Night VFR rule changes

[Cessna 180]

what about all the airports that have lights, or can be lit (with flairs), that do not and will not ever have an instrument approach?

[valleyboy]

As written, yes you would have to file or have night vision, also have a gps capable of approaches etc.

Not if you are day vfr -- I would hazard a guess that the majority of general aviation hobbyist will still choose not to fly at night.

At the end of the day how will this effect commercial pilots in training. Will it force all to look at it and just get their instrument rating but then again you would be restricted to day IFR- will the instrument training allow you a night rating.

For general aviation if you can afford an aircraft capable of the new rules just pony up the money and do it right. For the float and off strip guys they likely have no interest in flying at night.

I'm just an old fart with a several thousand hours under my belt, doing it for a living for over 50 years, what I have seen I would still not fly night vfr in a single engine aircraft but that's my choice.

[C-GGGQ]

As written, yes you would have to file or have night vision, also have a gps capable of approaches etc.

Not if you are day vfr -- I would hazard a guess that the majority of general aviation hobbyist will still choose not to fly at night.

At the end of the day how will this effect commercial pilots in training. Will it force all to look at it and just get their instrument rating but then again you would be restricted to day IFR- will the instrument training allow you a night rating.

For general aviation if you can afford an aircraft capable of the new rules just pony up the money and do it right. For the float and off strip guys they likely have no interest in flying at night.

I'm just an old fart with a several thousand hours under my belt, doing it for a living for over 50 years, what I have seen I would still not fly night vfr in a single engine aircraft but that's my choice.

Of course not day vfr. This whole thread is about night vfr….

[goldeneagle]

Yes it is.
Think of it this way - you want to go night flying...so you read "A" Do you meet that requirement - yes. It's a full moon on a cloudless night and the city is lit up beautifully. Great.

"B" - NVIS to meet requirement "A". Well I can already see the horizon and ground unaided so I already meet the "A" requirement. NVIS not needed tonight.

If you had answered no to the first one, you continue to "B" and say oh I have NVIS...so now I'm good to go.

That's the way you are thinking about it, but, it's NOT how the proposed rule is written.

If the rules were interpreted the way you are doing it, then consider how they wrote licensing requirements. Go read 421.34 section 4 regariding experience requirements for the ATPL
================
(4) Experience

An applicant shall have met the training requirements for the issue of a Commercial Pilot Licence - Aeroplane that is not restricted to daylight flying and completed a minimum of 1500 hours total flight time of which a minimum of 900 hours shall have been completed in aeroplanes. The total flight time shall include a minimum of:
(amended 2000/09/01)

(a) 250 hours pilot-in-command flight time in aeroplanes which shall include where applicable, a maximum of 100 hours pilot-in-command under supervision flight time completed in accordance with Section 421.11. The pilot-in-command and/or pilot-in-command under supervision flight time shall include a minimum of 100 hours cross-country flight time of which a minimum of 25 hours shall have been by night;
(b) 100 hours night flight time as pilot-in-command or as co-pilot of which a minimum of 30 hours shall have been acquired in aeroplanes;
(c) 100 additional hours cross-country flight time as pilot-in-command or 200 hours as co-pilot or any combination thereof, with flight time calculated in accordance with section 421.10. Flight time as pilot-in-command may be part of the 250 hours pilot-in-command flight time specified in paragraph (a); and
(amended 2005/12/01)
(d) 75 hours instrument flight time of which a maximum of 25 hours may have been acquired in approved instrument ground trainers and a maximum of 35 hours may have been acquired in helicopters. Instrument ground time shall not be applied toward the total 1500 hour flight time requirement.
================

It is most definitely not A or B or C or D. Without the word OR in the section, it means A and B and C and D.

[PilotY]

Hi all,

I’m sure you’ve found out through COPA emails or other means. But TC is attempting to change the definition of “VFR” and the requirements. Mainly for that at night in sparsely settled areas.

One of the requirements they are proposing is the use of night vision equipment. Both for use in training and in flight.

One other such proposal is to allow VFR aircraft to conduct Instrument Approaches to published minima.

How does everyone feel about these things? A good set of night vision equipment is thousands of dollars at least. But I suppose it could be a good tool.

I also feel that allowing VFR pilots to conduct approaches could result in some unprecedented separation issues.

[RatherBeFlying]

TSB Night VFR Accident Reports: A19O0026, A18Q0016, A17O0209, A15O0188, and A14O0217 along with the Moosonee accident underlie TSB Recommendation A16-08. The reports make for sobering reading.

3 helicopters: 1 VFR black hole, 2 possible IMC (aka flying into cloud)

4 airplanes (1 not in above list): 2 flights into low ceilings and possible IMC; 2 VFR black hole.

The VFR black hole accidents were 2 takeoff and 1 approach.

NVIS is useless once inside a cloud; so, would not help. Theoretically possible is NVIS showing a cloud in time to avoid it, but I really doubt that capability below an overcast.

Given these reports, we are looking at a potential NVIS save rate below 50% – comparable to ELT activation rates. Basically something expensive that won't work most of the time.

The real difference between IFR and VFR is that in IFR you need ATC to keep you away from other traffic while in VFR you can see potentially conflicting traffic. In fact it's a lot easier at night.

But as TSB has rightfully noted, at night the ground or water can be invisible – and you need your instruments to stay right side up. On a moonless night with a bit of haze over a sparsely settled area, it can be difficult to distinguish between stars and cultural lighting. That's one reason why an artificial horizon is required for night flying. Reason # 2 is that you may suddenly find yourself inside a cloud (no lights below or above).

Underlying the NPA is a mistaken dogmatic piety that VFR must always be with a visible horizon, but at night we don't always have that; so, instrument proficiency is required when the horizon is not visible.

The real remedy lies in training. A night VFR curriculum needs to include: maintaining terrain clearance under adequate ceilings, especially cross country; and anticipating when using the instruments will be necessary, including most takeoffs. Perhaps a night cross country under the hood for an hour or two should be required.

Helicopters are a significant proportion of the accidents cited by TSB, especially given their smaller number compared to the fixed wing fleet. Their stability characteristics may possibly justify mandating NVIS and/or single button SAS level flight, but I really don't see the need in fixed wing where instrument proficiency has kept most of us alive.

[EPR]

I was always taught from my PPL days, that a night take-off, over an unpopulated area is an IFR departure and you should be on instruments immediately! Isn't that still taught by Instructors?

[digits_]

The real difference between IFR and VFR is that in IFR you need ATC to keep you away from other traffic while in VFR you can see potentially conflicting traffic. In fact it's a lot easier at night.

Not true. IFR in class G airspace, or out of reach of any ATC controller is common in Canada.

[Petit-Lion]

No radar and no VHF doesn't mean no ATC, you are supposed to at least report yourself on HF. I'm not sure "uncontrolled IFR" is legal on Earth.

[digits_]

No radar and no VHF doesn't mean no ATC, you are supposed to at least report yourself on HF. I'm not sure "uncontrolled IFR" is legal on Earth.

?

It's legal in Canada. You can fly from A to B in class G airsprace, IFR, without a flight plan, without talking to anyone.

For some more info and examples: https://www.ifr-magazine.com/charts-pla ... olled-ifr/
(US article, but Canada is mentioned as well)

[Petit-Lion]

Thanks, I get it that without ATC, IFR traffic separation relies on advisory, not mandatory, air-to-air broadcasts, correct?

[digits_]

Thanks, I get it that without ATC, IFR traffic separation relies on advisory, not mandatory, air-to-air broadcasts, correct?

Pretty much. You also have the semi circular altitudes, and TCAS for most airplanes that operate in that environment.

[Bede]

My only concern is the wording for the proposed changes to 602.114(a) and 602.115(a): “…and objects on the surface that provide a discernible horizon outside of the cockpit…”

In flight with a visibility of 3 SM, objects on the earth’s surface will rarely provide a discernible horizon to the pilot, regardless of whether the flight is conducted day or night, or the visibility of objects on the earth’s surface. For this reason, during VFR flight in low visibility, the pilot is often referencing ground features as opposed to referencing the horizon to maintain the required aircraft orientation. I suggest that the wording of the proposed regulation be changed to: “…and objects on the surface that provide a discernible surface outside of the cockpit…”

Beyond that it's a good idea. You can still fly night VFR- you just need to be able to make out a horizon. Make your comments to 'carrac@tc.gc.ca'

[redlaser]

It's quite common for pilots not to maintain their altitude when flying over unlighted dark moonless forest areas, Paying close attention to instruments at night and well above mountain tops , navigation at night is also more dufficult unless equiped with a good functioning GPS.

[RatherBeFlying]

navigation at night is also more dufficult [sic] unless equiped [sic] with a good functioning GPS

Really?

In pre GPS days, CHUM 1050 on the ADF would get you back to Toronto from most anywhere in Ontario south of Sudbury, the major highways are well lit with traffic. The IFR LE charts come in handy for longer distances as yes, some areas can be featureless at night.