Ditching at Night....are you prepared for it?

[DaV8or]

Quote: jetdriven

Try identifying the dead engine in a centerline twin. I have flown a 337. It is worse that a Baron on one engine, and try doing a V1 cut on that plane. You wil crash every time because you must clean up, but when those big gear doors open, the plane cannot climb.  The accident rate for that one is worse than a regular piston twin and even worse than the 210.

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: aviatoreb

 

[AlexR]

Quote: jetdriven

Try identifying the dead engine in a centerline twin. I have flown a 337. It is worse that a Baron on one engine, and try doing a V1 cut on that plane. You wil crash every time because you must clean up, but when those big gear doors open, the plane cannot climb.  The accident rate for that one is worse than a regular piston twin and even worse than the 210.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: GeorgePerry

[fantom]

Down here in SoFL there are just too many interesting destinations east not to fly over water. Get a shipping chart and stay on the shipping lane for a bit of added safety, and get high quickly. Also hard (for me) to avoid smooth, clear, cool night flights. Staying near the coast will offer lots of close-by airports, planes, airports, cities and towns are very easy to pick out, students are AOG.

Of course those two panel mounted plus two yoke mounted GPS's might affect your night vision, along with your fancy knee board held iPad. Don't want to get lost in clear and unlimited daytime visibility ;-)

A little more good ditching data:http://www.aopa.org/summit/news/2011/110923preparation-key-to-ditching-survival.html?WT.mc_id=110922epspec&WT.mc_sect=summit

 

[eldeano]

Quote: Mazerbase

Despite every preparation, I doubt any of us are really ready to ditch at night.  Some are just less so than others.  Even on short water crossings (FL coast to Bahama coast about 50 nm) I wear a PFD and make my passengers do the same, get high enough to glide, carry a PLB, and do it during the day.  SEL seems to say it all.  Maybe I'm just overly cautious.

[jetdriven]

We have those PFDs (Mustang survival) also, but consider the manual pull to inflate version.  if that water activated PFD inflates in the cabin, its going to be hard to get out.

[WardHolbrook]

There are some caveats associated with the operation of singles and twins. The big thing to remember when it comes to singles is that when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of dumb luck or good judgment, you will be VFR over survivable terrain because you'll be “up close and personal” with it shortly.

The big caveat when it comes to flying a twin is that when an engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill 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; but that's the kicker - most aren't. 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 do when your recurrent training involves little more than a flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you’re only flying a 100 - 200 hours a year. That is simply not enough and the accident record proves it. Our airline and corporate pilot brothers fly up to about 1000 hours a year and they get frequent recurrent training. I guess we really are better than they are, because evidently we don't need as much recurrent training as they do to stay sharp.

In my mind, the issue boils down to knowledge, skill, discipline, and judgement. You need to have a thorough understanding of what the airplane you're flying is capable of and not capable of doing in any given set of conditions. You also need to know how to achieve maximum performance. You need to have the skill and proficiency necessary to achieve that performance level. Finally, you need to have the discipline to avoid flying your light twin in those conditions/situations where the outcome would be questionable or worse. A review of the accident records clearly demonstrates the folly of those light twin pilots who fail to do what is required to achieve and then maintain the required levels of knowledge, skill and proficiency to fly a light twin.

[jelswick]

Would people feel any different about flying at night with synthetic vision onboard?  I'm not sure if that would do it for me, but there's another version that includes a night vision from a camera, not infrared, but something similar that would show actual ground objects like buildings, etc.  If they make that price make sense in Mooneys, that might up the comfort level for me.  But, I won't rule out night flight without it either, just in my case have to have appropriate weather minimums, etc. to determine whether worth it for a given flight.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: jelswick

Would people feel any different about flying at night with synthetic vision onboard?  I'm not sure if that would do it for me, but there's another version that includes a night vision from a camera, not infrared, but something similar that would show actual ground objects like buildings, etc.  If they make that price make sense in Mooneys, that might up the comfort level for me.  But, I won't rule out night flight without it either, just in my case have to have appropriate weather minimums, etc. to determine whether worth it for a given flight.

[jelswick]

Wouldn't begin to make fun of you and can't say wrong or not.  I know the version of night vision we had in the Army when I was in in the late '80s were great, but had a short coming of depth perception.  There's an ad I'd seen that combined the SVT like we can get on the Aspens with some form of forward looking imaging that is camera generated, but I think if I remember correctly it was something at this point either available to or being developed for King Air class aircraft.  If it's there today, hopefully it's only a few years from our Mooneys, but we'll see.  Till then, I'll trust having God riding shotgun in the co-pilot seat and try to not to stretch his favors too thin by launching into dumb stuff at night or weather! 

[aviatoreb]

Quote: WardHolbrook

There are some caveats associated with the operation of singles and twins. The big thing to remember when it comes to singles is that when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of dumb luck or good judgment, you will be VFR over survivable terrain because you'll be “up close and personal” with it shortly.

The big caveat when it comes to flying a twin is that when an engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill 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; but that's the kicker - most aren't. 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 do when your recurrent training involves little more than a flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you’re only flying a 100 - 200 hours a year. That is simply not enough and the accident record proves it. Our airline and corporate pilot brothers fly up to about 1000 hours a year and they get frequent recurrent training. I guess we really are better than they are, because evidently we don't need as much recurrent training as they do to stay sharp.

In my mind, the issue boils down to knowledge, skill, discipline, and judgement. You need to have a thorough understanding of what the airplane you're flying is capable of and not capable of doing in any given set of conditions. You also need to know how to achieve maximum performance. You need to have the skill and proficiency necessary to achieve that performance level. Finally, you need to have the discipline to avoid flying your light twin in those conditions/situations where the outcome would be questionable or worse. A review of the accident records clearly demonstrates the folly of those light twin pilots who fail to do what is required to achieve and then maintain the required levels of knowledge, skill and proficiency to fly a light twin.