Another VFR question

[Bravo73]

Originally Posted by IO540

However I do not agree with your interpretation.

No, I didn't think that you would.

[Fuji Abound]

The amendment to the ANO is clealy applicable to helicopters not fixed wing.

The obvious purpose of the original legislation was in recognition that the "vanilla" CAA PPL has no means of navigating unless he can see enough of the surface to follow visual references.

It has nothing to do with ability to fly on instruments otherwise the restriction would apply to non CAA "vanilla" PPLs where flight above a solid undercast is usually permitted as long as the visibility is better than VMC. Such "foreign" pilots receive no more instrument training (in term of flight in IMC) but receive more training in instrument navigation. This has changed. It would be interesting to know how the instrument component of the UK PPL syllabus differs from the French component or the current FAA component for that matter.

Logically the technical answer to the question for the sake of technical debate would seem to be can the pilot navigate by visual reference alone to the surface that he can see.

There is a perverse logic because presumably if you take off in VMC, continue over an undercast, but navigate towards a know peek you might claim you were always in sight of the surface.

It is interesting that the thrust of the amendment so far as helicopters is concerned has far more to do with the pilots ability to fly on instruments without reference to the surface. This seems at odds because I would not have thought it was any more or less difficult for a heli pilot to fly in VMC above or below a cloud layer (navigational issues aside).

[IO540]

From memory, the FAA PPL includes VOR navigation, and I distinctly recall some VOR and ADF questions in the FAA PPL written exam which would have been found in the IMC Rating written exam in the UK.

However, the flying situation is different. IMHO there is a lot less call for "VMC on top" flight in the UK than in the USA.

In the UK, it's rarely that one can fly above cloud without being in CAS and usually it;s Class A. I have done it a few times, in Class G, but I don't recall a single instance when I did it (in the UK) without transiting IMC on the way up or down, so I was doing it under the IMCR or FAA IR privileges anyway.

Also, due to the scarcity of instrument approaches here, people prefer to scud run below cloud and accept the increased danger of that, over the risk of getting trapped above a layer and (assuming IMC capability now) having to do a DIY descent through cloud.

In the USA, you can fly up to 18k feet under VFR, in general, and laws of physics being similar all over I bet that US PPLs can do an awful lot of VMC on top flying.

Elsewhere in Europe it's also more doable. I've been around Europe quite a bit under VFR and all the long legs were done VMC on top. One does end up in CAS but it isn't normally Class A and transits in the FL050-150 region are more readily given than in the UK, and are managed by the enroute/airways controllers; here it would be Class A and even if one could fly in it VFR the airways controllers would not offer you a service with a bargepole. If the UK allowed VMC on top flight (and had say Class C up to FL195 or whatever, and Class A above that) it would need to set up a whole new layer of "FIS with radar" controllers like they have in say France. Nobody is going to do that now.

I guess that local regulatory attitudes have developed in line with the local airspace...

[FullyFlapped]

IO,

The privileges which some license gives the pilot of a G-reg are specified in the UK ANO. The ANO (Article 26, IIRC) limits the usefulness of an ICAO (non-JAA) IR to IFR outside controlled airspace i.e. IFR in Class G or F only. This is not very useful; you could fly IFR to Norwich (Class G) but not Bournemouth (Class D). And much of Europe is at least Class E.

This is interesting : you're saying effectively that another European country could authorise the use of an FAA/PPL/IR in all CAS in aeroplanes of their own national reg ?

Is this actually the case anywhere ?

FF

[S-Works]

I seem to recall Greece allowed it for Greek nationals.

[IO540]

This is interesting : you're saying effectively that another European country could authorise the use of an FAA/PPL/IR in all CAS in aeroplanes of their own national reg ?

Yes.

But, as always, there is a catch

JAA bans its member states from validating ICAO (non-JAA) IRs beyond one year. I have the URL to the JAA document somewhere and will dig it out if you really want it.

So, the CAA's continuous validation is a pretty good deal - even if it is all but useless due to the "OCAS" requirement.

So, JAA have put the boot in, to make sure that none of the new JAA members do what would be a really obvious business opportunity

The "bizjet registry countries" e.g. Caymans, and now the IOM, fully accept FAA licensing and certification, but this is not useful to our sort of GA because they impose minimum weight limits e.g. 5700kg.

[Fuji Abound]

JAA bans its member states from validating ICAO (non-JAA) IRs beyond one year. I have the URL to the JAA document somewhere and will dig it out if you really want it.

For what it is worth only if they are a European citizen.

So if you are an American living in France for example they will validate an FAA IR.