This long standing requirement, applicable to all UK-issued PPLs in all airspace worldwide, is set to end under EASA FCL.

Is it July 2012, or some later date?

Not quite.

The ANO VFR restrictions will continue to apply to UK (non-JAR-FCL) PPLs in accordance with licence privileges stated therein.

However, all UK-issued JAR-FCL PPLs were now deemed to be EASA part-FCL PPLs on 8 Apr 2012, so the ANO restrictions which previously applied to JAR-FCL PPLs no longer apply; hence licence holders may operate in accordance with ICAO VMC minima.

If I remember correctly, sight of the surface also has implications for VMC minimina.

There are lower vmc minimina if below 3000ft and in sight of the surface.

In Class G airspace, if below 3000ft amsl and in sight of the surface, if flying an aeroplane at 140KIAS or less the VMC requirements are to be clear of cloud and to have a minimum in-flight visibility of not less than 1500m.

And the same in flight visibilty requirement applies to helicopters. A relatively recent change.

1500m has been the ICAO "VFR" figure for countless years.

JAA made it 3000m for JAA licenses (unless accompanied by an IR or IMCR).

The funny thing is that VFR navigation, as taught, i.e. dead reckoning, won't really work in 3000m (unless you fly really low and slow) and won't work at all in 1500m, at plausible fixed wing speeds in unfamiliar territory ;)

Not that I am complaining, as I use GPS...

It is also slightly perverse that an IMCR holder can fly VFR down to 1500m (and could for a long time) but to takeoff and land under IFR he needs 1800m ;)

But the other day I flew a NP IAP with an MDH of 800ft, in what was VMC with a vis of apparently about 1500m, and only just got visual shortly after reaching the MDH and just before having to go around. It was a good illustration of how difficult flight in 1500m vis can be.

However, all UK-issued JAR-FCL PPLs were now deemed to be EASA part-FCL PPLs on 8 Apr 2012, so the ANO restrictions which previously applied to JAR-FCL PPLs no longer apply; hence licence holders may operate in accordance with ICAO VMC minima.

Not sure I agree, BEagle. While JAR-FCL licences may already be deemed to be EASA Part-FCL licences, Part-FCL does not apply in the UK until 1 July 2012. Thus until 1 July the EASA Part-FCL licence is about as much use as chocola... Oh no, I'm sorry, you've already used that one. ;)

Given the shelf life of the discussion and the likely absence of consequences, I'm not sure this one is worth killing too many electrons for, though.

More importantly, has anyone ever seen a post by Peterh337 that doesn't mention GPS? :}

Does he use GPS?

BEagle,

to have a minimum in-flight visibility of not less than 1500m.

Surely 3sm/5km is much more appropriate?

Now please don't reply to me with some "RTFM" comment like you've done before in your posts elsewhere. Not everyone has the same great gifting as you to be able to read and comprehend all the realms of fine print produced.

It doesn't help me or you if someone asks a genuine question out of confusion and you don't translate such print into laymans terms but respond with some "RTFM" comment, which is essentially another way of saying "FO". At worst you risk putting yourself or the organization you work for in a bad light.

There is a danger of confusion here between licence restrictions and VFR. It is true that the provisions of Schedule 7 of the ANO ceased to have any effect in respect of UK-issued JAR-FCL (deemed to be Part-FCL) licences on 8 April 2012. There is, therefore, no longer an over-arching requirement for a JAA/EASA PPL holder to remain at all times in sight of the surface and in a flight visibility of at least 3km. However, this does not mean that there has been any change to the Visual Flight Rules. The Rules of the Air Regulations and, in particular, Rule 28 continue to apply to all aircraft in UK airspace, irrespective of the licence held by the pilot.

The ANO is here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf) and the relevant stuff is on page 340 of the PDF.

28 (1) Subject to paragraph (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace at or above flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 8 km.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace below flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.

(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which:
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(c) is in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.

(4) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which is not a helicopter and which:
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) flies at a speed which, according to its air speed indicator, is 140 knots or less;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.


I struggle to see what is in there which makes it other than 1500m, in Class G.

Obviously if you fly outside the UK, then the local airspace rules may require a better visibility. But are there any such countries (now)?

The CAA confirmed in an e-mail of 2 Apr 2012 that, with effect from 8 Apr 2012, UK-issued JAR-FCL PPLs would be deemed to be part-FCL PPLs and that, as a result, the ANO licence restrictions which apply to VFR for unrated JAR-FCL PPL holders (with or without GPS ;) ) would cease to apply.

For UK non-JAR-FCL PPLs, the ANO licence restrictions still apply. Even if you have the very bestest GPS money can buy...

The ANO pages you need to look at (when not gazing lovingly at magenta lines) are .pdf p 206 (UK non-JAR-FCL PPL) and .pdf p 214 (JAR-FCL PPL).

I would agree that 5km is a lot safer, but that's not the law in Class G except for the NPPL(SSEA).

But the other day I flew a NP IAP with an MDH of 800ft, in what was VMC with a vis of apparently about 1500m, and only just got visual shortly after reaching the MDH and just before having to go around. It was a good illustration of how difficult flight in 1500m vis can be.
"If you can see two rows of lights that counts as being able to see the runway" I was told.

If you are landing at Liverpool on runway 27 & right of track. The two rows of lights could be Speke Boulivard. Not a problem really if it's not peak hour and you land long as you should miss the bridge :}

More likely that it's actually 8/8 CAVOK and that Barry, Gary and Terry have stolen all the other lights, surely?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/BGT.jpg

Eh, eh, eh? Now then, now then.....!!

JAA made it 3000m for JAA licenses (unless accompanied by an IR or IMCR).Incorrect, the JAA minima was 1500 metres, it was the UK that did not accept this and retained the 3k minima from National licence privileges via Schedule 7 (Then Schedule 8). EASA has adopted the JAA figure hence the change. Any other European JAA licence was not restricted to 1500 metres like the CAA version.

As an aside

as quoted previously the rules say:-

(1) Subject to paragraph (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace at or above flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 8 km.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace below flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.

(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which:
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(c) is in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.

(4) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which is not a helicopter and which:
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) flies at a speed which, according to its air speed indicator, is 140 knots or less;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.

So if you were above a low layer of cloud you could at least technically be clear of cloud, in flight vis of at least 1500 m horizontally, with varying amounts of the surface in sight, from a lot, to very small holes.

It clearly becomes a decreasingly good idea to do such a thing, in proportion to the percentage of cloud, but is there/was there ever an official definition of the ratio of hole to cloud necessary for the surface to be defined as being in sight?

And yes, Amy Johnson and others have died of going over the top of cloud layers

Amy Johnson and others have died of going over the top of cloud layers

How does that happen?

Well reputedly it happened to Amy because she was shot at! Now that is real enforcement action.

So reading all this, am I correct in thinking that my newly minted JAR-FCL PPL allows me to fly above a cloud layer, not in sight of the surface provided I'm 1,000 feet above it?
It would in theory now be perfectly legal to climb through a hole in the cloud layer to reach "VFR on top", and then descend through a hole to get back under the cloud? Or take off in clear skies, fly over a layer of cloud en route (and be out of sight of the surface) and reach clear skies the other side?

I think the PPL syllabus needs revising!

I think the PPL syllabus needs revising!

Yes.

VMC on top without sight of surface has never been in the slightest way enforceable, anyway.

What you always needed to do is be sure you can get back down :)

This method has been very popular for touring to southern Europe, by IMC Rated pilots, because you can depart the UK in mucky wx (using the IMCR privileges), fly VMC on top (once out of the low level UK Class A), across / into France between FL065 and FL115 in their extensive Class E airspace (which is uncontrolled airspace for VFR), or similarly into Germany, and then descend to the destination in nice wx conditions that tend to prevail down there (unless you messed up).

And the opposite on the way back.

Every one of my long VFR trips (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/) involved heavy use of VMC on top.

VMC on top without sight of surface has never been in the slightest way enforceable, anyway.



What makes you say that? I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean the burden of proof is so high as to make it nearly impossible to prove you were out of sight of the surface?