NVFR Operations during the Fire Season?

[oldrotorhead]

The purpose of this thread is to stimulate some discussion about the legalities, rather than the practicalities, of NVFR operations during the "Fire Season".
I don't want to turn it into a general thrash about NVFR in general and whether it's generally safe or otherwise, especially in SE aircraft, or whether you can legally do it without a visible horizon etc, etc. Let's just assume that you can generally do NVFR Ops so long as you remain in VMC which of course is the same for day and night (Except for Helicopter VMC which is not permitted at all at night)
A quick look at virtually every Area Forecast at the moment will indicate that VIS is affected by the Fires with words to the effect of "Areas of smoke below 9000ft, locally thick near fires" in the general part of the forecast to "VIS 2000 in thick smoke, 3000 in RASH and 7km in smoke haze, etc etc"
Now, leaving aside other Met issues such as the obvious, like cloud, when you consider the implications of AIP ENR 1.10, para 1,2,4 for example, which states"CHTR, AWK and PVT operations under the VFR at night must not be conducted unless the forecast indicates that the flight can be conducted in VMC at not less than 1000ft above the highest obstacles within 10nm either side of track", is this bloody smoke a limiting issue or not?
(NOTE that this area to be considered is different to that defined for consideration for LSALT purposes in GEN3.3 -17 para 4.10(b) which talks about the area within a 10nm radius of the aircraft etc)
So... can you legally go NVFR with the smoke issues on the forecast? They're not gunna go away for months and months I reckon. Lot's of folks out there still doing it anyway so are they legal or not?
Any discussion to be had?
Cheers, ORH

[Jay Bo]

Im thinking if you can't maintain minimum vis of 5km and the smoke covered the entire route it would be illegal

[oldrotorhead]

No doubt about that. Got to always be in VMC. However, I guess the question is whether the forecast really means that the VIS is likely to be say 2000m or whatever (less than 5K) across every square inch of the AREA. Today for example, (haven't) checked them all by the way) that could be all of Area 44, 40 and 20). It's been that way for the last few weeks, every day, by the way.
ORH

[Horatio Leafblower]

How do you avoid areas of smoke at night? :confused:

They put numbers on the visibility to make it as clear-cut as possible. If the forecast vis is less than 5000m it ain't VMC... pretty clear-cut I would have thought?

[Aimpoint]

I guess you're all carrying alternates in the day to aerodromes without a TAF too, given the viz is below the alternate minima on the area forecast.

[Jay Bo]

It's interesting that most of the TAF in the Arfor 20 show CAVOK for most airports including the critical locations so I can see how this can become confusing in trying to work out where the smoke actually is or exists at all

[NIK320]

I guess you're all carrying alternates in the day to aerodromes without a TAF too, given the viz is below the alternate minima on the area forecast.Without a TAF or someone to verify it, how do you know there is not a fire near your destination?
Id prefer to carry the alternate fuel than make that assumption based on absolutely nothing.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Of course, all this jibber jabber begs the question: how the **** did we ever fly VFR (day OR night) in the Territory between August and December?

:eek:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

With alternates (or TAFs). Easy if you're IFR.:E:ok:

Seriously though,

Jay Bo and Nik
I hope you are not insinuating that you are allowed to pick and choose Area Forecast applicability based on TAFs?
At night, can you say the TAF for an aerodrome on the other side of my area says not enough cloud for an alternate, therefore I can disregard the cloud that is forecast below my LSALT (any cloud is enough to cause a problem if you fly into it...easy to do on a moonless night) for the rest of the area?:confused:

Admittedly, this is more of a NVFR scenario. During the day, you see the area of reducing vis to either avoid it or turn back, bit harder to do at night.

[catseye]

Have a think about this from a fire management perspective.

Are we talking about bucketing or monitoring a fire at night. Worth doing on the urban interface with lots of cultural lighting if houses blah blah at risk. Probably reasonably safe in the Lane Cove National Park in the middle of Sydney or at the recent fire at Enoggera in Brisbane surrounded by cultural lighting.

Something out of Bulga into Wollemi National Park. No cultural lighting and often cloud forming at night in the smoke. Forget it. Better ways of monitoring by fixed wing anyway.

Remember the ground troops don't like working fires at night either.


Most experienced Met's will tell you that vis in smoke is a stab in the dark anyway. For those that have not seen it vis can go from CAVOK to 100 metres or less in an instant.

Why would you you be out attacking the middle of a national park on a dark night????? :ugh:

Ogsplash where are you. your thoughts??

[NIK320]

Not at all captain.

I'm responding to aimpoint who appeared to be leaving a sarcastic comment, (hard to tell in text) indicating he wouldn't carry the alternate for the area forecast low vis during the day.

If the TAF indicates better than the area forecast, It only applies to the 5nm surrounding the aerodrome. There is still the potential of encountering the poor conditions at some point along the route, or at the destination if it does not have a met observation/forecast.

[havick]

It will depend on your ops manual, exemptions and approvals and whether you are flying with night vision goggles or not.

Too many variables in play to give a definitive answer.

(edit: post refers to fire fighting operations)

[oldrotorhead]

Well the thread drifted a fair bit as they do but just to try to keep it alive a bit longer - it had nothing really to do with the Fire Season (other than that's when the smoke is really bad) and absolutely nothing to do with fire fighting or other ancillary fire operations at night and nothing at all to do with NVG operations. So far as I'm aware, they can only be done in VMC anyway.
I'm no further ahead as to whether it's OK to go at night when there's a mention of smoke on the Area Forecast as originally described?
ORH

[b_sta]

I would say yes, as long as you can be certain that you'll be clear of any smoke thereby maintaining VMC, which is obviously going to be difficult to do (to say the least) unless you're certain that the smoke is localised, which the ARFOR would need to state obviously, and you're in a very well lit area, ie. over a city, which could help you spot any reduction in visibility early. Don't think you'd be going anywhere if the smoke was spread across the entire area.

[Aimpoint]

No sarcasm, was just wondering whether guys jumping up and down about not flying NVFR when there is smoke on the area forecast are applying the same sort of thought process to other types of flight.

My view about flying NVFR when smoke is on the forecast - use some common sense. You won't be flying anywhere night VFR in QLD for the next few months if you didn't go because there is smoke somewhere on the area forecast.

Not that you could legally apply it, but a while ago someone posted a link to satelitte shots of the fires around the place. This could be a starting point to build some situational awareness. I think it was called sentinel or something...

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

So b_sta and aimpoint, let's look at this from a cloud viewpoint. It is a moonless night (you can't see the cloud until all the lights below you disappear, then you're in it...oops...too late). If there is any cloud forecast below your lsalt on the arfor, then you cannot depart. During the day you have the option to see the cloud and avoid, but not always possible at night.

If we apply the same logic to visibility, (you don't know you're in the crap until you're in the crap), thence you cannot legally depart if there is any chance vis will be below 5km. TAFs cannot remove or allow selective application of the restriction as they only apply to a 5nm area around the issued location. What about everywhere in between?

A favourable TAF will only remove an alternate requirement at the destination, not make the entire flight legal.

[Aimpoint]

Another suggestion is to get a technical elaboration from the BoM (number in the ERSA). There were a few nights when cloud was forecast, but after a quick call to the BoM is was confirmed it was no where near the route I was flying.

Smoke is an interesting topic, however, and this thread has made me think more about it. How high does 'thick' smoke travel? 1000ft, 5000ft or 20000ft? I guess it all depends on a number of factors.

How do the NT pilots conduct their NVFR during the dry season when the land is being burned all season? I'm sure they're being told to "just go", but what do the local FOIs think?

[Deaf]

Can be in smoke and:
No Cloud at all
8000m vis (look down and that is the woop woop silo 5 mile away)
hence VMC despite no horizon over about 500 ft agl

Day easier to fly on dials. Night, no moon no chance unless on dials.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

How do the NT pilots conduct their NVFR during the dry season when the land is being burned all season? I'm sure they're being told to "just go", but what do the local FOIs think?

IFR. The only reason you would choose to fly VFR would be due to equpment unserviceabilities. You can't do pax carrying NVFR without a current CIR (assuming we, in referring to the NT pilots, are talking about commercial ops).:cool:

[morno]

Many instances of SE charter pilots heading back from a charter NVFR (no pax, so no need for a current CIR, just a NVFR Rating), I used to do it when I could to get some night experience.

Or even freight only ops.

morno

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Well then I suppose the answer would be "illegally".

If the company's saying "just go", well what's the difference between an operator saying to fly in less than VFR or overloaded?

The pilot is ultimately choosing to break the rules and will be held responible when something goes wrong.:=

[morno]

I think that's a broad brush to paint with MakeIt.

Every instance is dependant on the weather forecasts for that day. Sure there are definitely instances where NVFR would not be appropriate, but during my time in the Top End, there was normally enough information to be able to make an informed decision that a NVFR flight could be done appropriately and legally.

This is straight from the Area 80 forecast at the moment:
AREAS OF SMOKE OVER LAND, ISOL THICK SMOKE BELOW 10000FT NEAR FIRES.

You can see fires at night, so just steer clear of them. There we go, legal.

You could argue all day long, as to whether you're breaking the law. Hell, you could even argue that because of the lack of lighting in the area, you're flying soley on instruments anyway (would that not technically make it IFR?)! But, to brand every NVFR flight as illegal during the fire season in the Top End, is incorrect. There are ways of doing it legally.

morno

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

We're talking about flying into the smoke generated by a fire that can travel hundreds of miles with the wind and thousands of feet up.

Agreed in the case you have presented, the only query would be what the definition of "near" is, otherwise I would be happy to go, but the OP is stating if the reduction is not restricted to a specific area, you have to consider the entire area as being affected.

Like I said, on a moonless night, how do you know when you are flying into the smoke?
You can't do it with any cloud forecast below your LSAlt, so what's the difference?
Forecasts don't predict moonlight.

Aimpoint had a valid suggestion, but if you can't see and avoid the areas of reduced vis, how can you possibly be flying legally?:confused::=

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 174

Determination of visibility for V.F.R. flights
(1) ** Flight visibility shall be determined by the pilot in command from the cockpit of the aircraft while in flight.
(3) ** Subject to regulation 257, the pilot in command of an aircraft operating under the Visual Flight Rules is responsible for determining the visibility for the take-off and landing of the aircraft.
(4) ** In determining visibility for the purposes of this regulation, the pilot in command shall take into account the meteorological conditions, sunglare and any other condition that may limit his or her effective vision through his or her windscreen.

[By George]

'Make it Happen Captain', ref your post no.19 You cannot fly NVFR even if you have a MECIR. I was asked recently if I could do some night parachute ops. As a recently retired Airline pilot and holder of IF ratings for a squillion years, not to mention half my adult life flying in the dark, I was suprised to learn I can not fly NVMC because I've never held night VFR ratings.
It would seem I am only allowed to fly at night if the weather is bad and under no circumstances must I look out the window. Having always been tempted to look outside over the last 43 years, I am in no doubt guilty of some heinous offence. I await a knock on my door.

[Trent 972]

George, There is always..Civil Aviation Order 40.2.1 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009C00139)
......
14 Flight by night under night V.F.R. procedures
14.1 A particular grade of command instrument rating authorises the holder of the rating to fly an aircraft of the category concerned within Australia as pilot in command, or co-pilot, using the navigation aids endorsed in the holder’s personal log book in the following circumstances:
(a) Private and aerial work flights under night V.F.R. procedures provided the pilot meets the aeronautical and recent experience requirements applicable to a night V.F.R. endorsement.
(b) Charter flights under night V.F.R. procedures, provided the following aeronautical and recent experience requirements are satisfied:

(i) Aeronautical Experience. The pilot’s aeronautical experience shall include 10 hours cross-country flight time using night V.F.R. procedures including a minimum of 2 navigation exercises (of at least 300 nautical miles or 3 hours duration), as either pilot in command or in command under supervision. Each exercise shall exceed a distance of 100 nautical miles from the point of departure and shall provide at least 1 landing at an aerodrome other than that of departure, located in an area remote from extensive ground lighting.Assuming that you only logged the usual hour or so of IF on those long nights, (the rest of the flight time therefore not IF) you may still qualify. Not too sure if you get around that bit about a landing remote of extensive ground lighting though. :E

MIHCDetermination of visibility for V.F.R. flights
(1) ** Flight visibility shall be determined by the pilot in command from the cockpit of the aircraft while in flight.but if you can't see and avoid the areas of reduced vis, how can you possibly be flying legally?Didn't you answer your own question? It's up to the PIC if he/she wants to go and have a look at the actual conditions, and then make a decision. Morno's on the money.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Cheers, Trent.

Essentially, George, CAO 40.2.1 says you can only fly NVFR for PVT and AWK ops if you do not hold a current CIR. It also, as Trent quoted, outlines you must have completed the syllabus requirements for the issue of the NVFR (fair call, every night flight involves some component of visual control, Cat IIIC notwithstanding) plus a bit more if you are going to fly CHTR ops.

Why the sarcasm? Was I wrong? Read Para 14 in it's entirity. Who told you you couldn't fly NVFR? If your CIR and night recency were current, make sure you thank them for costing you some flights (assuming you were getting paid).

If you have as much experience as you claim you will know full well you can fly in VMC under the IFR. Unless, of course, all your planned IFR time matches your logged IFR time....:=

As for second quotes,
Yep, can see the relevance to "flight visibility shall be determined from the cockpit", but does that mean you only refer to in-flight visibility to work out if you need an alternate?
Same reg also says you shall use met conditions when determining vis.

Have a look by day, fine. You can see the areas to avoid. Different at night. As I keep saying, if you won't blast off into 8/8ths CU at night, why are you prepared to do the same with vis below the minimum?

This is the reason it is a NVFR rating and no longer a Class 4 Instrument Rating!:rolleyes:

[oldrotorhead]

Thanks to everyone who has responded to this thread. I hope the discussion keeps coming for a while because to be truthful, I'm not too much more wiser than I was at the start....(some who know me may well say I wasn't all that "wise" to start with.....just "old" as my handle suggests!
I think that no matter what has been opined to date, there is no escaping from the AIP requirements in ENR 1.10 as per my original post, however, a phone call to the BOM on the number available to us all, when in doubt, may well produce some alternatives.
Additionally, we all need to remember that having no visible horizon on a very black night does not automatically mean you are "IFR". The weather and met conditions may well be perfect with "visibility" technically unlimited but it still doesn't make you "IFR" because you are clearly in VMC. It does of course mean that you'll need to be flying on the clocks and have sound instrument flying ability which the NVFR rating clearly requires you to have. If you don't have those skills, you may well wind up as a smoking hole in the ground (pardon the pun) with smoke from the bush fire started by your crash being the only smoke in the entire state.
I guess that was the rationale behind the thread in the first place - that is to say, is there any difference (en-route at cruise I mean) between being in a smoke restricted visibility situation or being up there on a black night with nothing to see at all, but in perfect met conditions nevertheless?
Thanks again all, Cheers-
Old (none the wiser) rotorhead

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

And I do thank ORH for the gentle reminder,

ENR 1.10
1.2.4 CHTR, AWK and PVT operations under the VFR at night must not be conducted unless the forecast indicates that the flight can be conducted in VMC at not less than 1000FT above the highest ob-
stacle within 10NM either side of track.

And ENR 1.2 Para 2 for those who have forgotten what VMC is.

For everyone who's instructors told them to have a look and see, don't forget to thank them. The fact this thread exists is purely due to hour building instructors who don't put the effort in.:mad:

[By George]

I will say it again slowly......Even if you have a CMEIR that is current, with currency at night, you can not fly NVMC unless you have a NVMC rating. According to the rules you have not completed the visual navigation training required. ie a CMEIR does not give you the privileges of NVMC.
I did not intend to sound sarcastic, I'm just finding it difficult adjusting to third world aviation.

[Trent 972]

George, Your previous post begs an interesting discussion. I would offer an alternative point, that the privileges and limitations (CAO 40.2.1 sect 13) of a current MECIR does confer the ability to operate NVFR IF the restrictions of section 14 re Nav Quals have been met.
Section 14 does not say that you must have received special training for 'Night Nav' only that you must have experienced it (as either PIC or ICUS) Aeronautical Experience. The pilot’s aeronautical experience shall include 10 hours cross-country flight time using night V.F.R. procedures including a minimum of 2 navigation exercises (of at least 300 nautical miles or 3 hours duration), as either pilot in command or in command under supervision. Each exercise shall exceed a distance of 100 nautical miles from the point of departure and shall provide at least 1 landing at an aerodrome other than that of departure, located in an area remote from extensive ground lighting.
I believe one could mount a good case to say that you have had 'the experience of operating visually at night'. It does not say you must have been trained VFR at night.
The limitation to this exercise is of course that you can only operate NVFR while you hold a valid/current MECIR.
As always I offer this reasoning on the basis that I am not my wife, who is 'Always Right'.
You can say whatever you like as slowly as you like but it doesn't make you any 'righter' or 'wronger' :ok:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I'm going to write it again even slower.


CAO 40.2.1 (IFR)

Para 14.1 A particular grade of command instrument rating authorises the holder of the rating to fly an aircraft of the category concerned within Australia as pilot in command, or co-pilot, using the navigation aids endorsed in the holder’s personal log book in the following circumstances:
(a) Private and aerial work flights under night V.F.R. procedures provided the pilot meets the aeronautical and recent experience requirements applicable to a night V.F.R. endorsement.

I don't write the rules, but I know how to interpret and follow them.

It also, as Trent quoted, outlines you must have completed the syllabus requirements for the issue of the NVFR...

If you have completed the training as per CAO 40.2.2 Appendix 1 (NVFR) but do not hold an NVFR rating, you can fly pvt or awk NVFR under a current CIR if you are night recent. I will put money on it.

For pvt & awk, you must have undergone training (the aeronautical and recent experience requirements applicable to a night V.F.R. endorsement), see the aforementioned Appendix, must be dual.

[By George]

Well I appreciate everybodys opinion and as much as it pains me I may be wrong. Yes my wife says I'm always wrong too. ( I can still leap tall buildings in a single bound though).

I was told otherwise by RQAC. I was told that without specific Night VFR NAV-EX training a Command Instrument rating was not entitled to plan NVMC. I was told I need to do a three hour Nav-Ex plus a test. This would cost me roughly $3,000. Judging by the amount of gold braid and metal medalions I find it hard to believe he is wrong.

I shall contact CASA, stay tunned.

[aroa]

By G. Best bet is to contact more than 1 office and see if you get the same or a different answer.:sad:
Different CASA folks well tell you differently from different offices, or you may even get that from the same office !!.
Dont laugh its happened. :mad:

Q. How far from land can a single engined aircraft fly to another piece of land/island.
a.. 50 miles ? b..25 miles? c..Not further than gliding distance d..Not at all.
A. ??

[Aimpoint]

By George,

If you spoke to the Frenchman you've probably been given incorrect information. It can be done as per MakeItHappen's comments above.

For everyone who's instructors told them to have a look and see, don't forget to thank them. The fact this thread exists is purely due to hour building instructors who don't put the effort in.

That doesn't even make sense. The night VFR syllabus at every school I've seen includes no solo night navex, only solo in the circuit. For an intelligent guy, you should have stepped down off your soapbox before making that comment about junior instructors.

Plus you can't blame the junior instructors when the CFI doesn't even know his stuff or provide appropriate mentoring.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Trent, my offer was in response to George's assertions.

George, my sympathies as you have well and truly been led down the wrong path, but what do you expect from a school who insists on blasting everyone who taxis past the 28R runup bay (because ALL aircraft have to be pointed into the wind, not just tailwheel or flight manual specific...:rolleyes:ffs, a 172 doesn't get THAT hot!) and insists on blinding everyone with their strobes while taxiing around at night.
AIRMANSHIP, kiddies.

Please PM me if you would like to organise a sit down at AF one day, George. I would be more than happy to go over the rules and regs to satisfy any queries or misunderstandings you might have, no charge.:ok:

Aimpoint, I feel perfectly justified in getting up on my soapbox when I see no end of bull**** being taught to students these days by instructors with no commercial experience and hourbuilding being their sole motivation for being in this branch of the industry. Those that actually put the effort in have my full support and best wishes.:ok:

I said nothing about solo NVFR navigation (because NVFR CCTs are the only activity requiring a rating that you may be permitted to conduct without actually holding the rating - hence the solo stamp in the logbook).
The first part of the quoted comment was sarcastic. A reference to instructors telling students the wrong thing, actually.

From not counting the four hours they have off when rostering in excess of eleven hour duties to this thread about test flying NVFR to see if have the required visibility, this all relates to instructors not knowing their stuff. The standard in this industry needs to improve.

I was a junior burger grade three once, but I made the effort to reference the rules when asked questions, not guess or quote what I heard. I've made mistakes, been corrected and learnt from that. Any commercial student I've trained knows my habits wrt referencing the AIPs and also knows I reinforce knowing the rules as being one of the best ways to demonstrate to an employer that you aren't going to risk their AOC and they should be hiring you.

It also means you know when you are and are not putting your license or career at risk by breaking rules. In CASA's eyes, ignorance is no defence.:cool:

Aroa,
Mate, you can't shop around like that, you are better off getting it in writing than using a "but he said" defence.

As for overwater,

AIP ENR 1.1 Para 62. Please note the mention of "land areas suitable for an emergency landing", not just "land".:ok:

[Aimpoint]

The first part of the quoted comment was sarcastic. A reference to
instructors telling students the wrong thing, actually.

From not counting the four hours they have off when rostering in excess of eleven hour duties to this thread about test flying NVFR to see if have the required visibility, this all relates to instructors not knowing their stuff. The
standard in this industry needs to improve.


Yes, the standard needs to improve (including everyone from CASA down) but don't go shooting from the hip at junior instructors. To guys like you and I, who are well into our careers, it is very easy to apply and understand the rules. Most try to do the right thing, but remember what it was like many years ago trying to comprehend the thousands of pages of requirements we are supposed to know? No wonder things slip through the cracks initially. The problem with fresh CPLers, either instructors or charter pilots, not knowing their 'stuff' is related to the lack of guidance from those above them.

Sure, a lot of it depends on the individual who has to be motivated to keep themselves knowledgeable about rules and procedures. However, I bet your ability to be so well rounded was due to some good mentoring early in your career. Not everyone has this, evident from the above comments about certain aero club instructors.

Back to topic, the more I think about it, the more I feel completely comfortable about legally flying NVFR even if smoke is forecast on the area forecast. Cloud is easy - if it is below the requirements then I wouldn't go. It is a very difficult beast to see at night unless you are flying over a city, but even then you can be subject to some confusion because of the illusions it can cause. But smoke, I'd apply some logic and thought to it rather than just saying 'no' because it is forecast.

Ok, it's on the forecast, but what does it look like outside in the direction I'm heading? Clear, good. Ok, how about the TAFs along the route. Good as well. Ok, so now when I get airborne I will be in VMC and be able to stay about my LSALT. I will be able to see any approaching fires. Sure, I might not be able to see all of the smoke, but I can see the fires, and if they are widespread I will avoid the area.

In day VMC you wouldn't abandon the flight if smoke was forecast, despite it being below the visibility you need. You apply some common sense and divert if you came across it. Same at night for me.

Now, leaving aside other Met issues such as the obvious, like cloud, when you consider the implications of AIP ENR 1.10, para 1,2,4 for example, which states"CHTR, AWK and PVT operations under the VFR at night must not be conducted unless the forecast indicates that the flight can be conducted in VMC at not less than 1000ft above the highest obstacles within 10nm either side of track", is this bloody smoke a limiting issue or not?

Today's area 40:
AREAS OF SMOKE BELOW 9000FT, LOCALLY THICK NEAR FIRES.

VISIBILITY:2000M THICK SMOKE

Based on my above reasoning I will be able to comply with the AIP requirement and therefore I will go flying. I will be able to go flying because the forecast indicates I can conduct the flight as the smoke 'areas' are 'local' and I will therefore plan to avoid the smoke 'areas'. Anyone who has been flying in night VMC will confirm fires, particularly those that would cause thick smoke, are very easy to see from the air. If the forecast indicated widespread smoke, I'd think twice (but I could probably tell it was going to be a problem by looking out the office window anyway).

But everyone has their own opinion about certain things in the AIPs. If the opening poster is an ATO or CP, and is concerned, perhaps a call to their FOI (or even better, an email to document it) might clear the way. You report to this FOI, so I doesn't matter if another FOI on the other side of the country has a different opinion.

[oldrotorhead]

Well we can probably consider this thread done and dusted I think and it has served its purpose in getting everyone to think about it. As a matter of interest for aimpoint and anyone else who might have been thinking "who is this rotorhead goose and why doesn't he just call CASA, etc....."
The thread was about the "legality" of the situation vis a vis the AIP and forecast smoke, not what I might personally do or have done. As a matter of fact I am an ATO and have been for a loooong time as well as a former CP also for a looong time and have significant IFR time day and night and significant NVFR time also. I am a very pragmatic person and subscribe to the same kind of "pragmatism" (if that's a word) as espoused by Aimpoint. Let's just all get on with it and be safe out there. As for asking CASA; tried that; been there done that etc and as expected, a variety of "opinions" were forthcoming, just like here on Pprune.
Good luck all, safe flying especially at night and thanks for contributing!
Cheers, ORH

[Aimpoint]

ORH,

I'm guessing a candidate on a NVFR flight test looked at the forecast and said s/he wasn't flying due to the smoke? Unfortunately we can't really push the candidate in that situation.

Sorry if I went into the practical side too much. But what hope do we mortals have when CASA has a divided opinion?

[morno]

Thanks ORH.

The thing I want to know is, if we were to be ramp checked after we've just gone flying with a forecast that indicates reduced vis due smoke, but we took a more practical approach and found sensible ways around it that we interpreted as legal, what would the FOI who's checking us think?

That's the problem I see, some FOI's take practical approaches to a law, others take it to the written word.

morno

[Aimpoint]

Morno,

You joke surely? CASA work normal office hours, well normal for the 1980s, as if they will be at the airport waiting for you at 10pm at night.

[morno]

Sorry Aimpoint, forgot about that, :ok: