Microligts and IMC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: don't know, I'll ask
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Microlights and IMC
Are microlights exempt from the rules concerning VFR or do they have a special definition that incorporates forward visibility of something less than a mile? Some microlight schools seem to be able to train in the most appalling viz condition.
Last edited by Ludwig; 1st Nov 2004 at 10:11.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 2nm due S EGLK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that microlights don't seem to paint too well on radar, then one would hope they don't whizz around in crap visibility. Unless, of course, they WANT to get on the sharp, spinny end of a spam can! 
TPK
TPK
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3km below 3000ft
Ludwig, I'm worried that you'll burst if you don't get whatever it is off your chest! Go on, do tell.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have looked up the rules and this is what I found courtesy of Cosgrove - The Microlight Pilots Handbook.
A) Always Clear of cloud and insight of the surface
B) Always have in flight vis greater than 3KM
C) Always when above 3000ft - viz not less than 5km - never less than 1500m from cloud horizontally - never less than 1000ft vertically from cloud.
All of this applies outside of controlled airpspace.
Usual permit rules also apply.
A) Always Clear of cloud and insight of the surface
B) Always have in flight vis greater than 3KM
C) Always when above 3000ft - viz not less than 5km - never less than 1500m from cloud horizontally - never less than 1000ft vertically from cloud.
All of this applies outside of controlled airpspace.
Usual permit rules also apply.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: cheltenham
Age: 54
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the legal issue for a minuite.
What difference does it make if your working on the "Big sky theory"?????
ie: in IMC in uncontrolled airspace without a RIS
You stand the chance of hitting a spam can, microlight or rc plane !! or a lost golden eagle
What difference does it make if your working on the "Big sky theory"?????
ie: in IMC in uncontrolled airspace without a RIS
You stand the chance of hitting a spam can, microlight or rc plane !! or a lost golden eagle
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ashwell, U.K.
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just off Duxford last Saturday, punched out of the cloud and levelling at 2,500 feet in a speedy twin when 3 pairs of eyes all saw the microlight on the reciprocal at the same level. He was clear of cloud but definitely NOT in sight of the surface which was obscured for miles around. Was he being a bit of a chancer we asked ourselves.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rules regarding microlights are simply that they must be flown VFR at all times.
What determines VFR minima depends on the pilot's qualifications (and airspace) -
For the basic PPL/NPPL that means always being clear of cloud in sight of the surface and the lowest visibility is 3K (or higher if the airspace requires).
However as is becomming more common these days, the pilot may hold an IR and then for that pilot the minimum visibility is 1500m (higher if airspace requires) and there is no legal requirement to be in sight of the surface.
Thus it is not uncommon for an IR holder in a well equipped microlight to fly 1000ft above a 3000ft overcast top - perfectly legally.
Overall, the IR pilot flying a microlight can't - fly in IMC and can't accept an IFR clearance (cross an airway for example).......but they can use the other licensing privileges that the IR conferrs. (We can only hope for the time when the permit will restrict the aircraft to VMC as opposed to VFR
Thus, unless the twin was so close to the microlight so as to read the ratings on the guy's licence we have to assume that the pilot was operating within the limits of their licence and thus perfectly legal................Which leads me to ask - if it was a C150 that was there would the legality question come to mind?
Microlights do show on radar but very few have transponders. The latest models can happily cruise at similar speeds to a PA28 / C172 for a fraction of the costs!
Regards,
DFC
What determines VFR minima depends on the pilot's qualifications (and airspace) -
For the basic PPL/NPPL that means always being clear of cloud in sight of the surface and the lowest visibility is 3K (or higher if the airspace requires).
However as is becomming more common these days, the pilot may hold an IR and then for that pilot the minimum visibility is 1500m (higher if airspace requires) and there is no legal requirement to be in sight of the surface.
Thus it is not uncommon for an IR holder in a well equipped microlight to fly 1000ft above a 3000ft overcast top - perfectly legally.
Overall, the IR pilot flying a microlight can't - fly in IMC and can't accept an IFR clearance (cross an airway for example).......but they can use the other licensing privileges that the IR conferrs. (We can only hope for the time when the permit will restrict the aircraft to VMC as opposed to VFR
Thus, unless the twin was so close to the microlight so as to read the ratings on the guy's licence we have to assume that the pilot was operating within the limits of their licence and thus perfectly legal................Which leads me to ask - if it was a C150 that was there would the legality question come to mind?
Microlights do show on radar but very few have transponders. The latest models can happily cruise at similar speeds to a PA28 / C172 for a fraction of the costs!
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: don't know, I'll ask
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On that basis then, can one equally assume that a PFA permit a/c, or indeed anything certified for “day VFR only” in the hands of a suitably qualified pilot can also fly above a solid overcast, provided there is a hole at either end through which to climb and descend?
Actually not true, all Permit (including microlight) aircraft are required to fly in sight of the surface at all times (at-least in the UK), also clear of cloud below 3,000ft or 1000ft/1500m clear above 3,000ft.
Also the 1500m rule only applies below 3000ft / 140kn and within sight of the surface - ANO Rule 26 (2) (b)(ii) and outside of controlled airspace - it's 5km inside controlled airspace (Rule 25 (2)(c)(i)), and wouldn't be available above an overcast under any circumstances - that becomes IFR.
But, 3km (5km above 3,000 ft) which is the privilege of a normal PPL (no IMC or IR) is still very poor visibility - nonetheless, for a microlight flying typical tight circuits at the 500ft circuit height typical at a microlight airfield it's perfectly sensible for circuits - and should be safe enough since nobody in their right mind should be flying cross-country that low in those conditions. (Plus the airfield should be marked on the chart).
There is a healthy debate going on at present suggesting that warbirds on Permits (Hunters and the like) which were permitted to fly IMC in military service should be allowed to go IFR in transit. This has been under active discussion with CAA for a few years, and everybody's in favour (especially anybody who has ever flow or encountered a transiting Hunter at low level doing just under 250kn) but there still seems some way to go before even this gets approved and it'll probably be necessary for pilots to have revalidated their IMC/IR on that type.
G
Also the 1500m rule only applies below 3000ft / 140kn and within sight of the surface - ANO Rule 26 (2) (b)(ii) and outside of controlled airspace - it's 5km inside controlled airspace (Rule 25 (2)(c)(i)), and wouldn't be available above an overcast under any circumstances - that becomes IFR.
But, 3km (5km above 3,000 ft) which is the privilege of a normal PPL (no IMC or IR) is still very poor visibility - nonetheless, for a microlight flying typical tight circuits at the 500ft circuit height typical at a microlight airfield it's perfectly sensible for circuits - and should be safe enough since nobody in their right mind should be flying cross-country that low in those conditions. (Plus the airfield should be marked on the chart).
There is a healthy debate going on at present suggesting that warbirds on Permits (Hunters and the like) which were permitted to fly IMC in military service should be allowed to go IFR in transit. This has been under active discussion with CAA for a few years, and everybody's in favour (especially anybody who has ever flow or encountered a transiting Hunter at low level doing just under 250kn) but there still seems some way to go before even this gets approved and it'll probably be necessary for pilots to have revalidated their IMC/IR on that type.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 2nd Nov 2004 at 15:24.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghengis
Would you be kind enough to tell me where it is published that pilots of Permit aircraft must remain in sight of the ground?
My aircraft placard says that the a/c may be flown by day under VFR only. As a holder of an IMC rating I may use the ANO definitions for VFR flight outside CAS below FL100, ie 5k/1500m/1000ft, which clearly does not forbid me from flying above a solid deck. Nevertheless I still have to ensure that in getting there and descending I remain VMC (VFR). If I get engine failure then I will possibly break the Law, although I may have considerable mitigation.
PG
Would you be kind enough to tell me where it is published that pilots of Permit aircraft must remain in sight of the ground?
My aircraft placard says that the a/c may be flown by day under VFR only. As a holder of an IMC rating I may use the ANO definitions for VFR flight outside CAS below FL100, ie 5k/1500m/1000ft, which clearly does not forbid me from flying above a solid deck. Nevertheless I still have to ensure that in getting there and descending I remain VMC (VFR). If I get engine failure then I will possibly break the Law, although I may have considerable mitigation.
PG
Good question, it's one of those gospel points that when you look it up you can't find. I've just checked the standard wording on a permit, and the standard conditions of an NPPL(M) and neither contain that restriction. Looking at article 9a of the ANO, which contains the basic permit restrictions again there is no such limitation.
It is listed in Brian Cosgrove's Microlight pilots' Handbook but without a document reference.
The ANO does list "not out of sight of surface" under privileges of an NPPL(M), which as you rightly say doesn't apply to the holder of an IR or IMC - so you may well be right, but I think I need to consult an expert.
G
It is listed in Brian Cosgrove's Microlight pilots' Handbook but without a document reference.
The ANO does list "not out of sight of surface" under privileges of an NPPL(M), which as you rightly say doesn't apply to the holder of an IR or IMC - so you may well be right, but I think I need to consult an expert.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 3rd Nov 2004 at 20:01.
Postscript,
Okay, I was wrong - I found the duty expert and he confirmed that you can legally fly out of sight of the ground in any permit aircraft so long as this is VFR within your own licence privileges.
G
Okay, I was wrong - I found the duty expert and he confirmed that you can legally fly out of sight of the ground in any permit aircraft so long as this is VFR within your own licence privileges.
G
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I read the ANO (ENR 1.2) it [VFR] seems to mean to me in sight of the surface.
Can not interpret that any difference.
Unless Punditgreen and DFC can point towards the relevant bits of legislations I would suggest Permit aircraft flyers stick to the rules as they have been interpreted hitherto by the majority.
Can not interpret that any difference.
Unless Punditgreen and DFC can point towards the relevant bits of legislations I would suggest Permit aircraft flyers stick to the rules as they have been interpreted hitherto by the majority.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest, let's say you have an IMC Rating or an IR, in that case "VFR" no longer requires to be in sight of the surface. Is this not the case for microlights also?
I don't recall the ANO limiting this privilege (the removal of the "in sight of surface" restriction which the CAA puts onto an ICAO PPL) to CofA aircraft only.
I don't recall the ANO limiting this privilege (the removal of the "in sight of surface" restriction which the CAA puts onto an ICAO PPL) to CofA aircraft only.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap 733 refers and more in particular item 2.2 operational limitations.
This clearly states that other than after specific permission from the CAA , permit aircraft shall be flown 'by day and in accordance with VFR'
If you then take the AIP ENR 1.2 and look under VFR you can read that this means 'in sight of the surface'
This clearly states that other than after specific permission from the CAA , permit aircraft shall be flown 'by day and in accordance with VFR'
If you then take the AIP ENR 1.2 and look under VFR you can read that this means 'in sight of the surface'
Last edited by Flyin'Dutch'; 11th Nov 2004 at 14:47.