Night VFR rule changes

[photofly]

Hold on to your hats - big changes coming down the pipe to night VFR requirements and licencing.

Hilights:

A new two part night rating - basic rating allowing night VFR only in well-lit areas only. The extended rating will be required to conduct night VFR in dark areas and will also mandate the training in and use of FLIR or night vision goggles for unrestricted night flight

Night rating flight tests as well as ongoing proficiency tests

Night ratings will require training in and and mandatory use of GPS to fly full instrument approaches down to minimums at night (i.e. will be a mini-instrument rating) instead of visual approaches.

https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... x?id=11952

Kiss goodbye to night circuits at your favourite airfield.




-

[rookiepilot]

"The majority of Canadian airspace, whether in Controlled or Uncontrolled airspace, is sparsely populated and offers very little illumination or no illumination suitable to provide pilots with visual reference to the surface during night VFR flights. While the weather requirements for night VFR may be met, the lack of illumination in such areas negates a pilot’s ability to maintain control of an aircraft by external visual reference to the surface. Such areas of darkness, devoid of sufficient illumination actually meet the definition for Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) flight rather than VFR"

+100
The 2 part makes sense.

[digits_]

Wtf?
No night vfr without night vision goggles?
So no cancelling IFR at night without night vision goggles on board?

I understand the reasoning behind the training changes, but I don't get the night vision stuff. Might as well outlaw night vfr...

[7ECA]

Pretty much seems like the end of recreational night flying in Canada for the vast majority of pilots.

[PilotDAR]

I think a large number of recreational pilots would (or could) night fly with reference to a "discernible horizon" by virtue of some man made feature on the surface? Yes, I get that in the north, this could be less easy in areas, but are many recreational pilot flying much up north VFR at night out of sight of surface features?

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Sounds like a good idea on the face of it. But it fails to define "dark area".

If I consider

The proposed changes would give the burden of responsibility to pilots to ensure that flights are conducted with the appropriate and sufficient external visual references

And then

either by day or night, the aircraft is operated with visual reference to ground or water, including the frozen surface thereof, and objects on the surface that provide a discernible horizon outside of the cockpit to allow the pilot to maintain control of and to manoeuvre the aircraft by external visual reference

I could make a case that a full moon and clear sky would meet this requirement, or perhaps that flying towards a town with a light dome is legal, but flying away from it is not.

It doesn't say anything at all about the surface being artificially illuminated or not. Just "if sufficient lighting provides a discernible horizon" in the comments, but not in the proposed regulation. This sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, at least as currently written.

[photofly]

I lose sight of a discernable horizon and all ground features every time I enter a climb. By day or night. Do the climb portions of my flight need an instrument flight plan and a clearance from ATC because I am no longer able to meet VFR requirements?

Remember, this is the ministry that argued, in court, that the VFR requirement for three miles flight visibility (602.114(b)) applied both in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the aircraft at every given instant and no clouds were allowed to be in the way; any aerobatic manoeuvre involving a full nose up attitude was therefore illegal unless the ceiling was higher than 18,000 feet.

If there's any possible stupid interpretation of a regulation, someone in this ministry is going to try to take advantage of it to persecute a pilot of whom they don't approve.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

This change should eliminate any room for interpretation in the CARs concerning what a pilot needs for adequate visual references and stop pilots from flying into areas of darkness devoid of sufficient man made or natural lighting where it is impossible to see enough external references to safely fly in accordance with VFR.

Protip: It won't, and it won't. And that's a pretty paternalistic point of view, I should add.

Now something simple, like "Not more than 25 miles from a town or city of 50k people or more, during night as defined in these regulations" could actually work. But that would be too simple.

[rookiepilot]

This change should eliminate any room for interpretation in the CARs concerning what a pilot needs for adequate visual references and stop pilots from flying into areas of darkness devoid of sufficient man made or natural lighting where it is impossible to see enough external references to safely fly in accordance with VFR.

Protip: It won't, and it won't. And that's a pretty paternalistic point of view, I should add.

Now something simple, like "Not more than 25 miles from a town or city of 50k people or more, during night as defined in these regulations" could actually work. But that would be too simple.

There is a massive difference between a clear, moonlight night in southern Ontario, (especially not in summer), and a hazy, summer night, perhaps with a high overcast layer, especially anywhere north of Barrie / Orillia, or even east of Peterborough.

One is beautiful VFR, and one isn't.

It has to be experienced to be appreciated.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

There is a massive difference between a clear, moonlight night in southern Ontario, (especially not in summer), and a hazy, summer night, perhaps with a high overcast layer, especially anywhere north of Barrie / Orillia, or even east of Peterborough.

One is beautiful VFR, and one isn't.

It has to be experienced to be appreciated.

Or even an otherwise clear VFR day but hazy enough the ground gets obscured above 5000'. I've looked out over Lake Ontario and seen nothing but white, at 500' AGL.

But that's my whole point - this regulation, as written, is nowhere near clear enough. (hah, no pun intended)

[rookiepilot]

There is a massive difference between a clear, moonlight night in southern Ontario, (especially not in summer), and a hazy, summer night, perhaps with a high overcast layer, especially anywhere north of Barrie / Orillia, or even east of Peterborough.

One is beautiful VFR, and one isn't.

It has to be experienced to be appreciated.

Or even an otherwise clear VFR day but hazy enough the ground gets obscured above 5000'. I've looked out over Lake Ontario and seen nothing but white, at 500' AGL.

Yep. It's weird.

Same conditions, at night, summer haze, unlit ground disappears completely. Zero horizon. Lake and sky blend together. Reported metar vis though -- 6 miles, sometimes more.

There is no way to write the reg. The 2 level night rating makes a lot of sense to me. Other countries, there is no night rating at all, it's IMC.

No turns training on departure is a no brainer too until a safe altitude, that's led to fatal accidents.

[PilotDAR]

I participated in CARAC committees for years. The TC people are in a no win situation. TSB says too many people have crashed in similar circumstances, and recommend a rule change. Minister tells TC staff to change the rule, TC staff chins go to their chests. TC are not trying to create an unworkable regulation, and, as observed, attempting to regulate this as a total can of worms.

If TC have entered the CARAC process with this, (a), they were instructed to, and (b), they're going to make a change. The CARAC group will spend hours negotiating the content of the regulation word by word by word, and still there'll be no best way. But. there'll be a way...

It's a notice of proposed amendment, make a great suggestion if you have one. Honestly, words I typed into my old 286 computer, with Windows 3.1 are now regulation in Canada, because I presented them, and CARAC adopted them, where they had to adopt something and no one had a better idea. I won't say that the consultation system is awesome, but it's something. On the other hand, many times, I'd see a regulatory change coming, tell everyone I could to write in to guide the change, and no one would. So now, TC's ideas for propeller changes (noise compliance) and fixed wing external loads are regulation as presented to CARAC (I was there) just for two....

I can see what TC is trying to (being driven to) do here, and it's full of holes. Anyone can cite logic errors in it. Can anyone make a better suggestion, which will give the minister the action he needs, to satisfy the TSB recommendations?

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Can anyone make a better suggestion, which will give the minister the action he needs, to satisfy the TSB recommendations?

Now something simple, like "Not more than 25 miles from a town or city of 50k people or more, during night as defined in these regulations" could actually work. But that would be too simple.

That probably meets the spirit of what they're trying to do, at least, and would be far more clear. In Ontario, even "south of the 45th parallel" could work, except for the vast empty space east of Peterborough, as mentioned. It would at least rule out flying over Algonquin at night. Perhaps I should actually write them.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

No turns training on departure is a no brainer too until a safe altitude, that's led to fatal accidents.

I can counter that as well - flying from YTZ when YYZ is using 15/33. Your YTZ departure/approach path is awfully close to YYZ's approach/departure path then. Toronto terminal doesn't use those runways often, for that exact reason I think.

[digits_]

I lose sight of a discernable horizon and all ground features every time I enter a climb. By day or night. Do the climb portions of my flight need an instrument flight plan and a clearance from ATC because I am no longer able to meet VFR requirements?

You don't need to see the discernable horizon all the time during the climb, it just needs to be there in case you do need it.

Remember, this is the ministry that argued, in court, that the VFR requirement for three miles flight visibility (602.114(b)) applied both in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the aircraft at every given instant and no clouds were allowed to be in the way; any aerobatic manoeuvre involving a full nose up attitude was therefore illegal unless the ceiling was higher than 18,000 feet.

If there's any possible stupid interpretation of a regulation, someone in this ministry is going to try to take advantage of it to persecute a pilot of whom they don't approve.

I don't think that argument is very relevant here. It was a grasping at straws argument as a result of the back and forth between both parties. The decision didn't reflect it a valuable argument either. I'd say the final fine/sanction sounded fair for the (alleged?) infraction.

[photofly]

I think the argument is very relevant. It’s precedent for the Minister trying to advance totally ridiculous arguments when it suits.

There shouldn’t be “back and forth” with such monstrous imbalance between the parties - one an individual and the other a national government. We should expect better, and until we can be confident of receiving better, we need regulations that are unambiguous.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I lose sight of a discernable horizon and all ground features every time I enter a climb. By day or night. Do the climb portions of my flight need an instrument flight plan and a clearance from ATC because I am no longer able to meet VFR requirements?

You don't need to see the discernable horizon all the time during the climb, it just needs to be there in case you do need it.

You can also simply look left or right. There's still a visual reference in a Vx climb. It's just not in front of you. I imagine most aerobatic pilots would agree. I know I've used the horizon over the wings before, just doing simple things like wingovers and spins and full power stalls.

[photofly]

If at night the only visible horizon is behind you, does that meet the (new) regulatory requirement?

You can also simply look left or right. There's still a visual reference in a Vx climb. It's just not in front of you. I imagine most aerobatic pilots would agree. I know I've used the horizon over the wings before, just doing simple

The proposed new regulation says “the aircraft is operated with visual reference to”, not just “can be operated” - so you had absolutely better not be looking out of the front in a climb, because if there’s no horizon in the direction you’re looking you cannot be in compliance.

[RatherBeFlying]

I suspect that helicopters are a major component of the night VFR accidents that are driving the proposed regulations. Helicopter operators seem to be the vast majority in the list of consultations. The Kobe Bryant accident is a stark demonstration that helicopter pilots aren't always capable of handling their aircraft when visual reference is lost, even with recurrent IIMC training. So a one button push to activate an appropriate SAS mode sounds reasonable.

NVIS comes across to me as expensive technology that requires a high degree of initial and recurrent training. There may be justification in the helicopter environment.

We should also remember that an early nighttime turn to the north over the lake from Cleveland Lakefront has splashed a number of IFR pilots. However there is no proposal to mandate NVIS for IFR.

An aircraft flown in night VFR is required to have an AH and DG, and the pilot has to have hood time to get the night rating. These requirements imply that you may need to be on instruments during a night VFR flight. I am thoroughly boggled by the notion underlying the proposed changes that VFR pilots are always using visual reference at night when they are required to demonstrate ability to fly on instruments to get a night rating.

Noted aviation author Richard Collins in at least one of his books advised staying on the instruments during initial climb at night to avoid the various illusion traps of taking off into a black hole - the situation at just about any rural airport for the first few hundred feet.

Yes, following an IFR approach will assure terrain clearance, but flying a circuit works just as well.

There are many illusion traps at night that monitoring your instruments will keep you out of.

[Inverted2]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... eport.html

Probably due to cases like this one posted above. These were the guys who flew over Parliament Hill days after the terrorist attack and then got blown waaaay off course and ended up in a spiral dive over Algonquin Park.

[AirFrame]

These requirements imply that you may need to be on instruments during a night VFR flight. I am thoroughly boggled by the notion underlying the proposed changes that VFR pilots are always using visual reference at night when they are required to demonstrate ability to fly on instruments to get a night rating.

That's no different than you "may need" to recover from a spin during a flight, so you're taught how to recover from a spin. But you don't go looking for spins on every flight, either. For Night VFR, the intent is to give you the tools you'll need to get out of the situation where you've lost the discernible horizon.

I'm more curious to know what problem they're actually trying to solve. This will take millions of dollars to implement, to prevent how many accidents a year? I can't remember the last time I heard of a Night VFR accident... And i'd bet that the root cause of the few I haven't heard about wouldn't always be corrected by giving the pilot an IFR ticket or NVG.

[digits_]

It would greatly increase safety if the first thing a pilot did when losing sight of the horizon was to put on night vision goggles to then look at a backlit artifical horizon.

[photofly]

I'm more curious to know what problem they're actually trying to solve.

It’s written in the document: the goal is to reduce the Minister’s liability.

The federal government doesn’t want to be liable to pay damages to the families and widows of pilots crashing at night, who sue the Minister because the TSB of Canada recommended a change in the regulations and the minister failed to act on the recommendation.

If this is anyone’s fault, it’s the TSB, and maybe the government for not having balls to stand up to the TSB.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I'm more curious to know what problem they're actually trying to solve.

It’s written in the document: the goal is to reduce the Minister’s liability.

The federal government doesn’t want to be liable to pay damages to the families and widows of pilots crashing at night, who sue the Minister because the TSB of Canada recommended a change in the regulations and the minister failed to act on the recommendation.

If this is anyone’s fault, it’s the TSB, and maybe the government for not having balls to stand up to the TSB.

I think we agree, 14 fatalities in 10 years isn't worth the change they're pushing.

[Squaretail]

As usual, there is still room to give your two cents to the regulator at the bottom of the proposed amendment there's a link. I suggest interested parties start writing.

Personally I think this is a poor idea that the regulator hasn't thought out well. I would perhaps agree that some operations shouldn't be able to conduct night vfr ops, but that should be open for discussion. IF determining well lit and not well lit areas of Canada are left up to the regulator, we'll get the same crap like with the designated mountainous areas. I would also say that the new rules would just punish the law abiders and wouldn't stem the hazard in the chief sectors its designed to protect. Flight training will also become costlier if there's now another test to administer. Though I don't doubt there's some who are salivating at that prospect.