterone battle. I don't see what manhood has to do with it anyway. If it does I'm out of luck. We all have our own level of risk tolerance and I doubt that any internet poster is going to get us to change our mind. The OP asked for people's opinions and one person's opinion is as valid as the next since you can only feel what you feel.
 
Forgive me if I take offense to the idea that "Flying at night is not safe for anyone."

If its not safe for you, fine, stick to flying in CAVU, with a CFI for every other flight.

Its not that you're being a sissy, its that you're pushing your sissiness on other pilots that actually have a desire to become safer by filling their experience bucket.

Hell, just taking off contains risks. Maybe y'all shouldn't fly at all.
 
dmccormack said:
Brilliant comeback.

Be glad some of us were "dumb" enough to do so.
Click to expand...

So, flying at night is dumber than enlisting to get shot at? Wow.

I don't fly at night to prove anything. I fly at night because it happens to be the time when I am going somewhere.
 
Hey Nick,

You and I are both stupid. Accept it and move on.
 
EdFred said:
I've taken off 0/0. I've flown IMC at night, during the day, over water, over mountains, over urban areas, over open fields. I've shot approaches to minimums at an unfamilar field. I've flown over the Great Lakes in every season, and anwhere from 1300z to 0500z, both in vmc, imc, hazy, and clear. I've flown to 47 of the CONUS, from -20C to 50C. I've flown when it's calm, and I've flown then it's been G40. I've taken off from an unlit grass strip at night, and I've landed at an unlit grass strip at night. Oh yeah, all in a single engine plane, and I *shock* I didn't die in a fiery mass of aluminum and avgas!!!!!
Click to expand...
Are you sure? Maybe this is all your own personal afterlife ;)
 
EdFred said:
I was smart enough not give my life up to the government. :D
Click to expand...
Seriously Ed, that's too far. Argue with him all you want about his silly night opinions -- but don't call him dumb for serving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top