Q: IFR Circling in VMC Conditions
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
CC,
CAR 2 defines visibility explicitly:
404Titan
I understood your argument about 4 posts ago - I still don't believe it is supported by the legislation. Simplifying further will not help unless you include other information to support your contention.
CAR 2 defines visibility explicitly:
2 Interpretation
(1) In these Regulations, unless the contrary intention appears:
.....
flight visibility means the average range of visibility forward from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight.
(1) In these Regulations, unless the contrary intention appears:
.....
flight visibility means the average range of visibility forward from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight.
.....
visibility means the ability, as determined by atmospheric conditions and expressed in units of distance, to see and identify prominent unlighted objects by day and prominent lighted objects by night.
visibility means the ability, as determined by atmospheric conditions and expressed in units of distance, to see and identify prominent unlighted objects by day and prominent lighted objects by night.
CAR 176A (2) identical to CAR 174 (4). CAR 176A is Determination of visibility and cloud base for I.F.R. flights. There is no requirement to be able to see a horizon in either regulation.
Lets be honest, if you are flying on a moonless night away from significant ground lighting you will lose the horizon at times. If you are flying NVFR you will have to use IF techniques at times - either that or die. It may not be legal - but I like living.
I too would suggest that a natural visual horizon is a requirement for visual flight ...big emphasis on the V (the bold is my edit) but unless someone can find some legislation that says otherwise it is not a legal requirement.
CAR 174 (2) was removed in 1991. One of I am sure thousands of amendments since I learned to fly. Under the original regulations ATC were responsible for determining visibility and cloud base, when this was transferred to the PIC paragraph 2 was removed as part of the amendment. Remember operational control in CTA - it went the way of the dinosaur at about the same time?
404Titan
I understood your argument about 4 posts ago - I still don't believe it is supported by the legislation. Simplifying further will not help unless you include other information to support your contention.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
404Titan
Amazing what you can find on the web.
Have a read of
which can be found at http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/changes/2005/sli243es.pdf - this is the explanatory statement for the amendment that introduced the current CAR 166.
If 166 (4) covered this situation as you are arguing, 166 (5) would not be necessary.
Amazing what you can find on the web.
Have a read of
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 243
Issued under the authority of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services
Civil Aviation Act 1988
Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3)
Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 243
Issued under the authority of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services
Civil Aviation Act 1988
Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3)
Subregulation 166 (4) provides that the pilot in command of an aircraft may join the base leg of the circuit pattern if CASA has approved the operation and details of the approval are published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).
.....
Subregulation 166 (5) provides for exceptions to the requirements of certain provisions of subregulations 166 (2) and 166 (3) that will apply when a pilot is conducting an instrument approach in conditions known and defined as Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), which basically means when the aircraft is being operated under the Instrument Flight Rules and in weather conditions of significantly reduced visibility. This subregulation is necessary because certain instrument approach procedures used in IMC conditions may not position an aircraft to join the circuit pattern as specified in subregulation 166 (2).
.....
Subregulation 166 (5) provides for exceptions to the requirements of certain provisions of subregulations 166 (2) and 166 (3) that will apply when a pilot is conducting an instrument approach in conditions known and defined as Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), which basically means when the aircraft is being operated under the Instrument Flight Rules and in weather conditions of significantly reduced visibility. This subregulation is necessary because certain instrument approach procedures used in IMC conditions may not position an aircraft to join the circuit pattern as specified in subregulation 166 (2).
Grandpa Aerotart
Yeah...operational control was one of the really stupid rules...many is the pilot that could see the runway environment from 10nm away only to be refused permission to land 'due weather'
SSD
Don't be a blouse...come on in...the water is fine
SSD
Don't be a blouse...come on in...the water is fine
werbil
That is true. The only problem is that the CAR's are written by lawyers and CASA can’t change them without it going through parliament. This can be extremely time consuming. The CAR’s have been written in such a way though that CASA can through the CAO’s, AIP etc make changes where necessary if the regs are restrictive or cumbersome. I would argue CAR 166 is cumbersome because it is too ridged where AIP ENR 1.1 64.2 makes it workable by giving the pilot the flexibility that is required to fulfil the task safely, efficiently and legally.
If 166 (4) covered this situation as you are arguing, 166 (5) would not be necessary.
Grandpa Aerotart
Ridged like a condom or rigid...like what goes in one?
Lawyers...I hates Lawyers
Werbil et al to suggest all IFR training, recurrency/practice and renewal flights conducted by CASA FOIs, or their designates, are illegal when/if conducted in VMC just doesn't stand up to the most basic scrutiny.
IFR training/renewals/recurrent etc is virtually never conducted in actual IMC.
Lawyers...I hates Lawyers
Werbil et al to suggest all IFR training, recurrency/practice and renewal flights conducted by CASA FOIs, or their designates, are illegal when/if conducted in VMC just doesn't stand up to the most basic scrutiny.
IFR training/renewals/recurrent etc is virtually never conducted in actual IMC.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Scurvy.D.Dog
What do you think? You seem have a very good grasp of regs and interpreting them? I think all the relevant bits have been posted.
CC,
Good thing I'm not a lawyer.
How does suggesting what happens in the real world translate that it has to be legal? Even in the day during CAVOK for both VFR & IFR flights I suspect CAR166 is the most broken rule in the book. Have you ever heard of anyone being pinged for it? If there is a high profile incident or accident we'll soon find out for sure.
404Titan.
CAR166 would have been put up to parliament on CASA's recommendation - it was amended to what it is today in 2005. And once again ENR 1.1 64.2 does not legally authorize you to join the circuit on base in VMC - CASA has the opportunity to make it legal in the AIP - but they have chosen not to.
What do you think? You seem have a very good grasp of regs and interpreting them? I think all the relevant bits have been posted.
CC,
Good thing I'm not a lawyer.
How does suggesting what happens in the real world translate that it has to be legal? Even in the day during CAVOK for both VFR & IFR flights I suspect CAR166 is the most broken rule in the book. Have you ever heard of anyone being pinged for it? If there is a high profile incident or accident we'll soon find out for sure.
404Titan.
CAR166 would have been put up to parliament on CASA's recommendation - it was amended to what it is today in 2005. And once again ENR 1.1 64.2 does not legally authorize you to join the circuit on base in VMC - CASA has the opportunity to make it legal in the AIP - but they have chosen not to
.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
CC
landings after joining on base can legally be done in C and D airspace. CAR 166 only applies to uncontrolled aerodromes.
IFR training/renewals/recurrent
CAR 166 only applies to uncontrolled aerodromes.
werbil
Just spoke to a CASA FOI who went and got it straight from the legal eagle’s mouth in CASA head office. AIP ENR 1.1 64.2 fulfils the requirements of CAR 166 para 4.
His advice to me was conducting an instrument approach in IMC or VMC would constitute a very good reason for not flying three legs of the circuit.
Anyway enough of this. I have to go and burn some of my employer’s fossil fuel.
Just spoke to a CASA FOI who went and got it straight from the legal eagle’s mouth in CASA head office. AIP ENR 1.1 64.2 fulfils the requirements of CAR 166 para 4.
His advice to me was conducting an instrument approach in IMC or VMC would constitute a very good reason for not flying three legs of the circuit.
Anyway enough of this. I have to go and burn some of my employer’s fossil fuel.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
404Titan
Can you get that in writing for me?
Standing in a court of law arguing that it was legal because "an anonymous person on a professional pilot forum spoke to a CASA FOI who contacted head office gurus and they advised it was legal" does not fill me with confidence. Actually the FOI's name would be good enough for me and I can send him an email.
Can you get that in writing for me?
Standing in a court of law arguing that it was legal because "an anonymous person on a professional pilot forum spoke to a CASA FOI who contacted head office gurus and they advised it was legal" does not fill me with confidence. Actually the FOI's name would be good enough for me and I can send him an email.
Last edited by werbil; 24th Sep 2007 at 09:07. Reason: add why I would like to see it in writing.
What's this?
Only six pages of posts in answer to a simple question about whether or not you can land straight off a night approach in VMC at a non-controlled areodrome!
Man, this place is losing its edge!
Dr
Only six pages of posts in answer to a simple question about whether or not you can land straight off a night approach in VMC at a non-controlled areodrome!
Man, this place is losing its edge!
Dr
