Changes to UK VFR rules.

[ShyTorque]

Just found the following NOTAM, of interest to all of us:

B2031/08 V SFC - FL030 Fri 14/11/2008 16:52:00 - PERM NBO NBO E AFXX
FIR: Plain language
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES UK AIP ENR 1-2-1(10 APR 08) PARAGRAPH 1.2 NOTES, AMEND AS FOLLOWS: (1) OR IF, ANY AIRCRAFT WHICH IS NOT A HELICOPTER, AT 3000FT AMSL OR BELOW AND FLYING AT 140 KIAS OR LESS: CLEAR OF CLOUD AND WITH THE SURFACE IN SIGHT IN A FLIGHT VISIBILITY OF AT LEAST 5KM (2)OR IF A HELICOPTER AND FLYING AT 3000FT AMSL OR BELOW CLEAR OF CLOUD AND WITH THE SURFACE IN SIGHT IN A FLIGHT VISIBILITY OF 1500M.(3)OR IF AT 3000FT AMSL OR BELOW: EITHER: ANY AIRCRAFT: CLEAR OF CLOUD AND WITH THE SURFACE IN SIGHT IN A FLIGHT VISIBILITY OF 5KM. OR: ANY AIRCRAFT WHICH IS NOT A HELICOPTER FLYING AT 140 KIAS OR LESS: CLEAR OF CLOUD AND WITH THE SURFACE IN SIGHT IN A FLIGHT VISIBILITY OF 1500M. OR: HELICOPTERS FLYING AT A SPEED WHICH, HAVING REGARD TO VISIBILITY, IS REASONABLE: CLEAR OF CLOUD, WITH THE SURFACE IN SIGHT IN A FLIGHT VISIBILITY OF 1500M.

[ShyTorque]

By a process of elimination, for rotary wing pilots:

B2031/08 V SFC - FL030 Fri 14/11/2008 16:52:00 - PERM NBO NBO E AFXX
FIR: Plain language

VISUAL FLIGHT RULES UK AIP ENR 1-2-1(10 APR 08) PARAGRAPH 1.2 NOTES, AMEND AS FOLLOWS:

(2) OR IF A HELICOPTER AND FLYING AT 3000FT AMSL OR BELOW CLEAR OF CLOUD AND WITH THE SURFACE IN SIGHT IN A FLIGHT VISIBILITY OF 1500M.

(3) OR IF AT 3000FT AMSL OR BELOW: EITHER: ANY AIRCRAFT: CLEAR OF CLOUD AND WITH THE SURFACE IN SIGHT IN A FLIGHT VISIBILITY OF 5KM.

OR: HELICOPTERS FLYING AT A SPEED WHICH, HAVING REGARD TO VISIBILITY, IS REASONABLE: CLEAR OF CLOUD, WITH THE SURFACE IN SIGHT IN A FLIGHT VISIBILITY OF 1500M.



Is this better?

[jellycopter]

Also of interest is this definition in CAP393 (The ANO) Section 1, Part 14, Page 28 states:

'With the surface in sight' means with the flight crew being able to see sufficient surface features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in a desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument and 'when the surface is not in sight' shall be construed accordingly;

JJ

[ShyTorque]

Errr, so what visibility applies to helicopters under 3000 ft?

I think 1500 metres vis. is the magic figure to remember for helicopters.

[jellycopter]

And if you've only got say 1km, wait until nightfall and fly back IFR using the 800m IFR limit:ok: Makes so much sense! JJ

[VeeAny]

JJ

The 800m get out can of course be invoked if you hold at least a JAR CPL(H) during the day in classes D,E,F and G airspace.

Sensible perhaps not, but I didn't write the book.

GS

[jellycopter]

Gary

Have you got the reference from the ANO for this? Not questioning your knowledge but trying to improve my own.

Good work with the award by the way - well done. The guys that made the decision obviously have never met you:}

JJ

[VeeAny]

JJ

I should have said a CPL(H) with an IR.

ANO Schedule 8
Part A
Section 1 UK Licences
Sub Section 2 CPL(H&G) includes in paragraph 2 beginning with "He shall not" and says
(d) unless his licence includes an instrument rating (helicopter) fly as pilot in
command of such a helicopter in circumstances which require compliance with
the Instrument Flight Rules:
(i) in Class A, B or C airspace at any time; or
(ii) in Class D, E, F or G airspace unless remaining clear of cloud and with the
surface in sight;

There is a similar para further down the page for co-pilots also.

Which allows an old CPL to do the similar to what I said earlier (which is something I didn't know but should have), but is said a different way to the bit I thought i did know.

Section 2 is Jar FCL Licences.
CPL(H)
Para 2 Again (2) (a) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), the licence is subject to the conditions and
restrictions specified in paragraph 2.175 of Section 1 of JAR-FCL 2.
(b) The holder may fly in circumstances which require compliance with the
Instrument Flight Rules in the United Kingdom in Class D, E, F or G airspace
when remaining clear of cloud and with the surface in sight..

The Rules of The Air Allow a choice of VFR or IFR (Rule 20), so if I choose to go IFR and comply with the rules in particular rule 33 which applies inside and outside controlled airspace when IFR and says

33.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1,000
feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless—
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft flies on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority in relation to the
area over which the aircraft is flying; or
(d) the aircraft flies at an altitude not exceeding 3,000 feet above mean sea level and remains
clear of cloud and with the surface in sight and in a flight visibility of at least 800 metres.
(2) The aircraft shall comply with rule 5.
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a helicopter that is air-taxiing or conducting manoeuvres in
accordance with rule 6(i).

JAR FCL Para 2.175 says

JAR–FCL 2.175 Circumstances in which
an IR(H) is required
(a) The holder of a pilot licence shall not
act in any capacity as a pilot of a helicopter
under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a
pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training,
unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR)
appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in
accordance with JAR–FCL.
(b) In JAA Member States where national
legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR
under specified circumstances (eg. at night), the
holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR,
provided he holds a qualification appropriate to
the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions
in which the flight is conducted. National
qualifications permitting pilots to fly in
accordance with IFR other than in VMC without
being the holder of a valid IR(H) shall be
restricted to use of the airspace of the State of
licence issue only.[My emboldening]

Doesn't mean I want to do it, but If I need to I can

Someone else may have a different interpretation but thats the way I read it.

PS Thank you (and clearly not).

[ShyTorque]

I think it's regrettable that the most basic of regulations are written in a way which can be open to interpretation and misunderstanding.

To put it mildly. :(

[Helinut]

I have just sat looking at this stuff and reflecting upon the difficulty people are having. The European powers that be don't make it easy do they? If we also add in the almost unique UK variation which says that night flying must be IFR (but its not quite the same IFR that requires an IR of the pilot and a twin engine fully IFR helicopter?!) it seems as though the rules are designed to confuse. :ugh:

Surely, the UK "IFR at night" rule must be on borrowed time with the onward march of EASA. You can do what the UK feds want by having extra rules for night VFR, like in most other countries, rather than saying you insist on IFR, but actually then removing most of the REAL IFR requirements, for visual contact night.

[VeeAny]

I think I've got to the bottom of the Notam, It seems that the AIP entries referred to where at odds with the VFR definitions in the ANO, and amending the notes in the AIP entry as this Notam says to do brings them into line.

Prior to the notam the notes in the AIP entry implied that <3000ft, surface in sight < 140kts was acceptable in any visibility which we all know is no longer the case.

There are at least 2 other notams which amend other AIP entries to take out this bit of amiguity also.

I'll get my coat.

[jellycopter]

"I'll get my coat."

Surely you mean Anorak!?

JJ

[500e]

VA
"Which allows an old CPL to do the similar to what I said earlier (which is something I didn't know but should have), but is said a different way to the bit I thought I did know."
Now what was it I did not understand:{

[VeeAny]

Anorak donned,

Anyone would think I had too much spare time on my hands lately !

VA
"Which allows an old CPL to do the similar to what I said earlier (which is something I didn't know but should have), but is said a different way to the bit I thought I did know."
Now what was it I did not understand :{


I really must stop typing what I am thinking :).

GS