What's the minimum vis for.....

[bogbeagle]

....landing at a licensed airfield in the Open FIR? The field has no instrument approach or landing aids except runway edge lighting. Of course, it has an ATZ.

bogbeagle

[one dot right]

Don't quote me but I would suggest whatever V.M.C is for the type you are flying-I seem to remember >140 kts it changes?

[Whopity]

The VFR minima below 140 Kts is 1500 metres for aeroplanes and not specified for helicopters. In most cases the licence privileges will limit the pilot to 3 Km if operating on a UK issued PPL however, the holder of a PPL issued by a State other than the UK may not have the 3 K limit so they could use 1500 metres. The holder of a UK PPL or JAA CPL with a UK IMC rating is restricted to 1800 metres for take off and landing.

[bookworm]

....landing at a licensed airfield in the Open FIR? The field has no instrument approach or landing aids except runway edge lighting. Of course, it has an ATZ.

In legal terms there is no minimum for non-public-transport flights. There may be minima set by airport management.

[orionsbelt]

1 See Ad1.1 Para 4.4.1
4.4 Single pilot operation
4.4.1 For single pilot operations in an aeroplane, the minimum RVR for all approaches shall be in accordance with the above, except that an RVR of less than 800 m is not permitted unless using a suitable autopilot coupled to an ILS or MLS, in which case normal minima apply. The Decision Height applied must not be less than 1.25 x the minimum use height for the autopilot.
ANO schedule 8 PPL Priveleges
(a)The licence is subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in paragraph 1.175 of JAR-FCL 1.
(b) The holder shall not, unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane:
(i) on a flight outside controlled airspace when the flight visibility is less than 3km;
(ii) on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 10 km except on a route or in an aerodrome traffic zone notified for the purpose of this sub-paragraph; or
(iii) out of sight of the surface.
(c) The holder shall not unless his licence includes an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command or co- pilot of such an aeroplane flying in Class D or E airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules.
If You have an IMC Rateing then its 1800mts

[bookworm]

1 See Ad1.1 Para 4.4.1
Yes but note the preamble to AD 1.1.2
This section of the AIP specifies the notified method of calculating Aerodrome Operating Minima (AOM) for the purpose of Article 48 (Public Transport Aircraft not registered in the United Kingdom) and Article 49 (Non-public Transport Aircraft).
Art 49 says
... an aircraft to which this article applies when making a descent at an aerodrome to a runway in respect of which there is a notified instrument approach procedure shall not ...
Thus it is not applicable in bogbeagle's scenario.

[Whopity]

Rule 22 says you must comply with either the IFR or the VFR. If there is no Instrument approach that only leaves the VFR. Rule 26 2(b) (iii) establishes the minima.

Rule 5 is legal, so why not 26?

[bogbeagle]

Interesting.

I'd figured that it would be a minimum of 1500m and that the IMC-rated pilots' minima of 1800m would not apply.

bogbeagle

[bookworm]

If there is no Instrument approach that only leaves the VFR.

Not so. As a trivial counterexample, at night, all approaches outside controlled airspace are conducted under IFR, but an Instrument Approach Procedure is not required, otherwise night flying from airports without IAPs would be impossible.

More specifically Rule 29, one of the Instrument Flight Rules, says:

Minimum height
29 Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 5, in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless:
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;

That exception (a) is all that is required. There is no mention of an instrument approach procedure, notified or otherwise.

[Whopity]

One could argue that below 3000 feet there are no instrument flight rules as the only two rules 29 and 30 do not apply! Therefore, if there are no instrument flight rules to comply with the only option under Rule 22 is to comply with the VFR. AD 1.1.2 specifies that the flight should be conducted in VMC where there is no instrument approach. (Night IFR is a Red Herring. The only reasons for requiring compliance with IFR at night are for terrain clearance and use of quadrantal cruising altitudes en route)

The ANO may be a mess in this respect however, if you apply logical reasoning, the only way to fly a visual approach to an airfield is in accordance with the VFR.

If you ignore the VFR minima and the information given in the AIP you are likely to be in breach of 73 and 74 endangerment.

[bookworm]

One could argue that below 3000 feet there are no instrument flight rules as the only two rules 29 and 30 do not apply! Therefore, if there are no instrument flight rules to comply with the only option under Rule 22 is to comply with the VFR.

Of course the rules apply below 3000 ft. But you are in compliance with the rule if you fall within the exceptions.


AD 1.1.2 specifies that the flight should be conducted in VMC where there is no instrument approach.

AD 1.1.2 is not regulatory, except where in provides notifications cited in the ANO. Its advice is very sensible.

(Night IFR is a Red Herring. The only reasons for requiring compliance with IFR at night are for terrain clearance and use of quadrantal cruising altitudes en route)

Those are the only reasons for requiring compliance with IFR in IMC, too!

The ANO may be a mess in this respect however, if you apply logical reasoning, the only way to fly a visual approach to an airfield is in accordance with the VFR.

If you ignore the VFR minima and the information given in the AIP you are likely to be in breach of 73 and 74 endangerment.

Once you start introducing Art 73 and 74, you're starting to evaulate what is safe, not what is permitted by other regulations. It's perfectly possible to endanger the aircraft and others while complying with VFR. VFR flights manage to scud run into obstacles and terrain all too often. An approach is not "safe" with a vis of 1501 m and "unsafe" with a vis of 1499 m. Rather the safety case depends on other circumstances.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that it is reasonable to fly approaches to airports without IAPs in low visibility. Personally I'd be very uncomfortable attempting to avoid obstacles visually in anything less than 5000 m or so. But there is no specific regulation that sets a minimum visibility for such an arrival.

[Whopity]

But there is no specific regulation that sets a minimum visibility for such an arrival.Provided you hold a valid IR!
That is why I did not include reference to IR holders in my original post. If you don't have an IR then the other limitations will apply.

Whilst it may be legal to fly a visual approach under IFR! it goes against the basic principle of never flying IFR below the Safety Altitude unless on an Instrument approach or departure.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Whilst it may be legal to fly a visual approach under IFR! it goes against the basic principle of never flying IFR below the Safety Altitude unless on an Instrument approach or departure.

Errr, what if it's VMC?????

[Whopity]

Then you should be flying VFR not IFR!

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Then you should be flying VFR not IFR!
I'm sorry, but you are wrong, most fundamentally so.

There is a real problem here, and I suggest that its roots lie in the fact that the Rules of the Air are taught as a dry topic in order to enable people to pass exams, and then are only revised by means of flying club chatter. Having followed this thread, and others like it, this causes me concern.
There is absolutely nothing in the IFR to prevent visual flight, indeed it is specifically provided for in Rule 29(d).

Selection of IFR or VFR is sometimes driven by met conditions, but very much more often by operators' policies. For example, scheduled operators almost invariably operate IFR - and yet carry out visual approaches as a matter of course. Those visual approaches are conducted under IFR. This provides for particular protections, notably in terms of separation from other traffic.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

...just to continue, and clarify...

I mentioned VMC above. You don't need to be VMC to comply with Rule 29(d), just clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

It may help to ponder - and perhaps discuss with your local ATCO (though there are some who haven't grasped this themselves), how the Rules would be interpreted if you were to fly visual circuits at your local airfield under IFR...