We could. The problem is that the control freaks want to regulate other’s activity. Unfortunately many of them end up running the regulators.
I feel there is a very big difference between a licensed airport with all the aids and a grass strip with nothing. I mean who is ever going to regulate a grass strip anyway, and / or determine what the visibility actually is, whatever minimium you establish. That is not to encourage law breaking, but rather the practical consequences. At these places a recommended minimium, much as with the IMCr, seems very sensible.
It would be interesting to see what is actually being proposed, I now get the sense that it is a blanket increased minimium regardless of the airport facilities which is a very different matter.
Can we be clear what the proosed changes are?
Now I am confused.
A moment ago you were saying that it was OK at Biggin, but not in farmers fields, and now you are saying the other way round?
Sorry – no i am sticking with the 400 metres for airports that dont meet the required criteria, but accepting for the arguments you have made, that you might just as well make this a recommended minimium because of the problems enforcing any minimium.
Timothy, Biggin enforces 400m unless you hold an AOC doesn’t it?
Oxford does as well.
I’m a bit bemused by some of this. I can understand that some of you folks with IFR rocket ships might need to see quite a bit of runway, but if the day ever dawns when my apology for an aeroplane couldn’t comfortably take off, land, stop, taxi for 50 yards, stop, and take off again on my 430 m runway, I’ll be inclined to eat my bushwheels and burn the rest.
So, setting aside the pompous inanity of some EASAcrat trying to regulate what goes on at a poor Scottish farmer’s airstrip, this proposed RVR limit, whether it be 175 or 400 m or whatever, ought to take account of aircraft performance – and who better to judge that than the pilot?
When training for my IR(R) my instructor often made me take off under the hood. I was (and remain) cr@p at every aspect of IF, but I rather enjoyed rolling down the runway pretending to pay attention to the HSI, and knowing that my instructor felt slightly short-changed by those six seconds before take-off.
Hey, even if we said 175 feet, Bobby Breedon could take off and land his Cub half a dozen times…
Jacko i would have accepted everything you said until scottish, poor and a farmer were cojoined ;-)
I don’t buy the Scottish bit either. The farm is there but the owner is less Scottish than I am.
Emir wrote:
Because obviosly it’s not runway with official instrument departure.
That is obvious, but it doesn’t make it any less IFR.
It is only confusing when people invent their own meaning of established concepts. Like saying that IFR OCAS is “VFR in IMC”.
