Night/VFR/IFR/IMC In Permit A/C

Mark A · Post by **Mark A** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:25 pm

Phil,

I did an airways trip in my RV-4 last weekend. Through the Los Angeles Class B airspace over the stream of arriving traffic.

The aircraft's limitations document says restricted to Day/VFR unless equipped according to FAR Pt91.205 (or words to that effect).
Your transponder and static system needs a 24 month sign off.
You must have checked VOR accuracy in the last 31 days (unless using an IFR GPS).
Non-certified EFIS is acceptable for all the gyro requirements and it's up to you what (if any) back-ups you have.

Night flying is easy too. My tower closes at 8pm but you can turn the lights on yourself with 24 hour POL. No landing fees, but the Avgas is nearly a pound a litre here in Roman units.

Of course, getting an IR here is a lot more straightforward too. The standard required is similar, but the availability of instructors, aircraft and approach procedures makes life simpler without irrelevant exam questions, venetian blind screens and all that palaver.

I'd be glad to help with any specific questions and would really like to see some concessions in the UK to make European touring more practical.

Mark

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:53 pm

Isn't European touring practical VFR then?

Mark A · Post by **Mark A** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:06 am

Well yes, except when it isn't.

I've been all over Europe VFR, but I've also been stuck for days due to low ceilings, mist etc. The Channel Islands can be notorious for dropping below SVFR minima when conditions are CAVOK once you get over the sea.

Often in those cases an IFR departure would quickly get you into clear safe conditions. It's often possible to maintain VMC on an IFR flight plan where it wouldn't be possible to do the same flight VFR, because you have access to higher levels.

Making low airways Class E rather than A would help too as is the case of most of Europe and North America, but not the UK.

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:44 am

Hi Mark I can't argue with what you say, in theory at least. Truth is though that having an IFR equipped aircraft is only half the story, you have to have the IR skills to operate it. Currently 99% of pilots who get stuck on the continent due to wx cannot legally do anything about it, regardless of how well equipped their aircraft is - because they do not have an IR. The IMC is not valid outside UK so in theory holders of that rating are no better off than me with my PPL and VFR aeroplane. I know some that will push on regardless, breaking every rule in the book because they have a Dinon, an IMC rating they last used in anger two years ago when thay did a renewal, and a cobbled together GPS approach for their strip. What heros those guys are. FI's in fact but they refuse to see the wood for the trees.
Don't get me wrong, I do see VFR approval of appropriate PtF aircraft as a move we should be making, I just hope that those that aspire to it have the responsibility and commonsense to use the aircraft legally and safely. The proposed EASA IR will help enormousely, if and when it comes in, but until then I expect all we'll be doing is fixing the legality of the aircraft and leaving the pilot to decide whether it is just he that wants to be the illegal side of the equation.

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:58 pm

Mark A

If we could get that system adopted in the UK then most of the LAA fleet would comply and there would be very little extra cost.

Rod1

Chris Martyr · Post by **Chris Martyr** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:24 pm

Hi Rod, The LAMS Schedule CAP 411, which I believe is the default document for most LAA Inspectors calls for VOR and ILS installations to be tested with field test equipment annually along with mode S txpndrs and also ASI and altimeter calibrations.
Again , I'm sorry that I keep harping on [I'm not half as boring as I sound] about this , but this is what I'm getting at when referring to Permit renewals not just being a case of re-imbursing your friendly neighbourhood Inspectors fuel costs, and then taking him [or her] for a pint and a pork pie at the local.
It can't be just Jeremy and I that are amongst the few that can see this , as I am sure that he, like myself is only trying to offer a little informed ,constructive comment, and it certainly doesn't imply , as someone has suggested, that we prefer phonographs to Ipods.

Anyway,,I always listen to Mantovani on my nice teak radiogram, and if those PFA blokes don't watch out , I'm going to get into my A60 and go down to Shoreham and sort 'em all out !

Tom Sheppard · Post by **Tom Sheppard** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:00 pm

In the light of this informed and informative debate, I am minded to alter my opinion slightly. Although I have nothing against progress, I would expect that a sizeable majority of us own less than £20,000 worth of aircraft (allowing a syndicate of four to have an £80K 'plane.) Nice if you have the time, tools , talent and cash to build a £150,000 aircraft but to suggest that we have gone away from wood and cloth aircraft is to spit in the face of those who have no option but to do it the hard way. The Kit review in last month's LA showed that these types are still on the market and that proves the market exists. Fliers are the most individualistic bunch of people I have ever met and one size fits nobody. I have a strong gut feeling that the shoestring fliers probably put more in to the LAA than some of those with better resources, because they have to.
Lose them and the LAA loses its spirit. Taylor built his Monoplane in an upstairs room long ago. It isn't as safe as some nor as comfy as others but it gets people into the air at a cost they can pay (if not always afford!) My reasoning was that learning to fly and buying a 'plane could be done for the price of a new basic Focus which I could have bought instead. I'd stretch the current car for four years more to do it and then it won't hurt much as I've had older ones. Many of us make those choices and it is those people who find it hardest to absorb rising costs. My abortive foray into strut formation elicited a unanimous relief that it was not intended to be a "Look at the shiny new toys" sort of affair. Nobody called up with a Vans (Which, on a personal note was a pity; I'd love a ride in something quick!)
By all means put four engined jets on a PtF and certificate them to fly through mountains in tempests if you will, but don't forget us. The last thing the LAA needs is to become another yacht/golf/polo club. That bloke who shames your airfield with the slightly down at heel forty year old single seater oddity probably worked and saved hard for it. It is the LAA's responsibility not to let him down. Once he is looked after, (which to a great extent he already is by this great organisation) then, if the resources are there, there is nothing wrong with expanding the boundaries.

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:29 am

Tom,

Some of the immediately obvious candidates for relaxation of VFR only rules would be the orphans that until they recently came on permit could fly IFR on their CofA. Some if not the majority of those will be Jodels.

Please stop implying this is some elitist thing. IFR is simply another way of flying about.

Many members form syndicates around more expensive aircraft. Why should those members modest investment in the aircraft be any less important than that of a single member that owns a £5-10,000 aircraft outright?

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:16 am

Tom, I can absolutely assure you that this Association is committed to keeping ALL its members flying, whether it is in a Taylor Monoplane or a Van's RV10. The support for our many members who build from plans is as strong as it ever has been, look at the Luciole for example, a new design that members can build for around £12K. The all metal Thatcher CX4 is another new affordable plans build that has been made available to members, and I know that the Spacek SD-1 Miniplane is also being looked into (a similar concept to Luciole).
Whilst Steve is right in suggesting that there are Jodels and other ex CoA types for which IFR priveleges are a possibility, the drivers of IFR, and my guess is that it will be primarily they who adopt it if it becomes a reality, are the high end kit guys. But I maintain that they have as much right to go down that road as those of us who want to fly an inexpensive orphan or build a single seat VW powered aircraft have to do what we want. LAA is a wide ranging organisation where I hope we all respect the rights of each individual to enjoy their passion for aviation however he or she chooses to do so.

Tom Sheppard · Post by **Tom Sheppard** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:27 pm

Thank you. I'm very glad to hear that Brian.

Chris Martyr · Post by **Chris Martyr** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:54 pm

Why do people keep suggesting that the aircraft that came to us as orphans from the Cof A system were all 'fully airways equipped' and came onto the PtF system fully expecting to carry on excersing their IFR capability. Come on fellas, how many Jodels,ARVs, Austers,Stampes have owners that were dragged kicking and screaming off the CofA regime protesting that they can't shoot any more ILS approaches ?
Steves remarks about IFR being perceived as an elitist thing and IFR being 'Just another way of flying about' are a bit ridiculous quite frankly.
Most of the people that fly IFR are people that are getting paid for it , or people that are undergoing training in order to get paid for it.
I am sure that a few guys have looked at the Night/IFR thing and thought 'Yeah,,I'll have some of that' ,but the absolute reality of it is a little bit more than having the basic T in your Jodel or RV and then going off filing IFR once PtF type aircraft get the go ahead to fly Night/IFR .
Toms worries about us grass-roots flyers no longer being represented is completely unnecessary , as no organisation is going to cut themselves off from 99.9% of the membership.
The bit that I have questioned right from the start are the ones who don't need the "broad church", just the very short and quite narrow one ! They know full well how much all this is going to cost and are smart enough to have done the number crunching that tells them that this is probably a bit cheaper than being on a CofA , and if you can get a top of the range homebuild approved to do this , then all of a sudden it is in there batting it out with Cirrus SR22s and things and overnight will probably have at least doubled its value.
It's not a question of living in the past, or any of the other daft Luddite type slants that have appeared here . Jeremy was right in his observation that he exaggerated when he referred to the 9 guys that want this .

Nigel Hitchman · Post by **Nigel Hitchman** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:42 pm

Chris,

while you make some valid points regarding extra work and testing needed for IFR aircraft, I think a lot of this would not be relevant for an IFR permit aircraft. After all we already enjoy more sensible maintenance requirements than equivalent aircraft on a C of A, so why not for some of the IFR bits. Also for many of the aircraft that people will want to fly IFR in, rather than having to do some big design study, surely we will be able to approve them based on the 1000s of hours of IFR operations in the USA and other countries.
Also remember that IFR doesnt necessarily mean flying on instruments down to minima in horrible weather, it could just be flying in airways on a nice day, but above all the gliding clubs and the low level bumps etc, in airspace that is currently unavailable to you. Or departing from Jersey or another airfield in class D airspace when its below special VFR minimums, but still in weather we would happily fly in VFR if we were departing from an airfield in class G airspace.
Lots of people fly IFR in experimental aircraft in the USA often because it is easier. This is in aircraft that can be signed off by the builder for each annual inspection, but they may have to go to a specialist shop to get some checks done each year to be able to fly IFR

I agree with Brian that we should be going down this avenue, but ensuring it isnt going to cost us more for our strictly VFR aircraft that we want to keep that way.

Anyway Chris, lets hope its good VFR the first weekend in September, so we can see your VP1 at the Rally. You mention its been flying for 7 years, but we havent seen it yet!

Chris Martyr · Post by **Chris Martyr** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:27 pm

Hi Nigel, long time no see. Thanks for your contribution. I would have thought it highly unlikely that Permit types would get the same preferrential treatment in seeking IFR concessions as we do at the present, but I believe that is due to the restrictions that we're subject to and the reason why I'm a bit reticent in seeing them removed. I can't see the Feds being as accomodating to guys going the Night/IFR route.
Don't get me wrong here, as if it can be pulled off then I will be probably be the first one in the queue for a massive dollop of humble pie.
As far as the Permit renewal thing goes then there are quite alot of costly extras that are going to rear their ugly heads, and I believe alot of it will be outside the scope of our Inspectorate . Again,,don't get me wrong here, the LAA Inspectors that I know are all darn good eggs and massively knowledgeable, it's all this boring crap about approvals and test equipment that I reckon will put it beyond their scope.
I may just end up with egg on my face here as well, but I'm only trying to point it out , not trying to be some smart-arse know it all.
It's interesting about what you say re; the U.S. system , although their system is completely different to ours , EAA doesn't have any inspectors with sign-off authority like we do, I know they have Tech.Advisers, but the 'release to service' is a one off inspection at completion by an A&P with Inspection Authorisation . Bit like an LAE over here.
Hmm,,perhaps I could make a bit of extra on the side out of all this.

I may be at Sywell, all depends if I get a SVFR clearance to fly it over to Reno Air Races though .

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:46 pm

BTW,

Does all the above imply that a regulat PPL without add ons could fly IFR ?

If not the EASA Inst. rating is a pricey hill to surmount too !

mike hallam.

ThePipster · Post by **ThePipster** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:00 pm

Maybe the solution to this journey is to take it one step at a time..........

Start with night flight, work a model for minimum equipment, introduce a VMC minima for permit a/c and watch the uptake?

Although Night VFR doesn't current exist in the UK, virtually all night flying seems to be done in VMC conditions, which in truth (CofA regulation aside) requires little extra equipment over the same flight during the day in VMC.

IFR/IMC flight is truly a whole different kettle of fish from pottering about at night in good conditions. I am quite happy flying single at night in clear conditions but not happy in hard IMC with a carburettor equipped single with no de-ice, horses for courses.

As far as night flying is concerned , I would suggest that most people would just want to get home on winter's afternoon when they have slipped 15 mins past last landing. I believe, based on my own experience of operating a certified aircraft group (including 4 IR rated, 3 IMC and 6 night rated pilots), that the hours flown and subsequent incident rate would reflect this assumption

Phil