Why can't permit aircraft do night

[Whopity]

As I said earlier, there is no such thing as night VFR in the UK.

For civil aircraft, but the RAF operate VFR at night and I have certainty received numerous VFR clearances at night from military controllers when teaching night flying in a civil aircraft from a military aerodrome.

[IO540]

Why do people confuse IMC and IFR so often? Anybody can fly IFR in class G airspace whenever they want to in any type of aircraft - as long as they are VMC. All it means is that they remain 1000' above obstacles within 5 miles and when above 3000 feet fly quadrant altitudes.

Come on, you must know what I meant. IFR capability implicitly means potentially flying in IMC. I am not confusing anything.

The ability for a plain UK PPL to fly IFR in VMC, Class G, is basically a UK peculiarity which is of no relevance because in Class G nobody gives a damn what rules you fly under, anyway. And it is hardly worth bothering with.

I cannot believe somebody with a plastic VFR-only plane would be bothered about the theoretical and totally irrelevant and useness [in]ability to pretend to be "IFR" when in actual VMC.

[S-Works]

I cannot believe somebody with a plastic VFR-only plane would be bothered about the theoretical and totally irrelevant and useness [in]ability to pretend to be "IFR" when in actual VMC.

Can I just point out that not all permit aircraft are 'plastic VFR-only' aircraft. My Auster spent the first 60 odd years of it's life as a CofA aircraft, cleared and used both in IMC and at night. Now it is on a permit it suddenly becomes day VFR and the only plastic I can see it the perspex.......

[Humaround]

One of the things that always seems to happen with these discussions is that people go to the extremes of what is possible/impossible.

IO540 is right that very few if any Permit owners are likely to want to spend the money to equip their aircraft to fly IFR in airways, as he does. Most don't hold an IR, for a start.

But there are plenty who have very capable Permit aircraft which could easily be well enough equipped to fly through a cloud layer in uncontrolled airspace, or at night.

There is a (necessarily) slow but steady campaign to move the CAA in that direction - sort of an aircraft equivalent of the IMCR. It is a fact that exactly similar aircraft have been flying around in IMC in other countries for years with no greater danger to anyone than for the equivalent Certified types.

[jxc]

i just got a PM I won't mention the person but this is what was said

"
Permit aircraft at night
How many engines does a permit aircraft have? 1 I suspect. If that one engine fails at night, what are your chances of a successful (as in you live) outcome? Practically zero I suspect. "


this really does sound like a stupid thing to say considering most GA is single engine

Cheers

[IO540]

But there are plenty who have very capable Permit aircraft which could easily be well enough equipped to fly through a cloud layer in uncontrolled airspace, or at night.

I agree, of course.

I suspect that the first half (IMC enroute) is moot because you will never get caught Just look at the vast numbers of plastic planes coming out of say the Czech Rep, with what is basically IFR avionics. I think some can even fly an ILS though that is likely to draw attention There is no prize for guessing what kind of use some of these well equipped machines get put to.

The other half (night) remains a problem because it is rather obvious in the breach and would draw attention.... however, in the regulatory sense, this one (night VMC) is more likely to be permitted. VFR-only helicopters already fly openly at night in the UK and elsewhere.

[BackPacker]

IO540 is right that very few if any Permit owners are likely to want to spend the money to equip their aircraft to fly IFR in airways, as he does. Most don't hold an IR, for a start.

I think this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're building a kitplane knowing full well that it's not allowed to operate NVFR or IFR, you're going to put the kit in that enables VFR "plus". But if you know that eventually the regulations will change so that you are allowed to fly IFR, then I think you'll find a lot of high-end kitplanes being equipped for that in no time.

On high-end kitplanes, glass panels (a la Dynon) are already standard. A GPS such as a Garmin 496 in a special bracket, or a panel mounted GPS is also standard. Transponder? Can you even buy a non-mode S transponder these days? And even two-axis autopilots, coupled to the GPS, are very common.

Realistically speaking there's not a lot of things you need to add to your average high-end kitplane to make it fully IFR capable. Maybe an ADF, DME and an IFR-approved 430 instead of a 496. When GPS approaches are becoming more common, and when a GPS can be used instead of ADF and/or DME it will become even simpler.

[hatzflyer]

Whilst multi engine aircraft are not the norm,they are not excluded from flying on a permit.
There are several types avalable.

[IO540]

I think this is a self-fulfilling prophecy

Couldn't agree more.

Look at America - it has of the order of 10 times more IR pilots than Europe, expressed as a % of the private pilot population. OK, there are loads of other reasons too (ability to do the IR at your old school rather than having to go to a "professional pilot" outfit, much smaller exams, etc) but the ability to fly IFR in an Experimental type must be a nice incentive.

However, the US Exp Category doesn't have the silly weight limits which the European light/sports stuff has to fit under so they can be reasonably robust, and a suitably built/equipped plane can then be flown IFR.

GPS alone is fine for enroute IFR (whether overt or not) but is not a meaningful solution to overt IFR for departures and arrivals, because it will be many years before GPS approaches are sufficiently available over here.

[Justiciar]

Is this not an issue about minimum equipment for IFR? Changing the rules about overflying congested areas involved no change to the aircraft (fairly obviously). However, flying IFR requires minimum levels of equipment under the ANO. Assuming the CAA are not about to throw out those requirements then many permit aircraft with their limited weight will have a probelm fitting all the kit and still leaving the ground.

I can't see how this will work unless the rules are relaxed to allow IFR using the new uncertified glass cockpit kit. Then we will have an issue of definition, i.e. when is a piece of equipment good enought to allow you to use it for IFR flight. The very process of some form of certification or approval is likely to add cost and defeat the purpose of having a modern permit machine. I would be interested to know how Experimental aircraft fly IFR in the US. Is it everyone for himself? If so, I can't see that happening in the UK or the rest of Europe.

[Humaround]

"However, the US Exp Category doesn't have the silly weight limits which the European light/sports stuff has to fit under so they can be reasonably robust, and a suitably built/equipped plane can then be flown IFR."

And of course, Permit types aren't forced to be under the LSA weight limits either - there really is no valid reason why a Permit type, per se, could not be perfectly fine for IMC/Night. Of course there will be issues of who authorizes the equipment fit if the aircraft is not certificated - LAA Inspectors might not necessarily be qualified to do that, but I wouldn't have thought the problem is insurmountable.

As for the single engine at Night issue, that should be up to the pilot to decide. Permit types are no more likely than Certified types, with similar or identical engines, to suffer engine failure.

[Zulu Alpha]

Permit types are no more likely than Certified types, with similar or identical engines, to suffer engine failure.

Actually less likely, which is why the overflight restriction was removed.
No idea why the engine failure rate is lower

ZA

[IO540]

Does anyone have the engine failure data referenced here?

[neilcharlton]

Anyone like to hazzard a guess on how long it would take for the LAA to get the CAA to change the rules ?

[Rod1]

“Does anyone have the engine failure data referenced here?”

I think the data was on structural failure, but it may have included engine failure as well, there was a lot of it covering many years. It did indeed show that LAA permit aircraft, excluding micros (micros were not included in the data I read but were added later) were more reliable than C of A. You may well find it on the LAA site under consultation and lobbying, but you may have to be a member (recent changes to the web site and technical issues have got very confusing for us users). The data was accepted by the CAA and the restriction was lifted on that basis. John Brady was the man who did the work, but Brian Hope may also be able to help.

Rod1

[fat'n'grey]

Jim59

Why do people confuse IMC and IFR so often? Anybody can fly IFR in class G airspace whenever they want to in any type of aircraft - as long as they are VMC. All it means is that they remain 1000' above obstacles within 5 miles and when above 3000 feet fly quadrant altitudes.

OK, I'll bite! Whenever they want to. So by day how can I tell myself I am flying IFR, in Class G airspace, in VMC if neither I or the aeroplane are so licensed and equipped?

Even more, how could I either tell FIS I was flying IFR, or file an IFR flight plan? Just because I comply with IFR obstacle clearance and quadrantal level requirements it does not mean I am flying IFR. Quite simply there are more boxes that need to be ticked before you can make such a declaration.

Neither could you log such flight time by day as instrument flight. And if you can't log it, you aren't flying it!

At night - no VFR in the UK and both pilot and aeroplane require licensing/certification. You use the night column to log your flight and not the instrument column unless you/the aeroplane are licensed/certified for instrument flight in which case both the night and instrument columns will contain the relevant flight times.

Oh dear!

[Toadpool]

For civil aircraft, but the RAF operate VFR at night and I have certainty received numerous VFR clearances at night from military controllers when teaching night flying in a civil aircraft from a military aerodrome.

Whoppity what you say is true for the military, but as you appear to be a civilian pilot, flying a civilian aircraft, the ANO and rules of the air apply to you wherever you are flying from, military or civvy.

Rule 20 clearly states:-

Choice of VFR or IFR
20.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) an aircraft shall always be flown in accordance with the Visual Flight Rules or the Instrument Flight Rules.
(2) In the United Kingdom an aircraft flying at night shall—
(a) be flown in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules outside a control zone;
(b) be flown in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules in a control zone unless it is
flying on a special VFR flight.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by fat'n'grey

Jim59
OK, I'll bite! Whenever they want to. So by day how can I tell myself I am flying IFR, in Class G airspace, in VMC if neither I or the aeroplane are so licensed and equipped?

FnG,

I don't know if you are UK based or not. In the UK the rules around IFR in class G and UK PPL privileges are unique in the world (to my knowledge) and this helps the IFR/VFR/VMC/IMC what can be logged debate fill pages of forum archives.

For a UK PPL in class G there is almost no operational difference between being IFR or VFR and there are no boxes to tick beyond quadrantal flight levels, if above the TA (and an obscure minimum height over mountains issue).

Filing a class G flight plan gets an equally good ignoring if it is V or I - And I believe a PPL can perfectly legitimately choose either (for Class G flight).

Obviously trying to count good weather class G 'IFR' flying toward your ATPL isn't likely to work.

All of this is irrelevant to the core question of IFR and Night in Permit aircraft.

[Heliplane]

Slight drift in the thread over the previous posts but on the core issue of being able to operate appropriately equipped permit aircraft in IMC (including instrument approaches in IMC) and at night, with an appropriately qualified pilot of course, a change in the rules seems long long overdue.

I own/operate a single engine 4 seat CoA aircraft and am tired of the lack of availability of new designs, high operating costs and general rubbish that comes along with owning and maintaining such an aircraft.

The only thing stopping me from switching to a permit aircraft is the current inability to (legally) fly in IMC. They might not notice if a permit aircraft were to pop through the occasional layer enroute but someone might say something if an RV10 emerges from a 300 foot ceiling on an ILS at a towered airport or needs to file an IFR flight plan to climb through a thin cloud layer at Le Touquet.

Things seem to operate very smoothly in this regard in the USA. Why not in Europe? Can anything be done? Is anything being done?

Does anyone know if a US homebuilt on the N-register can be operated IFR in Europe?

[bjornhall]

This ended up pretty long, and is of course only my own opinion, but on the remote chance of someone wanting to read it anyway, here goes...

There is a strong hint in the term "normal category [aircraft]". It has been determined, from long experience and for good reasons, that a certain set of rules and standards is required to achieve a sufficient level of safety and order during such flying as falls under the restrictions of what you are allowed to do with such an aircraft. The safety of the pilot, the passengers and third parties need to be considered, and regularity and other such matters need to be taken into account for the flight not to impede the safety and regularity of other activities.

An aircraft is a normal category aircraft (if it is not some other certification category, such as utility or transport), unless some exceptional circumstances dictate that it should be exempt from the normal category regulations.

There are excellent reasons why the rules relating to normal category aircraft need not apply to certain types. The rules might not be practical or reasonable due to the very special nature of the aircraft, as in the case of experimental designs and home-built aircraft. Vintage aircraft would be impractical to redesign, maintain and fly according to normal category rules; even grandfather clauses must eventually expire. Aircraft might simply be too small for the rules to be practical, as in the case of ultralights.

But if an aircraft is designed to perform, behave, and have the same capabilities as a normal category aircraft, and indeed is being marketed as a replacement for or alternative to normal category aircraft, then how does one argue that it is so exceptional that it should not be treated like a normal category aircraft? One would have to argue that it does not actually have the same capabilities as a normal category aircraft, that the normal category rules are unreasonable due to this reduction in the stated and desired capabilities, and that it therefore should be exempt from the normal requirements.

When an aircraft is permitted to fly without being certified in the normal category (or some other certification category), it is accepted that the degree of safety required in normal flying can not be guaranteed. The key word here is guaranteed; the non-certified aircraft can very well be as safe as or safer than most normal category aircraft. But the certification regulations ensure that sufficient safety is not merely achieved, but that it can be reliably demonstrated before the accident statistics arrive. The regulations also ensure a uniform level of safety; if the regulations are followed, there should be no outliers, such as poorly designed or maintained aircraft, that have a much lower safety level than other normal category aircraft.

Therefore, statistics showing that non-certified aircraft has an equal engine failure rate as normal category aircraft does not demonstrate an equivalent level of safety. If normal category aircraft in general display a certain statistical failure rate, one can reasonably assume that a particular normal category aircraft should be at least as safe, since they are all certified to (roughly) the same rules. The same can not be said for non-certified aircraft, due to the widely differing design standards of such aircraft.

To offset the increased risks from not following the normal category regulations, mitigation strategies are needed. Using the PAVE model, for example, the Aircraft element can be considered to always be marginal, requiring the Pilot-in-Command, EnVironment and External pressures elements to be optimal to keep the overall risk in check (i.e., night or IFR flight becomes rather questionable). Limitations on the carrying of passengers (especially for hire) or where and how the aircraft can be operated ensure that no third parties are exposed to the increased risks or are otherwise negatively influenced.

Or, a subset of the standard category rules can be required to be met by the non-certified aircraft, to the extent that it is being operated similarly to a normal aircraft. Carrying transponders in controlled airspace falls in that category, as would requiring IFR certified avionics for IFR flight.

Keeping the above in mind, my conclusions would be:

1. While sufficient safety can be achieved flying a non-certified aircraft at night or in IMC, that safety can not be guaranteed. This uncertainty adds to the uncertainty in, e.g., the pilot's safety level, which can of course never be guaranteed. It would also be quite hard for the pilot to have a good estimate of the aircraft's suitability for night and IFR, without the benefit of certification. Let alone the unsuspecting passengers...

2. If non-certified aircraft shall be flown at night or IFR, it would need to have certified avionics. This begs the question,

2b. Is that practical? For instance, how does one go about certifying an avionics installation in an uncertified aircraft? Under what regulations would it be done, and would the costs be manageable?

3. What is the motivation for the aircraft not being certified? In some cases it is already questionable why it is a non-certified aircraft rather than a normal category VFR day only aircraft, but the disparity between the intention behind the exemptions from normal category regulations and the actual use of some of these aircraft becomes even more obvious when they are flown at night and IFR.

The ability to fly non-certified aircraft is a great thing. It permits aircraft to fly that otherwise could not be flown, under suitable conditions, and it helps aviation progress by enabling experimental designs to be built and tested. The advances made through those experiments can then be included in normal category aircraft, as illustrated by, e.g., Cirrus and Diamond aircraft.

But when the lack of certification is only a cost saving measure, where an aircraft is to all intents and purposes a normal category aircraft that has been left uncertified to keep the costs down, then it can hardly be called progress. The normal category rules are there for good reasons; not following them in exceptional cases is fine, but disregarding them for normal aircraft is not.

So when some see “permit aircraft” as the way forward and the future of general aviation, I almost entirely disagree. I do agree, to the extent their existence aids the progress of normal category aircraft. It is also true that very many pilots can not afford or do not want to pay the cost of flying normal category aircraft, thus preferring other forms of aviation. But non-certified aircraft are not a replacement for normal category aircraft, and that was never the intention behind the exemption from normal category rules.