boscomantico wrote:
Again: according to current European rules (Part-NCO), there is no mandatory flightplanning paperwork to be carried on board. The only thing required is “details of the filed ATS flightplan”. Nothing more.
That may be technically but not practically true. E.g. you have prove that you have done fuel planning, W&B checks etc. That could be difficult without documentation.
boscomantico wrote:
1. the TAF has no meaning in the VFR, Part-NCO context. Only actual conditions are relevant.
Legally that may be the case, practically, not looking at the TAF throws away a very valid piece of information.
While the Metar Trend does indeed cover most VFR flights nicely (valid up to 2 hours) it is in reality a much more nowcasting oriented product. The aerodrome forecast is and remains the TAF and I will always look at those, also enroute. You may choose not to, but I wonder why.
boscomantico wrote:
Minimum ceilings only exist in CTRs, where these are 1500 feet AGL for VFR and 600 feet AGL for Special VFR.
Correct. SVFR is not available in quite a few places however.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
For example, under EASA can you fly to a destination with a 2000 BKN TAF?
If that destination has a CTR, there minimum there is 1500 ft, so the answer would be that the TAF which forecasts a 2000 ft bkn ceiling indicates a good possibility that you can fly there and remain within the 1500ft limit. I am not aware of any planning limit within Part NCO. Which does not mean that you can use one which suits your needs.
Aviathor wrote:
you could not depart on a VFR cross country unless the forecast ceiling on your route was lower than 2000 feet. That was called the “planning minima”. Once launched you only VFR minima distance from clouds and height over ground mattered. I think that was a sensible rule and stick to it still today if I fly VFR.
Was that by law?
As a personal planning limit, it is quite sensible indeed.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
The flight as originally planned was perfectly legal.
I would say it was indeed. I am not aware of any such restriction within Part NCO or local.
Rwy20 wrote:
Only “significant” changes have to be included in the rest of the TAF.
Correct.
Rwy20 wrote:
Of course, if you see the drop from BKN040 to BKN020 in the TAF, then you have reason to believe it.
Most of the times you won’t see this unless the meteorologist wanted to make a point in relation with another sigwx but technically it would be a violation of the TAF coding and is not done, because if you start doing it in some cases, people start to expect this information to be there in others too. It’s quite important that people do things the same way everywhere. The same criteria go for METAR trends btw, even though there are some more for that.
Peter wrote:
But asking to see a wx briefing is meaningless unless the “authority” is going to be demanding certain minima, obviously!
I think what they want to see is just if you have looked at the weather. I have been asked to produce my pre-flight planning package and they just looked whether there was an operational flight plan, some wx info and notams as well as the loadsheet. 4 hooks on their form.
boscomantico wrote:
It may merely ease things in case of a ramp check. But one could just as well state it is not a required document to be carried on board. the whole affair (the ramp check) might then take longer though…
Yes, it may well turn into a “now you prove you’ve done things right” exercise with weighing every item on the plane e.t.c. While there is no regular requirement to carry briefing papers, it certainly helps in such a case. I reckon it would even be sufficient if these can be presented on a Tablet or so as PDF.
I reckon it would even be sufficient if these can be presented on a Tablet or so as PDF.
Well of course!
may be technically but not practically true. E.g. you have prove that you have done fuel planning, W&B checks etc. That could be difficult without documentation.
You might have to or want to prove things in case of some litigation event, yes. But it’s not belonging to the required documents to be carried on board, so in a routine ramp check, nobody can ask you for any preflight planning documentation (beyond Part-NCO requirements) on the spot.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Was that by law?
Yes.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
technically it would be a violation of the TAF coding and is not done, because if you start doing it in some cases, people start to expect this information to be there in others too.
I recently spoke to a french meteorologist about this, and he said they don’t have central guidance on how much “extra” information to put in, so it’s up to the individual meteorologist what he wants to put in, as long as the minimum described above is met. I don’t agree that putting in extra information could do any harm (well maybe except in the TAF for LSZH Zurich which always beats the record for longest TAF in the world anyway). It certainly doesn’t violate ICAO Annex 3, which only defines the minimum.
It’s quite important that people do things the same way everywhere
That is quite a “german” way of thinking. 
Rwy20 wrote:
he said they don’t have central guidance on how much “extra” information to put in, so it’s up to the individual meteorologist what he wants to put in, as long as the minimum described above is met.
Interesting. The courses I saw about this (not doing TAF myself, as I lack the degree which WMO requires now) were quite explicit. But it does explain a lot.
Rwy20 wrote:
That is quite a “german” way of thinking.
Not really. The point is: A TAF (or METAR) is a standardized format message. It should be in the same format and contain the same information wherever it is issued. Otherwise, it can lead to quite dangerous situations, if one met agency includes non compulsory stuff and others don’t. The expectation in the forecast then simply becomes wrong.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Aviathor wrote:
you could not depart on a VFR cross country unless the forecast ceiling on your route was lower than 2000 feet. That was called the “planning minima”. Once launched you only VFR minima distance from clouds and height over ground mattered. I think that was a sensible rule and stick to it still today if I fly VFR.Was that by law?
As a personal planning limit, it is quite sensible indeed.
This was according to the aeronautical regulations valid in Norway until Aug 25th of this year (“Bestemmelser for sivil luftfart – Driftsbestemmelser” or BSL-D). But I was wrong about the 2000 feet – it was 1000 feet which to me is too low. In Norway I am not comfortable with anything less that 2000 feet for planning.
BSL D 3-1:
En VFR-flyging som planlegges utført under skyer mer enn 50 NM fra startplassen, må ikke påbegynnes hvis det fra de tilgjengelige værobservasjoner/-informasjoner langs ruten som skal flyges VFR, fremgår at sikten og skydekkehøyden vil være mindre enn 5 km og 1000 fot.
A VFR flight planned to be conducted below clouds to a destination further than 50 NM from the point of departure shall not be undertaken if the available weather observations (or information) on the route to be flown VFR indicate that the visibility and cloud base are lower than 5 km and 1000 feet. (my translation)
NCO.OP.160 now states:
The pilot-in-command shall only commence or continue a VFR flight if the latest available meteorological information indicates that the weather conditions along the route and at the intended destination at the estimated time of use will be at or above the applicable VFR operating minima.
Aviathor wrote:
This was according to the aeronautical regulations valid in Norway until Aug 25th of this year (“Bestemmelser for sivil luftfart – Driftsbestemmelser” or BSL-D).
It’s some time since you lived in Norway it seems. NCO has been valid for over 2 years already. However, BSL D 3-1 is still valid, but only for Annex II. LT should renew the whole of BSL D to make it fit with NCO, but the only thing they have renewed so far are some references in the text. Flying a microlight, experimental or vintage, the planning minima is still the law.
