Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What is VFR on top? (merged)

I think she is playing with words.

I have long ago stopped trying to remember the cloud spacing rules for VFR for day and for night and for different altitudes… my take on this is that VFR means VMC i.e. clear of cloud and vis above 1500m.

VMC usually means 5 km flight visibility, 1000 feet vertical and 1,5 km horizontal distance from cloud.

Clear of cloud with 1500 m vis is a special case applying in very limited situations. With the new single European rules of the air, the national authority has to specifically allow a flight visibility less than 5 km in national rules.

Anything more complicated is just refusing to accept that practically nobody can remember that intricate pyramid-like table of VFR minima in different conditions for longer than t+1 day (where t is when they passed the air law exam) and certainly nobody is going to be applying it enroute, using a laser rangefinder to measure distance to the nearest cloud

Well… The point of the VMC minima is not that something magical happens if you are 999 feet vertically or 1499 m horizontally from a cloud. The point is that there should be a sporting chance to apply “see and be seen” principles in airspace where not (all) traffic is separated by ATC.

Germany used to have (I don’t know if they still do) a special rule for Y flight plans where you could cancel IFR as soon as you were in sight of the ground — you did not have to be 1000 ft below cloud. I guess the rationale was that as you were separated from other traffic the moment before you cancelled IFR there was no risk involved in allowing VFR “too close” to clouds during the short time it would take to descend into “real” VMC. This would be very useful in connection with the EIR.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Tomjnx, you have a point there.

Still, I mostly agree with the author. Such a flight requires a minimum ceiling of at least 1000 feet AGL at both ends. Irrespective of the rules, I would call that “VFR conditions”.

Except in UK and Italy, an EIR doesn’t add much utility.

Its only good side is that it indeed forms a stepping stone for people for VFR pilots who want to get into the IFR world. That’s a good thing cause it lowers the current barrier that exists between VFR pilots and IFR pilots.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 07 Aug 07:39
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Except in UK and Italy, an EIR doesn’t add much utility.

I assume EIR holders will request a lot of “simulated ILS” and all will be fine. I know VFR pilots that do those “simulated ILS” on a regular base because they don’t have an IR and don’t want to invest the effort.

Sure, that might happen. But many flights will be to aerodromes without instrument procedures.

As you know, there are currently hundreds of VFR pilots on the various forums like PuF (pilots who obviously have no clue about practical IFR flying) who are excited about the EIR, saying that they think it will be quite “enough” for them.

Knowing the GA scene a bit, I dare to predict the following:

Of 100 (german) VFR pilots talking about getting the EIR these days:

-70 will never do it (just the way it goes)
-10 will soon move on the full IR, since they realise that it is quirky and problematic in practice
-10 will, after getting the rating, never really “use” it, because they soon realise they’re “afraid of flying in IMC
- and maybe the last ten will happily continue to use it (within legal limits or not, see above).

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Most of my flights could be done with an EIR. I always depart on a Zulu flightplan (since EHLE is VFR only during daytime), and since I fly for fun, I don’t go to places where the weather is really bad.

Having a full IR gives peace of mind knowing that you are able to land, even if the weather is below VFR conditions.

If you’re using the Enroute-IR to fly in real IMC, there’s a real risk that you’ll get yourself into an emergency situation sooner or later.
Being able to fly in IMC without knowing how to fly an instrument landing is recipe for disaster…

-10 will soon move on the full IR, since they realise that it is quirky and problematic in practice

If that happens, the EIR was well worth it.

Most of my flights could be done with an EIR

Same for me. I’m based at a VFR only airfield. I use the IR mostly for the ease of planning.

LSZK, Switzerland

LeSving wrote:

Funny, in the newest (paper) edition of “Flynytt” there is an article about the practical value of the new EIR rating, in particular the value for flights in Norway. The author concluded that it would be of limited value,

I read a report from the Norwegian CAA saying the CB-IR and EIR would have very limited value to private pilots in Norway because of the prevailing icing (low 0-isotherm), and the fact that very few club aircraft are appropriately equipped for flying in icing conditions. Therefore they expected there would be very few private pilots who would seek to obtain an IR. They went on to evaluating the effort implementing the new regulation would cost (very little).

LFPT, LFPN

I read a report from the Norwegian CAA saying the CB-IR and EIR would have very limited value to private pilots in Norway because of the prevailing icing (low 0-isotherm), and the fact that very few club aircraft are appropriately equipped for flying in icing conditions

…which, on the one hand does not make all too much sense because Norway allows IFR flights OCAS, so one could potentially go very low level to flee the ice at least in big parts of the year. On the other hand, the country is awfully mountainous…

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

I read a report from the Norwegian CAA saying the CB-IR and EIR would have very limited value to private pilots in Norway because of the prevailing icing (low 0-isotherm), and the fact that very few club aircraft are appropriately equipped for flying in icing conditions. Therefore they expected there would be very few private pilots who would seek to obtain an IR.

Why doesn’t Norway just ban all GA on the grounds that

  • there are hills, so stupid people will all fly into them and kill themselves
  • there are icing conditions, so stupid people who fly into clouds will kill themselves

But, seriously, did they ban the JAA IR before that – running for some 15 years – on the grounds that not many people can use it?

They don’t seem to understand that with an IR you can fly in VMC much more easily than without it – because access to CAS is automatic, at any level your aircraft is capable of. Without an IR, you have a big incentive to fly illegal VFR, and that is dangerous in icing conditions unless you have a de-iced aircraft. Which is why, paradoxically, a good number of 2000kg+ owners do fly “VFR”, aided by the fact that probably the cheapest way to get a capable de-iced aircraft is to buy an old piston twin which is more than likely going to be over 1999kg.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I have never heard of a ban on IFR, except on experimntals for 4-5 years due to some odd bureaucratic mishap. Most people flying IFR (privately) are commercial pilots or instructors that has no need for EIR or CB IR. Besides, we could use national licenses all up to a year ago.

What is CAS by the way?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top