182 crashed into trees at Porepunkah

[rsvpInBright]

And therein the complexity of the regulations. How is the epilot to ensure terrain avoidance after takeoff when it is his responsibility? Perhaps dead reckoning is OK, but IFR waypoints are not??

[compressor stall]

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s safe, and just because something safe doesn’t mean it’s legal.


and no takeoff alternate requirements under Part 91/138

[Aussie Bob]

I smell a wind up ....

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by rsvpInBright

I'd be curious to know why it is illegal? The AIP states (for IFR flight) that terrain avoidance is the pilot's responsibility when departing on other than a SID or other procedure until least safe altitude is reached. Given I've been doing this for decades, I would very dearly like to know where it is illegal? Whether it is safe is of course open to debate (as for everything in aviation).

Actually whether it's safe or not is exactly what a court would debate. If at any point you are deemed to have posed a hazard to anything on the ground by risking impact due to unsafe flight in IMC you have breached the first rule of flight club. Whether you get away with it or not is of no consequence regards to being charged in the future. People speed all the time, only a small portion are caught and fined.

As far as departure IFR it is a greyish area. Basically it depends where take-off is deemed to have finished, from that point you are required to be above a safe altitude unless you are compliant with an approved departure procedure or in day VMC. So if the cloud is below MSA/LSALT at YPOK, you would probably not be legal to depart until you can climb in VMC by day to the LSALT/MSA.

Step down procedure for NVFR, is just a visual replotting of the LSALT. Once you pass a critical obstacle you can lower your LSALT if possible, however it must still be 10nm/1000ft around the aircraft to the destination, so YPOK will still have an incredibly high LSALT probably 7000ft or 8000ft, assuming it had lights.

[rsvpInBright]

One part you miss from your original comment is that using user defined waypoints for navigation below LSALT is illegal, among other things.

I hope I'm not being wound up too much. It's useful to argue about the regulations.

Navigation below the LSALT using dead reckoning is also illegal, but the statement:

Note 4. The pilot in command is responsible for ensuring that : a. terrain clearance is assured until reaching either en route LSALT or departure aerodrome MSA;

has to override the prohibition on using IFR waypoints for navigation below the LSA, otherwise there would be no way whatsoever for the pilot to navigate (dead reckoning is OK but GPSNav is not??).

Dealt with that one (cynic). Interested in your "...other things".

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by rsvpInBright

I hope I'm not being wound up too much. It's useful to argue about the regulations.

Navigation below the LSALT using dead reckoning is also illegal, but the statement:

Note 4. The pilot in command is responsible for ensuring that : a. terrain clearance is assured until reaching either en route LSALT or departure aerodrome MSA;

has to override the prohibition on using IFR waypoints for navigation below the LSA, otherwise there would be no way whatsoever for the pilot to navigate (dead reckoning is OK but GPSNav is not??).

Dealt with that one (cynic). Interested in your "...other things".

You are quoting a note that just says you have to not hit hills while you climb, common sense stuff, and not a rule. It is how you ensure that terrain clearance that is the point in the CASR that say all operations below LSALT must be adherence to an approved procedure or visual in Day VMC. An approved procedure for arrival is a prescribed approach or radar vectoring etc etc, departure may be an approved SID, CDP or such. The overall pub test is that if you depart and hit something or infringe low flying rules by having a near miss with terrain then you can be charged all the way until you are above an appropriate MSA/LSALT. Otherwise your crash comic will be 'hit terrain whilst operating at an unsafe level in IMC'. Leaving the only real way to safely operate in the vicinity of YPOK below IFR LSALTs is in Day VMC.

[alphacentauri]

and you establish a clear lateral separation from Ob

How exactly do you do this? Its not as simple as drawing a line down the centre of a valley….

Follow on question, what nav performance is your gnss operating to whilst you are executing this SID? and therefore, what protection area is applicable?

What terrain / obstacle information are you using? What obstacle clearance value is applicable?

IFR procedures can only be flown if they are extracted from a navigation database, they cannot be user defined or manipulated.

At a minimum, this is a breach of numerous parts of CASR,s 91, and 173. It touches on 175 and maybe 61….

Im very surprised that CASA couldn’t (or weren’t able to) answer your question. To be honest in the conditions you describe an IFR departure is not possible because it cannot be conducted legally

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

FWIW, AC 61-05 is the NVFR guidebook: 9.6.1 The pilot must check that aerodrome lighting will be available at the destination at the planned time of arrival.

I don't have time to look up the exact reg right now, but runway lighting requirements apply equally for takeoff and landing

They don't because there isn't a reg for take off lighting requirements (in this situation - I know there are for others). The guide doesn't say blah blah blah at the origin at the planned time of departure. I've had a pretty good look through CASR91 and MOS91 prior to my #86 and references to lighting required for takeoff are notable by their scarcity and specifity ie IFR takeoffs in certain aircraft in certain conditions. Lots of regs and rules for landings, but FA for take off.
Sure if you have to come back immediately after take off then you'll need lights, but for all the safety in CASRs, they don't make that a requirement before you take off ie In case an emergency return to the aerodrome is required, pilots must ensure the runway lighting is activated before departure.

[Squawk7700]

What’s this 6 minutes to return? That sounds like a Moorabbin circuit.

I once landed about 36 seconds after takeoff when I needed to urgently!

[Checkboard]

Think of it logically.

To take-off, you need sufficient view of the runway to keep the aircraft tracking along the runway. In the day time, it's obvious that you can do that without runway lights. At night, if you can do it with aircraft mounted lights and ambient light - then there's no need for a regulation. There are IFR regulations for minimum lighting to perfome Low-Vis takeoffs - which are there exactly to guarantee that you can see the runway for the take-off. Obviously that can't apply for landing, because you need to find the runway and position for landing a long time before aircraft mounted lights will be of any assistance - hence a regulation for landing, but not for take-off.

To fly in IFR you need to either SEE the terrain to keep clear of it, or be following a surveyed procedure to guarantee terrain clearance. I used to use the mnemonic "25,30 VIRD":

• Above the LSALT, or
• Above the MSA and within 25 miles or the MSA fix, or
• Visual, able to proceed visually and within 30 miles of destination, or
• Established on VASI (and within 10 miles), or
• Conducting a published Instrument Approach, or
• Under Radar guidance from ATC, or
• Above the steps of a DME arrival, or following a published Departure.

If you ain't doing that, then you need to be in VMC.
Caveat: I haven't flown in Australia for 20 years. 20 years ago I would have referenced the regs for all of the above, but now so much has changed...

[Squawk7700]

Can you use night vision goggles from Anaconda? Asking for a friend.

[Egipps]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

Can you use night vision goggles from Anaconda? Asking for a friend.

Absolutely. Of course you or your friend can. Possibly better goggles available cheaper from Amazon or EBay though. Not even any need for you to be certified to use them. As per some of the earlier posts (by others) in this thread you can clearly do anything you like. Whether these choices are legal is irrelevant as to whether they can be done. Whether they can be done more than once in the same aircraft is another consideration. And whether they may cause damage, injury or worse should be another consideration.

Edited to say: clearly comment quoted is tongue in cheek, and my response is similar with the exception of the last 3 sentences above.

[ANCIENT]

Checkboard I think you will find that applying your "25,30 VIRD" mnemonic would preclude a departure from the majority of airports in Australia as they do not have published SIDs.
Provided one can orbit within 3nm of the departure airport you can then climb to MSA/LSA before setting course. If you were departing YPOK which has high terrain within the 3nm then it is obviously not a wise choice to depart into cloud which is obscuring the obstacle.
There are many grey areas in the regs which require a PIC to assess the situation purely from the current conditions ie. cloud base and known terrain in the area. The 3nm is considered circuit area and under NVMC procedures when inbound one must maintain the last LSA until within the 3nm before breaking off and going the circuit.

[Lead Balloon]

AIP 1.2 para 2 is headed: “VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS (VMC) – TAKE-OFF, EN ROUTE AND LANDING”. There is only one provision under that heading:

2.1 The cloud and visibility criteria for VMC, including specific additional requirements, are contained in section 2.07 of the Part 91 MOS.

That section of the Part 91 MOS contains a Table and that Table imposes an operational requirement for aircraft in G at or below whichever is the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL:

Aircraft must be operated in sight of ground of water

Does an aircraft being operated NVFR in G at or below whichever is the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL have to remain in VMC as defined in Part 91 MOS and comply with the corresponding operational requirement? I would have thought the answer is ‘yes’.

If the answer is yes, how can the operational requirement be satisfied if the pilot cannot see the ground or water?

Surprisingly, it would make sense that a pilot operating NVFR at or below whichever is the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL should not be permitted to do so unless s/he can see the ground or water, noting that "operating" seems to cover take-off, en route and landing. It’s easier to avoid colliding with something if you can see it.

[megan]

LB, without reference to books I'd say with NVMC you remain within 3 miles of the airport until you've reached LSALT, the reverse manner in which you would make an arrival. NVMC doesn't require you to actually be able to "see" the ground or water, but to have the ability to see an object should there be sufficient light, farmhouse, road traffic, town, that is, you have to have the proscribed weather (visibility), else NVMC would be restricted to a full moon and no cloud whatsoever. IMHO

[Lead Balloon]

NVMC doesn't require you to actually be able to "see" the ground or water...

Maybe not above the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL.

My question is, in effect, where is the provision that says the operational requirement I quoted from the Part 91 MOS, to which ENR 1.2 'points', does not apply to NVFR at or below the higher of 3,000' AMSL and 1,000' AGL.

On a moonlit night, and when there are towns and roads with cars and farm houses and hills with illuminated towers, you can "see" the ground when you're at or below the higher of 3,000' and 1000' AGL. It's what those towns and cars and houses and towers are sitting on.

[Flying Binghi]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

Can you use night vision goggles from Anaconda? Asking for a friend.

Take care with instrument and panel lighting.

Hard mounted FLIR is another option.

[visibility3miles]

Originally Posted by PV1

Sincere apologies for incorrect use of the word mix. Distribute/disperse would have been better.My point is that the water settles at the bottom of the tank shaking the wing would disperse it around the tank and your drain might not show any significant water.

I don’t mean shake the wings as vigorously as you would a salad bottle containing oil and vinegar, which can indeed intermingle two ingredients that normally separate into distinct layers very quickly.

Just rock it gently. I was told that if a tank is not fully fueled, i.e., not up to the cap, water droplets can condense/form on the inside of the tank, and that gently rocking it can dislodge them and make them sink to the drainage point.

I was told to do this before draining the tanks because if there is water condensed inside the tanks, and you don’t get rid of it, it could come back to haunt you when the run up and take off dislodges it, and it then get into the fuel line to the engine, which does not burn water as efficiently as fuel.

Distinguishing between pale blue fuel and water is easy enough in broad daylight, but it might be more difficult at night. I was also taught to drain it twice if there was a significant amount of water.

[Am I the only one who was taught this?]

That’s all I ws trying to say.

[Checkboard]

Checkboard I think you will find that applying your "25,30 VIRD" mnemonic would preclude a departure from the majority of airports in Australia as they do not have published SIDs.

It precludes an IFR departure in which you commit the aircraft to flight in cloud below the LSALT/MSA, yes, as you have no procedural terrain separation. If you can get (visually) to circling altitude, then you can follow the missed approach from the circle, in the same way that you would for losing vis while circling, but if there isn't a published Instrument Approach then you're committed to VFR until above the MSA/LSALT.

Provided one can orbit within 3nm of the departure airport you can then climb to MSA/LSA before setting course.

Where does it say that?

[werbil]

Whilst I was extremely confident that a self planned IFR departure was legal, I wasn’t sure of where in the new Part 91 it would be found. It ended up taking quite a bit of digging to find even after I found the definition of an authorised instrument departure in the dictionary of the CASRs:

authorised instrument departure procedure means:

(a) for an aerodrome other than an aerodrome in a foreign country--an instrument departure procedure that is:

(i) designed by a certified designer or authorised designer, and published in the AIP or given to CASA under Part 173; or

(ii) prescribed by an instrument issued under regulation 201.025 for this paragraph; or

(b) for an aerodrome in a foreign country--an instrument departure procedure that is authorised by the national aviation authority of the country.

which suggested there would be an instrument. The only way I could find the instrument was on the CASA’s Part 91 web page - google and legislation.gov.au were no help.

CASA EX81/21 Section 19 provides the legal answer.

19 Minimum heights – IFR flights – exemption

(1) This section applies to the pilot in command of an aircraft for an IFR flight, but only if:

(a) the aircraft is taking off from an aerodrome for flight along a route or a route segment mentioned in paragraph 91.305 (1) (a); and

(b) the aircraft is flown at a height lower than the minimum height mentioned in subregulation 91.305 (2); and

(c) none of the circumstances mentioned in subregulation 91.305 (3) (other than paragraph 91.305 (3) (a)) apply; and

(d) between the take-off and the time the aircraft reaches a minimum height specified in subregulation 91.305 (2) — the pilot in command ensures that the aircraft clears all obstacles by a safe margin.

(2) The operator is exempted from compliance with regulation 91.305.

So self PIC planned IFR departures are legal providing the aircraft clears all obstacles by a safe margin. Unfortunately unequivocally determining what is safe from a legal perspective is up to the courts.

I did my initial instrument rating with Bob Harris at Innisfail. Whilst Bob was not the easiest instructor to fly with, he did concentrate on staying alive in real world practical IFR. One of the areas that he did heavily focus on was these type of departures. Acceptable procedures included climbing within the circling area (using an NDB hold to avoid drifting away from he area), flying the published missed approach in reverse, calculating step LSALTs out to a distance from departure, and flying an approach in reverse. All of these had to be done using acceptable guidance. Flying an RNAV approach in reverse (as it was in those days) was not acceptable as there was no way of forcing the GNSS unit into RNP0.3 when flying the final approach segment in reverse. I am very confident that I would have copped one of Bob’s serves if I’d tried to create manual GPS waypoints and entered them into the GNSS unit for a departure below the LSALT.

Once again this thread has proved that a lot of pilots operate with a lack of understanding of aviation legislation, and is sad reflection of the variation in standards between various training organisations.

Edited to quote intended authorised instrument departure procedure definition instead of authorised instrument approach procedure.