The rules have changed since SERA also, don’t remember what exactly. The rationale for with surface in sight is of course due to low visibility, and not ending up in IMC. One has to wonder about VFR on top and cover etc with EASA regs. Where are these things found?
LeSving wrote:
Where are these things found?
It’s in table S5-1 of
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 923/2012
of 26 September 2012
laying down the common rules of the air…
(…which we all learned by heart on 4 December 2014).
Is it illegal?
If VFR, I think one might struggle to persuade magistrates that was “clear of cloud”.
If IFR, that might well be an appropriate semi-circular level.
British courts do regularly convict on the evidence of an accused’s own video or photo evidence, but I see no evidence that those are British clouds.
I see no evidence that those are British clouds.
A very good point; a movie has no EXIF. Loads of photos do however… it’s hilarious what one finds sometimes…
Jacko wrote:
It’s in table S5-1 of
No, that is not it. I know that table, but it doesn’t have any cloud cover criteria. For instance, what is considered to be the cloud cover for VFR on top ? The old national regulations said that 4/8 cover on start and landing, and VFR conditions below the cover en route. SERA does not mention VFR on top, but it is obviously allowed above 3k + 1k vertical distance from the cover. How much of the ground must you be able to see when going through the layer? What exactly does “have surface in sight” actually mean? Obviously it must be more than a pin hole, but also less than clear blue sky.
Never mind, found it. It’s the definition of ceiling (cloud covering more than 4/8 of the sky).
When the UK had the “sight of surface” requirement for VFR, the cloud cover was never defined.
There was obviously speculation on it but no law ever defined it.
Nobody was ever busted for it, AFAIK.
Obviously it must be more than a pin hole, but also less than clear blue sky.
Not necessarily; this is sufficient
The last one I didn’t take, but the others could have been VFR flights (were IFR actually).
British courts do regularly convict on the evidence of an accused’s own video or photo evidence, but I see no evidence that those are British clouds.
And I see no evidence that he wasn’t flying IFR at the time. No need for a flight plan or radio comms to fly IFR in the UK.
dublinpilot wrote:
No need for a flight plan or radio comms to fly IFR in the UK.
That is according to SERA everywhere. But, you must not have filed a VFR FP up front, and you must not fly in advisory airspace, meaning you can only do that in G with no filed FP. You must also cruise at the designated IFR alts. You are still required to avoid colliding with others though.
Peter wrote:
When the UK had the “sight of surface” requirement for VFR, the cloud cover was never defined.
Looking a bit closer, I still cannot find any clear definition for this in SERA. The ceiling is when the cover is larger than 4/8, but the table does not use the word ceiling at any place. Ceiling is used later when taking off and landing from a controlled airfield.
Below 3k AMSL/1k AGL I must be clear of clouds and with the surface in sight. Above 3k/1k I must 1.5 km horizontally and 1k feet vertically away from clouds. This means if the cloud layer is from 2.5 to 3 k, I only need a tiny little hole. If the layer is from 3 to 3.5 I would need a hole that at least has a diameter of 3 km.
I dont approve of this truly dreadful behaviour, after all it might be you popping out of the cloudbase. 
LeSving wrote:
If the layer is from 3 to 3.5 I would need a hole that at least has a diameter of 3 km.
In Germany, a well-known local weather phenomenon ensures that holes of this precise size are always available, from the MRVA down to the surface.
Cobalt wrote:
In Germany, a well-known local weather phenomenon ensures that holes of this precise size are always available, from the MRVA down to the surface
I have noticed one at Egelsbach
