Do you listen to ATC if they tell you the weather ahead is bad?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have missed something, but AFAIK, in the UK, no aircraft without an ICAO CofA can fly in IMC legally, currently.
Of course correct with a caveat. The commander of an aircraft can overide any rules if he feels that complying with that rule will endanger his aircraft or its occupants.
IE having got himself in a dangerous situation where he feels that taking to the clouds is a safer option he is quite within his rights to do so whether the aircraft has an ICAO CofA or not!(Just hope there is no lightning around
Yes he will have to explain his actions! Also remember Gliders which are not lightning compliant can fly legally in cloud and are not IFR compliant (Mad World) Usually in the type of cloud where they are likely to find a FizzBangWallop
While a very well equipt and capable homebuilt cannot!!!I am sure the guys who kit out their homebuilts like mini airliners do so for a reason and VFR becomes NOT REALLY???
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 13th Jun 2012 at 09:32.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes of course, it is immediately obvious on the most casual walk around the Friedrichshafen show that the vast majority of the "ultralight/sports" types are built to be flown unofficially IFR. The glass cockpits make it easy.
The gotcha (as you know ) is that once you are in IMC, there are thingies out there which can come and bite you and you won't see them coming.
Turbulence / convective wx
Lightning
Terrain
Even, as I said, plain static is likely to occassionally wipe out the fancy avionics in the all-plastic types. And you will get that from flying in almost any conditions where there are water droplets around, including perfect CAVOK VMC. I had a big problem with my VHF comms a while ago (posted the details here) due to bad bonding to the elevator, so its static wicks could not work properly, and mine is a metal aircraft.
PPL training doesn't cover much of what is needed to fly safely in VMC, never mind IMC
The gotcha (as you know
) is that once you are in IMC, there are thingies out there which can come and bite you and you won't see them coming.Turbulence / convective wx
Lightning
Terrain
Even, as I said, plain static is likely to occassionally wipe out the fancy avionics in the all-plastic types. And you will get that from flying in almost any conditions where there are water droplets around, including perfect CAVOK VMC. I had a big problem with my VHF comms a while ago (posted the details here) due to bad bonding to the elevator, so its static wicks could not work properly, and mine is a metal aircraft.
PPL training doesn't cover much of what is needed to fly safely in VMC, never mind IMC
Last edited by peterh337; 13th Jun 2012 at 09:13.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
But in the USA homebuilts or experimental aircraft do fly IFR and are allowed to do so.
Over here while homebuilt aircraft dont file out IFR I am sure many are forced into IMC conditions
by deteriorating Weather! (On Purpose)
Not all are plastic either! A friend had an RV6 which was a delight to fly and metal.
But having nearly hit one I do find it a madness that poorly equipt gliders made of plastic which are incapable of flying IFR do fly in IMC legally with not fully trained pilots in IMC flight.
Pace
But in the USA homebuilts or experimental aircraft do fly IFR and are allowed to do so.
Over here while homebuilt aircraft dont file out IFR I am sure many are forced into IMC conditions
by deteriorating Weather! (On Purpose)Not all are plastic either! A friend had an RV6 which was a delight to fly and metal.
But having nearly hit one I do find it a madness that poorly equipt gliders made of plastic which are incapable of flying IFR do fly in IMC legally with not fully trained pilots in IMC flight.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 13th Jun 2012 at 09:46.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes; the USA does allow their Exp Cat aircraft to fly IFR, but you have to get some kind of signoff to allow it, and have to carry appropriate equipment.
I think the plane which is the subject of this thread is all plastic, however, and probably not bonded.
It is unfortunate that the ICAO CofA regs strap us into this regime but OTOH if it wasn't for ICAO there would be no GA in most of the world.
I think the plane which is the subject of this thread is all plastic, however, and probably not bonded.
It is unfortunate that the ICAO CofA regs strap us into this regime but OTOH if it wasn't for ICAO there would be no GA in most of the world.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear JOE -FBS
geography, history? gee I do know where Scotland is.
And as to history, the Wright's added much to the theory of flight...you might want to read Orville's book.
and dear controller and others.
if you guys are flying below 200' agl to maintain VFR, below the overcast reported...you have some learning to do. Don't you have minimum VFR requirements like cloud clearance? (unless you are getting a special vfr)
I get such a kick reading about how you guys do things...and then a bigger kick when I realize how many europeans come to the USA to learn how to fly, or build hours...and how few USA citizens go to europe to learn to fly or build hours.
geography, history? gee I do know where Scotland is.
And as to history, the Wright's added much to the theory of flight...you might want to read Orville's book.
and dear controller and others.
if you guys are flying below 200' agl to maintain VFR, below the overcast reported...you have some learning to do. Don't you have minimum VFR requirements like cloud clearance? (unless you are getting a special vfr)
I get such a kick reading about how you guys do things...and then a bigger kick when I realize how many europeans come to the USA to learn how to fly, or build hours...and how few USA citizens go to europe to learn to fly or build hours.
I used to sit on a joint CAA/industry committee called PRAG - the Permit Review Action Group.
PRAG did a lot of good - it generated CAP 733, created permissions for microlights to be hired out, standardised the 3-figure number of variations on wording of Permits down to a dozen or so, and looked hard at statistics and worked towards putting regulatory effort where genuinely needed by safety requirements.
When CAA quietly binned it, in my opinion because it was creating more change than it was comfortable with and allowing industry and associations (in particular BMAA and LAA) more genuine influence than it was happy with, it was in the process of actively looking at how to permit IMC and night with PtF aeroplanes.
We recognised particularly that there was a particular safety issue with high performance warbirds, being flown by highly qualified and experienced pilots, being forced to stooge around at low level creating a menace to themselves and everybody else.
The general philosophy was that it should be possible, but probably with certified engines, a minimum instrument fit, and the basic characteristics of the aeroplane having been assessed by a competent organisation (most typically LAA with aeroplanes like the Europa, or CAA with the warbirds) as having flying qualities appropriate to flight in IMC. Not as free as things in the USA, but still a huge improvement on the present situation, or that we had then. Personally I think that the certified engines bit was going to be problematic and needed serious discussion - but we didn't get far enough down the discussions before the group ceased to exist.
So there was, once upon a time, a clear move towards permitting IMC flight with PtF aeroplanes. It could reasonably be resurrected- in fact I'd love to see PRAG resurrected although doubt I'm the right person to sit on it any longer, because the steady improvement that it generated for the freedoms enjoyed by sub-ICAO aeroplanes in the UK was really beneficial.
G
PRAG did a lot of good - it generated CAP 733, created permissions for microlights to be hired out, standardised the 3-figure number of variations on wording of Permits down to a dozen or so, and looked hard at statistics and worked towards putting regulatory effort where genuinely needed by safety requirements.
When CAA quietly binned it, in my opinion because it was creating more change than it was comfortable with and allowing industry and associations (in particular BMAA and LAA) more genuine influence than it was happy with, it was in the process of actively looking at how to permit IMC and night with PtF aeroplanes.
We recognised particularly that there was a particular safety issue with high performance warbirds, being flown by highly qualified and experienced pilots, being forced to stooge around at low level creating a menace to themselves and everybody else.
The general philosophy was that it should be possible, but probably with certified engines, a minimum instrument fit, and the basic characteristics of the aeroplane having been assessed by a competent organisation (most typically LAA with aeroplanes like the Europa, or CAA with the warbirds) as having flying qualities appropriate to flight in IMC. Not as free as things in the USA, but still a huge improvement on the present situation, or that we had then. Personally I think that the certified engines bit was going to be problematic and needed serious discussion - but we didn't get far enough down the discussions before the group ceased to exist.
So there was, once upon a time, a clear move towards permitting IMC flight with PtF aeroplanes. It could reasonably be resurrected- in fact I'd love to see PRAG resurrected although doubt I'm the right person to sit on it any longer, because the steady improvement that it generated for the freedoms enjoyed by sub-ICAO aeroplanes in the UK was really beneficial.
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seven Up
I hold one of your FAA ATPs and fly corporate jets as a Captain! Not quite a 737 but more fun ; ) I also have over 3000 hrs hard earned on piston twins and loads of single time too.
How I am still here amazes me ; ) as several oft myvfriends are not ( must have a good guardian Angel ?
Yes your system is far better than ours and no one but a masochist would do JAA /EASA licences by choice.
Pilots do not go VFR flying at 200 feet by choice it's by accident and that happens in the good old USA! Your accident stats are the same as ours!
More important you seem to be picking a fight or trying to stir for some reason?
Pace
I hold one of your FAA ATPs and fly corporate jets as a Captain! Not quite a 737 but more fun ; ) I also have over 3000 hrs hard earned on piston twins and loads of single time too.
How I am still here amazes me ; ) as several oft myvfriends are not ( must have a good guardian Angel ?
Yes your system is far better than ours and no one but a masochist would do JAA /EASA licences by choice.
Pilots do not go VFR flying at 200 feet by choice it's by accident and that happens in the good old USA! Your accident stats are the same as ours!
More important you seem to be picking a fight or trying to stir for some reason?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 13th Jun 2012 at 10:14.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a lot of truth to your comments, sevenstrokeroll.
I have an FAA PPL and an FAA CPL/IR so I have had exposure to the US system, and it is a lot more rigorous than anything done here.
One issue we have here is a lack of formal funding for GA. In the USA, it is all wrapped up in the national transport infrastucture. Here, it is "user pays" in all respects, except ATC services, and the basic weather services, which are provided under ICAO obligations.
PPL training here is very basic too. The excuse given is that "a license is a license to learn" (and countless other banal proverbs) and anyway some 90% of PPL holders chuck it all in for good within a year or two.
In the UK, there is extensive Class G in which one can fly VFR or IFR non-radio and (obviously) without a flight plan or clearance of any sort. This fits in well with the UK funding model which is no funding for GA If the UK mandated certain levels of behaviour in Class G they would have to provide the ATC services to support it 
We do have some ATC services which service GA. We have the ICAO-obligated FIS (called Basic Service here now), and we have the LARS units which are historically there to support the military (whose navigation capabilities have historically been close to nonexistent, with GPS only a very recent enhancement) to help them out when they get lost. The LARS units get some funding, which is supported nowadays by the UK having several hundred serious CAS busts per year...
The UK IMC Rating fits well into all this because most CAS is Class A from which IMCR pilots are banned; otherwise the IMCR would be practically equivalent to the full IR and lots of people would raise hell over that because the full SE IR costs about £15,000 to get
But UK Class G is really a free-for-all where you fly on your own, navigate on your own, possibly talk to nobody, in IMC too. Lots of illegal IFR goes on, but the sky is big and the UK has had zero IMC mid-airs since WW2. Most people, myself included, are happy with this level of freedom. It does tend to scare the Germans though
I have an FAA PPL and an FAA CPL/IR so I have had exposure to the US system, and it is a lot more rigorous than anything done here.
One issue we have here is a lack of formal funding for GA. In the USA, it is all wrapped up in the national transport infrastucture. Here, it is "user pays" in all respects, except ATC services, and the basic weather services, which are provided under ICAO obligations.
PPL training here is very basic too. The excuse given is that "a license is a license to learn" (and countless other banal proverbs) and anyway some 90% of PPL holders chuck it all in for good within a year or two.
In the UK, there is extensive Class G in which one can fly VFR or IFR non-radio and (obviously) without a flight plan or clearance of any sort. This fits in well with the UK funding model which is no funding for GA
If the UK mandated certain levels of behaviour in Class G they would have to provide the ATC services to support it We do have some ATC services which service GA. We have the ICAO-obligated FIS (called Basic Service here now), and we have the LARS units which are historically there to support the military (whose navigation capabilities have historically been close to nonexistent, with GPS only a very recent enhancement) to help them out when they get lost. The LARS units get some funding, which is supported nowadays by the UK having several hundred serious CAS busts per year...
The UK IMC Rating fits well into all this because most CAS is Class A from which IMCR pilots are banned; otherwise the IMCR would be practically equivalent to the full IR and lots of people would raise hell over that because the full SE IR costs about £15,000 to get
But UK Class G is really a free-for-all where you fly on your own, navigate on your own, possibly talk to nobody, in IMC too. Lots of illegal IFR goes on, but the sky is big and the UK has had zero IMC mid-airs since WW2. Most people, myself included, are happy with this level of freedom. It does tend to scare the Germans though
if you guys are flying below 200' agl to maintain VFR, below the overcast reported...you have some learning to do. Don't you have minimum VFR requirements like cloud clearance? (unless you are getting a special vfr)
200ft agl is more likely to create a breach of the low flying rules (which in the UK is 500ft msd), rather than VFR rules initially.
G
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by the way folks, my on screen name is SEVENSTROKEROLL as in seven stroke roll, a drum rudiment.
recalling my history of WW2, the RAF and the FEW had more planes than pilots...I would think that lesson would have been learned and encouragement of general aviation to produce pilots would have been made.
AS to pilots flying at 200' agl, one poster indicated he took off knowing he would be at 200' agl...now, we don't encourage that sort of thing here. And yes, flying that low would almost certainly violate minimum altitude rules in both countries.
The whole point was whether or not this chap flying around, warned of bad wx should have continued on or not. I am simply saying that while the controller or whatever you guys call him, should warn him of known problems, it was entirely possible that the pilot in question had a better , real time knowledge of things.
recalling my history of WW2, the RAF and the FEW had more planes than pilots...I would think that lesson would have been learned and encouragement of general aviation to produce pilots would have been made.
AS to pilots flying at 200' agl, one poster indicated he took off knowing he would be at 200' agl...now, we don't encourage that sort of thing here. And yes, flying that low would almost certainly violate minimum altitude rules in both countries.
The whole point was whether or not this chap flying around, warned of bad wx should have continued on or not. I am simply saying that while the controller or whatever you guys call him, should warn him of known problems, it was entirely possible that the pilot in question had a better , real time knowledge of things.
it was entirely possible that the pilot in question had a better , real time knowledge of things.
The reality however may not have necessarily matched his perception! It certainly would appear not to have at the end of the flight and depending upon perspective he was either lucky to have a professional and obliging police helicopter available to get him out of the mire, or daft not to divert to a convenient airfield / field / golf course far earlier.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a a point of pedantry I think I am right in saying that at the moment there is no minimum height rule in the UK, only a minimum distance rule which is rather different. However this will change under new SERA regs
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you mean you guys don't have a regulation that says (except for takeoff and landing) you must maintain a safe altitude which would allow for a safe landing should the powerplant (s) fail>?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The normal ICAO rule 5 is that your meant to be 500ft from any person object vessel etc and above the ground.
In the UK we don't have the above ground bit currently So nothing stopping you flying a 10 ft over the country side etc as long as there is nothing about which is very rare in some bits of the country but in other bits we have 100's of square miles with nothing apart from the occassional hillwalker. And of course the sea.
I presume its to allow gliders to ridge soar.
The UK gets quite often fog some of which is ornagraphic lift fog when the sea air gets lifted over cliffs and forms on the land. People have for years used the 200ft or so on the wet side to get to places VFR along the coast. They tend not to be your normal PPL's but there are a few of them that have been flying for years that do.
In the UK we don't have the above ground bit currently So nothing stopping you flying a 10 ft over the country side etc as long as there is nothing about which is very rare in some bits of the country but in other bits we have 100's of square miles with nothing apart from the occassional hillwalker. And of course the sea.
I presume its to allow gliders to ridge soar.
The UK gets quite often fog some of which is ornagraphic lift fog when the sea air gets lifted over cliffs and forms on the land. People have for years used the 200ft or so on the wet side to get to places VFR along the coast. They tend not to be your normal PPL's but there are a few of them that have been flying for years that do.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sevenstrokeroll,
Peter & MJ are incorrect, from the Air Navigation Order, (the UK legislation applicable to aviation) Rule 5;
Note that it says surface, not land, so does not preclude overwater flights. It just means you need enough height to manoeuvre a bit and set up for a controlled landing. You may struggle to do that from say 50ft, but if experienced, current and familiar with the area, may make a decent attempt from a couple of hundred?
Peter & MJ are incorrect, from the Air Navigation Order, (the UK legislation applicable to aviation) Rule 5;
Low flying prohibitions
5 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), an aircraft shall comply with the low flying prohibitions in paragraph (3) unless exempted by rule 6.
(3) The low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface in the event of a power unit failure.
5 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), an aircraft shall comply with the low flying prohibitions in paragraph (3) unless exempted by rule 6.
(3) The low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface in the event of a power unit failure.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ,
I don't think the UK not having a blanket "not below 500' AGL" rule is anything to do with gliders hill-soaring, as they have an exemption to Rule 5 (3) (b), "the 500ft rule", anyway within rule 6;
So, even if we had a not below 500' AGL provision within the reg's, as some countries do, gliders would still have their exemption.
I don't think the UK not having a blanket "not below 500' AGL" rule is anything to do with gliders hill-soaring, as they have an exemption to Rule 5 (3) (b), "the 500ft rule", anyway within rule 6;
Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
6 The exemptions from the low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(g) Glider hill-soaring. A glider shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule if it is hill-soaring.
6 The exemptions from the low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(g) Glider hill-soaring. A glider shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule if it is hill-soaring.