Dyn-Aero to Perth...shepherded into Glasgow

[AndyR]

Some are talking VFR.

Some are talking VMC.

[Timothy]

Some are talking VFR.

Some are talking VMC.

I don't agree. Actually, that is just going to confuse matters further. You need VMC for VFR, so really it does not matter much whether we are talking VMC or VFR. Where it begins to matter is if you choose to fly IFR in VMC, and this conversation is delicate enough without adding that dimension.

No, I think the confusion is between VFR and the privileges of licence holders who do not hold instrument qualifications.

But all that goes away under SERA anyway, so we just have to hold our breaths a little longer on that.

[Cobalt]

Some say Tomayto, some say Tomahto.

The Visual Flight Rules are simple - "Remain VMC". Ouside CAS, there are no other visual flight rules.

[stevelup]

Does that do it for you?

Got it. That was my original interpretation, then I convinced myself I was wrong.

[Timothy]

The Visual Flight Rules are simple - "Remain VMC". Ouside CAS, there are no other visual flight rules.

It is arguable, I suppose, that all rules except the IFR (Rule 5, for example) are VFR.

[Cobalt]

Ah, today is pick-a-nit day

Since these rules (low-flying rules, right of way etc.) have to be obeyed under all cicumstances, they are known as general rules.

These names (general rules, visual flight rules, instrument flight rules) come from the ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air.

[Timothy]

Yes, I guess you are right.

I was just thinking that it is weird to think that there are no Visual Flight Rules, but immediately thought that there are rules, like Rule 5, which apply to VFR but not IFR. (Though, as we have discussed on another thread, there is a lovely anomaly in the rules in that you can descend IFR through 1000' if you intend to land, but you can only keep descending through 500' if that intention is in accordance to "normal aviation practice".)

[Rod1]

Not me but if I find out the full story I will let you all know.

The aircraft did not crash so IF it was IMC it must have done something right! Very unusual for a Rotax to have generator failure, but again we have very little to go on. A permit aircraft which just has backup horizon and a permit aircraft which has been built to fly IFR are very different.

If your licence allows VFR on top then you are VFR. An IMCR or an EASA licence will allow this.

Glad all ended ok.

Rod1

[Timothy]

If your licence allows VFR on top then you are VFR. An EASA licence will allow this.

JAAMOI (and this is a genuine question, I really don't know the answer) is it an EASA licence which permits VFR on top, or SERA?

[pb6797]

VFR on top (and 1.5K vis) is because when the EASA rules take over the CAA will no longer be applying the extra restriction in the ANO to plain-PPL licences (Schedule 7 or Schedule 8, can't remember off hand).

[Timothy]

So, it's SERA, not the EASA licence? In other words, a CAA Annex II driver will also be allowed VFR on top?

[Rod1]

“only applies to old lifetime UK PPLs”

With no IMCR.

Rod1

[Cobalt]

So, it's SERA, not the EASA licence? In other words, a CAA Annex II driver will also be allowed VFR on top?

No, it's EASA Part-FCL, the restriction was, as you say, a licence restriction imposed by UK law on CAA-issued flight crew licenses (specifically in the ANO Schedule 7 Part A - Flight Crew Licences, not in the Rules of the Air regulations). The remaining non-EASA licences will remain as restricted as the CAA chooses to make them [once the new ANO is rubber-stamped by Westminster].

SERA will change things such as the low flying rules (at least 500ft above ground, no longer 500ft away from any wotsit, introduce slightly more restrictive night VFR than our current rules, etc.)

[Gertie]

Yep. VFR on top is now permitted without an IMCR or IR.

Only if you have a JAA/EASA licence. If you have an old CAA lifetime one, or, I guess, NPPL, then you're not permitted as I understand it.

Replying to my own post here, I will add the caveat..."without an IMC rating". Though I don't think you can get one of those on an NPPL...

And then there's the holder of a CAA PPL with IMCr but without CAA medical, flying under ORS 887 ...

[Paul_Sengupta]

And then there's the holder of a CAA PPL with IMCr but without CAA medical, flying under ORS 887 ...

Yeah, I thought about that when I posted it, but I have no answer to that one!