Emir wrote:
How do you fly proper IFR departure from a VFR only airfield? I’m asking for a friend
It’s easy. I do it regularly.
First you determine a procedure that will reliably bring you above the enroute safety altitude. Depending on the obstacle situation that can be very easy or very difficult. In the case of my home base, it is fortunately very easy. The obstacle situation is such that you can apply the “default” omnidirectional departure procedure – fly on runway heading until 400’ AAL, then turn on course. Of course, local noise abatement procedures can also make this part difficult.
What can be more involved is getting a clearance before entering controlled airspace. Exactly how you do this depends very much on the local airspace structure conditions and local ATC procedures for entering controlled airspace from class G. E.g. in some countries the clearance isn’t valid until you reach the MVA, in other countries it is valid the moment you enter controlled airspace.
Then you fly. The aircraft doesn’t know if you’re departing from an instrument or non-instrument airport.
The important thing is that you don’t improvise this. It must be planned in advanced and approached with the same care as any other part of an IFR flight.
Ibra wrote:
The same way how you fly from a VFR airfield at night
Which doesn’t exist in my country (luckily 
) so I can’t comment.
Emir wrote:
First question is whether it’s legal to take off in IMC from VFR only airfield. Which is not.
Please quote chapter and verse for this claim.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It’s easy.
It is also illegal in most cases if you do this in IMC.
Airborne_Again wrote:
First you determine a procedure that will reliably bring you above the enroute safety altitude.
Isn’t that the job of the specialists who design SIDs and other IFR procedures? We pilots are not trained but particularly not AUTHORIZED to do this. DIY procedures have in the past claimed quite a lot of lifes.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It’s easy. I do it regularly.First you determine a procedure that will reliably bring you above the enroute safety altitude. Depending on the obstacle situation that can be very easy or very difficult. In the case of my home base, it is fortunately very easy. The obstacle situation is such that you can apply the “default” omnidirectional departure procedure – fly on runway heading until 400’ AAL, then turn on course. Of course, local noise abatement procedures can also make this part difficult.
What can be more involved is getting a clearance before entering controlled airspace. Exactly how you do this depends very much on the local airspace structure conditions and local ATC procedures for entering controlled airspace from class G. E.g. in some countries the clearance isn’t valid until you reach the MVA, in other countries it is valid the moment you enter controlled airspace.
Then you fly. The aircraft doesn’t know if you’re departing from an instrument or non-instrument airport.
The fact that you do that regularly doesn’t make it safe. I’m happy that such practice is not possible in Croatia where legally you can’t take off from VFR-only field in VMC conditions.
mooney, you are absolutely wright with your 10:10 comment !
the photo on safety-aviation net strongly indicates that he was going out northward on 05.
i do apologize for my wrong information here.
(as i said before there have been conflicting reports concerning the takeoff.
i assumed before that he went out 05 for obvious reasons.
but then a close person who spoke to the pilot minutes before takeoff on the phone
told me yesterday in a discussion that he intented to go out on 23.)
going out before 09:00 lt on loih seems to require special permission by the “betriebsleiter”
also because of local flight restrictions (noise) concerning the city of dornbirn.
therefore going out southward is preferred.
probably some last minute change of mind was involved concerning takeoff direction.
i spoke with the pilot last week about his flight plans for this weekend.
no, sadly enough i had not been at loih at the time he took off.
and yes, he was a good friend.
Isn’t that the job of the specialists who design SIDs?
I hear this every time, lot of GA IFR airports with IAP plates don’t even have a published SID
You just depart and avoid terrain by following a planned route, it’s not rocket science…
Can you show me a SID to follow when departing from Sywell or Ouessant?
We can debate for ages on legalities and technicalities of how one can get a clearance but for sure it’s way simpler and safer than any fort of scud runs or amateurish visual flying some people get into, if one is IR rated nothing beats the classy climb you get by doing a planned IFR departures straight into the soft clouds then blue sky with big relaxed smile, it’s proper self respect, anyone who is IR rated and try to remain VMC in Golf by flying bellow clouds into terrain, need some brain cells…
As far as I am concerned, you put all effort in avoiding terrain once above safe altitude the main issue for IFR in Golf is lost comms and clearance to join airspace
It must be planned in advanced and approached with the same care as any other part of an IFR flight.
That is the key thing, I don’t fly freestyle VFR when ceiling is bellow 2000ft, I fly IFR on a well planned route that I have checked and put on my GPS with FD/HSI
Airborne_Again wrote:
Please quote chapter and verse for this claim.
In Croatia is like that. Maybe I wrongly assumed that it’s same in Austria because we share a lot of common local legislation.
…except that if you get it wrong, you can end up CFITing yourself, as this guy did.
Increased freedom in this case increases the risk. We will probably never find out why he turned right, whether he either had no plan (“I’ll pop out right after takeoff”), the wrong plan (“I”ll make a tight right turn well inside the valley”) or made a mistake executing the plan (turning right instead of left).
Only ever using SIDS mitigates two of the three risks. So some people prefer that. Fine with me.
Back in the day, at least in the UK pre JAR, the ATP theory required students to show they could calculate performance using Net Take Off Flight Path performance graphs (ME) and aerodrome obstacle charts.
EASA seems to have de skilled this requirement, although it is covered in the question banks.
The USA general practice is to helpfully brief obstacles in the departure and arrival briefs.
Applying these TEM analysis probably wouldn’t have helped, as given the prevailing conditions the departure would have been below minima in any event.
