6 seater a/c crash Somerset

[awqward]

Indeed ATC you are correct for approaches, but my point was that private operators are far less restricted for takeoff.... and I 100% agree wrt the unwiseness of taking off when you can't turn around and land...


btw you would be surprised how many very capable SEP IFR tourers have approach certified A/Ps....even the venerable KAP150 is approved down to 200ft...

[Pace]

ATC

The low visibility training is more directed at large airports where taxi collisions are possible rather than the runway takeoff. The last thing you want is an aircraft turning up the wrong taxiway or crossing an active runway because they are lost
OCAS i do not think there is a stipulated minima.

obviously departure and arrival minima are different and any fog departure will mean that you are not coming back so a close alternative is a must. Or again you gamble?

In a single its like flying on a dark night its Russian roulette. In a light twin it is also to a certain lesser extent Russian roulette but the majority of light singles will happily fly level on one if you have the altitude when it goes bang

But then many single engine turboprops TBMs PC12s do play that game at night over water, over very low cloud etc and this has been a long held argument over the safety of single engine in bad weather, many quoting statistics especially with single turboprops.
Even when your departure and arrival are clear what happens enroute when the cloud is down to 100 feet below you when you are happily sitting in the sunshine above?

There is a night rating which legally allows you to fly a single cross country on a black night even without an instrument rating for me that is equally crazy, Russian Roulette and making a risk judgement you have no right to make for unknowing PAX yet that is approved by the authorities

It all comes down to risk management and what level of risk you are prepared to take and that is about knowing and respecting your own limits as well as the aircraft you are flying as well as realising that you are making risk decisions for other precious cargo in the back and not just for yourself

Pace

[Above The Clouds]

btw you would be surprised how many very capable SEP IFR tourers have approach certified A/Ps....even the venerable KAP150 is approved down to 200ft...

I not that surprised being very fortunate to fly aircraft at both ends of the spectrum, from multi jets to SEP/MEP light aircraft and holding MPA and SPA IR's.

The difference in auto-pilots being "approved and actually being capable" of performing the task, certainly in a crosswind situation with 550m RVR.

Having flown the PA46 in crosswind conditions during low vis approaches I can confirm its auto-pilot performance was not that spectacular low down on an approach with a crosswind.

[Pace]

Having flown the PA46 in crosswind conditions during low vis approaches I can confirm its auto-pilot performance was not that spectacular low down on an approach with a crosswind.

ATC never trust an autopilot always be prepared to disconnect and hand fly and always keep current on hand flying so you can do it as well as the autopilot especially in IMC
Its an aid to your superior skills not a replacement for a lack of skills and the reason for many accidents by reliant pilots

As a good pilot i am sure you agree )

Pace

[awqward]

Well the aforementioned KAP150 is an attitude based A/P and does a pretty good job albeit by analog means. I believe the original PA46s mostly have Stec rate-based analog A/Ps which probably explains your experience of it...I believe more recently the Garmin integrated digital DFC700 is fitted and does a very good job... but generally low RVR is associated with low winds and the Stec should be good enough in that case...

[Above The Clouds]

Pace

+1^

[Pace]

A question ? Who in these discussions would have flown in those conditions and how to an airfield with no instrument approach ? Would you attempt to go there ? Would you have flown across IFR / IMC with some sort of cloud Break MDA and an IFR alternative with an instrument approach above minima ?
Just trying to work out the ones who will fly in conditions like that or the shut the curtains and go to sleep brigade ? ��
Have to say in my piston twin days I would have but with a likely instrument diversion
I would have been more bothered flying a single piston point to point on a dark night

Pace

[runway30]

I would have been flying to the well equipped international airport ten miles down the road because of accurate weather forecasting/reporting and the option of instrument approaches if the weather is worse than forecast.

[runway30]

I also recall departing with my destination forecast to be unavailable so filing for an en route destination and alternative. Refiling en route as the weather improved and my destination became available. A lot of work en route but safe and legal at all times.

[Miles Magister]

800m RVR

Can any of you good chaps tell me where the 800m RVR for single pilot ops is written. I am sure it used to be in the UK AIP but I can not seem to find it.

Thank you
MM

[Pace]

All the references seem to apply to public transport but found this odd one ?

Single Pilot Operations Minimum

In single pilot operations a landing RVR of less than 800 m is not permitted except when 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 one and a quarter (1.25) times the minimum height for using the autopilot.

[runway30]

Now in Appendix 1 of EU-OPS

[007helicopter]

A question ? Who in these discussions would have flown in those conditions and how to an airfield with no instrument approach ?

For me the question would be who would have flown with their wife and kids?

Or for that matter any non qualified pilot unable to understand the risk.

I enjoy flying in IMC but that particular day would have been well outside of my limits.

[runway30]

If it isn't safe to fly with your wife and kids then it isn't safe to fly.

[Chronus]

Originally Posted by awqward

Hi Chronus, I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that he got his FAA IR without doing the required training...you make it read like it was in the back page of the owner's manual!....In fact during the 80s after a spate of accidents the FAA investigated and basically exonerated the aircraft and recommended type specific training (but fell short of mandating it). In any case, as is often the case, the insurance industry made sure that minimum hours and minimum recurrency training be undertaken by pilots..... You can't realistically just get in one of these aircraft and fly it...especially in Europe where insurance is a legal requirement.....


Have a read of this if you're interested: http://www.mmopa.com/gallery/234_Tra...A46_Pilots.pdf

But of course not, don`t know what it entailed, must have done some kind of training. I was rather more curious to elicit some response to my earlier:

" I have always wondered as to why the FAA PPL/IR and a N reg is such an attractive proposition for private flying in the UK and the near Continent. Given that costs would not be expected to be of any significant consequence to a businessman who can afford to buy a sophisticated aircraft and will use it over this side of the pond, and as they say "in anger", why not go for a UK IR. Would it not be better."

Back in the old days when a whole lot of poverty stricken self improver CPL hours builders went States side, staying in sleezy motels, there were also a bunch of PPL`s who could not hack the UK IR who also took themselves over there for a few weeks lapping up the sunshine in five star hotels.

[Pace]

Chronue

Let me flip the question around Why are there so many N reg aircraft in Europe and have been for decades and so many hold IRs ? while few PPL IRs were JAA ?

Surely its a demand thing like in any market place? If I offer a product which is better cheaper and easier to get why would I want something which was NO better more expensive and harder to achieve?

Remember many PPls are businessmen or have family and full time work commitments who don't have the time or inclination to spend months of evenings locked away from their families studying for exams which are full of unpractical stuff bearing little relevance to what they want to fly IFR.

Please don't say that the European IR or for that matter CPL or ATPL are better or turn out better pilots because no studies have indicated that WHATSOEVER and there have been many studies trying to prove we are better than you NAAAH

That is the sad thing with EASA who had a clean sheet to really advance aviation and GA in Europe. They could have taken the tried and tested FAA system improved it, adjusted it to suit European needs and pulled world aviation much closer together.
They could have saved the European tax payers a fortune instead they feathered their own nest their own jobs churning out the complicated mess and expensive Frankenstein monster they have created, but not for the benefit of aviation but for themselves and a few powerful pressure groups

Pace

[awqward]

Originally Posted by Pace

Chronue

Let me flip the question around Why are there so many N reg aircraft in Europe and have been for decades and so many hold IRs ? while few PPL IRs were JAA ?

Surely its a demand thing like in any market place? If I offer a product which is better cheaper and easier to get why would I want something which was NO better more expensive and harder to achieve?

Remember many PPls are businessmen or have family and full time work commitments who don't have the time or inclination to spend months of evenings locked away from their families studying for exams which are full of unpractical stuff bearing little relevance to what they want to fly IFR.

Please don't say that the European IR or for that matter CPL or ATPL are better or turn out better pilots because no studies have indicated that WHATSOEVER and there have been many studies trying to prove we are better than you NAAAH

That is the sad thing with EASA who had a clean sheet to really advance aviation and GA in Europe. They could have taken the tried and tested FAA system improved it, adjusted it to suit European needs and pulled world aviation much closer together.
They could have saved the European tax payers a fortune instead they feathered their own nest their own jobs churning out the complicated mess and expensive Frankenstein monster they have created

Pace

Spot on Pace. What EASA have done however, perhaps to offset their non-ICAO policy of requiring EU/EAA residents to hold an EASA licence even to fly a non-EASA reg in Europe, is to make it very easy to obtain an EASA IR if you hold a non-EASA IR (ie not just limited to FAA IRs) by simply doing an Initial test flight....no written exams required....and no need to go anywhere near an ATO....provided one has at least 50hrs "IFR time" (which doesn't mean hood time, it means PIC under the IFR).., so they have made it incredibly easy now for an experienced FAA IR holder to get an EASA IR....but even so, many are still holding off....firstly because there was a lot of confusion within the various NAAs about who could conduct the flight tests...and secondly many FAA IR holders are holding off to see whether the US/EU BASA will mean the flight test can be treated as a revalidation flight and thus not require a CAA staff examiner...

[Pace]

Awqward

This is really going way off topic but still nothing is clear they appear to be coming to a conclusion on PPL stuff but have hardly touched CPL or ATPL and yet we have yet another deadline of April 2016? Will that be extended again? Will commercial pilots loose their jobs and income if they don't comply with getting expensive dual licences? Will older pilots with only a few years to run be forced out because the sums don't add up regardless?
Its all in the air With EASA playing games with honest hard working pilots some who have legally worked this way in Europe for longer than the EU has existed and some longer than the common market yet since 2012 everything delayed every year and still no definition because of an incompetent bunch of self indulgent people called EASA and certain pressure groups and individuals with their own motives which have nothing to do with safety but their own back pockets
Frankly that is the facts

Pace

[awqward]

Originally Posted by Pace

Awqward

This is really going way off topic but still nothing is clear they appear to be coming to a conclusion on PPL stuff but have hardly touched CPL or ATPL and yet we have yet another deadline of April 2016? Will that be extended again? Will commercial pilots loose their jobs and income if they don't comply with getting expensive dual licences? Will older pilots with only a few years to run be forced out because the sums don't add up regardless?
Its all in the air With EASA playing games with honest hard working pilots some who have legally worked this way in Europe for longer than the EU has existed and some longer than the common market yet since 2012 everything delayed every year and still no definition because of an incompetent bunch of self indulgent people called EASA and certain pressure groups and individuals with their own motives which have nothing to do with safety but their own back pockets
Frankly that is the facts

Pace

Indeed Pace... I understand that the process for extending the derogation is already underway.... It has already been law in most (all?) EASA states for several years but each state has chosen to apply for derogation ... You would have to think that eventually it will need to be implemented.... Unless new legislation is put through the European Parliament....unlikely I'm afraid....

[Pace]

You would have to think that eventually it will need to be implemented..

Or EASA are really true to their word and working around the clock to a BASA with the FAA in which case as a BASA is close on PPL stuff they will without doubt extend 2016 for CPL and ATPL while they achieve a BASA on that.

If that is the case we will be complying with what is required by that BASA not what is in the existing regulations

Then my estimation of EASA will increase two fold, If not they will be disclosed as the Liars and cheats and dishonest organisation that many suspect
They could deal with the dual licensing thing so easily and fairly with existing working pilots by issuing a restricted CPL or ATPL valid 3rd country private aircraft only and not public transport that would cost little in money and time

Pace