Except you've quoted the Approach Definition, not the Departure definition.

Ends up at the same Instrument though.

Oops. I'll go back and quote the correct definition that so it makes more sense.

Had some good discussions along those lines 20 years ago .... god I'm old. :)

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/9523...eed-aztec.html

https://www.pprune.org/dunnunda-godz...n-heights.html

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...n-trouble.html

A lot of good discussion in those older threads (thanks for making the effort to dig out the links, Checkboard - we're all faced with the getting older problem, mate) along with a few not quite correct ideas.

However, as we always have newchums coming up through the ranks, there is a value in revisiting the discussions afresh from time to time. If we can get folks to speak up, we can see some good, and some not quite so good ideas arise which then can be tossed to and fro.

As observed in some of the linked posts, in times gone past we had probably a higher proportion of career instructors than we see nowadays and that had some benefits for the Industry and the newchums coming through the ranks. If I think back to my own early flying, all my instructors were as old as Methuselah and made my dear old daddy look to be a youngster. I picked up the benefits from those old chaps, of course. Chaps like Cec Randall, Stan Hone, Jack Blackwell, Russ Evans, Joe Somorjay, and a few others.

Certainly, we all have stories of less experienced instructors whose knowledge sometimes shows gaps. I recall a tale from a colleague who had to pick up a light aircraft endorsement and I/F renewal post 89. The instructor involved insisted that the "student" (who had a squillion hours on heavies) demonstrate Vmc on whatever lightie was involved. My colleague, being smarter than the average bear, simply held off on the rudder to achieve a higher than expected departure speed. The instructor just couldn't quite figure out what the story was ... "it always goes slower than that !"

One of the problems in respect of performance is that the design certification standards are not routinely in the province of the training operators and that can generate or perpetuate old wives' tales.

If someone else doesn't start a suitable thread, then I may have to gird my loins and do so myself ....

5 minutes 50 sec mark, flying NVFR over the deserts of Sudan when there's thunderstorms about :-) Dodging cloud at night what looks like complete darkness!

An interesting set of videos this one, just stumbled across them.

As someone on the verge of getting their NVFR Rating who has completed the training and studied the regs for weeks now, I can safely say that VMC is VMC - even at night - and since you are required to navigate by "visual reference" with visual fixes, then you really do need to be able to see "landmarks visible at night" at least every 30 minutes otherwise it isn't NVFR. You are allowed to obtain NVFR positive fixes using a GNSS approved for IFR navigation however, again, they say GNSS should only be used to assist with visual navigation or navigation using ground-based radio navigation aids and is not supposed to be your "primary means of navigation". Thems the rules.

Quoting AC61.05 9.1.2.3: "Navigation under NVFR may be by visual reference or by reference to radio navigation aids. If visual navigation is to be used then the pilot must be able to obtain visual fixes along the route at not greater than 30 minute intervals. This may require deviation from the direct route to enable the aircraft's position to be fixed over landmarks visible at night (i.e. towns)." Refer ENR 1.1 Section 4.2 "Flight under the VFR".

I sent these questions to the CASA ‘Guidance Delivery Centre’ this morning:

It'll be interesting to see if they come back with anything different (I might learn something), but in my student-level understanding the answers are very clearly "yes" and "yes". That's why it's called Visual Flight Rules - and not something else.

As far as maintaining VMC at night goes, my instructor was fond of remarking that "if you don't like what you see in front of you, turn the landing light off!!"

Are we being a bit too pedantic over what constitutes sight of ground/water. I thought it obviously meant you can sight relevant features on the ground, which at night would be stuff with lights. Although apart from the area 3 nm of a lit aerodrome you must maintain at least 1000ft AGL/above obstacles anyway, so you can't be operating that low en-route.

Quote:

---

Are we being a bit too pedantic over what constitutes sight of ground/water. I thought it obviously meant you can sight relevant features on the ground, which at night would be stuff with lights.

---

Who’s arguing otherwise?

Quote:

---

Although apart from the area 3 nm of a lit aerodrome you must maintain at least 1000ft AGL/above obstacles anyway, so you can't be operating that low en-route.

---

Call me a bit too pedantic, but how do you maintain at least 1,000’ AGL above obstacles on departure if there are no lights on features on that ground (and no moon). And then there’s the minor issue of departing unlit aerodromes…

(I don’t know whether this particular aerodrome was lit and don’t know what the meteorological conditions were at the time. Neither would seem to me to affect the operation of an engine, in any event.)

anyone who decides to take off in the dark at this aerodrome has had either appallingly bad training or a desire to meet up with Charles Darwin

Works wonders for the Experimental crowd, especially when displayed on the EFIS with PFD data overlaid on it.:ok:

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5b48b56419.jpg

Well.. current NVFR Training is that, to start with, you rotate on instruments and climb straight ahead to at least 500' above airfield elevation. Unless you're in a pocket rocket that can climb upwind above LSALT within 3 miles (which excludes most GA aircraft) you have 2 choices: either depart overhead or on downwind, but either way you're doing a 180 back toward the airfield maintaining the climb, by which point, assuming 500ft/min or thereabouts you're at least 1,000’ AGL.

Of course if you're unlucky enough to lose your one-and-only-engine on climb-out, then all you can do is fly the plane into the crash and hope you get to tell your mates all about it when you get out of hospital. NVFR isn't without significant risks. For that reason no emergency procedures are permitted in flight test for the rating and it's not a good idea to live anywhere close to the extended centerline.

All of which makes sense to me, but none of which determines - at least not in my mind - the substance of the VMC requirements applicable to NVFR operations at or below the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL in G.

That procedure is no doubt intended to get you above LSALT without hitting granite or something affixed to it. However, it does not follow that you’re not required to be able to see that granite or stuff affixed to it while you’re on the way to LSALT (NVFR).

Logically speaking, if your initial NVFR rotation and climb to 500' is required to be on instruments (to mitigate against them aforementioned somno-thinghy effects) then it does indeed follow that you're not required to be able to see out for at least the the upwind portion anyway. Remember, we're not talking about taking off from the neighbour's paddock.

The design of airfields to CAAP 92-1 is recommended (not a legal requirement), but the onus is then on the pilot to "not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that" is not "suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft" (CAR1988-92), so assuming YPOK meets the requirements of CAAP 92-1, then there will be an "approach and take-off area clear of objects above a 5% slope for day and a 3.3% slope for night operations" at both ends of the runway surface, and therefore (theoretically) there is nothing to hit on take-off unless you've departed into a massive crosswind (exceeding crosswind limitations of the type) that puts you more than 5% off of centerline either way (or you happen to be departing YMEN and due pilot error find a DFO in your way)

It's also worth noting that CAO 29-2 requires "a landing area which meets the general guidelines in CAAP 92-1 and has been approved for night flying training operations by CASA" for NVFR flying training to be permitted. (I'm not saying YPOK complies or needs to, but it's worth noting)

Porepunkah Departure Procedures prior to 8am
 

YPOK isn't approved for night landings, no lighting at all. Uncertified airport so don't know if it needs to have a 3.3% slope for night operations at both ends of the runway. Their website is clear re departures prior to 9am - bit hard to climb and follow the below excerpt.

'Fly Neighbourly Normal aircraft operations are 8am (Sunday 9am) until 8pm. Departures prior to 8am (Sunday 9am) are allowed but aircraft must immediately fly away from the airfield and valley to reduce noise and should not return before normal operating hours'
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....39e34c948d.png

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. You seem to me to be construing a practise recommended to avoid an illusion during rotation and initial climb as meaning you don't have to be able to see the ground or water if, for whatever reason, you look outside at any point during that process.

CAAP 92-1 (and CAAP 92A-1) are, as far as I am aware, now defunct. I assume their content is now 'somewhere else'.

(I did have yet another "I thought I'd seen everything until I saw..." moment, as a consequence of the content of CAO 29.2. I thought I'd seen everything until I saw a legislative instrument purporting to mandate compliance with a document which, in its express terms, is advisory only. You'd think that by now I'd have learned that humans have a boundless capacity to create paradoxical complexity.)

You're quite right.. and I do find it totally bizarre that they'd remove CAAP 92-1, CAAP 92A-1 and CAAP 92-3 (for Balloons) but retain CAAP 92-2 (for Helicopters)? There's a disaster waiting to happen.. but maybe it's too much to expect CASA to do something properly. https://www.casa.gov.au/navigating-new-rules

But don't worry, it gets worse. All I can find on the subject is CAR1988 Part 9 Aerodromes... and around we go again. :ugh:

So, have we established yet that you (legally) need lights to take off at night at an uncertified aerodrome? And if so, what's the ultimate reference in this new mass of legalese that is the MOS's and Part god-knows-what?

No idea, but given the airport procedures prohibit it I'm thinking insurance isn't going to like this one ...regardless of anything else ...