Night VFR rule changes

[CpnCrunch]

It would seem this could be achieved with fairly minimal changes, such as requiring 1000ft obstacle clearance away from the airport, requiring IFR, synthetic vision or enhanced vision for commercial passenger carrying ops, and maybe improving the training. This would be the kind of training that a sim would be really useful for.

[TeePeeCreeper]

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

That’s a rather callous comment!

I don’t understand why some of the posters are so adamant about this legislation not passing though… We all bitch and moan that the regulator does nothing in the wake of fatal accidents but here we are bitching about TC finally doing something in regards to a known issue?

Don’t like it? Fine, don’t put yourself or any unsuspecting passengers at risk without knowing how to get yourself out of trouble in the first place!

TPC

[Heliian]

The changes would effect private aircraft the most as they are the most likely to get caught out in the dark. Doesn't matter if it's a helicopter or an airplane, I think there is merit to the proposed changes as it may actually save someone from their own overconfidence or stupidity. There aren't a lot of commercial helicopter operators doing night vfr in Canada save for the police and ambulance.

The mentions of nvis are more related to commercial operations as that's a whole other set of certifications.

[valleyboy]

With improved simulators and even the ability to do rides in the sim is it not likely less hassle to get the IFR ticket.

With proposed luxury tax seems to me people who can afford and aircraft for night vfr xcountry should just get that instrument rating. It seems that south of 49 lots of general aviation types are rated, why such a reluctance in canada. Personally I can't figure out why private pilots even want to fly at night, unless you are north of 68' 30"

For those who figure it's a must get that IFR rating.

[digits_]

With improved simulators and even the ability to do rides in the sim is it not likely less hassle to get the IFR ticket.

With proposed luxury tax seems to me people who can afford and aircraft for night vfr xcountry should just get that instrument rating. It seems that south of 49 lots of general aviation types are rated, why such a reluctance in canada. Personally I can't figure out why private pilots even want to fly at night, unless you are north of 68' 30"

For those who figure it's a must get that IFR rating.

Because it's a fun thing to do. Even just staying in the circuit at night for the first few times, is nice. And less pressure to hurry and get home during late afternoon/evening, so in such cases it makes things safer.

Needing a full blown IFR for this would be insane.

[AirFrame]

Don’t like it? Fine, don’t put yourself or any unsuspecting passengers at risk without knowing how to get yourself out of trouble in the first place!

The statistics would suggest that the vast majority of us are doing just that... Staying out of trouble in the first place. I don't see how the proposed changes would have captured the 14 accidents that happened in the last 10 years.

[Heliian]

I don't see how the proposed changes would have captured the 14 accidents that happened in the last 10 years.

Well, I know of one for sure with 2 fatalities off the top of my head that only happened a couple years ago.

Several in Alberta over the last couple years too.

Just have a look at night accidents.

[wallypilot]

Just for context, There are some countries that don’t allow night VFR at all except for some certificated operators. So you can see Canada is not he only jurisdiction that considers the risks of night VFR to be considerable in dark areas.

Also my bet is (I don’t know the details of the new reg) that in most areas, this will not affect “night circuits at your local airport”, because the area would fulfill the description of “illuminated area”

[goldeneagle]

I don't see how the proposed changes would have captured the 14 accidents that happened in the last 10 years.

Well, I know of one for sure with 2 fatalities off the top of my head that only happened a couple years ago.

Several in Alberta over the last couple years too.

Just have a look at night accidents.

If you want to make all airplanes completely safe, that's simple, just chain them to the ground and leave them there. This guarantees there wont be more accidents. ofc, it would also mean we no longer need an air division at transport.

My question is, what is the actual rate of accidents for night vfr. How many accidents over how many flights ? Does the fact a few folks have messed up justify putting a huge burden on the entire population of folks that fly vfr at night ?

I think this change of rules will promote more folks to operate outside the rulebook rather than solve the problem. Adding night vision to a private 172 just so one can do a few circuits in the dark, or possibly arrive home after sunset on a clear full moon night is ludicrous. If you dont think you can do that safely, does that justify penalizing me for doing it in a safe manner ?

[boeingboy]

I think you guys are getting way to carried away with this. How many actually read the notice in depth? Personally I think this is a very good idea - they are trying to prevent accidents like the Moononee air ambulance crash where people blast off into the pitch black darkness and loose control. And you know what - they are correct. There are a lot of times where they get into the darkness and it only meet the IFR definition.

If you read it carefully it doesn't just say in built up areas...

The advanced night rating would require the use of NVIS to conduct night VFR flights in
areas of insufficient cultural lighting or with insufficient celestial illumination.

I don't think for the average joe this is going to change anything....for the rest - I think it will vastly improve safety.

[digits_]

I think you guys are getting way to carried away with this. How many actually read the notice in depth? Personally I think this is a very good idea - they are trying to prevent accidents like the Moononee air ambulance crash where people blast off into the pitch black darkness and loose control. And you know what - they are correct. There are a lot of times where they get into the darkness and it only meet the IFR definition.

If you read it carefully it doesn't just say in built up areas...

The advanced night rating would require the use of NVIS to conduct night VFR flights in
areas of insufficient cultural lighting or with insufficient celestial illumination.

I don't think for the average joe this is going to change anything....for the rest - I think it will vastly improve safety.

The last few pages listing the changes in regulation require nvis for every vfr flight, at least the way it is written at the moment.

[goldeneagle]

I think you guys are getting way to carried away with this. How many actually read the notice in depth? Personally I think this is a very good idea - they are trying to prevent accidents like the Moononee air ambulance crash where people blast off into the pitch black darkness and loose control. And you know what - they are correct. There are a lot of times where they get into the darkness and it only meet the IFR definition.

If you read it carefully it doesn't just say in built up areas...

The advanced night rating would require the use of NVIS to conduct night VFR flights in
areas of insufficient cultural lighting or with insufficient celestial illumination.

I don't think for the average joe this is going to change anything....for the rest - I think it will vastly improve safety.

If you read the whole paper, reference 602.114(b) and 602.115(b)

It makes night vision system mandatory for operating night vfr.

The part that really irritates me about this, read the pre-amble. An ifr capable and equipped helicopter with a crew of 2 on board chose to do a vfr departure at night, manged to turn it into a pile of wreckage. Because of this they want to put hugely onerous requirements on anybody and everybody that is going to do a night vfr trip.

At what point do you step back and say enough is enough. Yes, it was a bad deal when that helicopter was turned into a smoking pile of wreckage, but why do you want to penalize the whole industry and effectively eliminate the option to fly at night for private folks, simply because a pair of supposedly professional pilots couldn't keep control of their aircraft on a night departure ?

[Schooner69A]

I was instrument rated for fifty years. After I retired, it did not make economic sense to continue to hold one. However, I have not forgotten how do so and during periods of restricted visibility, it's "outside, inside; outside, inside". For TC to say that I am now unable to fly night VFR because I don't have an instrument rating and can't afford NVGs is ludicrous.

Include more IF training in the night rating if that is a weakness, but the proposal, as it stands, is "outré"...

[goldeneagle]

I was instrument rated for fifty years. After I retired, it did not make economic sense to continue to hold one. However, I have not forgotten how do so and during periods of restricted visibility, it's "outside, inside; outside, inside". For TC to say that I am now unable to fly night VFR because I don't have an instrument rating and can't afford NVGs is ludicrous.

Include more IF training in the night rating if that is a weakness, but the proposal, as it stands, is "outré"...

Even if you have an instrument rating, there are many night vfr missions that are unsuitable for an IFR flight plan, so then you are back to this stupid nvis requirement.

A good example, the traffic watch airplane and helicopter that launch out of ZBB every weekday morning at 0600. That 172 launches in the dark then lands in the dark at 1800 for most of the winter season, pretty sure the helicopter is similar. The way this rule is written in the proposed rule, that machine will need to be fitted with night vision equipment. That's just plain stupidity, then top off the stupidity, it will have to be an 'approved' piece of kit, so, that'll add at least another zero onto the price tag over the stuff one can find outside of the 'approved' systems.

And all of this, because an ifr capable helicopter with apparently two supposedly ifr capable pilots launched after 0-dark-thirty and stuffed up the departure. In the meantime that traffic watch airplane has been doing it's thing for more than 20 years, typically staffed by a 250 hour wonder when they start the job, literally thousands of early morning departures before dawn, and an equal number of evening arrivals after sunset, without an issue, but suddenly now it needs night vision equipment, because Ontario Air Ambulance pilots screwed the pooch.

The really sad part of all this, it'll make things virtually impossible for a lot of smallish operators, folks that have been doing it without issue for years. Then the big helicopter outfit that is the root cause of this whole issue will simply change the SOP so all night operations are IFR, and then they dont have to invest in night vision equipment. End result, whole lotta financial hurt for the little folk, and absolutely no change for the idiots that triggered this.

[boeingboy]

The last few pages listing the changes in regulation require nvis for every vfr flight, at least the way it is written at the moment.

If you read the whole paper, reference 602.114(b) and 602.115(b)

It makes night vision system mandatory for operating night vfr.

No - It doesn't. Read it carefully...

602.114 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR
flight within controlled airspace unless

(a) 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;

(b) by night using Night Vision Imaging Systems
to meet requirements for VFR flight as
described in (a)


Read B again.....they are saying to use Night vision systems to meet the requirements of A. The key here is "To meet the requirement of A"...the requirement of being able to see the ground/horizon.

In other words if you cannot see the ground - you need to use NVS so that you can see it. If you have sufficient celestial or ground illumination to see then you dont need NVS because you can already see it- you already meet the requirement of A.

It's simple - there is no more VFR when you cant see the horizon.


It's even spelled out in simple terms at the top of the proposed changes....

The proposed changes to the current framework are presented below:
Sections 602.114 & 602.115 of the CARs will be amended to include the requirements that an aircraft be
operated by day or night with visual reference to ground or water by naked eye if sufficient lighting provides a
discernible horizon, or if the lighting conditions are insufficient, then the use of NVIS provides a discernible
horizon.

[digits_]

The last few pages listing the changes in regulation require nvis for every vfr flight, at least the way it is written at the moment.

If you read the whole paper, reference 602.114(b) and 602.115(b)

It makes night vision system mandatory for operating night vfr.

No - It doesn't. Read it carefully...

602.114 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR
flight within controlled airspace unless

(a) 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;

(b) by night using Night Vision Imaging Systems
to meet requirements for VFR flight as
described in (a)


Read B again.....they are saying to use Night vision systems to meet the requirements of A. The key here is "To meet the requirement of A"...the requirement of being able to see the ground/horizon.

In other words if you cannot see the ground - you need to use NVS so that you can see it. If you have sufficient celestial or ground illumination to see then you dont need NVS because you can already see it- you already meet the requirement of A.

It's simple - there is no more VFR when you cant see the horizon.


It's even spelled out in simple terms at the top of the proposed changes....

The proposed changes to the current framework are presented below:
Sections 602.114 & 602.115 of the CARs will be amended to include the requirements that an aircraft be
operated by day or night with visual reference to ground or water by naked eye if sufficient lighting provides a
discernible horizon, or if the lighting conditions are insufficient, then the use of NVIS provides a discernible
horizon.

You have to use (a) and (b). (b) says you have to use nvis to achieve (a). Nvis is not optional. Not the way it is written now anyway.

The simple terms at the top don't matter if they don't describe it properly in the proposed CAR changes.

[photofly]

It’s ambiguous as there are not enough (none) “and” and “or” words to show how conditions a-d combine.

[goldeneagle]

It’s ambiguous as there are not enough (none) “and” and “or” words to show how conditions a-d combine.

It's not at all ambiguous, it does not state a or b. If a regulation doesn't include the word OR, then you have to meet all the different conditions.

As written, that proposed rule has no allowance for night VFR without nvis equipment.

[valleyboy]

Because it's a fun thing to do

To me not so much, it cuts into beer time, now landing off strip on a short ass gravel bar, now that's what I call fun.

I would rather spend money on big wheels than a radio any day.

I don't expect you need to file IFR but simply be IFR rated. If we are talking safety by more training, why not. It still won't change the main cause of accidents.

[C-GGGQ]

Because it's a fun thing to do

To me not so much, it cuts into beer time, now landing off strip on a short ass gravel bar, now that's what I call fun.

I would rather spend money on big wheels than a radio any day.

I don't expect you need to file IFR but simply be IFR rated. If we are talking safety by more training, why not. It still won't change the main cause of accidents.

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

[digits_]

It’s ambiguous as there are not enough (none) “and” and “or” words to show how conditions a-d combine.

There is an "and" at the last condition.

[boeingboy]

You have to use (a) and (b).

Yes - you do...to a point. If you cant see the horizon, you need NVIS

(b) says you have to use nvis to achieve (a).

Exactly.
Pretty straight forward. If I can't see the horizon with the naked eye - I need another way of doing it.

Nvis is not optional.

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.

[Conflicting Traffic]

602.114 No person shall operate an aircraft in VFR
flight within controlled airspace unless

(a) 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;

(b) by night using Night Vision Imaging Systems to meet requirements for VFR flight as described in (a);

(c) flight visibility is not less than three miles with the naked eye;

(d) the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet vertically and one mile horizontally; and

This isn't just a problem for night VFR. Day VFR is impacted as well. Part (a) requires a "discernible horizon". A substantial portion of my day VFR time has been conducted without a discernible horizon. Distance to the horizon at circuit height is about 40 miles. So if you have less than 40 miles visibility, you aren't legal under this new reg. This happens all the time in haze and/or smoke.

The whole thing is a poorly thought out "solution" to a problem (of questionable existence) that could easily be solved by tweaking the training and recency requirements for the night rating -- or just by enforcing the rules as they currently exist, for that matter.

[photofly]

You have to use (a) and (b).

Yes - you do...to a point. If you cant see the horizon, you need NVIS

(b) says you have to use nvis to achieve (a).

Exactly.
Pretty straight forward. If I can't see the horizon with the naked eye - I need another way of doing it.

Nvis is not optional.

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.

The "and" at the end of (d) (the excerpt doesn't include the (e) from the original regulation but it's clearly meant to) means that all of clauses (a) through (e) must be met. Every single one of them. So if by night, then both (a) and (b) must be answered in the affirmative. That's not the intention, and is a mistake in the drafting.

[digits_]

You have to use (a) and (b).

Yes - you do...to a point. If you cant see the horizon, you need NVIS

(b) says you have to use nvis to achieve (a).

Exactly.
Pretty straight forward. If I can't see the horizon with the naked eye - I need another way of doing it.

Nvis is not optional.

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.

You need to meet all the requirements. You can't just say you have nvis so you are good to go if (c) , 3sm vis is not met.