ANO 2009 Schedule 7 Part A Section 2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Northampton
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANO 2009 Schedule 7 Part A Section 2
Sorry about the dry topic but it's bugging me, big time!
This section (JAR-FCL licence priveleges) was deleted a few weeks ago (understandably, due to the arrival of EASA). My question is, where do I now find the information that was in that section? CAP804 seems to be all about licencing issues, and little about privileges, despite what it hints at in places. Internet searches for Regulations 1178/2011, 290/2012, EASA Aircrew Regulation (alluded to in CAP804) and EASA Part-FCL (can anyone tell me where that resides, if it exists?) turn up documents of little relevance or 404 errors
To put this another way, Bloggs asks me to state the minimum flight visibilities permissable with his PPL(A) that he might achieve in a year or so. I offer (what I think, or at least thought, I'm unsure now) is the answer. Bloggs asks me to show him the legal basis for this. I can't. It's not in the ANO any more. Section 1 UK licences is still there, but that's irrelevant to a new Bloggs
This just can't disappear: it must be written somewhere, or are we now deferring upwards to ICAO docs. Can any of you Legal Beagles enlighten me
Thanks in advance, GGT.
This section (JAR-FCL licence priveleges) was deleted a few weeks ago (understandably, due to the arrival of EASA). My question is, where do I now find the information that was in that section? CAP804 seems to be all about licencing issues, and little about privileges, despite what it hints at in places. Internet searches for Regulations 1178/2011, 290/2012, EASA Aircrew Regulation (alluded to in CAP804) and EASA Part-FCL (can anyone tell me where that resides, if it exists?) turn up documents of little relevance or 404 errors
To put this another way, Bloggs asks me to state the minimum flight visibilities permissable with his PPL(A) that he might achieve in a year or so. I offer (what I think, or at least thought, I'm unsure now) is the answer. Bloggs asks me to show him the legal basis for this. I can't. It's not in the ANO any more. Section 1 UK licences is still there, but that's irrelevant to a new Bloggs
This just can't disappear: it must be written somewhere, or are we now deferring upwards to ICAO docs. Can any of you Legal Beagles enlighten me
Thanks in advance, GGT.
Non Commercial Ops Annex VII
1500 metres if he has an old JAA licence but still 3 K on a UK National Licence
Bloggs asks me to state the minimum flight visibilities permissable with his PPL(A)
Last edited by Whopity; 6th Sep 2012 at 11:45.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Northampton
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whopity, thank you for your reply and the link. I hope you'll bear with me because I'm clearly not getting to grips with this. I've looked through Annex VII that you pointed me to and nowhere in it can I find the source of your comment "1500 metres if he has an old JAA licence but still 3 K on a UK National Licence". Have I missed it or have I missed something more fundamental? Apologies for being so dim. I think you're going to have to get the puppets out for me on this one . Thank you in anticipation.
GGT
GGT
1500 metres is the VFR minima below 3000ft clear of cloud etc. A UK PPL holder was further limited by the licence privilege which restricted it to 3K. This restriction did not apply to a JAA licence issued by a State other than the UK and the restriction is not there in an EASA licence, so effectively its 1500 metres by default rather than a specified privilege.
The microlight was in line with the old UPK PPL and someone considered that a NPPL should have a different limit but that was a licence proposed by Industry not the Regulator!
NPPL Class Ratings were desgined to be as simple as possible - hence the visibility limits were appropriate for people with limited training.
3 km might be fine in a single seat microlight quietly pottering along at 50 KIAS, but it isn't a lot at 139.9 KIAS in a 2 tonne aeroplane with 3 passengers! The industry-defined SSEA Class Rating was intended to protect such people from themselves....and the CAA agreed.
More modern microlights are a deal faster than 50 KIAS and yes, I know they often out perform a Cessna 152. But don't make too much of an issue about that, or someone might well ask why they're not regulated in the same manner. And you wouldn't want that....
In Brave New €uroland, even with a LAPL(A), if visual with the surface and flying at or below 140 KIAS and at or below 3000 ft, you can fly in only 1500 m visibility if you really want to - with passengers. That's 30% of the NPPL SSEA limit. You can also fly above 8/8 cloud, assuming that you managed to find a hole big enough to get there in VMC in the first place....... But hey, it must be safer if the €uropean Aviation Safety Agency says so.....
3 km might be fine in a single seat microlight quietly pottering along at 50 KIAS, but it isn't a lot at 139.9 KIAS in a 2 tonne aeroplane with 3 passengers! The industry-defined SSEA Class Rating was intended to protect such people from themselves....and the CAA agreed.
More modern microlights are a deal faster than 50 KIAS and yes, I know they often out perform a Cessna 152. But don't make too much of an issue about that, or someone might well ask why they're not regulated in the same manner. And you wouldn't want that....
In Brave New €uroland, even with a LAPL(A), if visual with the surface and flying at or below 140 KIAS and at or below 3000 ft, you can fly in only 1500 m visibility if you really want to - with passengers. That's 30% of the NPPL SSEA limit. You can also fly above 8/8 cloud, assuming that you managed to find a hole big enough to get there in VMC in the first place....... But hey, it must be safer if the €uropean Aviation Safety Agency says so.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Northampton
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whopity, thank you for your reply once again and your patience. I think the muddy water that is my mind might just be clearing on this one with the benefit of your input. I'll declare what I think things to be:
The EASA PPL(A) minima are simply the VMC minima;
To take things a little further;
Part-FCL.600 says a pilot needs an IR to fly IFR;
To conclude;
The old trick question "can a PPL holder fly in IMC without an instrument qualification" (as I understood it, yes, in class G airspace above 3000ft with a visibility of 3-5km and complying with the distance from cloud stuff) is now superfluous, because they can't.
Am I there?
GGT
The EASA PPL(A) minima are simply the VMC minima;
To take things a little further;
Part-FCL.600 says a pilot needs an IR to fly IFR;
To conclude;
The old trick question "can a PPL holder fly in IMC without an instrument qualification" (as I understood it, yes, in class G airspace above 3000ft with a visibility of 3-5km and complying with the distance from cloud stuff) is now superfluous, because they can't.
Am I there?
GGT
The old trick question "can a PPL holder fly in IMC without an instrument qualification"
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“NPPL Class Ratings were desgined to be as simple as possible”
I don’t think that was the case it would have been simpler if they were the same.
“hence the visibility limits were appropriate for people with limited training”
I disagree regardless of the training requirements people teach NPPL students to effectively the same standard as PPL students. No one is going to let someone loose who isn’t safe.
“But hey, it must be safer if the €uropean Aviation Safety Agency says so....”
Is there evidence to support this statement? - It must be possible to compare data between countries that have different minimums
I don’t think that was the case it would have been simpler if they were the same.
“hence the visibility limits were appropriate for people with limited training”
I disagree regardless of the training requirements people teach NPPL students to effectively the same standard as PPL students. No one is going to let someone loose who isn’t safe.
“But hey, it must be safer if the €uropean Aviation Safety Agency says so....”
Is there evidence to support this statement? - It must be possible to compare data between countries that have different minimums
Last edited by Mickey Kaye; 18th Sep 2012 at 07:11.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Northampton
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh no! Not the IMC/IFR schoolboy error, at my age too, and on a public forum. Doh! You are of course quite right again, Whopity.
All this stemmed from a discussion about Standards Document 10 Air Law question 11 which I now see I mis-read and erroneously drew a conclusion from that is not there.
Thanks again Whopity for so clearly outlining some basic principles. Your air law is unnervingly good!
GGT
All this stemmed from a discussion about Standards Document 10 Air Law question 11 which I now see I mis-read and erroneously drew a conclusion from that is not there.
Thanks again Whopity for so clearly outlining some basic principles. Your air law is unnervingly good!
GGT