Cobalt wrote:
compared to that, so far nobody has mentioned a single accident of a light aircraft taking off in <400m visibility from an uncontrolled airfield.
Probably because many of us think it is a daft proposition.
So, if the large majority of pilots are able to self regulate not to do it, and the rest don’t crash, what problem is this new legislation addressing?
Timothy wrote:
…and the rest don’t crash,…
We have no way of knowing that. I am 100% sure (knowing myself and other pilots) that not a single accident or incident occurring in (or because of) low visibility (or other legally doubtful) conditions will be attributed to that as long as there are no witnesses. And how could there be a witness if there is nothing to be seen… So it will either be covered up – very easy with runway or taxiway excursions, you simply attribute it to steering or braking difficulties or gusts – or blamed on something that was broken during the crash.
Anyway I am pretty sure that there have been accidents of light aircraft in low visibility conditions but have other things to do than google around.
Timothy wrote:
So, if the large majority of pilots are able to self regulate not to do it, and the rest don’t crash, what problem is this new legislation addressing?
Establishing a safe limit for the vast majority. Why would you not do so? We have all sorts of “safe” limits, requiring special training and / or dispensation if you wish to exceed these limits.
For the few that would wish to conduct zero zero departures why not have them demonstrate their and their aircraft’s competance in the same way as steep approaches and low level aeros?
Then everyone is happy – the regulator because they are not “condoning” something that most pilots think inherently unsafe without further training, the pilot, because those who have the need can obtain the dispensation, and the airport authority, because they dont now need the pilot to be part of an AOC operation, and, if anything went wrong, can cite the dispenation.
what_next wrote:
Low visibility operations are still one of the riskiest parts in today’s automated and supervised aviation.
Absolutely.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Why would you not do so?
Because we are supposed to live in a world of proportionate legislation and lack of unnecessary restriction. There is no evidence that this is necessary
For the few that would wish to conduct zero zero departures
Thus demonstrating the futility of this kind of discussion. Loopback to here and here.
Timothy wrote:
Because we are supposed to live in a world of proportionate legislation and lack of unnecessary restriction. There is no evidence that this is necessary
but isnt that the point that we keep coming back to – there is no evidence it isnt necessary either. The population of pilots doing low level aeros is very small, the population of pilots equally doing zero zero departures is probably at least as small. There are probably two reasons it is small, most people dont feel it is safe, and the conditions are rare. Something not practised often, is likely to be more risky. Most GA pilots dont even have the advantage of sim training.
So, it seems to me the legislation is very necessary, and it would be proportionate if it was accompanied by a dispensation. Moreover, it would be the “right” way to deal with it because just like low level aerobatics, the number of pilots that would be “restricted from doing as they wished” by the legislation would be very small, and those pilots could demonstrate their ability and be granted a dispensation. Everyone is thus happy.
The legislation was not there for decades and there is no evidence that that was a problem.
If we legislated against everything that we thought might one day be a problem we’d be overwhelmed by the loss of freedom and utility.
We know that people bump into one another in VMC. By comparison to this, it’s a huge problem. Actually, an infinitely bigger problem, as you are dividing by zero.
We can make that problem disappear by banning VFR flying altogether. Control all flights, on a slot system, out and into IFR airfields. That would eliminate VFR mid-airs.
But would it be proportionate?
Yes; I also cannot see the case for the blanket 400m min vis.
If the previous situation was causing a problem, we would have people going off the runway sideways in what is obviously fog (fog is usually obvious to witnesses) whereas most people who go off the runway go off the far end of it because they were too heavy, etc. There would also be Tenerife-type collisions, which AFAIK are unheard of in light GA.
Real zero-zero is something else and that prompted me to start this thread. More “normal” vis e.g. 200m is much easier and you can steer the aircraft normally. As I said, airliners do this all the time down to 75m.
How often does “real” zero visibility occur? I live in a part of Germany that gets the most fog in the country and we never had a visibility below 50 m here for the last four years. Any German motorist can easily measure this using the road markings. They are always spaced 50 m apart.
I’d say 50 m visit should be enough to follow an illuminated runway centreline in most light GA aircraft. But this was discussed in the previous dozen of pages of this topic.
Anyways, like Timothy I don’t see the need for any regulation on this. Most people will stay on the ground in such conditions,making the risk for third parties very small. And if someone runs off the runway due to low vis then that’s their own problem.
