SERA 2015 and IFR minima (and legality of DIY approaches in Part-NCO)

UK. It’s in their AIP, AD 1.1, para 4.12.1.

iAIP isn’t law. The only law is The Basic Regulation (and associated regulations) and the Air Navigation Order.

The way some of us read SERA and the UK derogations is that a pilot can descend IMC below 1000ft when landing as the regulation does not stipulate landing in accordance with a published instrument approach procedure.

SERA.5015 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) – Rules Applicable to All IFR Flights
(a) Aircraft Equipment
Aircraft shall be equipped with suitable instruments and with navigation equipment appropriate to the route to be flown and in accordance with the applicable air operations legislation.
(b) Minimum Levels
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority, an IFR flight shall be flown at a level which is not below the minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown, or, where no such minimum flight altitude has been established:
(1) over high terrain or in mountainous areas, at a level which is at least 600 m (2 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft;
(2) elsewhere than as specified in a), at a level which is at least 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft.

PS. I don’t personally subscribe to that opinion but the Regulation can be interpreted such.

@bookworm, do you think that they will keep this paragraph as it is? That would be really good and a huge leap forward.

In the current regulatory climate (which was not prevalent when NCO was drafted) it seems very unlikely that rules for GA would be made more restrictive, unless GA aircraft start having a lot of accidents. That’s very much up to us.

We did what we could at the time with Part-NCO in 2010, and it’s better than some of the other implementing rules, but it wasn’t as good as I’d hoped for. Since then we’ve had the GA Safety Strategy, which has had the desired effect in changing some mindsets. We should have some alleviations going through EASA Committee on dangerous goods and oxygen use soon. We’ve also got some approaching NPA on fuel planning.

Regarding remote QNH.

PANS OPS 8168 contains this section

Dave_Phillips wrote:

iAIP isn’t law. The only law is The Basic Regulation (and associated regulations) and the Air Navigation Order.

…and the ANO is not valid if there is a EASA regulations for the same area.

The way some of us read SERA and the UK derogations is that a pilot can descend IMC below 1000ft when landing as the regulation does not stipulate landing in accordance with a published instrument approach procedure.

I don’t see how anyone can read SERA in a different way. Any limitation must be found in the OPS regulations. It’s pretty clear that CAT has such a limitation.

Fly310 wrote:

@bookworm, do you think that they will keep this paragraph as it is? That would be really good and a huge leap forward.

It is already EU law in force (although it doesn’t have to be applied until later this year).

What is the implications of these new rules for GA when flying to instrument aerodromes when the tower is closed?

Many instrument airports in Sweden have very limited ATS opening hours. Will it now be legal to make instrument approaches when the TWR or AFIS is closed?

There are a few areas where EU regulation is clear, and NAAs would risk a clear “finding” in a standardisation inspection if they impose extra or different regulation. There are many others where the relationship between EU regulation and national rules, habits and practices is much less clear. EASA and the Commission have enough on their hands dealing with the former to have no appetite for the latter.

In that sense, what happens at instrument airports in Sweden will be very much up to the Swedish CAA and the ANSPs.

I am afraid that’s the way it is, and not only concerning instrument approaches.

There are several things where EASA cannot do much

• EASA does not regulate where and when you are allowed to land / take off. So a country can still in practice prohibit landing off-airport or outside formal operating hours (Germany) or make it subject to planning restrictions (UK), and in any case the owner of the land will probably want a say
• EASA does not force the air traffic service providers to provide a certain service. So if Germany just refuses to give IFR clearances in Class E airspace below radar vectoring altitude, or you cannot get a clearance in a CTR after the airport closes, you cannot land.

So in Sweden – if the airport operator says you cannot land if the tower is closed, it is after sun-set, or because the leaves are a particular shade of brown, you cannot land.

So if the airport is open, and you are NOT in airspace where you need a clearance, there is not much the local CAAs can do.