gallois wrote:
can you explain how Part FCL and Part SERA are much more restrictive than before?.
Yes. In the UK, in class D airspace, below 3000’ and 140 knots or less you need only be clear of cloud and 1.5km visibility.
SERA increases these minimums to 1000’ below cloud, 1.5km horizontal, and 5km visibility. This is not good news for a coastal nation as it effectively requires a minimum cloud base of 2000’ (a lot of class D covers congested areas on the ground) even if the layer is just a FEW layer (unless you take a bizarrely meandering path).
The ANSPs don’t want this, the pilots don’t want this, the CAA doesn’t want this, but EASA is forcing their hand. The workaround the CAA has chosen is to fiddle with the definition of SVFR and get everyone to ask for SVFR clearances effectively whenever there’s a cloud under 2000’ AGL.
As for transit class D, I have never been refused transit but I know that it does happen occasionally in areas like Toulouse where you can be told to steer clear of controlled airspace.
Don’t believe too much of the whining you hear. I’ve never been refused a class D transit in the UK either. Nor have I ever had any trouble in notifying FISOs that I’ll be transiting over their airfield in their ATZ. A lot of pilots are just too fearful to ask.
@Alioth thankyou for your explanation. Here Class D really hasn’t changed that much, if I remember correctly we always had the same minima so little or nothing has changed. But getting SVFR has never been a problem either, in fact I think the ATCO’s here actually enjoy the practice, or at least it seemed that way last time I flew into Paris Pontoise (LFPT?).
My only experience of trying to get permission to VFR transit ATZ’s and Class D airspace in the UK, in recent times and the punishments meeted out if you don’t, comes from this forum.
When an experienced pilot like Peter has to worry about keeping his licence for a small error or gets packed off to some course for retraining without the ability to discuss the individual infraction, why and how it occurred and how to avoid it in the future is far too draconian for me to even think of flying VFR in the UK except the section at the end or beginning of a flight which allows me to join my Eurocontrol flight plan.
Fortunately the CBIR allowed me to do that quite rapidly after a long lay off for medical reasons. I think I needed to take the CBIR theory and do about 10hours of flight time with about 4 in the simulator.
In France also we had VFR on top as part of the PPL, I remember before EASA that many Brits were not allowed to fly VFR on top and of course the IMC rating was not valid here. Do you think when the CAA takes back control they will revert to no VFR on top?
gallois wrote:
can you explain how Part FCL and Part SERA are much more restrictive than before?. If I remember correctly EASA pretty much follows Chicago Convention and ICAO Norms
UK is “very special”: flat terrain, load of low clouds & fog, so SERA/ICAO weather minima from other sunny/mountain places don’t apply !
We can’t even agree on same transition altitude, altimeter setting or airport/airspace access between pilots, controllers and owners
So we invented load of restrictions PPR, QFE, no SVFR and remain OCAS… nothing to do with EASA/ICAO just own mess 
Back to the point, Part-FCL and SERA were hugely restrictive to “fun/sport GA” but does not make any difference to “touring A to B GA”
GA things like NPPL, LAA, Gliding, A to A VFR, grass root flying…do get the compliance hit even if they don’t fly that far
Hi @Ibra but what compliance hit? I really haven’t noticed a great deal of difference. Much of the local flying in this region is done under DGAC rules, eg Experimental, homebuilt orphans etc or under FFPULM for ULM.
The only major differences I have noticed for EASA aircraft are the class 2 medical has a lot more useless repetative paperwork, my licence is full and I am told I need to go to a dgac office (most of which have been closed) to get a new one and it will cost me 80euros when it has always been free. But these things might be more dgac than Easa. The other thing is the ELP. We could self declare under JAA.
Was night vfr possible in the UK before EASA? It was here but many UK pilots tell me there was no such thing as Night VFR under CAA regs.Do you think that will be withdrawn?
SERA increases these minimums to 1000’ below cloud, 1.5km horizontal, and 5km visibility. This is not good news for a coastal nation as it effectively requires a minimum cloud base of 2000’
At Leeds, a VFR circuit at 1000 feet requires a 2700ft could base.
Bonkers.
Even the “SVFR work around” is limited, since controllers may be unable or unwilling to provide the necessary traffic separation for a SVFR clearance.
Orbiting at the end of the downwind leg waiting for a gap in the inbound 737s now also becomes a problem, potentially blocking access to the airfield altogether during busy periods where IFR CAT always has priority.
flybymike wrote:
At Leeds, a VFR circuit at 1000 feet requires a 2700ft could base.
Why not just 2000 ft ?
Aerodrome must be at ~700ft MSL obviously.
But cloud base in the METAR/ATIS is AGL.
I think we are above the cheap rethoric of implicitly mixing unit/baseline to make our points.
gallois wrote:
I really haven’t noticed a great deal of difference.
Are you comparing France pre easa to post EASA, or the UK pre EASA to post EASA ?
flybymike wrote:
Even the “SVFR work around” is limited, since controllers may be unable or unwilling to provide the necessary traffic separation for a SVFR clearance.
The workaround includes a change to the definition of SVFR such that controllers do not have to give traffic separation to SVFR traffic below 3000’ doing 140 knots or less – in effect, making SVFR for these cases exactly the same as the old UK VFR class D minimums.
