Poor weather options
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone care to clarify
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
And, could you legitamatly say you're VMC on an IFR flight, when asked by ATC to report your in-flight conditions, obviously in a suitably equiped helicopter and with the required ratings, when you're above an ovc layer whilst below 3000 with viz >1.5km and clear of cloud, BUT, with the surface possibly maybe in sight, somewhere on the horizon?
This is something that often comes up for discussion where I work. My personal view is, yes, within reason, as long as you're not "cloud surfing" so as to make seeing and avoiding another aircraft problematic. I'd be interested to hear any views, incl ATCs. Hopefully this isn't too much of thread creep for some!
Cheers, MS
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
And, could you legitamatly say you're VMC on an IFR flight, when asked by ATC to report your in-flight conditions, obviously in a suitably equiped helicopter and with the required ratings, when you're above an ovc layer whilst below 3000 with viz >1.5km and clear of cloud, BUT, with the surface possibly maybe in sight, somewhere on the horizon?
This is something that often comes up for discussion where I work. My personal view is, yes, within reason, as long as you're not "cloud surfing" so as to make seeing and avoiding another aircraft problematic. I'd be interested to hear any views, incl ATCs. Hopefully this isn't too much of thread creep for some!
Cheers, MS
MINSelf
It is of course quite possible to be VFR without the surface in sight by compliance with rule 27(2)b or 28(2), if your licence privileges allow you to be. Perhaps doesn't answer your question but does open a whole other can of worms.
The UK definition of IMC is itself interesting as its got naff all to do with being in cloud.
I say this from a rules point of view and NOT A SAFETY ONE before anyone jumps on me.
GS
It is of course quite possible to be VFR without the surface in sight by compliance with rule 27(2)b or 28(2), if your licence privileges allow you to be. Perhaps doesn't answer your question but does open a whole other can of worms.
The UK definition of IMC is itself interesting as its got naff all to do with being in cloud.
I say this from a rules point of view and NOT A SAFETY ONE before anyone jumps on me.
GS
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be missing something but I don't think either of your paras apply? As I'm talking about helicopters flying below 3000', who's flight is covered but a subsequent para. My question mainly revolves around the statement of "With the surface in sight" which for me is vague, as I haven't been able to find it's definition yet.
The definition of ' with the surface in sight' is in the ANO interpretations article, number 255
My musings about VFR on top I just threw in to see what others had to say about the VFR rules, maybe shouldn't have addressed them at you.
But I think that the paras referred to may or may not apply in the <3000ft case and that depends on whether the legal interpretation of 28(5) is with my emboldening.
So if <3000ft AMSL without the surface in sight it looks like para 2 applies.
Which implies at say 2000ft VMC on top of a cloud top layer at 500ft AMSL you can be VFR in 5km vis.
I don't think thats what they meant to say, but this what it seems to say, I have written to the CAA in the last few days requesting clarification.
Above 3000ft like I said comply with 28(2) and your licence privileges.
‘With the surface in sight’ means with the flight crew being able to see sufficient surface
features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in a desired
attitude without reference to any flight instrument and ‘when the surface is not in sight’ is to
be construed accordingly.
features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in a desired
attitude without reference to any flight instrument and ‘when the surface is not in sight’ is to
be construed accordingly.
But I think that the paras referred to may or may not apply in the <3000ft case and that depends on whether the legal interpretation of 28(5) is with my emboldening.
Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which:
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) flies at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) flies at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.
Which implies at say 2000ft VMC on top of a cloud top layer at 500ft AMSL you can be VFR in 5km vis.
I don't think thats what they meant to say, but this what it seems to say, I have written to the CAA in the last few days requesting clarification.
Above 3000ft like I said comply with 28(2) and your licence privileges.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question mainly revolves around the statement of "With the surface in sight" which for me is vague, as I haven't been able to find it's definition yet.
Now read the rest of it!!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks for finding the definition.
But, wouldn't you still need to be "in sight of the surface"? If flying a helicopter below 3000, viz >1.5km, clear of clouds and with the surface in sight. In your example you've said you're at 2000 and VMC above a layer, but, out of sight of the surface, so, regardless of the forward visibility you cannot be VMC? Be it flying by IFR or VFR. As in my current operation we are almost always IFR, but, sometimes asked to state our in-flight conditions.
Fat bloke very drole!
But, wouldn't you still need to be "in sight of the surface"? If flying a helicopter below 3000, viz >1.5km, clear of clouds and with the surface in sight. In your example you've said you're at 2000 and VMC above a layer, but, out of sight of the surface, so, regardless of the forward visibility you cannot be VMC? Be it flying by IFR or VFR. As in my current operation we are almost always IFR, but, sometimes asked to state our in-flight conditions.
Fat bloke very drole!
Perhaps VMC was a poor choice of a descriptor on my part, assume unlimited viz and at least 1000ft seperation vertically above a flat overcast layer.
The problem we have in the uk with our definitions is that whilst we use the argument of VMC and IMC being conditions and VFR and IFR being rules, the definitions blur things slightly(!!) because VMC and IMC are related directly to flying in conditions accordant with the visual flight rules or not. The Visual flight rules amounting to not a lot more than some specified distances from cloud and in flight visibility.
So if you are too close to cloud but in unlimited vis and not in accordance with the helicopter exceptions to the VFR rules you are techincally IMC, is it any wonder confusion ensues about what the rules mean and why so many FIs teach rule 28(5) in its entirety as the only rules that apply to helicopters VFR, they know no better because the guy who taught them knew no better.
Crab
Sorry Major thread Creep, my fault I believe.
The problem we have in the uk with our definitions is that whilst we use the argument of VMC and IMC being conditions and VFR and IFR being rules, the definitions blur things slightly(!!) because VMC and IMC are related directly to flying in conditions accordant with the visual flight rules or not. The Visual flight rules amounting to not a lot more than some specified distances from cloud and in flight visibility.
So if you are too close to cloud but in unlimited vis and not in accordance with the helicopter exceptions to the VFR rules you are techincally IMC, is it any wonder confusion ensues about what the rules mean and why so many FIs teach rule 28(5) in its entirety as the only rules that apply to helicopters VFR, they know no better because the guy who taught them knew no better.
Crab
Sorry Major thread Creep, my fault I believe.
Last edited by VeeAny; 23rd Mar 2010 at 15:39. Reason: change VMC to IMC
Thread Starter
Veeany - no problem - I think any discussion that clarifies (or tries to) the messy legislation that exists has got to be a good thing.
In fact even chop jock's wind up has been useful because I know there are pilots out there who really believe what he said about grovelling around in poor weather being OK - hopefully the weight of argument against on this thread should persuade them otherwise and we might avoid more CFIT and IIMC accidents.
212 man's view on some elements within the GA market reflects not only my experience but also the accident stats and the findings of many AAIB investigations.
The bottom line for all those guys out there is - if you don't have a reversion to IFR available, don't grovel around in poor weather.
In fact even chop jock's wind up has been useful because I know there are pilots out there who really believe what he said about grovelling around in poor weather being OK - hopefully the weight of argument against on this thread should persuade them otherwise and we might avoid more CFIT and IIMC accidents.
212 man's view on some elements within the GA market reflects not only my experience but also the accident stats and the findings of many AAIB investigations.
The bottom line for all those guys out there is - if you don't have a reversion to IFR available, don't grovel around in poor weather.
I would but sadly I promised my life away to an AAIB man to get it, and promised him even more for being able to give it to you !
It would be useful but I cannot break my word to him.
What Paco refers to is one of the photos used at the safety evenings and I believe ats Pacos CRM courses of a 206 flying past an accident site in about 100m vis at about 15ft AGL, oblivious to the fact that sadly four people had lost their lives in a poor visibility related accident the night before and the AAIB were standing in the field at the start of the investigation.
It is a very powerful photo, but sadly the release I have for it is on the understanding it and the others they provide me NEVER get on the internet.
It would be useful but I cannot break my word to him.
What Paco refers to is one of the photos used at the safety evenings and I believe ats Pacos CRM courses of a 206 flying past an accident site in about 100m vis at about 15ft AGL, oblivious to the fact that sadly four people had lost their lives in a poor visibility related accident the night before and the AAIB were standing in the field at the start of the investigation.
It is a very powerful photo, but sadly the release I have for it is on the understanding it and the others they provide me NEVER get on the internet.
Just had a very prompt and incisive reply to my Question about this from the CAA, I will not post it here as it did not ask his permission to do and asked the Q before we started on this.
It does confirm my example given above as correct, provided your licence privileges allow you to be out of sight of the surface then 27(2)b or 28(2) can apply regardless of whether above or below 3000ft.
The reason I thought it was not their intention to make it the way I interpret it is that the explanatory material associated with it makes it sound like if <3000ft AMSL there is only one set of rules, and that it turns out was not what the writer meant as he was focussing on the new rules when he wrote it.
Regardless of whether its legal I still think it foolhardy in an unstabilised helicopter, if you cannot get below without going through cloud which would then not be VFR or VMC (no matter where your definition comes from), whilst the likelihood of an engine failure is statistically small whether you should do it I will leave for the subject of further debate.
It does confirm my example given above as correct, provided your licence privileges allow you to be out of sight of the surface then 27(2)b or 28(2) can apply regardless of whether above or below 3000ft.
The reason I thought it was not their intention to make it the way I interpret it is that the explanatory material associated with it makes it sound like if <3000ft AMSL there is only one set of rules, and that it turns out was not what the writer meant as he was focussing on the new rules when he wrote it.
Regardless of whether its legal I still think it foolhardy in an unstabilised helicopter, if you cannot get below without going through cloud which would then not be VFR or VMC (no matter where your definition comes from), whilst the likelihood of an engine failure is statistically small whether you should do it I will leave for the subject of further debate.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, sensible hat back on now (not a wind up).
You find that you have allowed yourself to get in the situation as described by original post,(piston jockey grovelling along the coast at 180 feet in BR , vis 1500m). Obviously you should not be there but what to do next? Go back? The turn itself could disorientate you and have you enough fuel to go back? Cliff tops are in cloud so can't land on them, should you continue cautiously on in the hope the vis will not get worse? Or perhaps continue on to a valley where a landing can be made.?
If Swansea was O/C and Pembrey was 1500m, and you can see where you are going, what would you do? Obviously fly low and slow and remain in sight of the surface. Perhaps being in radio contact with your destination and having been re assured about the vis the decision might be to continue to destination.
What about if, and when you arrive, the vis has fallen to below 1500m, would you then be prosecuted? Then when you land think how stupid you were attempting such a flight in the first place.
You find that you have allowed yourself to get in the situation as described by original post,(piston jockey grovelling along the coast at 180 feet in BR , vis 1500m). Obviously you should not be there but what to do next? Go back? The turn itself could disorientate you and have you enough fuel to go back? Cliff tops are in cloud so can't land on them, should you continue cautiously on in the hope the vis will not get worse? Or perhaps continue on to a valley where a landing can be made.?
If Swansea was O/C and Pembrey was 1500m, and you can see where you are going, what would you do? Obviously fly low and slow and remain in sight of the surface. Perhaps being in radio contact with your destination and having been re assured about the vis the decision might be to continue to destination.
What about if, and when you arrive, the vis has fallen to below 1500m, would you then be prosecuted? Then when you land think how stupid you were attempting such a flight in the first place.
Last edited by chopjock; 24th Mar 2010 at 16:47. Reason: typo
Chopjock I seem to remember something from the early days of flight training it goes something like
As part of a team looking at UK accidents in recent years in some detail one of the biggest things we have noticed is that mission planning is usually lacking in a lot of poor weather / degraded visibility accidents (and quite a few others).
My opinion on some of your points
You find that you have allowed yourself to get in the situation: Don't; Make a positive decision to not go there in the first place, this kind of weather is very rarely a surprise, stay on the ground or have an alternate plan in place BEFORE YOU EVEN GET AIRBORNE.
The turn itself could disorientate you and have we enough fuel to go back?
Why are you there in the first place with insufficient fuel, particiularly when the weather is rubbish , know when the point of no return is, not to your base perhaps but to a point of safe landing. If the wx is that bad that you can lose visual reference in the turn you really shouldn't have been there, see point 1.
Cliff tops are in cloud so can't land on them, should you continue cautiously on in the hope the vis will not get worse?
See above, mission planniing and why did you continue when you passed the point that cliff tops where in the cloud ? Yes the cloud base can come down but at the point where you can no longer continue and have a get out, land or turn back. See my earlier point about hoping and praying.
What about if, and when you arrive, the vis has fallen to below 1500m ?
The CAA man formerly responsible for prosecuting GA helicopter pilots came along to a safety evening, and whilst you can hardly take my word as gospel his attitude was if the wx was forecast to be below the legal limit and you went anyway they may well seek to prosecute you, however if it was not and you encountered it enroute they probably would not, I doubt however they would be overly amused if you met obviously rubbsih weather and carried on in what was cleary below limits, particularly if anyone was injured, losing control would hardly be a great defence in court (not that I know anything about the law).
My opinions only.
GS
Hoping and praying should not be confused with pre-flight planning.
My opinion on some of your points
You find that you have allowed yourself to get in the situation: Don't; Make a positive decision to not go there in the first place, this kind of weather is very rarely a surprise, stay on the ground or have an alternate plan in place BEFORE YOU EVEN GET AIRBORNE.
The turn itself could disorientate you and have we enough fuel to go back?
Why are you there in the first place with insufficient fuel, particiularly when the weather is rubbish , know when the point of no return is, not to your base perhaps but to a point of safe landing. If the wx is that bad that you can lose visual reference in the turn you really shouldn't have been there, see point 1.
Cliff tops are in cloud so can't land on them, should you continue cautiously on in the hope the vis will not get worse?
See above, mission planniing and why did you continue when you passed the point that cliff tops where in the cloud ? Yes the cloud base can come down but at the point where you can no longer continue and have a get out, land or turn back. See my earlier point about hoping and praying.
What about if, and when you arrive, the vis has fallen to below 1500m ?
The CAA man formerly responsible for prosecuting GA helicopter pilots came along to a safety evening, and whilst you can hardly take my word as gospel his attitude was if the wx was forecast to be below the legal limit and you went anyway they may well seek to prosecute you, however if it was not and you encountered it enroute they probably would not, I doubt however they would be overly amused if you met obviously rubbsih weather and carried on in what was cleary below limits, particularly if anyone was injured, losing control would hardly be a great defence in court (not that I know anything about the law).
My opinions only.
GS
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Where my blades stop turning
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me, Chopjock, like myself, likes to play the Devils advocate, it p..ses people off, but has created a great discussion on bad weather op's, if he didn't play his part, it would have been one sided and I am sure wouldn't have had the same effect on the inexperienced pilots out there that may be reading it.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VeeAny;
On my office wall I have a formal caution from the CAA for a breach of Rule 21. (Basically I infringed Heathrow by 700 m at the north west corner of the zone) I flew into un-forecast IMC and medium icing and clipped the zone trying to escape from the weather, while at the same time trying to deal with a passenger who suddenly started complaining of chest pains and shortage of breath. I didn't even realise I had infringed until I was on the ground and got the "call this number message".
Enforcements pursued me relentlessly for some months and eventually, amid great ceremony I received my caution. Despite all the mitigation they kept going, and knew that if it went to court I was bang to rights, yes I had infringed, so was guilty and they would have got a nice guilty verdict and probably costs awarded.
I would advise anyone who busts a limit en-route due to unforecast weather to be very careful what they say to anyone in an official position.
The enforcements guy at least had the decency to smile when my colleagues arranged a prisoners escort to the desk where I had to sign a piece of paper which leaves a black mark on my CAA record for the rest of my proffesional flying career.
SND
On my office wall I have a formal caution from the CAA for a breach of Rule 21. (Basically I infringed Heathrow by 700 m at the north west corner of the zone) I flew into un-forecast IMC and medium icing and clipped the zone trying to escape from the weather, while at the same time trying to deal with a passenger who suddenly started complaining of chest pains and shortage of breath. I didn't even realise I had infringed until I was on the ground and got the "call this number message".
Enforcements pursued me relentlessly for some months and eventually, amid great ceremony I received my caution. Despite all the mitigation they kept going, and knew that if it went to court I was bang to rights, yes I had infringed, so was guilty and they would have got a nice guilty verdict and probably costs awarded.
I would advise anyone who busts a limit en-route due to unforecast weather to be very careful what they say to anyone in an official position.
The enforcements guy at least had the decency to smile when my colleagues arranged a prisoners escort to the desk where I had to sign a piece of paper which leaves a black mark on my CAA record for the rest of my proffesional flying career.
SND
SND
Very, very wise words.
The man I am talking about was not an A.R.E guy he was Flight ops GA, and they seem to come to that dept. for advice when deciding who to do.
I have a friend who was being pursued for an airspace infringement, despite having had permission to operate where he was prior to a controller change.
To be clear the scenarios I paint above are for someone who does not have the IMC option, it is clearly much easier to meet unforecast nastiness if you are already in it.
GS
Very, very wise words.
The man I am talking about was not an A.R.E guy he was Flight ops GA, and they seem to come to that dept. for advice when deciding who to do.
I have a friend who was being pursued for an airspace infringement, despite having had permission to operate where he was prior to a controller change.
To be clear the scenarios I paint above are for someone who does not have the IMC option, it is clearly much easier to meet unforecast nastiness if you are already in it.
GS