The 'basic' rules of VFR say that an aircraft at or below whichever is the higher of 3,000' AMSL and 1,000' AGL must be operated in sight of ground or water. How can that be done in inky blackness? Landing lights don't help much in illuminating the land or water during climb. (Not commenting on the specific circumstances of the flight the subject of this thread. I have no insight into those circumstances.)

I would say taking off without lights (if that did occur) would be a breach of CASR 91.055, “Aircraft not to be operated in a manner that creates a hazard”.

All you need is a NVMC rating and you're good to go, providing the weather report is on your side.

I'd say that if I'm at an unlit strip, in a dark valley, during the hours of darkness on a moonless night, I'd be silly to go, whatever the weather report. But that's just me and, as they say, there's no law against silly. (I say again: I'm not commenting on the specific circumstances of the flight the subject of this thread. I have no insight into those circumstances.)

I know one of these guys and yes, you summed it up, as well as extremely careful and risk averse.

I don't think there is any. It seems under the CASR it is a pilot responsibility to assess the operation and to conduct it safely, and availability and/or use of lights is just one thing to consider (or so they advise in AC 91-02)
Should CASA disagree, it would be either they prove it wasn't, or the pilot prove it was. Any bets on the way that discussion will end?

OK zero/zero takeoff is ok (that was taught as part of restricted PPL) , next bit involves careful planning. In a 182 can plan a spiral up to LSAT - goggles make it easier.

Why?

Hi Deaf. What do you mean by "zero/zero takeoff is OK"? Are you saying it's permissible / legal to depart VFR with no visibility minimum and / or no "clear of cloud" restriction? I'm not familiar with Oz regs but that's not the case in the countries / jurisdictions I'm familiar with.

I'm not Deaf, but definitely not what I was taught as a PPL. Even IFR you can't take off with zero vis/zero cloud base. So looking forward to understanding more.

Soooo... AT night when it's pitch black where are you going to turn to spiral up above? All that terrain is unlit, no obstacle lighting just black at night. Left turn at 500' will put you very close to the hills, if not in them, right turn worse, Straight Ahead to over 3000ft will put you outside 3nm with still 3000+ to climb to LSALT. Not even considering valley effects like planning for downdrafts and such, air will be subsiding down the hill sides in the morning as the temp drops and other wind effects due to the hills. We have tor remember the Military even stuffs this up, the USAF flew a Hercules into a mountain departing an airport in Colorado when they turned too early on departure. And that was with ATC.

PS the hill straight ahead and the ones to the left reach over 2000ft, close to 2500 ft. To the Right that hill/ridge leads up to Mt Buffalo above 5500 ft.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9c9875a85b.jpg

More on Porepunkah
 

New member just throwing my 2c worth, but based at Porepunkah.

I go out from Porepunkah fairly frequently in low ceiling IMC (cloud a few hundred feet above runway). It is possible, safe and legal to do so. Pilot's responsibility until LSA reached. BUT....
I have two IFR navigators programmed with departure waypoints and terrain warning, I did it many times in VMC before doing it in IMC, and I know the area "like the back of my hand". I consider there is
only one way out in IMC (waypoints taking me essentially direct to Porepunkah township, then north west along the Great Alpine Road with maximum rate climb). There is certainly no
way back in in low cloud.

Would I do it at night? Nope - and this is not because of the aerial component, but because of the runway lighting requirement. Not sure of the finer points here, but I always thought there was a requirement even
under private ops for runway lights at night. I am not sure if the flight in question had arranged for portable lighting.

I haven't heard how the pilot is doing, but I hope he is pulling through from what sounded like very serious injuries.

Bob

Everything you described after that is UNSAFE and ILLEGAL.

A well known Chieftain operator in Hotham used to fly via their own GPS waypoints to get in when others could not. Until one day it didn't work for whatever reason and they are no longer with us, as well as two fare paying passengers. The procedures have fat for when things go wrong, lose an engine or simply lose navigation or have an electrical failure while bungling around in IMC in valleys and you become the next statistic for the charts. Might even be as simple as a downdraft or ice in the wrong place and you can't climb as much as you would like to and its all over.

There's a well known SAAB 340 accident where they lost control while flying the valleys out of Innsbruck. They managed to stuff up the GPS tracking, and while fiddling in a panic to re-enter because of the terrain all around, they accidentally disconnected the AP and flew into the ground. If two airline crew can stuff it up, whats a single pilot PPL, IFR going to do when the nav screens don't make sense in IMC with hills around and 5000ft below LSALT.

Spot On...

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).

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 since, in an emergency, you need to be able to come back around again - in which case, your "planned time of arrival" would be around 6 minutes after you took off... and if the lighting just happens to not "be available", then, well, we know the rest.

Unless my memory is shot (highly possible) if the IMC take off minima was below the approach minima you needed an alternate within one hour flight time. That changed, or do I misremember?

Only for aircraft that it is necessary to return in the event of engine failure. For single engined aircraft that will plop in a field after EFATO it's 2km and 300ft ceiling, good luck!.

I am publishing this because of some of the responses to my original comment: "Everything you described after that is UNSAFE and ILLEGAL."

In regard ro Porepunkah departures, I sent the following to flight safety Australia 15 years ago. They did not publish it, because it showed up an ambiguity in the regulations.[note: this is a simplified version of the departure which I must use from my home base at the Porepunkah airfield in country Victoria]. Note also that this is analysed using the regulations as existed at the time. I don't believe they have materially changed in regard to this particular issue. I apologise for the single diagram not appearing, but you can look at the area on google maps to see the situation.

Regulation puzzler:

Scenario:

You wish to depart ifr from your airport at A, which is at around 1000 feet altitude. To the south-west of A, there is a bloody great lump of granite (Ob) which makes the Least Safe Altitude from A to B 8000 feet. The least safe altitude from B to the airport at C then drops down to 4000 feet. These least safe altitudes are constructed according to the regulations, and the position of B has been chosen to be the closest point to A at which the en route LSA drops to 4000 feet. A is a small country strip, and no departure procedures have been promulgated for it.

The weather is IMC, and you establish a clear lateral separation from Ob - which is the only obstruction requiring an LSA greater than 4000 feet - during departure. Which of the following are valid departure procedures?:

1. Climb at maximum climb rate to establish at 8000 feet before reaching B (you may need a rocket to do this), then descend to 4000 at B.
2. Climb at a more achievable climb rate to pass through 4000 feet before reaching B, and then descend back down to 4000 feet at B.
3. Climb on the AB leg to reach 4000 feet before B, then cruise at 4000 feet, or
4. Climb at a lower climb rate to not reach 4000 before B, then cruise at 4000.

And, for an extra 10 points: Would your answer change if you were flying night VFR?
Answer:Analysis: Probably to allow IFR departures from the myriad of smaller airports for which a formal IFR departure is not prescribed, the regulations allow (CAR188):Since no procedures have been promulgated specifically for this airport, (ii) does not apply, other than the statement (AIP en-route 4.3.2):This allows pilots to depart in a way which is safe, but which involves less than the en-route lsa. Typically a pilot initially applies clear lateral separation (high hills to the south, climb out to the north).

The problem is back in CAR188, which defines “departure means the time during which an aircraft is climbing after take-off at a rate that is reasonable under the circumstances.”

Although most pilots would not like doing it, climbing at a lower rate of climb is OK, provided terrain clearance is ensured by the pilot using lateral separation. This is likely one of those crash and burn situations – if you crash, then you may be committing an offense as clearly you were not ensuring a reasonable under the circumstances climb rate. So while alternative (d) is OK, alternative (c) clearly is not, as it involves proceeding below the calculated LSA after cruise altitude is reached, and therefore is no longer (in the context of this regulation) part of the departure.

The situation with Night VFR is slightly different, as there is an allowance for step-down after a critical obstacle has been passed(CAAP 5.13-2(0)):In the context of “passed” I interpret this as “abeam to the aircraft's actual track”, though an expensive lawyer – and possibly even a reasonable man - may be equally able to be interpret it as “of no further threat to flight”. I did attempt to find reference to this NVFR step-down procedure higher up the regulatory chain and looked in all the usual places, but couldn't find it (I didn't look under the rock at the end of my garden however – never sure where all the caveats are located). NVFR is also slightly more ambiguous as the regulatory material place more emphasis on takeoff and landing, and less on departure.

So there you have it. I would suggest that most ifr pilots would probably adopt alternative (c) for their departure in this case, and yet it is the only one which is clearly invalid. Yes, the regulations are complex.

I would prefer to see departure defined along the lines of: “ departure means the time during which an aircraft is moving away from terrain in the vicinity of the airport, either by climbing or establishing lateral separation” however while this would allow (c), I wonder what the aforementioned expensive lawyer would make of “in the vicinity”?
---
Professor Bob Pascoe retired from Charles Darwin University in 2007. His area of expertise includes design of aviation software, and he continues involvement in a couple of university research projects. Bob owns a PA32 aircraft and has an instrument rating.

Quite correct Mr Meagan, it’s called a ‘Departure Alternate’ by my current employer.

I have never had anything to do with NVMC always avoided it like the plague. Some of the most difficult IFR flying is taking off on a moonless night on a country strip with no visible horizon and no lights anywhere (apart from RW lights).

I flew into Porepunkah in the early seventies in a Navajo with Bill Borthwick a State Minister of something when Australian Aircharters had the State Premiers contract. The reason I remember it so well was trying to get out safely with low cloud and rain. (Was one of many scary moments learning the trade in my youth).

Trying it at night in a 182, no thanks.

One part you miss from your original comment is that using user defined waypoints for navigation below LSALT is illegal, among other things. So plotting GPS waypoints in valleys to avoid terrain in IMC below MSA/LSALT is not allowed, for obvious reasons, that simple errors will put you in hills.

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??

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

I smell a wind up .... :=

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.

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: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.

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

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.

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!

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...

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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

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.

:)


Take care with instrument and panel lighting.

Hard mounted FLIR is another option.

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.

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.
Where does it say that?

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:

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.

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.