Night Flying

[aviatoreb]

Quote: GeorgePerry

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Mazerbase

Today, as on all days, we owe our thanks for all the great things we have in our country to those that fight for our freedoms.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Mazerbase

 

[Cruiser]

To start, each of us has his own personal limits that are theirs alone to establish and adhere to. No one should try to change someone else's personal minimums. That is why they are personal.

Night flying is not for everyone. Many factors change the environment and dimensions that become more challenging for pilots.

Many of the concerns discussed here are actually not about "night" or "dark" flying conditions. They are more appropriately instruments skills or decision making errors or human condition that would be just as devestating in daylight as they would be at night time.

Certainly night conditions require proficiency and should be practiced regularly for anyone that intends to undertake night flights.  (Maybe that's why the FAA has night currency requirements?)

If you really think about it, is there anything that is unique to night flight that is and by itself more dangerous than any other flight condition? Really, think about it.

[Shadrach]

Quote: Cruiser

To start, each of us has his own personal limits that are theirs alone to establish and adhere to. No one should try to change someone else's personal minimums. That is why they are personal.

Night flying is not for everyone. Many factors change the environment and dimensions that become more challenging for pilots.

Many of the concerns discussed here are actually not about "night" or "dark" flying conditions. They are more appropriately instruments skills or decision making errors or human condition that would be just as devestating in daylight as they would be at night time.

Certainly night conditions require proficiency and should be practiced regularly for anyone that intends to undertake night flights.  (Maybe that's why the FAA has night currency requirements?)

If you really think about it, is there anything that is unique to night flight that is and by itself more dangerous than any other flight condition? Really, think about it.

[xftrplt]

If the fan stops making wind, your options become very unique during night as it does flying over a thick undercast that goes to the surface.  As long as the engine keeps doing it's thing, then the additional challenges can be mitigated with skill and experience. Blindly gliding through the unknown blackness or greyness is likely going to negatively impact the outcome no matter how thick a pilot's log book. It's an increased risk, no ifs ands or buts...It does not stop me from flying at night, but it certainly increases my awareness of my options or lack there of...

Well and unarguably said, Ross.  Those are, simply, the facts.

It's not about IFR or VFR, SE or ME, or even about experience/proficiency...or whether it's fun or how long you've done it.   Ceteris paribus, the outcome will probably be worse.

Now, do I fly at night in my 231?  Yes, if I have a good reason.

But, hell, I spend an inordinate amount of time below 100' (because I like to), ride a sport bike aggressively (ditto), and have, surprisingly, made it to 65.

It all about individual choices.  But it's good to know the facts. 

[SkyPilot]

I fly at night frequently. In the M20F lately and recently in an Amphib Caravan. The terrain up here is hilly and very unpopulated. Chance of finding a road is slim. It's a chance you take, but good maintenance will improve the odds. My thoughts in the event of an engine failure are to aim for a farm yard if far enough south, or a lake up north. High thin overcast is nice for lighting things up.

A DC-3 up here was going into the bush with a twin engine failure. The co-pilot has turned on the landing lights. The captain is reported to have said: "Turn those things off, i don't really wanna see this"....

I've noticed that most of the birds around here except the owls, park it at night...

 

[Skybrd]

I've enjoyed many night flights and had problems on two of them. The first was about 40 years ago. It was in a Piper Tripacer and shortly after turning dark, the nav lights circuit breaker popped and left me in the dark including the instrument panel. Fortunately I had a flashlight and was able to get the lights going again. The second one about 26 years in a M20A Mooney while practicing an night instrument approach. I was on final approach at the outer marker when the engine quit. The airplane glided well,  I got out my flashlight and checked all the instruments. The fuel pressure gauge showed zero. I then turned on the fuel boost pump and the engine came back to life. No problem to return the plane to the airport. I thought it was a bad fuel pump but it was a leaky gasolator. I would recommend anyone flying at night to take a flashlight and if things happen, keep your wits. The Mooney glides well. It also never hurts to ask for a little bit of help.

[David Mazer]

Quote: aviatoreb

Back to proper statistics though.  When you quote a statistic that says that enroute mechanical failures are a very small percentage of problems, say call it the 10% (I am making up a number there so please don’t dwell on that detail), you are quite correct.  We all know that STATISTICALLY major problem is the pilot – bad decision making first (deciding to fly VFR into IMC, deciding to fly in to Tstorms, into ice, deciding to fly over W&B, buzzing, deciding to not overlook known mechanical issues and flying anyway, etc, etc) and skill (stall spin in pattern, etc).  The thing is that many of those national AVERAGE dangers are eliminated from my own behavior – I will NEVER buzz.  Some are lowered dramatically - I hope and believe I know what I am doing regarding avoiding tstorms, and all that.  Well, then your own personal conditional probability of the mechanical engine out is much higher on the probability of bad things as you eliminate the typical yahoo dangers.  Not that it becomes more dangerous for you to fly at night – but rather that if you have made yourself a good decision maker then you can enjoy an even better personal personal conditional probability of good outcomes if you then go after those things which are no longer that small.

Said more simply, night flying is a low hanging fruit for otherwise good decision making pilots.  It it is high hanging fruit for pilots who like to buzz and therefore not worth eliminating night flying since buzzing is going to likely get you anyway.  Might as well smoke too if you like to buzz.  National averages include buzzers.  I think it is a mistake to base your personal decisions entirely on national averages.  They are useful and informative, but not definitive in my book.

[jetdriven]

Far and away most engine failures are fuel starvation and fuel exhaustion.  Something like 90%.  The possibility of actual mechanical engine failure is pretty remote.   Yes, when that happens, low IFR or night is going to be more serious consequences as Ross points out.

[SkyPilot]

Quote: jetdriven

Far and away most engine failures are fuel starvation and fuel exhaustion.  Something like 90%.  The possibility of actual mechanical engine failure is pretty remote.   Yes, when that happens, low IFR or night is going to be more serious consequences as Ross points out.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Mazerbase

First, and I recognize you ask that we not focus on it, I believe the 10% figure you used in your example is more than 5 times a more valid number but I can't remember from where I remember it. So, I'm going to use 2% in my rebuttal.

Second, and more to the point, all of us believe we are better than the average which, of course, isn't possible.  Without pointing out aviatoreb particularly, since I'm sure he really is above average in his skills, the stats are that we all make mistakes.  Further, if there are x accidents / 1000 hrs and 2% of them are engine failures, that still means that only .02x accidents will happen / 1000 hrs.  That would mean to me that while the probability of any accident as a result of an engine failure would be much higher (100% if all other causes were eliminated), the chance of having an engine failure accident would still be .02x/1000 hrs.

This is a huge risk here, arguing statistics with a math professor! I'm going flying at night in IMC to minimums.  I have a better chance of ending up unscathed.

[orangemtl]

When I talk to patients about treatment options, I tell them:

"Some people refuse to drive on the interstate because it's dangerous. Some people race motorcycles, because it's perfectly safe. Both are correct within their own frame of reference. Where you lie on that spectrum is a personal decision, and given sufficient information to make decisions, wherever you choose to be on that spectrum is fine."

SO: Some of us will fly a lot at night. Others will avoid it like the plague. And, about 2/3 of us will do so when necessary, but avoid it more often than not.  

I completely believe Aviatoreb's suggestion that forum participation is associated with better event statistics.  It is, however to some degree a selection bias: You're more likely, for example to be run over by a Bentley in Beverly Hills than in Hastings, NE. Doesn't make California Bentleys more dangerous. I've doubtless committed a statistical faux pas of some sort with that comparison, but you get the idea.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: orangemtl

"Some people refuse to drive on the interstate because it's dangerous. Some people race motorcycles, because it's perfectly safe. Both are correct within their own frame of reference. Where you lie on that spectrum is a personal decision, and given sufficient information to make decisions, wherever you choose to be on that spectrum is fine."

[orangemtl]

Thank you for the gracious compliment. 730ML is not everyone's visual cup o'joe: but, I chose to paint it to the likings of the guy signing the check. I rejoice in my aircraft, and I marvel at my good fortune.

I think you're right that posters, and participants in a sense 'preselect' themselves as lower risk pilots. If half of success is just showing up, at least a proportion of it in the air consists of being attentive to safety in the first place.

[Hank]

A quick statistics question for the Math Prof, from a lowly engineer who did not enjoy taking statistics but has learned to use them in his job.

Removing the poor-behavior accidents [buzzing, VFR into IMC, etc.] will reduce the total number n of accidents. This will also increase the percentage p of accidents caused by mechanical failure. But what we are concerned with here is not p, but rather the percentage of flights p' that have mechanical failure. I care about my odds of having a mechanical failure on this flight, right? Or am I concerned that an accident that I may have at some undefined future point will have a mechanical cause? I care about THIS FLIGHT right now, so p' is my point of statistical interest.

This p' does not change when removing 'stupid' accidents [hey, ya'll, watch this!] from the accident pool. Dig through the Nall Report and find the total estimated flight hours, or calculate it from the accident rate per 100,000 hours, and divide it by the number of flights that had mechanical failure. THAT is your risk on every flight, day or night, VFR or IMC.

The likelihood of a positive outcome depends on where you are when it happens. Departing Rwy 8 at FXE and you may go swimming, day or night, sunny, cloudy or in-between; depart 26 at HTW and you'll need a chainsaw to salvage your plane; other places you'll be heading towards a hill, over a cliff or into a residential area. Mountains, swamps, oceans, deserts, the Dakota Badlands, or low IMC all lower the chances for a good outcome, but due to the random nature of the failure, these odds cannot be calculated in advance--for any given flight, large fluctuations in survivability are likely to be encountered as you pass over various terrain, and are all height-over-ground dependent. Flying at 8500 msl around here is quite high, but at 8500 msl between Billings and Cody, the ground is very close and the hills to both sides are much higher.

Or have I completely misunderstood statistics?

[carusoam]

Hank,

Whether you missed something in the stats or not...

You have brought forth a really good point.  There are two factors involved.  The first being the unavoidable failure.  The second is can we succesfully navigate to the ground after the failure.

My home drome has a wheat field at one end, and buildings at the other... I prefer wheat before wood...

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

I have poor options at either end, but halfway between here and Asheville, NC there are no options . . . Since that's where Mom & Dad live, not ever flying there is not a realistic option, but I have driven 6 hours instead of flying 1:15 more than once. The instrument rating has reduced cancellations in favor of early/late departures, though. Eastern Kentucky is DARK at night! and the terrain is unfriendly if you can't see it--descending into clouds whose base is 500 agl will definitely put the hilltops above the bases--pick your spot and hope!

Risk reduction is therefore:  1) good maintenance; 2) situational awareness during flight [where am I? where are the hilltops?], including on the paper sectional in case of electrical failure [again]; 3) weather forecasting and monitoring before flight/updating 122.0 during flight. If preflight looks poor, risk mitigation is to drive through the unfriendly terrain with a well-maintained car where a breakdown will only strand me in the middle of nowhere and hope for either a cell signal [not everywhere!] or passerby . . .

[MATTS875]

Thanks for all the help. I have read all the posts and everyone has good points. Basically it is a skill level and comfort level.The reason I wanted to get my PPL was to enjoy flying and not be uptight. also believe that when I start my IFR training , it will be a confidence booster.thanks again.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Hank

A quick statistics question for the Math Prof, from a lowly engineer who did not enjoy taking statistics but has learned to use them in his job.... But what we are concerned with here is not p, but rather the percentage of flights p' that have mechanical failure. I care about my odds of having a mechanical failure on this flight, right? Or am I concerned that an accident that I may have at some undefined future point will have a mechanical cause? I care about THIS FLIGHT right now, so p' is my point of statistical interest....This p' does not change when removing 'stupid' accidents [hey, ya'll, watch this!] from the accident pool. 

Or have I completely misunderstood statistics?

[aviatoreb]

Quote: carusoam

Hank,

Whether you missed something in the stats or not...

You have brought forth a really good point.  There are two factors involved.  The first being the unavoidable failure.  The second is can we succesfully navigate to the ground after the failure.

My home drome has a wheat field at one end, and buildings at the other... I prefer wheat before wood...

Best regards,

-a-