Blackpool 3/2/07

[421C]

I can hear the argument with the CAA now;

Hmmm, since you can't quote actual references, you are quoting imaginery voices. Amusing, but no cigar.

"You can not legally do that unless you have an IR or IMC"

They wouldn't say this, because the "that" is your claim about the legal prohibition on a VFR departure with IMC in the planned route. They might say "You can not legally fly in IMC unless you have an IR or IMC" but that is different from your claim.

Your imaginery conversation is just a restatement of your claim. It's completely circular. If I claimed heavier-than-air flight was illegal but couldn't find a reference, how would inserting the claim into an imaginery conversation help?

You also only construct examples where there is utter certainty that IMC conditions will prevail enroute or at the destination. A VFR flight departure in such circumstances is pointless, but not illegal. In reality of course, pilots are usually confronted with forecasts that suggest completing a VFR flight as intended is anything from "very likely" to "very unlikely" and everything in between. So more meaningful illustration would be
Pilot "I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast."

DFC:"Stop, do not depart, that is illegal"

Pilot: "Where do you make this stuff up DFC? Of course it is legal"

I am not saying that the scenario I describe is good/bad, desirable or undesirable. I am saying that your claim that it is illegal to depart VFR in such a scenario is spurious.

[Supersport]

Pilot "I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast."

DFC:"Stop, do not depart, that is illegal"

Pilot: "Where do you make this stuff up DFC? Of course it is legal"

Fantastic!

[AllyPally]

I have looked through this thread with interest. Whilst in some peoples mind there may be confusion about who was P1 surely that would be cleared up by looking at who signed the Tech Log accepting the a/c. In my world the P1(Captain) always signs the tech log.

AP

[Final 3 Greens]

Ally Pally

1. Did the AAIB recover the tech log or was it destroyed in the crash?
2. Many PPLs complete the tech log post flight (please note I am not saying this is good practice, just commenting on actual observed practice)

Just two reasons why your suggestion may not been feasible in this instance.

[bookworm]

While many clubs and possibly all AOC holders implement a sign-to-accept policy in the tech log, the only legally required commander's signature in the tech log is post-flight listing defects (or confirming their absence).

I have heard no confirmation as to whether or not there was such a pre-flight signature in the case of the accident flight in question. There is no mention of it in the accident report, though given the report offers other reasoning to support the hypothesis that Walker was in command, it seems unlikely that such a piece of evidence was found.

[Supersport]

I have looked through this thread with interest. Whilst in some peoples mind there may be confusion about who was P1 surely that would be cleared up by looking at who signed the Tech Log accepting the a/c. In my world the P1(Captain) always signs the tech log.

AP

AllyPally, this is what is stated in the AAIB Report:

Extract from the AAIB Report:

Whilst no technical defect was determined as being a causal factor in this accident, the absence of technical records referred to in the aircraft’s log book meant that the aircraft operator had not complied with the requirements of the ANO. However, the available documentation indicated that the aircraft had been maintained in accordance with the requirements.

Suggests absence of the actual Tech Log, or missing information from the Tech Log, which is why it is only assumed that Andrew Walker was P1, not confirmed.

[S-Works]

Awww, come on DFC, we are standing by for our education.

[AllyPally]

Thanks for the info. If I take the tech log with me (in its fireproof bag) then I have to leave a copy of the page I signed behind. This is a company requirement which helps the paper trail after an accident.

This accident seems to be a tragic case of none of the links in the chain being broken. The RAF had a very good flight safety film based on a Jaguar accident where the pilot was killed because he forgot to remove his seat pins. The film followed him through the day leading up to the accident and showed many instances where the chain of events could have been broken and the accident avoided.

I hope the many people reading this thread take note of each link that led up to the fatal crash and apply the lessons learned to their own flying operation and hopefully somebody's life will be saved by making a correct decision either before or while flying.

AP

[DFC]

Bookworm,

You described an IFR flight operation. Totally irrelevant to a VFR flight. Thanks for doing that because it highlights the fact that you ( and it seems many others) can't tell the difference between the requirements for IFR flights and those for a VFR flight - (check the weather, determine that IMC does not exist, carry enough fuel for A to B and a final reserve).

-----------------

One last time.

The rules of the Air require that you before flight check the actual and forecast weather to determine if IMC conditions exist on the route you plan to fly.

The ANO requires that a pilot must establish that the flight can be safely completed as planned.

Everyone with me so far or does anyone disagree with the above?

So you plan to fly from A to B that is what you plan to do........no more and no less. There is no other plan.

You check the weather and you have decided that there is IMC weather along that route.

IMC conditions on a VFR route mean that the route can not be legally completed as planned

If you still depart on that route as planned despite having decided that IMC conditions exist then you have not ensured the safety of the flight.

You may have to read the VMC criteria, the requirement to establish if IMC exists, the requirement to determine that the flight can be completed safely and the requirement to not recklessly endanger the flight or others to gather together the legal requirements.

However, every pilot trained in the UK was well aware of the requirements at the time they took part in the skill test. At that time they knew that if they were given a route and the weather indicated that such a route would be IMC but despite that they planned to depart anyway then they would at best have the test stopped (with a quiet word in their ear) or the test would be recorded as a fail.

Would it be wrong to fail a pilot for planning to depart VFR on a route that is through IMC?

-----------

Where do you guys draw the line?

In your mind is it OK to depart from A to B if it is IMC along the planned route;

10 miles from the departure point?

5 miles from the departure point?

1 mile from the departure point?

at 190 ft just before you enter a 200ft ceiling?

Seems many here think it is perfectly legal for a VFR pilot to depart VFR on a route with terrain above 400ft and a ceiling of 200ft because they can always............continue, hold wait the weather, divert, fly in circles and so on?

Finally, Bookworm, I can guarantee you that on an initial IR flight test, you can start the engines when the weather is below minima for landing at destination, you can even taxi, you can even obtain your departure clearance and you can line-up. ATC will pass your take-off clearance and you canadvance the throttles towards take-off power at which point the examminer's hand will smoothly close the throttles - and you know you have failed

So perhaps it is not a training issue. It is simply a willingless to push the limits and to be the opposite of risk-adverse.

Regards,

DFC

[DFC]

Forgot to say that every argument against my position has been based on planning to do something other that fly from A to B.

Thus we have apples and oranges.

I can say that it is illegal to leave x village on the A123 at 70 mph

Other can say no you are wrong, 70 mph is perfectly legal on the motorway.

Apples and Oranges.

Regards,

DFC

[Islander2]

The ANO requires that a pilot must establish that the flight can be safely completed as planned.

Wrong yet again, DFC!

Actually what the ANO requires (Article 52) is for the commander to satisfy himself before take off: "that the flight can safely be made, taking into account ...... any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned."

[bookworm]

One last time.

Elephant? What elephant?

[421C]

Forgot to say that every argument against my position has been based on planning to do something other that fly from A to B

The ANO requires that a pilot must establish that the flight can be safely completed as planned.

Everyone with me so far or does anyone disagree with the above?

As Islander2 helpfully pointed out, the ANO requires that you plan for "any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned"

So you plan to fly from A to B that is what you plan to do........no more and no less. There is no other plan.

You are introducing a false determinism to the meaning of a "planned flight from A to B". It means an intent to land at B if all the conditions for safe flight can be met and may include contingencies and alternatives for other outcomes. It does not require a certainty of landing at B. You'd be a fool to depart VFR from A to B thinking "there is no other plan".

IMC conditions on a VFR route mean that the route can not be legally completed as planned

No, if your planning has included alternative VMC routes and contingencies "which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned"

If you still depart on that route as planned despite having decided that IMC conditions exist then you have not ensured the safety of the flight.

No, you can ensure the safety of the flight by planning for contingencies "which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned"

You may have to read the VMC criteria, the requirement to establish if IMC exists, the requirement to determine that the flight can be completed safely and the requirement to not recklessly endanger the flight or others to gather together the legal requirements.

It is those very criteria which permit a VFR departure from A to B despite IMC enroute or at the destination as long as the contingency planning permits the flight to be completed safely. There is no requirement that the flight must be completed at a specific, nominated destination determined before the start of the flight. Only that it can be completed safely, and such safe completion may allow for landing at C,D etc or returning to A.

The rest of your post is not relevant to your claim that it is illegal to depart on a VFR flight from A to B if IMC is forecast enroute or at the destination, even if you have contingency plans that allow you to maintain VMC and safe fuel reserves. Being legal is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a flight test to be executed or passed. Hence, the circumstances in which a flight test can be failed or terminated do not prove that something is illegal.

What is the point of your comment to Bookworm on the IR test and how is this relevant to your VFR legality claim? It's not even meaningful for IFR since an IFR flight may depart to a destination with forecasts below minima if it has two legal alternates. Bookworm has already pointed this out to you.

You may also fail an IR test if your flight planning takes longer than 45 minutes. Are you going to tell us it is illegal do undertake an IFR flight if the planning takes you more than 45 minutes?

Your post and the stuff about apples, oranges, motorway and A road speed limits proves 4 things
1. You can type
2. You can use bold emphasis
3. You can write with an authoritative prose style
4. You are willing to continue typing posts in this fashion ignoring the points made in reply to you

What it doesn't do is support your claim. Since you seem to struggle to absorb points made to you, I will repeat an earlier part of a post, in case this is helpful

Pilot "I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast."

DFC:"Stop, do not depart, that is illegal"

Pilot: "Where do you make this stuff up DFC? Of course it is legal"

[ock1f]

Congratulations DFC

Well done DFC on the 2 thousand posts

Pity you haven't learnt much from the Atc threads, the diesal cessna thread, etc etc etc etc etc

I'll get my coat

Yours as ever
Ock1f

[DFC]

Bookworm has already pointed this out to you.

No. I think that you will find Bookworm has a different view to you and I on that one.

Originally Posted by ANO

The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before
the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information
available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and
forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in
case the flight cannot be completed as planned;

There is no requirement that the flight must be completed at a specific, nominated destination determined before the start of the flight.

Are we talking about pre-flight planning and the legal requirement not to depart unless the pre-flight planning shows that the planned VFR flight can be completed safely or are we talking about in-flight decisions to change the original plan?

At the departure point, you must have a suitable destination to land at if you do not then how do you know how much fuel you need to have?


Let me highlight a very important part of the abover ANO quote that you seem to be trying to use;

and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in
case the flight cannot be completed as planned

In case the flight can not be completed as planned - an in-flight decision.

If you plan to fly VFR on a route that is IMC then before you depart that the flight can not be completed as planned. Thus from the moment of departure you are already carrying out plan B.

The requirement to have a Plan B as an alternative to plan A assumes that plan A was a viable option in the first place.

There seems be be misunderstanding regarding the difference between;

a) Ensuring that a flight can be made safely; and

b) Ensuring that a flight is being made safely.

Regards,

DFC

[ShyTorque]

The ANO requires that a pilot must establish that the flight can be safely completed as planned.

DFC, I think your personal interpretation of that sentence is the crux of your argument.

I often plan to fly under VFR but sometimes am obliged to revert to IFR during the flight. I then revert again to VFR for landing or carry out an instrument approach as required. Surely you are not suggesting this is illegal?

[radicalrabit]

Illegal

OK JUST A STUDENT HERE BUT
Illegal? nope not at all. (oh ex air traffic by the way) . The word illegal has no place in the context of what DFC is saying . I Understand the point he is making but it is not illegal as many of you have pointed out.
It happens every day all over the world. What was illegal (fom my understanding ) was for that particular flight based on; that day in that aircraft in those conditions as vmc/vfr didnt exist at the time and location of departure and the lack of instrument flying instruments or certification of the crew. (which ever of the front seat occupants was deemed PIC) They could not have legally departed and landed back at the same airport could they?
Thanks for this very protracted debate by the way, I am so glad people have such strong and diverse opinions, doesnt it make the threads far more interesting?

And just be be sure I have discussed this with the CAA this morning.
I wish to fly from Barton to Wick on the way the weather is completely naff and IMC for certain NORTH OF a given point.

So I will fly and get an update of weather on the way and then divert away from Wick and nip off to stay with my nephew in Aberdeen and go on to Wick later when the weather gets better.
"THERE IS NO INTENTION TO KNOWINGLY ENTER IMC CONDITIONS IN AN AIRCRAFT NOT EQUIPPED FOR IFR and at no point will I need to be illegal and fly instruments or enter IMC conditions"
This flight is completely legal even though from the outset the Destination may well remain IMC and there is certainly IMC "en route".
I have no intention of going IMC at any point.
Guess what ?
The man from the CAA said in no way could that plan be construed as illegal. Simply stay out of the IMC and it is perfectly legal, Do use Scottish Centre to get met info and make the decision to divert early enough !

Ah well may be we can just say its illegal or pretend it is a bit longer to keep the debate going?

[DFC]

I often plan to fly under VFR but sometimes am obliged to revert to IFR during the flight.

Is that because;

a) The flight rules require IFR and you are still VMC throughout? or

b) You have pre-flight determined that would be the case, have planned for it and have appropriate fuel etc; or

c) The weather information you obtain is failing to adequately provide you with the information you need i.e. the information provided incorrectly leads you into thinking that the flight will be VFR when it can not be; or

d) The available information is correctly indicating that IMC will exist but you can not determine the situation, depart VFR and are caught out by having to fly IFR when you did not expect to do so?

having an IR and appropriate equipped aircraft helps you but if you were operating a VFR only heli and only had a CPL with no IR, would you make your flights knowing that you have to be IMC during part of them?

or

Would you plan to route via a different route that would be VMC or even to a different landing place that would permitt you to remain VMC. Then having departed, you might in flight determine that actually the weather is not as you expected and then in-flight change the plan but that is in-flight and is not pre-flight.


Regards,

DFC

[Supersport]

DFC, I wonder if you could be so kind and answer the following question using the scenario I have provided:

Scenario:
You plan on flying a VFR flight from Exeter to Blackpool. At the planned departure time the visibilty for Exeter is CAVOK with no significant change forecast. The weather at Blackpool is Overcast at 200ft with a high probability of it staying so, which means the chances of you getting there are slim, but there is still a chance. You have 4 hours of fuel onboard and have made a contingency plan to land at Barton which is forecast VMC with no significant change in case conditions do not change at Blackpool.

Question: Taking into account the above scenario - Is it ILLEGAL for yourself to DEPART Exeter in excellent VMC with the intention of going to Blackpool using VFR only?

Simple question DFC, a one word answer will do fine, YES or NO?

[ShyTorque]

DFC, The daily task requires operations in and out of controlled airspace, with class G transits and VFR at one end or the other because helipads have no published instrument prodedures. However, it is sometimes necessary to transit in and /or let down in IMC and therefore there is a requirement to operate under IFR/VFR as the en route in-flight conditions demand. I hold an ATPLH and an IR.

having an IR and appropriate equipped aircraft helps you but if you were operating a VFR only heli and only had a CPL with no IR, would you make your flights knowing that you have to be IMC during part of them?

Apples,and oranges, apples and oranges. Misunderstanding occur when contributors make broad brush claims and statements, as some seem prone to do. No-one in their right mind would plan to fly a VFR helicopter into IMC due to the lack of aircraft stabiity/stabilisation, let alone lack of required minimum radio /nav equipment.

Having said that, in a previous employment, because of the nature of the job, we had to train for the possibility of inadvertant IMC in a unstabilised helicopter, although it did have minimum radio / nav equipment.

Guess what ?
The man from the CAA said in no way could that plan be construed as illegal. Simply stay out of the IMC and it is perfectly legal, Do use Scottish Centre to get met info and make the decision to divert early enough !

Radical Rabbit, precisely.