VFR into VMC

[dkkim73]

1 minute ago, redbaron1982 said:

Can you successfully make an XC flight in IMC, at night, single-pilot in a single-engine airplane, in icing conditions, in mountainous terrain? I bet you can. Is it wise or safe? I'm sure it is not.

You forgot low-time pilot and dubious social skills

[dkkim73]

3 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

You're absolutely right.

There are risk factors that you don't want to stack together against you: night, IMC, single-engine, single-pilot, mountainous terrain, icing.

Can you successfully make an XC flight in IMC, at night, single-pilot in a single-engine airplane, in icing conditions, in mountainous terrain? I bet you can. Is it wise or safe? I'm sure it is not.

To respond more seriously, I think part of it involves "outs" and uncertainty. E.g. engine power loss over areas with flat terrain and predictable ceilings is different from fluctuating TAFs, irregular terrain, extreme cold conditions where ditching even safely could be fatal afterwards, etc. Convection is a big wrench in the works. Anything close to SLD also. 

I'm just pointing out that winter and icing look different in different contexts. And night itself is manageable if you are fundamentally flying an IFR mindset and have not too much discounted some of the above factors. 

Calm sunny day VFR with low traffic in flat terrain is a preferable condition set, agreed. 

[dkkim73]

15 minutes ago, Igor_U said:

Is that whack in the forehead really necessary? 

And, also, there are some people where no physics, engineering, nor medicine are required to answer the question... only what your grandparents taught you: Yes, they need a whack on the head. 

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, 201er said:

You mean it takes 30 years to learn this or that it’s a factor affected by age?

It’s probably both.

And I’m not saying it’s right or wrong or that you should do anything differently.  God knows I did some incredibly risky things 30 years ago that I wouldn’t do today.

Without trying to be a psychologist, I think as we age we become more knowledgeable of the risks (like Hank said) in addition to becoming more risk averse. Maybe we start realizing how much we have to be grateful for and we find reasons or alternatives to justify our reluctance to push boundaries, whether real or imagined.

I’m not saying you will or won’t change how you feel. But I do know that the person I was 30 years ago could never believe I would make the statements I just did. 

[redbaron1982]

21 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

It’s probably both.

And I’m not saying it’s right or wrong or that you should do anything differently.  God knows I did some incredibly risky things 30 years ago that I wouldn’t do today.

Without trying to be a psychologist, I think as we age we become more knowledgeable of the risks (like Hank said) in addition to becoming more risk averse. Maybe we start realizing how much we have to be grateful for and we find reasons or alternatives to justify our reluctance to push boundaries, whether real or imagined.

I’m not saying you will or won’t change how you feel. But I do know that the person I was 30 years ago could never believe I would make the statements I just did. 

As I read this, I remembered the guy who hung the Mooney in the high-voltage transmission lines. I guess not everyone gets wiser or more risk-averse with age.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, dkkim73 said:

You're certainly correct, and the points you make are not to be taken lightly. 

But what do you do if you live in the mountains, travel during winter, and work during the day?

I got my PPL and my Mooney while living in WV. Had no trouble with night flight, even left NC a few times heading home VFR, knowing that half or more of then flight would be after dark. The WV line was clearly visible, as most of the ground lights stopped there. Then again, my student Long XC was over and through mountainous terrain, and I routinely crossed the Appalachians to visit family.

There are only two episodes of Spatial D that come to mind:

1. Day IFR departure, expecting to climb into the clouds around 7000 or so, before leveling off at 10K. Found bases to be above 9000, and leveled off shortly afterwards in IMC as a new IFR pilot. Bad case of the leans, I could swear I was in a significant descending left bank! All I could do was stare at the AI and chant "trust your instruments, trust your instruments" to myself, so my wife wouldn't freak out. At one point, ATC asked if I was alright; I affirmed that I was, but my voice was probably shaky. It eventually cleared up, and the rest of flight was unremarkable. 
2. Night VFR takeoff after moving. I'd had several night flights at my new base, 5000' long in flat terrain at 286 msl. Generally used 31, but this night winds made 13 the proper choice; I'd had several flights to / from 13 during the day. The field was rural, but scattered lights to the northwest and west made it easy, i could even pick out the nearby interstate. But on rotation from 13, glanced inside to raise the gear and put my hand back on the throttle; looked up and there was nothing at all visible out the windshield, just all black with a glow from the LED landing light. I immediately thought "black hole!", had no idea where I was, and went on instruments as I climbed and turned left until some lights were again visible. 

So no, I prefer to not make flights in IMC at night. Each of these events convinced me that the people I had talked with were correct.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, dkkim73 said:

Aside: I think Fourier analysis explains why whacking machinery is good... a spike impulse is a superposition of multiple frequencies, thus empirically exciting resonances of multiple unknown mechanisms. @EricJ please critique my theory

D

Yup, narrow in the time domain is wide in the frequency domain and vice-versa (generally).    So an impulse (whack) provides a broad-spectrum excitation.   That's kind of what I was thinking about how it works, too, or it just gets the vestibular fluid moving enough to saturate the sensors so that when it settles down you're kind of reset or something.

[Fly Boomer]

21 hours ago, Pinecone said:

So his mind kept telling him he was upside down.

Brain is pretty remarkable, but can lead you astray.  Funny how one part of your brain is screaming "level your wings" but another part can override that instinct and do something more rational.

[Hank]

48 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Brain is pretty remarkable, but can lead you astray.  Funny how one part of your brain is screaming "level your wings" but another part can override that instinct and do something more rational.

The harder that one part is screaming, the more difficult it is to override and do something else!

[Ibra]

On 1/23/2025 at 8:35 PM, redbaron1982 said:

Dark + IMC = much more dangerous

I agree on general sentiment but all my low visibility landing at night were easy compared to same operation by day 

IMC night landing in low RVR and low ceiling is piece of cake (you see lights popping under wing well before minima, the wind is calm and at minima you tend to see runway with bright approach lights and good runway shape). By day, it's bloody stressful with more disorientation risk from fake horizon, it's rarely successful because you see ground but never approach or runway lights 

Then you add gusty winds and bumpy IMC, I have delayed many afternoon flights to land at night: I know my engine has worked for 2h by day and will work for 1h at night.

Night cruise in IMC (more prone to icing, fuel planning) and night takeoff in IMC adds lot of risk (emergencies)

I had surprises on takeoff by day  (door open, electrical, gear fail to retract, engine failure...), by night these will be tricky. Having it by night in IMC with terrain nearby would interesting !

At the end of the day, it's about personal preferences and risk tolerances, I am happy to fly IFR on calm night if it means direct routing, less traffic in pattern, avoiding late afternoon convective weather, atrocious crosswinds...besides, the passengers loves smooth night flying ! 

If engine quits I will keep 70kts, touch at 50kts wing level and hope for the best (same technique if engine fails on takeoff under 200ft agl in everything I flew so far: Cubs, Mooneys, Barons, Cirrus, Gliders...you keep generating lift, irrespective of what is ahead) 

Edited January 24 by Ibra

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Ibra said:

IMC night landing in low RVR and low ceiling is piece of cake (you see lights popping under wing well before minima, the wind is calm and at minima you tend to see runway with bright approach lights and good runway shape). By day, it's bloody stressful with more disorientation risk from fake horizon, it's rarely successful because you see ground but never approach or runway lights 

. . .

Night cruise in IMC (more prone to icing, fuel planning) and night takeoff in IMC adds lot of risk (emergencies)

I had surprises on takeoff by day  (door open, electrical, gear fail to retract, engine failure...), by night these will be tricky. Having it by night in IMC with terrain nearby would interesting !

At the end of the day, it's about personal preferences and risk tolerances,

The last sentence above is correct!

But the first paragraph above, it's quite obvious that you fly into very different airports than I do. I'm used to seeing runway edge lights, VASI / PAPI when on approach, and the REILs. "Approach lights" are quite rare where I fly. My last approach in actual was 900 overcast, visibility > 6 miles with winds 8-10 knots from the south, so the temporary tower had traffic using 18; very unusually, that airport does have an ILS to runway 36 only. Due to much lower ceilings and visibility at surrounding fields, many of us diverted there (my destination was 400 overcast, 2 miles in mist). So no "bright approach lights" to look for.

[Ibra]

46 minutes ago, Hank said:

"Approach lights" are quite rare where I fly

Indeed, I was referring to cases with approach lights available (ALS, IALS or FALS), likely as alternates, these work better at night than by day.

I think some airliners have a table to convert tower VIS (met propriety) into runway RVR (depends on lights), they put higher factors up to 2 for nights versus by day !

I agree without approach llights this does not help much, however, you still see ground lights like roads, cars...which at night well before becoming visual with runway (obviosuly having ground or cars in sight is not enough to go bellow M/DA, you still need runway itself).

The other advantage is calm wind with less souls around. 

 

 

 

Edited January 24 by Ibra