Night Limitations On Ifr????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night Limitations On Ifr????
Hoping I can get some advice and points of view.
About a year ago, I went straight in and did my MECIR. I didn't do a Night VFR.
Aside from having to keep myself IFR current, I am trying to confirm what limitations that might put on me when flying at night?
I am planning to head to the bush next year to get my first commercial job, and wondering if this will put me at a disadvantage? Should I get a Night VFR upgrade before I go? Or does it not make any difference?
Would appreciate any thoughts / points of view / advice?
Thanks,
BeerMan....
About a year ago, I went straight in and did my MECIR. I didn't do a Night VFR.
Aside from having to keep myself IFR current, I am trying to confirm what limitations that might put on me when flying at night?
I am planning to head to the bush next year to get my first commercial job, and wondering if this will put me at a disadvantage? Should I get a Night VFR upgrade before I go? Or does it not make any difference?
Would appreciate any thoughts / points of view / advice?
Thanks,
BeerMan....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did the MECIR I flew 5 hours of night circuits as part of the couse. This allowed me to fly IFR/VFR at night. From memory my instructor had to apply to CASA for this but it was no big thing.
I've have had no restrictions.
I've have had no restrictions.
I used the search function available on this site to find the following threads that pretty much cover your question:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...highlight=nvfr
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...highlight=nvfr
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...highlight=nvfr
The precis version:
* A NVFR is permanent. NVFR privileges using your CIR lapse when your CIR lapses.
* There are times when NVFR procedures can be advantageous eg IFR isn't authorised at night into the aerodrome, or a NVFR LSALT allows a lower altitude. Unless you have completed the additional NVFR experience requirements specified under the CIR regs then you are not allowed to use NVFR procedures.
NOTE: A NVFR rating cannot be used for CHTR ops. It is only valid for PVT & AWK ops.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...highlight=nvfr
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...highlight=nvfr
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...highlight=nvfr
The precis version:
* A NVFR is permanent. NVFR privileges using your CIR lapse when your CIR lapses.
* There are times when NVFR procedures can be advantageous eg IFR isn't authorised at night into the aerodrome, or a NVFR LSALT allows a lower altitude. Unless you have completed the additional NVFR experience requirements specified under the CIR regs then you are not allowed to use NVFR procedures.
NOTE: A NVFR rating cannot be used for CHTR ops. It is only valid for PVT & AWK ops.
Other considerations:
A/C may only have VFR maintenance release, or may have IFR maintenance release and carrying defect (eg pitot heat inop) which disqualifies IFR flight.
No charter may be conducted with a NVFR rating - PVT and Airwork only. You must be INSTRUMENT RATED to conduct ANY charter at night - IFR or VFR; Pax or Freight only.
Recency for NVFR charter is in last para of 40.2.1 - along with an Aeronautical Experience component which must be satisfied.
Recency for IFR operations is not specific to day or night ops. Take offs and landings apply only if other persons are on board, in any category of operation (from the CAR's), or for charter at night conducted under the VFR (from the CAO's).
Clear as mud?!
CR.
A/C may only have VFR maintenance release, or may have IFR maintenance release and carrying defect (eg pitot heat inop) which disqualifies IFR flight.
No charter may be conducted with a NVFR rating - PVT and Airwork only. You must be INSTRUMENT RATED to conduct ANY charter at night - IFR or VFR; Pax or Freight only.
Recency for NVFR charter is in last para of 40.2.1 - along with an Aeronautical Experience component which must be satisfied.
Recency for IFR operations is not specific to day or night ops. Take offs and landings apply only if other persons are on board, in any category of operation (from the CAR's), or for charter at night conducted under the VFR (from the CAO's).
Clear as mud?!
CR.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: ?
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks swh, but how is getting a visual fix on an obstacle any different to having a navaid position fix confirm that you are past it?
If it was required to have a lower LSALT for a route segment, the same criteria apply at night in fixing yourself past the known obstacle whether that be VFR, IFR, visually or from a navaid.
Maybe i've misinterpreted something but to adopt a new LSALT for a route segment you are required to fix yourself past the obstacle, there is no difference between a visual or a navaid fix.
In terms of visual approaches you are still not allowed below the appropriate lowest by night until in most cases within 5nm of the aerodrome.
Hence i can't see how NVFR can have a lower LSALT?
I may have missed something so if someone wants to correct me feel free...
Cheers
If it was required to have a lower LSALT for a route segment, the same criteria apply at night in fixing yourself past the known obstacle whether that be VFR, IFR, visually or from a navaid.
Maybe i've misinterpreted something but to adopt a new LSALT for a route segment you are required to fix yourself past the obstacle, there is no difference between a visual or a navaid fix.
In terms of visual approaches you are still not allowed below the appropriate lowest by night until in most cases within 5nm of the aerodrome.
Hence i can't see how NVFR can have a lower LSALT?
I may have missed something so if someone wants to correct me feel free...
Cheers
Unless something has changed, GEN 3.8 was only applicable to NVFR. IFR position fixing is in ENR 19.5.
So that means you can use a radio position for for IFR/VFR/NVFR, but a visual position fix can only be used when flying NVFR for the recalculation of LSALT.
So that means you can use a radio position for for IFR/VFR/NVFR, but a visual position fix can only be used when flying NVFR for the recalculation of LSALT.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how is getting a visual fix on an obstacle any different to having a navaid position fix confirm that you are past it?
Using a buffering for any or all of the above factors, you could actually end up being a fair distance past the obstacle before descending. Obviously, a visual fix removes the need for all of that.
Also, IFR LSALTS are calculated using splays from and to navaids etc. going out to a maximum of 50 nm from memory (less for satellite nav); NVFR is a simple 10 miles either side of track ending in a circle around the destination, then the 3 nm circling area to descend to once you're in it, so the lowest safes could well be different for a given leg.
V.L., IFR (more correctly, navaid...) position fixing requires a buffer behind the aircraft to allow for navaid error. NVFR allows the use of a visual fix. Under NVFR LSALT rules, an aircraft may descend immediately it is **visually** past the critical obstacle. That's not the case for IFR which must wait for the buffer to be cleared.
Also the area to be considered is different between the two categories. IFR uses splays + a 5 nm buffer. NVFR uses a 'simple' 10 nm buffer either side of track + 10 nm before & after. The different methods means they'll often result in different LSALTs.
Also the area to be considered is different between the two categories. IFR uses splays + a 5 nm buffer. NVFR uses a 'simple' 10 nm buffer either side of track + 10 nm before & after. The different methods means they'll often result in different LSALTs.
Arm out the window & Tinstaafl...
Sorry I don’t agree with you...
The 10 nm buffer (GEN 3.8 b) only applies if you do not use nav aids, normal IFR LSALT area an splays applies if using nav aids (GEN 3.8 a).
"NVFR is a simple 10 miles either side of track ending in a circle around the destination" and "'simple' 10 nm buffer either side of track + 10 nm before & after." is incorrect.
Its 10 nm from any point on the nominal track, so a 10 nm radius at the departure and destination with a tangent to 10 nm either side parallel to the track, GEN 3.8b.
If your using the IFR LSALT rules, and a TSO GPS, this can be reduced to 7 nm instead of 10 nm, so the premise that NVFR rules will give you less than IFR is flawed, you can actually have a smaller obstacle clearance area with IFR.
Sorry I don’t agree with you...
The 10 nm buffer (GEN 3.8 b) only applies if you do not use nav aids, normal IFR LSALT area an splays applies if using nav aids (GEN 3.8 a).
"NVFR is a simple 10 miles either side of track ending in a circle around the destination" and "'simple' 10 nm buffer either side of track + 10 nm before & after." is incorrect.
Its 10 nm from any point on the nominal track, so a 10 nm radius at the departure and destination with a tangent to 10 nm either side parallel to the track, GEN 3.8b.
If your using the IFR LSALT rules, and a TSO GPS, this can be reduced to 7 nm instead of 10 nm, so the premise that NVFR rules will give you less than IFR is flawed, you can actually have a smaller obstacle clearance area with IFR.
swh,
You said "Its 10 nm from any point on the nominal track, so a 10 nm radius at the departure and destination with a tangent to 10 nm either side parallel to the track, GEN 3.8b."
- not sure how that's different from what I said, apart from not specifying a 10 nm circle around the departure point, which isn't really an issue anyway because if the critical obstacle is on the side of the aerodrome away from your initial track and you depart visually on track from the circling area, you've visually fixed yourself 'past' that obstacle and can discount it for the rest of the leg.
True, if you have a TSO gps you can use 7 nm, and if you want to use IFR LSALTS using navaids as per IFR rules the lowest safes may be different to the 10 nm 'sausage' around planned track.
I'm not suggesting that NVFR LSALTS will always be lower than IFR, just that they can be different.
You said "Its 10 nm from any point on the nominal track, so a 10 nm radius at the departure and destination with a tangent to 10 nm either side parallel to the track, GEN 3.8b."
- not sure how that's different from what I said, apart from not specifying a 10 nm circle around the departure point, which isn't really an issue anyway because if the critical obstacle is on the side of the aerodrome away from your initial track and you depart visually on track from the circling area, you've visually fixed yourself 'past' that obstacle and can discount it for the rest of the leg.
True, if you have a TSO gps you can use 7 nm, and if you want to use IFR LSALTS using navaids as per IFR rules the lowest safes may be different to the 10 nm 'sausage' around planned track.
I'm not suggesting that NVFR LSALTS will always be lower than IFR, just that they can be different.
Arm out the window,
GEN 3.8 does not allow that, you may descend to a lower altitude, it does not say you can climb to a lower altitude.
It was a gotya question on NVFR flight tests, and an important one as buildings in capital cities, and mountain ranges in the vicinity of coastal airports did raise the LSALT that may have been in the opposite direction to the intended track.
As with most of the rules like this, they have been written very carefully, LSALTs should not been seen as a hindrance, they are there to stop aircraft from running into the ground.
GEN 3.8 does not allow that, you may descend to a lower altitude, it does not say you can climb to a lower altitude.
It was a gotya question on NVFR flight tests, and an important one as buildings in capital cities, and mountain ranges in the vicinity of coastal airports did raise the LSALT that may have been in the opposite direction to the intended track.
As with most of the rules like this, they have been written very carefully, LSALTs should not been seen as a hindrance, they are there to stop aircraft from running into the ground.
swh,
Say I was departing an aerodrome with a critical obstacle on the opposite side of the AD to my intended track. For the sake of argument, let's say the NVFR LSALT including that obstacle was 3000', and without considering it was 2000'.
Going by the rules as you interpret them, are you saying that I couldn't climb in the circling area to 2000' and then depart from overhead the AD on track at that height, but would have to climb to 3000?
If that's the case, what then would be the difference if I was overflying that AD rather than departing - I could presumably arrive overhead at 3000, fix myself visually as past the obstacle (because I had visually passed to the other side of the aerodrome from it), descend to 2000 and go merrily on my way?
I would then be flying exactly the same track under the same circumstances as for the departure case, but you're saying I'd have to be 1000 ft higher?
If that's how the rules are intended to work, then there's something wrong with them in my view.
As always, I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but how do you explain this apparent paradox?
I'm well aware of the possibility of buildings, coastal ranges and so on being an issue, but if I'm established at a safe height and fixed tracking away from them, what's the problem?
Say I was departing an aerodrome with a critical obstacle on the opposite side of the AD to my intended track. For the sake of argument, let's say the NVFR LSALT including that obstacle was 3000', and without considering it was 2000'.
Going by the rules as you interpret them, are you saying that I couldn't climb in the circling area to 2000' and then depart from overhead the AD on track at that height, but would have to climb to 3000?
If that's the case, what then would be the difference if I was overflying that AD rather than departing - I could presumably arrive overhead at 3000, fix myself visually as past the obstacle (because I had visually passed to the other side of the aerodrome from it), descend to 2000 and go merrily on my way?
I would then be flying exactly the same track under the same circumstances as for the departure case, but you're saying I'd have to be 1000 ft higher?
If that's how the rules are intended to work, then there's something wrong with them in my view.
As always, I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but how do you explain this apparent paradox?
I'm well aware of the possibility of buildings, coastal ranges and so on being an issue, but if I'm established at a safe height and fixed tracking away from them, what's the problem?
Arm out the window,
Why dont you ask the numerous people who depart VFR and end up doing a VCA because they didnt rememeber to align the DG to compass, or mis identify a visual feature...despite seeing the opra house infiont of them etc....
Its not uncommon..thats why ASA has a Avoiding VCA's website..from memory there were a couple a hundred a year spatially challenged pilots about.
BTW its not an interperation..unlesss you can see the word climb in GEN 3.8...
Why dont you ask the numerous people who depart VFR and end up doing a VCA because they didnt rememeber to align the DG to compass, or mis identify a visual feature...despite seeing the opra house infiont of them etc....
Its not uncommon..thats why ASA has a Avoiding VCA's website..from memory there were a couple a hundred a year spatially challenged pilots about.
BTW its not an interperation..unlesss you can see the word climb in GEN 3.8...
swh, many VCAs or other blunders have no doubt happened for various reasons at various times; I'm asking you why it would be against the spirit of the regs for me to fly the departure as described above.
I find it difficult to believe that the authors of said regs would deliberately set out to create an anti-common sense situation.
How about if I climbed in the circuit to 3000, positioned myself within the circling area so that I was tracking overhead the airfield to depart on track; then by your logic I could then descend to 2000 (avoiding the need to do the dreaded climb to 2000) and then headed off?
I would have still done all the manoueuvering that you imply might lead to a VCA, plus an extra climb and descent, but would now be descending after a visual fix to a new lowest safe, as per the order.
I find it difficult to believe that the authors of said regs would deliberately set out to create an anti-common sense situation.
How about if I climbed in the circuit to 3000, positioned myself within the circling area so that I was tracking overhead the airfield to depart on track; then by your logic I could then descend to 2000 (avoiding the need to do the dreaded climb to 2000) and then headed off?
I would have still done all the manoueuvering that you imply might lead to a VCA, plus an extra climb and descent, but would now be descending after a visual fix to a new lowest safe, as per the order.
Arm out the window,
I guess the problem is that if your using the 10nm paragraph, you are tracking visually, establishing yourself on track visually, you would be hard pressed to convince me that you can be on track when passing overhead your departure aerodrome.
If you said a few miles out and have a pin point on track, then I will buy it.
Anyways...I believe the intent is for using that paragraph is for when you are established on track, not in the circuit area, GEN 3.11 makes it clear to climb in the circuit area to the calculated LSALT.
I guess the problem is that if your using the 10nm paragraph, you are tracking visually, establishing yourself on track visually, you would be hard pressed to convince me that you can be on track when passing overhead your departure aerodrome.
If you said a few miles out and have a pin point on track, then I will buy it.
Anyways...I believe the intent is for using that paragraph is for when you are established on track, not in the circuit area, GEN 3.11 makes it clear to climb in the circuit area to the calculated LSALT.
hmmm....if I was directly overhead the departure aerodrome and on the correct heading, I would certainly be on track, seeing as track by definition starts at the ARP (unless it's a navaid I'm tracking from)!
3.11 just says that you can be lower than LSALT during takeoff and climb etc.
My problem with the issue is that it seems ridiculous that I could overfly the airfield enroute and descend to a lower height than I would have to maintain if departing - just doesn't make sense.
Anyhow I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the point.
3.11 just says that you can be lower than LSALT during takeoff and climb etc.
My problem with the issue is that it seems ridiculous that I could overfly the airfield enroute and descend to a lower height than I would have to maintain if departing - just doesn't make sense.
Anyhow I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the point.