The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Cloud flying down under?

Old 1st Aug 2015, 15:28
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
--- for which one has to have a NVFR Rating.
601,
In Australia -- as far as I know the flight category NVFR is confined to Australia, as is something called a NVFR Rating (if that is what it is still called under part 61).
On the standard international flight notification form, and most other places you are I for IFR or V for VFR, night does not come into it.
That is the whole point of my previous posts.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2015, 19:31
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dr. Evil's secret volcano lair
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Leadsled.

I think you miss understood my point. I have no argument with your interpretation of VFR whether it be night or day

The following excerpt from Wiki, Yes I know it's not to be considered the be all and end all for correctness.

Quote:
Wikipedia: Night VFR, or night visual flight rules (NVFR), are the rules under which flight primarily by visual reference is done at night.

In many countries, VFR flight at night is not permitted, in which case night flying is by instrument flight rules (IFR) only which, in almost all countries, requires an instrument rating.

Exceptions include New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Finland, France, Belgium, Poland, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
My bolding.

My post was in response to this post: Quote:
OZ has night VFR, not known in the rest of the world.
which to me inferred that Oz was the only place that allowed VFR flight at night. 31st Jul 2015 09:10
27/09

What he's saying is that oz has "Night VFR" or NVFR, which is a whole nother rating/licence/endorsement thing that you must have in order to fly VFR at night. It's based of navigating via navaids & such (correct me where I'm wrong here Aussies)

The rest of the world doesn't have such a separate rating. They can just fly VFR at night if whatever conditions are met.


An example that hit me a number of years ago when briefly in the land of red,- I went to conduct a local survey flight at night probably straying no more than 15 miles from the aerodrome. However because I was a lowly Kiwi with a hundred or so hours at night and no "NVFR" rating I couldn't do the flight VFR so had to file IFR, even though I wasn't going anywhere...

Weird...
Corkey McFuz is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2015, 21:34
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Age: 79
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unless the rules have changed in Canada, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, you cannot fly at night VFR with a plain old PPL licence, you need a night endorsement which includes several hours of instrument time (not an IFR rating necessarily). Obviously flying on a moonless night over unlit countryside is not the same as flying during the day!
JimR is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2015, 01:56
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3,089
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
When I was flying in NZ (pre 2000) I couldn't fly at night VFR without an addition to my licence, and even if I had that I think it was limited to within 25NM of the departure aerodrome.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2015, 10:09
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,289
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Leadsled,

I don't think the Night VFR rating (call it what you will) is as unique to Oz as you may think. Perhaps the Oz version is more upswept and restrictive than elsewhere.

The NZ one required the 5 hours instrument time need for the PPL.

I know from experience some small airfields have no visual reference what so ever once you have passed the up wind runway lights. You needed to be able to climb away in the dials on a moonless night. Not something that was an issue in daylight.

Corky

How did you get the night time in NZ without having a Night Rating? Were you an Ag pilot? I know a few of these who accumulated a few night hours getting home after sowing the last load right before dark. Some of them never had the night rating signed off.

AerocatS2A

In NZ it used to be 25 nm from an airfield with lights, not just the aerodrome of departure. It was never clear whether or not those lights had to be actually on but you could do a cross country by being within 25 nm. Effectively the each field could be 50 nm apart with the 25 nm rings over lapping (just).

There used to be a 16 km viz, 3000' cloud base requirement as well, that is now gone and day VFR minima apply. I'm not sure I'd want to go VFR at night down to 5 km viz, 600' cloud base.
27/09 is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2015, 13:18
  #26 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 1,472
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
I don't think the Night VFR rating (call it what you will) is as unique to Oz as you may think. Perhaps the Oz version is more upswept and restrictive than elsewhere.
Elsewhere you may just have needed the experience. In OZ we needed training, a test and Rating issued.

We also had a GA specific Instrument Ratings that had either 6 month or 12 month renewal requirements and airspace restrictions.

But holding either of these two Instruments ratings did not allow you to conduct NVFR operations unless you had more specific NVFR training.

If you wished to do NVFR Charter there was additional requirments.

The point of my posts is that it WAS weird.
601 is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2015, 13:37
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The point of my posts is that it WAS weird.
Folks,
Precisely, but it was and still is Australia, one of the most regulated countries on earth, with over regulation of aviation at the top of the list.

What amazes me, in this day and age, is how restriction free aviation has become in what was (well the western end, at least) the USSR, whilst here in Australia???

And most of you sit back and cop it --- indeed most of you do not even understand what freedom of the air really means.

Tootle pip!!

PS: A night rating (quite common elsewhere) and an Australian style NVFR rating are very different animals.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 02:39
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Windy Capital
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"There used to be a 16 km viz, 3000' cloud base requirement as well, that is now gone and day VFR minima apply. I'm not sure I'd want to go VFR at night down to 5 km viz, 600' cloud base"

Not quite. NZ CAR 91.301 refers:

Table 4 Airspace VFR met minima - below 3000 ft - in uncontrolled airspace, clear of cloud and in sight of surface, visibility 5 km
controlled airspace - 2 km horizontally, 1000 ft vertically outside a control zone, 500 ft vertically inside a control zone; vis 5 km below 10,000 ft AMSL

Table 5 - VFR minima at aerodromes within control zone
Day and Night - 1500 ft base, 5 km vis

Table 6 - VFR minima at aerodromes in uncontrolled airspace
Day - 600 ft base, 1500 m vis
Night - 1500 ft base, 8 km vis
Mr & Mrs Rocketboots is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 03:30
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 370
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What are the rules down under? I thought NZ and Oz were glider friendly places? Or don't you have clouds?
Can't speak for Australia, but the Maori name for NZ, Aotearoa, translates to "Land of the Long White Cloud" so yes we have cloud here, on numerous occasions down to ground level.

As for being glider friendly, I would agree that NZ has some excellent geography for gliding in the South Island, but you'd have to ask a Kiwi glider pilot for details as I don't live down there.
flyinkiwi is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 04:15
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,289
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mr & Mrs Rocketboots:
"There used to be a 16 km viz, 3000' cloud base requirement as well, that is now gone and day VFR minima apply. I'm not sure I'd want to go VFR at night down to 5 km viz, 600' cloud base"
Not quite. NZ CAR 91.301 refers:
Table 4 Airspace VFR met minima - below 3000 ft - in uncontrolled airspace, clear of cloud and in sight of surface, visibility 5 km
Does this part of the CARs not permit operation with a 600' base and 5 km viz? Table 4 doesn't differentiate between Day and Night.

If I'm not mistaken this was the day VFR minima before they removed the 3000' base 16 km viz night VFR requirement.
27/09 is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2015, 13:44
  #31 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 1,472
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
I'm not sure I'd want to go VFR at night down to 5 km viz, 600' cloud base"
You don't have to have cloud to spoil you night.

I remember an Examiner relating how he had to recover an aircraft from three ua's in the circuit after takeoff when the applicant for a NVFR Rating lost it after turning downwind and away from the only ground lights in SW Qld.
601 is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2015, 12:21
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
I remember an Examiner relating how he had to recover an aircraft from three ua's in the circuit after takeoff
In Australia there is a long standing tradition that practice stalls must be conducted high enough to permit recovery by 3000 ft agl. Nothing in the Regs of course. Some LSA flying schools still use that "rule" even though the average LSA will only lose 50 feet in a recovery. A competent student pilot in a Cessna 172 would lose maybe 100 feet.

Yet no such tradition applies to gliders where practice stalling is often done below 1500 ft agl. And with no power to aid recovery. Would be interesting to know is there a rule for glider pilots re minimum height to recover by when practicing stall recovery?
Centaurus is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2015, 20:55
  #33 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At last, a question arises on which I can possibly help! Practice stalling is done in gliders at any height, no restriction at all, in the UK, and I daresay the same applies to the rest of the world.

Two reasons for not needing a lower limit. Gliders when in soaring flight are usually flying only a bit above stalling speed, and when you reach the core of the thermal, you crank it in big time! so not only at a speed only say 5 knots above stall, but at a considerable angle of bank as well. Which means we experience stalls and the approach to the stall frequently. I now have to fly with a safety pilot, due to age and other limitations, and I am always making him nervous by tight turning with a touch of prestall buffet.

So we practice stalls and stall recovery a lot in real time. It is a lot simpler and a lot less dramatic than the routine in a power plane, like a Cessna l52 for example, when the nose being heavy, it drops more suddenly, and the power used to aid recovery is an additional hassle.

In a properly trimmed glider, simply moving the stick forward a trifle nearly always will restore normal flight in a jiffy, with no loss of height. So no big deal, and we practice it a lot. Also I used to tell my students that a good landing is a stall near the ground. Frequent stalls, without drama, not so easy to practice in power.

Spins, now, that's something else. A good way to loose height if you need to descend. But NOT to be practiced less than 800 feet in a docile and reliable training glider like the K13. In glass, particularly certain types, I prefer a minimum start height of at least 1,500 feet. With a 3 turn spin you will lose probably a minimum of 500 feet before recovery is complete. Delightful! However, you cite 50 or 100 feet of height lost in a recovery;
is this where you bottomed out? I think it would be rather more than that...but of course you are trying to maintain a required altitude for separation from other aircraft, possibly in IFR. Gliders habitually fly close together, in VFR, and without ATC. hooray!
mary meagher is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2015, 22:12
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Centaurus,

CAO95.4 lists the exemptions gliders have from CAR1988 and includes

(Exemption from) "paragraph 155 (3) (a), on condition that:

(i) if the acrobatic flight takes place more than 2 nautical miles from a certified or registered aerodrome — the flight does not take place at a height less than 1 000 feet above the highest point of the terrain or of any obstacle on the terrain within a radius of 600 metres of a line extending vertically below the aircraft unless prior approval of CASA has been obtained; and

(ii) if the acrobatic flight takes place at 2 nautical miles or less from a licensed aerodrome — the flight does not take place at a height of less than 2 000 feet above the aerodrome unless the prior approval of CASA has been obtained;"
certifs is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 02:34
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
In Australia there is a long standing tradition that practice stalls must be conducted high enough to permit recovery by 3000 ft agl.
Folks,
And for damned good reasons, too, few GA aircraft are as reliable in recovery as a glider from UAs.
There is no regulation that prohibits you from dying, either, but it is still a bloody good idea,
An example, a rare but potentially deadly occurrence, it happened again quite recently ---- a C-152 got into a flat spin, from what started as a stall off a steep climbing turn type training exercise.
Most common GA aircraft are relatively benign most of the time, but not guaranteed benign all of the time.
Many will well recall their experiences in the Traumahawke --- there were so many complaints and incidents, the FAA eventually re-certified the aircraft, the results were "interesting".
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 07:30
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Leadsled.

Folks,
And for damned good reasons, too, few GA aircraft are as reliable in recovery as a glider from UAs.
My understanding is that in Australia the 3000 ft limitation in the Regulations applies only to aerobatic manoeuvers where more than 60 degrees angle of bank are used. By this criterion, stalling practice is not considered an aerobatic manoeuvre.
Apart from some war birds such as the P51 Mustang, the manufacturer's POH do not offer recommendations as to minimum heights, so it is normally left to Regulators to apply limitations such as aerobatic flight. Individual flying schools are welcome to apply their own limitations on top of but not less than, State regulations.

Because someone stuffs up a spin recovery in a C150 and goes in, that does not mean every aircraft including an LSA must now claw their way to 3500 ft AGL to practice a stall recovery by 3000agl. Perhaps practice stalls in a steep climbing turn in Cessna 150's should be avoided due to the potential for a flat spin if poorly handled


It goes the other way of course. Obsolete aircraft like a DC3, in a full flap approach power on configuration, can drop a wing quite violently and it takes at least 1000 ft to recover to level flight even if you don't mishandle things. Been there - done that. I am sure even a qualified test pilot would want to have 5-7000 ft under his belt before stalling the DC3.

For Mary M. Thanks for your reply re glider operations and practice stalls. You made a most interesting point about tight climbing spirals in gliders at close to stalling speed. My point about an average loss of 50 to 100 ft in a stall recovery in a light single such as a Cessna 172 and flown by a competent pilot, was never meant to apply to spin recoveries - far from it..
Centaurus is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.