in the austrian aip it says for loih:
types of traffic permitted: VFR
Ibra wrote:
The guy did takeoff with visibility less than 400m though, VFR or IFR would not make any difference to legality
as data strongly suggests visibility was less than 1500m.
(we saw the pictures. we heard the arguments about webcams etc.)
we have by no means the same likelyhood that it was less then 400 meter.
we cannot be sure of that !
with groundfog given in the area, its density especially close to the ground, could vary within an area of 1km2 or 4km2.
the exact numbers could only come up with the investigation in my view.
we have by no means the same likelyhood that it was less then 400 meter
It depends on fog thickness and lights, on the errors measuring visibility or range from eyes, webcames, or pictures, here is 350m RVR on METAR, we could see the big sun and blue sky vertically but horizontally you have to wait for it to clear up, if you have not seen RVR, do you think it’s legal to depart with that big sun in front?
I agree it’s better to leave that measurement to those who look after the crash (taking back my earlier comment)
cpt_om_sky wrote:
as data strongly suggests visibility was less than 1500m.
(we saw the pictures. we heard the arguments about webcams etc.)we have by no means the same likelyhood that it was less then 400 meter.
we cannot be sure of that !
As Mooney_Driver has pointed earlier today, please don’t try determine VIS/RVR using a webcam unless you really know what you are doing. It can be very deceptive as human as much more sensitive.
types of traffic permitted: VFR
That usually means no instrument approaches are published.
please don’t try determine VIS/RVR using a webcam
RVR, sure, because RVR is not what one normally calls “visibility” i.e. the ability to discern an object. Example.
arj1 wrote:
As Mooney_Driver has pointed earlier today, please don’t try determine VIS/RVR using a webcam unless you really know what you are doing. It can be very deceptive as human as much more sensitive.
i did say, as data strongly suggest, i did not say i was drawing my hypothesis from webcams only.
some good experience looking thru webcams when you, at the same time, know/see the actual conditions there might help though.
visibility at takeoff the investigation will determine and answer. for me its more of legal implications.
the point is. visibility was poor to very poor.
the pilot knew he would be imc after takeoff, most probable with zero visibility in the fog.
he tought and planed to climb thru the fog within minutes (coroborated information).
and most likely (had) prepared for it.
….or do you mean IMC conditions
Yes, I meant IMC conditions.
We know you can do this legally in the UK (an IFR dep in “10ft” cloudbase and >400m pilot-interpreted vis, from an airfield with no IAPs) but this happened in Austria.
This is just going in circles because nobody actually knows how the various regs interact. It’s pointless. Can people post if they actually know something relevant to this?
Yes of course, ATC can stop you doing what they like, or the airport can publish other (more restrictive than SERA etc) minima. But Redhill is nowhere near Austria, and doesn’t have a proper runway anyway.
The legality (or not) of this guy’s departure is irrelevant because he is dead and can’t be prosecuted, and he didn’t kill an passengers so nobody will go after him. The only liability is the wreckage and spilt fuel cleanup which the insurance will cover (or not) but it probably won’t be more than a few k unless some “environmental types” get stuck into it.
The owner of the plane won’t be happy if the insurance doesn’t pay out, however. But insurance does cover negligence (except in Germany, and Austria may have a similar law; does anybody know?).
I could move 200 posts out of this thread to off-topic. It would not be valuable for a new thread because much of it is just random jumping-around
Yes please could somebody start a new thread on this debate. I am busy.
