Permit a/c, IFR and Night Flying - Straw poll and thoughts

Come on in for general chat and POLITE banter between LAA members

Moderators: John Dean, Moderator

What flying would you go for in your permit a/c?

IFR
7
16%
Night
3
7%
Both
19
44%
Neither
14
33%
 
Total votes: 43

WBerry
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:19 pm
Location: Derby

Permit a/c, IFR and Night Flying - Straw poll and thoughts

Post by WBerry » Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:37 pm

Hi All,

I was chatting with a commercial pilot the other week and we happened to be agreed that we'd love to be able to fly IFR on a permit a/c, but that the extra risk of flying at night wasn't worth the fun of it.

I've only had one engine failure, but I was glad I could see the ground.

On the other hand for an IFR Rating, the prospect of being able to fly through a cloud layer, avoid scud running and enjoy the sun shining down on the clouds, did appeal. Plus you're sorted if you stray into cloud/low viz by accident. Presumeably we could even get trained up as part of the pilot coaching scheme?? All this is perhaps far away yet.

I just wondered what other experienced pilots thought about it.

Cheers,
Will.

jangiergiel
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:20 pm

Post by jangiergiel » Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:17 pm

I am personally of the opinion that an aircraft is no more likely to fail at night than during the day, so I can't really see why there is such a fear of night flight. Any forced landing is going to be difficult and quite possibly dangerous, a field that looks flat and clear from 3000ft might not look so good when you get in closer, so there are similar risks of an accident during a forced landing during the day (check out the flat spin/forced landing video on Youtube for G-ONCS (Excellent article and very interesting points raised)).

Modern permit aircraft like RV's etc. are quality kits, they are flown under IFR and night conditions in other countries quite safely. I personally would be more than happy to fly under these conditions, as was mentioned in a previous issue of Light Aviation a permit aircraft using modern reliable equipment would I agree be a more reliable IMC platform than a 40 year old Vacuum powered panel of a C of A aircraft.

Steve Brown
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am

Post by Steve Brown » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:32 am

I don't understand the logic regarding IFR in permit a/c giving a unfair cost advantage over the certified fleet. Permit a/c have other restrictions that make having a CoA a/c worthwhile despite the cost. I understand quite a few potentially TC orphan a/c owners resisted going onto permits because of the many advantages they would otherwise lose

CofA aircraft do have certain advantages in that they are certificated to an international requirement and are maintained by licenced engineers (apart from pilot allowed maintenance) to a LAMS schedule based on fixed time/hr periods.
If they are on a Public Transport CofA they can be used for hire & reward and also leased out to defray fixed the costs.
They can travel freely internationally with no prior permission from other states- some countries will not accept permit aircraft.

Presumably those are just 5 of the advantages that some pilots and their passengers & families are willing to pay more for.

Surely the 'permit IFR or not' issue should be based soley on aircraft safety / technical grounds rather than commercial perspectives and unless restrictions are justified on a risk assessed basis, I think they should be eased now the population and quality of permit aircarft is so high.

Let the permit pilots and passengers make their informed choices over what risks they take.

I agree IFR in some poorly equipped, on condition engined, 40 + year old CofA a/c (which is allowed under the ANO in uncontrolled airspace) is very risky but nevertheless some passengers and possibly pilots are going up in them quite oblivious to the risks involved just because it has a CofA.

I too wouldn't spend a massive amount of time in a single engine a/c (Cof A or otherwise) at night but taking off / landing 30 mins or so before/after official night would be very helpful and provide relatively low risk flight planning flexibility.
Regards
Steve

Nigel Hitchman
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:10 pm
Location: Hinton in the hedges

Post by Nigel Hitchman » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:30 pm

Steve,
I think Peter's comments were in jest!
Dont think all of your advantages of C of A aircraft are correct, hire and reward certainly is, flying abroad is only true for a few countries, for most it is possible to fly in a permit homebuilt aircraft without any need to specifically ask for permission.
As for the maintenance this does not make C of A aircraft better maintained, it is just that perhaps their maintenance is more regulated. You can probably find a lot more C of A aircraft in poor condition, than permit aircraft, many permit aircraft are maintained to a much higher standard than C of A aircraft, not because their owners are forced to by CAA regulations, but because they want to. Of course there are also a few permit aircraft that might not be maintained to as high a standard as well.

As for night/IFR, yes a worthwhile goal, but only as long as it doesnt increase any maintenance or other burden on other permit aircraft who's owners dont want to fly at night or IFR.
The other thing that needs to be considered is with aircraft flying at night and IFR there may be an increase in the accident rate due to flying in these more difficult conditions and we wouldnt want that to cause any reduction in privalidges of those happy with day VFR.
IFR is all very well if you are current and know what you are doing, not such a good idea if you only do it twice a year when you get caught out, but still think you can fly a NDB approach to minima and on a turbulent day when all your training was in nice weather with foggles on! But this is a problem for C of A aircraft as well as permit aircraft.

Personally I think Id only really use IFR privilidges to fly VFR on top or to fly in Class A airspace, like low level airways, but thats a non starter unless I get a mode S! If its too bad to "scud run" under the clouds Im not sure that I really want to be trying to break cloud having flown ontop, to then try to find the strip Im flying to! If its that bad I think Id rather stay on the ground or turn back if Im already airborn. (I do have an IR but only use it in large aircraft)
Not interested in flying at night except perhaps if Im late getting back one night and its still light but legally "night flying" Most of the places I fly to dont have any lights.

Steve Brown
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am

Post by Steve Brown » Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:04 pm

Nigel - good points. I guess I was responding to Peter's point because a similar approach of "Would the Floodgates open?" had been put forward on page 14 of the Jan 2009 LAA mag in Over the Hedge. I wanted to say something to counter the 'don't change due to commercial considerations' approach.

That said, I agree with much/all of what you say and welcome your perspective & wise input.

I didn't intend to say/imply that maintenance of CoA a/c is better than on Permit. Far from it, I was merely saying that it was regulated more tightly and some people ( both pilots and laymen) will take security & value (even if it is actually misplaced) from that. That's surely the reason for the standard 'not certificated etc ' placard we using Permit a/c have to display clearly to passengers.

Ref worry on maintenance creep for all permit a/c - a valid unintended consequence concern for the rest of the LAA fleet. However to mitigate this, I would have thought something similar to the way LAA manage 4 seat Permit a/c could apply - ie only allowing a specific category of inspector to inspect IFR capable permit a/c and thus ensure the specific requirements of IFR capable a/c are met e.g. lights, etc.

I could also see a specific 'aircraft type' IFR authorisation from LAA Engineering to ensure only the more aerodynamically stable types are allowed to fly IFR. The ANO would define the equipment level ie as per C of A aircraft.

Overall this is similar to the existing restrictions of certain otherwise IFR capable CofA aircraft to enter icing conditions.

I also didn't say Permit needed to ask specific permission for international travel - but you do for Belgium for instance and pay extra both in £'s and delay for the priviledge and it is optionally granted too! I avoid Belgium airspace altogether - fortunately their geographic position allows skirting round them - their loss of tourist trade I say.

I do recognise we effectively have a standing agreement with France, Netherlands etc but it is still optional and in these days of H&S and terrorism/security - well, who knows! Jersey??

Flying at night is largely pilot skill limited, not aircraft certification status I think.

I am with you ref limited use of night flying ie dawn & dusk times mainly , and similarly using IFR largely to allow VFR on top & Class A rather than sculling around in horrible weather. Not flying for fun that!

I am IR too and think that the training one gets generally ensures the IFR rated pilot uses his training & judgement on his personal weather and approach type minimums, currency, single engine risks etc etc - none of which have anything to do with CofA / Permit status. I read somewhere that the accident rate of IMC/IR pilots is much lower. Encouraging anything that increases the numbers of IFR capable pilots (due to cheaper IFR flying causing more to get qualified ) may actually be a safety benefit.

Finally I think it is interesting that the IFR Permit restriction prevents me filing IFR for a flight, which by choosing IFR would compel me to fly the flight to higher safety standards ie higher ground clearances, quadrantal rules, file a flight plan etc even if I will conduct the flight wholly under VMC conditions. Under the current approach, would it not be more relevant for Permit aircraft to only be flown in VMC conditions which I guess is the real intention. ie VMC doesn't mean VFR and IFR doesn't mean IMC.

Thanks for the debate!
Last edited by Steve Brown on Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ffg
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:43 pm

Post by ffg » Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:58 pm

Steve Brown wrote:
Finally I think it is interesting that the IFR Permit restriction prevents me filing IFR for a flight,
Is this right Steve? I was under the impression that anyone in any aircraft can elect to fly IFR, if it's in VMC.

I vote for IMC and Night capability for suitably equipped Permit aircraft. I don't think this will result in more accidents - it will allow properly qualified pilots to choose the safest option for the flight.

best

David Pick

Steve Brown
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am

Post by Steve Brown » Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:54 pm

Well I may be wrong but my Permit to Fly Operating Limitations says "...flown by day and under Visual Flight Rules only" So I can't legally put IFR on my flight plan. :)

WBerry
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:19 pm
Location: Derby

Post by WBerry » Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:18 pm

Re CofA vs PtF, a better question I think is this:

Rather than why spend loads on a CofA a/c, how about why shouldn't any CofA a/c (possibly within reason) elect to go PtF. Much the same principle as a PLL going NPPL. If you're not getting anything out of it apart from a bigger bill, why shouldn't you be permitted to re-classify yourself and or a/c.

Thats not to say that CofA a/c don't have benefits associated with that, but why make the distinction when its purely an administrative issue.

WBerry
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:19 pm
Location: Derby

Post by WBerry » Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:17 pm

Re night flying, I don't think there's any doubt that an engine failure at night is many times more dangerous than during the day.

OK, you hope you don't get that engine failure in either case, but if you do get one, its down to blind luck (no pun intended) wether you get a nice flat field, or a lake, or power lines, etc.

Although I'm doubtless a bit more risk averse now I have a little boy, the previous paragraph still holds true.

Mike Jackson
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:47 pm

Post by Mike Jackson » Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:36 pm

Don't we, the LAA, want the "floodgates to open", as suggested in the article in the current mag. Don't we want more and more flying LAA permit aircraft? Some reasons for IFR flight were well put by Mike Barnard in an earlier issue, and I'm not going to repeat them.

The future of the IMCR is indeed in doubt, but I understand that we, the Brits, have been given at least until 2012 to get our arguments for retention across to EASA. To nearly everyone's surprise, the CAA found that 25,000 IMCRs have beeing issued in the nearly 40 years of its existence, with about 10,000 being still current. The stats on the CAA web site show that there were about 1000 new issues a year during the 90s.

Combine this with the magnificent, unbelievable, safety record of just ONE fatal accident of an IMCR pilot in IMC in 40 years, as compared to the continuous sad losses from flying VFR into IMC by non qualified pilots, and one can see why the CAA regards loss of the rating as potentially leading to many more fatalities.

With 10,000 current IMCRs out there, I'm sure that a sizeable fraction would fly permit aircraft if allowed, simply because modern kit aircraft have better performance and much lower operating cost than comparable CofA types.

I've had my Glasair for 18 years now, and maintenance costs have been probably 15% of comparable complex CofA types, and no CofA aircraft of even much greater power has nearly the same performance. Vans seem to have become the benchmark for kit aircraft now, and the review of the RV10 shows that it can match the best in its class. Every one of the dozen or so pilots that I'm well aquainted with at my home base has a current IR or IMCR, but despite the envy they show at the performance and costs of my aircraft, none would get an aircraft with a VFR limitation.

The builder of my a/c fitted it with full IFR instruments and avionics, and I have routinely, and legally, done my 2 yearly IMCR renewal in it, simply to be able to cope in any unforecast weather, and easily manage those very common situations where its legal VFR, but at altitude or over the sea, etc, there is no visual horizon at all, and IFR navigation takes all the pressure off. Its also very steady to fly on instruments.

To me, its the variability of British weather that makes being an IMC trained pilot in an IFR capable aircraft such a safety matter.

Incidently, not many noticed a change in the ANO nearly 2 years ago, which John Brady has referred to in his column. Without prior notice, the ANO was changed so that an aircraft limited to VFR, is deemed to meet that requirement if it is clear of cloud and in sight of the surface, even if the conditions/regs require the pilot to fly IFR. The explanatory notes to the SI, which enabled the ANO change, specifically state that the change was to enable VFR limited aircraft to fly IFR in some conditions.

This change has affected my own flying greatly, lifting all the rules relating to distance from cloud when over 3000ft, and when lower down in very poor vis.
As I see it, there's nothing wrong in an IR/IMCR flying a permit aircraft IFR doing an ILS in Class D airspace in 2k vis as long as he can see the ground below throughout (and the a/c is properly equipped!).

Mike.

Steve Brown
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am

Post by Steve Brown » Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:04 am

Thanks Mike - that's very informative ref ANO change.
The ANO is such a convoluted document with many cross referrals that interpretation is really hard sometimes.

The change you refer to I think is under Part 3 of CAP393 Airworthiness / Equipment of Aircraft 8 (6) which seems to be somewhat qualified by (my italics/underline) ie

(6) An aircraft flying clear of cloud and with the surface in sight shall, for the purposes of this article, be deemed to be flying in accordance with the Visual Flight Rules.

What does this mean in practice - can a Permit aircraft legally file/fly IFR on a flightplan?

The ANO also (perhaps under a different article?) says

...( 8 ) An aircraft flying in accordance with a permit to fly shall only be flown by day and in accordance with the Visual Flight Rules

This is subtly different to that in my PtF Operating Limitations (...' and under Visual Flight Rules only.') so perhaps as ffg/David queried, this does seem to allow me to file IFR providing I maintain VMC/follow visual flight rules at all times.

I can see this might not be possible in all circumstances - in which case one would have to cancel IFR and revert to VFR. Much like filing IFR in a CoA a/c may lead one to being cleared by ATC into icing conditions that ones a/c is unequipped to deal with, in which case again one may have to cancel IFR & go VFR.

Phew!!! - I realise a lot of this is academic for our VFR a/c but if we are proposing extending Permit a/c capability, I think it is worth understanding precisely what the present setup is.
Regards
Steve :?

ffg
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:43 pm

Post by ffg » Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:38 pm

Yes - that's what I was trying to say, rather incoherently as usual.

AFAIK (not very far usually) we may, in a Permit aircraft, declare/file a flight under IFR, as long as we stay in VMC.

David Pick

Post Reply