I fly at night, but very rarely due to our rules not allowing NVFR. I would certainly feel a lot more comfortable with a chute, but still wouldn't do night cross water flights.
I have not yet made up my mind whether the chute would make enough of a difference..
I would definitely feel better about flying at night if I had a BRS chute.
Whether I would fly at night more than my presently negligible % is another matter. I rarely do it because
The risks of day vs. night are not much about engine failures. We mostly crash for other reasons both day and night.
As I see it, the extra risk at night comes from tiredness (evening after a day's work, or just late at night), from electrical failures (almost a bore during day VMC, very uncomfortable in darkness), from having fewer landing options should you suddenly need an alternative, from hitting something unlighted (terrain or obstruction), from losing control after unintentional IMC encounter (clouds can be virtually undetectable until it is too late at night), from visual illusions during approach and landing, and maybe from inadequate pre-flight due to cold and darkness (did you notice the missing fuel cap after fueling?).
The above list is not scientific, it is from memory and perception. But a US statistics tells that of a hundred fatal piston accidents at night, only two are from engine failures: one single engine and one twin. The conclusion about single vs twin in this survey was the same at night as it is in daylight: the number of engine does not play a detectable role in accident statistics.
I am rather certain that Big pistons Forever is unduly pessimistic about the risk ratio. Night VMC flying was found in the mentioned US survey to have about twice the risk of flying in the daylight. It could be different in Europe, but I think 25 times must come from some kind of misunderstanding. However, night IMC does seem to imply higher risks, one source say 4 times the accident rate of daylight VMC.
@Coolhand: Personally I am not comforted by a ballistic recovery system (night or day), but that is partly because of the flying characteristics of the Cirrus. It has very little aerodynamic feed-back in the side yoke and a significant break-out force, which does not seem to help in maintaining control. It also has relatively high stall speed, which is a challenge in an off-airport landing, and in the SR-22 the maximum speed for deployment of the CAPS (or BRS) is below fast cruise speed, limiting the usefulness of the BRS from the start.
HUV
The USA is the only country with enough GA so that you can see meaningful trends without small numbers potentially distorting the outcome for good or bad. I did not say 25 times the accident rate I said up to 25 times accidents with fatalities, that is IMO the worst possible conclusion after studying the data. I also specified non instrument rated PPL's in SE aircraft.
The challenge with all US data is there is no direct recording of flight hours. The estimate is that for non IF PPL's less then 5 % of all flying hours are at night yet 35 % of all fatal accidents occur during night flight. But the only real way to compare numbers is accidents per 100,000 flying hours and that number is hard to derive. The 25 times number came out of an attempt to compare like flights at night compared to the same trip during the say. Many large assumptions had to made to get a result.
However at the end of the day there is no doubt that for relatively inexperienced non IF rated pilots in SE aircraft night flight is many times more dangerous then the same flight during the day. I very willing to concede the exact magnitude of that extra danger is hard to quantify. I use the worst possible case 25 times number, to make my students pay attention and give night flying the respect it deserves.
A naive question, having done little of either:
I can see why night VMC would be more dangerous than day VMC, but I don't see why night IMC would be more so much more dangerous than day IMC.
People who inadvertently fly into IMC should be counted as VMC accidents, not IMC.
I did not say 25 times the accident rate I said up to 25 times accidents with fatalities, that is IMO the worst possible conclusion after studying the data. I also specified non instrument rated PPL's in SE aircraft
I can believe that night forced landing fatalities are much higher, but that's because they are very rare during the day.
The vast majority of people who force land (following an engine failure) walk away from it, and very few are injured.
Same with crashes on landing.
Also there are bound to be people who get into IMC at night and lose control - because it's so easy to do that. And virtually all those will be fatal.
I can see why night VMC would be more dangerous than day VMC, but I don't see why night IMC would be more so much more dangerous than day IMC.
I would guess that you have more working against you at night. If you get a power (electrics) failure, you have the extra dimension of having to sort out a cockpit light of some sort, otherwise (not being able to see the AI) you will be in a spiral dive pretty soon. No normal (IFR) plane is long term stable in roll.
Another thing is that, in IFR, there isn't much IMC I have done loads of (say) 20hr IFR trips on which instrument time logged was 10-20 minutes. Whereas if those trips were done at night, the instrument time (nothing visible out of the window) would have been 20hrs, so the exposure to things going wrong is much higher.
Also, in any fatal accident, nobody knows what the actual flight conditions were...
Otherwise, an instrument pilot flies just the same at night as during the day.
If you’re uncomfortable with SE night flying (like me) how would your view change if that SE was a turbine?
how would your view change if that SE was a turbine?>
It would all probably be happening faster! Yes, turbine engines have demonstrated better reliability than pistons, though I think that engine failure for "engine" type reasons is a very small percent of the problem.
Though I'm sure there are all kinds of statistics to throw at it. but I would think that the majority of accidents ( the the great risk) in night SE, is not the SE, but the inadequately trained and practiced pilot in the SE. I would venture that a lot of the crashes of SE aircraft during the night, were with the engine still developing power.
That leaves all the CFIT, failure to maintain attitude, poor navigation, and all the reasons we have heard so often as causes. If pilots get the training, maintain the skills, and keep fuel in the tanks, it's reasonably safe, and probably about equal to the turbine. I opine that owner/operators of SE turbine aircraft probably maintain a much more vigilant pilot currency than small pistons. That would make them appear more safe (okay, yes, BE more safe!) - but it was not really the aircraft type...
If you’re uncomfortable with SE night flying (like me) how would your view change if that SE was a turbine?
I would be a lot happier, because the stats for say a PT6 are 1 or 2 orders of magnitude better than any piston engine.
(I've cleaned up the double posting)
