VFR flight on-top

[Krallu]

Hello.

Somebody knowing the rules for on-top VFR flying with the new JAR rules?

According to the old rules in Sweden there was 150 hours total to have before allowed to fly on-top. But now the JAR rules doesn't have any such rule. Is it the old rules that are in charge then or aren't there any rquirements for flying on-top VFR now any longer?

Thanks!

[topcat450]

If sweden is the same as the UK...VFR on top is a no-no without either an IMC (UK only rating) or IR.

The normall PPL restricts you to being 'within sight of the surface'...you may have some grandfather rights in your particular country but under JAA - I wouldn't count on it.

[Krallu]

Hi!

Ok. But in Sweden according to the old rules you are allowed to fly on-top if you have total 150 hours and if the clouds is below BKN at start aerodrome and destination.

But now with the new rules its a bit confusing. Because the new rules doesn't say anything about on-top. So is it then allowed without the 150 hours or is the old rules still the one to be followed or is on-top completly forbidden?

[topcat450]

I would assume it's forbidden unless the swedish CAA have specifically said you can ...as with a regular JAA licence you can't fly VFR on-top, so if your licence is now a JAA one, you probably can't. It maybe worthwhile getting a final yes or no from your authority themselves.

[david viewing]

As someone who flies in UK and US this interests me. Although VFR on top is standard for a US PPL, I can't do it in the US because of my restrictive UK licence despite having completed a US BFR and having an FAA reciprocal licence. So I wonder if anyone can answer these questions that arise:

1) Is there any good reason for this restriction in the UK (or JAA) when the same is considered acceptable in the much more rugged USA?

2) Is VFR on top in the UK defined in terms of cloud cover? Is flying above the merest wisp of cloud considered 'on top'? what about scattered or broken conditions when the ground is clearly visible below?

3) If I get a stand alone FAA PPL, can I use it to legally fly 'on top' in UK?

Sorry there's no Swedish connotation.
David.

[jezbowman]

From what I understand you're still in sight of the surface while above no more that 4/8 cloud.

I thought the French are still allowed to do VFR on top so their licenses must read differently (i.e. no "in sight of the surface" phrase).

Krallu - what does your license say in the privilages or limtations section? Or perhaps you could check out the Swedish Avaiation Authority website?

Why we don't allow it here - don't really know. But my thinking is it's a really bad idea anyway without a IR or IMC. What if the cloud base thickens and you cannot find a way through? Or you return to a position where is was okay but now isn't? You're forced into IMC, breaking the privs of the licesnse.

And in a country the size of the UK with so much CAS you need to be really careful when ontop to avoid busting it, probably not such a problem in the US or France, hence why they allow it.

And before someone makes the argument that your less likely to bust CAS on radio nav, think about the amount of training the average PPL gets on radio nav!

Get an IMC or IR and be safe! (I have neither and wouldn't DREAM of flying on top! Starting my IMC rating this winter though....)

[FlyingForFun]

Legally, my understanding is that you must be "in sight of the surface". That means that if the clouds are 7/8s you're still legal, as long as you can see the surface. Of course, this doesn't mean that it's safe or sensible, just legal.

As for why, I think it's quite unusual, in the UK at least, to find the kind of weather where VFR on top is likely to be useful - it would be quite rare to find weather where you could get on top of the clouds, and get back down below them again, safely. On the other hand, in other countries I can image fly across a range of mountains where you can safely get to, say, 10 or 12 thousand feet well before the mountains, fly over the top of the mountain clouds out of sight of the surface, and descend on the other side. I don't believe the UK PPL syllabus includes enough radio nav work to be able to fly out of sight of the surface safely, but this could easilly be changed if the authorities wanted to do so.

Now, a question: is the "in sight of the surface" rule a restriction on my license, or a restriction as part of VFR? Put another way, if I have an IMC rating, can I legally fly VFR on top?

One case where this might be useful would be if I'd flown IFR to get on top of the clouds, but then the airspace didn't allow me to follow the quadrant rule (which I must follow if I'm IFR above 3000'). Another would be if I was flying an aircraft which is not certified for IFR flight - could I fly that aircraft VFR-on-top?

FFF
--------------

[Flyin'Dutch']

With a vanilla PPL you can not fly other than in direct view of the surface. Full stop.

If such is allowed on a FAA PPL in the USA (which I doubt but will look in the FAR/AIM as soon as I get home) you would still not be allowed to do this in the UK, just as a French PPL would not be allowed to do it here or a UK PPL over in France.

You will either need an IMC rating in the UK or an IR elswhere.

I don't think there is a sharp definition with regard to the amount of cloudcover you can fly over and still claim to be in sight of the surface.

As with so many things, there is no policeman on the corner of every cloud, but be prepared to have your case ready if things go to pot.

FD

[Keef]

As I understand it, there are differences between ICAO CAA JAA and France as regards VFR on top.

I know three definitive rules:
A French PPL can fly VFR on top (but has to get up and down in VMC).
In the UK, you need an IMC rating or an IR to fly VFR on top. A UK PPL is bound by that rule outside the UK - so can't fly VFR on top in France without an IR (IMC not being valid there).
In the US, you need an IR to fly VFR on top.

I don't know if Sweden has filed any "differences" from ICAO or from JAA: the only definitive way to find out is to ask!

It might be in the SE-AIP (maybe that's on the Net somewhere).

For the definitive answer, I'd ask bookworm or 2Ds.

[DFC]

The holder of a JAA PPL can fly VFR.

Flying VFR requires the pilot to remain in Visual Met Conditions (VMC).

Provided that the country where the pilot is flying considers flight above overcast cloud to be in VMC then it is legal for that pilot to fly in such circumstances.

When flying VFR on top, the weather must be such that the pilot can navigate accurately as well as descend to land;

a) At the destination

b) At any time in an aircraft should an engine failure require descent.

Thus in a single engine aircraft, and JAA PPL, flying above 8/8 Overcast cloud cover would only be legal up to the point where the engine failed and flight in IMC became imminent.

This is different to flying across water in a single engine because ditching is perfectly legal. Flying through cloud without an IR (IMC in UK) is never legal.

I have not mentioned specific countries since the JAA rules are the same in every country provided that a JAA licence (not any form of national licence old or new) is held. However, remember that while licencing rules may be harmonised, VMC criteria are not.

Regards,

DFC

[Keef]

david viewing

Sorry - didn't read your post carefully enough.

An unrestricted FAA PPL does NOT allow you to fly VFR on top. For that, you need an IR. That very question came up, both in my FAA IR written, and in the oral during the checkride. A "VFR on top" clearance is an IFR clearance, but without all the restrictions that apply to flight in IMC.

The way the US "reciprocal" PPL works is that you are governed by the more restrictive of the FAA rules or the rules that apply to your home licence. That means, mostly, that the CAA rules are the definitive ones.

My understanding of "VFR on top" is that you can't see underneath from where you are now, and couldn't get back down there in VMC right now. There's bound to be a far better definition in one of the books!

[jezbowman]

Flying through cloud without an IR (IMC in UK) is never legal.

Come to think of it, surely a forced landing is breaking the law as you don't have the land owners permission. In a Mayday (EF)situation you do whatever it takes to save life and limb. The donkey stops and you've no choice but to go through IMC - who cares about the paperwork at that stage? I don't think it's a reason not to go VFR on top though. All PPL's do some IMC traning for 'Emergency Use' only.

Thus in a single engine aircraft, and JAA PPL, flying above 8/8 Overcast cloud cover would only be legal up to the point where the engine failed and flight in IMC became imminent.

Apart from the fact he has to stay 'in sight of the surface' so he'd breaking the conditions of his license long before then.

BTW, my 4/8 came from the ICAO definition of a 'cloud base'. Not saying that is or isn't classed as the 'on top' but I guess the 'on top' may be 'on top of the clouds' as in 'above the cloud base'.

Dunno really...

[mm_flynn]

I took a look at the AIM for FAA basic PPL licence to see what it says on VFR minimums. From the extract below VFR flight above a cloud deck is legal so long as you are 1000 feet above the cloud deck.

"VFR on top" as a clearance is actually an IFR clearance (i.e. your IFR flight plan remains active but you have more flexibility to select your altitude - a bit like a "Contact Approach" which is an IFR approach (ATC seperation) but in visual conditions not flying the published procedure.


FROM THE AIM - Basic VFR Weather Minimums Airspace Flight Visibility Distance from Clouds

Class C
3 statute miles
500 feet below
1,000 feet above
2,000 feet horizontal

Class D
3 statute miles
500 feet below
1,000 feet above
2,000 feet horizontal

Class E
Less than 10,000 feet MSL
3 statute miles
500 feet below
1,000 feet above
2,000 feet horizontal

[A and C]

Lets not invent any more rules ........." in sight of the surface" means just that !.

IE ............you can see the surface , there are no rules about how much cloud cover there is you just have to see the surface, simple but effective.

I just wanted to get that clear before some one from the JAA thinks that putting a cloud cover limit on this rule is a good idea.

[Keef]

mm_flynn

VFR on top, in the US, is an IFR clearance. To fly on an IFR clearance, you must hold an instrument rating.

Similarly a "contact approach" - read the details of the definition! You absolutely cannot legally fly one of those on a VFR licence: the visibility is way below VFR minima. It wouldn't be a contact approach otherwise.

The 1000 feet vertically from cloud is fine if it's one cloud and/or you can see round it. Above an overcast (or mostly overcast) layer, you are not legal without an IR.

[mm_flynn]

Keef,

I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is that in the US "VFR on Top" is a specific type of IFR clearance (and you need PPL/IR to file and fly any IFR clearance).

However, in the US I belive it is perfectly legal to fly VFR without a PPL/IR above a cloud deck. Certainly when I was trained it was one of those "legal but not a good idea" items. In fact a decade ago flying VFR (i.e. not on an IFR clearance) above cloud decks and finding no hole was a prime reason for people air filing IFR flight plans to get back down (legal VFR flight above clouds - but not dumb because you can always file IFR flightplan and shoot the approach).

If there is a reg that prohibits flying VFR above a cloud deck (in the US on an FAA PPL) I would be very interested to know about it

[Keef]

There is, in the USA, another definition, called "VFR over the top." There are many opinions about what it is and who may do it and when, but I've not been able to find it in the FAR/AIM (except in §135, which isn't relevant to us). When I've asked CFIIs about it, I've not got a straight answer.

If you want an opinion that it's OK to fly VFR over a solid cloud deck, provided you can get up (and down again) in VMC the whole way then try quoting http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec.aviation.piloting/11/msg11404.htm
and don't blame me if it all goes sour!

There is a Canadian rating called a "VFR over the top" rating, which is a bit like a UK IMC rating - ie valid for a specific purpose and only in the country of issue. I don't know if the USA allows C-reg aircraft to use it in the US.

[DFC]

I hold a JAA licence.

There are no restrictions on that licence with regard to VMC minima.

I fly on a regular basis in UK, Ireland, France, Belgium and Holland.

When specifying VMC criteria, none of the above countries make any reference to a requirement to be in sight of the surface EXCEPT in the lower airspace 3000ft/1000ft ASFC where there is a requirement for flights to be operated in sight of the surface.

Thus taking Class G. I can be VMC in all the above countries at FL65, 140Kt provided that I remain 1000ft above all cloud and in a flight visibility of 5Km. That is it.

When dealing with VMC minima, I note that in the UK, UK PPLs and BCPLs have further requirements laid down in schedule 8 of the ANO which may be more stringent than the VMC minima.

I don't have a UK licence, thus those more stringent requirements do not apply to me when flying in the UK.

As to landing in a farmers field........well as far as I am aware, that is standard practice for engine failures which require an immediate landing. The farmer is however entitled to sue for compensation as a result.

To look at the situation slightly differently, imagine a twin which has a single engine ceiling of 4000ft flying in VMC at FL85 above a overcast cloud cover base 1000, tops 6000ft........the aircraft does not have to land following an engine failure but it does have to descend to 4000ft. Thus the pilot without IR (IMC in the UK) will be forced to fly illegally and outside their ability in the event of an engine failure.

How many VFR pilots who fly twins are trained for flight in icing conditions????

So basically as far as I am aware VMC on top for a JAA licence holder is legal.......but not good airmanship unless the pilot can cope with IMC flight legally.

Of course another advantage for me is that I can get a special VFR clearance in the UK in a visibility of 3Km without the requirement to hold an IMC rating......another restriction placed on UK licence holders without IMC!!!

I always thought that harmonisation would result in a situation where a JAA PPL has the same privileges regardless of country of issue.......seems that UK PPLs are getting a raw deal compared to foreign visitors!

Regards,

DFC

[2Donkeys]

Most of the bits of the right answer are here, but scattered between lots of posts.

Before dealing with the US, the general JAR position is this.

A JAR PPL may fly under VFR only. However in most JAA countries, the defintion of VMC includes flying above a solid layer. This means that a flight can be VFR and above a layer providing it is separated adequately from cloud. This in turn means that a non-IR JAR PPL is ordinarily allowed to fly above a covered layer.


The UK blurs the issue in a number of respects. For example a basic JAR PPL may fly IFR in the UK, outside controlled airspace, and providing it is done in VMC. The most relevant factor to this discussion though is that the UK has added an additional restriction to its implementation of the JAR PPL. A PPL holder without an IMC rating or an IR must always fly in sight of the surface. This means that in addition to flying in accordance with VFR (which even in the UK permits flight above a covered layer), a UK JAA PPL must be in sight of the surface. If they hold an IMC or IR, this restriction is dropped, and they may then enjoy the full privileges that other JAA PPL holders enjoy.


Now we come to the US.

There are two terms in use in the US. VFR-on-Top and VFR-over-the-Top.

What we are discussing here is VFR-over-the-Top. In FAA terms, this means a flight which is being conducted under VFR, and which happens to be flying over a solid layer of cloud. This is no problem for an FAA PPL, since like the normal JAA PPL, an FAA PPL must simply comply with VFR (the rules), and the US definition of VMC permits flight above a covered layer.

VFR-on-Top in the US is something different. This specific phrase is used to describe a form of IFR clearance, hence the confusion. Imagine an IFR finds itself flying along above a solid layer in otherwise wonderful conditions. If it sticks to IFR, it will constrained to fly at an IFR level, and may well be subject to routing constraints. If it requests a "VFR-on-Top" clearance, it may fly at any appropriate VFR level (being semi+500) so long as it complies with cloud separation requirements, but it continues to be under an IFR clearance, with the benefits that entails. When it is ready to come down through the cloud, it informs the controller, who descends it back into the conventional IFR system. To request and obtain a VFR-on-Top clearnce, an FAA PPL must hold an IR.

Hope this helps

2Donkeys

[Keef]

Thanks, 2D.

One more bit for DFC:

Special VFR "implementation" varies by country. In the UK, you can't accept a Special VFR clearance in less than 10nm vis unless you hold an IMC rating or an IR.

With those, it's down to 3nm.

[jezbowman]

Just to throw in another spanner....

I just pulled out my Air Law book. In it are two "Weather Minima" charts - one for the UK PPL and one for the JAA PPL.

I have a JAR PPL.

I'm looking at the chart labeled "WEATHER MINIMA - for a JAR PPL holder WITHOUT IMC or Instrument Rating".

Classes F - G:

Below 3000ft AMSL - 140kts or less: 3km vis, clear of cloud, in sight of the surface OR above 140kts 5km, clear of cloud, in sight of the surface.

Above 3000ft AMSL - 5km vis, 1000ft vertically from cloud, 1500m from cloud at the same height. Above FL100 dito but 8km vis.

My point being ABOVE 3000FT THERE IS NO "IN SIGHT OF THE SURFACE" PHRASE. Probably just a mistake in the picture...

But I'd read that as "you can lose sight of the surface above 3000ft and remain in VMC legally".

Not that I would want to, however....

AND - at the bottom of the UK PPL diagram there are big letters that overule the whole page - "MUST STAY IN SIGHT OF THE SURFACE AT ALL TIMES".

(BTW, it's pages 112 & 115 of Jeremy Pratts "Air Law and Ops" for those interested)

[Keef]

Isn't the "always in sight of surface" a UK notified "difference" to the ICAO definition of VFR/VMC? Hence not included in your "licence" rules, but in the "airspace" rules?

Not sure what that means to a JAA PPL holder, licence issued in the UK, when flying in countries where VFR above cloud is allowed. I suspect that, in reality, nobody will care. The French won't mind because their PPLs are allowed to do it, and the CAA won't know if you're doing it in France...

[englishal]

This is my interpretation....

As others have mentioned, VFR over the top is perfectly legal for an FAA PPL ...but also a restricted FAA PPL (issued on basis of JAA licence) who holds a UK IMC rating, as they are no longer restricted to "in sight of the surface". The "in sight of the surface" thing is detailed in the ANO, and as each JAA member country (and the FAA in the FARS) has their own equivalent of the ANO, then these rules apply. For example the French PPL is allowed to fly VFR-Over-the-top as their ANO doesn't restrict them to "in sight of the surface" as far as I can work out.....

So theoretically a UK PPL holder can exercise the privileges of their licence abroad but must comply with either the local ANO or the UK ANO (whichever is more stringent). Now my interpretation of this is that a UK PPL IMC holder, who is excempt from the "in sight of the surface" paragraph of the ANO, can now legally fly VFROTT in France and elsewhere.....

Cheers
EA:D

[2Donkeys]

jesbowman

Forget Jeremy Pratt. The UK ANO determines the rules relating to UK JAR PPLs. That document places the "in sight of surface" restriction on a PPL. [Schedule 8 Section 1 c(iii) for UK PPLs and Section 2 2b(iii) for UK-issued JAR PPLs]

Keef

No. UK VFR is basically the same as everybody else with only slightly different numbers, and most importantly it includes the ability to fly above a solid layer (or out of sight of surface if you prefer). It is a *licence* restriction as cited above, not some variation in the definition of VMC that gives rise to this conversation.

This is why, regardless of the slightly different definitions of VMC across Europe, the UK JAR PPL holder must always fly in sight of the surface.

[IO540]

Englishal & Keef

Now my interpretation of this is that a UK PPL IMC holder, who is excempt from the "in sight of the surface" paragraph of the ANO, can now legally fly VFROTT in France

I have it in writing from the CAA that a CAA-issued PPL holder, with an IMC Rating, who is therefore no longer bound to fly within sight of the surface in the UK, is also not bound by this rule worldwide. They told me that provided the DGAC does not mind, the CAA does no mind you flying above a solid layer in France. This is true even though the IMC Rating itself is not valid outside the UK.

I don't know the DGAC position but on similar issues their past response has been along the lines of "if the CAA don't mind, we don't mind".

This is very useful in practice because when flying between the UK and somewhere reasonably south in France, one usually flies from bad weather into good weather, and an IMCR pilot can do an IFR departure/IAP in the UK but cannot legally do one (but perhaps does not need to do one) in France.

Someone asked if one can fly "VFR" in the UK above a solid layer. The answer, AFAIK, is Yes, but you need at least the IMCR to be legal. This is a fairly pointless thing to do however because if instead you call yourself "IFR" you are far more likely to get an RIS, with handovers etc !

[GRP]

I'm sure we had this discussion recently in "another place". My view is that two separate things happen when you get an IMC rating on your JAA PPL. One is that you exempt yourself from the clause in your license that says you may not fly out of sight of the surface. The second is that you gain the right to fly IFR in visibility down to zero in anything up to Class B airspace within UK airspace. The second right is not one that the CAA can bestow upon you outside UK airspace.

Oddly I also think that the same cannot be said of a UK CAA PPL and an IMC rating but I can't help but suspect that that is a drafting error in the ANO.

[IO540]

AIUI the way pilot licensing works, worldwide, is that your privileges are valid worldwide unless otherwise limited, but they can also be limited by the country in whose airspace you are flying in, by the aircraft equipment etc.

Any license restrictions also apply worldwide.

So the CAA could have made the IMCR valid anywhere, but it would not have done them any good because nobody else recognises it (as a whole)....

The apparent ability for a PPL+IMCR UK pilot to fly above the layer in France is very useful nevertheless.

[2Donkeys]

This business of the international validity of the IMC rating for flight "on top" is something of a recurring theme.

The fact is that the rules are drawn up ambiguously.

Schedule 8 of the ANO (which defines the scope of the IMC) makes it quite clear that it does not apply outside the UK. No ifs or buts. In fact, the licence is not an ICAO-recognised licence, which means that nobody has to recognise it outside the UK. As it happens, in the pre-JAR past, some states did go some of the way. For example, in Germany, there is/was a thing called a Controlled VFR rating which allowed VFR pilots to fly in Controlled VFR Zones established around certain big airports. An IMC rating holder was treated as having the equivalent of a CVFR rating. This in no way recognised any of the UK privileges of the IMC rating, it simply recognised that a certain level of flying competence had been reached.

So that is Schedule 8, the rating's legal definition, which unambiguously ties the IMC rating to UK airspace only. However contradicting this, and also in Schedule 8, is the original restriction on flight out of sight of the surface. Here, the restriction exists unless the pilot has an IMC rating or an IR. No geographical bounds are mentioned.

Reading the two together, it is possible to draw either conclusion and have a reasonable argument on your side. When in doubt, I favour a more restrictive interpretation because I suspect that this is what an insurer might attempt to do, if you, your aircraft, or especially your litigious passengers ever came to harm during a flight conducted "on top", in France with nowt but an IMC rating.

What I think we can probably agree on is that whatever the legal wrongs or rights, you would need to be pretty dumb to put yourself in a position where in foreign airspace, you fly above significant and sustained cloud without the means legally to descend through it to land, should the need arise. This is not a legalistic point though, purely a practical airmanship one.

It is all very well picking holes in poor legal drafting, but for me, this misses the point. Airmanship first, legal sophistry and CYA open-ended letters from the CAA afterwards.


French non-IR PPLs are actively discouraged from using this "privilege", as are FAA PPLs at many flightschools. There is a reason for this.

[dublinpilot]

Is this restriction on your licence or in your ANO?

If it's on your licence then it applies to you as an individual, irrespective of what the UK ANO says, or the ANO of any country that you are flying in, and is always valid.

If it's in the ANO, then it applies to everyone in the UK, irrespective of where there licence was issued in. This is because everyone flying in UK airspace must comply with the UK ANO. However it would also apply to UK licence holders irrespective of where they were flying as they must comply with the UK ANO at all times, irrespective of what country they are operating in.

dp

[2Donkeys]

Is this restriction on your licence or in your ANO?

Without wishing to be rude DP, that is a meaningless question and the analysis that follows it is flawed.

When the UK CAA grants you a JAA PPL, it grants you a document, the privileges of which are defined within the UK ANO.

The restrictions are associatd with the licence, and the ANO defines what they are. When you fly outside the UK, the UK ANO continues to apply to you and your licence. This is called the Extraterritorial effect, and is defined explicitly in Article 123 of the order.

Once you fly abroad, not only do those restrictions apply, but so do the rules and restrictions relating to the country you find yourself in. Where the two regulations conflict, the more restrictive applies to you, ensuring that at all times, you fly within the limits of your licence. For example in France, the law says that to file IFR, you must hold an IR regardless of the weather conditions. This is not the case in the UK, but you must now respect that restriction too.

If a Frenchman comes to the UK, the chances are that he too will hold a JAA PPL - but this one will presumably have been issued in France. French Air Law places no "in sight of surface" restriction on the PPL holder. It simply says that he must comply with VFR. In the UK VFR permits flight out of sight of the surface, so the Frenchman with his French-issued JAA PPL can fly out of sight of the surface in the UK.

Two apparently identical licences, that contain different smallprint that applies to their holders, wherever they fly.

I hope this helps. It is a tough subject area.

[dexter256]

Part 2, section V of the Air Navigation Order, (Civil Aviation Publication 393) clearly defines the requirements in its jurisdiction of the Visual Flight Rules.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF

[CSX001]

Now there's a useful post dexter256. What do you want us to do with that lot? It would have been better if you'd posted the right bits of schedule 8. I think we already know that the definition of VFR in blighty allows us to fly above the clouds.

dublinpilot! Are you causing trouble again? I thought we'd got you straightened out after our last chat about Night VFR in Irish Airspace - and now you're back for more.

Charlie
x

[dexter256]

Perhaps I am blind, but it seems to say nothing about being required to fly within sight of the surface under rule 25 for flying in class B airspace. The Licensing Division of the CAA reopens in 45 minutes, I shall telephone to enquire about this.

Insomuch as the original question is concerned, it is the responsibility of National Regulations which dictate what rules must be followed in each of the JAA Member States.

The NPA (equiv. to FAA NPRM) regarding JAR-OPS(2) and (4) [Corporate and Aerial Work, respectively] is the latest bunch of [proposed (and accepted by all Member States)] regulations to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps you could explain what 'new' JARs you are looking at?

The EASA has taken authority of the Civil Aviation Authority for the United Kingdom, but sadly comprises only one staff member (a Director) at the time being. I am not aware of which other Member States have done the same, perhaps there is room for a brief comment from the readers on this? It will be at least another 6 months before the EASA begins to swing its lead as far as it concerns the UK, but until such a time the aforementioned ANO extraction is the ultimate source of the National Regulations in the UK and shall continue to be for the foreseeable future.

CSX001, you may or may not be aware that Schedule 8 deals with the licences ratings and qualifications of flight crew. How is that regulatory in terms of VFR for the sake of VFRs alone?

[CSX001]

Is it Friday already Dexter :-))


Perhaps I am blind, but it seems to say nothing about being required to fly within sight of the surface under rule 25 for flying in class B airspace. The Licensing Division of the CAA reopens in 45 minutes, I shall telephone to enquire about this.

Good luck. They will read schedule 8 to you, just a 2 donks did, and then you too will see that a JAA PPL issued in the uk must fly in sight of the surface unless he has an IR or IMC. It applies to those PPLs wherever they fly, article 123 and all that.

This has no bearing on the uk's definition of VFR, VMC or indeed any other country's. We already know that under VFR a flight can usually fly out of sight of the surface in most countries, and the uk is no exception.

As for class B airspace, that is a good'un. Do you fly in the uk much? I'd guess not :D Which class B do you fly in :rolleyes:

[2Donkeys]

:D:D:D:D:D:D

Only 18 minutes to go. I can hardly wait.

[dexter256]

I've never flown VFR in UK Bravo airspace (still UIR to the best of my knowledge, FL245-660?).

Yes I appreciate your mentioning of schedule 8, but what you can do with a licence and what you can do under VFR are completely separate, save where further restrictions are placed upon certain licence holders. As far as rule 25 etc goes, it is my understanding that no other conditions exist which permit the normal lawful operation of a VFR flight.

[CSX001]

I think we should be nice to you dexter because you are obviously trying to be helpful, and English doesn't appear to be your first language. Nobody with even a nodding familiarity with the UK airspace system would have mentioned class B in the way that you did.

Why don't you re-read what has been posted before by people like keef, englishal and 2 donks. They talk a lot of sense, they have produced the right answer, and you are not really adding to that.

Sorry to be a a bit cruel, but you know what they say...

Love

Charlie

x

[david viewing]

Most illuminating discussion! I've flown VFR for 25 years in the US on a UK reciprocal licence and this is the first time the nuance of 'VFR on top' vs. 'VFR over the top' has come to my attention!

But my original question was about the case where a pilot has more than one national licence. It seems from the foregoing that if I have an FAA private certificate I can fly 'over the top' in the US and also in the UK because UK law dosesn't prohibit it. But what if I happen co-incidentally to have a UK PPL?

Which rules apply then? If it is the most restrictive, then collecting extra licences could be tricky. For instance, the Canadian licence test requires me to know the difference between a moose and a caribou at 1500ft (or something like that). I am sure that every licence has insidious little quirks or restrictions that are not in the others.

And what of medicals? If a pilot obtains an FAA licence because he can't meet the medical requirements of JAR, but still has an (invalid) JAR licence, what then?

Sorry to go on about this

David

[CSX001]

Hi Dave

Let us assume that you have standalone licences. This means that you got your FAA PPL by sitting the exams and doing the checkride, and not simply on the back of your UK licence.

In this case, when you take to the air, you have to decide which licence you are going to be relying on. If it is the FAA PPL, the you need to obey all of the restrictions on that. If it is the JAA/CAA PPL, then the same applies. As a result, if you want to take to the air in the UK, and fly on the FAA PPL, then you can fly above a covered layer, even without an IMC rating. Try and fly in a G-reg plane outside the UK, and the FAA PPL is invalid, and you will be forced to rely on your JAA licence with its limitations.

If your FAA licence is issued on the basis of the UK licence, this does not apply. This is because your FAA licence is endorsed that you must "comply with the limitations of your underlying licence". That would include not flying VFR "over the top".

Charlie

x

[dexter256]

David, you should forgive me if the foregoing makes no sense, since apparently our community psychics have decreed that English is not my first tongue. (Incidentally English is a dialect, not in fact a language.)

It's all very simple. CAP393 (link is a few posts above) shows you the rules of the air in the UK. Since you're interested in VFR flying, then rules 24 though 27 inclusive are the only rules you need concern yourself with. The _privileges_ are found in Schedule 8 of the ANO. _Visual Flight Rules_ in section V of section 2 of the aforementioned CAP. The VFRs apply to all civilian aircraft in the UK. Whatever _privileges_ you are granted by an FAA PPL must not be exercised if they are not permitted by rules 24 through 27 inclusive.

[Free translation to Gaelic and Finnish available upon request.]

[dublinpilot]

2D's

I don't disagree with anything you have said. The reason I was trying to draw a distintsion between the restriction being in the ANO or written into the privilages on a UK issued licence is this.

I have a JAA licence issued by the IAA. It does not contain any similar restriction. Therefore if the restriction was only written in your licences, then I could legally fly in the UK, VFR over a cloud base. I would be complying with the previlages of my licence, complying with the Irish air law(I think!), and complying with the UK ANO. However someone with a UK issued licence also flying in the UK, could not.

Seems a bit harsh on UK licence holders if that was the case.

The reason I say "I think" I would be complying with Irish law is because when I was doing my PPL course, as similar thread to this was on pprune. I asked my instructor what the position was in Ireland, and he told me that it was absolutely not allowed. A conversation last week with an instructor told me that it was most definately allowed, above 3000ft. So a little reading last Sunday evening, and I couldn't find any restriction in Irish legisation, so I'm inclinded to agree with him, that it is allowed here.

CSX001....
Now did you have to go and rub it in?:O

Well at least I learn't something from that thread, and I'm not afraid to admit it. Thanks;) Though it's made me think twice about whether to bother doing the night rating now! Seems a little pointless.

dp
x

[shortstripper]

No wonder lawyers can drag a case on for months :hmm:

How can a bunch of flyers drag a subject to death like this? ... really, go get jobs selling cheap cars for a fortune by persauding people they're better than Rolls Royce. There's obviously plenty of talent for that kind of thing! :rolleyes:

IM

[IO540]

The real problem, IMHO, is the ambiguity of the legislation, the unwillingness of the CAA (and its foreign equivalents) to commit itself on certain subjects, and (fortunately!) the lack of case law.

The last one is due to lack of appropriate accidents, presumably, because one is unlikely to get caught while in the air, and when one has hit the ground one is no longer VFR on top :O

Lots of IMC Rated pilots have flown airways (Class A) in the UK, France, Spain and elsewhere. If you know the rules (which you won't from bog-standard IMCR training done by an instructor who has only got the IMCR himself and probably got even that as a grandfather right 25 years ago) and sound good on the radio, and have a fairly serious plane, nobody is likely to question it. I've been abroad quite a number of times this year and not had even my passport looked at, ever, anywhere.

Most instructors don't have a clue either about these esoteric issues so how are PPLs supposed to know chapter and verse?

[dexter256]

What's the CAA's motivation for being so chronically hung over on the issue of instructors not knowing their stuff, tam facti quam animi (I don't speak English)?

[DFC]

Forget the ANO......it was written by lawyers for lawyers. There is no need to ever read the ANO and the majority of pilots operating in UK airspace on a day to day basis will never have opened the document.

What is required however, is that every pilot reads the AIP which every pilot must read and understand before flight. If there are any differences from the ICAO International Standards then they will be in the AIP.

IMHO, this important point is where many training organisations (and pilots) fall down. Consequently, in general PPLs have great local knowledge of the home country rules but not a clue of the correct way to find the rules elsewhere.


From what I have seen, the CAA issue a licence to a pilot on gaining his PPL and then immediately take back some of the priviliges. There are all sorts of local UK rules that only apply to UK licence holders with regard to things like VMC minima and weather minima for special VFR.

Perhaps the CAA view the restrictions as assisting safety. However, I would argue that by making the rules so complicated, the restrictions have the opposite effect.

As an example - if it is safe for a French PPL operating in the UK (unfamiliar teritory and language) to accept a special VFR clearance in 4Km visibility then how can a UK PPL trained to the same standard, proficient in English and local knowledge need 5Km more than the basic VMC minima (10Km total) to get the same clearance?

Are the CAA stating that UK pilots are not trained to the same standard as French Pilots? or as I think......they use the complicated rules to encourage UK pilots into an IMC course simply to make things a little simpler?

As was stated earlier, the confusion is more a danger than anything else.

regards,

DFC

[GRP]

It strikes me that the UK rules on this are the most sensible around - and don't seem to be that complex! What they appear to be doing is recognising that there is one form of VFR flight that carries with it a significant risk that you may be forced into cloud and telling us that we may not take that risk unless we undertake an additional 15 hours of instrument flight training. Elsewhere they do not have such a rating so would have to require a full IR to allow VFR on/over the top. Whatever one thinks about the IMC rating and what skills it equips you with (there's another argument we could all have again! :O ), those 15 hours are probably enough to save the life of a non-IR PPL who gets caught out above an unbroken deck of cloud!

[dexter256]

Dublin pilot,

> I have a JAA licence issued by the IAA. It does not contain any similar restriction. Therefore if the restriction was only written in your licences, then I could legally fly in the UK, VFR over a cloud base. I would be complying with the previlages of my licence, complying with the Irish air law(I think!), and complying with the UK ANO.

Actually the UK ANO's Schedule 8 cleverly specifies JAR-FCL PPLs, so you'd still be stuck with having to comply with Section 2 b[iii.]

On the contrary, I would stress that training organisations actively encourage their students to read the ANO cover to cover. The CAA should also extensively expand their PPL Air Law exam and I also feel that PPL holders should be given a written test anually to ensure that they are not only familiar with the contents of the ANO but au fait with operationally significant changes. Either that or cordon off Wales and lock PPL holders up there for a minimum of 5 years.

"Ignorance of the law is no defence."

[CSX001]

Actually the UK ANO's Schedule 8 cleverly specifies JAR-FCL PPLs, so you'd still be stuck with having to comply with Section 2 b[iii.]


Fortunately, this is not the case. Schedule 8 defines the privileges of licences issued by the CAA. It does not impose additional restrictions on JAA licences issued by other JAA member states.

The CAA is required by JAR-FCL1 to fully recognise all privileges of JAR-compliant licenses issued by foreign JAA members, so that the IAA licence can be exercised to its full extent.

[dexter256]

Thank you for clarifying that for me CSX001.

At the risk of sounding pedantic would you kindly explain why Section 2 of Schedule 8 fails to make reference to the requirement imposed upon the United Kingdom by JAR-FCL1.015(a)(1), which as you rightly pointed out requires Member States to recognised without formality the privileges of other Member State issued JAR-FCL PPL?

Unless a reader is fully aware of JAR-FCL1.015(a)(1) he may reasonably conclude from Section 2 of Schedule 8 that the reference made by same towards JAR-FCL PPLs was not limited to those issued by the CAA.

Of course, every JAR-FCL PPL holder is fully aware of JAR-FCL1.015(a)(1) and obviously therefore shall never make the mistake of giving the aforementioned part of the ANO such broad consideration.

[CSX001]

At the risk of sounding pedantic would you kindly explain why Section 2 of Schedule 8 fails to make reference to the requirement imposed upon the United Kingdom by JAR-FCL1.015(a)(1), which as you rightly pointed out requires Member States to recognised without formality the privileges of other Member State issued JAR-FCL PPL?


Well its not really that hard.

Schedule 8 is not an article of the ANO. It is just a schedule (or appendix if you prefer) which provides the legal definition for licences issued by the UK CAA, both JAR and non-JAR. The Article that makes this explicit is 22(4). So nobody should really think that this applies in some way to licences issued outside the UK.

The rules regarding the recognition of JAA licences issued outside the UK are contained in article 21 4(b) of the ANO in plain black and white. This includes the full recognition of JAR licences in compliance with the JAR-FCL 1.015.

I hope that makes it a bit easier for you. dublinpilot really does have no issue if he wants to bring in IAA-JAA PPL to the UK and fly on top of a covered layer, because his licence was issued by the IAA and they don't write that restriction into their licences AFAIK.

[Thrifty van Rental]

I think you are wasting your time Charlie ;)

[dexter256]

Charlie, thanks for investing your time to explain this. I now also understand that all JARs are immediately legally binding in the UK (unless a long term exception is filed with respect to a part thereof).

[david viewing]

Thanks to all those who responded to the questions raised here.

But I am still not convinced about the "use the licence that suits your purpose best" argument because that sounds too good to be true.

There must be many pilots with more than one national licence.

2D are you out there?

David

[2Donkeys]

2D are you out there?

I am :D Sorry for the silence, I lost interest for a moment :D

I would support what Charlie says. If your licences are standalone and not dependent on one-another, you are free to exercise their privileges without limitation. In situations where both licences are valid, you are free to choose whichever licence fits the circumstances required most appropriately. Where only one is valid, the other licence becomes irrelevant.

So, if I have an FAA and a CAA plain-vanilla PPL, the circumstances will dictate which privileges I can rely on. Here are a few examples.

If I am in a G-reg aircraft in the UK, I can rely on either PPL and on the basis of my my FAA PPL and ANO Article 21 4a, I can fly out of sight of the surface, whilst remaining VFR.

If I am in an N-reg aircraft in the UK, the same is true.

If I take my N reg aircraft to France, my UK PPL is no longer valid for piloting that aircraft, and the only valid licence is my FAA PPL. I can still fly VFR on top because my FAA PPL says so, and because it is in compliance with the French definition of VFR.

If I take a G-reg aircraft to France, the only valid PPL is my CAA PPL because the French do not recognise an unendorsed FAA PPL for the purposes of piloting a G reg aircraft. (this is true in most of Europe). So I must rely on my CAA PPL privileges which do not allow flight out of sight of the surface, even though the French VFR definition does.

As you can see, this is all a bit painful. Generally speaking, if either the country you are flying in, or the aircraft's country of registration is the same as a licence you hold, then you may exercise the full privileges of that licence. It is not totally watertight, but it works most of the time

[dexter256]

JAR-FCL does not permit a holder to acquire two JAR PPLs from separate Member States.

[2Donkeys]

Just as well that the FAA is not part of JAA then isn't it :{ :* I think we can safely assume that David is not proposing to go around collecting multiple JAA PPLs don't you think?

[david viewing]

2D

Right as usual. Thanks. It's a wonderful world.

David

[S-Works]

As an aircrat owner I get a personal copy of the GASIL each issue. In the Current GASIL on page 5 there is a very specific explanation of the IMC and what it allows you to do. It also specifically explains that the IMC unlocks the PPL restriction of flight insite of the surface.

Curious about this whole discussion I called the CAA and they told me that a pilot flying in the UK on any licence was bound by the terms of his licence or by the UK ANO whichever was the most stringent.

I then asked them the question that has been going around this thread and they said that only a pilot with an IMC or an IR could fly out of site of the surface in the UK regardless of where there licence was issues.

Open to comment.

[CSX001]

It is not uncommon for the unfortunate person on the end of the phone at FCL to find themselves put on the spot by a punter with an awkward point of air law. Its a bit like trekkies at conventions asking Bill Shatner why he didn't engage the warp drive in Episode 43 of Star Trek. Normally, like good politicians, they shrug it off and refer you to the legislation, rather than making a pronouncement that puts them in an awkward position. Sometimes though, you can catch some of the more junior ones out.

Fortunately the ANO is pretty clear on this. Without resorting to the FAA example for a moment we already know that the ANO renders valid any and all foreign-issued JAA licences. Most of these foreign-issued JAA PPLs will allow flight out of sight of the surface. These are validated without any additional restriction.

I very much doubt that your contact at the CAA would be prepared to put something into writing which implies that the CAA is curtailing the privileges of foreign-issued JAA licences. But it would be fun to trick them into it... :D

Charlie

[dublinpilot]

Bet the person in the CAA was thinking "Not another PPRuNe query!!" :p

[2Donkeys]

Slow down and look at what has been said again. The world has not changed.


they told me that a pilot flying in the UK on any licence was bound by the terms of his licence or by the UK ANO whichever was the most stringent.

This is what we have been saying all along.

The ANO (or more particularly, the rules of the air), says that VFR flight includes the possibility of being able to fly above a covered layer of cloud.

The UK-issued PPL though says that you must fly in sight of the surface.

Therefore, a UK PPL must fly in sight of the surface.

A foreign issued licence holder must also respect our ANO and Rules of the Air, and must also obey any licence restrictions.

His licence restrictions by-and-large won't include the "in sight of surface" restriction so all is well.


As for that last sentence. You simply managed to baffle FCL. They are not the ultimate authority on what is and is not legal. The ANO is pretty clear, as Charlie says.


2D

[S-Works]

So what we are really saying here is that along with sky high tax, insurance and fuel prices we are also drawing the short straw as far as our privledges are concerend compared to our apparantly equal neighbours. All policed by the Campaign Against Aviation.........

[2Donkeys]

Hmmm

A bit one sided that.

Remind me again which country allows its pilots to fly in solid cloud, and to shoot instrument approaches without an instrument rating....


2D

[dublinpilot]

I have to agree with 2D's on that.

I'd gladly trade my privelage to be able to fly on top of a cloud layer (which I'm not sure I'll be able to get over anyway, and even less sure I'll be able to get back down), for your 15 hour course that will let me legaly transition through cloud.

I think you have the better deal there ;)

dp

[englishal]

If I take a G-reg aircraft to France, the only valid PPL is my CAA PPL because the French do not recognise an unendorsed FAA PPL for the purposes of piloting a G reg aircraft

Not strictly true....ask the DGAC :D

[S-Works]

I was trying to compare the "vanilla" PPL not the IMC rating. I think the IMC is a fantastic tool and actually suits most of the Instrument flying your average PPL will do. Most of the accessable GA aircraft are pretty much incapable of flying the airways and who wants to foot the euro charges bill anyway.

With an IMC you can do the "short" hops through or preferably over cloud that PPL's tend to do and have a legal and safe option (provided current etc etc etc) to get back on the ground.

I fly a multi a lot of the time now so next week sees me in Florida starting my FAA IR but the IMC has done my proud flying my 152!

And for the record I don't see why a full IR would make someone better at descending through cloud and doing an Instrument approach than an IMC. I flown many hours in IMC with subsequent Instrument approaches without problem on my IMCR. It comes down to the currency and the capability of the pilot.

But I guess my point at the end of the day was that who in there right mind as a VFR only pilot would want to fly above cloud without an escape route?

[2Donkeys]

Remind me again what you have been told englishal.

I have a feeling that you were told that the DGAC would permit anything that the CAA would permit, or words to that effect.

In this case, the CAA will permit a G registered aircraft to be flown within the UK by a pilot with an FAA PPL under conditions of VFR. It is not clear to me that the CAA can insist on that validation applying outside the UK, but I would be interested to see where such a principle might be defined. Certainly such powers lie outside the scope national legislation.

Once in France, the DGAC's view of licences is pretty clear. They will fully accept an FAA licence, but it must be endorsed before use.

So an endorsed FAA licence is no issue at all, an unendorsed one is not OK. Does the fact that the aircraft is G reg make a difference? I don't know.

Were you told differently? I think you might be on dodgy ground unless you get explicit approval relating to your particular circumstances....

[englishal]

Forgetting about the IFR thing for a moment....The CAA have verified that you can fly a G reg plane on an FAA licence, including all type / class ratings and at night. They also confirm that it is up to the foreign CAA if they will allow this in their airspace. The DGAC (and German authorities) comfirmed to me in writing that a pilot of a G reg aircraft may fly in french / german airspace under the privileges of the FAA licence, and no validation is required or will be given to an EU resident....I believe I posted the replies here a while ago, so I won't bother again.

This was a seperate issue to the IFR thing we discussed a while ago, and there appeared to be a misunderstanding between Ms Badot and myself regarding IFR in F airspace.

EA:D

[Flyin'Dutch']

Sorry to be a bit slow in the uptake but what is an unendorsed FAA PPL?

One given out on the strength of a foreign licence rather than 'proper' as the result of sitting the papers and the US flighttest?

FD

[DFC]

It is up to the UK CAA to decide what requirements must be met by pilots flying G registered aircraft.

The UK CAA follow the JAA system of licensing and through that system meet their international comittments under ICAO to ensure that G registered aircraft flying anywhere in the world are crewed by suitably qualified persons.

Provided that the UK CAA renders a foreign ICAO compliant licence valid without territorial restrictions then that pilot can operate G registered aircraft in any ICAO signatory State.

By validating a licence in the UK, the holder is bound by the laws that apply to the holder of an equivalent UK issued licence PLUS any extra restrictions imposed by the validation process PLUS the restrictions on the original ICAO licence....whichever are more restrictive. Example.......just because UK validation rules simply state something like "No IFR in controlled airspace" this can not be taken by an FAA PPL without IR as conferring an ability to fly IFR in Class G airspace.

Foreign countries will only automatically accept aircraft and crews from the UK that comply with ICAO requirements. Thus, NPPL holders ( a non-ICAO licence) and Permit to Fly aircraft (No ICAO Certificate of Airworthiness) must obtain permission from the foreign country in which they wish to fly.

OK, the French have a blamket clearance for certain aircraft categories. However, thay can at any time stop.

By validating the licence and not placing any territorial restrictions on such a validation, the UK CAA are in effect saying that they are happy for that pilot to fly a G registered aircraft anywhere in the world.

If a foreign country has a problem with that system then that country must take up a complaint with the UK CAA. Not with the pilot concerned.

:}

Regards,

DFC

[dexter256]

>Remind me again which country allows its pilots to fly in solid cloud, and to shoot instrument approaches without an instrument rating....

I see under Schedule 8 section 2 the following:

(2) (a) The licence is subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in paragraph 1.175 of JAR–FCL 1.

So referring to JAR-FCL(1) 1.175, with reference to the applicability of Rules 6 and 7 of the RotA Regs 1996 here in the UK, we have:

(a) The holder of a pilot licence (A) shall not act in any capacity as a pilot of an aeroplane under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training, unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR(A)) appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.

Does exercising the aforementioned Rule 6 therefore conflict with JAR-FCL(1) 1.175 or is it considered "dual training?"

[Krallu]

Wow, what a topic this have been. Just for my little question.

Currently I've mailed a flight instructor here in Sweden and ask for how to interpret the rules here in Sweden. I'm waiting his answer.

[2Donkeys]

Not again Dexter :D

The IMC rating, which is what I was referring to, is a non-ICAO rating, which can only be used in the UK. 1.175 has nothing to do with it.

With your earlier strange references to Class B, and your lack of understanding of the IMC rating, I am guessing that you don't really fly at all yet...

Is that correct?



2D

[dexter256]

>The IMC rating, which is what I was referring to, is a non-ICAO rating, which can only be used in the UK. 1.175 has nothing to do with it.

Did you bother to look at the parts of the ANO I referenced? Where exactly do you see a mention of the IMC rating or any reference to it whatsoever in my query? For the purpose of my question the IMC rating need be completely ignored.

I find your unprovoked arrogance quite disturbing, do you think it might be possible to limit your replies to the scope of the question without resorting to whimsical fantasies about my getting it up?

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hi 2Ds,

Do you know what the difference is between an endorsed and non-endorsed FAA PPL?

Had a look in the FAR/AIM and the only thing I can find about the VFR-over-the-top is that it is a VFR clearance nothing about what else is involved.

FD

[dexter256]

Ah, JAR-FCL(1) 1.017 answers my question. Don't you just love law.

[2Donkeys]

Hi FD

I don't think you'll find much about VFR over the top in FAR/AIM because it is not a condition to which specific rules are attached. The rules governing VFR flight in the US permit VFR over the top of a covered layer, and it is convenient to label this condition "VFR over the top", to distinguish it from the IFR clearance "VFR-on-Top".

As far as endorsements go, this relates to the process by which certain regulators will accept foreign licences as being valid for flight in their own aircraft.

A good example is the US. A CAA PPL can fly an N registered aircraft in the US, but before they can do this, they must obtain a restricted FAA licence. An aircraft of Bermudan registry can be flown by a UK licence holder, before they can do this, the Bermudans will wish to issue an endorsement - a separate piece of paper "endorsing" your UK licence as being valid.

Closer to home, the French DGAC are happy to accept an FAA PPL for the purposes of flying an F-reg aircraft, but they must issue a piece of paper endorsing it first.

In the UK, we are uncharacteristically relaxed, and (for example), a US FAA PPL holder can simply fly a G-reg aircraft under VFR conditions without getting a formal endorsement.

Any good?

[Flyin'Dutch']

I would say that is a gin-clear explanation of both issues.

FD

[Keef]

To add one snippet...

The holder of an FAA PPL/IR can regard that as equivalent to a PPL/IMC for flying G-reg aircraft in the UK (I think the CAA has to "validate" it, for a fee).

Sadly, the FAA PPL/IR will not count as a full IR for flying G-reg aircraft. If it did, I suspect quite a few of the N-reg aircraft in the UK would be G-reg.

[trevs99uk]

With the coming of EASA.

European law over rules UK Law ie the ANO.

[englishal]

The holder of an FAA PPL/IR can regard that as equivalent to a PPL/IMC for flying G-reg aircraft in the UK (I think the CAA has to "validate" it, for a fee).
Not quite. The FAA IR will allow flight in "Uncontrolled airspace" in accordance with IFR but not in "Controlled airspace". The IMC rating allows flight in class D "Controlled airpspace" and below but you do need the IMC rating issued (for 64 quid) and hence a CAA / JAA licence to add it to.

Now I believe there is some confusion as to the meaning of "Controlled airspace", I believe the intention is /was to allow a foreign IR holder to fly in accordance with IFR everywhere except class A airspace - "Controlled airspace with reference to IFR flight" (hence the same as an IMC holder), but because of the wording in the ANO which states "outside controlled airspace" this effectively bans flight in any controlled airspace. The CAA used to have a FAQ page on their website which states that a foreign IR holder "Can exercise the same privileges as an IMC rating holder" which was removed, probably at the onset of JAR. The original IMC rating issued on a CAA PPL I believe had the same restrictions of "outside controlled airspace". Now did this mean completely outside CAS or just outside class A CAS?

To be continued......

EA:D

[DFC]

The old IMC rating had a restriction "only outside controlled airspace".

When this restriction was in place, it had the same effect as the current restriction because places like Bristol, Cardiff, Southampton, Bournemouth etc had no "controlled" airspace.

At that time all such airfields had "Special Rules Airspace".

The system changed with the introduction of Classes A to G.

Showing my age now!! :D

Regards,

DFC

[2Donkeys]

Not strictly true DFC. You may recall that there was Type A and B special rules airspace. Certain Special Rules Airspace was OK for IMC ratings, many were not, as you say.

I understand Englishal's point, having discussed it at length a month or so back. I am less convinced that having the theoretical ability to fly IFR outside controlled airspace has any practical meaning in countries outside the UK. Most places don't segregate IFR flights from VFR using controlled airspace in the way that we do, and insist on an IR for all IFR flights irrespective of the prevailing weather conditions.

Its an interesting debate, but perhaps an academic one only.

2D

[IO540]

Presumably it is academic because once one needs an IR, one can fly in the airways, so IFR outside CAS becomes less significant. But some people might like to get a view out of the window, while retaining the ability to fly in IMC/on-top as necessary.
This is relevant outside the UK.

[Bluebeard777]

As an FAA PPL I have wondered what "in sight of surface" means in the UK, in practical terms.

When you're flying along above broken clouds, when the gaps in the cover are getting smaller, at what point are you no longer in sight of the surface? Is this to be construed literally?

For example, if you can see 10 miles away a dark patch in the cloud cover, which you interpret as a hole, is this sight of the surface? Or if you can see a mountaintop 50 miles away, is this sight of the surface? (!)

[pulse1]

I would be very interested in some thoughts on Bluebeard's question too.

For example, sometimes you can be flying across the channel and experience extensive sea fog. You can know that the weather at your destination and alternate is CAVOK but, for some miles in mid channel you cannot see the surface (although you can kid yourself that you can see it in the distance).

Over land that would be unacceptable, for me anyway, but over the sea there is little chance of hitting anything if you had to come down with engine failure.

[englishal]

The point I made earlier is totally academic, however if the CAA turned around and said "a foreign IR holder can exercise the same privileges as an IMC holder" then this would allow flight in Class D and below, and hence if the French agreed to allow the same privileges as the CAA allow in a G registered A/C then you could enter airways in France and file an IFR flight plan.....a cheaper alternative to the JAA IR for the PPL.....

Cheers
EA :D

[DFC]

2Donkeys, you are correct. In fact shortly after the introduction of the A-G system, IMC holders could only fly IFR in airspace published for the purposes of section whatever in the ANO. Not every class D zone counted...example, Cardiff was OK for an IMC holder but Manchester was not. I think that the latest version is the more simple and thus safest.

Bluebeard777,

Very good point.

A pilot who is a NPPL holder can fly at 4000ft, 1000ft above a solid overcast. The flight is legal because 20nm in the distance, the surface of Ben Nevis is in sight sticking up above the overcast.

Perhaps this case clearly shows that having the current rule has no basis in safety.

My suggestion would be for the law to be changed to enshrine a requirement for a pilot to always be in a position to reach the surface without flying outside the privileges of their licence if an engine failure required the aircraft to land. Note that I say "reach the surface".

Thus;

Pilot flying above an overcast would need an IR or IMC in a single engine. In a multi, an IR or IMC would only be required if the single engine ceiling was lower than the required distance from the cloud tops.

Pilots flying above Scattered or Broken cloud without an IR or IMC would need to be able to glide clear of any clouds in the event of an engine failure.

By making such a law, the CAA would get away from a position where the passengers of a non-IMC trained pilot flying above 7/8 cloud cover will have to depend on luck in surviving the descent through cloud by not just a pilot not qualified for flight in IMC.......but one faced with a serious emergency plus having to cope with limited instrumentation and dwindling electrical supplies.

How many basic PPLs can do a descending turn on limited pannel, not knowing that the pannel has been limited in the first place?

I don't relish the idea with an IR!!

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

I have just come back from the USA having started my CPL/IR out there returning in the new year to finish.

As I understand it the holder of an FAA IR rating can fly a G-REG aircraft in all UK airspace IFR. They can fly an N-REG anywhere in the world on IFR.

[2Donkeys]

Bose-x

Nope

An FAA IR can fly a G-reg aircraft under IFR only outside controlled airspace. On the strength of their FAA IR, they can apply for and receive an IMC rating which extends these privileges in line with the IMC rating.

Only in an N-reg can the FAA IR enter all airspace under IFR anywhere.

2D

[FlyingForFun]

Bose,

If, as I suspect, you're talking about flying in IMC, I agree with 2D's reply.

If you really do mean IFR, then remember that you can fly IFR in the UK without an IR or IMCR - you're just not allowed to fly in IMC.

FFF
--------------

[2Donkeys]

FFF

A Foreign ICAO licence (without an IR) is endorsed valid by the CAA for VFR privileges only. This is something of a moot point, but worth noting in the back of the mind.

2D

[FlyingForFun]

Interesting - didn't know that!

FFF
--------------

[2Donkeys]

Actually.... I modify that very slightly. Where your foreign licence permits just VFR flight (as most do, without an IR), this is all that is allowed in the UK with your CAA endorsement. Effectively, the CAA endorses your licence with all the limitations of the underlying... irrespective of the flexibility of our airspace.

2D

[S-Works]

Curious, I was under the impression that an FAA IR could fly airways in a g-Reg a/c. It seems to me that american instrument pilots who fly big jets into the UK seem to do it without problem!

So obviously what we are saying in the view of JAA is that when you change the writing on the side of an a/c from N to G the pilot becomes incompetant?

So, how do I put my A/C on the N-Reg???

B

[2Donkeys]

Curious, I was under the impression that an FAA IR could fly airways in a g-Reg a/c

You are not alone in making that mistake, but the rules are unambiguous.

The argument is often followed up with "... so the CAA think that American Airlines Pilots flying Boeings into Heathrow have similar skills to the average IMC holder..."

The FAA has a specific flight test for the ATP which is conducted substantially on instruments and to tougher margins than the CAAFU IR test.

The US IR flight test is IMHO an easier flight test than the CAA test. Whether it is so much easier that FAA IRs should only be granted IMC ratings on application, I don't know... But that is the way it is.

2D

[S-Works]

Fair enoug on the ATP stuff, but if I put N on the side of my aeroplane I can fly airways so why not with a G?

The IR training I have received in the US was of a very high standard so why is it considered inferior in a G-reg aircraft?

[2Donkeys]

It is an old an tired argument about the differences between the US IR and the CAA/JAA equivalent.

Although the FAA IR does require lower flying standards than the JAA equivalent (check out the ILS deviation allowed in the FAA PTS) I don't think that it is sufficiently different to prevent the CAA from endorsing it over.

I suspect that they don't really want to encourage lots of tiny aircraft into controlled airspace...but I may be wrong.

2D

[IO540]

Much more likely, it is a political and fund-raising issue and nothing to do with pilot skills. The FAA IR is perfectly good enough for PPL-type flying. But the CAA is not going to encourage a wholesale move of aircraft to the US register. They would lose the CofA fees, for starters. There are many people in the CAA whose jobs depend on this income.

The CAA's argument (which I heard in one of their safety presentations) is that (paraphrasing) they are responsible for crashes in UK airspace so they should get the money from aircraft and pilot licensing...

The CAA make very sure that commercial operations are on the G-reg (and require an AOC, another nice dollop of cash to the CAA). Private GA is on the fringe and they just do what they can to limit the "damage" done by migration to the US register; they cannot stop an ICAO (FAA) license holder flying a G-reg here but they could stop the "UK-resident N-reg" business completely. They have presumably decided not to do that.

[englishal]

The difference between JAA IR and FAA IR is:

about 9,000 pounds,

[bluskis]

I am confused by IO504's post.

It would appear that the present application of rules in fact encourages pilots to switch their aircraft from G to N reg, thus enabling them to exercise their FAA IR in full. Or is there something I have missed?

Another conclusion I am reaching is that getting an FAA IR is a waste of money and time if you intend to stick with G reg. Am I correct?

Lastly did anyone ever get a definitive answer as to the usability of an FAA IR in a G reg in any other European countries?

[IO540]

bluskis

I may have misunderstood you but here is a summary:

The reason why so many pilots are going for N-reg is simply that if somebody wants to fly IFR outside the UK, they need the full IR.

(The UK has the IMC Rating which is pretty good for getting about IFR, and there is therefore less NEED for an IR here)

To get the privileges of an IR, the country of issue of the IR must match the country of registration of the aircraft.

You can go for a JAA IR but unfortunately this involves the ATPL ground school which is a lot of study. This could then be used with a G-reg (if issued in the UK). Most people who have done this say the workload is quite ridiculous for PPL type flying, and frankly a lot of them let it expire unless they really use it (and very few use it enough unless commercially).

The alternative is the FAA IR which involves a lot less study and also has an easier medical (FAA Class 3) but it needs an N-reg aircraft. The FAA also requires than an N-reg plane is flown by an FAA license holder so you also need an FAA PPL.

You can fly a G-reg with an FAA PPL/IR, IFR in the UK, but only outside controlled airspace. However if you happen to have a UK/JAA PPL then your FAA IR entitles you to an IMC Rating which allows you to fly IFR in CAS also (but still not Class A, for that you do need an N-reg plane).

N-reg has various other benefits concerning maintenance costs, fitting FAA-approved mods, etc.

So it really depends mainly on whether you want to fly IFR outside the UK. Sadly, due to the airspace structure and regulations outside the UK, or terrain, IFR is almost unavoidable in many places except on really good summer days.

One could debate the wisdom of the rules but we can't change them. This nonsense dates back to the ICAO treaty, pre-WW2 I think, and was done to allow e.g. a Panam captain to fly into LHR without having to have a UK ATPL.