Malibuflyer wrote:
How can this be legal in the UK? Does SERA no longer apply there?
I think in the UK everyone (even the CAA and the ATC interest) recognised straight away that a regulation prohibiting practice approaches was absurd and probably not what the writer intended, so we just ignore it completely.
I am pleased we have that cultural pragmatism.
PROB90 the guy complaining on a forum about getting fined for his practice approach isn’t being wholly candid about exactly what he did.
Just after lockdown 1 (when we could fly but there was still no airline traffic) it was popular to ask for an approach at Gatwick. I did one, but what ATC actually cleared you for was a transit along the runway not below X feet. There is I guess a technical difference between that an approach. I can’t recall exactly what X was, but I sure as hell wasn’t going lower than it seeing as they took the trouble to spell it out.
I doubt the UK CAA blanket exemption from SERA low flying rules has anything to do with ATC “cleared from the low/missed approach”, the General Exemption GE3940 from SERA applies to load of cases: Landing and Taking Off from anywhere where you have land owner permission, practicing IFR/VFR approaches on “training aerodromes” or PFL practice in countryside with sub-2.7T aircrafts, calibration flights, airshows, glider ridge soaring, banner towing, glider tug rope dropping…
Do people seek individual permissions from LBA to do the above?
Can one land in the countryside in Germany?
Graham wrote:
PROB90 the guy complaining on a forum about getting fined for his practice approach isn’t being wholly candid about exactly what he did
That was my first guess, PROB40 ;)
My view on this is that if ATC tell you to do something then it should be legal.
Similarly ATC clearance into airspace is permission to enter and not an airspace bust.
Ive got into the habit of recording flights since I bought lightspeed headsets anyway. 
skydriller wrote:
My view on this is that if ATC tell you to do something then it should be legal.
That’s unfortunately not true. It might be an exonerating circumstance if a case ends up in court.
I totally agree (except for stuff like the glide clear rule which remains the pilot responsibility) and that is why I record stuff nowadays too.
skydriller wrote:
My view on this is that if ATC tell you to do something then it should be legal
All you are assured is ATC in charge will not be the one reporting you (enough to avoid getting a fine but it does not mean it’s legal)
skydriller wrote:
My view on this is that if ATC tell you to do something then it should be legal.
In this generality it would be hard to implement – because as Airborne wrote there are many operational requirements that ATC does not know or even can not know that might limit your (legal) ability to comply, e.g.:
- clearing you for a RVSM level but your airplane is not RVSM certified
- clearing you for an approach that requires ADF, DME, … but you do not have this equipment or it is not serviceable
- clearing you for an altitude that requires oxygen but you don’t have one
The question is, which ATC clearances you can actually “trust in” and do not need to double check if it’s legal?
OP wrote:
according to SERA a low approach (i.e. descending under the minimum altitude w/o the intention of landing) is not allowed (except you are e.g. an FI with a general permission to go below the safe altitude for training reasons).
Where (in SERA) do you find back that exception for a FI ?
I am going for my FI exam next week and this topic will probably come up (Belgium).
Any reference is appreciated.
Niner_Mike wrote:
Where (in SERA) do you find back that exception for a FI ?
It is not in SERA. It needs to be granted by the “competent authority”, which typically means the national aviation authority.
Strange. The last few times I’ve flown through Control Zones of EDDL and EDDK, they’ve always offered me a low approach over the active, mainly because they’re bored. I’ve refused because I’ve typically had places to go.
Are they now committing a felony, aiding and abetting the crime of a low approach??? Are the other towers aware of this lunacy?
During initial training, I did Low Approaches at EDLW – charged €10 for each one, which was cheaper than a touch n go at €25 a pop. Wonder if they can still profit from a criminal activity????
