EASA AND THE IMCR - NEWS
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. Both the destination and alternate aerodromes must meet ICAO VFR criteria for ± 1 hr of planned ETA
You say
destination and alternate aerodromes
destination or alternate aerodrome
dp
Thread Starter
dublinpilot, yes, you are correct - that's how the proposal has been written.
However, I think that it's tempting fate to allow EIR holders to have a sniff, then divert. The ± 1 hr should take care of any TEMPO because
I vaguely remember that you aren't allowed to take off unless your planned destination is forecast to be within your limits at your planned ETA, but am open to correction!
Some years ago I was based at RAF Wattisham on the F-4. One day our SATCO told us that some light aircraft had asked to divert in as its destination was out of limits. He checked the pilot's destination forecast and it was obvious that there hadn't been a cat in hell's chance of it being in limits for most of the day, so the diversion was refused and the pilot was advised to call Norwich or Stansted....
My rule of thumb used to be to ignore TEMPOs unless both destination AND alternate were TEMPO'ing below limits.
However, I think that it's tempting fate to allow EIR holders to have a sniff, then divert. The ± 1 hr should take care of any TEMPO because
TEMPO is used to indicate a period of temporary fluctuations to the forecast conditions during a specified part of the TAF. The fluctuations are expected to last less than one hour in each instance and in aggregate less than half the specified period.
Some years ago I was based at RAF Wattisham on the F-4. One day our SATCO told us that some light aircraft had asked to divert in as its destination was out of limits. He checked the pilot's destination forecast and it was obvious that there hadn't been a cat in hell's chance of it being in limits for most of the day, so the diversion was refused and the pilot was advised to call Norwich or Stansted....
My rule of thumb used to be to ignore TEMPOs unless both destination AND alternate were TEMPO'ing below limits.
That's correct DP. And there's a twist.
Under ICAO Annex 6, the requirement for an IFR flight is:
"2.2.3.4.2 A flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules shall not be commenced unless information is available which indicates that conditions at the aerodrome of intended landing or, where a destination alternate is required, at least one destination alternate aerodrome will, at the estimated time of arrival, be at or above the aerodrome operating minima
2.2.4.1.1 A flight shall not be continued towards the aerodrome of intended landing, unless the latest available information indicates that at the expected time of arrival, a landing can be effected at that aerodrome or at least one destination alternate aerodrome, in compliance with the operating minima established in accordance with 2.2.2.2"
The logic is very clear. You need destination or alternate above minima, not both. For an IFR flight, this may be reasonable. However, at the very last minute of the preparation of the EASA Part OPS CRD, the wording was changed to:
"NCO.OP.145 Destination alternate aerodromes – aeroplanes
For IFR flights, the pilot-in-command shall specify at least one weather-permissible
destination alternate aerodrome in the flight plan, unless:
(a) the available current meteorological information indicates that, for the period from
1 hour before until 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, or from the actual
time of departure to 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, whichever is the
shorter period, the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological
conditions (VMC);
Weather-permissible aerodrome’ means an adequate aerodrome where, for the
anticipated time of use, weather reports, or forecasts, or any combination thereof,
indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the required aerodrome
operating minima, and the runway surface condition reports indicate that a safe
landing will be possible."
That changes the logic (for all non-commercial IFR flights) slightly, and even though I think you have to be a lunatic to take-off when your destination is in hard IMC and your alternate is below minima, I don't think the consequences of the change are intended.
Given the EIR is rather weather sensitive, I did make the suggestion before the FCL.008 NPA was published that for the EIR and was more appropriate than or, but it was too far down the road to publication. It would be a very fitting topic for a comment.
Under ICAO Annex 6, the requirement for an IFR flight is:
"2.2.3.4.2 A flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules shall not be commenced unless information is available which indicates that conditions at the aerodrome of intended landing or, where a destination alternate is required, at least one destination alternate aerodrome will, at the estimated time of arrival, be at or above the aerodrome operating minima
2.2.4.1.1 A flight shall not be continued towards the aerodrome of intended landing, unless the latest available information indicates that at the expected time of arrival, a landing can be effected at that aerodrome or at least one destination alternate aerodrome, in compliance with the operating minima established in accordance with 2.2.2.2"
The logic is very clear. You need destination or alternate above minima, not both. For an IFR flight, this may be reasonable. However, at the very last minute of the preparation of the EASA Part OPS CRD, the wording was changed to:
"NCO.OP.145 Destination alternate aerodromes – aeroplanes
For IFR flights, the pilot-in-command shall specify at least one weather-permissible
destination alternate aerodrome in the flight plan, unless:
(a) the available current meteorological information indicates that, for the period from
1 hour before until 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, or from the actual
time of departure to 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, whichever is the
shorter period, the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological
conditions (VMC);
Weather-permissible aerodrome’ means an adequate aerodrome where, for the
anticipated time of use, weather reports, or forecasts, or any combination thereof,
indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the required aerodrome
operating minima, and the runway surface condition reports indicate that a safe
landing will be possible."
That changes the logic (for all non-commercial IFR flights) slightly, and even though I think you have to be a lunatic to take-off when your destination is in hard IMC and your alternate is below minima, I don't think the consequences of the change are intended.
Given the EIR is rather weather sensitive, I did make the suggestion before the FCL.008 NPA was published that for the EIR and was more appropriate than or, but it was too far down the road to publication. It would be a very fitting topic for a comment.
My rule of thumb used to be to ignore TEMPOs unless both destination AND alternate were TEMPO'ing below limits.
AMC1-NCO.OP.165 Meteorological conditions
It echoes the way that JAR-OPS1 used to do it. Essentially (and please, read the AMC before relying on these rules of thumb):
* During a BECMG period, you take the worst weather
* You can disregard any PROB30 TEMPO
* You can disregard a TEMPO related to transient/showery conditions
* You must take account of a TEMPO related to persistent conditions like fog
* You should always disregard a TEMPO improvement
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the EIR is rather weather sensitive, I did make the suggestion before the FCL.008 NPA was published that for the EIR and was more appropriate than or, but it was too far down the road to publication. It would be a very fitting topic for a comment.
Thread Starter
bookworm, I should have perhaps added that my 'rule of thumb' was for the operation of military aircraft (VC10) where no specific interpretation of TEMPO at both destination and alternate was mandated. In fact I used more or less the rules you quote!
I agree that 'and' would be more appropriate in the EIR context.
I agree that 'and' would be more appropriate in the EIR context.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
If their offering tea but not biscuits maybe EASA have had a cut in their massive budget
Seriously as 10540 said its a load of bollox. Weather at destination or what its forecast or not forecast has very little relevance to you trying to safely change from IFR to VFR IMC to VMC 50 miles away!
What procedure are EASA suggesting that the pilot leaving his last waypoint to become VFR for a VFR approach follows If on reaching his MSA he is still in solid cloud and in IMC? Does he take a direct line to a destination at MSA busting airspace in the process? does he climb back to IFR levels to his diversion descent point again 50 miles out from there what is the procedure that EASA require?
Enroute the happy pilot is in the blue over nothern france he has a major problem but all the airfields below are giving an RVR of 700 metres with overcast at 300 feet.
Whats does EASA suggest the now unhappy pilot does?
I really feel some of these rule makers have no idea of the reality of flying and are totally naive.
Pace
If their offering tea but not biscuits maybe EASA have had a cut in their massive budget
Seriously as 10540 said its a load of bollox. Weather at destination or what its forecast or not forecast has very little relevance to you trying to safely change from IFR to VFR IMC to VMC 50 miles away!
What procedure are EASA suggesting that the pilot leaving his last waypoint to become VFR for a VFR approach follows If on reaching his MSA he is still in solid cloud and in IMC? Does he take a direct line to a destination at MSA busting airspace in the process? does he climb back to IFR levels to his diversion descent point again 50 miles out from there what is the procedure that EASA require?
Enroute the happy pilot is in the blue over nothern france he has a major problem but all the airfields below are giving an RVR of 700 metres with overcast at 300 feet.
Whats does EASA suggest the now unhappy pilot does?
I really feel some of these rule makers have no idea of the reality of flying and are totally naive.
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dublinpilot, if you take a look at the NPA, you'll find a good description of the destination and alternate aerodrome forecast requirements for the EIR. There are also much clearer statements concerning acceptance of IFR clearances than hitherto.
The only paragraph that I've come across about the above is the one that I quoted earlier...ie
In order to comply with FCL.825 (a)(2), the holder of an EIR should not commence or continue a flight during which it is intended to exercise the privileges of the rating unless the forecast for the destination or alternate aerodrome one hour before and one hour after the planned time of arrival indicates VMC.
Of note is that the previously perceived 'dangerous' elements of the EIR, namely the IFR-to-VFR transition and the rather imprecise 'reasonable expectation' of VMC at destination have now been addressed satisfactorily, although further refinement will follow the NPA response.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
He would do the same as a pilot with an ir. The only real difference between the two is in their respective dh. I dont see why it is such a problem.
There is clearly much detail to resolve but in theory it is capable of working.
He would do the same as a pilot with an ir. The only real difference between the two is in their respective dh. I dont see why it is such a problem.
There is clearly much detail to resolve but in theory it is capable of working.
Thread Starter
dublinpilot, yes, that's what I meant. The original draft proposal merely said something far less precise - 'reasonable assurance of VMC at destination' or somesuch.
I really do not understand what it is you're trying to say.
What procedure are EASA suggesting that the pilot leaving his last waypoint to become VFR for a VFR approach follows If on reaching his MSA he is still in solid cloud and in IMC? Does he take a direct line to a destination at MSA busting airspace in the process? does he climb back to IFR levels to his diversion descent point again 50 miles out from there what is the procedure that EASA require?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
What I am trying to say is that Pilot A has to at some point enroute to his destination have to transit from IFR back to VFR.
He can only enter his destination airport under visual flight rules.
He cannot make that descent in cloud to become VMC under a safe predetermined safe route ie a STAR but has to make that descent not knowing at what altitude he will break out into VMC or if he breaks out what cloud or visibility will be below him!
he will not even know in his descent whether legal VFR conditions lie below him.
You are expecting him to transfer to VFR when he has no clue whether VFR conditions exist.
It is very clear! What are EASA telling such a pilot to do in such a circumstance or are they saying it is his problem?
They are saying he must have VFR conditions at his destination for an hour after his arrival time but that is weather at his destination not his descent point so almost irrelevant to him.
Ok this may only apply to busier airports as the obvious would be to fly from that point at MSA to the destination overhead where weather is accurate and spiral down for a visual circuit.
Are EASA saying he is banned from larger busier airports?
I cannot see what is not clear to you?
He is not making a home made approach into a UK VFR airport but into airspace he is not allowed to enter in cloud at any point and following VFR visual routes he may not see.
Pace
What I am trying to say is that Pilot A has to at some point enroute to his destination have to transit from IFR back to VFR.
He can only enter his destination airport under visual flight rules.
He cannot make that descent in cloud to become VMC under a safe predetermined safe route ie a STAR but has to make that descent not knowing at what altitude he will break out into VMC or if he breaks out what cloud or visibility will be below him!
he will not even know in his descent whether legal VFR conditions lie below him.
You are expecting him to transfer to VFR when he has no clue whether VFR conditions exist.
It is very clear! What are EASA telling such a pilot to do in such a circumstance or are they saying it is his problem?
They are saying he must have VFR conditions at his destination for an hour after his arrival time but that is weather at his destination not his descent point so almost irrelevant to him.
Ok this may only apply to busier airports as the obvious would be to fly from that point at MSA to the destination overhead where weather is accurate and spiral down for a visual circuit.
Are EASA saying he is banned from larger busier airports?
I cannot see what is not clear to you?
He is not making a home made approach into a UK VFR airport but into airspace he is not allowed to enter in cloud at any point and following VFR visual routes he may not see.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He would do the same as a pilot with an ir. The only real difference between the two is in their respective dh. I dont see why it is such a problem.
Take this flight for example (L to R). The pilot would have to cancel IFR at ILB, where the wx could be very different (at FL150) to the wx at LJPZ.
Re the SID ban, take this flight for example (R to L). He would have to proceed VFR all the way to TRA, 47nm away, and he will have to climb to the enroute altitude by then, say FL100, without entering IMC. This means the EIR will be suitable for departures only in totally blue sky conditions.
Last edited by IO540; 3rd Oct 2011 at 07:26.
Thread Starter
What's to stop you filing something like (EGKA - LJPZ) ......ILB DCT ILB250030 VFR DCT?
Or (LSZR - ?) DCT ZUE120020 IFR DCT TRA.......
(I'm guessing at the bearings in each case!)
Not quite as simple as typing wpt names into your nav system, but creating a personal VFR-to-IFR or IFR-to-VFR en-route waypoint by place/bearing/distance doesn't seem like rocket science to me, provided that you follow FPL conventions for the nations involved and that their airspace allows you to fly under VFR where you wish to?
Perhaps RMK/PILOT HOLDS EIR might also help - assuming that the ATS provider bothers to read the full FPL, of course!
Or (LSZR - ?) DCT ZUE120020 IFR DCT TRA.......
(I'm guessing at the bearings in each case!)
Not quite as simple as typing wpt names into your nav system, but creating a personal VFR-to-IFR or IFR-to-VFR en-route waypoint by place/bearing/distance doesn't seem like rocket science to me, provided that you follow FPL conventions for the nations involved and that their airspace allows you to fly under VFR where you wish to?
Perhaps RMK/PILOT HOLDS EIR might also help - assuming that the ATS provider bothers to read the full FPL, of course!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
As an outsider to the negotations if thats what they are called there appears to be a lot of naivety and sticking heads in the sand with the proposals for the EIR.
On the face of it all the EIR seems to offer the VFR pilot the ability to go high, simplify his trip by not needing to circumnavigate chunks of airspace.
The pilot gets better radio reception simplified radio and better nav reception.
But there appear to be potential pitfalls where there is a lot of sticking heads into the sand and why?
Because we cannot have anything which can be seen as a mini IR which competes or treads on the feet of its bigger brother.
Again EASA not facing up to their mandate of safety.
Pace
As an outsider to the negotations if thats what they are called there appears to be a lot of naivety and sticking heads in the sand with the proposals for the EIR.
On the face of it all the EIR seems to offer the VFR pilot the ability to go high, simplify his trip by not needing to circumnavigate chunks of airspace.
The pilot gets better radio reception simplified radio and better nav reception.
But there appear to be potential pitfalls where there is a lot of sticking heads into the sand and why?
Because we cannot have anything which can be seen as a mini IR which competes or treads on the feet of its bigger brother.
Again EASA not facing up to their mandate of safety.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I have never tried that hack. I have simply always done "IFR" in the "classical" manner i.e. develop a Eurocontrol route (using Flightplanpro, etc) and this gives you the terminating waypoints directly, which join onto the sids/stars published for that airport (Eurocontrol have all sids and stars in their database). That is how one is supposed to do it and it is what ATC expect.
Your method has been used, as an enroute hack to circumvent Eurocontrol route validation. It is possible to get a flight plan into the system on any route whatsoever if one specifies each waypoint as VORrrrddd because this disables Eurocontrol route validation (well, maybe not if the leg thus specified crosses a national frontier, or exceeds the DCT MAX for that airspace) but I don't think ATC like it very much if the result is something really nonstandard.
I have enquired about this in the past on ATC forums and it appears that the ability of the ATCO to see a thus specified route graphically (i.e. make sense of it) varies from one country to another.
Also, if you fly non-validated routes, you do need to get enroute notams, because the filed route won't be protected from military etc exercises by the normal mechanism of Eurocontrol (IFPS) checking, and when you actually fly it, ATC are going to divert you somewhere else.
But the biggest issue I suspect is that you are filing a nonstandard procedure which will play havoc with ATC expectations in the terminal area.
On the flight to LJPZ (which I did the other week) what actually happens is that you can get, by asking, a DCT to LJPZ as soon as you are in Slovenian airspace (at PESUT) and at that point you get a stepped descent, which in the GA context can usually be implemented as a continuous descent. So this is perhaps a bad example, since that part of the world is really relaxed.
Switzerland (LGKR-LSZR) would be more prescriptive. They definitely want you at or around KPT, and from there you get vectors to the ILS.
I think you are assuming a whole new dimension in ATC training. Maybe it will happen...
Re reading the full FPL, ATC don't see the full FPL. IFR controllers normally see just the filed route, I gather. The full FPL is retrieved only if you go missing, etc.
I have never tried that hack. I have simply always done "IFR" in the "classical" manner i.e. develop a Eurocontrol route (using Flightplanpro, etc) and this gives you the terminating waypoints directly, which join onto the sids/stars published for that airport (Eurocontrol have all sids and stars in their database). That is how one is supposed to do it and it is what ATC expect.
Your method has been used, as an enroute hack to circumvent Eurocontrol route validation. It is possible to get a flight plan into the system on any route whatsoever if one specifies each waypoint as VORrrrddd because this disables Eurocontrol route validation (well, maybe not if the leg thus specified crosses a national frontier, or exceeds the DCT MAX for that airspace) but I don't think ATC like it very much if the result is something really nonstandard.
I have enquired about this in the past on ATC forums and it appears that the ability of the ATCO to see a thus specified route graphically (i.e. make sense of it) varies from one country to another.
Also, if you fly non-validated routes, you do need to get enroute notams, because the filed route won't be protected from military etc exercises by the normal mechanism of Eurocontrol (IFPS) checking, and when you actually fly it, ATC are going to divert you somewhere else.
But the biggest issue I suspect is that you are filing a nonstandard procedure which will play havoc with ATC expectations in the terminal area.
On the flight to LJPZ (which I did the other week) what actually happens is that you can get, by asking, a DCT to LJPZ as soon as you are in Slovenian airspace (at PESUT) and at that point you get a stepped descent, which in the GA context can usually be implemented as a continuous descent. So this is perhaps a bad example, since that part of the world is really relaxed.
Switzerland (LGKR-LSZR) would be more prescriptive. They definitely want you at or around KPT, and from there you get vectors to the ILS.
Perhaps RMK/PILOT HOLDS EIR might also help - assuming that the ATS provider bothers to read the full FPL, of course!
Re reading the full FPL, ATC don't see the full FPL. IFR controllers normally see just the filed route, I gather. The full FPL is retrieved only if you go missing, etc.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Age: 38
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worth starting an IMC course???
Can anyone answer whether or not it is worth completing an IMC course considering the latest update from EASA.
I'm a couple of hours into mine so contemplating if it's worth proceeding.
Cheers
I'm a couple of hours into mine so contemplating if it's worth proceeding.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 41
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im about 10 hours into mine and have the theory in the bag too. I am hoping it will still be valid in 12 months time however The PPL IR site states,
"
It seems that the CAA is making a case to keep the rating but the runes are against them.
PPL/IR will continue to make suggestions and to lobby, but IMCR holders and training organisations must brace for the possibility that the hard won privilege will disappear within the next couple of years."
"
It seems that the CAA is making a case to keep the rating but the runes are against them.
PPL/IR will continue to make suggestions and to lobby, but IMCR holders and training organisations must brace for the possibility that the hard won privilege will disappear within the next couple of years."
I wouldn't take to much notice of what appears on the PPL/IR site regarding the IMC Rating. There are multiple vested interests at work in that organisation, which has been anti the IMCr from the start. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the future of the IMCr was to turn out to be more secure than that of EASA, or even the EU.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 41
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually i believe the quote i used is an old one and the up to date response to the latest developments are here.
PPL/IR Europe - Qualifications for Flying in IMC: NPA Published
PPL/IR Europe - Qualifications for Flying in IMC: NPA Published