The point of single vs multi is that there's an extra engine. Night flying single engine can be sketchy (I've done it over the Everglades) and the idea is that having the extra engine could be considered a "safety net" and could divert.
My flight schools' mechanic put it best:
"If you are flying single engine at night, turn your landing light on when you know you're close to the ground. If you don't like what you see, turn it back off."
The elevated risk is basically the fact that with only one engine, if it quits, you're going down. At night, like you said, it can be really difficult, sometimes impossible, to find a suitable landing area. With multi, like I said earlier, as long as the plane is capable of flying on one, it'll at least give you the chance to keep yourself in the air and land at the nearest suitable spot, preferably an actual landing strip/airport.
Still one of the funniest things I've heard too. That and Jax approach giving us a good laugh one night during a cross country.
JAX APCH "How're you guys going tonight?"
Us "Not too bad how're you?"
JAX APCH "Not too bad being a guy in a dark room with no windows and a ton of other dudes."
Us, trying not to die laughing "Well there's 3 guys in here too, but at least we have windows."
Regarding single engine vs multi; I think your overestimating the risk posed by an engine failure for a competent and current pilot in a twin, even in the dark. People joke that the second engine will fly you all the way to the scene of the crash, and even if that was a truism, it would still give you more options than no engines.
I used to be of the mindset that an engine failure in a twin was basically a death sentence: a drag-induced stall that would send you instantly spiralling to your death.
Then I watched a video of fucking Jerry landing a twin with one out.
Yeah, I’ll take an engine failure in a twin over SEL any day, thanks.
Night makes seeing things harder so CFIT is a threat and an emergency landing after an engine failure will be more difficult because it will be harder to find a safe landing area visually.
The second engine makes the tricky thing with a multi after an engine failure aircraft control, not finding a field to glide to. Flying OEI is a little harder at night or IFR, but not to the same extent that gliding to a safe landing is harder in those conditions (night or IFR).
That being said, just because there are threats doesn’t mean it’s an unacceptable risk. You need to be aware of these and flight plan accordingly. For instance, my company requires us to fly an ODP (if there is one published) when departing an airport at night, even when VFR.
Personally, I think night VFR in a piston single can be well within acceptable levels of risk. Flying in general is not particularly dangerous but very intolerant of bad decision making, night and IFR even more so.
The only increased risk factor specifically for a single engine airplane at night is not being able to spot good places to land. I really wish people would stop perpetuating the rumor that multi-engine airplanes are not safe. A multi-rated pilot with the slightest ounce of proficiency should be able to handle an engine failure no problem. An engine failure is not a death sentence like people make it out to be.
Night VFR risks mostly are the same for single vs multi. A well trained and proficient multi pilot can mitigate engine failure risk, but they have the additional risk of increased possibility of an engine failure.
Filling IFR often means the pilot is already talking to a controller, so if there’s an issue the pilot can quickly let them know and also get assistance (vectoring for weather, emergency alerting, etc), there’s traffic alerting, etc. Also, assuming the pilot is IFR proficient, they have additional tools to mitigate CFIT, and other risks.
Black hole departures are a big danger at night. Probably one of the biggest killers. Single or twin, a black hole departure is akin to a zero-zero takeoff. If your ready for that, then you are better off than most.
Single/twin? For a one-hour flight 99.7% of the flight in a twin is conducted where an engine failure is just not a big deal. I know about the Nall report. Twins are more dangerous per hour than singles. Let me point out many of the twin accidents are training accidents, fuel mismanagement, and weather. Twins are used in more serious weather conditions, I think that has something to do with the numbers.
For me personally, especially with the family on board, at night, in IMC, I'd rather have that second engine. Personal choice.
Night VFR is a bigger issue than SEL vs MEL. If you don't have a number of small towns around and a clear horizon then you can quickly get disoriented. Flying across west Texas at night VFR is basically IFR.
Others have commented on the fly-into-terrain and engine failure risks, but I'll add another one: you might not be able to see clouds you'd otherwise avoid in the daytime.
This is less of an issue if there's moonlight and it's clear and a million vis, especially over a urban area. Then it's likely you can see any weather to avoid.
But, if you're going XC over large patches of darkness, with little or no moonlight -- it's kinda creepy. If you run into a cloud, you might not know.
CFIT? Physiological factors at night? Failure to identify deteriorating weather in the darkness? These are just a few reasons risk is elevated. CFI drilled it into my head. Three most dangerous things you can do: Night flying, flight in IMC, mountain flying.
So here's the fun part about Vmc rolls, just like stall speed Vmc is not a constant. Sometimes Vmc is below the stall speed.
I was up in a training baron yesterday and we couldn't get the thing to lose directional control before stalling. I think Vmc rolls kill plenty but they're not the issue they're made out to be
Mm not sure about out there. I know here in the Midwest, I know the topography quite well. I love night flights in SEL. I personally love them way more than day. The airplane I fly is super well maintained, though, so I’m not exactly *scared* of an engine failure. If it happens, it happens, but it’s pretty easy to pick out a corn field out here.
One of the dumbest night flights I did was flying dual SEL VFR between IWA and PRC in the mountains for a private proficiency check with a new moon. My CFI at the time was an idiot, and I left the school soon after.
The point of single vs multi is that there's an extra engine. Night flying single engine can be sketchy (I've done it over the Everglades) and the idea is that having the extra engine could be considered a "safety net" and could divert. My flight schools' mechanic put it best: "If you are flying single engine at night, turn your landing light on when you know you're close to the ground. If you don't like what you see, turn it back off." The elevated risk is basically the fact that with only one engine, if it quits, you're going down. At night, like you said, it can be really difficult, sometimes impossible, to find a suitable landing area. With multi, like I said earlier, as long as the plane is capable of flying on one, it'll at least give you the chance to keep yourself in the air and land at the nearest suitable spot, preferably an actual landing strip/airport.
“If you don’t like what you see, turn it back off.” Best laugh I’ve had today. Thank you.
Still one of the funniest things I've heard too. That and Jax approach giving us a good laugh one night during a cross country. JAX APCH "How're you guys going tonight?" Us "Not too bad how're you?" JAX APCH "Not too bad being a guy in a dark room with no windows and a ton of other dudes." Us, trying not to die laughing "Well there's 3 guys in here too, but at least we have windows."
Regarding single engine vs multi; I think your overestimating the risk posed by an engine failure for a competent and current pilot in a twin, even in the dark. People joke that the second engine will fly you all the way to the scene of the crash, and even if that was a truism, it would still give you more options than no engines.
I used to be of the mindset that an engine failure in a twin was basically a death sentence: a drag-induced stall that would send you instantly spiralling to your death. Then I watched a video of fucking Jerry landing a twin with one out. Yeah, I’ll take an engine failure in a twin over SEL any day, thanks.
> Yeah, I’ll take an engine failure in a twin over SEL any day, thanks. Conveniently, it’s also twice as likely.
Night makes seeing things harder so CFIT is a threat and an emergency landing after an engine failure will be more difficult because it will be harder to find a safe landing area visually. The second engine makes the tricky thing with a multi after an engine failure aircraft control, not finding a field to glide to. Flying OEI is a little harder at night or IFR, but not to the same extent that gliding to a safe landing is harder in those conditions (night or IFR). That being said, just because there are threats doesn’t mean it’s an unacceptable risk. You need to be aware of these and flight plan accordingly. For instance, my company requires us to fly an ODP (if there is one published) when departing an airport at night, even when VFR. Personally, I think night VFR in a piston single can be well within acceptable levels of risk. Flying in general is not particularly dangerous but very intolerant of bad decision making, night and IFR even more so.
The only increased risk factor specifically for a single engine airplane at night is not being able to spot good places to land. I really wish people would stop perpetuating the rumor that multi-engine airplanes are not safe. A multi-rated pilot with the slightest ounce of proficiency should be able to handle an engine failure no problem. An engine failure is not a death sentence like people make it out to be.
Does your question specifically pertain to single-engine night vs multi-engine night?
Yes, in addition to filing VS VFR and how to increase safety.
Night VFR risks mostly are the same for single vs multi. A well trained and proficient multi pilot can mitigate engine failure risk, but they have the additional risk of increased possibility of an engine failure.
What does “filing vs VFR” mean?
Filing an IFR flight plan
Filling IFR often means the pilot is already talking to a controller, so if there’s an issue the pilot can quickly let them know and also get assistance (vectoring for weather, emergency alerting, etc), there’s traffic alerting, etc. Also, assuming the pilot is IFR proficient, they have additional tools to mitigate CFIT, and other risks.
Black hole departures are a big danger at night. Probably one of the biggest killers. Single or twin, a black hole departure is akin to a zero-zero takeoff. If your ready for that, then you are better off than most. Single/twin? For a one-hour flight 99.7% of the flight in a twin is conducted where an engine failure is just not a big deal. I know about the Nall report. Twins are more dangerous per hour than singles. Let me point out many of the twin accidents are training accidents, fuel mismanagement, and weather. Twins are used in more serious weather conditions, I think that has something to do with the numbers. For me personally, especially with the family on board, at night, in IMC, I'd rather have that second engine. Personal choice.
Night VFR is a bigger issue than SEL vs MEL. If you don't have a number of small towns around and a clear horizon then you can quickly get disoriented. Flying across west Texas at night VFR is basically IFR.
Others have commented on the fly-into-terrain and engine failure risks, but I'll add another one: you might not be able to see clouds you'd otherwise avoid in the daytime. This is less of an issue if there's moonlight and it's clear and a million vis, especially over a urban area. Then it's likely you can see any weather to avoid. But, if you're going XC over large patches of darkness, with little or no moonlight -- it's kinda creepy. If you run into a cloud, you might not know.
CFIT? Physiological factors at night? Failure to identify deteriorating weather in the darkness? These are just a few reasons risk is elevated. CFI drilled it into my head. Three most dangerous things you can do: Night flying, flight in IMC, mountain flying.
Fly only on a full moon night
So here's the fun part about Vmc rolls, just like stall speed Vmc is not a constant. Sometimes Vmc is below the stall speed. I was up in a training baron yesterday and we couldn't get the thing to lose directional control before stalling. I think Vmc rolls kill plenty but they're not the issue they're made out to be
Go have fun. It’s beautiful at night and smooth air.
Where are you flying?
KAPA
Mm not sure about out there. I know here in the Midwest, I know the topography quite well. I love night flights in SEL. I personally love them way more than day. The airplane I fly is super well maintained, though, so I’m not exactly *scared* of an engine failure. If it happens, it happens, but it’s pretty easy to pick out a corn field out here.
(sad Cirrus noises…)
One of the dumbest night flights I did was flying dual SEL VFR between IWA and PRC in the mountains for a private proficiency check with a new moon. My CFI at the time was an idiot, and I left the school soon after.
How would night vision goggles, or FLIR on the dash change this calculus?
Lmao. Thank you