WCollins

You mention 3km vis for a VFR departure; however it seems clear to me that the conditions in the original question would make a plain-PPL case pretty reckless. It may be legally flyable but it probably would not be navigable.

So we are looking at IMCR or IR. As far as I know an IMCR pilot can do a "VFR" departure in 1800m vis.

I don't know about IR; what is the min vis for a VFR departure if there is no published RVR for that field?

My guess is "Clear of cloud, in sight of the surface" provided you do less than 140kts until you convert to IFR.

But hey! What do I know?!?:uhoh:

W

Seems like the part of the original question which asked if the rules are confusing has at least been answered - agreement has not been reached so I guess they must be at least somewhat unclear to some people.

drauk

Can I, with all humility, suggest that there is only confusion amongst those who have not read the ANO and ROTA recently, and that to those that have the situation is quite clear?

The best way of rectifying this would be for more people to read the rooles.

W

The FAA don't think so :D

I think the training is designed so that a student starts to use the instruments early on, and not waiting until entering IMC, before they go instrument......

Cherio

WCollins, you're right, of course. But I find the course of this discussion somewhat interesting. Evo and FFF both thought the departure was legal, but weren't completely sure. IO540 thought it couldn't be an IFR departure because you couldn't do one at a small airfield, was corrected by various people and then Chilli Monster set them straight. Flyin'Dutch' said a VFR departure was not legal. Surely that amounts to some confusion?

And these aren't people that just post any old junk. These names, and your own, make posts which I tend to take notice of, or at least read very carefully, because in my experience they post well considered information. But I guess I'm just being lazy and reading the rules is the thing to do.

My concern, like WC's, is about the decision to change to IFR.

Bimbling along in glorious VMC, no problem. One little cloud - so I fly through it, still looking out the front and being "VFR".

As it gets cloudier/foggier, there comes a point when I should conclude this isn't VMC, and change to flying proper IFR in IMC. I've taught myself to announce (out loud) "Now flying IFR" and to DO that.

Sometimes it's 20 seconds after takeoff, sometimes part way through a long flight, but it's important to make that decision, quickly and firmly, and stick with it

I remember long years ago flying along just under a cloud layer, watching the treetops getting closer. I got quite uncomfortable, before I said "blow this" and climbed into the cloud.

The FAA IR test doesn't really do that - you know you're going to transition to IFR pretty soon, and have an "adjust time" while putting on the hood.

So why is there such confusion, on the part of obviously intelligent people who take the subject seriously? I think the answer lies in the difficulty in finding the answers!

I find the UK publications tortuous: I use the UKAIM and have great difficulty finding what I want in it. There's no index worthy of the name. Someone could provide a good service to pilots by compiling an index (or a whole book) that does things in logical (rather than legal) order and points to the relevant bit of the legislation for each decision a pilot needs to make. We don't all have Bookworm's fluent grasp of it all!

If I were looking to take off in marginal WX in the UK, I'd be looking at the definition of VFR in ANO Rule 26 (2)(b)(ii) - clear of cloud, in sight of surface, and in a flight vis of at least 1500 metres. I'd also be aware of the 500 foot rule (and the other mnimum height rules if they apply).

For an IMC rating, the takeoff minimum RVR is 1800 metres, so I can take off VFR or not take off at all. Therefore the issue of an IFR takeoff from an unlicensed (or non-ATC) airfield doesn't really get to me.

For the pilot with a valid IR, in the UK, it gets a bit more complex, depending on the aircraft and the airfield equipment. UKAIP AD 1.1 section 4 sets it out.

For a private flight in a single, there are no stipulated minima other than "adequate to ensure a high probability of a successful forced landing being made should a failure of the engine occur after takeoff. It should be noted that the minima for take-off by commercial air transport aeroplanes is 1000 feet cloud ceiling and 1800m RVR." So if you took off in less than those, the CAA would have a case to prosecute for hazarding an aircraft.

WCollins in his twin could, in theory, takeoff in anything down to 150m RVR if all the information and lighting equipment needed is present. (UKAIP AD 1.1 Section 4.1.2).

As to IFR departures from unlicensed fields - I don't know. I couldn't find anything about that (my copy of the UKAIM doesn't have AD 1.3 that CM referred to). Personally, I wouldn't do it (couldn't, with the IMC rating).

Keef

The trouble is that if you rely on a synopsis you can end up with misunderstandings. It is very common for people to say "...but is says in Thom..." or (pace Tropo) "...in my ATPL course material...".

If you go back to the source you read the rooles as they will be applied in Court.

Will

Isn't the RVR take off requirement for commercial ops the same as the RVR detailed on the approach plate at that airfield (or visibility translated into RVR)? In the states it is, if minimums are less than the approach minimums, then take off by commercial operators are banned, even though John Doe in his C152 could quite legally (though probably not wisely) take off.

I took off from Edinburgh with an RVR of 750m, I was following a BA 757....

CU:D

[Edited becasue I just re-read and assume that you're talking about a field without a prescribed IAP procedure....:D]

No.

The ANO is fairly loose on the subject, placing the responsibility in the hands of the operator. PT Ops Manuals, in order to be approved, will contain two stipulations:

One has to do with the lighting on the runway, and the acceptable vis. For Keef's 150m you need centreline lights for example. An RVR of around 175-250m would be typical for a Biggin or Southend, from memory.

The other has to do with getting back on the ground in the event of an emergency. Typically you have to ensure that there is somewhere above minima (and forecast to remain so) within 30 mins flying time, flying time being calculated on the basis of an engine failure.

Will

EA

I'm quoting directly from the "law" (or the AIP anyway). The 1000 feet ceiling/1800m RVR is, I understand, for single-engined PT Ops. I didn't look for it elsewhere since it was stated in the UKAIP at AD 1.1 Section 4.

If you took off from Edinburgh in a single, non-PT, with 750m RVR, you were legal. Likewise if PT but in a twin. If it was PT and a single, I fear you might not have been.

Will

Quite - but being sneaky, I was using the UKAIM which reproduces verbatim the "law".

Yes, 150m is the lowest minimum on the page and requires a full kit of lighting etc.

I didn't look up the US equivalent rules - it's all in the FAR.AIM for them as wants it.

Recovering from the Xmas goose and associated excesses in ED-land. Is there a smiley for that? :ooh:

I'm touched you missed me but can't add much to what has been said.

To Troposurfer's point, there is an ICAO rule that forbids VFR arrivals/departures in a control zone when the visibility is less than 5 km and the cloud ceiling is less than 1500 ft unless a clearance is obtained from ATC. But this rule is not used by the UK, since every CTR requires a clearance anyway. There is an equivalent for non-radio aircraft, Rule 16(2) which sets minima (at the destination) for departure.

The ICAO rule is somewhat ambiguous:

"shall not take off or land within a control zone, or enter the aerodrome traffic zone or traffic pattern, unless..."

My interpretation is that this applies only within control zones, and that the alternatives are activities within the CTR that are not permitted.

Bookworm

We wouldn't issue a VFR clearance in a class D CTR if the vis is less than 5km and/or cloud ceiling less than 1500ft.

VA

VA

Sure....but Tropo was saying that the same rule applies to any airfield with an ATZ, which, I am sure you would agree, ain't so.

Will

WC, I always agree with you! :eek: :D :D :D

Is that a MATS Pt I thing? Or specific to a particular airport?

My FAA IR instructor often made me practice "under the hood" takeoffs, using the DI to keep runway heading until rotate (and after too!).

The FAA system is dependent on the instructors "signing you off" as ready, the test can't cover everything....

Ian

Yes, but it still doesn't prepare you for the decision-making process. You're already in IMC...

bookworm

MATS Pt 1 Section 3 Chapter 1 page 5

but read the corrigendum letter at the front of the doc.


VA

I don't know about corrigiendum letters as such. I've got the downloadable CAP 493 with Amendment 57. It mentions no VFR clearances when the vis is below 5000 m but I can't see anything about cloud ceiling.

I'm not just trying to be nitpicky about details, though you know too well that's in my nature :). Under ICAO rules for controlled airspace, the minimum VFR level permitted is 500 ft and the minimum vertical separation from cloud is 1000 ft. Thus VFR is impossible if the ceiling is less than 1500 ft. The UK has neither rule and so VFR is, in principle, possible with such a ceiling.

The ICAO rule anticipates class E control zones where a clearance wouldn't otherwise be required. It forces a flight in such circumstances to get a SVFR clearance. In the UK, the same can be achieved by instructions to ATC, as all the flights in the CTR require a clearance.

bookworm,

The latest downloadable Pt 1, which includes the relevant corrigendum letter, is the one with ammendment 59 incorporated.

Available from the CAA website.

WF.

Thank you. I'm now totally baffled. Amendment 59 reads:

(change bars indicate that the parts about cloud ceiling are insertions in Amendment 59)

The corrigiendum reads:

So this raises two questions:

1) Why would they insert the 1500 ft bit? [Don't tell me -- it was that bl:*:*dy ICAO safety audit, wasn't it...]

2) Why would they delete it in the second part but not the first?

It's really quite awful drafting. Reading the two bits together, does this mean, as Vintage ATCO suggests, that there is a 1500 ft ceiling limit on VFR in the CTR or not? :confused:

We are not permitted to issue a VFR clearance (in a Class D CTR) if the vis is less than 5km and/or the cloud ceiling is less than 1500ft.

I don't know why the second 1500ft was removed.

Finally had a chance to study all the views to this thread after a busy xmas. Hope all had a good time and are still within MTOW!

Judging by all the detailed posts, it seems that there certainly is confusion within the VFR regulations but these confusions seem to concern mainly whether or not a take off in the conditions stated is legal (it appears to be). But is the rest of the flight legal and how do you manage the flight if it subsequently becomes IMC/IFR.

Even though a departure may be legal in those conditions, the en route phase certainly would not be given that maintaining clear of clouds would invariably cause a breach of Rule 5.

So, why depart then VFR? As W Collins clearly points out, a big reason appears to be the wish not to incur route charges and who would not agree? You are not receiving any services so why pay? Perhaps then we should take this up with the powers that be but my life is not long enough to wrestle that one out of CAA, Brussels, whoever....

But is it sensible to depart without any prior arrangement with a radar unit set up? What about the possibility that somebody just might be coming the other way? To quote W Collins again, there have been no instances of collision whilst flying IMC outside of controlled airspace....this I presume is true but I have knowledge of several instances recently where collisions appear to have been narrowly avoided. Circumstances varied but some were saved by TCAS, some by timely radio calls coincidentally and some by radar. So the danger is there. The 'big sky' theory pointed out by some contributors to this post is true...but the sods law also applies.

What about radar then? At best in the UK coverage is patchy and although the controllers have the best of intentions, invariably you are offered 'Radar Information limited due to range,altitude,controller workload or poor radar performance'. Incidentally, I thought RIS or RAS was available.....where is the official definition of 'Limited radar'?!! Indeed, some of the close ones noted have been receiving a service so still you are not guaranteed safety but arming oneself with all the tools available must surely increse your safety margin.

In respect of W Collins worry that he was the 'target' of this post, this is not the case. The Metar given was a representative one used as an example. Indeed, I have seen departures in conditions worse than shown, which is the impetus for this thread. However, It is recognised that there is a difference between the crazies who launch ill equipped and under rated in a 150 to that of the experienced IR pilots in the right equipment who have contributed to this thread.

My summary then...no matter how experienced, or what you are flying, get a radar service if its available and you're IMC....the route charge (even if it ever finds you) will be small change if it's helped you avoid hitting me coming the other way! And turn that Mode C on!

Woss.

ps. Is it true that you cannot fly IMC outside controlled airspace in France?

But - how do you know these 'instances' would have resulted in collisions or merely the aircraft being a bit too 'adjacent' than the occupants would have liked. You only know aircraft were in danger of colliding by either a) it actually happening or b) accurate simulation / modelling after the event. As such you can't really make the statement above - it just isn't true.
MATS Pt1, Section 1, Chapter 5

1.6 Limiting a Service

1.6.1 Outside controlled airspace in circumstances where controllers cannot continue to provide the following primary requirements:
a) traffic information and traffic avoidance in respect of all conflicting unknown aircraft for a radar advisory service; and
b) traffic information in respect of all conflicting unknown aircraft for a radar information service, controllers may elect to continue to give the service by limiting the extent to which it is provided.

1.6.2 Controllers must inform pilots when they limit the service and ensure that pilots are made fully aware of the implications of any limitation.

1.6.3 In particular the service should be limited when:
a) the aircraft is operating within 10 miles* of:
i) the edge of the radar display;
ii) weather clutter; or
iii) permanent echoes.
b) the aircraft is operating in an area of high traffic density;
c) the aircraft is operating near to the limits of solid radar cover; or
d) The service is being provided using secondary radar only.
* Except where the range selected (e.g. 3, 10, 15 miles) will not enable these criteria to be met during an approach to an aerodrome.

Chiil Monster

Thank you for the MATS info re Limited Radar.

If you don't mind me saying so, this statement is a bit daft. Obviously you don't know in all cases if a collision would have occurred. But given that two aircraft in IMC are flying converging tracks neither of which are receiving separation from an ATC unit, it would seem that there is a risk of collision even if thankfully it did not occur. It does not matter how 'adjacent' they are: they are not separated by anyone, they are not talking to anyone so the risk is there.

Woss But you didn't say that originally. You said And I stick by my original answer. It's not daft unless refuted by FACTS and hearsay doesn't constitute fact. If you know of such circumstances then by all means enlighten us - but 'knowing' and 'summising' which is what, to be honest, your original statement is nearer to I would think, are two totally separate things. Your use of the word 'appear' would back that up.

I mentioned simulation/modelling of the events to derive information on whether the collision would have happened. That's because that is what the UK Airprox board is there for and what they do. Leaving them as the final arbiters of whether a collision would have taken place rather than summising whether it would is a far more sensible idea in my honest opinion. If those reports are what you're referring to as the possibles that you know of then fair enough - but if you're referring to other events then we're back to the summising verses fact situation.

Just because aircraft aren't separated doesn't mean that they're going to hit. There was such a thing on my procedural course as a 'technical' loss of separation. The aircraft may have been 20 miles apart - but if you didn't have in place a laid down method of separation as per MATS pt 1 then it was deemed a technical loss, even though they wouldn't hit in a month of sundays.

Facts count, nothing else.

But that's not what it says in MATS Pt 1. In the corrected amended :) form, it says (first sentence) that you must advise VFR flights if the vis drops below 5000 m or the ceiling is less than 1500 ft. But (second sentence) if the latter is the case and the visibility is at or above 5000 m, you can issue a VFR clearance.

Bookworm, actually vintage atco is correct. The CAA has got its self into a it of a muddle and have amended the ammedment to the the ammendment and my understanding is if the ceiling is below 1500ft you cant issue a vfr clearance to an aircraft taking off and landing in an airport in class D.

So this has been ammended again and the rest of the sentance put back in.

OK, I think we should stop there. :confused: :)

Bookworm, I trust that you meant that the discussion on CTRs should stop there and not the whole thread, cos I would like to come back to the discussion between Woss and Chilli.

The fact of the matter is that no such collision has taken place in UK airspace since the war. There is no better argument on risk than the actuarial one.

Some ATCOs and and Authorities seem to treat a "loss of separation" as seriously as a collision. This is like my wife's reaction to losing a child in the park. Just because you can't see him doesn't necessarily mean that he has been abducted or run-over, just as loss of separation doesn't mean the worst has happened.

I still feel safer in the class G corridor between BIG and OCK in a 2000' cloudbase at 2300' than I do at 1900'...and I believe that feeling of safety to be justified by the realities of the situation.

Will

Nah, a miss is as good as 3 miles. . . . . ;)

I don't think its the ATCOs who necessarily treat a minor erosion as seriously as a collision, its more likely those pesky automated computer systems and the associated mountain of paperwork.

I had a near miss yesterday, flying IFR from Beccles to Leicester in the snow and god knows what else another aircraft apparantly not flying a Quadrantal rule passed over the top at me by no more than 50ft. Made my bum clench a little a bit!

Forwardn viz at the time was around 250-500m.

The big skies theory is great if everyone flies to the same set of rules, unfortunatly yesterday it proves that they do not!

Unfortunatly all of the LARS units that I flew over were closed as well which mad a RADAR service impossible. I cant believe the want GA to pay for LARS!

Still a near miss is better than a hit!

bose

I rest my case.....you didn't hit him :O

It is very difficult to get two aeroplanes in the same place at the same time unless they are over a beacon at a fixed altitude (either whole numbers of 500' or scud running) which is why I avoid both. :E

Will

So with 250 m forward vis you were able to ascertain that this aircraft, which you observed for, ooh about 4 seconds, was in level flight, not climbing or descending, and was therefore breaking the quadrantal rule? :)

bose-x

I am not sure that compliancewith the quad rule reduces the probability of a mid-air (implying a fatal accident).

It would make an interesting exercise in probability theory to work out whether IN IMC a mid-air is more or less likely between two objects flying head-on or the same two objects flying in the same direction.

I don't think the case is at all obvious. My feeling is that there is no difference at all.

(I am assuming that a 150kt plane going up the back of a 100kt one will be as good as a head-on)

If there is SOME visibility, then the quad rule should mean you have more time to see the other one. But given the poor visibility of GA planes (which is something all pilots and passengers notice pretty well right away) I don't think this is a factor unless the vis is a lot better than 250m. Also if somebody is being smart and is flying in marginal VMC with their landing/taxi lights on, you won't see those from behind. Also if somebody is closing with you at say a 20deg angle you probably won't see them anyway because few pilots twist their neck that far when looking for traffic.

I think by far the main benefit of the quad rule is for airliners: with TCAS you get a lot more time to act. But we all know that in GA a lot of people don't have transponders, or if they do they have them turned off. I flew today for 30 mins under an RIS, saw not one of 5 or so targets, and not one of them had Mode C on (I was VMC on top at FL050 and they were probably below).

Bookworm,

I am sorry but you twisted my statement I said APPARANTLY not flying a quadrantal, I did not say that anything had been BROKEN. The other aircraft appeared to be in straight and level flight for the few short seconds that I saw him and made no attempt at avoiding action so I would guess did not see me.

I was flying at FL45 heading 290.

I was not making a complaint about the other aircraft who could well have been climbing or decscending, I was merely making an observation about a near miss.

My point was that despite this near miss in the open FIR without radar it was still a miss.

Um...where to start? :confused:

The Quadrantal rule was there long before airways and radar was universal, and was mainly for separating Doves and DC4s.

Airliners nearly all fly on airways nearly all the time. The Quadrantal rule does not apply to airways.

The Quadrantal rule preceded TCAS by a long, long time (let's guess fifty years.)

No, the quadrantal rule is there to reduce the probability of collisions. My own view is that if aircraft flew at a level determined by the last letter of its registration (thus introducing more randomness) it would be more effective, but, as I keep saying, there really is no problem. It ain't bust, let's not fix it.

Will