gallois wrote:
Hi Ibra but what compliance hit?
It used to be an FI could take student teach him how to fly in a grass strip, then find examiner to do the skill-test, pass!
Here you go you have NPPL/SSEA and you can take 4pob for lunch 
Of course, you can do the same under EASA & Part-FCL but the bill cost and hassle is *3, if one can afford and has motivation to learn flying in a typical ATPL ATO it should be fine (I did some of that at Stapleford) but I personally would not have started private flying if Brevet De Base was not doable in my nearby Aeroclub…
France does hugely benefit from relaxed local Aeroclub scene and volunteer instruction, but I still think the $-hit from heavy Part-FCL ware probably the same as what happened in local UK airfields? or maybe now it costs nothing to licence ATO/FI/Pilots under French DGAC compared to UK CAA?
UK gliding is unregulated, like kite-surf, jet-skis, tennis… people learn about it by joining a sports association
That does not fly well with Part-Gliding 
But happy to take any light-touch regulations from EASA/FCL that is tailored toward GA rather than airlines
A lot of stuff was done many years ago but I can’t see it ever returning because today’s climate is just so different. The H&S vermin run the world now, with “duty of care” being the top of the list phrase to sidestep any rational examination of their actions.
For example until the 1980s you could do a PPL wholly “freelance”. You just met an FI at your farm strip and flew around, then did a skills test, with the same FI. You still can, AIUI, do a skills test for the IMCR with the same guy who taught you and I did that myself; this is not allowed on EASA licenses/ratings, I am told. This sort of thing dramatically improved accessibility – most people with the money and time to fly are not sitting there doing nothing.
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.
The point I’m making is that high elevation airfields will require a proportionately higher cloud base to comply with VFR.
This is a perfectly valid point to make.
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.
Alas not correct.
See here.
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20200214SI%202020-01%20-%20Expiry%20of%20ORS4%201312%20(V1).pdf
There are no changes to separation requirements associated with Special VFR flights or the criteria governing when a SVFR clearance may be issued.
The original CAA consultation originally proposed removing the requirement for separation between SVFR aircraft (but not SVFR/IFR) but the actual implementation did not include this proposal. So separation is a further issue never mind cloud separation.
flybymike wrote:
The point I’m making is that high elevation airfields will require a proportionately higher cloud base to comply with VFR.
This is a perfectly valid point to make.
Higher over sea level, but not higher over the ground…
But giving the circuit level with reference to AGL and cloud level with reference to MSL is not a valid comparison.
I think I must be missing something…
What is the safety case put forward by the UK CAA and/or the EASA for removing the current UK exemption?
How many deaths have occurred in UK class D airspace due to light GA flying VFR less than 1,000 ft below cloud?
Higher over sea level, but not higher over the ground…
That’s exactly the point I’m making. The higher the ground level, then the more difficult it is to obtain a VFR clearance without a cloud base which is proportionately higher above sea level.
For the avoidance of doubt, I realise and absolutely positively know and accept with no reservation whatsoever that cloud base is quoted with reference to airfield level, and that a height above the airfield of 2000ft will always be the minimum necessary for clearance. I merely remark that the higher the airfield elevation then the higher the cloud base above sea level required in order to meet this requirement.
What is the safety case put forward by the UK CAA and/or the EASA for removing the current UK exemption?
How many deaths have occurred in UK class D airspace due to light GA flying VFR less than 1,000 ft below cloud?
Zero deaths and zero safety case. In fact the necessity to fly nearer the ground increases not decreases the risk.
The CAA have always accepted this, but claim that they have no legal avenues left to allow further exemptions for the original VFR rules which have been in place since time immemorial.
flybymike wrote:
but claim that they have no legal avenues
Well, apparently they do, as the UK will be out of EASA by 1 Jan 2021. Simply make this change only valid until then, at least that minimises the trouble to something temporary.
I suspect the politics are that the CAA can’t do “just anything it wants” because the DfT wants a treaty with Brussels on this stuff (see previous posts about leaving EASA and having a treaty instead) and if the CAA spits in EASA’s soup too much during the transition period, they won’t get a treaty.
Any treaty Brussels signs with the UK will be based on a “level playing field” which is the EU’s raison d’etre (I am trying to sound intellectual ).
