Low Cloud
You are missing the piece which says "A pilot may not."
In sight of the surface, clear of cloud & 3km is not technically IMC therefore may be flown VFR.
In sight of the surface, clear of cloud & 3km is not technically IMC therefore may be flown VFR.
The JAR-FCL PPL vs UK PPL issue is more complex. The JAR-FCL PPL has the following limitation:
(2) The licence is subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in paragraph 1.175
of Section 1 of JAR–FCL 1.
and 1.175 says:
JAR–FCL 1.175 Circumstances in which an IR(A) is required
(a) The holder of a pilot licence (A) shall not act in any capacity as a pilot of an aeroplane under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training, unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR(A)) appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.
(b) In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.
The effect of 1.175 on a JAR-FCL PPL issued by the UK can be argued both ways.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the question "which is the defining document for a CAA issued JAR-FCL licence". Both JAR-FCL 1.175 and the ANO are pretty clear on this point. They just conflict - unless one assumes flight in IMC was one of the envisaged 'specific circumstances'.
I don't think they conflict -- the ANO explicitly says JAR-FCL 1.175 applies.
But the wording of JAR-FCL 1.175(b) is open to a lot of interpretation. The UK is clearly a member state in which flight in accordance with IFR is required under specified circumstances (at night). Thus within the UK (at any time, not just at night) "the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted". So then you have to argue about what "appropriate" means.
But the wording of JAR-FCL 1.175(b) is open to a lot of interpretation. The UK is clearly a member state in which flight in accordance with IFR is required under specified circumstances (at night). Thus within the UK (at any time, not just at night) "the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted". So then you have to argue about what "appropriate" means.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK is clearly a member state in which flight in accordance with IFR is required under specified circumstances (at night). Thus within the UK (at any time, not just at night) "the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted".
Are there any Member States that have Specified Conditions requiring compliance with IFR (but not requiring an IR) other than the UK?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 75
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Crazy UK IFR definition
It's been said many times here, but I'll say it again...
The UK definition of IFR is all about flight 1000' above any obstruction within 5NM of track, except when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice (Oh, and a bit about it's a good idea to comply with the quadrantal rule above 3000') There's NOTHING in the UK definition about 'sole reference to instruments' or the Met conditions that may exist.
I think the UK should re-define the definition to mean 'by sole reference to instruments', i.e. you're not looking out the window even if it's a nice day and what qualification or rating you need to be able to do so. So, flight 1000' above obstacles etc willl STILL be VFR if conducted in VMC.
I'd say 90% of my flying in the past 26 years has been IFR, most of it in VMC and not requiring me to exercise the privileges of any kind of instrument rating. Of course, it's been in Class 'G' airspace...
Perhaps EASA will tidy this one up to our benefit.
TheOddOne
The UK definition of IFR is all about flight 1000' above any obstruction within 5NM of track, except when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice (Oh, and a bit about it's a good idea to comply with the quadrantal rule above 3000') There's NOTHING in the UK definition about 'sole reference to instruments' or the Met conditions that may exist.
I think the UK should re-define the definition to mean 'by sole reference to instruments', i.e. you're not looking out the window even if it's a nice day and what qualification or rating you need to be able to do so. So, flight 1000' above obstacles etc willl STILL be VFR if conducted in VMC.
I'd say 90% of my flying in the past 26 years has been IFR, most of it in VMC and not requiring me to exercise the privileges of any kind of instrument rating. Of course, it's been in Class 'G' airspace...
Perhaps EASA will tidy this one up to our benefit.
TheOddOne
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I agree with the general sentiment, I don't believe any country defines IFR as 'by sole reference to the instruments'. The unusual bit for the UK is allowing non-IR rated pilots to fly IFR and defining the IFRs in such a loose way that for operations below the TA, in Class G and in sight of the surface (I.E. the conditions most PPLs fly in most of the time) IFR and VFR are pretty much indistinguishable.
I think the UK should re-define the definition to mean 'by sole reference to instruments',
The Instrument Flight Rules are a set of rules that exist to assist aircraft to avoid obstacles/terrain and other aircraft if they are unable to do so visually. Sense dictates that authorities insist that aircraft follow these rules if visual means are not possible, and permit aircraft to follow these rules even if visual means are possible. A certain minimum set of met conditions (VFR minima) are set out as the boundary between when visual avoidance is and is not possible.
... So, flight 1000' above obstacles etc willl STILL be VFR if conducted in VMC.
I'd say 90% of my flying in the past 26 years has been IFR, most of it in VMC and not requiring me to exercise the privileges of any kind of instrument rating. Of course, it's been in Class 'G' airspace...
I'd say 90% of my flying in the past 26 years has been IFR, most of it in VMC and not requiring me to exercise the privileges of any kind of instrument rating. Of course, it's been in Class 'G' airspace...
Where the difference between the UK and other states comes is in situations where flight using visual means to control and navigate is possible, but the minima for VFR are not met. For example, that might be in a visibility of 4 km in an aircraft doing 160 knots, or it might be 500 ft above, or less than 1500 m from, scattered cloud above 3000 ft. Other states simply prohibit that for pilots without an IR. The UK offers the flexibility of permitting it, outside controlled airspace, provided the quadrantal rule and minimum altitude rule are met. Why do you want that flexibility taken away? It seems useful, and reasonable on safety grounds.
