I don’t feel strongly about debating “VFR”. We have been there so often and I could pretty much write the scripts of who is going to say what, and be pretty confident that no-one’s mind will be changed.
The problem is that it sort of peeps out behind the curtain as a misunderstood tangent whenever we discuss IFR OCAS or VMC in CAS and then gets alluded to but not properly bottomed out.
I wonder if you are getting your forums mixed up, Timothy 
Most EuroGA discussions are more or less to the point and informative.
That said, EuroGA is only what people make it, so if there is some content that someone desires, they should start a thread or post in an existing one.
Maybe a new thread is called for?
I happen to think that if aviation was invented today, there would be no VFR/IFR distinction because all of that is basically bollocks and is there only to produce a “flying school product” costing 10k rather than 30k (aerobatics etc aside). OTOH if aviation was invented today it would be immediately banned…
Peter wrote:
if aviation was invented today, there would be no VFR/IFR distinction because all of that is basically bollocks
I totally agree. When I finish a flight, if someone were to ask me if I was VMC/IMC and or VFR/IFR I would not only not be able to answer truthfully, nor would I care very much.
I think it warrants a new thread, otherwise this debate will be totally lost.
Back to this debate, taking on board Timothy’s views, is there mileage in a low viz. approval?
I dont agree with the steep approach approval for light GA as I think it is a complete nonesense (without wishing to get into that debate), but it deos seem to me it might be of some help here. So there would be a general ban below 400 metres, but for the few who wish to excercise the rights to depart in low viz, a specfic pilot and aircraft approval for a lower viz departure. Of course there is also a similiar arrangement for low level aeros.
It seems to me this meets all of Timothy’s requirements, whilst not “opening up” the potential for every pilot to feel he can depart in very low viz conditions with complete disregard to experience and equipment.
It doesn’t meet my requirement for freedom from unnecessary legislation.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
a specfic pilot and aircraft approval for a lower viz departure
And exactly what would be approved? There is no specific aircraft equipment, and it cannot be practiced in a typical FSTD in any meaningful way. Completely pointless paperwork exercise.
what_next wrote:
The biggest ever accident in aviation history was caused by a runway incursion in fog of a B747
It was caused by one of the crews taking off without clearance. The other 747 was there with knowledge and clearance by ATC and were well aware of the offending 747 being in a rush to get out. I would not call that an incursion per se, but a break down of situational awareness both on the part of ATC and the offending 747.
Which does not change much of the outcome. And as far as I know, what was done that day would no longer be allowed under LPV procedures today, that is having two airplanes on a runway at the same time, no matter for what purpose.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And as far as I know, what was done that day would no longer be allowed under LPV procedures today, that is having two airplanes on a runway at the same time, no matter for what purpose.
Yes. But this didn’t prevent other accidents from happening. There have been lots and lots of accidents/incidents in low visibility after Tenerife like runway incursions, line-up and (attempted or actual) departure on the wrong runway, line-up and (attempted or actual) departure from taxiways, collisions during taxiing aircraft, collisions of taxiing aircraft with vehicles and structures and so on. Most of them by skilled, trained and qualified professionals. Low visibility operations are still one of the riskiest parts in today’s automated and supervised aviation.
aaaand – compared to that, so far nobody has mentioned a single accident of a light aircraft taking off in <400m visibility from an uncontrolled airfield.
Cobalt wrote:
aaaand – compared to that, so far nobody has mentioned a single accident of a light aircraft taking off in <400m visibility from an uncontrolled airfield.
Some how I cant imagine a queue of light aircraft waiting to take off when the viz is less than 400m. Yesterday it was CAVOK (mainly) but forecast gusting 35 and the sky was empty ;-)
You could have a straw poll on here and see just how many pilots have taken off in viz of 400m or less and how many times a year – I dont think the numbers would be very large.
