boscomantico wrote:
So while the EIR adds (valuable)
skills, it doesn’t legally add weather capability in the above case.
Agreed.
Actually, it sounds like this flight was legally possible under VFR, but would have been legally difficult on a mixed flightplan…
Yep. In fact, we began this flight VFR over the top at 5500ft over a scattered, then broken layer. I only descended below when around Münster, the holes became less and less frequent – clearly the right decision. No way could we have broken cloud anywhere beyond Dortmund, so had we pressed on over the top, we would have had to turn back and fly a considerable diversion.
The ATIS is not updated every minute, isn’t it. So, yes, the weather can be worse or better. However, the RVR values are measured right there when I am on the approach and given to me. I think they helped me to land and I have no problem flying an approach into an airport like Lyon Exupery with a very long and wide runway, no complicated missed approach procedure, no high mountains directly around such as at e.g. Chambery and with high intensity approach lights at radar environment (even on the ground) and flying the SR22T with Garmin Perspective being (a) established fully on the ILS, (b) the controller seeing me and following me on radar, (c) the correct QNH double checked and (GPS based) the runway in sight in front of me on my screen and confirmed by seeing the approach lights below me through the mist.
I would have a serious problem flying into short airfields with NDB approaches and possibly some obstacles around the airport and a simple lighting system when in very low visibility conditions. That I would personally consider a higher risk.
Then, we all have our own risks and personal limitations as posted above by Emmanuel, so we can’t fill it in for another or in that sense “judge” what another is doing. I assume nobody is starting an approach with the idea to get killed :-)
AeroPlus wrote:
The ATIS is not updated every minute, isn’t it. So, yes, the weather can be worse or better.
Since 5000 m is the VMC limit, I suspect that if visibility is reported as 10 km and then deteriorates, no update is needed unless the viz drops below 5000.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Since 5000 m is the VMC limit
I don’t think that’s true. You can fly legally VFR in class G airspace with 1500m visibility and clear of clouds.
You can fly legally VFR in class G airspace with 1500m visibility and clear of clouds.
Are there airports in class G with ATIS? I’m not saying there aren’t, just I haven’t come across any. In Europe, I’ve only had ATIS at airports within control zones/D.
Patrick wrote:
Are there airports in class G with ATIS? I’m not saying there aren’t, just I haven’t come across any. In Europe, I’ve only had ATIS at airports within control zones/D.
In Germany I know EDTY and EDMS do.
Most “proper” UK Class G ones have ATIS. But it’s a good Q whether one needs ATC. You do need a qualified weather observer.
You can fly legally VFR in class G airspace with 1500m visibility and clear of clouds.
Yes, since sometime in 2011 or early 2012.
The FAA PPL has always had the VFR=1500m privilege.
Also a UK PPL holder with an IMCR or IR could fly VFR down to 1500m for many years.
lenthamen wrote:
I don’t think that’s true. You can fly legally VFR in class G airspace with 1500m visibility and clear of clouds.
The discussion concerned Patrick’s flight into Cologne/Bonn. That is an airport with a control zone. Class D in Germany, if I am not mistaken. Thus the visibility limit for VMC is 5000 m.
Peter wrote:
The FAA PPL has always had the VFR=1500m privilege.
So did essentially every PPL holder except in the UK.
Exactly! 
