IFR or VFR?

[bookworm]

I am sorry but you twisted my statement I said APPARANTLY not flying a quadrantal, I did not say that anything had been BROKEN.

I interpreted your comment:

The big skies theory is great if everyone flies to the same set of rules, unfortunatly yesterday it proves that they do not!

as suggesting that the other aircraft wasn't flying to the rules. But I take your main point.


WCollins wrote:

My own view is that if aircraft flew at a level determined by the last letter of its registration (thus introducing more randomness) it would be more effective, but, as I keep saying, there really is no problem.

I heard of a proposal many years ago that the big hand on the altimeter should match your heading (e.g. NE at 1000s + 125 ft). It provides only 500 ft of separation between opoosite direction, but it seems to meet sensible criteria. Perhaps we should add a die to the requirements of Scehdule 4

Finally, IO540 wrote:

It would make an interesting exercise in probability theory to work out whether IN IMC a mid-air is more or less likely between two objects flying head-on or the same two objects flying in the same direction.

It's a good question. One way of looking at it might be to consider a flight 1 from A to B taking 2 hours at 150 kt, and a flight 2 from B to A, taking 3 hours at 100 kt. They will pass if the difference in their departure times is in a 5 hour window (i.e. if 1 leaves at 1400, it will conflict if 2 departed between 1100 and 1600). If you reverse flight 2, it will conflict only if it leaves in a 1 hour window (1300 to 1400).

While that's a 1-dimensional look at a complex problem, but I think it illustrates the point.

[IO540]

bookworm

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I am not qualified in this field so better not say any more, but I feel that a better way to look at it is to start with an assumption that two planes are already inside a sphere of a given radius, say 1 mile, and work out if they are more or less likely to hit depending on the rules they follow.

Anyway, the French use the semi rule, which appears to discard half of whatever advantage there is.

[Timothy]

Perhaps we should add a die to the requirements of Scehdule 4

Like the Dice Man, you mean? But he ends up raping and murdering and all sorts of terrible things, then I gave up reading it in disgust.

Actually, going back to Woss' original point, maybe we should make the VFR/IFR choice based entirely on the throw of a die

Will

[troposurfer]

THIS IFR?VFR QUESTION........

Is this departure IFR or VFR? That is the question!


And the answer is ....................er............somewhat ambiguous!


Very many versions exist of ICAO/ATC or CAA/JAA regulations from the ANO/AIPs.


The AIM does a good job of collating all the relevant Air Law material to give the private pilot a good point of reference for all Air Law/legislation issues, but it does not seem to go far enough. It could be a little more coherent.....with an INDEX too!

I can't remember which poster said I should stop quoting my ATPL material and look at the rules, what are you on about?

If you KNEW I was wrong just say it and quote me the ANO/AIP/JAR/ICAO Doc reference and I will go and look it up!
My JAR/CAA Approved ATPL course has to be kept up to date and correct, ratified and inspected regularly by the UK CAA.

The school I use was inspected while I was there in OCT 2003. Why would the CAA let such a closely monitored and regulated organisation diseminate incorrect information?


I quoted (in good faith) the ICAO based JAA approved notes saying that VFR departures should not be made with

a) cloubase less than 1500ft (aal)

b) and vis below 5000m

In CTR/ATZ or traffic patterns

The 2002/2003 AIM says (and may now be out of date)

AIP 4.1.1.2(pg 274)

the minima for SE aeroplanes should be adequate to ensure a HIGH PROBABILITY of a successful landing being made should engine failure occur after take-off.

It goes on to say that minima for commercial ops is 1000ft cloud ceiling and RVR 1800m as another poster quoted earlier.


I am not trying to tell the original poster that he took off illegally or anything such. What I am trying to tell others who may be reading and of less experience (ie PPLs or recent IMCs) that caution is the best option and that was the basis of the scenario in my previous post. EFATO SE in IMC after declaring a VFR DEP then entering IMC shortly after takeoff.

Taking off "into-the-soup" VFR (then IFR) at an uncontrolled airfield with no flightplan is foolhardy at best.

A better example should be being set to the other low hours PPL/IMC pilots on the forum whose last guidance was their flying instructor.

Just think how you might explain the loss of an aircraft/freind or loved one after taking off in marginal conditions. The CAA seems only too happy to prosecute these persons these days not including the personal injury fraternity.

If in doubt and the ATC or a more learned aviator says....DON'T.

Then don't. Caution=best option.


Regards

Tropo

Ps Happy New Year to you all!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Timothy]

I can't remember which poster said I should stop quoting my ATPL material and look at the rules, what are you on about?

That would be me, and what I was on about was that you should stop quoting your ATPL material and look at the rules.

If you KNEW I was wrong just say it and quote me the ANO/AIP/JAR/ICAO Doc reference and I will go and look it up!

I did that, though it is not in my nature to be didactic and brusque, so I put it rather more nicely. I told you that I had scoured the ANO and RotA and there was no reference to the figures you quoted. I was even helpful enough to give you links to the relevant legislation so that you could check for yourself. The trouble with my quoting chapter and verse is that the rule you mention just ain't there. What if I told you that there was a law that brown poodles may not go into Royal Parks on Thursdays, and when you said that you could find no such regulation I said "If you KNOW that, then quote the regulation."?

Taking off "into-the-soup" VFR (then IFR) at an uncontrolled airfield with no flightplan is foolhardy at best.

It is how many, many IFR flights take place. GA is strongly discouraged from using the big, grown up airfields which are connected to controlled airspace, and ends up in the Fairoaks, Blackbushes, Elstrees and Biggins of this world, from which there is no "right" to a radar service, it is only available in the gift of controllers at Farnborough, Luton or Thames, if they have time. As you would be told if you went onto the ATC forum, an FPL is of almost zero safety value outside controlled airspace.

It is great that you have so much faith in your ATPL course notes, but I fear that you will find, once you have been out in the real world for a bit, that it is not as black and white as the printed page.

Will

[englishal]

I think part of the ambiguity of deciding whether to fly VFR or IFR comes from the airspace system. If the airspace was set up to facilitate easy and safe IFR flights, and flight plan filing by GA pilots using an IMC rating, then it would take much of the uncertaintaty out of whether one should fly VFR or IFR, which would increase safety and help the pilot in his/her aeronautical decision making process.

Heres and idea......why not re-label all airspace (within reason) above say FL50, and below FL100 Class E, so an ATC clearance while operating under IFR could be given.....No clearance would be required for VFR flight. Overhead 'busy' airports, this Class E could become Class D, so ATC clearance would be required for VFR flight. Existing Class A low altitude airways could be re-labeled Class D if it were to make people happy, then at least VFR pilots could enter under control of ATC......

While we're at it, employ more ATC controllers, link all the radar data from military installations and civil stations and pipe it into one room in the south, and one in the north (lets call them London Lower Airspace approach control and Scottish Lower airspace approach control), and hey presto every one is happy

Am I getting carried away?

CU
EA

[Timothy]

Am I getting carried away?

Only with the thought that anything might actually happen

It is great to campaign for more expenditure on ATC infrastructure, but the fact is that ATC is now (in the UK) an almost exclusively commercial matter, and I cannot see NATS and SERCO tripping over each other to bid to invest in control systems and controllers to handle what will be almost exclusively non-paying users (because they are below 2T).

If you impose charges on all IFR flights (of whatever weight) you will find that the majority do as I do and fly in such a way as to mitigate or eliminate charges (in your model that will mean below FL50) thus reducing any income to the service provider.

Will

[FlyingForFun]

why not re-label all airspace (within reason) above say FL50, and below FL100 Class E, so an ATC clearance while operating under IFR could be given..... etc etc etc

What, and actually use the different classes of airspace for what they were intended???

It'll never happen.

FFF
---------------

[2Donkeys]

Not long now in any case before ICAO moves on from the A-G airspace classification system and into a simpler model.

It'll be interesting to see what the DAP makes of that in the context of the UK's airspace system.

2D

[rustle]

It'll be interesting to see what the DAP makes of that in the context of the UK's airspace system

Make it all "N"

Are you flying Saturday, 2D?

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

2Ds, I'll let you know in a couple of weeks!

[2Donkeys]

2Ds, I'll let you know in a couple of weeks!

I'm counting on it! Good luck with the job

2D

[TheKentishFledgling]

Not long now in any case before ICAO moves on from the A-G airspace classification system and into a simpler model.

Do you know roughly how it'll be done, 2Donks?

tKF

[2Donkeys]

Its a long way off tFK, but in essence it is proposed to divide airspace into areas of "Known Traffic" (Class K) and Unknown (U).

The implications for separation adn control in class K are clearly somewhat different to Class U. Much more than that varies somewhat depending on where you read it. The bottom line is

- fewer airspace classes
- greater harmonisation of ATC service
- less confusion.


Worth holding you breath for perhaps

2D

[DFC]

Troposurtfer,

The ICAO requirement you quote requiring 1500ft ceiling for VFR flights only applies within control zones. The logic being that since under ICAO, you may not fly lower than 500ft AGL and in controlled airspace you must be 1000ft vertically from cloud, it would not be legal to depart VFR unless you could both reach 500ft agl and be 1000ft below the cloud. That is ICAO, not UK which does not have the same 500ft ASFC requirement or the 1000ft vertically from cloud requirement in the lower controlled airspace.


Getting back to the priginal matter;

Logically, I think....who in their right mind would depart VFR into such conditions.

There is no reason for not departing IFR. Even if one wished to remain "visual" until a radar service was established, there is absolutely noting wrong with departing IFR but remaining visual...check out IFR minimum height requirements and the exemption for being visual below 3000ft etc.

To look at the situation from a post accident point of view, a review of the decision to depart VFR and then soon after fly IFR would place much emphasis on the prior planning made by the pilot and comparing the actual point of entry into IMC with the planned point of entry into IMC.

Looking the the situation from the "other VFR pilot" point of view........can one honestly say that two VFR flights in such conditions could if they saw each other in good time, manoeuvere suficiently to comply with the rules for avoiding collisions while at the same time remaining VMC?

It is the same as driving down a twisting busy country road at 60mph...where the legal speed limit is 60mph......but one would be deemed reckless to drive so fast.

Regards,

DFC

[Timothy]

There is no reason for not departing IFR.

At least two have been given earlier in this thread.

All these big "reckless", "foolhardy", "dangerous" words are simply silly. In the real world of departing an airfield that is not in a CTR and doesn't have radar there is absolutely no difference in the safety of departing VFR or IFR. Known traffic only extends to 2.5 miles from the ARP, there could easily be unknown traffic crossing the take-off path whichever set of rules you declare.

I fear that there is a considerable amount of prejudice and a considerable lack of knowledge and experience being shown in this thread, some from people who equate IFR with controlled airspace and some from people who haven't got there yet.

Maybe we can tone down the accusations if we want a reasonable discussion.

Will

[IO540]

CAN you depart "IFR" from a non-ATC airfield, anyway? You can't be in receipt of IFR departure instructions, for a start.

The originally described scenario is perfectly OK for a departure, whatever one calls it, provided the pilot is capable of instrument flight. If not, he almost certainly won't get very far.

The additional risk (relative to departing from the same place in say a higher cloudbase) is that in the event of a SEP engine failure one won't have much time to look for a field. I departed from the Scilly Isles once in probably 200ft cloudbase but there is only water at the end of the runway...

[2Donkeys]

CAN you depart "IFR" from a non-ATC airfield, anyway? You can't be in receipt of IFR departure instructions, for a start.

Yes.

It is not mandatory to be under a clearance to operate IFR outside controlled airspace. If the departure is made, remaining clear of controlled airspace, then the fact that the A/G Operator cannot give you a clearance is neither here nor there.

The Rules to be obeyed under IFR are set out in the Rules of the Air.

2D

[rustle]

2Ds quoth: ...but in essence it is proposed to divide airspace into areas of "Known Traffic" (Class K) and Unknown (U).

I thought the "known traffic environment" would be class "N" - hence my comment previously

[2Donkeys]

Rustle

You may be right. I have documents here that call it numerous things

I felt more comfortable defendning the choice of the letter "K" when describing a concept spelled "K N O W N" though.

It was my understanding that N was Intended Traffic Environment and that U was Unknown.

2D