Quite frankly a stupid question - but fun (for interest) to ask about IMC :D
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wherever i lay my hat, that's my home...
Age: 44
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite frankly a stupid question - but fun (for interest) to ask about IMC :D
So...
The ANO and Lasors states that: -
The IMC Rating may not be used in the airspace of any other Country unless permission to do so has been given by the appropriate authority of that Country.
So.... Has anyone actually managed to get permisson from an appropraite authority of another country?
The ANO and Lasors states that: -
The IMC Rating may not be used in the airspace of any other Country unless permission to do so has been given by the appropriate authority of that Country.
So.... Has anyone actually managed to get permisson from an appropraite authority of another country?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wherever i lay my hat, that's my home...
Age: 44
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mad Jock,
Yeah I knew about the Channel Islands as they are still UK FIRs, but I was thinking a little more further a field.
I take lack of responses as a no, that no one has... I thought as much but still fun to ask.
Yeah I knew about the Channel Islands as they are still UK FIRs, but I was thinking a little more further a field.
I take lack of responses as a no, that no one has... I thought as much but still fun to ask.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wherever i lay my hat, that's my home...
Age: 44
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Yeah... OK... but the airspace is delegated to the UK, therefore the UK is setting the rules in that piece of Airspace.
If the French decided to pull back that delegation, as they have considered for some of the airways further east, I am sure the IMC would no longer apply there.
Anyway the spirit of the question was only a little bit of fun to see if anyone had asked and received a response from an authority allowing them to use it.
If the French decided to pull back that delegation, as they have considered for some of the airways further east, I am sure the IMC would no longer apply there.
Anyway the spirit of the question was only a little bit of fun to see if anyone had asked and received a response from an authority allowing them to use it.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never heard of another country explicitly allowing the IFR privileges of the IMCR in its own airspace.
Anyway, the ANO limits them to UK airspace only.
One would be into the grey area of whether a permission from the airspace owner over-rides a ban from the license issuer.
I know exactly one person who believes the affirmative
Anyway, the ANO limits them to UK airspace only.
One would be into the grey area of whether a permission from the airspace owner over-rides a ban from the license issuer.
I know exactly one person who believes the affirmative
The ANO and Lasors states that: -
The very first version of LASORS was transcribed from CAP53 (both guidance documents) and stated:
The rating confers no privileges for flight in controlled airspace under circumstances requiring compliance with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). It is not recognised in other JAA States, and is only of use in UK territorial airspace, and in Channel Islands and Isle of Man airspace.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the UK doesn't actually set the rules for either Jersey or Gurnsey they have there own ANO.
Both of which are actually quite funny to read. For example Gurnsey has not within 1000ft rule as per rule 5 but then forgets to allow landing traffic to breach this. If you try and go and speak to the goverment office you will be not allowed a copy of the ANO. The only one open for public reading is a manky copy in the flying club.
And it doesn't matter what the ANO says the Gurnsey harbour master can make his own rules up cause there is some ****e dating back 200 years ago which basically says everything from the water up to the edge of the universe is his.
None of the differences are registered with ICAO and the CAA doesn't seem to have a clue either about them. The airport doesn't comply with any known standards either runway or apron.
The only bonus is that nobody can do you for anything because the Gurnsey Formal legal english can only be understood by someone that has had a family member shag a donkey.
Both of which are actually quite funny to read. For example Gurnsey has not within 1000ft rule as per rule 5 but then forgets to allow landing traffic to breach this. If you try and go and speak to the goverment office you will be not allowed a copy of the ANO. The only one open for public reading is a manky copy in the flying club.
And it doesn't matter what the ANO says the Gurnsey harbour master can make his own rules up cause there is some ****e dating back 200 years ago which basically says everything from the water up to the edge of the universe is his.
None of the differences are registered with ICAO and the CAA doesn't seem to have a clue either about them. The airport doesn't comply with any known standards either runway or apron.
The only bonus is that nobody can do you for anything because the Gurnsey Formal legal english can only be understood by someone that has had a family member shag a donkey.
Last edited by mad_jock; 27th Jan 2012 at 07:57.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wherever i lay my hat, that's my home...
Age: 44
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only bonus is that nobody can do you for anything because the Gurnsey Formal legal english can only be understood by someone that has had a family member shag a donkey.
By that genius logic from MJ surely the IMC is valid in Zimbabwe, they have no clue either!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
h'mm after pub rant.
The new development plan does alot to address the issues at the airport.
But the ANO is rather "different"
And as for the Donkey thing, I thought it was just the Jersey lot having a bit of banter, then a week later in the Gurnsey local press a bloke was done for that very crime.
The new development plan does alot to address the issues at the airport.
But the ANO is rather "different"
And as for the Donkey thing, I thought it was just the Jersey lot having a bit of banter, then a week later in the Gurnsey local press a bloke was done for that very crime.
the UK doesn't actually set the rules for either Jersey or Gurnsey they have there own ANO.
Both of which are actually quite funny to read. For example Gurnsey has not within 1000ft rule as per rule 5 but then forgets to allow landing traffic to breach this. If you try and go and speak to the goverment office you will be not allowed a copy of the ANO. The only one open for public reading is a manky copy in the flying club.
Both of which are actually quite funny to read. For example Gurnsey has not within 1000ft rule as per rule 5 but then forgets to allow landing traffic to breach this. If you try and go and speak to the goverment office you will be not allowed a copy of the ANO. The only one open for public reading is a manky copy in the flying club.
1. Guernsey does not have an ANO, it was revoked in 2008 and replaced by the Aviation (Bailliwick of Guernsey) Law 2008.
2. Both the Aviation (Bailliwick of Guernsey) Law 2008 and the Rules of the Air (Jersey) Order 2000 clearly exempt from the low flying rules aircraft that are taking off and landing .
3. All of the Channel Islands aviation legislation is freely available on-line here and here so there is no need to rely on the local flying club.
4. It's not spelt Gurnsey.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it was 2008 that I read it so Billiebob will be correct. The old one definately didn't have landing exemptions. And there still is no mention of differences anywhere in Jepps etc.
The dodgy acts with donkeys stands though, again 2008.
The dodgy acts with donkeys stands though, again 2008.
