This is all so weird for an FAA pilot. If mixing night VFR and airliners is so dangerous, surely the US should be littered with the smoking hulks of airliners?
As probably everyone knows, there is no “NQ” in the FAA system. You have to be night current, but assuming the field has lights (a great many public-use airports do, even small ones) then you can do night VFR there. End of story. San Jose, CA, for example, a busy airliner airport, is Class C and the idea that NVFR might be dangerous has never occurred to anyone.
Same thing with a comment on a recent thread that you can’t possibly use Class E because VFR separation isn’t assured. Same thing, why isn’t the US littered with airliner wrecks then? The whole of the US is Class E apart from the immediate vicinity of controlled airfields. Seems to work just fine.
johnh wrote:
This is all so weird for an FAA pilot. If mixing night VFR and airliners is so dangerous
If you are familiar with something, you can accept it’s risk 
I recall flying with US CFI in C172 over LA at 500ft agl passing through every house, palm tree, swimming pool and bikinis…he saw that I was nervous and mentioned it’s ok to fly over congested areas as new engines are very reliable, it’s even more enjoyable at night when flying few hundreds feet higher,
Then he was scared to hell when I told him in UK, I fly IFR in IMC in Golf without flight plan or talking to anyone (even done that in gliders), that was enough to get the “reckless pilot label” from him 
johnh wrote:
Seems to work just fine
I think you are right about that !
IFR in IMC in Golf without flight plan or talking to anyone
One of my US instructors just flat out refused to believe this was possible. In fact it’s technically legal in the US, but given there’s no Class G above 1200 AGL any more there’s nowhere you can actually do it.
johnh wrote:
San Jose, CA, for example, a busy airliner airport, is Class C and the idea that NVFR might be dangerous has never occurred to anyone.
Class C is not a problem as there VFR is separated from IFR by ATC.
And btw.: I never said it is a practical problem – I just presented a potential formal “excuse” for an ATC that does not want to hassle with NVFR…
johnh wrote:
Same thing with a comment on a recent thread that you can’t possibly use Class E because VFR separation isn’t assured. Same thing, why isn’t the US littered with airliner wrecks then?
Airline IFR is really a problem at some European airports (no, we don’t have piles of airline wrecks on the ground either but a significant number of near misses) and there is a reason why it is out of your frame of reference: gliders! (Yes, those funny airplanes that not even have an engine which are hardly known in the US but are really a big thing in some European countries like Germany and Switzerland). It’s not only that establishing separation to a glider is difficult for a B747 – they even need to give the glider right of way.
Btw.: Many differences in regulations between the US and Europe are rooted by the fact that glider flying is a big thing here but not so much in the US.
Malibuflyer wrote:
there is a reason why it is out of your frame of reference: gliders!
I have flown them in Germany, I was told to strictly obey VMC cloud distance in Echo above my nearby MVA pity the last bit of the lift near cloud-base tend to be really strong but I did not complain much as cloud base in Bavaria was 3 times more than UK average !
PS: gliders don’t fly at night in Echo in UK/Germany they can do clouds in Golf though (I saw one doing displays with pyrotechnics at night but he has a display authorization)
Malibuflyer wrote:
Yes, those funny airplanes that not even have an engine which are hardly known in the US
Depends where you are. I used to fly at the Soaring Club of Houston, which is busy club virtually on the approach to KIAH. Houston had another glider club not far from KIAH (the GHSA) who were also quite active.
It’s just excuses for poor service.
The real reason is that in the US, Airports and ATC are seen as public infrastructure and are supposed to be open to all and everybody. Even more importantly, those who work in providing these services every day see it like that and do their best to make it available to all and everybody.
At the other end of the scale, ATC and [non-“recreational” airfield] infrastructure exists primarily for the benefit of commercial aviation, has little or no obligation or incentive to serve anybody else, and has done the equivalent of fencing off large parts of the commons to exclusively graze their own cattle so we can’t walk our little dogs there anymore.
European countries tend to be around that end of the scale, some more so, some less.
alioth wrote:
I used to fly at the Soaring Club of Houston, which is busy club virtually on the approach to KIAH
Great illustration of the difference between US and Europe. Soaring Club of Houston is more than 30NM away from KIAH.
Within the range of 30NM around EDDF there are about 15 airfields with substantial glider traffic!
btw.: Next time I’m in the southern part of US I absolutely need to visit SCOH: I haven’t had the chance to fly an L-23 in ages – that was the glider I made my license in…
Getting back to the topic, please, which is nothing to do with gliding and probably nothing to do with Class E, it doesn’t look great.
Reading https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/live-updates-emiliano-sala-trial-21887929
It seems at least the CAA in answering the prosecution seem to completely ignore the 61.75. , it seems in the evidence given by the CAA he did have an IMC rating, but no UK NQ, and his SEP rating was expired, and they refer to 61.75 as a “validation certificate”…
Not that the 61.75 means he was qualified…
