Another VFR question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: switzerland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another VFR question
Taking into consideration my location, if I takeoff from an airport and then fly via the standard routes through the mountians but the valley floor is obscured by low mist and cloud (which is well below the MSA in anycase) I assume that I'm still flying under VFR conditions as I can still see the ground i.e. the mountains. Is this correct???
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think so. However, where are you going to go when the fan quits?
The answer is yes by the definition of law you would be legal if you were clear of cloud and insight of the surface. If you have a non UK issued license you are probably perfectly OK to fly outside of the sight of the surface as well, check for restrictions.
As far as the point on when the fan quits, that is a personal risk assessment. I cross the Alps IFR in an SEP quite often. That is down to my personal acceptance of risk. I know others who won't or who will only do it ME. I wonder how some people work up the courage to get out of bed in the morning......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: switzerland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also dont forget I'll be around 10,000ft which should give me abt 7000ft guilding range (abt 17nm) to find somewhere to put her down if things go wrong...but why is the engine going to quit?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: switzerland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a UK JAA PPL license. There are plenty of places to put the plane down (not on the valley floor) if you really had to i.e. one of the many ski slopes.
Last edited by The Hat; 20th Sep 2007 at 08:48. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, if I thought the engine was going to quit on every flight I would buy a new aircraft. I am however trained and current to deal with the situation in the unlikely event that it should occur. My acceptance of risk around the type of terrain I am prepared to put down in may be different to others.
Warning: The following posts will contain a whole diatribe of how stupid we are (especially if not using a checklist), how engines can fail (along with a long list of AIB reports from around the world) there will be counter arguments about the number of hours flown in SEP against the number of engine failures. There will be comments attacking me personally for being a cowboy for flying an SEP under IFR (even worse for doing it in inhospitable terrain), there will be a post from our favourite desk jockey quoting some irrelevant bit of someone's ANO to justify why we are doing it wrong.
I have probably missed something......
But at the end of the day, we do this for fun, it's a challenge, it expands our envelope, richens our lives and has an element of risk to it. Thats why we do it.
Warning: The following posts will contain a whole diatribe of how stupid we are (especially if not using a checklist), how engines can fail (along with a long list of AIB reports from around the world) there will be counter arguments about the number of hours flown in SEP against the number of engine failures. There will be comments attacking me personally for being a cowboy for flying an SEP under IFR (even worse for doing it in inhospitable terrain), there will be a post from our favourite desk jockey quoting some irrelevant bit of someone's ANO to justify why we are doing it wrong.
I have probably missed something......
But at the end of the day, we do this for fun, it's a challenge, it expands our envelope, richens our lives and has an element of risk to it. Thats why we do it.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn, I knew I would miss something of my going off at a tangent list.....
Your license is your restriction, changing the reg of the aircraft does not change the restrictions on it....
Your license is your restriction, changing the reg of the aircraft does not change the restrictions on it....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: switzerland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose-x
Should yr donkey decide to quit exactly over the eastern part of Switerland and you have to do an unplanned landing..... give me a shout and I'll come and meet you for a beer or 3!
Should yr donkey decide to quit exactly over the eastern part of Switerland and you have to do an unplanned landing..... give me a shout and I'll come and meet you for a beer or 3!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your license is your restriction, changing the reg of the aircraft does not change the restrictions on it....
If it were, wouldn't you be able to exercise the rights of an FAA/IR in a G-reg plane ? Or have I got this wrong (wouldn't be surprising
) ?As for SEP over/through the ALPS, I've also done it a few times and wouldn't hesitate to do it again : majestic doesn't begin to do it justice.
But to be honest, I think I'd prefer a donkey problem somewhere else (read flat, non-rockey) !
FF
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The holder of a UK issued PPL, flying VFR, has to be in sight of the surface (note: there is no requirement to see any part of the surface directly below you; the "surface" could be a mountain sticking up many miles away) unless holding an IMC Rating or an IR in which case he can fly VFR without seeing any surface.
The above is true worldwide, regardless of the aircraft reg being flown.
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.
If this chap is flying a Swiss-reg plane then the privileges of his UK issued JAA PPL will be according to the Swiss "ANO". I would guess that, Switzerland being a JAA member, he gets the usual VFR privileges, but he still has to see a piece of the surface somewhere.
He is flying in the canyons (most "mountain flying" is done inside canyons, it seems) but this movie (17MB mpeg video) would generate a few comments about the pilot's sanity, I am sure
The above is true worldwide, regardless of the aircraft reg being flown.
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.
If this chap is flying a Swiss-reg plane then the privileges of his UK issued JAA PPL will be according to the Swiss "ANO". I would guess that, Switzerland being a JAA member, he gets the usual VFR privileges, but he still has to see a piece of the surface somewhere.
He is flying in the canyons (most "mountain flying" is done inside canyons, it seems) but this movie (17MB mpeg video) would generate a few comments about the pilot's sanity, I am sure
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: switzerland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we are agreed, that even if the valley floor is obscured by cloud / fog but 1) the mountains are visible and 2) you are of course abv the cloud / fog that you are still leagally flying under VFR conditions (even with a UK JAA License.)
FF - flying through the mountains is still something that takes my breath away. Until you have done it, you can never really appreciate it.
FF - flying through the mountains is still something that takes my breath away. Until you have done it, you can never really appreciate it.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a PPL from another country that allows PPLs the right to fly VFR out of sight of the surface flies a G-reg aircraft in this country (presumably after validating his licence here by whatever route) then is that pilot allowed to fly out of sight of the surface in this country?
Yes. The holder of a French PPL can fly a G-reg VFR out of sight of surface, in UK airspace or anywhere else for that matter. This is because most countries have not added the "in sight of surface" requirement to their private pilot licenses.
Similarly, an FAA PPL holder can fly an N-reg or a G-reg in UK airspace, VFR, without sight of surface.
The UK ANO automatically validates all ICAO PPLs, for flight in a G-reg, worldwide. If that ICAO license does not have the "sight of surface" requirement, then any such license holder can fly a G-reg out of sight of surface.
If he flies an aircraft here that is registered in the country that issued his licence, can he then legally fly out of sight of the surface?
Yes. The "sight of surface" is a license requirement of the UK PPL, only. (I vaguely recall South Africa has a similar requirement but I know of no others in Europe)
Yes. The holder of a French PPL can fly a G-reg VFR out of sight of surface, in UK airspace or anywhere else for that matter. This is because most countries have not added the "in sight of surface" requirement to their private pilot licenses.
Similarly, an FAA PPL holder can fly an N-reg or a G-reg in UK airspace, VFR, without sight of surface.
The UK ANO automatically validates all ICAO PPLs, for flight in a G-reg, worldwide. If that ICAO license does not have the "sight of surface" requirement, then any such license holder can fly a G-reg out of sight of surface.
If he flies an aircraft here that is registered in the country that issued his licence, can he then legally fly out of sight of the surface?
Yes. The "sight of surface" is a license requirement of the UK PPL, only. (I vaguely recall South Africa has a similar requirement but I know of no others in Europe)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 537
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another way of thinking is imagine you're on an early morning flight over the home counties. A few of the gentle valleys have formed mist/fog but you could easily glide to any one of the many parts of land not obscured. Most people would have no problem with that. Same situation for The Hat, except his valleys are deeper, his hills higher.
Last edited by Fright Level; 20th Sep 2007 at 12:11.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another way of thinking is imagine you're on an early morning flight over the home counties. A few of the gentle valleys have formed mist/fog but you could easily glide to anyone of the many parts of land not obscured. Most people would have no problem with that. Same situation for The Hat, except his valleys are deeper, his hills higher.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point.
At this time of year our (many) valleys fill with mist towards the end of a nice day. Fortunately there are many nice landing areas on the high ground, just in case.
At this time of year our (many) valleys fill with mist towards the end of a nice day. Fortunately there are many nice landing areas on the high ground, just in case.
FYI, IO540 (and others),
The ANO has been amended. It is no longer a VFR requirement to fly 'in sight of the surface'. The requirement is now 'with the surface in sight'. (ANO, Section 2, Schedule 1, Section 5, Visual Flight Rules 27, 28 etc etc.)
And 'With the surface in sight' has now been defined (ANO, Section 1, Part 14 pg 28): 'With the surface in sight' means with the flight crew being able to see sufficient surface features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in a desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument and 'when the surface is not in sight' shall be construed accordingly.
So, it probably doesn't impact on the mountain/valley fog scenario above but it certainly no longer allows a VFR only pilot to fly above, say, a broken layer with the occasional glimpse of the surface.
HTH
The ANO has been amended. It is no longer a VFR requirement to fly 'in sight of the surface'. The requirement is now 'with the surface in sight'. (ANO, Section 2, Schedule 1, Section 5, Visual Flight Rules 27, 28 etc etc.)
And 'With the surface in sight' has now been defined (ANO, Section 1, Part 14 pg 28): 'With the surface in sight' means with the flight crew being able to see sufficient surface features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in a desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument and 'when the surface is not in sight' shall be construed accordingly.
So, it probably doesn't impact on the mountain/valley fog scenario above but it certainly no longer allows a VFR only pilot to fly above, say, a broken layer with the occasional glimpse of the surface.
HTH
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you B73 for the update.
However I do not agree with your interpretation. One can fly above a solid overcast, which (if mainly stratus) will have a flat top surface and will thus be perfectly suitable for wholly visual aircraft control, and if there is a hill or mountain sticking up in the distance, then you are visual with the surface and meet the legal requirement.
The time when the condition
the flight crew being able to see sufficient surface features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in a desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument
would not be met would be when flying in the common summer haze, especially over the sea, or inside a deep canyon, or perhaps one of the optical illusion cases like flying towards a sloping horizon.
By far the most common "breach" of the "sight of surface" rule has to be flight above a solid layer, and that is perfect for VFR flight.
So, I don't really see what difference the new wording makes.
Now, if they required the sight of enough of the surface to enable navigation, that would be very different
However I do not agree with your interpretation. One can fly above a solid overcast, which (if mainly stratus) will have a flat top surface and will thus be perfectly suitable for wholly visual aircraft control, and if there is a hill or mountain sticking up in the distance, then you are visual with the surface and meet the legal requirement.
The time when the condition
the flight crew being able to see sufficient surface features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in a desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument
would not be met would be when flying in the common summer haze, especially over the sea, or inside a deep canyon, or perhaps one of the optical illusion cases like flying towards a sloping horizon.
By far the most common "breach" of the "sight of surface" rule has to be flight above a solid layer, and that is perfect for VFR flight.
So, I don't really see what difference the new wording makes.
Now, if they required the sight of enough of the surface to enable navigation, that would be very different
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SI 2007/241 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/20070274.htm) which makes the amendments is clearly talking about modifying the visibility rules for helicopters. It is only the amendment to article 155 giving the definition of "with the surface in sight" that modifies the visibility rules for other aircraft. As the amendment to article 155 is to the notes for interpretation of the act, and this has been changed as the result of substantive change to only those articles of the act relating to helicopters as set out in the SI, it could be argued that the amendment to the interpretation is also only specific to the interpretation of the act as regards to helicopters and not other aircraft. So taking into account the SI which amended the interpretation, the interpretation is open to interpretation. 
I think I need to go lie down somewhere dark...
(now maybe a real lawyer can tell us what it really means)
I think I need to go lie down somewhere dark...
(now maybe a real lawyer can tell us what it really means)
Last edited by EvilKitty; 20th Sep 2007 at 15:19. Reason: minor typos