Microligts and IMC

[Ludwig]

Are microlights exempt from the rules concerning VFR or do they have a special definition that incorporates forward visibility of something less than a mile? Some microlight schools seem to be able to train in the most appalling viz condition.

[S-Works]

As I recall from my training the forward Viz requirements are 10k, day VFR only.

[ThePirateKing]

Given that microlights don't seem to paint too well on radar, then one would hope they don't whizz around in crap visibility. Unless, of course, they WANT to get on the sharp, spinny end of a spam can! :ugh:

TPK:ok:

[Ludwig]

TPK

One may very well hope that, but I'm afraid they do.

[Pegasus912]

I believe the requirements are 3km below 3000ft and 5km above 3000ft.

[Fly Stimulator]

3km below 3000ft Only if you remember to keep your speed below 140kts.


Ludwig, I'm worried that you'll burst if you don't get whatever it is off your chest! Go on, do tell.

[S-Works]

I have looked up the rules and this is what I found courtesy of Cosgrove - The Microlight Pilots Handbook.

A) Always Clear of cloud and insight of the surface
B) Always have in flight vis greater than 3KM
C) Always when above 3000ft - viz not less than 5km - never less than 1500m from cloud horizontally - never less than 1000ft vertically from cloud.

All of this applies outside of controlled airpspace.

Usual permit rules also apply.

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

Forget the legal issue for a minuite.

What difference does it make if your working on the "Big sky theory"?????

ie: in IMC in uncontrolled airspace without a RIS

You stand the chance of hitting a spam can, microlight or rc plane !! or a lost golden eagle:uhoh:

[ozplane]

Just off Duxford last Saturday, punched out of the cloud and levelling at 2,500 feet in a speedy twin when 3 pairs of eyes all saw the microlight on the reciprocal at the same level. He was clear of cloud but definitely NOT in sight of the surface which was obscured for miles around. Was he being a bit of a chancer we asked ourselves.

[DFC]

The rules regarding microlights are simply that they must be flown VFR at all times.

What determines VFR minima depends on the pilot's qualifications (and airspace) -

For the basic PPL/NPPL that means always being clear of cloud in sight of the surface and the lowest visibility is 3K (or higher if the airspace requires).

However as is becomming more common these days, the pilot may hold an IR and then for that pilot the minimum visibility is 1500m (higher if airspace requires) and there is no legal requirement to be in sight of the surface.

Thus it is not uncommon for an IR holder in a well equipped microlight to fly 1000ft above a 3000ft overcast top - perfectly legally.

Overall, the IR pilot flying a microlight can't - fly in IMC and can't accept an IFR clearance (cross an airway for example).......but they can use the other licensing privileges that the IR conferrs. (We can only hope for the time when the permit will restrict the aircraft to VMC as opposed to VFR :)

Thus, unless the twin was so close to the microlight so as to read the ratings on the guy's licence we have to assume that the pilot was operating within the limits of their licence and thus perfectly legal................Which leads me to ask - if it was a C150 that was there would the legality question come to mind?

Microlights do show on radar but very few have transponders. The latest models can happily cruise at similar speeds to a PA28 / C172 for a fraction of the costs!

Regards,

DFC

[Ludwig]

On that basis then, can one equally assume that a PFA permit a/c, or indeed anything certified for “day VFR only” in the hands of a suitably qualified pilot can also fly above a solid overcast, provided there is a hole at either end through which to climb and descend?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Actually not true, all Permit (including microlight) aircraft are required to fly in sight of the surface at all times (at-least in the UK), also clear of cloud below 3,000ft or 1000ft/1500m clear above 3,000ft.

Also the 1500m rule only applies below 3000ft / 140kn and within sight of the surface - ANO Rule 26 (2) (b)(ii) and outside of controlled airspace - it's 5km inside controlled airspace (Rule 25 (2)(c)(i)), and wouldn't be available above an overcast under any circumstances - that becomes IFR.

But, 3km (5km above 3,000 ft) which is the privilege of a normal PPL (no IMC or IR) is still very poor visibility - nonetheless, for a microlight flying typical tight circuits at the 500ft circuit height typical at a microlight airfield it's perfectly sensible for circuits - and should be safe enough since nobody in their right mind should be flying cross-country that low in those conditions. (Plus the airfield should be marked on the chart).


There is a healthy debate going on at present suggesting that warbirds on Permits (Hunters and the like) which were permitted to fly IMC in military service should be allowed to go IFR in transit. This has been under active discussion with CAA for a few years, and everybody's in favour (especially anybody who has ever flow or encountered a transiting Hunter at low level doing just under 250kn) but there still seems some way to go before even this gets approved and it'll probably be necessary for pilots to have revalidated their IMC/IR on that type.

G

[Punditgreen]

Ghengis

Would you be kind enough to tell me where it is published that pilots of Permit aircraft must remain in sight of the ground?

My aircraft placard says that the a/c may be flown by day under VFR only. As a holder of an IMC rating I may use the ANO definitions for VFR flight outside CAS below FL100, ie 5k/1500m/1000ft, which clearly does not forbid me from flying above a solid deck. Nevertheless I still have to ensure that in getting there and descending I remain VMC (VFR). If I get engine failure then I will possibly break the Law, although I may have considerable mitigation.

PG

[Genghis the Engineer]

Good question, it's one of those gospel points that when you look it up you can't find. I've just checked the standard wording on a permit, and the standard conditions of an NPPL(M) and neither contain that restriction. Looking at article 9a of the ANO, which contains the basic permit restrictions again there is no such limitation.

It is listed in Brian Cosgrove's Microlight pilots' Handbook but without a document reference.

The ANO does list "not out of sight of surface" under privileges of an NPPL(M), which as you rightly say doesn't apply to the holder of an IR or IMC - so you may well be right, but I think I need to consult an expert.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Postscript,

Okay, I was wrong - I found the duty expert and he confirmed that you can legally fly out of sight of the ground in any permit aircraft so long as this is VFR within your own licence privileges.

G

[S-Works]

How can you be VFR out of sight of the ground? How do you get back down afterwards, pray for a hole in the cloud?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Nobody said it was sensible, just legal.

G

[Flyin'Dutch']

The way I read the ANO (ENR 1.2) it [VFR] seems to mean to me in sight of the surface.

Can not interpret that any difference.

Unless Punditgreen and DFC can point towards the relevant bits of legislations I would suggest Permit aircraft flyers stick to the rules as they have been interpreted hitherto by the majority.

[IO540]

Out of interest, let's say you have an IMC Rating or an IR, in that case "VFR" no longer requires to be in sight of the surface. Is this not the case for microlights also?

I don't recall the ANO limiting this privilege (the removal of the "in sight of surface" restriction which the CAA puts onto an ICAO PPL) to CofA aircraft only.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Cap 733 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP733.PDF) refers and more in particular item 2.2 operational limitations.

This clearly states that other than after specific permission from the CAA , permit aircraft shall be flown 'by day and in accordance with VFR'

If you then take the AIP ENR 1.2 and look under VFR you can read that this means 'in sight of the surface'

[Mark 1]

I beg to differ.

According to Rule 26 you only need to be in sight of the surface if you are using one of the cases of flying below 3000' that allow reduced visibility and separation from cloud.

Above 3000' the only requirement is 1000' vertical, 1500m horizontal from cloud and 5km vis.

[Mike Cross]

Art 9A (7)
(7) An aircraft flying in accordance with a permit to fly shall only be flown by day and in accordance with the Visual Flight Rules unless the prior permission of the CAA has been obtained.

Art 129
‘Visual Flight Rules’ means Visual Flight Rules prescribed by the Rules of the Air;
‘Visual Meteorological Conditions’ means weather permitting flight in accordance with the Visual Flight Rules.

ROAR
Rule 24
(2) In relation to flights outside controlled airspace rule 26 shall be the Visual Flight Rules.

ROAR Rule 26
26 (1) An aircraft flying outside controlled airspace at or above flight level 100 shall remain at least 1500 metres horizontally and 1000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 8 km.
(2) (a) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace below flight level 100 shall remain at least 1500 metres horizontally and 1000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.
(b) Sub-paragraph (a) shall be deemed to be complied with if:
(i) the aircraft is flying at or below 3000 feet above mean sea level and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km;
(ii) the aircraft, other than a helicopter, is flying at or below 3000 feet above mean sea level at a speed which according to its air speed indicator is 140 knots or less and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface and in flight visibility of at least 1500 metres; or
(iii) in the case of a helicopter the helicopter is flying at or below 3000 feet above mean sea level flying at a speed, which having regard to the visibility is reasonable, and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

FD You are wrong.

What this says is that if:
(i) the aircraft is flying at or below 3000 feet above mean sea level and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km then it is deemed to comply. If you actually comply with 26(2)(a) you do NOT have to be in sight of the surface.

It is there to make you legal if say you are flying at 1500 feet below a 2000 ft cloudbase, which you would not be if you had to comply with 26(2)(a) without this exemption.

Blast - Mark 1 beat me to it:{ :{ :{

[Flyin'Dutch']

Happy to concede you are correct as long as you operate below 3000ft or above FL100 and take into account the other limitations.

[Punditgreen]

Good Grief MC, I think I would have just posted the references, but you have it on the nail.
Like I said, and it has been pointed out, you must go up and down in a "hole" and maybe be illegal if you lose the noise in front. Note: you will need to be very accurate with your nav otherwise you might break the permit requirements to avoid built-up areas.
Oh dear, wait for the flak now:rolleyes: :E

[Ludwig]

I'm glad I asked!

So, having established it is OK to fly a permit a/c "VFR on top” provided the altitudes mentioned by Flyin’ Dutch are adhered to, and provided the pilot is suitably rated to be out of sight of the surface, is there a minimum legal equipment requirement or can any permit aircraft be so flown? (I am not talking about minimum to be sensible, just to comply with the law):confused:

[Rod1]

From memory the minimum for a permit is ASI, Altimeter, Fuel measurement of some kind and a compass.

[Genghis the Engineer]

ASI, Altimeter, minimum engine instruments as determined by the engine manufacturer. No legal requirement for a compass - since some permit aircraft are probably incapable of flying out of sight of their take off point anyhow!

G

[Mike Cross]

Sorry, still think FD's not quite got a hold on it.

Outside controlled airspace:-

You don't have to be below 3000 feet or above FL100, it's legal at any height providing you meet the cloud separation and vis requirements.

There are differing visibility requirements depending on whether you are above or below FL100.

If you are below 3000 ft and in sight of the surface and have 5km or more of visibility (fixed wing) then the cloud separation requirements do not apply.

Whether or not it is safe and sensible is another matter. There seems to be a worrying feeling among some people that if something is legal then it's OK to do it. Not sure I would like to be flying with or near someone with that attitude.:uhoh:

[Genghis the Engineer]

In that Mike, I agree with you completely.

I can only recall ever once being above overcast in a permit aircraft - it was a BN2 Islander on a PtF for transit in green only, and the captain was B-N's Chief Test Pilot.

In any single engined permit aircraft - your typical PFA or BMAA aeroplane in other words (or with a pilot less than 100% competent in IMC, in that aircraft), I'd want to be flying such that there was no significant risk of descending through cloud if I had an engine failure / stuck throttle / just needed to get down and land.

In other words, if it's unsafe but legal - safety MUST be more important than legality. (Frankly, if my safest option is to fly illegally, I'll break the law too - but that's not really relevant in this case).

G

[Ludwig]

Continuing then with the hypothetical discussion, as Ghengis said safe is more important than legal, how do you measure “safe”. Just because one pilot would not want to be descending through cloud with nothing but an ASI and a weighted key fob for guidance, does that necessarily mean it is unsafe? I suspect human nature means we decides that something was unsafe post-event, on the “did that scare the living daylights out of me” scale rather than any measurable objective scale. Does safe = no fear, and unsafe = frightening?:confused:

[Genghis the Engineer]

The AI, most flight instruments, and engine are all permitted to be uncertified in a Permit aircraft - and therefore usually are, the vacuum system is unlikely to be duplex and the handling qualities may not have been shown to meet the standards for IMC flight, and there's probably been no consideration of lightning strike or icing in the certification ; thus flying IMC (or above an overcast) in most permit aircraft could certainly not be described as "proven safe". Yes, a good instrument pilot would probably be fine 99.99 of occasions - it's that 0.01% that will however bite somebody sometime.

G

[DFC]

When going down the road of describing pilots who legally fly a single engine aircraft above an overcast as "unsafe" on the basis that any engine failure will require flight in IMC, please remember that you are at the same time describing pilots who fly single engine cross water as "dangerous" because while an engine failure in a microlight above an overcast with 1500ft base may not be nice, it is entirely possible to acheive a safe landing (with an experienced pilot).......................the same can not be said about ditching mid channel (with the same pilot).

Flying is all about balancing risks and it is impossible to have any form of flight totally without risk.

2 Pilots - 1 flies within sight of the surface and gropes round at minimum levels in 3k visibility...........the other climbes above the haze layer to 100k vis and in order to remain there will from time to time be out of sight of the surface while crossing some cloud. Both are taking on risk.......but perhaps number 2 has the least risk of collision, CFIT etc.

As Genghis says, don't mix up "legal", and "safe".............60mph on a back road is legal......may not be very safe though!

Of course when dealing with the legal reuirements, a non-IR holder and non-IMC holder can fly above an overcast legally provided that somewhere in the distance there is the top of a hill sticking up through it.

Personally, the problems in understanding the UK system stem from the fact that airspace requirements for VFR and Licensing requirements for VFR are different.

Why can't the CAA simply say that regardless of pilot qualification all VFR flight must be in sight of the surface.............or even better, comply with the ICAO requirements and simply say that VFR flights must comply with VMC minima.

But of course if the CAA was to let PPLs fly VFR out of sight of the surface there would be a fall off in the uptake of the IMC course and the training establishment would not like that.

Regards,

DFC

[ThePirateKing]

DFC,

Anecdotal evidence suggests that my training organisation/instructor taught me more radio navigation than seems to be necessary to pass the PPL. Even if legal, I know I would be extremely uncomfortable navigating without being in sight of the ground, and I expect many fresh PPLs would be too.

Plus there's always the issue of how to get up/down there - especially the latter if the weather is worsening and there's no hole.

IMVHO, the ICAO standard is tantamount to encouraging people to fly IMC who are not otherwise qualified to do so. :ooh:

Rgds,

TPK:ok:

[Mike Cross]

IMVHO, the ICAO standard is tantamount to encouraging people to fly IMC who are not otherwise qualified to do so.
IMVHO that's rubbish. The rule clearly defines VMC. Anyone who presses on when it is clear that he is not going to be able to remain in VMC is stupid and dangerous, whether he is pressing on over a deck of cloud where the holes are filling in or scud running under a lowering cloudbase or towards rising ground. Both are stupid and illegal things to do.

[ShyTorque]

Guys and Gals,

How do you feel about military SEPs flying GH above a solid bank of cloud?

[DFC]

The Pirate King,

If you rely on visual navigation then you need to be able to see the surface at each checkpoint that defines your route.

The ICAO system is very clear about the weather minima.......you can't fly unless both the Actual and Forecast weather tells you that you can complete the flight as planned

If you have planned a flight that relies on visual contact with the surface then that is what you need. If however, you are capable of planning and operating a flight out of sight of the surface safely than that is OK also according to ICAO under VFR provided VMC is maintained.

When operating a VFR flight above cloud, we require that there is no significant cloud below the cruise level at the destination for -1 to +3 hours of ETA on say a flight to the South of France...and we have an IR and IR equipped aircraft........if the weather does not meet that then we go IFR.
We could plan to do the exact same in a microlight.......except that if the weather wasn't good enough we would stay at home!

Everything is in the planning........the most likely flight to get caught above cloud is the one that hasn't planned to be there in the first place.......it is also the most likely aircraft to get lost.

We all need to set our own operating minima and stick to them but remember that they are your personal minima and not a yard stick for others.

If I am going flying with a VFR rated pilot and they say the weather is too bad than that is that......I will not jump in and say "it's good enough for me (IR rated) so we can go". because while that may be true sometimes, it places undue peer pressure on later decisions and creates a culture where by they think that they can depart in marginal weather and that I can save the day when the clag closes in.

Regards,

DFC

[ThePirateKing]

DFC,

Sorry, I wasn't very clear...

What I meant was that with the current level of radio navigation training required for a JAA PPL, I don't think VFR flight on top is very sensible.

Also (and I realise this has been done to death), no matter how well one interprets charts, etc., there is always the possibility that the weather at the destination will not be as forecast/expected, resulting in the possibility of forced IMC to return to terra firma. Not too clever.

As I understand it, PPLs in, for example, France are allowed to fly VMC on top, and the it's the CAA who impose the limit on their PPLs to remain in sight of the ground. Is that right? If so, I think that the CAA position is actually extremely sensible. It is my (humble) belief that VFR flight on top should not be allowed without better radio nav training and sufficient IMC training to at least descend through cloud.

Rgds,

TPK:ok:

[bigflyingrob]

You must be one of the few GA pilots who have ever seen a microlight air to air. Most GA pilots seem to think they are an optical illusion and ignore them. The ones from Elstree certainly do as they now run their circuit ( About 5 miles across so they will feel at home when they become BA captains you understand) across the top of our strip. I have got with 200 yds of several when taking off but I have never seen one twitch. Plaistows is on the chart and they miss that by about half a mile. Still if ATC have not told you about traffic you can hardly be expected to look out for it can you.!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Rob,

Don't take it personally - I fly both GA and microlights and get ignored just as much by your average Cessna driver in both.

G