IFR outside CAS in the UK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFR outside CAS in the UK
An extract from a current Air Law textbook (Oxford Air Law, 2nd ed. 2010) states:
You should note that a pilot does not have to hold an IR in order to fly according to IFR, outside CAS. However, for UK JAR PPL holders JAR-FCL 1.175 prohibits flights under IFR, unless the pilot holds an IR.
Could anyone explain why that's so? It seems illogical. Prohibits flights in IMC, sure; but IFR?
You should note that a pilot does not have to hold an IR in order to fly according to IFR, outside CAS. However, for UK JAR PPL holders JAR-FCL 1.175 prohibits flights under IFR, unless the pilot holds an IR.
Could anyone explain why that's so? It seems illogical. Prohibits flights in IMC, sure; but IFR?
Last edited by FlyingGoat; 14th Jan 2011 at 07:00.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFR is a ruleset, just like VFR. And IFR is a ruleset that's more restrictive than VFR, with the exception of the requirement to stay VMC (and a few other things that are mainly relevant within CAS).
If you're outside CAS, and you limit yourself to VMC anyway, nobody cares what you're doing. So if you choose to use the "IFR" ruleset (fly according to quadrantal rule, above the MSA, with IFR fuel reserves, ...) instead of the "VFR" ruleset you are free to do so. Since you're outside CAS it doesn't give you any additional privileges or obligations, and the "right of way" rules don't care for IFR/VFR.
It's like driving your personal car to HGV speed limits, driving times and so forth.
So they're just making a big deal out of nothing.
If you're outside CAS, and you limit yourself to VMC anyway, nobody cares what you're doing. So if you choose to use the "IFR" ruleset (fly according to quadrantal rule, above the MSA, with IFR fuel reserves, ...) instead of the "VFR" ruleset you are free to do so. Since you're outside CAS it doesn't give you any additional privileges or obligations, and the "right of way" rules don't care for IFR/VFR.
It's like driving your personal car to HGV speed limits, driving times and so forth.
So they're just making a big deal out of nothing.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bit
unless the pilot holds an IR.
is wrong anyway because the IMCR is good enough too.
I think what they are trying to get at is that holders of a UK issued JAR-FCL PPL cannot fly under IFR (in VMC) whereas holders of a UK issued non-JAR-FCL PPL can. I hope I got that the right way round
unless the pilot holds an IR.
is wrong anyway because the IMCR is good enough too.
I think what they are trying to get at is that holders of a UK issued JAR-FCL PPL cannot fly under IFR (in VMC) whereas holders of a UK issued non-JAR-FCL PPL can. I hope I got that the right way round
1.175 is more complex than that:
JAR–FCL 1.175
Circumstances in which an IR(A) is required
(a) The holder of a pilot licence (A) shall not act in any capacity as a pilot of an aeroplane under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training, unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR(A)) appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.
(b) In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.
Quite how this is going to work under EASA FCL is unknown.
JAR–FCL 1.175
Circumstances in which an IR(A) is required
(a) The holder of a pilot licence (A) shall not act in any capacity as a pilot of an aeroplane under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training, unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR(A)) appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.
(b) In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.
Quite how this is going to work under EASA FCL is unknown.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thinking about it and as IO540 says how exactly does it work for those with an IMCr - strictly it is not an IR, albeit it is a rating to fly in instrument conditions. Is there a conflict in the legislation?
No conflict - the IMCr falls under JAR-FCL 1.175(b) being a "National qualification permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A)" It is, under the terms of JAR-FCL, valid only in the UK but other NAAs are at liberty to authorise its use in their own airspace.
As things stand right now, the IMCr will not be valid in EASA aircraft but that could all change tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or not at all.
As things stand right now, the IMCr will not be valid in EASA aircraft but that could all change tomorrow, or next week, or next year, or not at all.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the concept behind FCL 1.175 is logical for anyone who is not UK based.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No conflict - the IMCr falls under JAR-FCL 1.175(b) being a "National qualification permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A)" It is, under the terms of JAR-FCL, valid only in the UK but other NAAs are at liberty to authorise its use in their own airspace.
That is not what it appears to say.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, BP.
I just don't geddit. Someone in the UK, flying in the UK has a JAR-FCL PPL; They don't fly less than 1,000' over anything within 5nm; above transition they fly quadrantals (OK, below 19,500'); conditions VMC.
Not less than 1,000' seems sensible anyway, likewise quadrantals. Rules 33 and 34 are all they need to comply with IFR.
This is considered illegal? What don't I see? Not flying quadrantals would be 'legal'? (Well, it would, but it wouldn't be IFR).
I just don't geddit. Someone in the UK, flying in the UK has a JAR-FCL PPL; They don't fly less than 1,000' over anything within 5nm; above transition they fly quadrantals (OK, below 19,500'); conditions VMC.
Not less than 1,000' seems sensible anyway, likewise quadrantals. Rules 33 and 34 are all they need to comply with IFR.
This is considered illegal? What don't I see? Not flying quadrantals would be 'legal'? (Well, it would, but it wouldn't be IFR).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingGoat
Well I guess the idiots that draft this stuff would say that you can comply with instrument flight rules (in terms of rule 33 and 34) but you cant declare yourself to be IFR.
In Europe you will often be asked to fly at the approriate FL even though you are VFR which of course makes sense but Europeans (and the rest of the world for that matter) have forever connected IFR with IRatings.
It is only us Brits that do things properly and recognise that IFR should have nothing to do with the qualifaction that would enable the pilot to fly in IMC but everything to do with making a statement about the rules with which we are complying.
Well I guess the idiots that draft this stuff would say that you can comply with instrument flight rules (in terms of rule 33 and 34) but you cant declare yourself to be IFR.
In Europe you will often be asked to fly at the approriate FL even though you are VFR which of course makes sense but Europeans (and the rest of the world for that matter) have forever connected IFR with IRatings.
It is only us Brits that do things properly and recognise that IFR should have nothing to do with the qualifaction that would enable the pilot to fly in IMC but everything to do with making a statement about the rules with which we are complying.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the US even at its most basic level, VFR and IFR aircraft fly in entirely different 'space', even thousands have people broadly head in flying on reference to instruments with ATC separation and +500s have people flying head out self separating. These two groups of pilots should only ever interact in the climb/descent or near an airport. (Obviously the IFR guys are looking out as well - but you get my point).
This is considered illegal? What don't I see? Not flying quadrantals would be 'legal'? (Well, it would, but it wouldn't be IFR).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find is that very few people fly at the "correct" levels.
IFR traffic, OCAS, flying in IMC, flies somewhere between the MSA (one hopes
) and the base of CAS, and usually this restricts the altitude to a value which doesn't fit anywhere "proper".
VFR traffic, OCAS, flying in VMC, flies as above but additionally they will usually be below the cloudbase. Moreover, a lot of people fly below the MSA, which is "OK" if you are VMC And a lot of people fly at funny values like 2300ft or 4300ft because this makes it less likely you will hit somebody. OCAS, nothing is mandatory.
Traffic in CAS flies at levels or altitudes assigned by ATC.
Traffic in CAS on higher altitude (FL100+ say) Eurocontrol flights flies at levels tactically assigned by ATC and the semicircular rule is usually disregarded.
And the UK is alone is using the quadrantal levels.
The bottom line is that almost nobody cares...
IFR traffic, OCAS, flying in IMC, flies somewhere between the MSA (one hopes
) and the base of CAS, and usually this restricts the altitude to a value which doesn't fit anywhere "proper".VFR traffic, OCAS, flying in VMC, flies as above but additionally they will usually be below the cloudbase. Moreover, a lot of people fly below the MSA, which is "OK" if you are VMC
And a lot of people fly at funny values like 2300ft or 4300ft because this makes it less likely you will hit somebody. OCAS, nothing is mandatory.Traffic in CAS flies at levels or altitudes assigned by ATC.
Traffic in CAS on higher altitude (FL100+ say) Eurocontrol flights flies at levels tactically assigned by ATC and the semicircular rule is usually disregarded.
And the UK is alone is using the quadrantal levels.
The bottom line is that almost nobody cares...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFR traffic, OCAS, flying in IMC, flies somewhere between the MSA......and the base of CAS
If you're IFR in IMC, would getting traffic, or preferably, deconflication service off a LARS unit be the only safe option?
The bottom line is that almost nobody cares...
er....not sure about that...
If you're IFR in IMC, would getting traffic, or preferably, deconflication service off a LARS unit be the only safe option?
The bottom line is that almost nobody cares...
er....not sure about that...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 - Make sure you read what a controller has to do to achieve deconfliction, then ask youself, 'Do I really want to fly all over the South on vectors?' before you ask for anything more than Traffic Service.
2 - So far since WW II all the mid airs are VFR traffic in VMC, none are IFR in IMC (regardless of traffic service or not). So it is not obviously any less safe to fly IMC without a traffic service than to fly VFR on a nice day.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're IFR in IMC, would getting traffic, or preferably, deconflication service off a LARS unit be the only safe option?
A TS is more usual but is often declined by the controller "due to controller workload". Also, contrary to what most think, the controller is not under any obligation to report traffic, and if you fly with somebody who has TCAS you see contacts which were close but not reported to you. Also, a radar service of any sort is meaningful only with Mode C/S contacts, and a lot of people flying at low levels are non-transponding so you get loads of meaningless "level unknown" reports.
That's what Class G flight is like in the UK... on balance I think it is better to have the option to do what one likes. The other side of the equation is that if there was a radar service guarantee, it would cost money which nobody wants to cough up, so it all hangs together nicely
I am happy with the "zero IMC mid-airs since WW2" record in the UK and I happily fly in IMC without any service.
On past record, the place to have a mid-air is below 1500ft and near an airfield, and on a nice day.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much class G airspace is there in the USA anyway near to large 'hubs'?
It is highly recommended that traffic flying near such areas should get Flight Following and/or obtain a clearance to transit.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 15th Jan 2011 at 18:05.