Night VFR changes - latest proposals as of May 2023

[photofly]

The latest NPR for changes to VFR flight rules at night are out. It's a substantial improvement on the last effort:
https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... x?id=12471

A quick scan shows the following among the proposals:

-more training for instructors to teach night flight
-more training for the night rating, including instrument flight at night
-stiffer recency requirement for night flight: 1 hour of instrument flight and 10 takeoffs and landings in the last year
-restrictions on arrival and departure manoeuvring VFR at night in unlit conditions, also to apply to reduced visibility operations during daytime

Also, a welcome clarification on the logging of IFR vs "actual instrument" time.

VMC and IMC are out - replaced with Visual Flight Conditions (VFC) and Instrument Flight Conditions (IFC).

There are probably some other interesting things in there. The devil will be in the detail, of course, and the detail isn't included. But it does seem a big step forward from simply requiring IFR at night.

[digits_]

Thanks for sharing!

Not sure the change to VFC/IFC instead of VMC/IMC would mean much. Is that an ICAO thing? Basically different terminology for the same thing?

[photofly]

Thanks for sharing!

Not sure the change to VFC/IFC instead of VMC/IMC would mean much. Is that an ICAO thing? Basically different terminology for the same thing?

No - it's a swerve away from ICAO and the rest of the world. Transport Canada genuinely thinks the rest of the world is looking for Canada to lead the way forward in this.

I believe the reason that VMC and IMC are no longer considered up to snuff is because the tenor of these changes is that it's not just meteorological conditions that dictate the modus of operation (in respect of control by outside reference or by instruments). For example, the impetus to use the flight instruments on a clear night over a dark lake comes not from the meteorological conditions, which are fine, but the overall flight conditions - dark surface and no horizon visible.

Like you, if Canada abolishes the terms VMC and IMC I have no idea how that will tie in to every operational document from the rest of the world that still uses them.

[digits_]

Oh boy. Great.

That will also make VFC/IFC regulations even harder to enforce. At least with VMC/IMC you had fairly accurate weather forecasts. A shame they didn't specify what the regulations would be, only the ones they will change. That will make a huge difference. The idea somewhat makes sense though. But a bit weird that it needs to be regulated.

[PilotDAR]

For example, the impetus to use the flight instruments on a clear night over a dark lake comes not from the meteorological conditions, which are fine, but the overall flight conditions - dark surface and no horizon visible.

that came to mind as I read... VMC might not be VFC with zero surface reference - perhaps night, but even hazy day over snow or a large body of water. It is fair if Canada deviates from ICAO on this we have more regions with challenged surface visual reference in some conditions.

[digits_]

For example, the impetus to use the flight instruments on a clear night over a dark lake comes not from the meteorological conditions, which are fine, but the overall flight conditions - dark surface and no horizon visible.

that came to mind as I read... VMC might not be VFC with zero surface reference - perhaps night, but even hazy day over snow or a large body of water. It is fair if Canada deviates from ICAO on this we have more regions with challenged surface visual reference in some conditions.

I've had more hazy or foggy days in Europe than I have ever encountered in Canada. France is pretty dark at night as well. I am not sure that really warrants deviating from ICAO standards.
I understand the concept, just not sure if it's really necessary.

[pelmet]

The latest NPR for changes to VFR flight rules at night are out. It's a substantial improvement on the last effort:
https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... x?id=12471

Could you let us know what the initial proposal was.

Thanks.

[photofly]

The 2021 proposals were linked to and discussed here:
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=146424

Essentially it banned VFR flight entirely, in areas without adequate lighting; only flights filed and made in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules would be permitted.

[pelmet]

From COPA. Sounds like they are saying that we do not know what all this will mean in the end. I suspect that one will not be able to fly over dark terrain. What do you think?

"The COPA Technical Committee has reviewed the proposed NPA and has summarized the following key changes for your information as COPA members.

1. Redefining VFR:
Transport Canada is proposing changing the definition of what constitutes legal VFR for both day and night and is proposing a decoupling of VFR flight conditions from a set of defined meteorological conditions and instead coupling it to flight conditions using criteria such as discernible horizon, cultural lighting, and celestial lighting. The term VMC will be removed from the CARs and replaced with a term “VFC” (Visual Flight Conditions) which has yet to be defined. COPA’s concern is that a new definition of VFC may become excessively restrictive and affect what we now consider normal VFR operations."

[7ECA]

I'm of the opinion both sets of proposed changes are stupid, overly bureaucratic, onerous, and will contribute absolutely nothing to the advancement of safety that hasn't already been accomplished. Better is the enemy of good, is the saying that seems to best sum up these proposals. People, pilots if you prefer, have shown an innate capacity for doing stupid things - regardless of the level of regulations pertaining to them and/or the operations they partake in.

It seems to me, that Transport Canada has gone absolutely above and beyond any reasonable semblance of risk mitigation, and is trying to remove risk entirely via a series of convoluted proposals that will stand to make it either entirely impossible for most people to fly at night or make it so prohibitively expensive (requiring NVIS, etc.) that there will come a point at which pilots just ignore the CARs altogether and carry on as they always have. The same goes for requiring more stringent recency/currency checks; there will always be incompetent pilots and pilots whom feel as though their skill level is higher than it actually is... The incompetent either need to be culled from the proverbial herd via FIs whom refuse to offer recommends, or via PEs whom actually do their job and fail them on flight tests. Or maybe medical standards should actually be tightened up, to catch more of the folks out there whom actively lie and circumvent their CAMEs efforts to accurately assess medical fitness.

What's the issue that TC is trying to curtail here?

[tsgarp]

Somebody at TC needed points on their annual evaluation for “leading change”….and the result is this.

[fish4life]

I’ve honestly never understood how someone didn’t need an instrument rating to fly vmc at night in unpopulated areas. 5000 ovc in an unpopulated area is impossible to tell much and should require an IFR rating and IFR equipped aircraft.

[pelmet]

I’ve honestly never understood how someone didn’t need an instrument rating to fly vmc at night in unpopulated areas. 5000 ovc in an unpopulated area is impossible to tell much and should require an IFR rating and IFR equipped aircraft.

TC should simply use some common sense when making their proposals. Instead we see proposals for a problem that can ruin things for everyone in order to satisfy the lowest common denominator(perhaps all flights should be stopped if that is the desire).

It is common sense to have some decent experience in instrument flying if one cannot maintain wings level using the horizon or ground references.

Instead of us going down the road of VFR at night not being allowed in the vast majority of this country, there can be reasonable requirements. Regarding appropriately equipped aircraft, if one has a valid instrument rating, one does not need ground lighting/horizon to fly VFR at night and would be OK with VFR at night anywhere. For those without an instrument rating, there could be other requirements. For example, a lifetime accumulation of a certain amount of hand-flown actual instrument time could be adequate as an overall experience requirement. Or if one does not have that, then perhaps a certain amount of time in a proper simulator within a certain time period(perhaps every three years) where actual maneuvering is done with the screen pitch black. It could start from 50 feet after takeoff, then maneuvers for quite a while, followed by landings at an airport where only the runway lights are visible. Just like it is up north. If one does not meet these requirements, one would be required to have their horizon or ground lighting.

The above are just ideas and some might have better ideas, which are welcome.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The killers at night are visual illusions, like black hole, indefinite horizon, not realizing you have entered cloud etc. Modern flight training devices have pretty good visual displays thanks to the on line gaming community. These FTD's can actually do a pretty good job of replicating the conditions which history has shown get people into trouble. A series of exercises to expose night rating students to dangerous conditions would make them better prepared to recognize and deal with dangerous conditions.

[27Driver]

Email to Minister, CARAC, MP, COPA

Feel free to use in your responses.

tc.ministeroftransport-ministredestransports.tc@tc.gc.ca, TC.CARConsultations-RACConsultations.TC@tc.gc.ca

copa@copanational.org

Dear Minister Alghabra,

Two years ago I submitted a response to CARAC's NPA2021-007. Beyond acknowledgement of receipt, CARAC did not reply to my submission.

In my submission to CARAC, I suggested they engage with the pilot community through the Aviation Safety Letter which all pilots receive. They have not bothered.

Late last week, I heard that CARAC had published NPA2023-005 in the Canada Gazette with a response deadline of June 5, about the time your office will receive this. While the legal profession keeps a close eye on the Canada Gazette, pilots generally do not. The Aviation Safety Letter is sent to all pilots and it puzzles me that CARAC, a body of Transport Canada Aviation, fails to engage the pilot community by choosing to communicate only through the Canada Gazette when the ASL is the best and most effective means to reach pilots.

While CARAC commendably took in account the comments received for NPA2021-007, it continues to fail to involve the broader pilot community. The entities consulted are a cabal of helicopter operators. That said, with a night VFR fleet risk some five times higher than fixed wing, helicopter operators have a justified concern. But what may be much needed in helicopter operations amounts to killing a fly with a solid gold sledgehammer as far as fixed wing is concerned.

The FAA follows a well publicised process for consultation on rulemaking that CARAC does not:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/c ... -B/part-11

Most notably, CARAC does not post a public docket, where rationale, studies and public input with regulatory authority response to that input are made available.

COPA and SAC notably have not been contacted, and were taken by surprise late last week.

Transport Canada has a General Aviation Safety Program (GASP) initiative in progress for the last few years. Astonishingly it seems CARAC and GASP have no communication with each other.

NPA2023-005 is a complex proposal that has the potential to upend VFR operations. One comment I have heard is that VFR operations in mountain valleys might be prohibited because no horizon would be visible.

The entire pilot community needs to be engaged in the development of new VFR regulations. Otherwise there is a strong possibility that the pilot community will condemn the new regulations as overcomplicated, impracticable, onerous and ineffective in improving safety. Poor drafting of proposed firearms regulations led to a firestorm of public objections. Your office could find itself in a similar situation unless the entire pilot community participates in drafting the new regulations.

Given the complexity of NPA2023-005 coupled by the lack of proposed regulatory language, I and others are unable to make a detailed response by the deadline.

I offer a few comments:

Both NPAs are predicated on the doctrinaire article of faith that VFR flight is unduly hazardous without reference to a horizon. However minimum equipment requirements for night VFR flight require an Artificial Horizon and Directional Gyro since at night you may at any time lose reference to the horizon. Instrument time is required for gaining a night rating. Yes, the accident record shows that lack of instrument proficiency is a killer at night. I agree with mandating better targeted training so that pilots can effectively use instruments to handle night hazards.

Not being qualified in helicopters, I have no comment on proposed regulations specific to helicopters and their use of NVIS. However NVIS is much too costly for ordinary fixed wing operators.

I do not see the benefit of a biannual hour of inflight instruction. We launch gliders by winch and flights can be as short as 3 minutes. As many as 20 flights could be needed to achieve an hour of in flight instruction. SAC already runs a recurrent training program online every year which is tailored to Transport Canada requirements. Additionally the SAC insurance provider requires an annual check flight.

The recommendation for 25 hours of instrument time for a PPL seems excessive as 15 more hours would complete the requirement for a full instrument rating.

The drafters seem content for pilots to file IFR; however obtaining the rating and maintaining an aircraft to IFR standard can be burdensome for private owners.

Night VFR flight calls upon a small subset of the skills needed for an IFR rating.

In my response to NPA2021-007 I set forth the difference between VMC and IMC was whether visibility was sufficient to see and avoid traffic. In fact it is easier to see traffic at night.

In fixed wing, instrument proficiency is thoroughly adequate in those situations at night where the horizon is unavailable. Every night takeoff from a rural airport can be into a black hole for the first few hundred feet until sufficient cultural lighting comes into view. Instrument proficiency is required.

Given their accident record, I can understand that night VFR in helicopters requires a different level of regulation.

For fixed wing, gaps in training requirements can be addressed. But as far as operation is concerned, don't fix what's not broken.