Night flights and runway lights.

[bonal]

Not sure my sensitive nature could handle all the dislikes I would likely get

[Jim Peace]

That being said, wouldn't flying single engine IFR anywhere west of Kansas be just as dangerous?

The FAA, who makes everything illegal, still allows us to fly single engine IFR at night.

Flying IFR west of Kansas in a single is not dangerous as long as you choose airways that are near airports and away from pointy high terrain.  I spend a lot of time planning a IFR flight in a single.  Always overlaying the route on a sectional and google earth.  For me its fun to do that.  I do that even if East of Kansas and make sure that although I am IFR that I will be VMC most if not all the way and close to airports.  Some of my recent flight aware flights will reflect that.  Not all the flights are mine and you can tell who was thinking of the engine out scenario and who was not.  I consider flying over low IMC anyplace dangerous in a single.  

 

Just because the FAA allows us to do things does not make it safe.  They are a govt. agency that is bought and paid for by the largest corporations through lobbyist and other shenanigans.  Just research the 117/121 cargo cutout.  Your local FSDO people are generally nice and just doing their job, but what happens in DC with regulatory policy is just downright wrong.

 

Some countries you are not allowed to fly VFR at night.  I would not want to be restricted to that being I could not alter my route to stay as close as I would want to airports but it does weed out many of the yahoos who think its not dangerous and do not put the time in to proper flight planning or spend the time and money on proper mx.  I can see why they do that.  

 

I knew a guy with a 300k+ year job and did great mx yet I could not get him to put a pitot cover on even though he parked his 200k airplane outside.  I don't know if it was the money or laziness that he would not do it.  One day I went flying with him and yes the pitot tube was blocked and long story short we got airborne and had to return with no ASI.  Even after that he would still not put one on.   Yes there are lots of yahoos at the airport who either don't know how to properly preflight or just don't care.  All FAA licensed.

[Jim Peace]

Not sure my sensitive nature could handle all the dislikes I would likely get

I have 50 "likes" since I joined this summer.  But I am sure my comments on MSC's would have earned me at least 50 dislikes.  MSC's is where the Lord lives I guess.

[ArtVandelay]

I have 50 "likes" since I joined this summer. But I am sure my comments on MSC's would have earned me at least 50 dislikes. MSC's is where the Lord lives I guess.

Anytime you make a definitive statement of opinion as fact about a topic you are going to get some blowback, examples:

T&Gs are dangerous

Good pilots don't need speed brakes

Flaps should be retracted right after touchdown

Garmin is the best

Garmin is the worst

Bonanzas are better than Mooneys

Night flying is dangerous

Etc...

[Jim Peace]

Night flying is dangerous

Yes it is

[gsxrpilot]

I don't have a problem with anyone suggesting something is dangerous. Hell this whole flying thing is dangerous.  But when anyone on this board trots out their "superior" knowledge or experience to tell me that I am foolish, ignorant, danger to others, etc. they get blocked. There isn't a dislike button, but it's easy to block the trolls.

 

I'm sure if there was a dislike button, I'd be on the leaderboard. And that's just for my politics :-)

 

If you don't fly singles at night, fine by me. But personally, I kinda like the way my Mooney flies at night. I'm legal to do so and comfortable with it.

[fantom]

We all pick our own poison. I fly at night, in weather over the Everglades, and over water as well. With some preplanning, not a problem. If someone thinks it's unsafe then don't do it.

But I don't land on, taxi over, or smoke grass. Personal 'avoid hassles' choice.

I not surprised some 'professional' systems operator, by the numbers, pilots have low risk thresholds.

YMMV

[N201MKTurbo]

The old saying was that one "Oh $&!T" would wipe out all the "Atta Boys"! So would one dislike cancel all the likes?

[WardHolbrook]

I have over 500 hours of night flight almost all of it out west. We have lots of mountains.

I think one of the most important things is to be familiar with the terrain you are flying over. Knowing where the mountains and valleys are at all times.

I tend to fly VFR most of the time, so I have to know what the terrain is around me. When you fly IFR you can ignore the terrain and just fly the featureless map thinking that everything below MEA will kill you.

That being said, wouldn't flying single engine IFR anywhere west of Kansas be just as dangerous?

The FAA, who makes everything illegal, still allows us to fly single engine IFR at night.

 

No disrespect, but safety and legality are not synonymous. Something can be totally safe yet illegal and vise versa. Although our FAA allows it, there are many countries around the world that do not.  

 

The way you maximize your odds of living a long life and having a lengthy flying career is by always having a viable Plan B and even a Plan C that will ensure that you can get back on the ground safely - it doesn't matter how many engines you have or whether they're piston or turbine. The next time you're out at night or even flirting with extended LIFR conditions during the day you owe it yourself and your passengers to be honest about what your circumstances would be if you were to lose that engine. Many pilots are simply betting on long odds when it comes to an engine failure. Wise pilots always hedge their bets. 

[Jim Peace]

I agree completely except you left out plan D and E.

[WardHolbrook]

I've said this many times before and I'll continue to say it. There are caveats associated with the operation of any aircraft - regardless of the number or type of powerplant(s). The big caveat when it comes to singles is when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of good judgement or dumb luck, you will be VFR over survivable terrain because you'll be "up close and personal" with it in very short order. You can rationalize and play the odds all you want, but It's a fools errand to use statistical probabilities as justification as to how, where and when you fly any airplane - piston or turbine, single or multi.

 

When it comes to twins, the big caveat is that when that engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill and proficiency to avoid turning the airplane into little more than a lawn dart. A properly flown twin operated by a proficient pilot within its limitations is inherently safer than a single. If they are not operated that way, they are more dangerous. I'd guess that the majority of the non-professional light twin drivers and many of the "pros" would be safer in a single. It takes a lot of effort to gain the necessary proficiency and even more to maintain it. That's dang tough to when your recurrent training involves little more than a basic flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you're only flying a 50 to 100 hours a year. It also takes judgement and discipline to operate your twin in a manner that doesn't severely compromise the limited OEI performance capabilities of the typical light piston twin. Just like in a single, you can play the odds all you want in your light twin, but never forget that now you've got two engines so you've got twice the likelihood of a failure in any given period of time. The statistics don't give us the number of successful OEI light twin landings, but they are certainly more than the unsuccessful ones. 

 

Using statistics is one thing, but as the accident record demonstrates, what really matters is "When is it going to happen to ME?" The only answer a person can honestly give is "Sooner or Later". Since we can't pick the time or the place of the event, I believe it's wise to limit our exposure to those places and conditions where one has little or no control over the outcome. A successful outcome - no injuries, not necessarily no aircraft damage - under those situations requires luck. I made a decision, early on in my professional flying career, to limit my dependency upon luck. Hence, you won't find me flying singles - piston or turboprop - at night, LIFR, or anywhere - hostile terrain or open water - that I don't have someplace to put it down safely IF/WHEN the engine quits. You have to be able to see in order to land.

 

Our equipment is so reliable and because engines really do seldom quit and there is a temptation to say something along the line of... "I've been doing it this way for umpteen hundreds or thousands of hours and it's never happened before, it won't happen this time either therefore it must be safe." But engines can and do quit or lose power - for many reasons - and if you allow yourself to operate "outside the box" sooner or later you run the risk of getting bit.

[Jim Peace]

IF/WHEN the engine quits. You have to be able to see in order to land.

Great post.

 

But there are many pilots on this site that can find a field or safe place to land even on the darkest night in IMC over the Everglades and walk away without a scratch or even getting wet.

[bonal]

Hoping for a break in the weather today been 3 weeks since I turned a blade and reading all the comments here and on other threads has been very helpful in keeping me mindful about all things as I plan to take the runway. What impresses me the most are those of you that have so much experience in both hours and different types that still have so much respect for the challenges and requirements that flying demands that you take nothing for granted. Some times when the discussion is about accidents and such it does put a dark cloud on the whole thing that is flying and I know it's a valuable resource because if and when something does go wrong it might be someone's post that helps me find a safe way down. I look forward to all the comments and opinions you all share and hope that I can someday be able to provide some useful bit of information as well.

Keep it coming and thank you Mooney Space.

[fantom]

But there are many pilots on this site that can find a field or safe place to land even on the darkest night in IMC over the Everglades and walk away without a scratch or even getting wet.

But we do have to be careful not to get mud on our boots as we remove luggage from the baggage compartment after a forced landing.

[Ftlausa]

Jim Peace,

 

   You have made it abundantly clear that you think its too dangerous to fly at night.  We all get that's your view.  I am sure that you are also of the view that touch and goes are too dangerous in a Mooney.  Perhaps you are of the view that one should never be more than gliding distance from an airport.  Since a great number of engine failures occur on take off, perhaps you are of the view that one should not take off.  Since thousands of people die each year in car accidents, perhaps you also feel that its too dangerous to drive to the airport. 

 

Perhaps flying is simply too inherently risky for your someone of your sensibilities.  There are alternatives -- stay at home and fly simulators. Just be careful when flying the simulator when there is a thunderstorm in the area, as there is a minute chance you could get electrocuted. 

 

On behalf of those of us that enjoy flying, or do it for work, including flying at night, and accept the risks associated with flying, thank you for staying home and out of the skies so that there is less traffic for us to have to see and avoid.

 

"Peace" out

[carusoam]

Let me know if I got this right...

(1) Life is full of risks.

(2) Seems like we may have defined "acceptable risk", at a personal level...

(3) People will have different levels of acceptable risk.

(4) Some people are unaware of the risks that they are taking.

(5) Those people did not read this thread...

I'm OK with that,

-a-

[Jim Peace]

Jim Peace,

 

   You have made it abundantly clear that you think its too dangerous to fly at night.  We all get that's your view.  I am sure that you are also of the view that touch and goes are too dangerous in a Mooney.  Perhaps you are of the view that one should never be more than gliding distance from an airport.  Since a great number of engine failures occur on take off, perhaps you are of the view that one should not take off.  Since thousands of people die each year in car accidents, perhaps you also feel that its too dangerous to drive to the airport. 

 

Perhaps flying is simply too inherently risky for your someone of your sensibilities.  There are alternatives -- stay at home and fly simulators. Just be careful when flying the simulator when there is a thunderstorm in the area, as there is a minute chance you could get electrocuted. 

 

On behalf of those of us that enjoy flying, or do it for work, including flying at night, and accept the risks associated with flying, thank you for staying home and out of the skies so that there is less traffic for us to have to see and avoid.

 

"Peace" out

Point taken and nice sign off.....humorous.

 

The engine failure on takeoff thing is perhaps the most concerning thing for me...that impossible turn.  At the airports I frequent most I pull up google earth and try to come up with a plan for each runway as where to go incase it goes silent.  There are airports out there where your best chance is to takeoff with a slight tailwind just to have the best or in some cases the only landing option in an engine out.  Not a bad idea to keep that in mind.  A takeoff briefing on such an event even if spoken to myself puts me in a frame of mind that may have me steer in the correct direction without even thinking.  I hope I never have to find out.

 

As for being too dangerous to drive to the airport....have you ever driven around VNY?  holy crap....or WHP where you really should be armed.  

 

As for being safer in a simulator, I am not so sure about that:  https://au.news.yaho...ight-simulator/

Plus a simulator will not take you to the Waypoint Cafe in CMA with all that great "scenery."  I take great risks for certain types of "scenery."

 

For me, touch and go's in a Mooney is probably not a god idea.  I have done them and don't like it.  Probably best left for a multi crew airplane where someone else can set flaps, trim and look after power settings see the big picture, ect.  I have done them in a Boeing sim not to long ago and it was a non event.  In the Mooney there was a feeling of "hope I did not forget something" or hope I don't retract the gear on the runway during the rush to get all set up.  Not worth it in my opinion.  One wrong move and my GA flying is over for several months and many thousands of dollars out of pocket.  Not to mention certificate action and what it may do to my income.

 

 

I get we all have acceptable levels of risk.  But why not keep the risk low, especially for our trusting passengers.  Your family thinks you are the best pilot in the world and they want to leave the plane uninjured.  Try to be that.  We are not at war with our airplanes and there are no more heroes to be made in GA.....

[Marauder]

I am going to add a bit of color commentary to this discussion. It is one from a different perspective of managing risk -- a life perspective. Anthony (carusoam) and I are life event survivors (and I am sure there are others on this forum who can relate).

I will let Anthony tell his story for it is one that resonated with me. Anthony and I are both active people. He is a runner and I am an avid cyclist and a former college athlete. We both knew how to manage our health risks and yet both of us were almost taken out permanently and unexpectedly.

In my case, it was blood clots. How does a guy who just finished a 150 mile bike ride find himself in the hospital with no medical explanation of why it happened (trust me, I did a lot more to find the cause than what the FAA wanted).

The reality is that life is a crap shoot. People, good people, die all the time doing things right. You can live your life and manage the risks or can live life afraid that your next trip to the shower will result in a fall and death.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is managing the risks. Don't be afraid to live your life and enjoy it -- we're only on this Earth for a short time...

But please, don't do something stupid...

[WardHolbrook]

I know that I risk sounding melodramatic, but I've seen the long-term effects that 3 fatal aircraft accidents have had on 5 families. Every time I suggest pilots avoid doing "stupid" things like flying SE aircraft at night, in LIFR conditions, or over water, beyond gliding distance of land I get ridiculed after all, their "risk tolerance" is obviously higher than mine. To that, I say so what? Put yourself in the place of the surviving family members. They're the ones that have to deal with the horrendous legal and financial messes that will need to be cleaned up. Then there are the kids. The fact that it was a risk that you were or are willing to take is not going to make one iota of difference to your wife and kids. 

I guess, when it comes to risk acceptance, if you're in a single seater or if you're flying by yourself then pretty much anything goes - it's your life and you have the right to live it pretty much anyway you want. However, I believe that the moment you assume the responsibility for the lives of others - friends, family, business associates, or whomever - as passengers in your aircraft then you have the obligation to hold yourself to a higher standard. You may certainly understand the risks and find them acceptable. So what? In all likelihood your passengers are simply trusting in your good judgement. Let's hope it's there and is demonstrable.

[fantom]

I know that I risk sounding melodramatic, but I've seen the long-term effects that 3 fatal aircraft accidents have had on 5 families. Every time I suggest pilots avoid doing "stupid" things like flying SE aircraft at night, in LIFR conditions, or over water, beyond gliding distance of land I get ridiculed after all, their "risk tolerance" is obviously higher than mine. To that, I say so what.

I agree with you Ward. You are being melodramatic, not to mention offensive by suggesting those of us that disagree with your choices of when and where to fly are doing "stupid" things, and don't care for our families.

Most all of us are responsible adults and can draw our own line at what is a risk and where or when we can fly. It has been my observation in over four decades of flying that it's the timid flyer who tries to always be ready for the myriad of obscure problems who is the first one to freeze up and become a statistic. You perceived cautious approach works for you, which is fine. However your holier than thou repeated preaching to others, is misplaced IMO.

Fly safe, have fun and find peace.

[Piloto]

There is some added risk an precautions when flying at night.

 

Over the North Atlantic at night there is nothing to look but your instruments. I always carry two flashlights. You may loose panel lights but not your instruments. You may want to shine occasionally at the wing leading edge for ice.

 

At night in view of city lights and mountains a shadow ahead in the lights pattern can be mistaken by a lake or a mountain. Be careful and cross check with GPS terrain.

 

If there is the need for emergency landing at night but out of reach of an airfield I would ditch on the nearest lake or beach depicted on the GPS. At least I know I will not go on flames. If no life jackets onboard use the back/front seat cushions. On later models they are Velcro attached.

 

Good Night

 

José      

[N201MKTurbo]

Many people who don't fly think we all have a death wish.

People who fly twins think those who fly single engine are fool hardy.

Instrument pilots think VFR pilots are dangerous.

Turbine pilots think anybody would be a fool to fly behind a piston engine.

People with glass cockpits think flying IFR with steam gauges is crazy.

Personally, I think the most dangerous thing I do is ride my road bike in traffic...

[Dave Marten]

Lighten up a bit guys.

Fly where you're comfortable, capable, and confident. Let's not chastise those who operate their aircraft in a regime that we'd deem 'unsafe' based on our own individual scenarios/ experiences.

Remember the underlying decision making process is called Risk Managment (not risk elimination). Complete risk elimination involves selling the airplane and/or turning in your wings. Thankfully, as pilots, we're still free to manage our risks as we see fit.

You're the PIC. Only YOU can decide your own minimums and go/no-go criteria (not something any of us web-spammers should attempt to do for you). We bet our life on each decision we make as PIC.

[Jim Peace]

Damn it....voices of reason.......

[Hector]

I don't have thousands of hours like some of you but I will says that my perception of acceptable risk has changed over time as I gain experience/knowledge. I generally plan all my flights during the daytime. I fly mostly for pleasure so typically I'm not in a rigid schedule. That being said, if stuff happens (and it does) and I'm faced with night flight I don't cancel based solely on the fact that it's dark. At my present level of experience night IMC with low ceilings is something I simply choose not to do. Otherwise, I will launch at night without too much gut wrenching.

Case in point this weekend. Was down in Miami but returning to Jacksonville FL this Saturday. I had planned to depart KTMB no later that 1500 so as to arrive at KCRG before dark. Got to the airport at 1400, complete my pre-flight, and taxied to the runway. After completing the run-up and getting my takeoff clearance I added power but the Mooney would not budge. Checked and cycled the parking brake and added more power and I started moving but the rudder pedals where bouncing. It was then I realized I had a flat nose tire. Three hours and $260 later ($60 towing fee from Landmark, and $200 for new tire/tube plus labor) I was good as new and ready to go but my return flight would now be all after sunset. The weather was clear for the entire route so I launched and had a great flight flying up the Florida east coast. More than a few times during the flight I contemplated my options if I had an engine failure, much more so than if I had departed during daytime. Interestingly enough, the thought of a twin vs a single also ran through my mind. The prior weekend I was in the right seat of a twin Comanche while my friend completed three practice approaches at night. Truth be told, in the dark, I felt safer in the Comanche not solely on the fact that we had two engines, but also a very competent and proficient pilot. For all the bad reputation twin Comanches have with an engine out, that is exactly what happened to us six months ago immediately after takeoff. We lost the starboard engine but my friend did not miss a beat and we continued on the good engine and came back for a landing on the same runway. I did not feel we were in real trouble during the entire evolution, in fact the way he handled it it all seemed fairly routine by the book. I'll be the first to admit that had we been at max gross weight things might have been a bit different, but regardless, this all has cemented my perception that at night and over water I'll pick a twin over a single, but I will continue to do both in my Mooney just not at the same time