VFR flight on-top
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Slow down and look at what has been said again. The world has not changed.
This is what we have been saying all along.
The ANO (or more particularly, the rules of the air), says that VFR flight includes the possibility of being able to fly above a covered layer of cloud.
The UK-issued PPL though says that you must fly in sight of the surface.
Therefore, a UK PPL must fly in sight of the surface.
A foreign issued licence holder must also respect our ANO and Rules of the Air, and must also obey any licence restrictions.
His licence restrictions by-and-large won't include the "in sight of surface" restriction so all is well.
As for that last sentence. You simply managed to baffle FCL. They are not the ultimate authority on what is and is not legal. The ANO is pretty clear, as Charlie says.
2D
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.
The ANO (or more particularly, the rules of the air), says that VFR flight includes the possibility of being able to fly above a covered layer of cloud.
The UK-issued PPL though says that you must fly in sight of the surface.
Therefore, a UK PPL must fly in sight of the surface.
A foreign issued licence holder must also respect our ANO and Rules of the Air, and must also obey any licence restrictions.
His licence restrictions by-and-large won't include the "in sight of surface" restriction so all is well.
As for that last sentence. You simply managed to baffle FCL. They are not the ultimate authority on what is and is not legal. The ANO is pretty clear, as Charlie says.
2D
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
So what we are really saying here is that along with sky high tax, insurance and fuel prices we are also drawing the short straw as far as our privledges are concerend compared to our apparantly equal neighbours. All policed by the Campaign Against Aviation.........
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
I have to agree with 2D's on that.
I'd gladly trade my privelage to be able to fly on top of a cloud layer (which I'm not sure I'll be able to get over anyway, and even less sure I'll be able to get back down), for your 15 hour course that will let me legaly transition through cloud.
I think you have the better deal there
dp
I'd gladly trade my privelage to be able to fly on top of a cloud layer (which I'm not sure I'll be able to get over anyway, and even less sure I'll be able to get back down), for your 15 hour course that will let me legaly transition through cloud.
I think you have the better deal there
dp
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
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
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
I was trying to compare the "vanilla" PPL not the IMC rating. I think the IMC is a fantastic tool and actually suits most of the Instrument flying your average PPL will do. Most of the accessable GA aircraft are pretty much incapable of flying the airways and who wants to foot the euro charges bill anyway.
With an IMC you can do the "short" hops through or preferably over cloud that PPL's tend to do and have a legal and safe option (provided current etc etc etc) to get back on the ground.
I fly a multi a lot of the time now so next week sees me in Florida starting my FAA IR but the IMC has done my proud flying my 152!
And for the record I don't see why a full IR would make someone better at descending through cloud and doing an Instrument approach than an IMC. I flown many hours in IMC with subsequent Instrument approaches without problem on my IMCR. It comes down to the currency and the capability of the pilot.
But I guess my point at the end of the day was that who in there right mind as a VFR only pilot would want to fly above cloud without an escape route?
With an IMC you can do the "short" hops through or preferably over cloud that PPL's tend to do and have a legal and safe option (provided current etc etc etc) to get back on the ground.
I fly a multi a lot of the time now so next week sees me in Florida starting my FAA IR but the IMC has done my proud flying my 152!
And for the record I don't see why a full IR would make someone better at descending through cloud and doing an Instrument approach than an IMC. I flown many hours in IMC with subsequent Instrument approaches without problem on my IMCR. It comes down to the currency and the capability of the pilot.
But I guess my point at the end of the day was that who in there right mind as a VFR only pilot would want to fly above cloud without an escape route?
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Remind me again what you have been told englishal.
I have a feeling that you were told that the DGAC would permit anything that the CAA would permit, or words to that effect.
In this case, the CAA will permit a G registered aircraft to be flown within the UK by a pilot with an FAA PPL under conditions of VFR. It is not clear to me that the CAA can insist on that validation applying outside the UK, but I would be interested to see where such a principle might be defined. Certainly such powers lie outside the scope national legislation.
Once in France, the DGAC's view of licences is pretty clear. They will fully accept an FAA licence, but it must be endorsed before use.
So an endorsed FAA licence is no issue at all, an unendorsed one is not OK. Does the fact that the aircraft is G reg make a difference? I don't know.
Were you told differently? I think you might be on dodgy ground unless you get explicit approval relating to your particular circumstances....
I have a feeling that you were told that the DGAC would permit anything that the CAA would permit, or words to that effect.
In this case, the CAA will permit a G registered aircraft to be flown within the UK by a pilot with an FAA PPL under conditions of VFR. It is not clear to me that the CAA can insist on that validation applying outside the UK, but I would be interested to see where such a principle might be defined. Certainly such powers lie outside the scope national legislation.
Once in France, the DGAC's view of licences is pretty clear. They will fully accept an FAA licence, but it must be endorsed before use.
So an endorsed FAA licence is no issue at all, an unendorsed one is not OK. Does the fact that the aircraft is G reg make a difference? I don't know.
Were you told differently? I think you might be on dodgy ground unless you get explicit approval relating to your particular circumstances....
Last edited by 2Donkeys; 2nd October 2003 at 00:59.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Forgetting about the IFR thing for a moment....The CAA have verified that you can fly a G reg plane on an FAA licence, including all type / class ratings and at night. They also confirm that it is up to the foreign CAA if they will allow this in their airspace. The DGAC (and German authorities) comfirmed to me in writing that a pilot of a G reg aircraft may fly in french / german airspace under the privileges of the FAA licence, and no validation is required or will be given to an EU resident....I believe I posted the replies here a while ago, so I won't bother again.
This was a seperate issue to the IFR thing we discussed a while ago, and there appeared to be a misunderstanding between Ms Badot and myself regarding IFR in F airspace.
EA
This was a seperate issue to the IFR thing we discussed a while ago, and there appeared to be a misunderstanding between Ms Badot and myself regarding IFR in F airspace.
EA
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
It is up to the UK CAA to decide what requirements must be met by pilots flying G registered aircraft.
The UK CAA follow the JAA system of licensing and through that system meet their international comittments under ICAO to ensure that G registered aircraft flying anywhere in the world are crewed by suitably qualified persons.
Provided that the UK CAA renders a foreign ICAO compliant licence valid without territorial restrictions then that pilot can operate G registered aircraft in any ICAO signatory State.
By validating a licence in the UK, the holder is bound by the laws that apply to the holder of an equivalent UK issued licence PLUS any extra restrictions imposed by the validation process PLUS the restrictions on the original ICAO licence....whichever are more restrictive. Example.......just because UK validation rules simply state something like "No IFR in controlled airspace" this can not be taken by an FAA PPL without IR as conferring an ability to fly IFR in Class G airspace.
Foreign countries will only automatically accept aircraft and crews from the UK that comply with ICAO requirements. Thus, NPPL holders ( a non-ICAO licence) and Permit to Fly aircraft (No ICAO Certificate of Airworthiness) must obtain permission from the foreign country in which they wish to fly.
OK, the French have a blamket clearance for certain aircraft categories. However, thay can at any time stop.
By validating the licence and not placing any territorial restrictions on such a validation, the UK CAA are in effect saying that they are happy for that pilot to fly a G registered aircraft anywhere in the world.
If a foreign country has a problem with that system then that country must take up a complaint with the UK CAA. Not with the pilot concerned.
Regards,
DFC
The UK CAA follow the JAA system of licensing and through that system meet their international comittments under ICAO to ensure that G registered aircraft flying anywhere in the world are crewed by suitably qualified persons.
Provided that the UK CAA renders a foreign ICAO compliant licence valid without territorial restrictions then that pilot can operate G registered aircraft in any ICAO signatory State.
By validating a licence in the UK, the holder is bound by the laws that apply to the holder of an equivalent UK issued licence PLUS any extra restrictions imposed by the validation process PLUS the restrictions on the original ICAO licence....whichever are more restrictive. Example.......just because UK validation rules simply state something like "No IFR in controlled airspace" this can not be taken by an FAA PPL without IR as conferring an ability to fly IFR in Class G airspace.
Foreign countries will only automatically accept aircraft and crews from the UK that comply with ICAO requirements. Thus, NPPL holders ( a non-ICAO licence) and Permit to Fly aircraft (No ICAO Certificate of Airworthiness) must obtain permission from the foreign country in which they wish to fly.
OK, the French have a blamket clearance for certain aircraft categories. However, thay can at any time stop.
By validating the licence and not placing any territorial restrictions on such a validation, the UK CAA are in effect saying that they are happy for that pilot to fly a G registered aircraft anywhere in the world.
If a foreign country has a problem with that system then that country must take up a complaint with the UK CAA. Not with the pilot concerned.
Regards,
DFC
Last edited by DFC; 2nd October 2003 at 06:22.
I'm bigoted @rsehole. Ignore me.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: London
>Remind me again which country allows its pilots to fly in solid cloud, and to shoot instrument approaches without an instrument rating....
I see under Schedule 8 section 2 the following:
(2) (a) The licence is subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in paragraph 1.175 of JAR–FCL 1.
So referring to JAR-FCL(1) 1.175, with reference to the applicability of Rules 6 and 7 of the RotA Regs 1996 here in the UK, we have:
(a) The holder of a pilot licence (A) shall not act in any capacity as a pilot of an aeroplane under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training, unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR(A)) appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.
Does exercising the aforementioned Rule 6 therefore conflict with JAR-FCL(1) 1.175 or is it considered "dual training?"
I see under Schedule 8 section 2 the following:
(2) (a) The licence is subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in paragraph 1.175 of JAR–FCL 1.
So referring to JAR-FCL(1) 1.175, with reference to the applicability of Rules 6 and 7 of the RotA Regs 1996 here in the UK, we have:
(a) The holder of a pilot licence (A) shall not act in any capacity as a pilot of an aeroplane under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training, unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR(A)) appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.
Does exercising the aforementioned Rule 6 therefore conflict with JAR-FCL(1) 1.175 or is it considered "dual training?"
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
From: Southern Europe
Wow
Wow, what a topic this have been. Just for my little question.
Currently I've mailed a flight instructor here in Sweden and ask for how to interpret the rules here in Sweden. I'm waiting his answer.
Currently I've mailed a flight instructor here in Sweden and ask for how to interpret the rules here in Sweden. I'm waiting his answer.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Not again Dexter
The IMC rating, which is what I was referring to, is a non-ICAO rating, which can only be used in the UK. 1.175 has nothing to do with it.
With your earlier strange references to Class B, and your lack of understanding of the IMC rating, I am guessing that you don't really fly at all yet...
Is that correct?
2D
The IMC rating, which is what I was referring to, is a non-ICAO rating, which can only be used in the UK. 1.175 has nothing to do with it.
With your earlier strange references to Class B, and your lack of understanding of the IMC rating, I am guessing that you don't really fly at all yet...
Is that correct?
2D
I'm bigoted @rsehole. Ignore me.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: London
>The IMC rating, which is what I was referring to, is a non-ICAO rating, which can only be used in the UK. 1.175 has nothing to do with it.
Did you bother to look at the parts of the ANO I referenced? Where exactly do you see a mention of the IMC rating or any reference to it whatsoever in my query? For the purpose of my question the IMC rating need be completely ignored.
I find your unprovoked arrogance quite disturbing, do you think it might be possible to limit your replies to the scope of the question without resorting to whimsical fantasies about my getting it up?
Did you bother to look at the parts of the ANO I referenced? Where exactly do you see a mention of the IMC rating or any reference to it whatsoever in my query? For the purpose of my question the IMC rating need be completely ignored.
I find your unprovoked arrogance quite disturbing, do you think it might be possible to limit your replies to the scope of the question without resorting to whimsical fantasies about my getting it up?
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,414
Likes: 2
From: Europe
Hi 2Ds,
Do you know what the difference is between an endorsed and non-endorsed FAA PPL?
Had a look in the FAR/AIM and the only thing I can find about the VFR-over-the-top is that it is a VFR clearance nothing about what else is involved.
FD
Do you know what the difference is between an endorsed and non-endorsed FAA PPL?
Had a look in the FAR/AIM and the only thing I can find about the VFR-over-the-top is that it is a VFR clearance nothing about what else is involved.
FD
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Hi FD
I don't think you'll find much about VFR over the top in FAR/AIM because it is not a condition to which specific rules are attached. The rules governing VFR flight in the US permit VFR over the top of a covered layer, and it is convenient to label this condition "VFR over the top", to distinguish it from the IFR clearance "VFR-on-Top".
As far as endorsements go, this relates to the process by which certain regulators will accept foreign licences as being valid for flight in their own aircraft.
A good example is the US. A CAA PPL can fly an N registered aircraft in the US, but before they can do this, they must obtain a restricted FAA licence. An aircraft of Bermudan registry can be flown by a UK licence holder, before they can do this, the Bermudans will wish to issue an endorsement - a separate piece of paper "endorsing" your UK licence as being valid.
Closer to home, the French DGAC are happy to accept an FAA PPL for the purposes of flying an F-reg aircraft, but they must issue a piece of paper endorsing it first.
In the UK, we are uncharacteristically relaxed, and (for example), a US FAA PPL holder can simply fly a G-reg aircraft under VFR conditions without getting a formal endorsement.
Any good?
I don't think you'll find much about VFR over the top in FAR/AIM because it is not a condition to which specific rules are attached. The rules governing VFR flight in the US permit VFR over the top of a covered layer, and it is convenient to label this condition "VFR over the top", to distinguish it from the IFR clearance "VFR-on-Top".
As far as endorsements go, this relates to the process by which certain regulators will accept foreign licences as being valid for flight in their own aircraft.
A good example is the US. A CAA PPL can fly an N registered aircraft in the US, but before they can do this, they must obtain a restricted FAA licence. An aircraft of Bermudan registry can be flown by a UK licence holder, before they can do this, the Bermudans will wish to issue an endorsement - a separate piece of paper "endorsing" your UK licence as being valid.
Closer to home, the French DGAC are happy to accept an FAA PPL for the purposes of flying an F-reg aircraft, but they must issue a piece of paper endorsing it first.
In the UK, we are uncharacteristically relaxed, and (for example), a US FAA PPL holder can simply fly a G-reg aircraft under VFR conditions without getting a formal endorsement.
Any good?
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
To add one snippet...
The holder of an FAA PPL/IR can regard that as equivalent to a PPL/IMC for flying G-reg aircraft in the UK (I think the CAA has to "validate" it, for a fee).
Sadly, the FAA PPL/IR will not count as a full IR for flying G-reg aircraft. If it did, I suspect quite a few of the N-reg aircraft in the UK would be G-reg.
The holder of an FAA PPL/IR can regard that as equivalent to a PPL/IMC for flying G-reg aircraft in the UK (I think the CAA has to "validate" it, for a fee).
Sadly, the FAA PPL/IR will not count as a full IR for flying G-reg aircraft. If it did, I suspect quite a few of the N-reg aircraft in the UK would be G-reg.