SEL Night Flight

[dmccormack]

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.

I've flown across the Alleghenies a couple of times at night, now, and the last time the engine gauges were a much more critical part of my scan. Every little hiccup or unusual sound caught my attention in a way that would have been ignored in daylight. As I thought through my options should the engine quit, I realized I had reduced my options to a very thin margin.

It's one thing to buzz between two familiar airports over familiar terrain, something else to fly XC over unknown or inhospitable terrain.

I've talked to a few other pilots I know and respect, and most agree that single engine ops at night is not something they eagerly tackle. In fact one pilot I know -- with about 4k in 210s -- has fewer night hours than I do.

I've modified my own limits to not launching on a XC at night -- I will finish a flight at night, after the airplane has proven itself while I have options.

So here's a poll -- please add your thoughts about SEL night ops.

 

[SkyHog]

Your poll addresses how often people fly at night, but I gotta say, while I don't fly as much at night as I do during the day, I find night flight to be immensely safer and more enjoyable than day flight.

You can see traffic much easier
You can see airports much easier
Navigating by sectional in regards to towns/cities is much easier
Smooth air makes for easy altitude selection, and therefore, easier terrain avoidance

The only thing you give up is easy selection of emergency landing spots, which you should take into account when planning a night flight. For what it is worth, I feel less comfortable flying in the daytime over the Rocky Mountains than I do flying at night anywhere....but I still do that, because I know our engines are very reliable.

 

[EdFred]

I question the manhood of any weenie who won't fly SE at night.

 

[dmccormack]

I question the manhood of any weenie who won't fly SE at night.

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.

 

[ScottM]

My Man-Card has plenty of punches.

So your man-card is all full of holes?

 

[ScottM]

I question the manhood of any weenie who won't fly SE at night.

Especially over water out of gliding distance!!

 

[ScottM]

Your poll addresses how often people fly at night, but I gotta say, while I don't fly as much at night as I do during the day, I find night flight to be immensely safer and more enjoyable than day flight.

You can see traffic much easier
You can see airports much easier
Navigating by sectional in regards to towns/cities is much easier
Smooth air makes for easy altitude selection, and therefore, easier terrain avoidance

The only thing you give up is easy selection of emergency landing spots, which you should take into account when planning a night flight. For what it is worth, I feel less comfortable flying in the daytime over the Rocky Mountains than I do flying at night anywhere....but I still do that, because I know our engines are very reliable.

I agree with all of that Nick. My one thing at night though is that my minimums for IFR do go up. No circling approaches at night is another rule I follow too.

 

[OtisAir]

I, too, love night flying.

I know this isn't a thread on oxygen, but a night flight is the perfect setting for a test we did. A buddy and I did an expirement to see first hand the effects of using oxygen at medium altitudes.

We flew up towards Wilkes-Barre at altitudes between 5500 and 10500 with one of us using oxygen and the other not. As we approached larger cities (or whatever that had many lights), the one not using oxygen would then begin using it and immediately the sharpnees returned to the lights and everything got much clearer. It was pretty surprising just how much of a difference it makes.

I generally don't use oxygne below 10,000 (even at night), but I always have it with me in the plane. I believe the recommendation for night flying is to use oxygen as low as 5000.

 

[Everskyward]

My one thing at night though is that my minimums for IFR do go up.

It's actually a lot easier to spot the runway at night because of the lights.

 

[SkyHog]

I generally don't use oxygne below 10,000 (even at night), but I always have it with me in the plane. I believe the recommendation for night flying is to use oxygen as low as 5000.

In other words - below the ground out here

The FAA is mightily short sighted in its O2 advice, IMHO.

 

[ScottM]

It's actually a lot easier to spot the runway at night because of the lights.

I know. But I want to make sure I have more than just an ILS to mins as my only approach to deal with at night.

 

[Ted]

I'd like to see your options changed a bit. I don't fly single engine all that much at all these days since I have the Aztec. If I didn't have the Aztec, I'd be doing a lot more night flight in a single. Also, some people just don't fly at night at all.

If I have the option to fly a twin that has a single engine service ceiling higher than ground level (that's what most people really mean when they say "a twin", and is often overlooked) vs. a single, I will pretty much any time - day or night, VMC or IMC. I am less comfortable flying singles in IMC and at night (especially both) than I used to be, but I also do it and I don't scrub a flight because the only plane available to me is a single and I don't worry about it. I do the same practices I always do about looking for good landing spots when flying a single.

However, I have one comment about the single vs. twin thing. The big fallacy of twin engine aircraft is the thought that the spare engine will keep you in the air. There are a lot more factors that go into that - aircraft weight, ambient temperature, which engine quits, whether or not you're turbo'd, how much power you have in the first place, and where you are in the country. I was talking to a friend who lives in Colorado about this. In his case, you basically either are satisfied with the safety of a single or you need to make a really big jump to a turbocharged twin that has a high enough single engine service ceiling to keep you above the ground. My friend is looking at renting a Seminole out there - which has a single engine service ceiling of 3-5,000 ft below ground level.

So, my answer is "I fly SE at night when the twin's not available, and it doesn't bother me."

 

[Teller1900]

I question the manhood of any weenie who won't fly SE at night.

I would argue that if they have a weenie, you can't really question their manhood. Perhaps just take a man-card.

In all seriousness, I don't think a well planned night flight is any more terrifying than a well planned day flight. They each have their own particular risks and rewards, it's just a matter of preparing for them appropriately.

 

[Ted]

My personal approach mins at night are the same - I generally don't take off if I have strong reason to believe it's going to be any worse than mins+200. That's mainly because I know those reporting and predicting systems can be wrong. Like Friday night when the ASOS was reporting OVC006 and as I was about to push the throttle forward for missed at 500 AGL the runway appeared. That was no OVC006, as the two witnesses in the plane will vouch for.

The one difference - if I'm flying into an unknown airport at night where I haven't seen the surrounding terrain, I really prefer to have an ILS that points me right at the runway. That goes for VFR or IFR. Around here, a lot of airports have some interesting terrain features.

 

[dmccormack]

The one difference - if I'm flying into an unknown airport at night where I haven't seen the surrounding terrain, I really prefer to have an ILS that points me right at the runway. That goes for VFR or IFR. Around here, a lot of airports have some interesting terrain features.

I flew into Cumberland (KCBE) in IMC the first time (Clg was 600').

There's a nice long ridge that paralells the approach.

The second time I flew into CBE, it was VMC.

It made me consider the wisdom of that IMC flight in the first time!!

 

[Everskyward]

I was talking to a friend who lives in Colorado about this. In his case, you basically either are satisfied with the safety of a single or you need to make a really big jump to a turbocharged twin that has a high enough single engine service ceiling to keep you above the ground.

You probably have statistically less safety because there are two chances for the engine(s) to quit plus there's the control problem you don't have in a single. You also generally have higher speeds to deal with. I flew a small turbocharged twin up here and I just figured it was a big single if the engine quit right after takeoff. Yes we usually took off pretty heavy (usually very close to gross) but that was because it was often a requirement of the job to stay up as long as possible.

 

[Trapper John]

So here's a poll -- please add your thoughts about SEL night ops.

SEL night ops covers an awful lot of ground...

Night VFR doesn't bother me, in fact a lot of the time I prefer it, for the reasons Nick already mentioned, plus compared to the summer daytime haze we get around here, better night vis can be a real plus. Terrain here isn't nearly as much of an issue here as for you - no mountains. I could probably land in a field and just buy some corn or beans but not the farm should the need arise. Fences and power lines are a potential issue, depending on the level of moonlight. But the things I'm likely to fly have low stall speeds and smaller, but very reliable engines, so I think the risk is manageable.


Trapper John

 

[Trapper John]

You probably have statistically less safety because there are two chances for the engine(s) to quit plus there's the control problem you don't have in a single.

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

You also generally have higher speeds to deal with. I flew a small turbocharged twin up here and I just figured it was a big single if the engine quit right after takeoff.

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

 

[dmccormack]

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

Interesting...

If you lose an engine in a SEL, you're going to land sooner. Over the mountains, the odds are at night you're not going to survive the forced landing unless you are extremely fortunate.

Twins are more likely to have redundant systems, anti or de-ice, and enough residual SE power to extend the glide to a more hospitable location.

 

[Trapper John]

What you're saying is correct, but it's predicated on the pilot doing everything right, and the gist of Collins' argument was that the accident record showed that twin pilots weren't doing everything right in a lot of cases.

I don't know if Collins' articles are available online, I'll see if I can find someting.


Trapper John

 

[AdamZ]

Dan:
I think geography has to be taken into account in answering the poll as well. Being in South Eastern PA I have populated and built up areas in my immediate area. to the North I have mountains to the west I have the flat land of Lancaster County and then further west the mountains again so I think where I fly would make a difference as well as what I could see. If there is no moon I may not be as comfortable as if the moon were larger and brighter.

I don't fly at night for a few reasons, none of them are because i'm afraid to ( althoguh I may have a hightend sense of vigilance) First I really don't have a need to fly at night, I don't have to get from A to B, Second my flying budget is limited so I fly in day light because there is more that I can do ie lunch, breakfast, Day at the beach. So unless I have the $$ to remain night proficient ( not current but proficient) why do it. If I had more money and could fly the SAME plane on a much more regular basis I suspect that my answer would be different. Good question BTW

 

[Everskyward]

What you're saying is correct, but it's predicated on the pilot doing everything right, and the gist of Collins' argument was that the accident record showed that twin pilots weren't doing everything right in a lot of cases.

In thinking about it you are both right. I think the single has the edge on takeoff while the twin has the edge at other times. At least that's the way I felt about the two piston airplanes I flew the most (C-206 and C-320). I have many hours in both of them over the Rockies but not so much at night although I love flying at night. At the time I only occasionally thought about the risk since that's what I "grew up" doing in aviation. Now that I have spent a number of years flying airplanes where you are not even allowed to take off unless you meet all the climb requirements on one engine I might feel differently. Or maybe not.

 

[Rob Schaffer]

I'm relatively new to this whole thing, but last year I maintained my night currency, and I had a good time flying at night, but the risk is there being in our region (as Adam stated above).

I find that I prefer to finish a flight during the twilight time rather than embark on a return flight that will put me well into the night. If I'm able, I also really enjoy flying on the full moon nights, not just from the ability to make out some ground features and fields, but just from the added view it provides and how peaceful it can be while I fly above those in the smooth air, while many people are sitting on the couch watching TV or going to bed.

My brother actually just asked me last weekend if I would fly him and his girlfriend sometime for dinner or something. Sure,.. I'll do that,.. and then he said that she really wanted to see Atlantic City all lit up,... Hmm,.. that changed the question entirely in my mind. I did my long night XC with my instructor to AC, and there's a lot of black void below you most of the way.

 

[Anthony]

I rarely start a flight at night anymore because I don't "need" to, but on occassion, currency, special sightseeing quirk, etc. I will do so. Often, if I spend the day away and want to get a full day in, I will leave at dusk and fly part of the trip at night and always consider terrain in the equation.

It is usually a tranquill experience and ATC is unusually talkative. It does give a sense of satisfaction as well. In general, I'm a kinda "if its my time, its my time" person so with proper planning and consideration of weather, terrain, etc I am fine with it.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I flew into Cumberland (KCBE) in IMC the first time (Clg was 600').

There's a nice long ridge that paralells the approach.

The second time I flew into CBE, it was VMC.

It made me consider the wisdom of that IMC flight in the first time!!

That's why the approach is where it is.
Old pilot trick: Fly approach right, CFIT @ night or in IMC no problem.

 

[Trapper John]

I think the twin is superior if you can successfully conclude an engine failure with a runway landing, if not, the comparison becomes Newtonian in nature, and in a forced landing, the lower the kinetic energy the better. And that's where the twins bite, a Vmc of ~80 mph for a light twin is >3x the kinetic energy of say a 172 with a 45 mph Vso, and that's not accounting for the greater mass of the twin, either.


Trapper John

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I'm also flying a twin, and really don't do anything differently for night ops, but I'm also instrument rated and current. Well, let me back up a bit, I probably lean toward filing an IFR flight plan more at night (but I do that a lot anyway). In the 58P we do get up higher and there's a much higher chance we'll need to be IFR because we may go IMC.

One of the reasons I moved to the turboed twin was because of the extra planning night ops took in the single. I was always trying to look at where I could go if I lost an engine: they entire time I flew, I was watching for nearby airports. I always worried about an engine failure at night where I couldn't get to an airport. In the twin, I just don't have to do that.

I am friends with several folks that have lost an engine in a twin: my flight instructor lost one in the 58P. It was almost a non-event. He wasn't far from home and just came in on one. As Everskyward said above, the real trick with the twin is on departure. Once up, flying on one engine can be done very reasonably if one doesn't panic and stays within the operating limits of the plane. Most twin accidents I've reviewed where on departure below blue line or violated one of the other principles mentioned.

I've taken my A-36 up at night, over mountains, and over open water to the Bahamas and Mexico. I did a lot of planning and carried survival gear. I do less planning in the Baron. Do carry some survival gear; more over open water, but am much more comfortable with the second fan in low IMC, over mountains or water and at night.

BTW, Richard Collins retracted some of his comments about singles v. twins. He did state that a lot of twins that lost an engine never reported it as there was not an accident. He did state when a twin did go down, there were higher fatality levels. There are muriad reasons that could be the case.

Best,

Dave

 

[Trapper John]

BTW, Richard Collins retracted some of his comments about singles v. twins. He did state that a lot of twins that lost an engine never reported it as there was not an accident. He did state when a twin did go down, there were higher fatality levels. There are muriad reasons that could be the case.

Thanks, I didn't know that he made a retraction. Makes sense, no accident, no recorded statistic.


Trapper John

 

[dmccormack]

Dan:
I think geography has to be taken into account in answering the poll as well. Being in South Eastern PA I have populated and built up areas in my immediate area. to the North I have mountains to the west I have the flat land of Lancaster County and then further west the mountains again so I think where I fly would make a difference as well as what I could see. If there is no moon I may not be as comfortable as if the moon were larger and brighter.

I don't fly at night for a few reasons, none of them are because i'm afraid to ( althoguh I may have a hightend sense of vigilance) First I really don't have a need to fly at night, I don't have to get from A to B, Second my flying budget is limited so I fly in day light because there is more that I can do ie lunch, breakfast, Day at the beach. So unless I have the $$ to remain night proficient ( not current but proficient) why do it. If I had more money and could fly the SAME plane on a much more regular basis I suspect that my answer would be different. Good question BTW

Adam,

I agree it is terrain dependent. My education about night flying has been tempered by living and flying in Western Pennsylvania. Nearly all my XC flights require overflight of mountains.

I learned to fly in Lancaster County where I lived for 17 years. It's not as flat and obstruction-free as it used to be!

My first night XC was LNS-->BWI-->LNS When we flew over Baltimore I remember thinking, "There aren't too many big parking lots down there..."

The Pittsburgh area is very short of options -- it looks flat from the air, but spend some time at ground level and you find there's a house, tower, or gas well on every hill top and the slopes are rather steep.

West Virginia doesn't have many options, either, though west of 79 tends to be "rolling" terrain. East of Route 79 you're in some serious Eastern mountains.

 

[TMetzinger]

I flew into Cumberland (KCBE) in IMC the first time (Clg was 600').

There's a nice long ridge that paralells the approach.

The second time I flew into CBE, it was VMC.

It made me consider the wisdom of that IMC flight in the first time!!

Several of the KCBE approaches are/were NA at night - be sure to check NOTAMs. The approaches themselves aren't too bad, but the missed approaches are serious exercises - do them right or smack a ridgeline.

I prefer VFR at night - generally a smooth ride, beautiful view, and as long as I maintain control of the airplane I think I'll be fine in a forced landing, at least in the areas I usually fly in. Out west in the big mountains might be a different story.

 

[dmccormack]

Several of the KCBE approaches are/were NA at night - be sure to check NOTAMs. The approaches themselves aren't too bad, but the missed approaches are serious exercises - do them right or smack a ridgeline.

I prefer VFR at night - generally a smooth ride, beautiful view, and as long as I maintain control of the airplane I think I'll be fine in a forced landing, at least in the areas I usually fly in. Out west in the big mountains might be a different story.

Sorry if I wasn't clear -- I haven't flown into CBE at night -- only IMC.

The mountains out west get plenty of press, but the successive ridges between you and me -- while not very impressive as mountains from the air -- can be mighty sucky landing terrin.

Even if you survive, it's a long, tough walk out (If you hunt in those ridges, you call them "mountains," and there is only up or down)

 

[OtisAir]

A lot of my night flying is one of two scenario's:

1. Flying for the $100 Hamburger, except for dinner - Endicott NY, for example, has an excellent steak house. The return trip is the night flight..... or

2. Leaving very early (03:00 ish) in the morning to fly from Pennsylvania to Jawja, Florida, Hilton Head, or Osh, etc etc.. to get there in time for brunch. A little extra search for SS Fuel is usually not difficult to find.

I've never landed on grass at night though, would like too. I think Perkiomen or New Garden may have grass inside the lights but I'll check before doing so.

 

[Bob Noel]

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.

 

[Ted]

You probably have statistically less safety because there are two chances for the engine(s) to quit plus there's the control problem you don't have in a single. You also generally have higher speeds to deal with. I flew a small turbocharged twin up here and I just figured it was a big single if the engine quit right after takeoff. Yes we usually took off pretty heavy (usually very close to gross) but that was because it was often a requirement of the job to stay up as long as possible.

That's pretty much the case in most twins, depending on how they're loaded. If I lose an engine in the Aztec and there are obstacles ahead, I'll probably have an issue getting over them, depending on how much weight is in the thing. If it's just me and full fuel coming out of Williamsport, it probably wouldn't be an issue. If it was me and a couple passengers coming out of Gaston's, I'd be coming down.

Interesting...

If you lose an engine in a SEL, you're going to land sooner. Over the mountains, the odds are at night you're not going to survive the forced landing unless you are extremely fortunate.

Twins are more likely to have redundant systems, anti or de-ice, and enough residual SE power to extend the glide to a more hospitable location.

It seems like you're making a few assumptions here. Yes, it is more likely that a twin will have de-ice than a single. However "more likely" doesn't mean it does. Also, just because it has it doesn't mean it will work when your one engine fails.

Some people have asked me if I would shoot an ILS into the ground at VV001 or something like that. Sure, I can think of one situation where I would - if I had one engine and couldn't maintain altitude. That option seems a lot better than choosing a random, unknown landing spot.

 

[Rob Schaffer]

I've never landed on grass at night though, would like too. I think Perkiomen or New Garden may have grass inside the lights but I'll check before doing so.

Perkiomen has a grass landing area to the south of the paved runway, but not within the lights of the runway at night.

 

[dmccormack]

It seems like you're making a few assumptions here. Yes, it is more likely that a twin will have de-ice than a single. However "more likely" doesn't mean it does. Also, just because it has it doesn't mean it will work when your one engine fails.

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.

 

[sba55]

In other words - below the ground out here

The FAA is mightily short sighted in its O2 advice, IMHO.

The FAA is right on the money actually. It doesn't matter that you live at a higher altitude. Your body won't fully compensate, and it makes a lot of sense to use O2 in CO/NM even if you're close to the ground. As a smoker, you're hypoxic to begin with, so altitude will affect you even more.

I prefer not to fly at night in anything less than a twin with a decent SE ceiling. Otherwise, the risk is just too great. I'd also prefer to go down in a single rather than a NA twin. Lower speeds mean much less energy on impact.

-Felix

 

[Clark1961]

The FAA is right on the money actually. It doesn't matter that you live at a higher altitude. Your body won't fully compensate, and it makes a lot of sense to use O2 in CO/NM even if you're close to the ground.

While well meaning, this advise is not entirely true. The body does adapt to living at altitude and the red blood cell count, i.e. the ability to transport oxygen, does increase.

That said, the best thing to do is to monitor blood oxygen level and use oxygen as appropriate. Pulse oximeters are cheap now so there really isn't a reason not to monitor...

 

[sba55]

While well meaning, this advise is not entirely true. The body does adapt to living at altitude and the red blood cell count, i.e. the ability to transport oxygen, does increase.

That's exactly what I said, actually. It doesn't adapt fully, though, does it?

 

[TangoWhiskey]

... and can shoot and ride (horses -- but I can't rope).

Please don't shoot horses.