Tinstaafl

And what frequency would you propose making this broadcast on?

although it may be legal, it sounds like very bad airmanship to do such a thing and very dangerous. I think it would be very foolish to fly in IMC with no radar cover.

Well it amazes me how much disinformation one gets from instructors.

I have been categorically told that an IFR departure cannot be done unless the ATCO is qualified to give it. You get it read to you just before lining up, you then read it back and say you are ready for departure. I never knew that you can depart IFR without talking to anybody. I know you can fly en-route IFR of course.

At my airfield, which is licensed after say 0830, you can depart VFR after 0800 but cannot do an IFR departure until 0830. I don't know if this is related to it being licensed, or related to a suitably qualified ATCO turning up at 0830.

Re the IMC Rating stuff, I don't want to drag out the old argument but I always succumb to temptation :O What is the difference between an IMCR pilot and an IR pilot, with the same currency (or lack of) in IMC and on type, in the same aircraft suitable for the job? The difference is that the IR one has sat a load of exams, perhaps many years ago. There is a lot of expired IMCR pilots but there is also a lot of expired IRs (including great many instructors).

Rupert S

Rather a sweeping statement if you don't mind me saying. There are times and places where you have to fly in IMC without a radar service. Outside of CAS this is a fact and there's nothing you can do about it. That's why there's such things as quadrantal / semi-circular rules - to reduce the risk. It's like I said earlier - you risk assess it and act in accordance with that assessment. It's neither good nor bad airmanship - just a fact of life.

IO540

Your instructor is technically right. Take a look at the UK AIP (AD1.3 is the relevant section). There it states what flight rules are applicable for each airfield, and any caveats that may apply. So - you can only depart and arrive VFR at some (mainly A/G / AFIS type airfields). The grey area is - at which point can you declare yourself en-rte and therefore go IFR ;) To be quite honest this table should really be re-labelled VMC/IMC because, as others have said, what about night flying, which is technically IFR (but which uses the 'clear of cloud and in sight of the surface' caveats of IFR at airfields which are not listed as IFR airfields!)

This chesnut comes up with boring regularity. Just have a look at the number of aircraft which have collided in the open FIR/Class G when in cloud in the last 50 years (= 0, to save you the trouble) compared to the number in VMC, or the number in controlled airspace and you will realise that IMC in uncontrolled airspace is the only safe place to be.

So, can I be excused from being foolish and dangerous please :O

W

Chilli Monster,
Perhaps I was a bit hastey in my reply - I should have said that one would be ill advised to fly in such conditions without a radar service if one was availible especially in congested areas (which I would imagine this thread is referring to).

If there's a radar service, and you're in IMC, using it is a good idea. It's not a bad idea in VMC either. I often get VFR traffic pointed out to me by LARS units. You can look and look and still not see. It's the low-down dark-coloured ones I have trouble spotting.

But I've flown (and been flown) many times under IFR in IMC in open FIR, with no radar or anything else, and wasn't worried. It's a big sky! Just avoid the honeypots.

Chilli Monster

Thank you for confirming what I thought, and my apologies to those instructors who told me what I said :O Mind you I still have to deal with the CFI (ATPL) who told me you can saturate a VOR (a VOR, not a DME) if you tune too many receivers to it...

I would transit to IFR as the zone boundary i.e. pretty well right away. But one won't get an RIS if below the minimum authorised RIS level for that radar unit, so in the conditions described one would be IMC by the time one gets any cover.

Except for the engine failure scenario (which assuming one can actually fly in IMC is statistically the only real risk) I would be quite happy to depart in those conditions - IF the destination and alternate are both clear.

What I don't know is whether the PILOT himself is able to phone the radar unit before departure, and get a squawk allocated.

We don't lay down a minimum altitude for RIS, only RAS. At lower levels away from the radar head (1000ft per 10nm is a good rule of thumb for lower limits of cover) the service will be limited and the reason for limitation will be explained in the 'verbal contract' of service.
Nothing to stop you - but I wouldn't bother. There are many standing agreements between adjacent units regarding the verification and validation of squawks. You could end up in a position where you get airborne, wearing this pre given squawk, but your mode 'C' is out. Adjoining unit sees you wearing another units squawk, take it to be validated and verified (which it hasn't been) and promptly has an airmiss with you because the mode 'C' isn't what it appears to be.

Just call as soon as possible.

In response to one of the original questions, one reason a pilot may prefer to depart on a VFR clearance rather than an IFR clearance, is to avoid ATC delay.

As an IFR departure, ATC would be required to separate you from other IFR traffic they are working as an Approach unit. Due to requirements of separation, then (particularly in a Procedural ATC environment), the delays can soon mount. A VFR departure does not have the requirement to be separated by ATC, so tend not to be delayed by waiting at the holding point waiting for separation to be acheived, as an IFR departure may be.

Now whether it is desirable on safety grounds for aircraft to depart as VFR in such conditions, is a different question. It certainly doesn't fill ATC with a warm glow of 'everything is all right' when such VFR departures immediately enter IMC on departure as they have not until then been required to separate that traffic from the other known IFR traffic. Apart from the effect on the separation of the (now IFR) departure, it may have also seriously reduced the separation established between other IFR flights that ATC is responsible for separating, but hadn't been expecting to have to separate from the VFR departure.

4

This discussion brings to my mind the fact that when I did my IMC flight test the examiner had me take off under the hood. I put the hood on at the departure hold and he did the taxi on to the threshold, at which point he handed over to me. It was a bit of a shock at the time because I'd never tried it with my instructor.

Is this a normal procedure for an IMC skills test? Any examiners care to comment on it?

Never heard that one before.

FD

Did it for the FAA IR, though don't think it is required for the flight test.

Believe it is meant to be part of the training ("instrument Takeoff"), the idea being to

"•Instrument takeoff provides proficiency and confidence necessary to execute instrument departures under conditions of low visibility and rain
•Prepares student for rapid change of flight from visual flight into IMC"

Cheers
EA

I'd have thought that it would do quite the opposite. The transition from a visual take-off to instruments in very poor visibility is a difficult skill to learn and something that is very dangerous indeed if you get it wrong, particularly with a simultaneous engine failure, and I would have thought that practising and demonstrating that skill was more important than doing the whole takeoff run on instruments.

Incidentally, when I did my (CAA) IR training in the early 80's I was expected to do a landing entirely on instruments, not for the test but during training. The particular instructor, Dai Heather Hayes, wanted us to realise that if push came to shove it was more practical to land in zero vis than to eventually plough a furrow somewhere under the hold when the fuel ran out.

W

Ah, Yes. Good old Dai, he did my CPLA checkride!

Forever practical. Far better to crash near the fire engines :ok:

Is he still around at Perth?

BTW, sometimes we are obliged to fly IFR in UK without a proper Radar service as there isn't always anyone to obtain a service from! Not ideal. We do have TCAS which helps a little provided others use their transponder and radios sensibly and fly quadrantals. Below the London TMA is a problem, no chance of a quadrantal but normally a radar service is available. But it seems there are an awful lot of aircraft out there NOT using Mode C in the London area...wonder why?

I can think of a number of reasons:

No Mode C installed (quite common)
Mode C installed but u/s (very common)
Lack of training
Wish not to self incriminate

W

TAKING OFF UNDER THIS FORECAST
 

Er excuse me chaps, don't want to interrupt but my ATPL Air Law course taught me that......



VFR flights shall not take off or land at an aerodrome within a CTZ, ATZ or traffic pattern :

a) when cloud ceiling is less than 1500ft or;

b) when GROUND vis is less than 5000m.

You may be Authorised to take off and land under more marginal conditions but this requires an SVFR clearance from an ATCU.

I don't remember the figures on the original post exactly but a vis of about 3500 was quoted with various cloud layers at 400-800ft.

This does not represent a VFRable departure as far as I can tell. The mere fact you immediately wish call the flight IFR just after takeoff tells you the full story!

Imagine this scenario....... you had engine failure/problems at say 1500ft. you are probably 2-3 mins after takeoff in a low winged single with 8-10:1 glide ratio........what would you do?

Think about it.

There is a blanket of cloud below you (ovc800). Any Nav aids or a friendy ATC with radar to vector you back, that is if you have time to make the radio call.

Thankfully this forum allows pilots a chance to find out about these issues and many others. I may well be right off the mark with my own knowledge and someone more senior may be able to put me straight, but in my book caution is the best option.

Yes some of these VFR/IFR rules are confusing and can ofetn be interpreted in many different ways and I think that is a major problem both for pilots and the regulatory authorites ie JAA/CAA.

The AIPs and ANOs are not exactly easy reading and finding anything for reference purposes can take ages. In Australia the CASA (OZ CAA) produce a DAY VFR guide which includes virtually all the relevant air law for VFR flying. It even has a glossary and an index with page numbers for you to look thinks up 'at a glance'.

Maybe some clarification of what a VFR departure is needs doing by the CAA.

What do you think?

regards

Tropo

Tropo

You may be right, but I have scanned ANO and Rules of the Air and can't see such a regulation. Bookworm where are you? :oh:

I have looked up Fairoaks in the AIP and there are specific local limitations there that VFR aircraft must maintain surface contact in a minimum vis of 3km. Can I respectfully suggest that this limitation would not be specific to Fairoaks if it were a general rule?

I wonder what it was that your Air Law paper was getting at? Maybe to do with PT Ops? Actually there are stipulations in the ANO about PT, but they don't seem to include the ones you mention.

Finally, I can't really see that your admonition that it is not safe for a single to take off in poor conditions would be made any different for an IFR departure. Woss' point was about the choice of IFR and VFR. Your point is (if I understand) that it is not safe for a single to operate in IMC at all. There is no doubt that singles are permitted to take off in IMC under IFR, whatever your (and indeed my) opinion of the advisedness of doing that.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood.

W

WCollins / ShyTorque - Dai is certainly still a more or less permanent fixture at Perth!! Around 80% of the times I go there to fly, he's there!! He still has his Pitts; I have never flown with him, but a couple of the guys in my club have and reckon that it's the best hours instruction they've ever had! He certainly teaches pragmatic flying - not just reeling out the numbers, but tries to convey a deeper understanding of what the aircraft's up to.

WCollins,

Don't see why the first 3 should be more common around London.... ;)

Number 4 seems favourite :rolleyes: