Which bit is more authoritative?

[FlyingForFun]

Ok, here's one for all you legal experts:

The hypothetical situation is this. In my aircraft POH, under the Limitations section, it tells me that the aircraft may be authorised for flight at night and/or in IMC, depending on the equipment fitted, and will placarded to indicate if this is the case.

The UK supplement, however, overrides this, and tells me that night/IMC suitability is determined by the ANO. (This bit isn't hypothetical, btw - this is what it says in the UK supplement of all of the Cessnas I fly at work. Unfortunately, I can't remember word-for-word what it says, but that's the gist of it.)

Now, back to the hypthetical stuff. I've check the placard in one particular aircraft, and it says it is suitable for Day VFR flight.

But the UK supplement tells me to look in the ANO. I do this, and I find a list of equipment that is required for both night and IFR flight. When I look at this list in more detail, I find that my hypothetical aircraft has all of the necessry equipment for both night and IFR flight fitted to it.

Now, I know that the UK supplement overrides anything it says in the manual which Cessna produced. So is the reference in the ANO telling me that I can ignore the placard in the aircraft and fly my aircraft at night and in IMC, since it meets all the requirements in the ANO?

A conservative pilot would, of course, take the more restrictive of the two, and stick to day VFR only. But my hypothetical pilot is not conservative, and wants to know what the law says.

I'll admit to having had not much more than a cursory look at the ANO to find the answer to this one, so if it's really obvious then I apologise!

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

[Flap40]

How old is the aircraft? It is possible that, when built by Cessna, it only had sufficient equipment for Day/vfr and the rest has been added since it left the USA.

[FlyingForFun]

The aircraft in question range from a 1950 C150 to a 1982 C172. All have exactly the same annotations in the POH and in the UK Supplements (although they do not all have similar placards nor similar equipment).

Your suggestion that the equipment may have been added since manufactur is ceratinly plausible. If this were done in the UK, would there have been a requirement to change the placards?

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

[Chilli Monster]

Two thoughts

1) Aircraft POH (with UK supplement) and the ANO are your definitive references

2) Any placarding is either there a) from when it was first built or b) due to a present limitation that has come from either the manufacturer or from the CAA via an AWN (Airworthiness Notice). It's probably worth having a word with the maintenance organisation and, if it's the former, then it should be removed. (The fact that it hasn't means they may not be doing their job properly - as that's part of it).

[Mike Cross]

Sticking a placard on something doesn't make law, any more than you sticking a no parking notice outside your house would do.

Where placarding is required it is generally called up in the C of A/Permit.

The POH forms part of the C of A.

The prohibition does not come about as a result of the placard, it comes about as a result of a condition in the C of A/Permit. The placard is there as a reminder.

[smurph]

Following a brilliant trial helicopter lesson (thanks Whirly) in the summer, I was daydreaming of a lottery win and had a look at the Robinson website. There I saw the R44 Raven II IFR Trainer (http://www.robinsonheli.com/R44IFR.htm)
which has a disclaimer to the effect that though it's designed for instrument flight training it is not approved for IFR operations and while a student is flying on instruments the instructor must act as safety only under VFR.

This imples to me that there must be something else requred in an aircraft to operate under IFR other than simply having the required instruments. If so, what? Or is this something peculiar to the R44?
--
Smurph

[Chilli Monster]

This imples to me that there must be something else requred in an aircraft to operate under IFR other than simply having the required instruments. If so, what?
In the UK - another engine ;)

You may also find that it only has vacuum or electrical instruments but not both - hence no redundancy in the event of failure, lethal in IMC

[FlyingForFun]

Ok, thanks for the input everyone. It seems the general consensus is that the placard is not authoritative, so I shall, when I am sufficiently bored, investigate the ANO's requirements for night/IFR flight in detail to see whether my hypothetical situation is in fact real. :ok: Chilli, I will try to have a chat with our engineers, but they are a sarcastic bunch and the chances of me getting a straight answer out of them are somewhere between zero and none!!!

Smurph, I don't know the details, but I know that IMC/IFR flight in helicoptors is very restricted. But since they seem to be able to fly VFR in just about any weather it very rarely seems to bother them in practice! Fortunately, for us guys with fixed wings who actually need to see where we're going because we fly too fast to read road-signs, the rules are less strict ;)

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

[Edit for spelling!]

[Keef]

It may not be significant, but all the placards in our Arrow are consistent with what's in the POH, which actually says there shall be placards reading thus, and so - as indeed there are.

We had a slight discussion last year when our avionics annual produced a new placard that the GNS430 was not approved for use under IFR. Turned out the CAA document that was needed for it hadn't been applied for. Soon resolved.

So if the placards say DAY VFR ONLY, and you have all the Night/IFR kit, I would ask the maintenance folks why. If they don't give a sensible answer, well, ...

[Tinstaafl]

It may have all the kit however if the kit isn't maintained to IFR requirements then the a/c will be VFR. I'm presuming that the UK requires additional inspections & calibrations for IFR gear compared to VFR.

[The Nr Fairy]

Being the pedant I am, Chili Monster's answer that "another engine" is required for IFR is true for helicopters, but not fixed wing - unless the fixed wing is flying commercially (I think that excludes even freight work, but someone else will correct me I'm sure).

In my experience, some instrument instruction is undertaken in all helicopter types - it's an item in the type rating test to complete a turn on instruments - but the moment you lose sight of the surface, it becomes illegal.

To summarise:

F/W - IFR s/e and m/e, dependent on the avionics installed.

R/W - IFR m/e only, S/E (with one notable exception being a Bell206 at Bristows used for IR training) no IFR.

[Chilli Monster]

Being the pedant I am, Chili Monster's answer that "another engine" is required for IFR is true for helicopters, Last time I looked that's what an R44 was - don't think they've produced a fixed wing variant ;)
but not fixed wing - unless the fixed wing is flying commercially Being an even bigger pedant - what's flying instruction?

[The Nr Fairy]

Chili:

Unless we're at cross-purposes, the R44 - last time I looked, yesterday - has only one engine. Double the number of seats of an R22, but still s/e.

I forgot instruction, long time since I was s/e IFR. "Flying commercially" - meant in the sense of flying for hire or reward other than instruction - for example, cargo or passenger flights. I have heard tell of Cessan Caravans flying cargo around the UK, but they are apparently registered in Sweden or somewhere else. I suppose there's perhaps an implied understanding of the risks of s/e IFR flight when under instruction, because your instructor says "turn the light on at 500' - if you don't like what you see turn it off" - but that's not addressing the legalities of the original poster's question.

[Cathar]

I have heard tell of Cessan Caravans flying cargo around the UK, but they are apparently registered in Sweden or somewhere else.

This may be so but it will not be at night or in IMC - see article 37 of the ANO.