Minimum Helicopter Visibilty to be increased to 3km ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum Helicopter Visibilty to be increased to 3km ?
I was reading what i thought was a CAA consultation document about weather limits for helicopters in VFR ops (which i cant find now) and it gave 4 options,
1. do nothing
2. increase minimum VFR vis to 3k (unless in sight of destination)
3. require instrument ratings (impractical due to a/c)
4.no flight below 500' (looked at before in 2003)
and it came to the conclusion that 2. was the only viable option
the reasons for the document were the number of crashes in last few years of private helicopters and fatalities.
it went on to discuss how the ANO would be amended to reflect this change and how licence wording would have to be changed
I wasnt really concentrating and it was only later i started thinking about the consequences of this paper.
does anyone know
1) have i reproduced this correctly or was i dreaming ?
2) can anyone find in on the CAA website ?
3)does anyone know if it applies to PPL only or was it for CPL /ATP as well as we operate VFR right down to 800m commercially (subject to other requirements) ?
regards
CF
1. do nothing
2. increase minimum VFR vis to 3k (unless in sight of destination)
3. require instrument ratings (impractical due to a/c)
4.no flight below 500' (looked at before in 2003)
and it came to the conclusion that 2. was the only viable option
the reasons for the document were the number of crashes in last few years of private helicopters and fatalities.
it went on to discuss how the ANO would be amended to reflect this change and how licence wording would have to be changed
I wasnt really concentrating and it was only later i started thinking about the consequences of this paper.
does anyone know
1) have i reproduced this correctly or was i dreaming ?
2) can anyone find in on the CAA website ?
3)does anyone know if it applies to PPL only or was it for CPL /ATP as well as we operate VFR right down to 800m commercially (subject to other requirements) ?
regards
CF
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't see the point in changing the flight vis. After all it is not going to stop the idiot with get homeitis or even must get there at any cost. Even with better training you will never limit the number of deaths. The only way is to remove moving map technology, that way no one would fly in really bad weather as 99% would not hace a clue where they were !!!!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks CEC.
now that I have read it again it appears to say that PPL'S will be limited to 3k and CPL's/ATP's to 800m,
in the case of a professional licence on a commercial flight the ops manual limit is generally 1500m with an absolute minimum of 800m subject to other considerations (commensurate airspeed etc) anyhow, so i cant really see how that will change things.
except a CPL on a positioning flight will now be limited where they werent before.
unless I misunderstood it is the PPL's who will really notice the change,
I actually think they are both sensible limits, what do other peeps think ?
regards
CF
now that I have read it again it appears to say that PPL'S will be limited to 3k and CPL's/ATP's to 800m,
in the case of a professional licence on a commercial flight the ops manual limit is generally 1500m with an absolute minimum of 800m subject to other considerations (commensurate airspeed etc) anyhow, so i cant really see how that will change things.
except a CPL on a positioning flight will now be limited where they werent before.
unless I misunderstood it is the PPL's who will really notice the change,
I actually think they are both sensible limits, what do other peeps think ?
regards
CF
If you have an unspecified "limit" [cocisos] then it's down to the individual to assess -often, sadly, incorrectly - their personal limits. If a limit is then specified, be it 3000m or 800m, then the individual at least has a proper reason to reconsider the flight.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm,
Sounds fine in theory.
But like so many of our rules, it will be virtually impossible to prove a breach, so no one will try.
It will be complied with by sensible pilots, who would probably make sensible decisons anyway, and it will be ignored by those a******s who ignore most of the rules.
The limit is pretty arbitrary anyway. I would not want a low time PPL to SFH in an R22 flying in 3K vis, for example.
It will keep the regulators happy that they are doing something, but have no significant effect on safety, and it will help to keep a few civil servants and printers in work.
Me cynical..... surely not
Sounds fine in theory.
But like so many of our rules, it will be virtually impossible to prove a breach, so no one will try.
It will be complied with by sensible pilots, who would probably make sensible decisons anyway, and it will be ignored by those a******s who ignore most of the rules.
The limit is pretty arbitrary anyway. I would not want a low time PPL to SFH in an R22 flying in 3K vis, for example.
It will keep the regulators happy that they are doing something, but have no significant effect on safety, and it will help to keep a few civil servants and printers in work.
Me cynical..... surely not
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Helinut most sensible pilots that have to fly VFR would not get airborne if they did not have the cloud base to be legal and enough vis to see where they are going. I think better post licence education and trainning, and more about personal responserbilty would be of more use. Try and teach people that the last thing you want to die from is being an ass.
"Try and teach people that the last thing you want to die from is being an ass."
Reminds me of the old adage; "what's the last thing to go through your mind when you crash? Your a***hole"!
Reminds me of the old adage; "what's the last thing to go through your mind when you crash? Your a***hole"!
Last edited by 212man; 8th Mar 2005 at 22:43.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it refelects the increasing tendency to want to legislate every aspect of the flight.
this tendency can also be seen on the north sea where the ops manual is well thick in its attempt to cover every possible scenario, in the long term removing the commanders discretion.
having said that I still reckon they are actually sensible figures that have been arrived at.
I think it is a slightly blunt instrument though, I know one high time instructor who is actually a PPL under grandfather arrangements who am I sure would be competent at 800m, and at the same time I know newly qualified CPL's who I would be distinctly unhappy letting them go when there is 3k.
eventually people are people and whether they have a private or professional licence does not neccesarily indicate ability.
this tendency can also be seen on the north sea where the ops manual is well thick in its attempt to cover every possible scenario, in the long term removing the commanders discretion.
having said that I still reckon they are actually sensible figures that have been arrived at.
I think it is a slightly blunt instrument though, I know one high time instructor who is actually a PPL under grandfather arrangements who am I sure would be competent at 800m, and at the same time I know newly qualified CPL's who I would be distinctly unhappy letting them go when there is 3k.
eventually people are people and whether they have a private or professional licence does not neccesarily indicate ability.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vis
You can get the situation where the visibilty is poor and yet there is no cloud, industrial muck. In Germany many a day was 1km vis and no cloud. Do you include cloud cover with the limitation.
The limit is not the only problem as they may set off in good conditions which then rapidly get worse. It is knowing when to say enough is enough! Either turn around and go home to my loving family or spend the night in a hotel close by.
Major problem will be educating ppl pilots that they are in a helicopter and if the weather deteriorates below what they consider comfortable then land. Thats what a helicopter is good at, does'nt need an airfield.
The old sayings "Better to be down here wishing you were up there than up there wishing you were down here" and
"If there is any doubt there is no doubt". Land the bloody thing it is a helicopter.
The limit is not the only problem as they may set off in good conditions which then rapidly get worse. It is knowing when to say enough is enough! Either turn around and go home to my loving family or spend the night in a hotel close by.
Major problem will be educating ppl pilots that they are in a helicopter and if the weather deteriorates below what they consider comfortable then land. Thats what a helicopter is good at, does'nt need an airfield.
The old sayings "Better to be down here wishing you were up there than up there wishing you were down here" and
"If there is any doubt there is no doubt". Land the bloody thing it is a helicopter.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not a bad one cf,but what about the little thing of insurance.if an accident occurs and weather limits at the time are taken,there are now limits to abide by.
yet if you are a ppl instructor with bags of experience yet still have to demonstrate to stay within limits.
also has split the ranks of ppl and cpl,those that attained the true stress of atpl theory deserve the split than those that have not
even though would not be happy to fly in such reduce vis
yet if you are a ppl instructor with bags of experience yet still have to demonstrate to stay within limits.
also has split the ranks of ppl and cpl,those that attained the true stress of atpl theory deserve the split than those that have not
even though would not be happy to fly in such reduce vis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this new proposal is going to prevent flights under IFR when relying upon visual references when vis is less than 800m, how are we going to land (having had to get visual) from say an ILS when the RVR is over 550m (assuming usual minimum) and below 800m? Seems I can be on the approach in the clag, hover taxi at 20kts off the runway, but what happens in the middle?
I'm sure this legislation is not meant to affect instrument landing minima and there's a very obvious reason why, but perhaps someone could explain it!
I'm sure this legislation is not meant to affect instrument landing minima and there's a very obvious reason why, but perhaps someone could explain it!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotorspeed:
There should be no problem unless you elect to cancel IFR and continue with a "Visual Approach - an approach by an IFR flight when either part of all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain". The flight should be allowed to be conducted under the limitations of the appropriate approach minima. However, this change appears to place an unintended constraint on the approach minima and should therefore be commented to Bob Commander ([email protected]).
What is interesting about the rule in the RIA to which you refer - Annex C 29 (1)(d) - is its purpose and what it leads to. In the UK (and as is permitted by ICAO) flight at night in any airspace has to be conducted in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules. This particular clause is intended to give, de jure, similar rights to those which obtain for day VFR. What is interesting is that, in the absence of other limitations (for CAT - JAR-OPS 3, FODCOMs, CAP 360 - and the licence etc.), the original text appeared to permit flight at night in extremely low forward visibility (nil in fact) and, as with other regulations (the FARs apart), there is no reference to visual cues on the ground.
It caused considerable interest during the NVIS (NVG) debate that while there is a limitation on the use of NVIS when the light levels are below a certain threshold, the same does not appear to be the case for unaided flight.
There should be no problem unless you elect to cancel IFR and continue with a "Visual Approach - an approach by an IFR flight when either part of all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain". The flight should be allowed to be conducted under the limitations of the appropriate approach minima. However, this change appears to place an unintended constraint on the approach minima and should therefore be commented to Bob Commander ([email protected]).
What is interesting about the rule in the RIA to which you refer - Annex C 29 (1)(d) - is its purpose and what it leads to. In the UK (and as is permitted by ICAO) flight at night in any airspace has to be conducted in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules. This particular clause is intended to give, de jure, similar rights to those which obtain for day VFR. What is interesting is that, in the absence of other limitations (for CAT - JAR-OPS 3, FODCOMs, CAP 360 - and the licence etc.), the original text appeared to permit flight at night in extremely low forward visibility (nil in fact) and, as with other regulations (the FARs apart), there is no reference to visual cues on the ground.
It caused considerable interest during the NVIS (NVG) debate that while there is a limitation on the use of NVIS when the light levels are below a certain threshold, the same does not appear to be the case for unaided flight.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mars
Thanks for your thoughts. Would seem from the paucity of responses there may be a potential issue here, though one I'm sure the CAA would address, so I will forward my concerns, as you suggest.
Would seem the issue is whether becoming visual at the bottom of an instrument approach the becomes a "flight relying on visual references", in which case the proposed 800m vis rule would apply, or whether the actual "flight" as IFR does not rely on visual references even though the "flying" at the bottom of the approach obviously does.
Thanks for your thoughts. Would seem from the paucity of responses there may be a potential issue here, though one I'm sure the CAA would address, so I will forward my concerns, as you suggest.
Would seem the issue is whether becoming visual at the bottom of an instrument approach the becomes a "flight relying on visual references", in which case the proposed 800m vis rule would apply, or whether the actual "flight" as IFR does not rely on visual references even though the "flying" at the bottom of the approach obviously does.
Rotorspeed,
I think you have raised a valid point and you should bring it to Bob's attention; as was pointed out by Mars, flight at night has to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules and these are the rules.
This is typical of the law of unintended consequence of attempting to sidestep aound the problem of not permitting Night VFR - there is a similar one in JAR-OPS 3 where, if airspace at night is designated as IFR, all of the concomitant requirements for instruments and the autopilot apply (JARs having a two tier system in compliance with the ICAO Standard).
As a matter of interest, this is not the case in FARs where night VFR is permitted - they have a three tier system for day VFR, night VFR and IFR; there has been a proposal to amend the ICAO Annex 6 Part III text to introduce a three tier system - it is likely that JARs will follow eventually (it was already proposed in the draft JAR-OPS 0).
Jim
I think you have raised a valid point and you should bring it to Bob's attention; as was pointed out by Mars, flight at night has to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules and these are the rules.
This is typical of the law of unintended consequence of attempting to sidestep aound the problem of not permitting Night VFR - there is a similar one in JAR-OPS 3 where, if airspace at night is designated as IFR, all of the concomitant requirements for instruments and the autopilot apply (JARs having a two tier system in compliance with the ICAO Standard).
As a matter of interest, this is not the case in FARs where night VFR is permitted - they have a three tier system for day VFR, night VFR and IFR; there has been a proposal to amend the ICAO Annex 6 Part III text to introduce a three tier system - it is likely that JARs will follow eventually (it was already proposed in the draft JAR-OPS 0).
Jim
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And who is going to police this new limit? The only time it can be verified is if you are taking off from an airport with Met facilities.
And hands up all those who can tell the difference between 3K in-flight viz and 2750M viz?
And hands up all those who can tell the difference between 3K in-flight viz and 2750M viz?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,155
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
The Canadian rule is that you must have a Pilot Decision making course before being allowed to go down to half a mile vis (normality is one mile).
After listening to some of the people trying to get themselves and others into the Lombard rally last year (shows my age!), when it was down on the deck and clearly not flyable, I think it's a darn good idea, within the obvious limitations, like policing etc
"The least experienced press on, while the more experienced turn back to join the most experienced who didn't take off in the first place"
Phil
After listening to some of the people trying to get themselves and others into the Lombard rally last year (shows my age!), when it was down on the deck and clearly not flyable, I think it's a darn good idea, within the obvious limitations, like policing etc
"The least experienced press on, while the more experienced turn back to join the most experienced who didn't take off in the first place"
Phil
Steve,
As with all of these limits they are essentially for planning; once on a flight you have to be able to deal with an unplanned reduction in visibility.
The limits are there not for the purpose of prosecution but as an attempt to stop inexperienced pilots killing themselves - thus harming the industry.
Jim
As with all of these limits they are essentially for planning; once on a flight you have to be able to deal with an unplanned reduction in visibility.
The limits are there not for the purpose of prosecution but as an attempt to stop inexperienced pilots killing themselves - thus harming the industry.
Jim
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree wholeheartedly with JimL's comments here. Apart from the tragic and excessive loss of life, there are too many unnecessary accidents occurring that make dramatic headlines and unfairly erode public confidence in helicopters and the industry. The fact is that as machines they are extremely safe; their reputation though is heavily compromised by too many pilot-induced accidents. No, we don't know the cause yet I know, but "helicopter explodes in fireball" in Northumberland is yet another headline that does nothing to inspire confidence for potential passengers, even if unlikely to be weather related.
It is self-evident that too many mainly inexperienced pilots cannot be trusted to make their own safe judgements on weather. Of course it will be no easier to police than the current say 1500 ft over built up area rule, but at least it will serve as heavy guidance. As ST says, outside reported vis it will be harder to judge, but with the prevalence of GPS it's not difficult to learn and a good exercise anyway.
It is self-evident that too many mainly inexperienced pilots cannot be trusted to make their own safe judgements on weather. Of course it will be no easier to police than the current say 1500 ft over built up area rule, but at least it will serve as heavy guidance. As ST says, outside reported vis it will be harder to judge, but with the prevalence of GPS it's not difficult to learn and a good exercise anyway.