SERA - Is your country prepared?

Things have been very silent in Sweden. The Swedish Transport Authority promised to publish their implementation of SERA on September 1, but that has been postponed to “the end of October”. There has also been very little discussion in aviation-related magazines and Swedish GA bulletin boards. At least from what I’ve seen.

This is a bit strange as there will be a major difference regarding night VFR. Sweden today apply the same minimum heights for day and night VFR, but with SERA there will be IFR-like minimum heights.

November 13 is set here in Norway. All rules and regulations are published, including lots of exemptions.

This is a bit strange as there will be a major difference regarding night VFR. Sweden today apply the same minimum heights for day and night VFR, but with SERA there will be IFR-like minimum heights.

Looks like the same will happen in Norway, but – when reading carefully I don’t think it does ?? but this is extremely fuzzy.

(5) except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority,
a VFR flight at night shall be flown at a level which is not below the minimum flight altitude established by the
State whose territory is overflown, or, where no such minimum flight altitude has been established:
(i) over high terrain or in mountainous areas, at a level which is at least 600 m (2 000 ft) above the highest
obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft;
(ii) elsewhere than as specified in i), at a level which is at least 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle
located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft.

The list of exceptions say that directives in SERA 5005.c shall be followed. The directive say that the minimum flight altitude shall be followed, and this is 500 feet (unless they mean a special altitude at night, but it doesn’t say that). It also includes these (5)(i) and (5)(ii) parts, which shall not be followed when a minimum flight altitude exists. LT has to clarify this.

Which list of exception and directive are you referring to?

I feel that SERA 5005 is quite clear on this. I any case, the Swedish Transport Authority has said that they will authorise night VFR to the (possibly) lower altitude of 1000 (2000) feet above the highest obstacle located within 5 km of the estimated position of the aircraft. This is a slight improvement, but I doubt if it matters much in practise.

Anyway — how many cases have there been of night VFR colliding with obstacles during the en-route phase of flight? These substantially increased minimum altitudes — from 500 to typically 1500 ft AGL will only serve to increase the risk of the aircraft inadvertently entering IMC.

Sweden today has planning weather minima for cross-country night VFR calling for at least a 2000 ft ceiling. Flying at 1000 ft AGL, say, with a forecast 2000 ft cloudbase will give a miminal risk of inadvertently entering cloud. Now we will have to fly much closer to the ceiling — or increase the ceiling minima.

How can you say it is clear? What is (i) and (ii) actually supposed to mean in relation to the allowed minimum altitude? “high terrain” and “mountainous areas” isn’t even defined, what exactly are those two terms actually supposed to mean? “Obstacle” is defined, and what happens when there are no obstacles?

I take this to mean the minimum altitude is 500 feet – period. Or by some tiny amount of creativity it will mean 500 feet, unless (i) and (ii) are also supposed to be taken into account, because of how the exception is written. In that case (ii) is clear, while (i) is to me meaningless.

Which list of exception and directive are you referring to?

You can find it all in the pdf’s on the right. The exceptions (for Norway) are listed in the upper most one.

The exceptions (for Norway) are listed in the upper most one.

What’s the point in implementing common rules and then starting to publish national exceptions right away? We could have left everything as it was before then…

What’s the point in implementing common rules and then starting to publish national exceptions right away? We could have left everything as it was before then…

I know. But I’m glad it’s possible. Otherwise I would not have been allowed to train landing in the fields below 500 feet, not allowed to fly gliders at 150 feet, no G* airspace with TIA and TIZ.

LeSving,

Of course you are supposed to take SERA.5005(c) (i) and (ii) into account — that’s why they are written! The Norwegian list of exception you are referring to is explicit: “Flyging etter de visuelle flygeregler er tillatt om natten. Vilkår beskrevet i SERA.5005(c) skal følges.” (Flight according to visual flight rules is permitted at night. Conditions described in SERA.5005(c) shall be followed.)

The only way I can come to your conclusion is if Norwegian national legislation somewhere says that the VFR minimum altitude is 500 ft AGL and you understand that to be a “minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown”. Obviously I don’t know that, since I don’t live in Norway. Anyway, Swedish national legislation has no rules about minimum altitudes — it only says that the Swedish Transport Authority determines the rules and that rules should be based on the international rules.

Regarding “high terrain”, you’re right that it is not defined. It is also not defined in Annex 2, which surprised me. The exact same phrasing is used today for IFR minimum altitudes. In that context, high terrain is generally taken to start above 6000 ft MSL, but I don’t know the source for that. (Swedish rules are in fact explicit about this.)

…and the terrain is an obstacle.

The only way I can come to your conclusion is if Norwegian national legislation somewhere says that the VFR minimum altitude is 500 ft AGL and you understand that to be a “minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown”

SERA itself says 500 ft is the minimum, and from November 13 this is the only legislation available about this. I think, unless we have several legislation for minimum height, which would be rather strange, and I can’t remember anything else except the current BSL F 1-1 which will be replaced by SERA as a new BSL F 1-1.

SERA 5005
(f) Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight
shall not be flown:
(1) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons at a height less
than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;
(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water, or 150 m
(500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m (500 ft) from the aircraft.

So I guess 500 ft it is.

(f) is the general rule and for night VFR (c)5(i)/(ii) should be applied instead. I really can see no other reasonable interpretation of the rules. If (f) should be applied to night VFR as well, then what’s the point of even including (c)5(i)/(ii)??