Scudrunners

Since there is a thread going on next door I would like to hear from the group here. This group has a good core of "hobbyists" and fly for pleasure and adventure.

I fail to see why people are so excited about the rule changes. I still maintain if you operate an aircraft capable of the new rules you can pony up the money to meet the new rules. I am of the mind set that not many want to operate at night anyway. I know if I were back into small aircraft I would be spending money on my off strip gear rather than bringing my cub up to night standards.

What the opinions out there???

Link to the other discussion?

I feel like it’s probably similar to everything government.

If I choose to buy a five thousand dollar item for a plane I might be quite happy. Remember how excited some pilots were telling you about their Loran?

If a regulator demands I spend more than fifty dollars on something to continue flying, they’re jerks and I don’t want to be forced to buy it.

Full disclosure….

I have never felt night x-country VFR should have existed.
Add 3 hours of-night dual to the ppl, or as an add on, for VFR night flight within 25 miles of the point of departure. A restricted night rating as it is.

In the alternative, more thought should be given to the IF Dual for the ppl and cpl.
Last I looked it is not really integrated,particularily the 5 hours forthe ppl.
And can be taught by non IF rated pilots!

Canada is not the US where they have 100% radar coverage, extensive weather reporting, and more airports than alligators.

Having said that, in reading the regulations, they seem to be somewhat poorly thought out. Like all pilots, two of us, sitting in a cockpit flying for 30 minutes could come up with a better plan

I am a private pilot with a night rating based in BC. My home built is well equipped for day/night VFR but not IFR, so getting an IFR rating is not an option for me.

I don’t plan on setting off on a night cross country over large areas of dark, inhospitable terrain. However, I am comfortable planning a flight where the last 20 minutes requires a night rating as I approach my home airport or another one where I am familiar with the terrain, provided the weather is very good. To me, this is safer than perhaps delaying to the next day if the weather is forecast to be marginal VFR, especially in the mountains.

My concern is that this regulation will prevent private pilots from getting the night rating at all, which will actually decrease safety if they inadvertently find themselves pushing the daylight. I have also found that even the minimal 10 hours of instrument time has been beneficial for day flight where I have had to make a 180 due to suddenly reduced visibility in smoke. It’s not something I planned for, but I’m glad I had the tools when it happened.

To me, the focus should be on training that helps a pilot evaluate the risks, rather than just saying it is too risky, so we won’t let you fly at night.

aving said that, in reading the regulations, they seem to be somewhat poorly thought out.

it's the canadian way, just look at the string of poorly thought out regulation such as approach bans and low vis procedures and FDT --

trey kule wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:06 am

Having said that, in reading the regulations, they seem to be somewhat poorly thought out.

That is my main beef about . The determination of what areas will fall under the rules and what will not (the subjective what has enough of a horizon and what does not) will be confusing and difficult to understand, and probably illogical. Keep in mind that these same people classify most of Alberta as “mountainous terrain”, so I don’t have a good feel that this part will be implemented reasonably.

I think this rule will discourage people from getting night ratings and the associated training, and make it harder for schools to offer it, so in the PPL world, more people will disregard the dangers of night flying, be more likely to do it without training, and ultimately be more hazardous for all.

The rule should be targeted more at commercial operators, but even then it’s a big hammer solution. As a 702 pilot, the rules negatively impact our capacity without really improving safety. I will end up filing IFR to do what I otherwise could VFR and all the extra issues that go along with that. I’m also not familiar as to what could be implemented in terms of the NVIS systems they suggest, though I can bet it won’t be cheap.

Ultimately, I think the rule perhaps should be aimed at and tailored towards 703, but as it stands does it seem to address specifics, so will more likely be needlessly restrictive. After all, TC really wants to improve passenger safety at the core of this issue.

I will end up filing IFR to do what I otherwise could VFR and all the extra issues that go along with that

Why would you go anywhere VFR - filing is not a big issue and if you are operating in uncontrolled airspace you need not file anything except an itinerary with a competent person.

I get it, fuel costs payload. I don't know where you are operating but minimum one way VFR fuel at night makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up but I'm from a different era. It's right up there with single engine night ops.

I could never understand the reluctance to go IFR, it's just as easy to file IFR as to file VFR.

Liquid_Charlie wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:21 pm

Why would you go anywhere VFR - filing is not a big issue and if you are operating in uncontrolled airspace you need not file anything except an itinerary with a competent person.

I get it, fuel costs payload. I don't know where you are operating but minimum one way VFR fuel at night makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up but I'm from a different era. It's right up there with single engine night ops.

I could never understand the reluctance to go IFR, it's just as easy to file IFR as to file VFR.

VFR just gives you more freedom to fly where you want, and that can sometimes make it safer, more comfortable, and quicker. I recently finally got my instrument rating revalidated and would like to get more IFR practice, but I'm finding that for most of my flying VFR makes more sense at this time of year.

I was recently flying into YYJ with a passenger IFR and things got a bit bumpy as we entered the bottom of some cumulus. I cancelled IFR, descended, and it was much more comfortable. I'm going to ZBB on Thursday, and if I flew IFR it would be 50% longer route, I'd be outside gliding distance of land on the RNAV 31 approach, and no doubt it would seriously piss everyone off by flying into that crazy busy airport IFR on a severe clear day.

The last few airports I've flown to haven't had instrument approaches, so flying IFR would just complicate things on a sunny day. Flying into Tofino the preferred IFR route on the way back isn't really great for passenger comfort due it putting you over the mountains.

As for fuel, I don't go anywhere without at least 1hr reserve.

Liquid_Charlie wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:21 pm

Why would you go anywhere VFR - filing is not a big issue and if you are operating in uncontrolled airspace you need not file anything except an itinerary with a competent person.

I get it, fuel costs payload. I don't know where you are operating but minimum one way VFR fuel at night makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up but I'm from a different era. It's right up there with single engine night ops.

I could never understand the reluctance to go IFR, it's just as easy to file IFR as to file VFR.

You maybe missed the first part of that section. It’s 702 work. I’m not reluctant to file IFR, I do that when I need to, but I do that when I regulation wise need to. Lots of time I just don’t want to be bound by the restrictions, and can be a lot more efficient if not so bound. I never leave fuel behind, since most times we’re looking at having as much endurance as I can go with. As the new changes are written, I will be forced in a lot of those instances to plan for and hold fuel needlessly.

It's right up there with single engine night ops.

And flying beyond gliding distance from land in a single engine wheel airplane.