Cobalt wrote:
you can also take off from a licenced airfield outside the licencing conditions
I recall inquiring about the case of a licensed runway when they got some “cheap lights” installed, the runway was never licensed by CAA for night flight but they got it open at night as unlicensed runway, the only condition was “no night training flights and AG or RFES must be present”, you submit an out of hours form and here you go NVFR (or N-IFR if you wish)
Cobalt wrote:
Neither of the two can pinpoint to an exact regulation which clarifies where that boundary is
That I agree but the practical test is can you do this “flight path” in sunny days legally in a given place? yes, you can replay the same thing in clouds legally 
To fly straight-in departure & arrival in clouds, you should first get permission (e.g. neighbors residents, other pilots, land owner, national authority…) to do these legally in sunny days, if not you are left with flying published circuits, departure & arrival in clouds or in-sight of ground, both are legal as well as far as the rules are concerned
Assuming visibility >1.5km, can anyone point me the EU/National reg that prevents flying published circuits fully in clouds or with ground in sight at 50ft agl? before anyone gets excited about risks of using iPad/GPS, I was talking about using dead-recon on stop watch & compass (other than the “reckless” clause in SERA)
Can one depart from/land at a VFR only airfield located in and around airspace G, when visibility is 1500m or more?
Could one “self cancel” IFR shortly before such field?
Could one “self join” IFR shortly after departing such field?
I believe yes…
The exact definition when a VFR departure is complete after take off, and when at the earliest time one could “self join” IFR probably doesn’t exist.
This is country dependent. In the UK it probably just means there is no published IAP. So it comes down to what ATC allows you to do. CAS airfields (Class D) have operating minima. Class G ones, depends on whether ATC or not. ATC won’t allow you to do certain things. But if A/G or AFIS or private strip, it means nothing except no IAP is published, and you can do DIY approaches etc.
But if A/G or AFIS or private strip, it means nothing except no IAP is published, and you can do DIY approaches
I am sure you know things better,
- An AFIS in UK does control ground for taxi but not the runway or the air, so in theory can can refuse taxi to takeoff
- An AG controls nothing
AFIS/AG can’t refuse landing/takeoff due to weather conditions (it’s clearly written in ANO/AIP), also it’s PIC who decides on weather conditions and flight rules in Golf for inside & outside ATZ (everything is pilot interpreted for landing/takeoff in absence of ATC/ATIS, since where one heard an official visibility & ceiling from AFIS/AG?), however, both can refuse landing/takeoff on behalf of owner permission (again it’s written in the law)
Since ATZ Rule11 introduction and approval of “6 per day GPS IAP” by AFIS, things could have changed a bit in terms but deep inside it’s the same thing the new approved RNP are still flown on “Basic Service” (funnily 90% of people who fly them are not even aware of this ), so nothing different than the old days but now IAP minima are legally binding if it’s an instrument runway (as per ANO) except there is no RVR/METAR/ATIS, so good luck !
PS: I had few experiences for both landing & takeoff, away from home base it seems to depends on the place you are visiting, I even one end up with AFIS doing an MOR to CAA and me doing another one, I had to send all my papers & planing packs (I never heard anything back), as it turns out after digging the topic on “roles & responsibilities”, I am way more convinced it’s legal way than before…
Cobalt wrote:
Neither of the two can pinpoint to an exact regulation which clarifies where that boundary is; it is (so far) all interpretation of other regs and guessing the “intent”.
I think you got the problem pinpointed very exactly.
The reaction to this accident has resulted into a discussion which shows clearly that depending in which country you are, opinions about what is legal and what is not differ diametrically.
People who fly in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and some are aghast at the idea, that IFR without clearance and without declared procedures e.t.c. should be possible.
Brits and others are aghast at the idea that it’s not.
EASA sais pretty much that it is.
But it looks like that some EASA Memberstate either never grasped the concept or keep it quiet or trying to circumnavigate it back to their “old ways” by adding preconditions such as MRVA and others.
So the fact of the matter is what @Cobalt sais: There is a huge confusion about what is actually allowed and what is not and there is no clear line which allows the same things over all of EASA. That in itself is a contradiction to the whole purpose of EASA.
If it was clear, we would not be arguing in 4 or 5 threads about this accident.
I am at a loss what the solution to this is. Do we have to wait how national courts are taking national decisions based on accidents or reported pilot violations? Actually, that would be the worst what could happen, because it would further strenghten local rules over general EASA ruling.
So not unlike in the EU in general, there are rules which are SUPPOSED to be valid for the whole of the EU. EASA is a framework where all rules imposed by EASA is supposed to be valid in full for ALL EASA States, national rules are to be the rare exception, not the normal.
It is not supposed to be like this discussion here, where an Austrian as a diametrically opposed legal opinion of something than a Frenchman.
The UK is of no relevance to EASA anymore, so whatever goes in the UK is irrelevant to this discussion.
whatever goes in the UK is irrelevant to this discussion.
It can help to highlight bizzare edge cases which are legal in the UK but otherwise get debated for ever elsewhere
arj1 wrote:
So in Sweden and UK I can literally land in my backyard (if it is large enough) and no NAA, City or neighbour can prevent me doing so?
In the UK – yes, you are only limited on 28 days of operation per year – it becomes more complicated after that in terms of planning permission, but not aviation safety.
An important point to note is that the 28 day rule is nothing to do with aviation regulation, the CAA, or anything like that. It is simply part of what we call the ‘planning system’ which regulates use of land and classifies it according to permitted use, e.g. residential, commercial, agricultural, etc. with many sub-categories and intricate rules about what you can and cannot do within a certain category. For instance, my garden is well-suited to building a couple of houses and selling them – making me rich enough to buy a very nice aeroplane – but I would never get planning permission for it.
The 28 day rule on aviation is something designed to allow occasional use – so as to give a landowner the benefit of practical use of their land – without giving them carte blanche to set up a flying school and have 300 movements per day. It’s quite a sensible system.
In practical terms the 28 day rule only really matters if someone local knows the rules and is keeping an eye on you, counting your movements. If no-one noticed a particular movement on a particular day, then did it even happen and who’s going to add it to the total? No-one is counting unless someone decides to, and you don’t have to register your intent to operate under the rule or anything like that. Finally, if you’re caught breaching the rule the CAA won’t be the slightest bit interested. It’s purely a planning matter and it’s the local council who’ll be on your back.
Peter wrote:
It can help to highlight bizzare edge cases which are legal in the UK but otherwise get debated for ever elsewhere
It is not helpful to discuss EASA Regulation, as the UK no longer is part of EASA and therefore what is possible in the UK, or the US for that matter or Kirgistan if you want, has no impact on an incident which is under EASA jurisdiction.
If something was legal in France or Greece which is considered illegal in Germany, then we have a conflict of interpretation under EASA.
Shall I rename the thread title “no UK discussion”?
That would be bizzare, but you can have it if you want.
Peter wrote:
Shall I rename the thread title “no UK discussion”?
No need. We simply need to keep the rules apart so that there is no misunderstanding.
The much more interesting part is in any case why there are differences in rules WITHIN EASA, as that is not supposed to be so but obviously is.
