Why no IMC at night?

mscard88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. We welcome differing opinions, but it's the way you state opinions that often rubs people the wrong way. Tone matters.
 
Last edited:
I'm firmly in the "flying single engine ifr at night is fine" camp. With flying ifr, I conduct a thorough weather brief... same as in daytime.
 
gsengle said:
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
Click to expand...
I understand you want to claim that lurkers support you. It's an old usenet tactic to claim invisible support.

I'm sorry you want to attempt to belittle me by claiming emotions and actions that are not expressed.

And finally it is regrettable that you fail to accept other people's observations and opinions when they differ from yours.
 
James_Dean said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not saying that's not the case. I was trying to make a point that even a light twin, while with more options, would not be a 100% quarantee if you lost an engine at night in IMC as sengle seems to feel. Sure, I'd rather fly a twin under these conditions but nothing wrong with a single either.

IOW a single losing an engine is going down, and a light twin if not handled correctly will too, although with more options for a successful outcome. A light twin losing an engine loses 80% of its performance.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
Not saying that's not the case. I was trying to make a point that even a light twin, while with more options, would not be a 100% quarantee if you lost an engine at night in IMC as sengle seems to feel. Sure, I'd rather fly a twin under these conditions but nothing wrong with a single either.

IOW a single losing an engine is going down, and a light twin if not handled correctly will too, although with more options for a successful outcome. A light twin losing an engine loses 80% of its performance.
Click to expand...

The only "performance" that matters in that situation in a light twin is single-engine service ceiling and remaining fuel/time in the air. It can lose 80% of every other performance measure and it matters not a bit (to me). I know I have options I wouldn't have in a single, and have an excellent chance (but certainly not 100% guaranteed chance) of putting it down in the place of my choosing.

I am not a fan of single engine IFR in actual IMC. Have done it, but always solo, never with family in the airplane. Got a friend with a gorgeous turbo-Mooney that regularly flies IFR to the west coast over the same high terrain I do. Has been doing it for years. Sometimes I am envious of his fuel/speed advantages. And I will confess to occasionally lapsing into consideration of a Cirrus SR-22 :eek: , but a few minutes on PoA is enough to dispel those radically foolish thoughts :rolleyes:.

Different strokes...
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
The only "performance" that matters in that situation in a light twin is single-engine service ceiling and remaining fuel/time in the air. It can lose 80% of every other performance measure and it matters not a bit (to me). I know I have options I wouldn't have in a single, and have an excellent chance (but certainly not 100% guaranteed chance) of putting it down in the place of my choosing.

I am not a fan of single engine IFR in actual IMC. Have done it, but always solo, never with family in the airplane. Got a friend with a gorgeous turbo-Mooney that regularly flies IFR to the west coast over the same high terrain I do. Has been doing it for years. Sometimes I am envious of his fuel/speed advantages. And I will confess to occasionally lapsing into consideration of a Cirrus SR-22 :eek: , but a few minutes on PoA is enough to dispel those radically foolish thoughts :rolleyes:.

Different strokes...
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I was responding to a poster who wouldn't fly a single in night IMC, but would a twin. I know there are more options with a light twin, not arguing that. But if one doesn't handle an engine out in a light twin in night IMC, or broad daylight for that matter, the consequences are the same as a single.
 
mscard88 said:
I don't disagree. I was responding to a poster who wouldn't fly a single in night IMC, but would a twin. I know there are more options with a light twin, not arguing that. But if one doesn't handle an engine out in a light twin in night IMC, or broad daylight for that matter, the consequences are the same as a single.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree with your latter observation. But even a Cessna 150 can kill if mishandled (although admittedly there are far fewer things to mess you up in a 150 :) ).

Anyone who thinks flying a light piston twin makes them invincible is looking for trouble.
 
GRG55 said:
Don't disagree with your latter observation. But even a Cessna 150 can kill if mishandled (although admittedly there are far fewer things to mess you up in a 150 :) ).

Anyone who thinks flying a light piston twin makes them invincible is looking for trouble.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, any plane for that matter. Losing an engine in night IMC in a twin will result in one busy pilot though!
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
Electrical failure at night is problematic and small GA aircraft rarely have good backup systems for that event.
Click to expand...
This is probably the biggie for me. An alternator failure would be the single most serious single-point failure in my plane, and for it to happen in night IMC would be a really big deal. That said, this is something I would do, provided I had enough outs for my comfort level. Hard, low IMC at night I certainly avoid because of lack of outs, but it is something I would do on rare occasions, under the same philosophy as I apply to flights over open water: keep my exposure to unsurvivable situations to a small percentage of my total hours.

Its colder at night, more ice, heater doesnt keep up, can't see wires etc.

Its not just a matter of being on instruments, its a host of other risks.

There's nothing illegal about it, you can do it if you are qualified and want to. If you do it with decent VFR above the MVA below you, its pretty safe. Something goes wrong, just descend to VFR.
Click to expand...
Exactly, as long as I have outs, I don't see a problem. Also, the "can't see wires" issue applies to night VFR as well. It's one I really don't think about much, but probably should, since with an engine out at night here in VT, a road is pretty much your only option in many areas.
 
Brad Z said:
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.
Click to expand...
The only time I flew in night IMC was coming back from a PnP flight ferrying a dog from DXR to BTV, then back home to MPV over the mountains in snow flurries. I won't say I was totally comfortable, but it wasn't a no-go for me. Now this was spotty IMC and mostly due to already frozen precip; it would have been different if it had been widespread and low. Night in the mountains in VT is basically instrument conditions anyway, so the few areas of IFR vis didn't really add much difficulty, or risk. My main concern was flying into a juicy cloud and getting iced up, but except for a few wisps of scud they were mostly well above me.
 
gsengle said:
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.
Click to expand...
And my approach is not to draw a hard line there, but to keep my exposure to situations like that relatively small. Is your approach right and mine wrong? If so, why?
 
azure said:
And my approach is not to draw a hard line there, but to keep my exposure to situations like that relatively small. Is your approach right and mine wrong? If so, why?
Click to expand...

:eek: Oh man you had to stir it up again! ;):)
 
Some preach no night IMC because of the increased hazards which increases risk and the higher accident rate. The real question should be what can one do to reduce the risk and is that reduced risk acceptable to you. The second is a personal choice and can't be answered by anyone except the pilot. The first is more answerable. One can reduce risk by
equipment (technology, twin engines, chutes), training and proficiency.

MetalCloud said:
I couldn't sleep last night and got to thinking.... why do we preach no IMC at night? If I'm on my instruments, what difference does it make?

I can see if you have a six pack and ****+y terrain data / situational awareness. (Technology can be your friend). But if you've got, well, more advanced tech on board, it can reduce CFIT accidents right?

Now before you go all POA on me:

I haven't done this.
I don't plan on doing it.
I don't tell people to do it.
I do in fact have AOA on board.
Click to expand...
 
DeckardTrinity said:
Unless there are CBs around, I don't see why it matters if you can see the clouds or not... you're flying on instruments at that point anyway.

As for at night vs day, I used to fly IMC at night for practice, solo, and I would shy away from it now if presented with the opportunity. One thing I wonder too - how many times has a pilot flown a picture perfect approach to minimums at night to an untowered field, only to forget to key the mike 5 times to turn the runway lights on?
Click to expand...

I suspect for most pilots the answer is one, assuming they are able to learn from their mistakes. ;)

Night flight in general has plusses and minuses but IMO if you do fly at night you're better off (i.e safer) if you do it under IFR.
 
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...
Where'd you get that idea? The only twin I know of that won't hold at least a few thousand feet on one is the original Piper Apache. My Baron will climb a couple hundred FPM at gross weight at 8000 DA.
 
gismo said:
Where'd you get that idea? The only twin I know of that won't hold at least a few thousand feet on one is the original Piper Apache. My Baron will climb a couple hundred FPM at gross weight at 8000 DA.
Click to expand...
Not to pick a nit but 8,000 DA is common on the ground here on a summer day. Light single best be kept light...
 
Clark1961 said:
Not to pick a nit but 8,000 DA is common on the ground here on a summer day. Light single best be kept light...
Click to expand...
It will hold 10-11 thousand and even higher if I'm 100-200 lbs below MGW. But even when you're above the SE ceiling, in a twin on one engine your "glide ratio" (drift down) is more like a high performance sailplane instead of the 1.5nm per thousand you'd be lucky to get in most retractable singles.
 
I don't know who told you no IMC at night, and I don't know where they got that, but I don't agree. Like many here, I think it is all about risk tolerance. Flying at night, VMC or IMC, is a little more risky than during the day. Flying over mountains, water or a big city is also riskier but a lot of people do it in singles.
 
Don't think I would do much different from my VFR night flights. I always bring a flashlight incase of lighting or electrical loss anyway. A thumb on weather and lots of gas is a must.
 
somorris said:
I don't know who told you no IMC at night, and I don't know where they got that, but I don't agree. Like many here, I think it is all about risk tolerance. Flying at night, VMC or IMC, is a little more risky than during the day. Flying over mountains, water or a big city is also riskier but a lot of people do it in singles.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's interesting. I don't think anyone specifically told me not to do it. Seems like I've just heard and read that IMC + night = bad idea. Agreed on risk tolerance. Like anything it's about careful weather planning, having backup plans, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top