As Peter Garrison's outstanding work has been linked, I happened on this one profiling 3 somewhat similar fatal accidents, one fairly recent.
First one, 1995:
On a November night in 1995, a Beech Baron 58 departed from Runway 24 at Cleveland’s Burke Lakefront Airport (KBKL), on the south shore of Lake Erie. It was bound for Raleigh, North Carolina, with five aboard. The Baron climbed to 200 feet above the end of the runway and began a right turn. The tower controller, who had been watching the airplane, turned away. A couple of minutes later, he had a call from a city operations office asking whether he could see smoke out on the lake.
On a clear, moonlit evening in January 2008, a Baron 58 left KBKL for Niagara Falls. The pilot, 68, an 18,000-hour ATP and CFI–I with a stack of ratings, was alone. He took off from Runway 24 with instructions to turn right on course. The tower controller watched as the Baron climbed, banked to the right and then descended in a steepening arc and plunged into the lake.
Third: (late 2016, thread here) http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... hilit=Kbkl
"In December 2016, an hour before midnight, a Cessna Citation CJ4 took off from Runway 24 at KBKL with instructions to turn right to 330 and maintain 2,000 feet.
You know what happened next."
What Peter doesn't explicitly say, is this instruction is required by ATC for all runway 24 IFR departures at Burke Lakefront, to avoid Cleveland Hopkins to the west. At least when I was there.
Kinda like the left turn off 26 at YTZ for the SID, but having done both (in the daytime) I think it's more extreme. I wouldn't want to do it on an overcast night if I could avoid it.
Good little article for the less experienced like me out there.
Maybe the required turn, in these examples?
Not a big deal, if you are onto the adequate instruments right away.
And some of these strips had close-in high terrain requiring a 180 degree turn starting at about one hundred feet.
In fact, I flew at more than one place where the engine out procedure was to start a fifteen degree banked turn at 50 feet.
Try handling that into the live engine pulling in the wrong direction toward a cliff while attempting to barely climb at V2. I’ll choose the 200 foot ceiling day to do it, if given the choice.
That being said, the article is probably more for the Vfr guys who should think about this on night departures, especially with a lot of water off the end of the runway or remote airports.
It has trapped more than a few pilots.
In the end, Scan, Scan, Scan(maybe even say it to yourself) if you have the instruments. If you don’t, don’t put yourself in such a position.
I was thinking, ., that in a VFR black hole dep. you may have the odd lights visible and mistake them for stars and combined with eyes outside, that could give you more problems than a straight in the clag departure where you know you've only got one place to look. Thinking a ground light is a star in the sky can be the start of bad things. I've had to fight that off a few times.
LOL. Well, a shorter way of putting it.
A black hole departure and a departure into IMC with a low ceiling should be treated the same way.
Flown by reference to instruments.
I always felt far more comfortable flying by reference to instruments right after lift off than looking outside and it had the added plus of more accurate control of the airplane.
But that is only my own personal opinion.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
I do it like you do.Now, I assume you have done much the same but how do you set the panel lights? down low so you can see outside or do like I do and turn them up nice and bright and never look outside unless there is something to see.
The instrument lights are set at the brightness that is most comfortable to see them.
There is no reason to look outside because there is no need to.
Flying by instruments is so much easier and accurate than looking outside.
So I don't look outside, why make things more difficult?
Yes. One sounds like it should be easier than the other, it’s a VFR night after all. As you know, it isn’t easier.
I never saw you here asking a question while not having your answer already made up. Why not cut the chase and come straight to the point?
Me (and only so you can tell me to shove it ) I find those fake questions annoying and arrogant. It is like you just want to push readers into their own mistakes or whatever then pin them down with your own wisdom.
Not a very CRM way of doing things.
With your vast and recognized flying experience you don’t need to.
This said, I agree, bright panel lights and head down on instruments as soon as possible no point looking outside in those conditions.
That's ok, you'll be flying more accurate like that anyway
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Its also risk management. What's the risk of black hole effect killing you? Whats the risk of a mid air collision killing you?
Yes, the pilot.
One departure can be done by a low time VFR only pilot. The other would only be done with an IFR pilot who's comfortable flying in IMC.
Well the term "black hole" is usually used for approaches, not departures. It refers to the visual illusion of the runway lights, resulting in getting too low. Taking off VFR with no visual references is a whole different kettle of fish, and arguably isn't legal VFR because you don't have reference to the ground.
Well, it legally is. On my example, off Burke Rwy 24, It's a required 90 degree right turn for all aircraft over the lake to avoid the Class B. On any overcast night.....
Now technically there ARE visual references. But that might involve looking out a side window.
Besides it's a moot point. All three of these accidents it appears were IFR departures.
People not scanning their instruments or....unable to fly on instruments or....aircraft not sufficient equipped with operating instruments.