CAA eases night flying restrictions

[VMC-on-top]

CAA eases night flying restrictions | CAA Newsroom | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=2125)

Only just glanced through this but it appears that night flight is now either VFR or IFR. However, if I enter IMC in CAS (I have an IMCR), then presumably, I now request IFR clearance into a zone. (unless it is eg. CI CTR, then presumably, I still need to request SVFR?).

Still find it bizarre that a PPL can go flying at night below a solid OVC layer, no ground lights etc with no instrument flying training at all!

[thing]

I think it's one of those cases of use your loaf. If you have a night qual but no IMCr then you would be a clown to go flying on a marginal night, even if it was within the letter of the law. Much like the IMCr really. I wouldn't take off without a cloudbase of less than a thousand feet, even though I can.

[dont overfil]

If you are IMC inside/outside CAS day or night you are IFR.

IIRC there was a little instrument refresher training during the NQ or night rating as it was then. That was to top up on the 3 hours in the PPL at that time.

D.O.

[Whopity]

Nothing to do with easing restrictions; they have changed the rules because of a conflict of EASA rules and National rules that actually made Night Flying illegal without an instrument qualification! A simple, but rather late application of common sense.

[Cobalt]

.... and made it MORE restrictive - not an easement in sight.

You now need a ceiling of 1500ft, and for IMC/IR holders the minimum heights and minimum visibility have also increased.

The latter is probably a bit acedemic, but the 1500ft ceiling now prohibits, for example, circuit training in perfectly flyable nights.

I could not care less whether it is called Night VFR or IFR. But this is yet another restriction, and with SERA (Single European Rules of the Air) I suspect more are coming - one I know of is a minimum height of 500ft above ground or water. That won't help us instructing and maintaining the PFL skills...

[Fuji Abound]

I dont see that a 1,000 foot minimium height at night unreasonable.

[A and C]

Just how do you measure the cloud base accurately at most GA airfields ?

I can't see CCT training being restricted at night unless the cloud base is at or below the CCT height simply because it is a restriction that is so hard to measure.

[Cobalt]

Fuji,

Re 1000ft minimum altitude at night - I also think this is reasonable; hence I called the visibility and height limit changes academic. Low visibility combined with night makes for problematic IFR conditions, let alone VFR!

The ceiling change is what annoys me.


A and C,

Biggin Hill, Southend, Lydd (all used for night training) have ATIS, and use ceilometers. Hence the decision whether to fly a VFR circuit is as black-and-white as flying a CAT I ILS with less than 550m RVR. Illegal and reportable.

[airpolice]

So.... will my NPPL become a Day & Night LAPL when the paper shuffle is complete?



(Pulls pin, throws, and ducks for cover as Beagle reaches for his keyboard.)

[Ultranomad]

When getting my night rating, I was strongly advised to keep at least 2000 ft AGL while enroute at night, and not below grid MORA, if one is published. Circuit practice is a different matter, but I don't think insisting on a 1500 ft cloud base for night VFR is unreasonable.

[soaringhigh650]

The ceiling change is what annoys me.

So go and fly IFR instead.

Like it or not, VFR will always be more restrictive than IFR as you need to maintain VFR...

[englishal]

The military have been flying VFR at night for years, if you read official documents ;)

Anyway this is great news for FAA licence holders without an IR, as it means that they can now fly at night with no ambiguity as to whether it is allowed or not.

[BEagle]

The NPPL will remain regulated by the ANO; it will not include a night qualification and the minimum day VFR visibility for SSEA operation remains at 5 km.

[Cobalt]

So go and fly IFR instead.

Like it or not, VFR will always be more restrictive than IFR as you need to maintain VFR...

I can. Pilots without IR or IMC [or IR(R)] rating, such as student training for their EASA night rating [formerly known as JAR night qualification, formerly known as CAA night rating], can no longer, since IFR flight without an IR is prohibited by EASA regs. That's the point.

[peterh337]

That's a cockup, surely...

[Cobalt]

There are several mistakes in EASA Part FCL (for example the CPL multi time requirement for a SE CPL, inconsistencies in CRI and CRE privileges, or IREs needing an IRI rating even if they have an FI rating), but this is deliberate because the EASA people have a different view of what IFR means.

In their minds, a flight under IFR is always receiving an ATC service, and following some sort of IFR flight plan. No service/clearance --> you can't be IFR.

Hence when they prohibit IFR, they suspect they mean to prohibit flying under an IFR clearance (whether in IMC or VMC).

From a UK perspective, this view is completely misguided. It is still the law... hence the change to allow VFR at night so non-IR/IMC holders can still fly at night.

[bookworm]

In their minds, a flight under IFR is always receiving an ATC service, and following some sort of IFR flight plan. No service/clearance --> you can't be IFR.

Hence when they prohibit IFR, they suspect they mean to prohibit flying under an IFR clearance (whether in IMC or VMC).

From a UK perspective, this view is completely misguided. It is still the law... hence the change to allow VFR at night so non-IR/IMC holders can still fly at night.

Reading this, anyone who wasn't brought up on the UK system would think that the lunatics had taken over the asylum here. An "IFR flight", to anyone else, is a flight that is prepared to enter IMC, which customarily requires an IR. It also requires certain minimum levels to be flown, without the strange exemption for visual IFR that currently exists in the UK RotA.

The idea that pilots with no instrument training can fly at night in conditions where they self-separate, do not enter cloud and maintain a minimum in flight visibility looks remarkably like "VFR" to me. It it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[soaringhigh650]

The idea that pilots with no instrument training can fly at night in
conditions where they self-separate, do not enter cloud and maintain a minimum in flight visibility looks remarkably like "VFR" to me. It it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


Well said bookworm.

[suraci]

I wouldn't take off without a cloudbase of less than a thousand feet


Sure about that?

[thing]

Are you questioning my double negative sir...:)

[NorthSouth]

Fuji & Cobalt:Re 1000ft minimum altitude at night - I also think this is reasonableWhat you need to understand is that it's 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 5nm, with no dispensation as currently (until Monday :( ) for flights below 3000ft/clear of cloud/in sight of surface. 5nm is a long way in a light aircraft flying visually. This will prevent night flying in many places where there are hills or radio masts etc less than 5nm from the airfield or departure/arrival routes.

Under the current proposals, you still have the option to fly IFR at night, and therefore take advantage of the ability to fly without the 1000ft/5nm requirement, under Rule 33 of the RoA Regs. But the Catch 22 is of course that Part-FCL doesn't allow pilots without an IR to fly IFR, ever. So if you have a vanilla PPL or an IMC Rating, as I understand it you can't fly at night, from Monday, at less than 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 5nm. If you're an IMC holder it seems that you can't change this position until such time as you submit your licence for renewal, when it'll become an EASA IR(R).

NS

[dublinpilot]

But the first exemption to the 5nm/1000ft is

it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;

So that should allow those close to an obstacle to land/takeoff and depart the area.

[Pace]

This is rubbish ! How on earth is the PPL flying out of a small airfield ever going to know what the cloud is until he blindly flies into the stuff?

Any legislation has to be enforceable and sorry but cloud base is not whether on an ILS or otherwise.

IMO night flying should have been built into the IMCR as VFR at night is crazy without solid instrument capability.

Pace

[goldeneaglepilot]

Pace - well said.

It's only to easy to drift into IFR at night. Potentially a killer.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - maybe, but you have to understand how night flying works in the UK these days. Just about no where that most GA pilots frequent operates into the night by more than a few hours these days (yes, I know if you are determined there are exceptions, but not many). Then, even give those exceptions almost no one goes any where seriously at night - either because there is no where to go, or because by the time its time to come back, there is no back because the airport has closed, or because most instructors, never mind non instructors pilots are not that happy flying a SEP any distance at night.

So this adds up to a whole different ball game in the UK (and Europe) compared with the States. People do a night rating for a bit of fun, something different, a rating they can relatively easily add to their vanilla PPL, but other than there cross country with an instructor for the rating the extent to which they use it, is for a bimble around the local cabbage patch in the early winter evenings to enjoy the night lights on CAVOK evenings!

I know, I know there are exceptions and the rules must deal with the exceptions. So I agree night flying with out an instrument rating and with any risk of entering IMC is a real danger; indeed approaches at night in IMC must be one of the most dangerous things we do.

So the reality is there is almost no night flying from unmanned fields, so the night flying that does take place is from airports with ATC and ATIS and / or there is at least another airport very close with ATC and an ATIS and most of the pilots that launch into the night sky arent going anywhere anyway!

All of which doesnt mean it is not possible to become "unstuck" very quickly but you do need to make a bit of an effort or at least join the few that manage to string together an airport or two or are prepared to spend a night away.

[Pace]

Fuji

I wasnt so much making a point of what pilots do with the night rating but more trying to point out the absurdity of regulating on detail which can not be proven or even known!
In that situation the law becomes absurd!

The fact is that once in possession of a night rating the PPL can use it in anger and PPLs will do so yet they are not equipped to do so without solid instrument ability!

The instrument ability needs to come first the night rating after!

On the legislative front the law is meaningless unless it can be backed up with successful prosecution!

Those cloud bases cannot and as such those regulations have no meaning.
It is poor rule making at best.

The Night rating should have required a minimum of an IMCR with the night rating as an endorsement attached to the IMCR.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - I know. I was only commenting that in reality very few WILL use the rating in anger. Of course I agree you cant and shouldn't regulate on that basis.

I also agree that its a pointless rating without instrument capability if you are going to go any distance and ever use the rating in earnest.

In reality large numbers of vanilla PPLs add a night rating at some point; there are very few accidents at night from this fraternity, evidence in itself I suspect that my earlier comments are salient.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The instrument ability needs to come first the night rating after!
Well, at the moment pilots seem to be treated as grown-ups capable of making that risk assessment for themselves.

Personally I have chosen to get the IMCr first, as I agree with you that taking off at night with no instrument flying capability is beyond daft ... and I'm not sure I'm ever going to bother with the NQ, because I don't fancy an engine failure even with an instrument qualification. (I did however have some of the IMCr lessons at night, due to the relative ease of booking aircraft and instructors.)

But, as with flying SEPs over water, other people may come to different conclusions about the risks that they personally will tolerate, and the lack of nanny-stateism in this particular instance allows them to do so.

[mm_flynn]

Fuji

I wasnt so much making a point of what pilots do with the night rating but more trying to point out the absurdity of regulating on detail which can not be proven or even known!
In that situation the law becomes absurd!

The fact is that once in possession of a night rating the PPL can use it in anger and PPLs will do so yet they are not equipped to do so without solid instrument ability!

The instrument ability needs to come first the night rating after!


I am lost on your arguement Pace.

Last month a pilot with a basic PPL and a night rating could fly IFR at night (subject to a difficult to measure visibility restriction and only to remain clear of clouds), but was forbidden to fly at night VFR

Next month a pilot with a basic PPL and night rating will be forbidden from flying IFR and will be required to maintain broadly the international standard VFR conditions.

I can see that this is a restriction, in that last month a pilot could rock up to an uncontrolled airport at night doing 200 knots at 800 feet dodging around clouds (so long as he has 3 KM of vis) (Legal UK IFR and meets his PPL vis restriction)

Next month they will need to be 1000 feet above the surface (within 5 miles) until they are required to go lower to land and then will need to have a 1500 ft ceiling at the airport (the same as needed to be VFR in a class D control zone).

I don't see how this change is anything other than supportive of your position that flying in what most countries would consider IMC at night should require some type of Instrument Rating. Equally, I don't understand how a ceiling requirement that is substantially the same as almost every other country in the world is such an absurdity (although I do accept that at an uncontrolled field with no other traffic for PIREPs and not even an unofficial ceilingometre (spelling?) you will struggle to judge cloud bases from the ground.)

[Pace]

MM

There are two separate issues here.
Any Law/regulation has to be enforceable ie if the pilot contravenes that regulation that contravention has to be provable in a court of law.
Taking an existing situation may show my point.
RVR is provable cloud base is not! You may take an ILS where the cloudbase is given as overcast 100 feet.
Legally you can fly that approach! You may still be in IMC at minima of say 200 feet but as long as the pilot says he was visual at 200 feet there is nothing the authorities can do.
RVR is provable and the pilot cannot even take the approach if the RVR is quoted below minima.
So cloudbase reports are unreliable and hence legally not enforceable and we are not even looking at airports which cannot give weather information.
Remaining clear of cloud is different but a cloudbase given as an altitude cannot be enforcable.
You are legal at 1499 feet illegal at 1501?? and how do you prove that in court? So the cloudbase restrictions in this case have to be guidlines only.

The second point is VFR at night? Fuji makes the point that in reality pilots do no more than night circuits close to the airport? and do not use the night rating in anger without full instrument ability!
Ok why not put that into law. A pilot cannot fly at night without a minimum of an IMCR unless he remains below 2000 feet and within a set radius of the centre of the airport? Provable by radar traces.
Having flown a lot at night and having seen how easy it is to become IMC without knowing about it IMO it is madness to allow night flight without full instrument flying capability.
But that just my opinion ;) The UK night rating has always been a case of putting the cart before the horse. The horse has to be instrument flight capability including approaches before anyone is allowed to use the night rating in anger anything less is foolhardy.

Pace

[dublinpilot]

Is the night accident/typical type of night flight and different in the USA, where night qualifications & privlidges are part of the basic PPL?

[soaringhigh650]

The instrument ability needs to come first the night rating after!

FAA PPLs can fly at night as standard - no instrument rating needed.

Basic instrument ability is taught on the course.

I'd imagine it to be also taught on the EASA/JAA PPL night rating?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I did a JAR NQ some years before I did my IMCR. The FTO I trained at, quite reasonably, requiring me to demonstrate competence in flying by reference to instruments, before we did the night bit.

The major part of the IMCR/IR training is IAPs, which whilst a substantial and useful "get out of gaol" card, are not essential for spending 5 minutes in cloud en-route because you drifted briefly into IMC at night.

I used that instrument training, for that matter, on numerous occasions before I did the IMCR, during several long water crossings - VFR in day-VMC, but with a complete lack of visual horizon, making flight by reference to instruments the safest option. Again, I had enough training for the purpose and could fly safely.

G

[dublinpilot]

Basic instrument skills (very basic) is taught as part of a JAA PPL. I presume the same is part of an EASA PPL now.

[NorthSouth]

Correction to my post above. The CAA have now re-assured me that when Part-FCL.600 says Operations under IFR on an aeroplane, helicopter, airship or powered-lift aircraft shall only be conducted by holders of a PPL, CPL, MPL and ATPL with an IR appropriate to the category of aircraft or when undergoing skill testing or dual instructionan IMC Rating is now deemed to be an IR, so IMC Rating privileges are retained.
NS

[UL730]

For those who come across Eurocontrol - it will be interesting to see how they regard these new rules for night VFR.

Eurocontrol has always regarded a flight at night as exclusively IFR for charging purposes.

"Sorry mate - it's been dark for the last 5 minutes of your 3 hour VFR flight - so cough up for the full distance" - is a known approach :\

[NorthSouth]

Surely dependent on having filed a flight plan - for which there is no requirement in Class G airspace. Or is that changing with SERA too?

NS

[BillieBob]

Any Law/regulation has to be enforceable ie if the pilot contravenes that regulation that contravention has to be provable in a court of law.So how does that work in the case of flight visibility, which has been a defining element of VMC/IMC for so many years?

[Pace]

Unless the flight visibility can be proved no one can do anything with you!
Deparure or arrival Into an airport which does have accurate visibility measuring capability means they could decline your deparure or arrival under VFR but Joe Bloggs estimating the visibility at some ill equipt airport would not do!
Enroute that visibility could change from above VFR limits to below in the course of a mile and back again!
It's a bit like driving a car through a speed trap it has to be able to stand up to scrutiny in a court of law! Mr plod the policeman saying the speed limit is 30 and he estimated your speed at 40 is not good enough unless of course you admitted to driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone!
I do not know of one prosecution for going below minima on a cloud break on the ILS but many with RVR busts!

Pace

[mm_flynn]

So how does that work in the case of flight visibility, which has been a defining element of VMC/IMC for so many years?

Pace's argument is that VMC limits are generally in the eye of the beholder and therefore unenforcable, thus making the concept of regulation based on VMC absurd.

The reality in Europe seems to be pretty much no one is ever 'done' unless it is a really egregious breach of the rules. I believe this is not true in the US where there is case precedent for the FAA to take a view a pilots claim to be VMC was not credible and take enforcement action.


Separately on IFR charging by Eurocontrol. It is not some money grabbing scheme, it is just the rote application of the rules. If your reported arrival is after official night in the UK you were by definition flying IFR. The computer then just adds up the IFR flights and sends a bill. The fact you never filed a flight plan and never got a useful service from anyone is just an artifact of the UKs free and easy approach to IFR OCAS.