EASA - Danish MEP speaks out

[Mike Cross]

Details here. (http://www.joinaopa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=253:easa-european-parliamentary-question&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=247)

[Dawdler]

I note it is a written question. Does anyone know the "Standard"* time for an answer to be submitted?

*(There must be one, the EU has a regulation for everything)

[peter272]

Good to see someone in the EU Parliament is doing something, but disappointed that its not a Brit. You can just see the reply will be a snow-job, though.

I note our new Foreign Secretary has been spouting off about stopping unnecessary regulation from the EU. Perhaps we should all write to him

[mmgreve]

That is interesting, especially because the the Danish CAA (SLV), in their own wisdom, already have operated such a rule for years. You are not allowed to base an N-reg in Denmark and some people have even been fined for doing so. Also, they do not recognise FAA issued licenses, so even if you stay within the Danish borders (that will be a holding pattern) you are not allowed to operate an OY-reg.

On Danish forums it has been suggested to test the rules up against the Chicago convention, but no-one seems to have the energy to fight the fight.

Regarding the safety argument, an interesting effect of the rules is that IR ratings are very very rare (the have no IMC rating) and given the prevailing weather way too many people fly themselves into the ground.

REV

[IO540]

You are not allowed to base an N-reg in Denmark I used to know a Danish pilot who said the same but when I asked him for the text of the law he never got back with it. He flew an N-reg turboprop.

How is "base" defined? It can only be in terms of limits on long term parking. What if you land in Denmark and the aircraft goes AOG? Do you have to cart it out on the back of a trailer, wings removed?

and some people have even been fined for doing so. Do you have references to the judgements? Not that I am doubting what you have been told but here in the UK we have had many claims of prosecutions which actually never took place. A good example is the many prosecutions of Cirrus owners for flying IFR without an ADF. None of these ever took place.

A big part of airport bar talk is talking about prosecutions by the CAA :) Most of these never happened.

Also, they do not recognise FAA issued licenses, so even if you stay within the Danish borders (that will be a holding pattern) you are not allowed to operate an OY-reg. So, there am I with my OY-reg jet. Are you saying I cannot fly into Danish airspace at all? And if I can, who decides how long I can park there?

An OY-reg would not be flown on an FAA license. It would be flown on a validation of an FAA license, for that particular airframe probably. This is how the IOM (M-reg) works. You fly on an IOM license.

On Danish forums it has been suggested to test the rules up against the Chicago convention, but no-one seems to have the energy to fight the fight.This suggests that nobody has actually been prosecuted, otherwise the rules would not need testing :)

[mmgreve]

IO540, how is your Danish?
http://www.slv.dk/Dokumenter/dsweb/Get/Document-10212/AIC%20B%2066%202009.pdf

I also talked directly to SLV (Danish CAA) about using my FAA license if Denmark if I moved back there and it was a very clear no-can-do. He was in fact the one telling me that I should go nowhere near an OY-reg without a JAA license, or all hell would break loose (nice man he was)

I know that Lasse Rungholm has been fined for flying his Beech 18 (N21FS). So Lasse is an aviation lawyer and why didn't he take it further? I am not sure, maybe because he has other things to do and because the fine was only equivalent to £300. I however understand that the fine was too small for him to take to EU. there has been a lot of talk around this on ww.pilots.dk

Having talked to Aerocenter Scandinavia who are based in Denmark and have a number of N-reg for sale, basically asking how they got around the rule, and it appears that they have a special permition to do this as they are trading the aircrafts and flights are test-flights.

As you can understand, I have spent some time looking into this as my original plan was to drop my CAA license and go all-FAA. Now the plan is to build a piggy-back deck of cards, as I MUST keep the CAA license in case I head back at some point.

[IO540]

He was in fact the one telling me that I should go nowhere near an OY-reg without a JAA license, or all hell would break loose (nice man he was)

OK, but he was not telling you that if you park an N-reg in Denmark for X days, you will be fined X euros or whatever.

With a Danish reg, Denmark (being the State of Registry) has total control and they can well say FAA papers are no good. They can also require you to wear pink underpants while flying it.

I can't speak Danish :) Google translates it as follows:

Aviation within Danish territory with foreign registered aircraft
, according to Aviation Act § 2, paragraph. 1 take place only if:
1. attached agreement with the State of registration on the right to
aviation within Danish territory (§ 2 paragraph. 1 b), or
2. Civil Aviation Administration has given special permission to air before
Danish territory with the aircraft (§ 2 paragraph. 1 c).
For private flights are only joined the Convention on the right approach;
overflights and technical stopover, the Chicago Convention
Article 5
Civil Aviation Administration accepts addition, generally, that persons
residing abroad, carry an aircraft registered
in their home country during holidays or other temporary residence in Denmark
and uses the aircraft for flight in Danish territory,
stay, without requiring special permission if the aircraft is
equipped with standard ICAO Airworthiness and insured
accordance with the requirements of EU Regulation No 785/2004.
However it requires special permission from the Civil Aviation Administration, whose
a foreign-registered aircraft desired stationed in Denmark
m.h.p. to be used for private flights in Danish territory, or
Based on Danish territory.
Such permission can normally only be expected given that the following
conditions are met:
a) there is a temporary - usually up to 6 months - and particularly
justified need to use a foreign aircraft in
Denmark, for example for the demonstration flight, or until the application
the Danish registration is completed and
b) the aircraft meets the conditions to obtain a
EASA or a national Danish standard of airworthiness and
c) the aircraft has a valid foreign EASA or ICAO standard
Airworthiness and are properly insured in accordance
d) in respect of aircraft to be included in the Danish register
applications for issuance of certificate of registration as well as Danish
application for Danish airworthiness certificate with all necessary documentation
including existing airworthiness certificate of insurance
and possible contract with a CAMO on startup
Review / Recommendation Process be received in the Civil Aviation Administration
and
e) it must be assumed that the registration authorities of the State without
etc. will be able to conduct effective oversight of the aircraft,
while stationed in Denmark.
This involves, among other things, that approval for the operation with foreign
aircraft can not be registered in Denmark because they do not
meeting the type certification suggestions and / or airworthiness related
requirements for this not to be expected given.
A given permission is not normally expected to be prolonged.
A copy of the permit must be carried in the aircraft.
Application for special permit submitted to the Civil Aviation Administration.
Levied any charge for the permit after bill, see BL
9-10, Regulations on Civil Aviation fees etc.
Section 3.2.1. and 3.2.1.1.
Civil Aviation Administration has found that there appear to be
private flying site in violation of the above rules and practices.
For purposes of enforcement of the rules has the Civil Aviation Administration
decided to tighten sanctions on the practice field, then the first time offenses
of Aviation Act § 2, paragraph. 1 hitherto
settled with a written warning.
This implies that the Civil Aviation Administration in the future as a starting point
already in first time offenses will ask prosecutors
whether to indict the commander
and / or aircraft owner with a recommendation on the imposition of a fine.
The new practice will apply to violations that may
take place from 1 February 2010.

This is unclear as to the limits. Obviously a Danish resident can fly into Denmark in a foreign reg plane, under ICAO privileges. How long can he stay?

[mmgreve]

Hurrah for google translate :-)

I actually found the ruling on Mr. Rungholm here:
http://www.slv.dk/Dokumenter/dsweb/Get/Document-1018/Overtr
It is reference 3/09 and reads: A pilot with a commercial pilot's license had done a number of private flights in
Danish territory by a foreign registered aircraft without permission from the Civil
Aviation Administration.
Decision: Fine of 3,000 kr

You can fly into Denmark with a foreign aircraft if you live abroad are only in Denmark for a short period of time (e.g. holiday, and I would assume maintenance). If you are a Danish resident, you can not base a foreign aircraft in Denmark. It is unclear for me if you are allowed to fly an N-reg into the country for temporary stop if you are resident there.

This part is after wining the case against Mr Rungholm:
Civil Aviation Administration has found that there appear to be
private flying site in violation of the above rules and practices.
For purposes of enforcement of the rules has the Civil Aviation Administration
decided to tighten sanctions on the practice field, then the first time offenses
of Aviation Act § 2, paragraph. 1 hitherto
settled with a written warning.
This implies that the Civil Aviation Administration in the future as a starting point
already in first time offenses will ask prosecutors
whether to indict the commander
and / or aircraft owner with a recommendation on the imposition of a fine.
The new practice will apply to violations that may
take place from 1 February 2010.

Then again, £300 is probably only 30min worth of fuel in a Beech 18, so who cares :O

[IO540]

If you are a Danish resident

How do they define the limits on residency? Is it tax residency they use? We have been around this block here before :) My guess is that nobody is bothering to test this properly... for £300 nobody would bother because the minimum cost of instructing a barrister and 1 day in court is about £10000.

£300 is probably only 30min worth of fuel in a Beech 18

It is about 5% of the average money he was making transferring a single plane via the Danish zero VAT route :)

[Justiciar]

IO

Article 32 of the Chicargo Convention specifies that any state can refuse to recognise foreign licences granted to its own nationals for the purpose of flights above its own territory.

So Denmark is perfectly entitled to say we don't recognise an FAA PPL granted to a Danish citizen, with the result that he could not lawfully fly on that licence within Denmark. That seems to apply even if the flight is by say a Danish national holding an FAA licence in an N reg aircraft, though I doubt any states go as far as to prohibit that where the aircraft is not based in the state concerned, e.g. I doubt that a Dane living in the US and flying for a US airline would be prohibited from flying as P1 or P2 into Copenhagen on a scheduled service! Probably that is covered by a blanket exception issued by the Danish CAA.

The issue of basing aircraft aircraft in a particular country is perhaps being looked at from the wrong perspective. Turning again to the Convention, Article 5, the limit of what a contracting state is obliged to allow is "flights into or in transit non-stop..." and to "... make stops for non-traffic purposes...".

So, anyone visiting Denmark in a G or N reg aircraft is covered by Article 5 and there should be no problem for them. Basing a non Danish aircraft in Denmark is not covered and Denmark is perfectly entitled to prohibit the practice. Make a "stop" for 12 months and the authorities might with some justification say that this is not in accordance with Article 5, which like the rest of the Convention is directed at international civil aviation flights.

[IO540]

I am not saying Denmark cannot do this. They are a sovereign country and within its borders they can do what they like.

It is them hanging this measure on the concept of "residency" which (like EASA's proposals) is odd.

I also regard such a measure as not something which a civilised country should be doing. Enforcement of aviation crimes is fully internationally supported and you will be pursued by the CAA where you are residing, regardless of the aircraft reg, whereas with e.g. cars local reg has to be mandatory because there is no international enforcement (short of extradition, but you need to do a bit more than reverse up a one way street for that ;) ).

[lasseb]

Regarding the safety argument, an interesting effect of the rules is that IR ratings are very very rare (the have no IMC rating) and given the prevailing weather way too many people fly themselves into the ground.

Very interesting home-grown statistics you have there.. Do you have any documentation at all to back it up????

[mmgreve]

Lasseb, is the pope catholic? Or let me put it this way;

1) How many private pilots (i.e. not people hoping to fly for money, but true hobby pilots) do you know in Denmark or anywhere else in Europe with a JAA IR? I know none

2) Why would anyone chose to operate N-reg in Europe. The main answer is easy access to IR

Do I have any official statistics? No, but do you have any statistics to show that the Danish SLV has a better safety record than FAA, that the FAA IR rating is unsafe or that N-regs in general cause a safety hazard? In my book, this is pure vanity from SLV and now EASA. It is created for the safety of pencil pusher jobs, not the life of pilots and passengers.

And on your last point.....any pilot flying into IMC without IR is one too many, regardless of outcome. There was recently a crash in Denmark that was a text book example of a situation that would have had a very different outcome with an IR. Given your location, I am sure you know which one I am talking about, but this is only one of many - feel free to go through the reports on www.hcl.dk (http://www.hcl.dk)

[lasseb]

1) I know quire many actually . And I'm one of them.
2) That was not my question. You stated that way to many pilots fly them self into the ground.
I can tell you that NO statistic at all says this! I have no idea where you have that from, and if you are not able to point to at least some statistic that says this, then don't say it. (or at least state that this is you own opinion).

I totally agree that the SLV & EASA N-reg policy is nonsense and idiotic. But I don't start making up my own statistics to try and prove it.

What accident are you talking about? I can think of no accident at all where this would have been an issue. Maybe you are thinking of the VFR pilot who departed from an VFR field in IMC conditions, with an overloaded plane without ever checking any weather information at all.
Not really a case study for the issue of NREG-IR ratings.
And it is still not legal to depart IMC from an VFR field regardless of the number of ratings in you license

[peter272]

The real issue is around Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) that is a big issue in the UK

The data does seem to indicate that IMC-qualified pilots are less at risk than unqualified pilots event though it is a sub-IR rating.

But, of course, EASA does know best

[MarcK]

And it is still not legal to depart IMC from an VFR field regardless of the number of ratings in you license
I am always astounded at the degree of control asserted by EU regulatory authorities. "VFR field"? No such thing in the US.

[IO540]

And it is still not legal to depart IMC from an VFR fieldI don't think it is possible to depart IMC from anywhere ;)

Kind of hard to taxi to the runway ;)

[MarcK]

Certainly possible to depart IMC/IR from any airport. Just call Flight Service and get a departure clearance with a void time. Or ask the tower (if tower controlled). I can even get a clearance for IFR to VFR-on-top from the tower (to get over a fog layer) -- just ask ground control on first contact. No filing required. 0-0 departures are legal for Part 91.

[POBJOY]

This must surely rule out the chance of getting a breakfast patrol organised over there !!!!

[lasseb]

Under JAA rules it is not legal to depart in sub-VFR condition (=IMC) from a VFR field. Some countries do have exceptions to this though. (Sweden is one of them).

There is no doubt that an IMC rating will make you a better pilot. Just like there is no doubt than an IFR rating will make you a better pilot, and an ATPL license will make you a better pilot and... and ..and...(etc). Basically you can just narrow it down to the more you fly the better you get. ;-)
But that was not really the discussion here and it doesn't really prove any validity to the whole "should it be IMC or IR" issue..

From an IR perspective I don't really get why people want an FAA IR. I have heard from several people who tried the FAA IR - and who has the JAA IR - that it's not really that much easier to obtain and not really cheaper when you add the stuff up.

But from a plane licensing issue there are huge benefits with an N-reg plane.

[IO540]

How do you define a "VFR field"? I know some countries have got Eurocontrol to refuse an I flight plan to/from certain classes of airfields, but this is far from usual in Europe.

From an IR perspective I don't really get why people want an FAA IR. I have heard from several people who tried the FAA IR - and who has the JAA IR - that it's not really that much easier to obtain and not really cheaper when you add the stuff up.

Historically the difference has been huge. When I was doing my PPL I looked into it and the PPL version of the IR was all 14 ATPL exams. A year or two later it came down and now it is 7 exams, with some doubled-up so really 9 exams. And there is a huge pile of restrictions which I am not going to type up all over again but it is stuff like having to do it at an FTO (which for most pilots means staying in a hotel), having to have the plane specially approved, modified, etc etc.

At the same time the US route has acquired some hassle (TSA+Visa) and their fuel prices have gone up.

Nevertheless I did an IR in Arizona for something like $4k including airline tickets, hotel, food, which is a small fraction of doing one here, and this was in 2006, with the full load of TSA/Visa crap (which only takes 2 days if you have a checklist - anybody interested email me).

But from a plane licensing issue there are huge benefits with an N-reg plane.Again, this varies. If yours is loaded with old mods then yes. If you did a load of avionics upgrades a few years ago or more then also true. But mine (2002 TB20GT) is factory standard and meets both FAA and JAA requirements. Most of today's avionics are EASA approved (but not all). I just really appreciate the maintenance freedom, with freelance people being able to work on it, which enables one to avoid the crooks and incompetents which the maintenance scene has a fair few of.

It is the overall package which supports the N-reg scene; rarely it is one single thing. Well, there is no way I was going to do the 14 exams (full of absolute crap) back in 2001/2002....

If Europe addressed the IR, certification, and (for some people) the silly initial v. renewal (with no demonstrated ability on initials) medical business, the N-reg scene would gradually go away (at the private piston end, anyway). But the regulators have known this for many years; they don't want to change it because it is tied up with job protection in NAAs, FTOs, etc.

[mmgreve]

Great IO, I was waiting for you to give the reasoning for why people chose the FAA IR :-)

The more important questions is however not why do people choose FAA IR and how can we make them go back to JAA, it must simply be why is it important. Unless you can show some pretty convincing statistics that N-regs tend to fall out of the sky and that an FAA licence is dangerous, I can really not understand why EASA is determined to go down this route.

Sure, it might be a bit strange that we all these N-regs flying around Europe and people why very rarely go to the states have FAA licenses.....but is it an issue?

The real option for everyone to save a bunch of money and time is if we close down the European national CAAs, replace it with the EASA (this is already happening) and let the EASA rules and regulation be a carbon copy of FAA (probably not going to happen). :ugh:

[IO540]

There are NO stats showing foreign regs as more dangerous.

Loads and loads of people have looked for such and never found them.

[Fuji Abound]

There are NO stats showing foreign regs as more dangerous.

and you can bet some people have tried really hard. :)

Interestingly there are some pretty good stats which suggest the present European regime is a great deal more dangerous that the FAA equivalent (see the article in the recent German GA mag.).

[IO540]

The UK Dept for Transport asked the CAA to find such data; the CAA's reply was that there isn't any...

There is no doubt whatsoever that the extra European regulation is completely ineffective when it comes to safety.

It just supports job protection schemes.

[mmgreve]

Fuji, do you have a link to the German magezine?

[IO540]

Maybe here (http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/servlet/use/Home.class?frame&main=%7Bhttp://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2010-10-07/FAA_and_Europe_Safety_Record%7D)

[Fuji Abound]

That is the one. ;)

[mmgreve]

and it is even in English :ok:

[mmgreve]

Lasseb,

Please read the article to your question on statistics. Here is an extract I think you will find interesting

Of 31.219 private airplane pilots in Germany only 1.667 held this qualification. That’s 5,5%. The number is an embarrassment,
plain and simple. You could easily summon all german "PPL/IR" pilots in a Bierzelt and probably even afford to buy them a drink.
Paying for the 57.422 US instrument-rated private pilots (27%) to have a good time would be a much larger investment. The
number gets even starker, if you take into account the US commercial- and ATP-rated pilots holding only a private medical
certificate, hence only exercising private pilot privileges (something very common in the US, but legally not possible in the EU).
113.212 airline- and commercial-pilots with instrument-ratings fall into that category, bringing the number of instrument-rated
pilots engaged solely in General Aviation up to 172.634. That translates to 48,1% of all US airplane pilots holding a private-pilotmedical
certificate!
It follows, the comparison between GA-pilots holding the vital instrument qualification in the US and pilots of the same skill- and
experience-level in Germany is 48 percent against 5,5 percent!That is a very interesting comparisson, and I will bet that it has a little to do with the hurdles of obtaining the rating in Europe. So again, I believe that the initiatives from EASA (and SLV) has the potential to create both more jobs and more dead bodies !

[lasseb]

IO540:
Under JAA rules an airport is either approved for VMC and/or IMC operations.
(night and/or daytime).

$4k is quite cheap for an full IR rating. The cost in Europe is currently around 5 times that. The people I know paid quite a bit more for their FAA-IR.

----
I think it is quite difficult to compare US and Europe with regards to flying.
In general flying is much easier in the US, and small planes are more welcome in every airport. All in all US is much more GA friendly than any other country.
I'm not convinced that simply counting the numbers of license holders in EU and US will make a usable statistic.

What we can compare though is if there are more accident with N-REG / FAA IR licenses and it does not appear so. Just that fact makes the EASA regulation utterly stupid.
However there are forces out there working to get an easier obtainable JAA-IR rating - mainly with the theoretical exam which is totally overkill compared to FAA.

[IO540]

I did live in a cheap hotel for the 2 weeks, and I already had 500hrs TT of which about 100 was instrument time, and with the IMCR I could already fly all procedures. It was just 2 weeks of very intense instrument flying, approaches, etc. But fuel prices have gone up even since 2006 so the FAA IR costs more today.

There is no doubt the gap has narrowed, and today I would not (generally) advise a purely UK resident pilot to do the FAA IR unless they already have an N-reg plane, in which case the case for it is very clear.

The FCL008 committee has been working on a new "private IR".

My vague recollection of how far it got before it finished is that the minimum dual (flight with instructor) time was reduced from 50hrs to 15hrs (FAA IR is 15hrs; ICAO IR min dual time is 10hrs) and the exams were reduced by about 20% from the present level.

There was other stuff like a removal of UK CAA gold plating. I don't recall if one still had to do it at an FTO (which is a major issue at present). There was no change on the medical; you still have to pass the Class 1 audiogram in each ear separately, with no demonstrated ability allowed on the Initial medical. Previous instrument training was acceptable towards it, unlike with the ab initio JAA IR.

However one of the 008 members now writes that there is no assurance at all that FCL008 proposals will be adopted in whole or in part. That is fair obvious and applies to all EASA proposals.

The worst case is obviously if EASA proposals go through totally but FCL008 work is rejected totally.

[BillieBob]

Under JAA rules an airport is either approved for VMC and/or IMC operations.Since there are no JAA 'rules' this statement is patently incorrect. That aside, which specific JAA 'requirements' deal with the "approval of airports for operations in VMC and/or IMC operations" and where in any European regulation or requirement is reference made to a 'VFR field'?

[Miserlou]

Apart from the licensing issues and cost of training, does not the real reason lie with the historic agency within the Danish government set up by the original viking expeditions. You remember those blood thirsty rapers and pillagers? They are still doing it, of course, but now they are known as the TAX DEPARTMENT.

The basic rule is that any luxury item must be available to anyone, taxed out of reach of everyone or illegal.

I heard a norwegian describe Denmark as the only country in the world where their envy exceeds their sex drive.

[Shell Management]

I have always found the SLV have been a very effective and helpful CAA.

[IO540]

The Danish CAA is the only one to put the ICAO documents online (http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/).

I gather from an insider there that they get a lot of stick for this, but they do it because it is a safety issue :ok:

Unfortunately the list is not complete. But it is a super reference.

[lasseb]

BillieBob->
My mistake, its an ICAO requirement (and therefore also a JAR requirement for the JAR states that has chosen to accept the ICAO requirement).
That aside, which specific JAA 'requirements' deal with the "approval of airports for operations in VMC and/or IMC operations"

ICAO annex 14 states that each runway must be classified as either VMC or IFR(sub grouped into approach types)

and where in any European regulation or requirement is reference made to a 'VFR field'?
In the AIP for the aerodrome. There it is stated if the airport is approved for VMC/IMC etc.

Miserlou -> kudos on the TAX joke :ok:
Sadly I think you are correct. Anything that resembles luxory must be taxed away, so that we all are equal because we are treated differently.. or something :-D

IO540 ->
It's not really a safety issue.
By Danish law, any legal documents that you are obliged to follow MUST be public available for free. And since DK uses the ICAO annexes as a rule set, the must provide them free of charge.

[IO540]

ICAO annex 14 states that each runway must be classified as either VMC or IFR(sub grouped into approach types)

I don't think the UK is too bothered about this, since you can file an I flight plan to/from a farm strip here :)

And why should they be?

Class G is Class G. Nobody can issue an IFR clearance in Class G so why try to regulate it? The sky is big enough.... (usually ;) ).

[lasseb]

But is it legal to takeoff/land on a runway classified as VMC only??
I know that in sweden you may takeoff under IMC on a VFR class runway, but in DK its a no no...

At its definitely a no-no to land under IMC if there isn't a published approach.

Can you really file IFR to an VFR field??. In DK thats also an no-go.. The bruxelles computer simply refuses it. You have to file a Y flight plan, and at some point write VFR.
I assumed that all IFR flight-plans went through the bruxelles computer, but maybe your excused in UK :-D

[IO540]

You are heavily into country-dependent stuff here.

But is it legal to takeoff/land on a runway classified as VMC only??If you mean depart into say OVC005, Yes in the UK.

I know that in sweden you may takeoff under IMC on a VFR class runway, but in DK its a no no...You must be referring to a departure in [near] zero vis e.g. 10m vis in fog. This is legal under Part 91 in the USA and I did this in my IR training out there (would not do it in practice due to possible runway obstructions etc) but I don't know if it is legal in the UK (there have been many differing views on it; my current understanding is that min vis with a full IR is about 500m, for both departure and arrival).

Otherwise it is meaningless. ICAO specifies 1500ft min cloudbase for VFR ops at an airport in CAS (Class A-D) and sure enough the airport will enforce some such cloudbase (as I found out trying to depart in OVC010 from Biarritz, whose min was 1200ft then) but a Class G airport has no power to do that.

In the USA they bust you for it but only if you did not file an IFR flight plan. They cannot bust you for a lack of an IFR clearance, in Class G, obviously :)

At its definitely a no-no to land under IMC if there isn't a published approach.FAR 91.175 bans that for N-reg, apparently worldwide, and probably for any aircraft in US airspace, but DIY instrument approaches are otherwise allowed in the UK.

This topic has been done to death on pilot forums but basically if the cloudbase is say OVC010 then you are doing a VFR approach, regardless of whether you actually flew some DIY GPS-based cloud break procedure (nobody can tell the difference).

In the UK it is common to arrive "VFR" in say OVC005 conditions, to a Class G airport. One imagines people do a DIY procedure. Very few get killed; more pilots seem to get killed abroad where it is illegal, thought that is probably due to the lack of an IMC Rating there.

Can you really file IFR to an VFR field??. In DK thats also an no-go.. The bruxelles computer simply refuses it. You have to file a Y flight plan, and at some point write VFR.Fair enough. DK is entitled to instruct IFPS to check for PU (pink underpants) in the equipment declaration, alongside 8.33 and DME :)

The UK doesn't care (it is meaningless in practice because nobody will be able to see whether you were VMC at the VFR transition waypoint).

I assumed that all IFR flight-plans went through the bruxelles computer, but maybe your excused in UK :-DAll IFR FPs get sent to IFPS but different countries can insist on different additional conditions.

[IO540]

Just got this from IAOPA

Denmark abolishes its CAA

The Danish Ministry for Transportation has announced that the Danish CAA (SLV) will cease to exist as a separate authority from today. Henceforth all CAA activities will be handled by the Agency for Transportation currently dealing with road and rail matters. The Director of the Danish CAA left his position on September 1st, and the new director for the combined agency will be the current Director for the Agency for Transportation.
AOPA Denmark’s Jacob Pedersen says the organisation is very concerned about this sudden move and fears that it will lead to a loss of competencies. He says: “The aviation industry is a very specialised business and needs a dedicated authority which fully understands the industry. The Ministry will not make any further comment at this time so it is unclear what is the reason for this surprising move. I suspect that it may be in recognition of the fact that more and more tasks will be moved to EASA level in the longer term.”

Quite funny really :)