I’ve read through the google translate part of this and it is really an interesting if strange set of decisions. From how it reads he would have been better low level vfr scud running (from a fine perspective obviously not a flight safety perspective) Although the other VFR pilots made it through so the weather perhaps was not as bad as the weather forecast expected.
My reading there is that the authorities will attempt to find a stick to beat you with if they feel you’ve not done as they wanted (The radio chap saying that you couldn’t file pop up ifr in the air).
The difficulty as I think clearly pointed out repeatedly is getting to the known part of icing. Expected is not known.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Forecast said they had to expect IMC. They encountered IMC. They had no plan to avoid it. That’s illegal if you fly VFR.
Maybe that is different they planned VFR for slots and then flew IFR
What if they flew VFR (in IMC presumably) and landed visually (Synt-Vision or GPS OBS)?
What if they declared VFR panpan/mayday instead of getting “pop-up IFR”?
Do you think there is a legal basis to enforce the fine on them?
Off_Field wrote:
Getting fined for such a decision seems absolutely crazy.
I agree it’s crazy, it should be fair for someone playing “slot system” but saying you can’t switch VFR to IFR (or change IFR level/route/plans) is just nonesense and fully disconnected from reality
Or maybe it’s different Gremany, you are not supposed to “pick pop-up IFR” when you wish it? maybe you have to declare panpan or mayday? or land VFR and takeoff IFR again? in UK, to “pop_up IFR” OCAS you can just switch in your head, to “pop_up IFR” in Class D you just ask, to get “pop_up IFR” in Class A it’s quasi impossible
Of course assuming pilot is rated & aicraft is equipped…
Off_Field wrote:
Expected is not known.
That’s exactly why EASA was more specific in the document quoted in this thread that you need FIKI if you have to expect icing and have no plan to avoid it.
It’s more on the philosophical side of the discussion if there is anything you can “know” before it actually happens. But following this line of reasoning, “flight into know icing” is an oxymoron because before you are in it you never know and when you are already in it you can no longer fly into it …
Ibra wrote:
Maybe that is different they planned VFR for slots and then flew IFR
The “R” is for rules. They did not fly IFR.
What if they flew VFR (in IMC presumably) and landed visually (Synt-Vision or GPS OBS)?
Illegal because they could not maintain required cloud clearance for VFR – but probably no-one would have noticed. It’s just really crazy because on such a visual approach the controller can easily tell them “hold north of runway @1000ft” which is not a wise idea over a city in IMC which you can’t admit…
What if they declared VFR panpan/mayday instead of getting “pop-up IFR”?
Would have helped them to get the clearance faster / without discussions but wouldn’t change the fine. They have not been fined for changing flight rules but for commencing a VFR flight in weather conditions that make it very unlikely that they can fly it as planned without having a plan for actually conducting the plan. So the fine is on lack of diligence in flight planning, not on what they did in the air!
Do you think there is a legal basis to enforce the fine on them?
There absolutely is – they had to pay the fine.Ibra wrote:
Or maybe it’s different Gremany, you are not supposed to “pick pop-up IFR” when you wish it? maybe you have to declare panpan or mayday? or land VFR and takeoff IFR again? in UK, to “pop_up IFR” OCAS you can just switch in your head, to “pop_up IFR” in Class D you just ask, to get “pop_up IFR” in Class A it’s quasi impossible
It is absolutely possible – and legal – to air file IFR flight plan and fly it. If you politely ask, the controller is typically very open to help you. But that was not the case here. The pilots demanded to switch to IFR immediately because they can’t stay VMC. Thats a completely different case.
To compare to UK: Just imagine you are calling ATC own a VFR flight 2 NM short of a class A airspace heading directly towards it at 150kt telling them “I need to fly straight ahead and you must give me an IFR clearance for that now”. Are you seriously telling me you won’t be prosecuted for that?
Malibuflyer wrote:
To compare to UK: Just imagine you are calling ATC own a VFR flight 2 NM short of a class A airspace heading directly towards it at 150kt telling them “I need to fly straight ahead and you must give me an IFR clearance for that now”. Are you seriously telling me you won’t be prosecuted for that?
Yes indeed you will get an airspace bust (not a fine), it has nothing to do with your surrounding weather or your flight rules !
Ibra wrote:
Yes indeed you will get an airspace bust (not a fine),
Why should they prosecute you with an airspace bust if you air-filed a flight plan to fly IFR straight through this class A? Or are even those great British authorities sometimes just denying the pilot their right to air file and fly wherever they want IFR??? (Just kidding but at the core it’s the same what happened here…)
But at one point you are spot on: It’s a shame that the only sanction German authorities have is a fine (and as ultima ratio revoking your license). In many cases a training course would be a much more adequate mean of prosecution than just taking money – but again, I’ve heard that British pilots don’t appreciate these gasco courses either…
Malibuflyer wrote:
They have not been fined for changing flight rules but for commencing a VFR flight in weather conditions that make it very unlikely that they can fly it as planned without having a plan for actually conducting the plan.
But two other aircraft doing the same flight did go VFR and made it in as I understand it. So it was possible to fly the flight VFR.
Malibuflyer wrote:
In many cases a training course would be a much more adequate mean of prosecution than just taking money
Depends who you talk to, I wish there is a boxes pay fine: yes/no, go gasco: yes/no, lose points: yes/no 
DVLA does this for car driving at least on the first letters
Off_Field wrote:
But two other aircraft doing the same flight did go VFR and made it in as I understand it. So it was possible to fly the flight VFR.
All we know is that they didn’t ask for an IFR clearance. Whether or not they actually adhered to Visual Flight Rules the whole time is a different question. The PuF discussion rather strongly hinted that they did not and that it was crazy that they didn’t get fined while the pilots who asked for an IFR clearance did.
