Why no IMC at night?

MAKG1 said:
Not (usually) necessary, but you do need to know when to turn the strobes off or start a missed approach. A flat ceiling should be fine, but it isn't always flat, and if you can't see it, you won't know. It's the situation where you see the runway environment and then lose it, especially in a circle to land, that the difference shows up. In daytime, you may be able to anticipate that. At night, not likely.

It's not an unmanageable difference, but it is a difference. And it's not small.
Click to expand...
When the strobes blind you, it's time to turn them off, LOL. But I really would rather do an approach to minimums at night.
 
Light twin in night IMC when you lose an engine really no different than a single losing an engine in the same scenario. Most light twins may be able to hold altitude on one engine but most can't. So both are headed down.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not (usually) necessary, but you do need to know when to turn the strobes off or start a missed approach. A flat ceiling should be fine, but it isn't always flat, and if you can't see it, you won't know. It's the situation where you see the runway environment and then lose it, especially in a circle to land, that the difference shows up. In daytime, you may be able to anticipate that. At night, not likely.

It's not an unmanageable difference, but it is a difference. And it's not small.
Click to expand...

I've gone missed before because the strobes reflected back and I couldn't make out the runway. Flew the miss, shot another ILS leaving the strobes off and broke out at minimums with the approach lights in sight (minus the strobes). An experienced pilot knows these things and when to apply them.
 
mscard88 said:
Light twin in night IMC when you lose an engine really no different than a single losing an engine in the same scenario. Most light twins may be able to hold altitude on one engine but most can't. So both are headed down.
Click to expand...

Many light twins can at least hold SOME altitude; maybe not what you were cruising at, but 3-5k shouldn't be difficult in all but the most anemic light twins (like an Apache). Unless you're in the mountains, most light twins will get you to an airport, rather than a field (or worse). Even if you can't HOLD altitude, I'll take a couple hundred foot per-minute, controlled descent over a total power off one.
 
I said hush when someone called me arrogant. I asked what options you have in a single in widespread low IMC when your engine quits?

Simple as that. Am I wrong, that you're almost out of options at that point? As a risk evaluation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
bradg33 said:
Many light twins can at least hold SOME altitude; maybe not what you were cruising at, but 3-5k shouldn't be difficult in all but the most anemic light twins (like an Apache). Unless you're in the mountains, most light twins will get you to an airport, rather than a field (or worse). Even if you can't HOLD altitude, I'll take a couple hundred foot per-minute, controlled descent over a total power off one.
Click to expand...

Perfect mechanical condition light twin w/ a sharp competent pilot you're referring to right?
 
gsengle said:
I said hush when someone called me arrogant. I asked what options you have in a single in widespread low IMC when your engine quits?

Simple as that. Am I wrong, that you're almost out of options at that point? As a risk evaluation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No offense, but you and MAKG always come across this way. That's why folks respond to the two of you the way they do. Implies you're the experts and everyone else should be flying like you two and that's the only safe way. Seriously.
 
mscard88 said:
Perfect condition light twin w/ a sharp competent pilot you're referring to right?
Click to expand...

Not really. I think a marginally competent multi-engine pilot, at cruise altitude, would be able to get the thing configured and keep the thing more or less level. The "dangerous" times in a light twin are takeoff and initial stage climb. Of course, someone WAY out of competency is going to have a problem in any airplane.
 
1) IMC isn't always low ceilings. I often fly in or above cloud layers, so IMC (you've got to pass through them to get above them) is safer than VFR down low.

2) At night, it's harder to see clouds. I often fly IFR at night so that it's not an issue if I wander into a stray cloud. It happens, and it's not a big deal if you're prepared.

3) like I mentioned in #2, it's harder to see clouds. That includes nasty build-ups that haven't shown up precipitation on nexrad. Because I know my passengers don't like turbulence (nor do I for that matter) I try to avoid cumulus clouds, whether it's day, night, VFR or IFR. If I'm looking at possible unstable buildups at night, I'm likely to reconsider my strategy. There's nothing like getting slammed around at night, with distant lightning and strobe reflections that seem to mimic a bad horror movie.

One risk mitigation approach that I generally subscribe to is: night, mountains (i.e. Inhospitable terrain), IMC...pick two. Mind you I'm talking lower east coast mountains, not the really tall stuff out west.
 
Oddly I'm on a lot of forums and I only get this response on POA. I'd ask people to look at content rather than reading into my tone.

I have a background in risk management. There are three things you look at. The odds of something bad happening (or a combination of things); what you can do about them when they do; and what are the consequences of failing to mitigate.

Low IMC in a single is...

1) low chance of catastrophic engine failure to be honest, but..,
2) No reasonable mitigations (because of low IMC)
3) oftentimes death.

Just laying that out. Is this an arrogant tone?

Even linked atc audio of a chilling accident - what can happen in low IMC in a single. Thought it added to the conversation. Has anyone listened to it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SOunds more like a "superior" tone to me. :dunno:
 
The same can be said for not having an AOA! Damn I crack myself up.
 
gsengle said:
Oddly I'm on a lot of forums and I only get this response on POA. I'd ask people to look at content rather than reading into my tone.

I have a background in risk management. There are three things you look at. The odds of something bad happening (or a combination of things); what you can do about them when they do; and what are the consequences of failing to mitigate.

Low IMC in a single is...

1) low chance of catastrophic engine failure to be honest, but..,
2) No reasonable mitigations (because of low IMC)
3) oftentimes death.

Just laying that out. Is this an arrogant tone?

Even linked atc audio of a chilling accident - what can happen in low IMC in a single. Thought it added to the conversation. Has anyone listened to it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
When we say low IMC, are we saying 200-300? <800, <1500?

Some of that risk can be mitigated by 1) route (over rural farmland, highways with little traffic, lots of aircrafts around, etc.), 2) Altitude (increases the probability of reaching an airport or safe landing area), and 3) type of aircraft (i.e. a King Katmai Cessna 182 has a stall speed of 25kts, and can land in a football field or at least have a good shot at survive a tree landing) 4) training and pilot skill (much better outcome if the pilot can control airspeed to the knot and spot land).
 
Ok, so stol airplanes have a different set of issues.

For me low IFR is 200-300 feet. That low and you don't get to pick what you land on... id prefer 500 plus.

I come over the fence at 75kts and need at least 2000 feet of runway...

The accident in question (you listened?) was close to an airport and to an interstate. Didn't save his family...

Altitude is great, but hard to make a gliding approach to an airport near minimums. And you have to get low to approach and land sooner or later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I said hush when someone called me arrogant. I asked what options you have in a single in widespread low IMC when your engine quits?

Simple as that. Am I wrong, that you're almost out of options at that point? As a risk evaluation?
Click to expand...
You are correct that it is more risky than flying on a clear, calm day. But you draw the no-go line in one place, others draw it in a different place. That doesn't make you right and them wrong since this is a question of individual tolerance for risk.

Some people draw the no-go line where they would never get in a single-engine airplane at all.
 
Everskyward said:
You are correct that it is more risky than flying on a clear, calm day. But you draw the no-go line in one place, others draw it in a different place. That doesn't make you right and them wrong since this is a question of individual tolerance for risk.

Some people draw the no-go line where they would never get in a single-engine airplane at all.
Click to expand...

That's not my point. The line isn't arbitrary. It's not because it's "more risky" and that's where my comfort runs out.

The line I try not to cross (and suggest to others not to cross) is putting yourself in a position where a single failure (such as loss of your only engine with no chute) is catastrophic.

If you have zero zero conditions below you the likelihood of gliding and surviving are low, and your skill doesn't matter. (STOL capability would help tho as others pointed out)

It's not arbitrary. Rule of thumb, always have options. Out of options sounds bad, no?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
That's not my point. The line isn't arbitrary. It's not because it's "more risky" and that's where my comfort runs out.

The line I try not to cross (and suggest to others not to cross) is putting yourself in a position where a single failure (such as loss of your only engine with no chute) is catastrophic.

If you have zero zero conditions below you the likelihood of gliding and surviving are low, and your skill doesn't matter.

It's not arbitrary. Rule of thumb, always have options. Out of options sounds bad, no?
Click to expand...
I give up. You draw the line where you want to draw it, but be prepared to be criticized when you imply others need to do so too.
 
gsengle said:
I said hush when someone called me arrogant. I asked what options you have in a single in widespread low IMC when your engine quits?

Simple as that. Am I wrong, that you're almost out of options at that point? As a risk evaluation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No. you said that anyone who disagreed with you was wrong. That is arrogant in this case. There is very little difference between single engine VFR and single engine IMC at night for many places I fly because there are few lights out in the countryside. In short you are entitled to your opinion but it isn't the only reasonable opinion.

Now for further clarification the only thing I pointed out was wrong was your statement that disagreement with your stated position was not possible. Do you get it now? Try to learn instead of defending yourself so vehemently.
 
Everskyward said:
I give up. You draw the line where you want to draw it, but be prepared to be criticized when you imply others need to do so too.
Click to expand...

Did you read what I wrote? Do you understand what I said? How is the difference between options and no options arbitrary?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Clark1961 said:
No. you said that anyone who disagreed with you was wrong. That is arrogant in this case. There is very little difference between single engine VFR and single engine IMC at night for many places I fly because there are few lights out in the countryside. In short you are entitled to your opinion but it isn't the only reasonable opinion.

Now for further clarification the only thing I pointed out was wrong was your statement that disagreement with your stated position was not possible. Do you get it now? Try to learn instead of defending yourself so vehemently.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't see where I said you can't choose differently. I agree with you that night can be as dangerous.

But yes i think that your odds in pitch blackness or zero zero IMC having to glide it in are pretty poor, do you disagree?

Again out of options is not a good place to be, IMHO. Do you disagree??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I guess I don't see where I said you can't choose differently. I agree with you that night can be as dangerous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Cute, you deleted your post. That's okay you can reread it in the post where I quoted you. Your behavior is really uncalled for.
 
No I'm an adult. I went back and read it (the second one) and agreed that it wasn't great. It certainly didn't come off as I intended.

So what behavior are you talking about? Contributing rationally to an important discussion?

And do you have any issue with the content of what I have said?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Night IMC? No way no how! Oh, shoot that's what I do for a living. Last night
Wind sixty degrees to the runway at gusts to 30 knots, 1/8 mile in heavy snow
Ho hum, just another night at work.

Single engine? No
 
gsengle said:
No I'm an adult. I went back and read it (the second one) and agreed that it wasn't great. It certainly didn't come off as I intended.

So what behavior are you talking about? Contributing rationally to an important discussion?

And do you have any issue with the content of what I have said?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Just stop. Be the adult you say you are and stop. Contribute. If you have something else that's relevant to the discussion at hand by all means share it. But stop looking for justification, acceptance of your words, or whatever this is. It reminds me of Maui and his combative tone on AOA, all in the name of "safety" ... incidentally he is now on my ignore list.

You don't need to prove yourself or have others prove themselves. Just let it go and let's get the discussion back to being worthwhile.
 
gsengle said:
No I'm an adult. I went back and read it (the second one) and agreed that it wasn't great. It certainly didn't come off as I intended.

So what behavior are you talking about? Contributing rationally to an important discussion?

And do you have any issue with the content of what I have said?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Rational? I think not. I have already posted my opinion on the contents of your posts. I think I am quite done with you.
 
No you haven't addressed the contents. You just delighted in being a scold. Kinda hypocritical.

Thanks for the PMs of agreement folks, I'm out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MetalCloud said:
Just stop. Be the adult you say you are and stop. Contribute. If you have something else that's relevant to the discussion at hand by all means share it. But stop looking for justification, acceptance of your words, or whatever this is. It reminds me of Maui and his combative tone on AOA, all in the name of "safety" ... incidentally he is now on my ignore list.

You don't need to prove yourself or have others prove themselves. Just let it go and let's get the discussion back to being worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Every post was on the content of the topic. I contributed. And these posts received likes and I received PMs of agreement as well. I could care less for approval though. I put out a line of thinking that directly answered your original query. I didn't have to take the time. If you want to criticize the contents go for it and have a discussion. Specious arguments about tone aren't really productive. I was a man and said that one early post wasn't what I intended to say and removed it.

If you think as a pilot putting yourself in any situation with zero outs is wise, please make an argument. That's pretty much what I said, and would have been long since quiet if the gang wasn't so busy being offended and with few exceptions not discussing the content of what I had to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think I just figured out my own situation. I'm worried about being complacent. My airplane rocks... FIKI, chute, turbo, everything one would need for climbing above weather, encountering icing, engine failure, etc.

I worry about letting that go to my head. We've heard and read some stories of people who do stupid stuff because the tech in their plane gives them more "confidence" ... I think there have been a lot of valid points and good, useful content here. And in applying everything to myself, I think maybe I'm just psyching my myself out. I just don't want to be dumb. lol
 
I did a substantial part of my instrument rating training at night. Smoother air and a much better instrument simulation than a view limiting device during the day. I'm not afraid of flying at night VFR or IFR; though I usually fly IFR at night. I was properly trained and prepare accordingly. Eliminate dumb pilot induced errors and you eliminate 3/4 of the risks associated with any flight; day or night.
 
Hmmm. Interesting question. When there is any hint of convection, I much prefer daylight flying, even with a radar, stormscope, and nexrad, because I prefer the MkI eyeball to avoid TCU. Otherwise night IMC hasn't ever bothered me, mainly because I don't fly night IMC with Tstorms on the menu.
 
mscard88 said:
Light twin in night IMC when you lose an engine really no different than a single losing an engine in the same scenario. Most light twins may be able to hold altitude on one engine but most can't. So both are headed down.
Click to expand...

Uh, what? This statement is ridiculous. Even the twin that can't hold altitude is going to have miles and miles more area to choose from and will probably find an airport to land.
 
This just seems like a silly arguement...
If you're willing to fly in low IFR, what's the diffence??? Can't see anything is the common theme.
Now, if you're only a "sort of an IFR guy" that won't fly below 1000 foot ceilings than perhaps you should receive additional training.

*THAT SAID*.... I fully support anyone getting the IR to make themselves a better pilot WITHOUT intentions of ever flying IFR.

The part I don't get is low IFR day, but not night.
 
Night IMC in a 172 is OK with me - it's a low performance airplane you can land in a driveway and walk away from. . .engine failure in a higher performance airplane, with higher approach speeds? I dunno - if I don't stall the 172, I got a good chance. . .Malibu? Maybe not so good. Cirrus? You probably have to pull, or the driveway needs to a bit longer.
 
mscard88 said:
Most light twins may be able to hold altitude on one engine but most can't.
Click to expand...

So which is it?

BTW, I've never seen a negative climb rate when operating at a relatively low density altitude in any performance spec .
 
paflyer said:
So which is it?

BTW, I've never seen a negative climb rate when operating at a relatively low density altitude in any performance spec .
Click to expand...
Well... depending on type, and pilot training, and load, and density altitude, the answer is.... maybe.
That said, the odds are good they can get to an airfield if the don't bang one in a remote part of the country.

Obviously just after takeoff is a whole nother story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top