VFR flight on-top
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2D's
I don't disagree with anything you have said. The reason I was trying to draw a distintsion between the restriction being in the ANO or written into the privilages on a UK issued licence is this.
I have a JAA licence issued by the IAA. It does not contain any similar restriction. Therefore if the restriction was only written in your licences, then I could legally fly in the UK, VFR over a cloud base. I would be complying with the previlages of my licence, complying with the Irish air law(I think!), and complying with the UK ANO. However someone with a UK issued licence also flying in the UK, could not.
Seems a bit harsh on UK licence holders if that was the case.
The reason I say "I think" I would be complying with Irish law is because when I was doing my PPL course, as similar thread to this was on pprune. I asked my instructor what the position was in Ireland, and he told me that it was absolutely not allowed. A conversation last week with an instructor told me that it was most definately allowed, above 3000ft. So a little reading last Sunday evening, and I couldn't find any restriction in Irish legisation, so I'm inclinded to agree with him, that it is allowed here.
CSX001....
Now did you have to go and rub it in?
Well at least I learn't something from that thread, and I'm not afraid to admit it. Thanks
Though it's made me think twice about whether to bother doing the night rating now! Seems a little pointless.
dp
x
I don't disagree with anything you have said. The reason I was trying to draw a distintsion between the restriction being in the ANO or written into the privilages on a UK issued licence is this.
I have a JAA licence issued by the IAA. It does not contain any similar restriction. Therefore if the restriction was only written in your licences, then I could legally fly in the UK, VFR over a cloud base. I would be complying with the previlages of my licence, complying with the Irish air law(I think!), and complying with the UK ANO. However someone with a UK issued licence also flying in the UK, could not.
Seems a bit harsh on UK licence holders if that was the case.
The reason I say "I think" I would be complying with Irish law is because when I was doing my PPL course, as similar thread to this was on pprune. I asked my instructor what the position was in Ireland, and he told me that it was absolutely not allowed. A conversation last week with an instructor told me that it was most definately allowed, above 3000ft. So a little reading last Sunday evening, and I couldn't find any restriction in Irish legisation, so I'm inclinded to agree with him, that it is allowed here.
CSX001....
Now did you have to go and rub it in?
Well at least I learn't something from that thread, and I'm not afraid to admit it. Thanks
Though it's made me think twice about whether to bother doing the night rating now! Seems a little pointless.dp
x
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No wonder lawyers can drag a case on for months 
How can a bunch of flyers drag a subject to death like this? ... really, go get jobs selling cheap cars for a fortune by persauding people they're better than Rolls Royce. There's obviously plenty of talent for that kind of thing!
IM
How can a bunch of flyers drag a subject to death like this? ... really, go get jobs selling cheap cars for a fortune by persauding people they're better than Rolls Royce. There's obviously plenty of talent for that kind of thing!
IM
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real problem, IMHO, is the ambiguity of the legislation, the unwillingness of the CAA (and its foreign equivalents) to commit itself on certain subjects, and (fortunately!) the lack of case law.
The last one is due to lack of appropriate accidents, presumably, because one is unlikely to get caught while in the air, and when one has hit the ground one is no longer VFR on top
Lots of IMC Rated pilots have flown airways (Class A) in the UK, France, Spain and elsewhere. If you know the rules (which you won't from bog-standard IMCR training done by an instructor who has only got the IMCR himself and probably got even that as a grandfather right 25 years ago) and sound good on the radio, and have a fairly serious plane, nobody is likely to question it. I've been abroad quite a number of times this year and not had even my passport looked at, ever, anywhere.
Most instructors don't have a clue either about these esoteric issues so how are PPLs supposed to know chapter and verse?
The last one is due to lack of appropriate accidents, presumably, because one is unlikely to get caught while in the air, and when one has hit the ground one is no longer VFR on top
Lots of IMC Rated pilots have flown airways (Class A) in the UK, France, Spain and elsewhere. If you know the rules (which you won't from bog-standard IMCR training done by an instructor who has only got the IMCR himself and probably got even that as a grandfather right 25 years ago) and sound good on the radio, and have a fairly serious plane, nobody is likely to question it. I've been abroad quite a number of times this year and not had even my passport looked at, ever, anywhere.
Most instructors don't have a clue either about these esoteric issues so how are PPLs supposed to know chapter and verse?
I'm bigoted @rsehole. Ignore me.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the CAA's motivation for being so chronically hung over on the issue of instructors not knowing their stuff, tam facti quam animi (I don't speak English)?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the ANO......it was written by lawyers for lawyers. There is no need to ever read the ANO and the majority of pilots operating in UK airspace on a day to day basis will never have opened the document.
What is required however, is that every pilot reads the AIP which every pilot must read and understand before flight. If there are any differences from the ICAO International Standards then they will be in the AIP.
IMHO, this important point is where many training organisations (and pilots) fall down. Consequently, in general PPLs have great local knowledge of the home country rules but not a clue of the correct way to find the rules elsewhere.
From what I have seen, the CAA issue a licence to a pilot on gaining his PPL and then immediately take back some of the priviliges. There are all sorts of local UK rules that only apply to UK licence holders with regard to things like VMC minima and weather minima for special VFR.
Perhaps the CAA view the restrictions as assisting safety. However, I would argue that by making the rules so complicated, the restrictions have the opposite effect.
As an example - if it is safe for a French PPL operating in the UK (unfamiliar teritory and language) to accept a special VFR clearance in 4Km visibility then how can a UK PPL trained to the same standard, proficient in English and local knowledge need 5Km more than the basic VMC minima (10Km total) to get the same clearance?
Are the CAA stating that UK pilots are not trained to the same standard as French Pilots? or as I think......they use the complicated rules to encourage UK pilots into an IMC course simply to make things a little simpler?
As was stated earlier, the confusion is more a danger than anything else.
regards,
DFC
What is required however, is that every pilot reads the AIP which every pilot must read and understand before flight. If there are any differences from the ICAO International Standards then they will be in the AIP.
IMHO, this important point is where many training organisations (and pilots) fall down. Consequently, in general PPLs have great local knowledge of the home country rules but not a clue of the correct way to find the rules elsewhere.
From what I have seen, the CAA issue a licence to a pilot on gaining his PPL and then immediately take back some of the priviliges. There are all sorts of local UK rules that only apply to UK licence holders with regard to things like VMC minima and weather minima for special VFR.
Perhaps the CAA view the restrictions as assisting safety. However, I would argue that by making the rules so complicated, the restrictions have the opposite effect.
As an example - if it is safe for a French PPL operating in the UK (unfamiliar teritory and language) to accept a special VFR clearance in 4Km visibility then how can a UK PPL trained to the same standard, proficient in English and local knowledge need 5Km more than the basic VMC minima (10Km total) to get the same clearance?
Are the CAA stating that UK pilots are not trained to the same standard as French Pilots? or as I think......they use the complicated rules to encourage UK pilots into an IMC course simply to make things a little simpler?
As was stated earlier, the confusion is more a danger than anything else.
regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It strikes me that the UK rules on this are the most sensible around - and don't seem to be that complex! What they appear to be doing is recognising that there is one form of VFR flight that carries with it a significant risk that you may be forced into cloud and telling us that we may not take that risk unless we undertake an additional 15 hours of instrument flight training. Elsewhere they do not have such a rating so would have to require a full IR to allow VFR on/over the top. Whatever one thinks about the IMC rating and what skills it equips you with (there's another argument we could all have again! ), those 15 hours are probably enough to save the life of a non-IR PPL who gets caught out above an unbroken deck of cloud!
), those 15 hours are probably enough to save the life of a non-IR PPL who gets caught out above an unbroken deck of cloud!
I'm bigoted @rsehole. Ignore me.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dublin pilot,
> I have a JAA licence issued by the IAA. It does not contain any similar restriction. Therefore if the restriction was only written in your licences, then I could legally fly in the UK, VFR over a cloud base. I would be complying with the previlages of my licence, complying with the Irish air law(I think!), and complying with the UK ANO.
Actually the UK ANO's Schedule 8 cleverly specifies JAR-FCL PPLs, so you'd still be stuck with having to comply with Section 2 b[iii.]
On the contrary, I would stress that training organisations actively encourage their students to read the ANO cover to cover. The CAA should also extensively expand their PPL Air Law exam and I also feel that PPL holders should be given a written test anually to ensure that they are not only familiar with the contents of the ANO but au fait with operationally significant changes. Either that or cordon off Wales and lock PPL holders up there for a minimum of 5 years.
"Ignorance of the law is no defence."
> I have a JAA licence issued by the IAA. It does not contain any similar restriction. Therefore if the restriction was only written in your licences, then I could legally fly in the UK, VFR over a cloud base. I would be complying with the previlages of my licence, complying with the Irish air law(I think!), and complying with the UK ANO.
Actually the UK ANO's Schedule 8 cleverly specifies JAR-FCL PPLs, so you'd still be stuck with having to comply with Section 2 b[iii.]
On the contrary, I would stress that training organisations actively encourage their students to read the ANO cover to cover. The CAA should also extensively expand their PPL Air Law exam and I also feel that PPL holders should be given a written test anually to ensure that they are not only familiar with the contents of the ANO but au fait with operationally significant changes. Either that or cordon off Wales and lock PPL holders up there for a minimum of 5 years.
"Ignorance of the law is no defence."
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: EGLL mostly
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the UK ANO's Schedule 8 cleverly specifies JAR-FCL PPLs, so you'd still be stuck with having to comply with Section 2 b[iii.]
Fortunately, this is not the case. Schedule 8 defines the privileges of licences issued by the CAA. It does not impose additional restrictions on JAA licences issued by other JAA member states.
The CAA is required by JAR-FCL1 to fully recognise all privileges of JAR-compliant licenses issued by foreign JAA members, so that the IAA licence can be exercised to its full extent.
I'm bigoted @rsehole. Ignore me.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for clarifying that for me CSX001.
At the risk of sounding pedantic would you kindly explain why Section 2 of Schedule 8 fails to make reference to the requirement imposed upon the United Kingdom by JAR-FCL1.015(a)(1), which as you rightly pointed out requires Member States to recognised without formality the privileges of other Member State issued JAR-FCL PPL?
Unless a reader is fully aware of JAR-FCL1.015(a)(1) he may reasonably conclude from Section 2 of Schedule 8 that the reference made by same towards JAR-FCL PPLs was not limited to those issued by the CAA.
Of course, every JAR-FCL PPL holder is fully aware of JAR-FCL1.015(a)(1) and obviously therefore shall never make the mistake of giving the aforementioned part of the ANO such broad consideration.
At the risk of sounding pedantic would you kindly explain why Section 2 of Schedule 8 fails to make reference to the requirement imposed upon the United Kingdom by JAR-FCL1.015(a)(1), which as you rightly pointed out requires Member States to recognised without formality the privileges of other Member State issued JAR-FCL PPL?
Unless a reader is fully aware of JAR-FCL1.015(a)(1) he may reasonably conclude from Section 2 of Schedule 8 that the reference made by same towards JAR-FCL PPLs was not limited to those issued by the CAA.
Of course, every JAR-FCL PPL holder is fully aware of JAR-FCL1.015(a)(1) and obviously therefore shall never make the mistake of giving the aforementioned part of the ANO such broad consideration.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: EGLL mostly
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of sounding pedantic would you kindly explain why Section 2 of Schedule 8 fails to make reference to the requirement imposed upon the United Kingdom by JAR-FCL1.015(a)(1), which as you rightly pointed out requires Member States to recognised without formality the privileges of other Member State issued JAR-FCL PPL?
Well its not really that hard.
Schedule 8 is not an article of the ANO. It is just a schedule (or appendix if you prefer) which provides the legal definition for licences issued by the UK CAA, both JAR and non-JAR. The Article that makes this explicit is 22(4). So nobody should really think that this applies in some way to licences issued outside the UK.
The rules regarding the recognition of JAA licences issued outside the UK are contained in article 21 4(b) of the ANO in plain black and white. This includes the full recognition of JAR licences in compliance with the JAR-FCL 1.015.
I hope that makes it a bit easier for you. dublinpilot really does have no issue if he wants to bring in IAA-JAA PPL to the UK and fly on top of a covered layer, because his licence was issued by the IAA and they don't write that restriction into their licences AFAIK.
Last edited by CSX001; 1st Oct 2003 at 14:56.
I'm bigoted @rsehole. Ignore me.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charlie, thanks for investing your time to explain this. I now also understand that all JARs are immediately legally binding in the UK (unless a long term exception is filed with respect to a part thereof).
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all those who responded to the questions raised here.
But I am still not convinced about the "use the licence that suits your purpose best" argument because that sounds too good to be true.
There must be many pilots with more than one national licence.
2D are you out there?
David
But I am still not convinced about the "use the licence that suits your purpose best" argument because that sounds too good to be true.
There must be many pilots with more than one national licence.
2D are you out there?
David
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2D are you out there?
Sorry for the silence, I lost interest for a moment I would support what Charlie says. If your licences are standalone and not dependent on one-another, you are free to exercise their privileges without limitation. In situations where both licences are valid, you are free to choose whichever licence fits the circumstances required most appropriately. Where only one is valid, the other licence becomes irrelevant.
So, if I have an FAA and a CAA plain-vanilla PPL, the circumstances will dictate which privileges I can rely on. Here are a few examples.
If I am in a G-reg aircraft in the UK, I can rely on either PPL and on the basis of my my FAA PPL and ANO Article 21 4a, I can fly out of sight of the surface, whilst remaining VFR.
If I am in an N-reg aircraft in the UK, the same is true.
If I take my N reg aircraft to France, my UK PPL is no longer valid for piloting that aircraft, and the only valid licence is my FAA PPL. I can still fly VFR on top because my FAA PPL says so, and because it is in compliance with the French definition of VFR.
If I take a G-reg aircraft to France, the only valid PPL is my CAA PPL because the French do not recognise an unendorsed FAA PPL for the purposes of piloting a G reg aircraft. (this is true in most of Europe). So I must rely on my CAA PPL privileges which do not allow flight out of sight of the surface, even though the French VFR definition does.
As you can see, this is all a bit painful. Generally speaking, if either the country you are flying in, or the aircraft's country of registration is the same as a licence you hold, then you may exercise the full privileges of that licence. It is not totally watertight, but it works most of the time
I think we can safely assume that David is not proposing to go around collecting multiple JAA PPLs don't you think?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aircrat owner I get a personal copy of the GASIL each issue. In the Current GASIL on page 5 there is a very specific explanation of the IMC and what it allows you to do. It also specifically explains that the IMC unlocks the PPL restriction of flight insite of the surface.
Curious about this whole discussion I called the CAA and they told me that a pilot flying in the UK on any licence was bound by the terms of his licence or by the UK ANO whichever was the most stringent.
I then asked them the question that has been going around this thread and they said that only a pilot with an IMC or an IR could fly out of site of the surface in the UK regardless of where there licence was issues.
Open to comment.
Curious about this whole discussion I called the CAA and they told me that a pilot flying in the UK on any licence was bound by the terms of his licence or by the UK ANO whichever was the most stringent.
I then asked them the question that has been going around this thread and they said that only a pilot with an IMC or an IR could fly out of site of the surface in the UK regardless of where there licence was issues.
Open to comment.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: EGLL mostly
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not uncommon for the unfortunate person on the end of the phone at FCL to find themselves put on the spot by a punter with an awkward point of air law. Its a bit like trekkies at conventions asking Bill Shatner why he didn't engage the warp drive in Episode 43 of Star Trek. Normally, like good politicians, they shrug it off and refer you to the legislation, rather than making a pronouncement that puts them in an awkward position. Sometimes though, you can catch some of the more junior ones out.
Fortunately the ANO is pretty clear on this. Without resorting to the FAA example for a moment we already know that the ANO renders valid any and all foreign-issued JAA licences. Most of these foreign-issued JAA PPLs will allow flight out of sight of the surface. These are validated without any additional restriction.
I very much doubt that your contact at the CAA would be prepared to put something into writing which implies that the CAA is curtailing the privileges of foreign-issued JAA licences. But it would be fun to trick them into it...
Charlie
Fortunately the ANO is pretty clear on this. Without resorting to the FAA example for a moment we already know that the ANO renders valid any and all foreign-issued JAA licences. Most of these foreign-issued JAA PPLs will allow flight out of sight of the surface. These are validated without any additional restriction.
I very much doubt that your contact at the CAA would be prepared to put something into writing which implies that the CAA is curtailing the privileges of foreign-issued JAA licences. But it would be fun to trick them into it...
Charlie
