VFR v. VMC v. IFR v. IMC and cloud spacing under VFR

Airborne_Again wrote:

And it is NOT VMC. The very definition of SVFR is visual flight in conditions “below VMC”, i.e. in IMC.

Not in the US (where the flight we are discussing has taken place). SVFR is used to arrive or depart an airport that doesn’t meet the VFR minima, BUT has at least one statute mile vis. FAA definition here.

Airborne_Again wrote:

tschnell wrote:

Nitpicking somewhat here, but this is not the common way these terms are being used: Imagine flying in bright sunshine 900 ft above an undercast in controlled airspace. You are not meeting VFR minima, but you are definitely not in IMC either.

Yes, you definitely are in IMC.

Nope, again, not in the US. You are VFR, BUT – depending on airspace – you are not meeting the cloud clearance minima. FAA minima here

ortac wrote:

Let’s say it’s a perfect summer day, unlimited visibility, FEW030. Are we serious going to call flight conditions “IMC” if we get slighty too near to one of those clouds.

Not, that’s someone flying illegally if under VFR.

But if they cloud base was 1200ft, and you’re flying in class C airspace at 900ft with 10km vis, then it’s IMC, because those conditions don’t allow you to meet the VMC cloud separation (and minimum height) rules. It’s not about what a pilot chooses to do, but about what the met conditions allow to be done legally.

If you are flying at 900ft below a 1200ft bkn layer in 10km vis, in class C, the you most defiantly in IMC conditions.

Not, that’s someone flying illegally if under VFR.

I better delete all pre-2006 VFR trip writeups from my website then

I could not remember the cloud spacing rules for more than 5 minutes, and that assumed I could enter the exam room, sit down, and answer the relevant question(s) within the first 4 minutes

In VMC in Classes D and E you need to provide your own separation from other (VFR) traffic.

There is a solution to that, which removes all traffic between you and about 7000ft below you

But, seriously, I have never seen other traffic in the French Class E (which could be present, non-TXP and non-radio) due to the base level being typically FL065, and I have never seen other traffic in Class D anywhere I have been (again at “appropriate” levels).

I would move these posts to a new thread but they got mixed up with the US rules, which is right since the Lancair was in US airspace.

RobertL18C wrote:

The UK is seeking a derogation but would need to speak with ATC to understand when they ask you to confirm VMC, do they mean to SERA standard, or the derogation that the UK seeks. My impression is that operating over London VFR you are expected to follow the SERA minima for Class D.

Article 1
The exemption from the requirements laid down in point SERA.5005(a) of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 923/2012, granted by United Kingdom and notified to the Commission and EASA on 20 April 2015, which allow VFR flights not to comply with the requirement to maintain appropriate distance from cloud, unless flying under the Special VFR procedure provided for in point SERA.5010 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 923/2012, are not permitted.

Article 2
This Decision is addressed to United Kingdom.

Done at Brussels, 30.11.2016

For the Commission
Violeta BULC
Member of the Commission

dublinpilot wrote:

Not, that’s someone flying illegally if under VFR.

Of course. But what if flying totally legally under IFR/SVFR. Would you report those conditions as IMC if asked? I would not, as regardless of the SERA definition it would be misleading to ATC and other traffic IMO.

ortac wrote:

Of course. But what if flying totally legally under IFR/SVFR. Would you report those conditions as IMC if asked? I would not, as regardless of the SERA definition it would be misleading to ATC and other traffic IMO.

According to SERA those conditions ARE IMC as they are below VMC. It’s textbook definition as per SERA. If I was asked “Are you in IMC”, I probably wouldn’t answer that question, and instead say that “I’m in good visibility clear of cloud at 900ft, below a 1200ft ceiling”. I appreciate your point that what the controller probably wants to know is if I can see where I’m going, but that doesn’t change what IMC or VMC means; it just means that the controller is incorrectly using the terms.

I better delete all pre-2006 VFR trip writeups from my website then

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make? You already know that there are minimum cloud separation requirements under VFR, and that they are set in law, and it’s illegal to break them. But you’ve openly, many times here, said that you’ve broken them on those early trips. So there is nothing new here and you’ve clearly not being hiding that. You already know those rules exist even if you can’t remember their letter.

We all know that people regularly fly less than the minimum distance from clouds, but I’ve never heard of anyone getting so much as a telling off about it.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make?

Only that practically nobody can remember the cloud spacing rules, and anyway it is virtually impossible to measure the distance. The only way to measure the distance vertically would be to touch the cloud, note the altitude, and then climb and then you know when you are 1000ft above. I have been flying IFR for 11 years and still can’t estimate my vertical cloud spacing. I can see the reason for the 1000ft min (to help spot IFR traffic climbing up through the cloud, as it pops up) but it isn’t even remotely possible to comply with it or to enforce it.

Peter wrote:

Only that practically nobody can remember the cloud spacing rules

That’s what is called “selective memory”, i.e you remember only what you want