|
|
Posted for Rick titsworth <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>:
Some thoughts...
I'm sure there are some (many?) that will argue that night flight in a
single/piston is too high of risk and thus lean toward twins for these
missions. The historic safety records of singles versus twins is another
topic altogether, with somewhat mixed conclusions, depedning on your viewpoint
and/or adjustment factors (adverse weather, pilot experience, xc vs local
etc). Below are my thoughts, assuming for many (most), a twin is not an
option because we either don't own one, don't have access to one, and/or
aren't rated.
1: Not all night flighing is the same. Sometimes its clear and there is
available moonlight/ambient light so you can see well enough to pick a
off-field landing site if necessary - othertimes/locations it is black. You
may want to consider the "type of night" during your flight risk assessment
(not just "night").
2: I also consider terrain and knowledge of the area when considering night
flight. 75% of lower Michigan (Ohio, Indiana, etc (where I often fly) is
farmland - much better landing odds than West Virginia, Western Colorado, etc.
3: As you mentioned, I generally fly higher to provide more time/distance for
potential emergencies. I set the GPS zoom to just past my estimated gliding
distance and actively maintain a mental "best deviate target". Zoom = "just
past" so I can see the next target as it comes into range. If you have a
"cone of safety" type display - all the better. p.s. if you can configure
your GPS to only show airports with lights, this is probably a good idea. No
since thinking that your best alternate at any particular moment is 3 miles to
the left, if it doesn't have lights and you can't find the rwy.
4: As you mentioned, I generally file IFR or use flight following at night.
This way there is someone (ATC) who knows if something bad happens, since
there are likely to be few random witnesses.
5: I periodically practice simulated engine out landings, from >1000ft AGL
all the way through landing role (over/at an airport of course). I have two
flavors of these: a) normal i.e. aim for the landing zone b) on short final
(approx 250 ft AGL), randomly decide to either shorten or lenghen the
touchdown point by a couple hundred feet. i.e. pitch up and/or slip to land
short, or dive for speed and float in ground effect to land long. With
practice these techniques can make quite a difference. To make the unknown
random call, I glance at my watch second hand on short final, 0-30 sec =
short, 30-60 sec = go long. I figure this capability/skill might be handy for
an off-field landing where an obstacle might not be visable until the final
moments (especially true at night). I also practice with mildly steeper than
normal approaches (partially a by-product of engine at idle) - but this may
also help with an off-field where there may not be a good approach path. Plan
on the VASI/PAPI being mostly white. Caution with this - don't create an
incident/emergency while practicing.
6: How well you know the airplane is also helpful. My Cessna doesn't have
much additional pitching moment with the last 10-15' of flaps. So, I reserve
them for short final on simulated engine outs. Pure'ists may argue for the
full stabilized approach. But, choosing to delay flaps can increase distance
in the "dive and float technique". My view is that stabilized approaches are
good when you can see the runway/threshhold and are reasonably confident the
approach path is un-obstructed. For off-fields, I prefer to maximize
flexibility for un-expected obstacles/events. p.s. I do generally
plan/practice using "all" the flaps before flare/touchdown - to minimize
touchdown speed - it's just an issue of "reserving" the final 10-15 degress
until I can clearly see my target and then using them to adjust +/-.
7: Sometimes at night, in more rural/wilderness areas, I flight plan to fly
over major roads. There is always a good debate as to whether a road is good
off-field landing site. But at night car traffic is usually less, so that is
one normal road obstacle that is in your favor at night. Even if I decided to
land in a field "near" the road, the road may provide emergency personell
access and/or position information so they could find and save me faster (if
necessary). GPS/DME/Radar coordinates are good - but I figure also using
"common" landmarks/reference points can remove any potential confusion. (ATC
radio call: "intend on landing approx 5 miles West of Farmsville, about 1/2
mile North of Hwy XYZ")
8: Extra fuel reserve - your call as to how much - partly dependent on your
familiarity with the area/flight/destination airport and on-board navigation
equipment.
9: I make it a point to familiarize myself with all the lighted airports
along my intended route of flight at night (always a good idea anyway). If
you have an unexpected emergency (at night) and have an "opportunity " to land
at one of them, will you known how to easily find it, choose runways, lookup
ATC/PCL freqs, etc - while your workload/stress level might be higher than
normal - in the dark. Having a good GPS is a big plus here - knowing how to
use it WELL (=priceless). Having all the current approach plates (the book)
is also a very good idea, versus downloading/printing just the ones at your
destnation/alternate landing sites. The approaches can simplify finding an
airport/runway if you have the time.
10: Normal night safety measures: Flashlight, spare fresh batteries, backup
flashlight (In case I drop the first one), hand held radio, cell phone
(battery charged), all handy - out of the flight bag and/or in my pocket.
Overall, I consider Night "one" of the risk items for any flight. For
example: a moderately short, night flight in a well equiped, familiar
airplane, over low friendly terrain, in good weather, when I am feeling rested
and alert may be much lower risk, than a day flight in an unfamiler, minimal
panel, airplane over high, unfriendly terrain, in low visibility, when I am
stressed.
Rick Titsworth
700 hour, Commercial, Instrument, SEL, MEL, SES
|
|