TC Rule change idea to enhance Safety.

[Rookie50]

An alternative thought to speak to discusion. Double the total hood time required for the night rating.

[goingnowherefast]

There are some countries where there is no such thing as night VFR. Can only fly VFR during the day. Any and all flying at night is IFR.

I sure wouldn't object if that rule was brought to Canada.

Please don't be making stupid suggestions like this. If you are not competent to fly night VFR, then ground yourself, not everyone else.

Night VFR in the southern parts of Canada and around and around cities is a complete different environment than the rest of Canada. Night flying up north, especially with high overcast or moonless night, is just black. Up, down, left, right; all black. There's no horizon, and you can't make out terrain features. It could be argued that you don't have visual reference to the ground and thus aren't even VFR according to CAR 602.114 and 602.115. You can't make out clouds, and in fact, often the way you find out that you entered one is when you can see your strobes flash off the inside of the cloud.

Now fortunately, most people who get their night ratings fly around cities at night. Those that fly up north typically do so commercially and thus are required to have an instrument rating anyway.

The reason I don't like night VFR is because there's the few guys flying privately, who venture up north with 100hrs of night time, all from flying around cities. They end up in the pitch black nothing-ness unintentionally and become an accident statistic. Had those pilots been flying under IFR, or even have an instrument rating, they would probably be alive today.

[photofly]

They end up in the pitch black nothing-ness unintentionally and become an accident statistic.

Ok, let's see the data. Where are the statistics for loss of control of non instrument-rated pilots during night VFR in northern areas of the country? Do you have that data, or are you making unsubstantiated claims based on what you believe ought to be the case?

[goingnowherefast]

They end up in the pitch black nothing-ness unintentionally and become an accident statistic.

Ok, let's see the data. Where are the statistics for loss of control of non instrument-rated pilots during night VFR in northern areas of the country? Do you have that data, or are you making unsubstantiated claims based on what you believe ought to be the case?

Going back only 10 years, here are the accidents involving non-instrument rated pilots flying privately that are attributed to loss of control during night VFR due to limited or no visual reference. Some of the accidents involve flying into deteriorating weather as well, weather which you cannot see as it is dark.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 4o0217.asp
"The aircraft was being operated in darkness over an area with few ground lights and below a cloud layer. In these unfamiliar conditions, with limited visual reference, the pilot had difficulty holding aircraft heading"

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 1q0168.asp
"It is possible that the minimum requirements to obtain a private helicopter-pilot night rating may not be sufficient to adequately educate and demonstrate to private helicopter pilots the risks involved in night flying...."

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 9q0003.asp
"During the night flight, the pilot inadvertently entered snow showers and lost visual reference with the ground before crashing in controlled flight"

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 9o0217.asp
"During the night flight, the pilot inadvertently entered snow showers and lost visual reference with the ground before crashing in controlled flight"
"Once clear of the lights of the greater Ottawa area, the aircraft was operated in darkness over an area with few ground lights and below an overcast cloud layer. Flying an aircraft in these conditions, without visual contact with the stars or moon, and with little reference to the ground, can be very difficult for pilots who are inexperienced in instrument flight"

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 9o0207.asp
Although, it is primarily related to a power loss, the TSB did mention "With a lack of visual reference at night, limited visibility due to weather and the pilot's relative inexperience, the pilot likely became spatially disoriented while dealing with the power loss emergency. Unable to determine the correct attitude of the helicopter without visual reference, the pilot lost control, resulting in uncontrolled flight into the terrain"

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 8q0231.asp
"It is likely that the effect of the black hole illusion caused the pilot, in full control of the aircraft, to unknowingly fly the helicopter lower than the intended approach path, causing the helicopter to collide with the surface of the water well before reaching the desired landing area"

[photofly]

Thank you for checking!

Six accidents, of which three are rotary wing. Without wishing to underplay the tragedy in each case, I'm not really seeing it as evidence that night VFR is the biggest risk that needs addressing by TC at the moment. They don't match your "the few guys flying privately, who venture up north " meme either - aren't all those accidents in Southern Ontario or Quebec?

[Rookie50]

Flying at night in sparsely populated areas, like west of Ottawa on a hazy, moonless night beneath an overcast, or North of muskoka, I recall being awfully close to IMC like conditions. Certainly far different than under a moon in the London Kitchener Brantford triangle, which is so easy it's almost like daytime conditions.

[goingnowherefast]

I agree it's not the biggest risk, but something that should be looked into by Transport Canada. I haven't been involved with general aviation or training for quite some time, so I'm probably not the best person to consult on any proposed regulation changes. All I know is that when I am flying at night under VFR, I treat it largely like IFR. Perhaps don't need the IFR clearances and such, but minimum safe altitudes, and approach procedures are all used for guidance.

The first priority should be flight and duty time regulations for commercial operations. The current regs favour seasonal flying, be it tourism, floats, fire/forestry work, mining/exploration; both rotary and fixed wing. Non-seasonal charter and scheduled service pilots can be flown until they are just about zombies. The proposed regulations are a big swing the other way. Exactly what is needed for the IFR 703/704/705 guys, but really screws the seasonal guys. Doing 10 legs a day in a piston Beaver is quite a bit easier than 10 legs per day in a King Air, and nothing seems to address that.

[RatherBeFlying]

You don't have to be in the far North to be in a black hole. The Alleghanies will do nicely. Add a little haze to a moonless night and it's not always easy telling between stars and habitation.

You get good with the artificial horizon or end up like Kennedy.

[photofly]

Maybe people doing their night ratings should just take the instrument flying portion of the training more seriously than they appear to do at present. It's a shocking suggestion, I know, but perhaps that's the answer.

[pelmet]

Maybe people doing their night ratings should just take the instrument flying portion of the training more seriously than they appear to do at present. It's a shocking suggestion, I know, but perhaps that's the answer.

Its a better idea than screwing a bunch of people out of being able to fly VFR at night by doing something stupid like recommending to TC that we outlaw it.

Incompetents will find a way to kill themselves as long as it is legal to fly.

[complexintentions]

Its a better idea than screwing a bunch of people out of being able to fly VFR at night by doing something stupid like recommending to TC that we outlaw it.

Incompetents will find a way to kill themselves as long as it is legal to fly.

Hmmm. So we shouldn't try to make things safer?

Wouldn't making night mandatory IFR be safer?

I'm all in favour of this rule change. Because I have an IFR rating so it wouldn't affect me.

Tongue in cheek, btw. It's just interesting to hear variations of my own words about punishing the many for the ignorance of the few being echoed in a different discussion.

[praveen4143]

How is flying IFR in a multi-engine aircraft different than in a single-engine aircraft?

I meant to type the Flight Instructor Rating training should include training to instruct IFR on both Single Engine and Multi Engine aircraft. Have updated the original post.

[cncpc]

Maybe people doing their night ratings should just take the instrument flying portion of the training more seriously than they appear to do at present. It's a shocking suggestion, I know, but perhaps that's the answer.

Its a better idea than screwing a bunch of people out of being able to fly VFR at night by doing something stupid like recommending to TC that we outlaw it.

Incompetents will find a way to kill themselves as long as it is legal to fly.

Outlawing night VFR is a retrograde step.

There are certainly some risks that are elevated at night, the main one being engine failure in a single. In Canada, large areas without lights is another one. It may be an idea to legislate to reduce these risks by higher weather minima, a bit more instrument training, and an instrument recurrency requirement, but not going IFR completely.

Other than the UK, Ireland, France, and Portugal, I think all of Europe requires night IFR only.

[MrWings]

I don't think any change is needed.

Training includes dealing with black hole effects, weather hazards, etc.

A competent pilot can safely fly night VFR missions without more excessive regulation.

[pelmet]

Its a better idea than screwing a bunch of people out of being able to fly VFR at night by doing something stupid like recommending to TC that we outlaw it.

Incompetents will find a way to kill themselves as long as it is legal to fly.

Hmmm. So we shouldn't try to make things safer?

Wouldn't making night mandatory IFR be safer?

I'm all in favour of this rule change. Because I have an IFR rating so it wouldn't affect me.

Wouldn't banning flying make it safer? How about no more IFR because guys go and kill themselves because they have a rating but not much experience. It is nice that you don't care about the rule change because it doesn't happen to affect you but it will affect a lot of others including me. Maybe we should propose some changes that will affect you.

I don't mind some common sense such as a certain amount of previous instrument flying experience is required but please stop making blanket suggestions that will greatly reduce our flexibility.

[cncpc]

I don't think any change is needed.

Training includes dealing with black hole effects, weather hazards, etc. Superficially, if at all. How do you train for black hole effect?

A competent pilot can safely fly night VFR missions without more excessive regulation.

[BibleMonkey]

You guys are increasing safety laws way too late in the risk chain.
You're not going to survive long enough to get to the hanger.

http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

" Column 1: Manner of injury
Column 2: Total number of deaths nationwide due to the manner of injury for the year 2000
Column 3: Odds of dying in one year due to the manner of injury [i.e. 1 in 46,901 chance of dying as a Pedestrian]
Column 4: Odds of dying over the course of a lifetime due to the manner of injury [i.e. 1 in 610 chance of dying as a Pedestrian"

We need a helmet onna stairs law,
a helmet inna bathtub law,
And a pedestrian headlamp or stay inna house after sundown law.

I'm probably going to hell; but when I was viewing my link I had a Wile E Coyote image making me smirk.

Flying at night. Ha. Only sinners are out doing stuff at night.

[mike12345]

You guys are increasing safety laws way too late in the risk chain.
You're not going to survive long enough to get to the hanger.

http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

" Column 1: Manner of injury
Column 2: Total number of deaths nationwide due to the manner of injury for the year 2000
Column 3: Odds of dying in one year due to the manner of injury [i.e. 1 in 46,901 chance of dying as a Pedestrian]
Column 4: Odds of dying over the course of a lifetime due to the manner of injury [i.e. 1 in 610 chance of dying as a Pedestrian"

We need a helmet onna stairs law,
a helmet inna bathtub law,
And a pedestrian headlamp or stay inna house after Texas dwi classessundown law.

I'm probably going to hell; but when I was viewing my link I had a Wile E Coyote image making me smirk.

Flying at night. Ha. Only sinners are out doing stuff at night.

Hello
Driving under the influence (DUI), or driving while intoxicated (DWI), is the crime of operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or other drugs (including recreational drugs and those prescribed by physicians), to a level that renders the driver incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely.

[MyPantsRnice]

.

[MyPantsRnice]

.

[BibleMonkey]

You guys are increasing safety laws way too late in the risk chain.
You're not going to survive long enough to get to the hanger.

http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm

" Column 1: Manner of injury
Column 2: Total number of deaths nationwide due to the manner of injury for the year 2000
Column 3: Odds of dying in one year due to the manner of injury [i.e. 1 in 46,901 chance of dying as a Pedestrian]
Column 4: Odds of dying over the course of a lifetime due to the manner of injury [i.e. 1 in 610 chance of dying as a Pedestrian"

We need a helmet onna stairs law,
a helmet inna bathtub law,
And a pedestrian headlamp or stay inna house after Texas dwi classessundown law.

I'm probably going to hell; but when I was viewing my link I had a Wile E Coyote image making me smirk.

Flying at night. Ha. Only sinners are out doing stuff at night.

Hello
Driving under the influence (DUI), or driving while intoxicated (DWI), is the crime of operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or other drugs (including recreational drugs and those prescribed by physicians), to a level that renders the driver incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely.

Hello back at you Michaelonetofive.

I know you may have appreciated it more had I
abbreviated my post above to just say the focus should be on attendence or adherence to existing law

-in alignment with the other posters suggestion that perhaps pilots should attend more to existing instrument training-

rather the knee jerk reaction of Goverment to manufacture more laws , instead of posting hyperbolic examples of the point as I did.

My point remains I think.
Why do you think most Canadians encourage law making as the primary energy in keeping them safe?

Why do you think think that we are so willing to displace our responsibilty so readily, often when there is no evidence it is needed?

I think many of us could think of many aspects of life where either adherence to or enforcement of existing regulation is the obvious choice over manufacturing new laws.

Of course , some people find it easier to replace critical thinking, with quoting regulation.

In this hurried and cluttered age, is thinking becoming too hard?

[BibleMonkey]

An alternative thought to speak to discusion. Double the total hood time required for the night rating.

That's only two times safer.
If we quadruple it, we would be 4 times safer.

(:

Alternative thoughts are always welcomed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IQJY5SsJ64

( enemy at the gates scene where propaganda officer has a suggestion to Gen Krushchov, in case yer a reluctant link clicker like me )

[Prodriver]

We don't need anymore red tape hiding under the Safety banner and I was unaware there was a problem. Freedom, try it!

[MrWings]

How do you train for black hole effect?

Review terrain, rely on instruments, cross check distance and altitude, fly stabilized approach, be on glide path (glideslope/papi/vasis) ....