IFR or VFR?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
WCollins
You mention 3km vis for a VFR departure; however it seems clear to me that the conditions in the original question would make a plain-PPL case pretty reckless. It may be legally flyable but it probably would not be navigable.
So we are looking at IMCR or IR. As far as I know an IMCR pilot can do a "VFR" departure in 1800m vis.
I don't know about IR; what is the min vis for a VFR departure if there is no published RVR for that field?
You mention 3km vis for a VFR departure; however it seems clear to me that the conditions in the original question would make a plain-PPL case pretty reckless. It may be legally flyable but it probably would not be navigable.
So we are looking at IMCR or IR. As far as I know an IMCR pilot can do a "VFR" departure in 1800m vis.
I don't know about IR; what is the min vis for a VFR departure if there is no published RVR for that field?
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
Seems like the part of the original question which asked if the rules are confusing has at least been answered - agreement has not been reached so I guess they must be at least somewhat unclear to some people.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
drauk
Can I, with all humility, suggest that there is only confusion amongst those who have not read the ANO and ROTA recently, and that to those that have the situation is quite clear?
The best way of rectifying this would be for more people to read the rooles.
W
Can I, with all humility, suggest that there is only confusion amongst those who have not read the ANO and ROTA recently, and that to those that have the situation is quite clear?
The best way of rectifying this would be for more people to read the rooles.
W
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I'd have thought that it would do quite the opposite
I think the training is designed so that a student starts to use the instruments early on, and not waiting until entering IMC, before they go instrument......
Cherio
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
WCollins, you're right, of course. But I find the course of this discussion somewhat interesting. Evo and FFF both thought the departure was legal, but weren't completely sure. IO540 thought it couldn't be an IFR departure because you couldn't do one at a small airfield, was corrected by various people and then Chilli Monster set them straight. Flyin'Dutch' said a VFR departure was not legal. Surely that amounts to some confusion?
And these aren't people that just post any old junk. These names, and your own, make posts which I tend to take notice of, or at least read very carefully, because in my experience they post well considered information. But I guess I'm just being lazy and reading the rules is the thing to do.
And these aren't people that just post any old junk. These names, and your own, make posts which I tend to take notice of, or at least read very carefully, because in my experience they post well considered information. But I guess I'm just being lazy and reading the rules is the thing to do.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
My concern, like WC's, is about the decision to change to IFR.
Bimbling along in glorious VMC, no problem. One little cloud - so I fly through it, still looking out the front and being "VFR".
As it gets cloudier/foggier, there comes a point when I should conclude this isn't VMC, and change to flying proper IFR in IMC. I've taught myself to announce (out loud) "Now flying IFR" and to DO that.
Sometimes it's 20 seconds after takeoff, sometimes part way through a long flight, but it's important to make that decision, quickly and firmly, and stick with it
I remember long years ago flying along just under a cloud layer, watching the treetops getting closer. I got quite uncomfortable, before I said "blow this" and climbed into the cloud.
The FAA IR test doesn't really do that - you know you're going to transition to IFR pretty soon, and have an "adjust time" while putting on the hood.
Bimbling along in glorious VMC, no problem. One little cloud - so I fly through it, still looking out the front and being "VFR".
As it gets cloudier/foggier, there comes a point when I should conclude this isn't VMC, and change to flying proper IFR in IMC. I've taught myself to announce (out loud) "Now flying IFR" and to DO that.
Sometimes it's 20 seconds after takeoff, sometimes part way through a long flight, but it's important to make that decision, quickly and firmly, and stick with it
I remember long years ago flying along just under a cloud layer, watching the treetops getting closer. I got quite uncomfortable, before I said "blow this" and climbed into the cloud.
The FAA IR test doesn't really do that - you know you're going to transition to IFR pretty soon, and have an "adjust time" while putting on the hood.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
So why is there such confusion, on the part of obviously intelligent people who take the subject seriously? I think the answer lies in the difficulty in finding the answers!
I find the UK publications tortuous: I use the UKAIM and have great difficulty finding what I want in it. There's no index worthy of the name. Someone could provide a good service to pilots by compiling an index (or a whole book) that does things in logical (rather than legal) order and points to the relevant bit of the legislation for each decision a pilot needs to make. We don't all have Bookworm's fluent grasp of it all!
If I were looking to take off in marginal WX in the UK, I'd be looking at the definition of VFR in ANO Rule 26 (2)(b)(ii) - clear of cloud, in sight of surface, and in a flight vis of at least 1500 metres. I'd also be aware of the 500 foot rule (and the other mnimum height rules if they apply).
For an IMC rating, the takeoff minimum RVR is 1800 metres, so I can take off VFR or not take off at all. Therefore the issue of an IFR takeoff from an unlicensed (or non-ATC) airfield doesn't really get to me.
For the pilot with a valid IR, in the UK, it gets a bit more complex, depending on the aircraft and the airfield equipment. UKAIP AD 1.1 section 4 sets it out.
For a private flight in a single, there are no stipulated minima other than "adequate to ensure a high probability of a successful forced landing being made should a failure of the engine occur after takeoff. It should be noted that the minima for take-off by commercial air transport aeroplanes is 1000 feet cloud ceiling and 1800m RVR." So if you took off in less than those, the CAA would have a case to prosecute for hazarding an aircraft.
WCollins in his twin could, in theory, takeoff in anything down to 150m RVR if all the information and lighting equipment needed is present. (UKAIP AD 1.1 Section 4.1.2).
As to IFR departures from unlicensed fields - I don't know. I couldn't find anything about that (my copy of the UKAIM doesn't have AD 1.3 that CM referred to). Personally, I wouldn't do it (couldn't, with the IMC rating).
I find the UK publications tortuous: I use the UKAIM and have great difficulty finding what I want in it. There's no index worthy of the name. Someone could provide a good service to pilots by compiling an index (or a whole book) that does things in logical (rather than legal) order and points to the relevant bit of the legislation for each decision a pilot needs to make. We don't all have Bookworm's fluent grasp of it all!
If I were looking to take off in marginal WX in the UK, I'd be looking at the definition of VFR in ANO Rule 26 (2)(b)(ii) - clear of cloud, in sight of surface, and in a flight vis of at least 1500 metres. I'd also be aware of the 500 foot rule (and the other mnimum height rules if they apply).
For an IMC rating, the takeoff minimum RVR is 1800 metres, so I can take off VFR or not take off at all. Therefore the issue of an IFR takeoff from an unlicensed (or non-ATC) airfield doesn't really get to me.
For the pilot with a valid IR, in the UK, it gets a bit more complex, depending on the aircraft and the airfield equipment. UKAIP AD 1.1 section 4 sets it out.
For a private flight in a single, there are no stipulated minima other than "adequate to ensure a high probability of a successful forced landing being made should a failure of the engine occur after takeoff. It should be noted that the minima for take-off by commercial air transport aeroplanes is 1000 feet cloud ceiling and 1800m RVR." So if you took off in less than those, the CAA would have a case to prosecute for hazarding an aircraft.
WCollins in his twin could, in theory, takeoff in anything down to 150m RVR if all the information and lighting equipment needed is present. (UKAIP AD 1.1 Section 4.1.2).
As to IFR departures from unlicensed fields - I don't know. I couldn't find anything about that (my copy of the UKAIM doesn't have AD 1.3 that CM referred to). Personally, I wouldn't do it (couldn't, with the IMC rating).
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
Keef
The trouble is that if you rely on a synopsis you can end up with misunderstandings. It is very common for people to say "...but is says in Thom..." or (pace Tropo) "...in my ATPL course material...".
If you go back to the source you read the rooles as they will be applied in Court.
Will
The trouble is that if you rely on a synopsis you can end up with misunderstandings. It is very common for people to say "...but is says in Thom..." or (pace Tropo) "...in my ATPL course material...".
If you go back to the source you read the rooles as they will be applied in Court.
Will
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
It should be noted that the minima for take-off by commercial air transport aeroplanes is 1000 feet cloud ceiling and 1800m RVR
I took off from Edinburgh with an RVR of 750m, I was following a BA 757....
CU
[Edited becasue I just re-read and assume that you're talking about a field without a prescribed IAP procedure....
]
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
Isn't the RVR take off requirement for commercial ops the same as the RVR detailed on the approach plate at that airfield
The ANO is fairly loose on the subject, placing the responsibility in the hands of the operator. PT Ops Manuals, in order to be approved, will contain two stipulations:
One has to do with the lighting on the runway, and the acceptable vis. For Keef's 150m you need centreline lights for example. An RVR of around 175-250m would be typical for a Biggin or Southend, from memory.
The other has to do with getting back on the ground in the event of an emergency. Typically you have to ensure that there is somewhere above minima (and forecast to remain so) within 30 mins flying time, flying time being calculated on the basis of an engine failure.
Will
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
EA
I'm quoting directly from the "law" (or the AIP anyway). The 1000 feet ceiling/1800m RVR is, I understand, for single-engined PT Ops. I didn't look for it elsewhere since it was stated in the UKAIP at AD 1.1 Section 4.
If you took off from Edinburgh in a single, non-PT, with 750m RVR, you were legal. Likewise if PT but in a twin. If it was PT and a single, I fear you might not have been.
Will
Quite - but being sneaky, I was using the UKAIM which reproduces verbatim the "law".
Yes, 150m is the lowest minimum on the page and requires a full kit of lighting etc.
I didn't look up the US equivalent rules - it's all in the FAR.AIM for them as wants it.
I'm quoting directly from the "law" (or the AIP anyway). The 1000 feet ceiling/1800m RVR is, I understand, for single-engined PT Ops. I didn't look for it elsewhere since it was stated in the UKAIP at AD 1.1 Section 4.
If you took off from Edinburgh in a single, non-PT, with 750m RVR, you were legal. Likewise if PT but in a twin. If it was PT and a single, I fear you might not have been.
Will
Quite - but being sneaky, I was using the UKAIM which reproduces verbatim the "law".
Yes, 150m is the lowest minimum on the page and requires a full kit of lighting etc.
I didn't look up the US equivalent rules - it's all in the FAR.AIM for them as wants it.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Bookworm where are you?
I'm touched you missed me but can't add much to what has been said.
To Troposurfer's point, there is an ICAO rule that forbids VFR arrivals/departures in a control zone when the visibility is less than 5 km and the cloud ceiling is less than 1500 ft unless a clearance is obtained from ATC. But this rule is not used by the UK, since every CTR requires a clearance anyway. There is an equivalent for non-radio aircraft, Rule 16(2) which sets minima (at the destination) for departure.
The ICAO rule is somewhat ambiguous:
"shall not take off or land within a control zone, or enter the aerodrome traffic zone or traffic pattern, unless..."
My interpretation is that this applies only within control zones, and that the alternatives are activities within the CTR that are not permitted.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
From: London
The FAA IR test doesn't really do that - you know you're going to transition to IFR pretty soon, and have an "adjust time" while putting on the hood.
The FAA system is dependent on the instructors "signing you off" as ready, the test can't cover everything....
Ian