VFR flight on-top
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: Leicestershire
Errr, but...
Just to throw in another spanner....
I just pulled out my Air Law book. In it are two "Weather Minima" charts - one for the UK PPL and one for the JAA PPL.
I have a JAR PPL.
I'm looking at the chart labeled "WEATHER MINIMA - for a JAR PPL holder WITHOUT IMC or Instrument Rating".
Classes F - G:
Below 3000ft AMSL - 140kts or less: 3km vis, clear of cloud, in sight of the surface OR above 140kts 5km, clear of cloud, in sight of the surface.
Above 3000ft AMSL - 5km vis, 1000ft vertically from cloud, 1500m from cloud at the same height. Above FL100 dito but 8km vis.
My point being ABOVE 3000FT THERE IS NO "IN SIGHT OF THE SURFACE" PHRASE. Probably just a mistake in the picture...
But I'd read that as "you can lose sight of the surface above 3000ft and remain in VMC legally".
Not that I would want to, however....
AND - at the bottom of the UK PPL diagram there are big letters that overule the whole page - "MUST STAY IN SIGHT OF THE SURFACE AT ALL TIMES".
(BTW, it's pages 112 & 115 of Jeremy Pratts "Air Law and Ops" for those interested)
I just pulled out my Air Law book. In it are two "Weather Minima" charts - one for the UK PPL and one for the JAA PPL.
I have a JAR PPL.
I'm looking at the chart labeled "WEATHER MINIMA - for a JAR PPL holder WITHOUT IMC or Instrument Rating".
Classes F - G:
Below 3000ft AMSL - 140kts or less: 3km vis, clear of cloud, in sight of the surface OR above 140kts 5km, clear of cloud, in sight of the surface.
Above 3000ft AMSL - 5km vis, 1000ft vertically from cloud, 1500m from cloud at the same height. Above FL100 dito but 8km vis.
My point being ABOVE 3000FT THERE IS NO "IN SIGHT OF THE SURFACE" PHRASE. Probably just a mistake in the picture...
But I'd read that as "you can lose sight of the surface above 3000ft and remain in VMC legally".
Not that I would want to, however....
AND - at the bottom of the UK PPL diagram there are big letters that overule the whole page - "MUST STAY IN SIGHT OF THE SURFACE AT ALL TIMES".
(BTW, it's pages 112 & 115 of Jeremy Pratts "Air Law and Ops" for those interested)
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
Isn't the "always in sight of surface" a UK notified "difference" to the ICAO definition of VFR/VMC? Hence not included in your "licence" rules, but in the "airspace" rules?
Not sure what that means to a JAA PPL holder, licence issued in the UK, when flying in countries where VFR above cloud is allowed. I suspect that, in reality, nobody will care. The French won't mind because their PPLs are allowed to do it, and the CAA won't know if you're doing it in France...
Not sure what that means to a JAA PPL holder, licence issued in the UK, when flying in countries where VFR above cloud is allowed. I suspect that, in reality, nobody will care. The French won't mind because their PPLs are allowed to do it, and the CAA won't know if you're doing it in France...
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
This is my interpretation....
As others have mentioned, VFR over the top is perfectly legal for an FAA PPL ...but also a restricted FAA PPL (issued on basis of JAA licence) who holds a UK IMC rating, as they are no longer restricted to "in sight of the surface". The "in sight of the surface" thing is detailed in the ANO, and as each JAA member country (and the FAA in the FARS) has their own equivalent of the ANO, then these rules apply. For example the French PPL is allowed to fly VFR-Over-the-top as their ANO doesn't restrict them to "in sight of the surface" as far as I can work out.....
So theoretically a UK PPL holder can exercise the privileges of their licence abroad but must comply with either the local ANO or the UK ANO (whichever is more stringent). Now my interpretation of this is that a UK PPL IMC holder, who is excempt from the "in sight of the surface" paragraph of the ANO, can now legally fly VFROTT in France and elsewhere.....
Cheers
EA
As others have mentioned, VFR over the top is perfectly legal for an FAA PPL ...but also a restricted FAA PPL (issued on basis of JAA licence) who holds a UK IMC rating, as they are no longer restricted to "in sight of the surface". The "in sight of the surface" thing is detailed in the ANO, and as each JAA member country (and the FAA in the FARS) has their own equivalent of the ANO, then these rules apply. For example the French PPL is allowed to fly VFR-Over-the-top as their ANO doesn't restrict them to "in sight of the surface" as far as I can work out.....
So theoretically a UK PPL holder can exercise the privileges of their licence abroad but must comply with either the local ANO or the UK ANO (whichever is more stringent). Now my interpretation of this is that a UK PPL IMC holder, who is excempt from the "in sight of the surface" paragraph of the ANO, can now legally fly VFROTT in France and elsewhere.....
Cheers
EA
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
jesbowman
Forget Jeremy Pratt. The UK ANO determines the rules relating to UK JAR PPLs. That document places the "in sight of surface" restriction on a PPL. [Schedule 8 Section 1 c(iii) for UK PPLs and Section 2 2b(iii) for UK-issued JAR PPLs]
Keef
No. UK VFR is basically the same as everybody else with only slightly different numbers, and most importantly it includes the ability to fly above a solid layer (or out of sight of surface if you prefer). It is a *licence* restriction as cited above, not some variation in the definition of VMC that gives rise to this conversation.
This is why, regardless of the slightly different definitions of VMC across Europe, the UK JAR PPL holder must always fly in sight of the surface.
Forget Jeremy Pratt. The UK ANO determines the rules relating to UK JAR PPLs. That document places the "in sight of surface" restriction on a PPL. [Schedule 8 Section 1 c(iii) for UK PPLs and Section 2 2b(iii) for UK-issued JAR PPLs]
Keef
No. UK VFR is basically the same as everybody else with only slightly different numbers, and most importantly it includes the ability to fly above a solid layer (or out of sight of surface if you prefer). It is a *licence* restriction as cited above, not some variation in the definition of VMC that gives rise to this conversation.
This is why, regardless of the slightly different definitions of VMC across Europe, the UK JAR PPL holder must always fly in sight of the surface.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Englishal & Keef
Now my interpretation of this is that a UK PPL IMC holder, who is excempt from the "in sight of the surface" paragraph of the ANO, can now legally fly VFROTT in France
I have it in writing from the CAA that a CAA-issued PPL holder, with an IMC Rating, who is therefore no longer bound to fly within sight of the surface in the UK, is also not bound by this rule worldwide. They told me that provided the DGAC does not mind, the CAA does no mind you flying above a solid layer in France. This is true even though the IMC Rating itself is not valid outside the UK.
I don't know the DGAC position but on similar issues their past response has been along the lines of "if the CAA don't mind, we don't mind".
This is very useful in practice because when flying between the UK and somewhere reasonably south in France, one usually flies from bad weather into good weather, and an IMCR pilot can do an IFR departure/IAP in the UK but cannot legally do one (but perhaps does not need to do one) in France.
Someone asked if one can fly "VFR" in the UK above a solid layer. The answer, AFAIK, is Yes, but you need at least the IMCR to be legal. This is a fairly pointless thing to do however because if instead you call yourself "IFR" you are far more likely to get an RIS, with handovers etc !
Now my interpretation of this is that a UK PPL IMC holder, who is excempt from the "in sight of the surface" paragraph of the ANO, can now legally fly VFROTT in France
I have it in writing from the CAA that a CAA-issued PPL holder, with an IMC Rating, who is therefore no longer bound to fly within sight of the surface in the UK, is also not bound by this rule worldwide. They told me that provided the DGAC does not mind, the CAA does no mind you flying above a solid layer in France. This is true even though the IMC Rating itself is not valid outside the UK.
I don't know the DGAC position but on similar issues their past response has been along the lines of "if the CAA don't mind, we don't mind".
This is very useful in practice because when flying between the UK and somewhere reasonably south in France, one usually flies from bad weather into good weather, and an IMCR pilot can do an IFR departure/IAP in the UK but cannot legally do one (but perhaps does not need to do one) in France.
Someone asked if one can fly "VFR" in the UK above a solid layer. The answer, AFAIK, is Yes, but you need at least the IMCR to be legal. This is a fairly pointless thing to do however because if instead you call yourself "IFR" you are far more likely to get an RIS, with handovers etc !
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: Hampshire, UK
I'm sure we had this discussion recently in "another place". My view is that two separate things happen when you get an IMC rating on your JAA PPL. One is that you exempt yourself from the clause in your license that says you may not fly out of sight of the surface. The second is that you gain the right to fly IFR in visibility down to zero in anything up to Class B airspace within UK airspace. The second right is not one that the CAA can bestow upon you outside UK airspace.
Oddly I also think that the same cannot be said of a UK CAA PPL and an IMC rating but I can't help but suspect that that is a drafting error in the ANO.
Oddly I also think that the same cannot be said of a UK CAA PPL and an IMC rating but I can't help but suspect that that is a drafting error in the ANO.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
AIUI the way pilot licensing works, worldwide, is that your privileges are valid worldwide unless otherwise limited, but they can also be limited by the country in whose airspace you are flying in, by the aircraft equipment etc.
Any license restrictions also apply worldwide.
So the CAA could have made the IMCR valid anywhere, but it would not have done them any good because nobody else recognises it (as a whole)....
The apparent ability for a PPL+IMCR UK pilot to fly above the layer in France is very useful nevertheless.
Any license restrictions also apply worldwide.
So the CAA could have made the IMCR valid anywhere, but it would not have done them any good because nobody else recognises it (as a whole)....
The apparent ability for a PPL+IMCR UK pilot to fly above the layer in France is very useful nevertheless.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
This business of the international validity of the IMC rating for flight "on top" is something of a recurring theme.
The fact is that the rules are drawn up ambiguously.
Schedule 8 of the ANO (which defines the scope of the IMC) makes it quite clear that it does not apply outside the UK. No ifs or buts. In fact, the licence is not an ICAO-recognised licence, which means that nobody has to recognise it outside the UK. As it happens, in the pre-JAR past, some states did go some of the way. For example, in Germany, there is/was a thing called a Controlled VFR rating which allowed VFR pilots to fly in Controlled VFR Zones established around certain big airports. An IMC rating holder was treated as having the equivalent of a CVFR rating. This in no way recognised any of the UK privileges of the IMC rating, it simply recognised that a certain level of flying competence had been reached.
So that is Schedule 8, the rating's legal definition, which unambiguously ties the IMC rating to UK airspace only. However contradicting this, and also in Schedule 8, is the original restriction on flight out of sight of the surface. Here, the restriction exists unless the pilot has an IMC rating or an IR. No geographical bounds are mentioned.
Reading the two together, it is possible to draw either conclusion and have a reasonable argument on your side. When in doubt, I favour a more restrictive interpretation because I suspect that this is what an insurer might attempt to do, if you, your aircraft, or especially your litigious passengers ever came to harm during a flight conducted "on top", in France with nowt but an IMC rating.
What I think we can probably agree on is that whatever the legal wrongs or rights, you would need to be pretty dumb to put yourself in a position where in foreign airspace, you fly above significant and sustained cloud without the means legally to descend through it to land, should the need arise. This is not a legalistic point though, purely a practical airmanship one.
It is all very well picking holes in poor legal drafting, but for me, this misses the point. Airmanship first, legal sophistry and CYA open-ended letters from the CAA afterwards.
French non-IR PPLs are actively discouraged from using this "privilege", as are FAA PPLs at many flightschools. There is a reason for this.
The fact is that the rules are drawn up ambiguously.
Schedule 8 of the ANO (which defines the scope of the IMC) makes it quite clear that it does not apply outside the UK. No ifs or buts. In fact, the licence is not an ICAO-recognised licence, which means that nobody has to recognise it outside the UK. As it happens, in the pre-JAR past, some states did go some of the way. For example, in Germany, there is/was a thing called a Controlled VFR rating which allowed VFR pilots to fly in Controlled VFR Zones established around certain big airports. An IMC rating holder was treated as having the equivalent of a CVFR rating. This in no way recognised any of the UK privileges of the IMC rating, it simply recognised that a certain level of flying competence had been reached.
So that is Schedule 8, the rating's legal definition, which unambiguously ties the IMC rating to UK airspace only. However contradicting this, and also in Schedule 8, is the original restriction on flight out of sight of the surface. Here, the restriction exists unless the pilot has an IMC rating or an IR. No geographical bounds are mentioned.
Reading the two together, it is possible to draw either conclusion and have a reasonable argument on your side. When in doubt, I favour a more restrictive interpretation because I suspect that this is what an insurer might attempt to do, if you, your aircraft, or especially your litigious passengers ever came to harm during a flight conducted "on top", in France with nowt but an IMC rating.
What I think we can probably agree on is that whatever the legal wrongs or rights, you would need to be pretty dumb to put yourself in a position where in foreign airspace, you fly above significant and sustained cloud without the means legally to descend through it to land, should the need arise. This is not a legalistic point though, purely a practical airmanship one.
It is all very well picking holes in poor legal drafting, but for me, this misses the point. Airmanship first, legal sophistry and CYA open-ended letters from the CAA afterwards.
French non-IR PPLs are actively discouraged from using this "privilege", as are FAA PPLs at many flightschools. There is a reason for this.
Last edited by 2Donkeys; 30th September 2003 at 19:23.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
Is this restriction on your licence or in your ANO?
If it's on your licence then it applies to you as an individual, irrespective of what the UK ANO says, or the ANO of any country that you are flying in, and is always valid.
If it's in the ANO, then it applies to everyone in the UK, irrespective of where there licence was issued in. This is because everyone flying in UK airspace must comply with the UK ANO. However it would also apply to UK licence holders irrespective of where they were flying as they must comply with the UK ANO at all times, irrespective of what country they are operating in.
dp
If it's on your licence then it applies to you as an individual, irrespective of what the UK ANO says, or the ANO of any country that you are flying in, and is always valid.
If it's in the ANO, then it applies to everyone in the UK, irrespective of where there licence was issued in. This is because everyone flying in UK airspace must comply with the UK ANO. However it would also apply to UK licence holders irrespective of where they were flying as they must comply with the UK ANO at all times, irrespective of what country they are operating in.
dp
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Is this restriction on your licence or in your ANO?
When the UK CAA grants you a JAA PPL, it grants you a document, the privileges of which are defined within the UK ANO.
The restrictions are associatd with the licence, and the ANO defines what they are. When you fly outside the UK, the UK ANO continues to apply to you and your licence. This is called the Extraterritorial effect, and is defined explicitly in Article 123 of the order.
Once you fly abroad, not only do those restrictions apply, but so do the rules and restrictions relating to the country you find yourself in. Where the two regulations conflict, the more restrictive applies to you, ensuring that at all times, you fly within the limits of your licence. For example in France, the law says that to file IFR, you must hold an IR regardless of the weather conditions. This is not the case in the UK, but you must now respect that restriction too.
If a Frenchman comes to the UK, the chances are that he too will hold a JAA PPL - but this one will presumably have been issued in France. French Air Law places no "in sight of surface" restriction on the PPL holder. It simply says that he must comply with VFR. In the UK VFR permits flight out of sight of the surface, so the Frenchman with his French-issued JAA PPL can fly out of sight of the surface in the UK.
Two apparently identical licences, that contain different smallprint that applies to their holders, wherever they fly.
I hope this helps. It is a tough subject area.
I'm bigoted @rsehole. Ignore me.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: London
Part 2, section V of the Air Navigation Order, (Civil Aviation Publication 393) clearly defines the requirements in its jurisdiction of the Visual Flight Rules.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF
Last edited by dexter256; 30th September 2003 at 20:49.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: EGLL mostly
Now there's a useful post dexter256. What do you want us to do with that lot? It would have been better if you'd posted the right bits of schedule 8. I think we already know that the definition of VFR in blighty allows us to fly above the clouds.
dublinpilot! Are you causing trouble again? I thought we'd got you straightened out after our last chat about Night VFR in Irish Airspace - and now you're back for more.
Charlie
x
dublinpilot! Are you causing trouble again? I thought we'd got you straightened out after our last chat about Night VFR in Irish Airspace - and now you're back for more.
Charlie
x
I'm bigoted @rsehole. Ignore me.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: London
Perhaps I am blind, but it seems to say nothing about being required to fly within sight of the surface under rule 25 for flying in class B airspace. The Licensing Division of the CAA reopens in 45 minutes, I shall telephone to enquire about this.
Insomuch as the original question is concerned, it is the responsibility of National Regulations which dictate what rules must be followed in each of the JAA Member States.
The NPA (equiv. to FAA NPRM) regarding JAR-OPS(2) and (4) [Corporate and Aerial Work, respectively] is the latest bunch of [proposed (and accepted by all Member States)] regulations to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps you could explain what 'new' JARs you are looking at?
The EASA has taken authority of the Civil Aviation Authority for the United Kingdom, but sadly comprises only one staff member (a Director) at the time being. I am not aware of which other Member States have done the same, perhaps there is room for a brief comment from the readers on this? It will be at least another 6 months before the EASA begins to swing its lead as far as it concerns the UK, but until such a time the aforementioned ANO extraction is the ultimate source of the National Regulations in the UK and shall continue to be for the foreseeable future.
CSX001, you may or may not be aware that Schedule 8 deals with the licences ratings and qualifications of flight crew. How is that regulatory in terms of VFR for the sake of VFRs alone?
Insomuch as the original question is concerned, it is the responsibility of National Regulations which dictate what rules must be followed in each of the JAA Member States.
The NPA (equiv. to FAA NPRM) regarding JAR-OPS(2) and (4) [Corporate and Aerial Work, respectively] is the latest bunch of [proposed (and accepted by all Member States)] regulations to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps you could explain what 'new' JARs you are looking at?
The EASA has taken authority of the Civil Aviation Authority for the United Kingdom, but sadly comprises only one staff member (a Director) at the time being. I am not aware of which other Member States have done the same, perhaps there is room for a brief comment from the readers on this? It will be at least another 6 months before the EASA begins to swing its lead as far as it concerns the UK, but until such a time the aforementioned ANO extraction is the ultimate source of the National Regulations in the UK and shall continue to be for the foreseeable future.
CSX001, you may or may not be aware that Schedule 8 deals with the licences ratings and qualifications of flight crew. How is that regulatory in terms of VFR for the sake of VFRs alone?
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: EGLL mostly
Is it Friday already Dexter :-))
Good luck. They will read schedule 8 to you, just a 2 donks did, and then you too will see that a JAA PPL issued in the uk must fly in sight of the surface unless he has an IR or IMC. It applies to those PPLs wherever they fly, article 123 and all that.
This has no bearing on the uk's definition of VFR, VMC or indeed any other country's. We already know that under VFR a flight can usually fly out of sight of the surface in most countries, and the uk is no exception.
As for class B airspace, that is a good'un. Do you fly in the uk much? I'd guess not Which class B do you fly in 
Perhaps I am blind, but it seems to say nothing about being required to fly within sight of the surface under rule 25 for flying in class B airspace. The Licensing Division of the CAA reopens in 45 minutes, I shall telephone to enquire about this.
This has no bearing on the uk's definition of VFR, VMC or indeed any other country's. We already know that under VFR a flight can usually fly out of sight of the surface in most countries, and the uk is no exception.
As for class B airspace, that is a good'un. Do you fly in the uk much? I'd guess not
Which class B do you fly in
I'm bigoted @rsehole. Ignore me.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: London
I've never flown VFR in UK Bravo airspace (still UIR to the best of my knowledge, FL245-660?).
Yes I appreciate your mentioning of schedule 8, but what you can do with a licence and what you can do under VFR are completely separate, save where further restrictions are placed upon certain licence holders. As far as rule 25 etc goes, it is my understanding that no other conditions exist which permit the normal lawful operation of a VFR flight.
Yes I appreciate your mentioning of schedule 8, but what you can do with a licence and what you can do under VFR are completely separate, save where further restrictions are placed upon certain licence holders. As far as rule 25 etc goes, it is my understanding that no other conditions exist which permit the normal lawful operation of a VFR flight.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: EGLL mostly
I think we should be nice to you dexter because you are obviously trying to be helpful, and English doesn't appear to be your first language. Nobody with even a nodding familiarity with the UK airspace system would have mentioned class B in the way that you did.
Why don't you re-read what has been posted before by people like keef, englishal and 2 donks. They talk a lot of sense, they have produced the right answer, and you are not really adding to that.
Sorry to be a a bit cruel, but you know what they say...
Love
Charlie
x
Why don't you re-read what has been posted before by people like keef, englishal and 2 donks. They talk a lot of sense, they have produced the right answer, and you are not really adding to that.
Sorry to be a a bit cruel, but you know what they say...
Love
Charlie
x
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
From: Daventry UK
Most illuminating discussion! I've flown VFR for 25 years in the US on a UK reciprocal licence and this is the first time the nuance of 'VFR on top' vs. 'VFR over the top' has come to my attention!
But my original question was about the case where a pilot has more than one national licence. It seems from the foregoing that if I have an FAA private certificate I can fly 'over the top' in the US and also in the UK because UK law dosesn't prohibit it. But what if I happen co-incidentally to have a UK PPL?
Which rules apply then? If it is the most restrictive, then collecting extra licences could be tricky. For instance, the Canadian licence test requires me to know the difference between a moose and a caribou at 1500ft (or something like that). I am sure that every licence has insidious little quirks or restrictions that are not in the others.
And what of medicals? If a pilot obtains an FAA licence because he can't meet the medical requirements of JAR, but still has an (invalid) JAR licence, what then?
Sorry to go on about this
David
But my original question was about the case where a pilot has more than one national licence. It seems from the foregoing that if I have an FAA private certificate I can fly 'over the top' in the US and also in the UK because UK law dosesn't prohibit it. But what if I happen co-incidentally to have a UK PPL?
Which rules apply then? If it is the most restrictive, then collecting extra licences could be tricky. For instance, the Canadian licence test requires me to know the difference between a moose and a caribou at 1500ft (or something like that). I am sure that every licence has insidious little quirks or restrictions that are not in the others.
And what of medicals? If a pilot obtains an FAA licence because he can't meet the medical requirements of JAR, but still has an (invalid) JAR licence, what then?
Sorry to go on about this
David
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: EGLL mostly
Hi Dave
Let us assume that you have standalone licences. This means that you got your FAA PPL by sitting the exams and doing the checkride, and not simply on the back of your UK licence.
In this case, when you take to the air, you have to decide which licence you are going to be relying on. If it is the FAA PPL, the you need to obey all of the restrictions on that. If it is the JAA/CAA PPL, then the same applies. As a result, if you want to take to the air in the UK, and fly on the FAA PPL, then you can fly above a covered layer, even without an IMC rating. Try and fly in a G-reg plane outside the UK, and the FAA PPL is invalid, and you will be forced to rely on your JAA licence with its limitations.
If your FAA licence is issued on the basis of the UK licence, this does not apply. This is because your FAA licence is endorsed that you must "comply with the limitations of your underlying licence". That would include not flying VFR "over the top".
Charlie
x
Let us assume that you have standalone licences. This means that you got your FAA PPL by sitting the exams and doing the checkride, and not simply on the back of your UK licence.
In this case, when you take to the air, you have to decide which licence you are going to be relying on. If it is the FAA PPL, the you need to obey all of the restrictions on that. If it is the JAA/CAA PPL, then the same applies. As a result, if you want to take to the air in the UK, and fly on the FAA PPL, then you can fly above a covered layer, even without an IMC rating. Try and fly in a G-reg plane outside the UK, and the FAA PPL is invalid, and you will be forced to rely on your JAA licence with its limitations.
If your FAA licence is issued on the basis of the UK licence, this does not apply. This is because your FAA licence is endorsed that you must "comply with the limitations of your underlying licence". That would include not flying VFR "over the top".
Charlie
x
I'm bigoted @rsehole. Ignore me.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: London
David, you should forgive me if the foregoing makes no sense, since apparently our community psychics have decreed that English is not my first tongue. (Incidentally English is a dialect, not in fact a language.)
It's all very simple. CAP393 (link is a few posts above) shows you the rules of the air in the UK. Since you're interested in VFR flying, then rules 24 though 27 inclusive are the only rules you need concern yourself with. The _privileges_ are found in Schedule 8 of the ANO. _Visual Flight Rules_ in section V of section 2 of the aforementioned CAP. The VFRs apply to all civilian aircraft in the UK. Whatever _privileges_ you are granted by an FAA PPL must not be exercised if they are not permitted by rules 24 through 27 inclusive.
[Free translation to Gaelic and Finnish available upon request.]
It's all very simple. CAP393 (link is a few posts above) shows you the rules of the air in the UK. Since you're interested in VFR flying, then rules 24 though 27 inclusive are the only rules you need concern yourself with. The _privileges_ are found in Schedule 8 of the ANO. _Visual Flight Rules_ in section V of section 2 of the aforementioned CAP. The VFRs apply to all civilian aircraft in the UK. Whatever _privileges_ you are granted by an FAA PPL must not be exercised if they are not permitted by rules 24 through 27 inclusive.
[Free translation to Gaelic and Finnish available upon request.]