EASA Ceiling minimums for VFR x-country

No; you were right to fly.

Caveat: the bigger picture may be that there was some complication, and it sounds like there was if you had to divert. Were the TAFs for all airports along the route showing a base of 2000ft AGL?

Peter wrote:

He might be asking about the qualifying cross country flight within PPL training. UK schools won’t allow that unless it is at least 3000ft cloudbase and 10k vis.

It certainly wasn’t that when I did mine, although that was over 30 years ago.
I have certainly been at airfields when students have arrived with worse weather than that.

I put it to you that your comment is either tongue in cheek or at the least slightly cynical ;)

I put it to you that your comment is either tongue in cheek or at the least slightly cynical ;)

Neither – it is my direct experience of actual procedures at EGKA

One pilot I knew waited 6 months for his QXC – a long hazy summer (2003 I believe) with 5k-8k vis all the time, and mostly no cloud. Obviously he had to re-do much of his PPL after that.

Also, I think you copied my comment as I was editing it, because the one I finished with was “IME, the UK schools I have hung out at won’t allow that (or any other solo really) unless it is at least 3000ft cloudbase and 10k vis.”

Peter wrote:

Were the TAFs for all airports along the route showing a base of 2000ft AGL

Mind you that a TAF may not “show bases” unless you’re lucky and the meteorologist who edited it was feeling friendly and motivated to put stuff in it which he isn’t obliged to put. He’ll start with a baseline estimate at the start of the TAF, say BKN040. Only “significant” changes have to be included in the rest of the TAF. What is “significant” is determined from the viewpoint of an IFR traffic going to that airport. A drop from BKN040 to BKN020 is not significant according to ICAO Annex 3. If I get this right, only this is considered mandatory to be included in the TAF trend:

• Cloud Height of base: Provided the amount of cloud before and/or after the change is BKN or OVC, when the height of the base of the cloud layer lowers or lifts, and changes to or passes through 1500 ft, 1000 ft, or 500 ft AGL
• Cloud Amount: Provided the forecast height of the cloud base is at or below 1500 ft, when the amount is forecast to change from SCT, FEW, or SKC to BKN or OVC, or from BKN or OVC to SCT, FEW, or SKC
• Cloud Type: When CB are forecast to develop or dissipate
• Wind Direction: A forecast change of 60° or more provided the mean speed is 10 kt or more before and/or after the forecast change
• Wind Speed: An expected change of 10 kt or more
• Visibility: When the visibility is forecast to deteriorate or improve, with forecast changes to or passing through 8000 m, 5000 m, 3000 m, 1500 m, and 800 m

Of course, if you see the drop from BKN040 to BKN020 in the TAF, then you have reason to believe it.

Aviathor wrote:

Back when I got my national Norwegian license in 1995 you could not depart on a VFR cross country unless the forecast ceiling on your route was lower than 2000 feet.

I believe it was 1000 feet AGL along the route. Also for VFR on top the destination should have no more than 4/8 cover. Personally I think this is just stupid. If the weather deteriorates to below minima, you should turn around, or land at the nearest opportunity. The planning minima only increases the possibility of getting to the destination, it doesn’t increase safety. The on top rule makes some sense though.

LeSving wrote:

I believe it was 1000 feet AGL along the route.

I am pretty sure it was 2000’. I recently threw away my old TK books so I am not able to check.

LeSving wrote:

Personally I think this is just stupid.

I think it makes just as much sense as the IFR approach ban if RVR is below landing minima.

WhiskeyPapa wrote:

I asked because someone mentioned I was wrong to launch VFR when the TAF said 2000 BKN.

Could it be that old Hungarian rules of the air had a planning minima for VFR flights similar to what I portrayed was the case in Norway?

WhiskeyPapa wrote:

I asked because someone mentioned I was wrong to launch VFR when the TAF said 2000 BKN. At the time of launch, conditions were VFR. I had to divert because conditions en route got dicey and I was told my decision to go in the first place had violated the rules. I disagreed. The flight as originally planned was perfectly legal. But I raise the question because I began to wonder: maybe there are ceiling requirements, etc.

Was this an airfield trying to get out of waiving the fees due to Diversion?

On that topic:
A while ago when I diverted to Southend, they explained they waive the fees, as long as the weather at the time of departure didn’t basically mean that the diversion was going to be the “default” case. I think it’s sensible. If you know you have a good chance to “divert” then be ready to pay up the fees, or don’t take off.

In my case, I had diverted due to winds being too gusty (/stronger than forecast) at the aerodrome of arrival. It was something like 20 gusting 36 at 90 degrees. I landed a couple times up to 23 cross (but no gusts), and in this case had the “tower” give me all the readouts once on final. Aborted fairly early (200 feet or so) first landing, then very soon after getting on final for the 2nd one and hearing the gusts just thought it was stupid to try when a good alternative was available, and just decided to discontinue approach and divert.

Aviathor wrote:

Back when I got my national Norwegian license in 1995 you could not depart on a VFR cross country unless the forecast ceiling on your route was lower than 2000 feet. That was called the “planning minima”. Once launched you only VFR minima distance from clouds and height over ground mattered. I think that was a sensible rule and stick to it still today if I fly VFR.

There have been many reports of police asking to see preflight briefings, especially in Germany and the Autorouter briefing pack was specially done to comply with the German requirement for that.

But asking to see a wx briefing is meaningless unless the “authority” is going to be demanding certain minima, obviously!

Is there any regulation on VFR minima, in terms of a preflight briefing?

Is there any regulation now on preflight briefings? Many threads – example

Again: according to current European rules (Part-NCO), there is no mandatory flightplanning paperwork to be carried on board. The only thing required is “details of the filed ATS flightplan”. Nothing more.

German Luftaufsicht (or similar) asking for such things was and is mere FUD action, not based on any hard regulation. One doesn’t have to carry a “briefing pack”. It may merely ease things in case of a ramp check. But one could just as well state it is not a required document to be carried on board. the whole affair (the ramp check) might then take longer though…