Timothy wrote:
The concept of “VFR” is very different. That is flying IMC but declaring yourself to ATC/ATS as VFR. There is a whole argument to be had on that subject
There’s absolutely no argument to be had on the subject (SVFR aside). If you are not VMC you must comply with the IFR. SERA 2005 & 5005 refer.
Timothy wrote:
Daesh
Ah, OK. That name hasn’t made it to the German media yet – at least not the ones I read and watch. But you are right, that would be worth the risk of taking off in zero/zero conditions (only to be shot down one minute later though).
PS. Maybe the problem is with the concept “VFR airport”? As far as I know that is not an official term. There are “Instrument airports” and those that are not.
AIP states type of allowed operation. That defines basic type of departures allowed. If VFR only is allowed than you can’t depart in IMC.
what_next wrote:
(only to be shot down one minute later though).
Zero zero take off would have a good chance to give the least chance of you getting shot right after!
Emir wrote:
AIP states type of allowed operation. That defines basic type of departures allowed. If VFR only is allowed than you can’t depart in IMC.
AIP is not law, it is information. That AIP says “VFR” means that the airport is not equipped with procedures etc. for IFR operations. It does not mean that departing in IMC is illegal.
Again, I’m seriously interested in knowing if you have a reference to a regulation that bans taking off in IMC from a non-instrument airport. I’m talking about private flights, of course.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That AIP says “VFR” means that the airport is not equipped with procedures etc.
The “R” in VFR stands for “Rules”. Visual flight rules in airspace G require a visibility of 1500m anywhere in the world, AFAIK. So if the operation of an airfield is limited to visual rules only then one needs 1500m of visibility to operate from there. One of my flying buddies didn’t want to believe that. The airfield operator reported him for a low visibiliy takeoff on their VFR only airfield. They went to court over it, he lost and had to pay a substancial fine. That was in Germany and would have applied to any aircraft taking off from there, no matter what it’s registration was.
what_next wrote:
That was in Germany
As I said earlier, different strokes for different folks. Germany and the UK are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to flying uncontrolled IFR. I believe that Germany has even filed an exception with ICAO to prevent IFR in Class G? Who is out of step there?
what_next wrote:
They went to court over it, he lost and had to pay a substancial fine. That was in Germany
Was that before or after part-NCO came into effect?
Airborne_Again wrote:
Was that before or after part-NCO came into effect?
Before. But it wouldn’t have made a difference, see below.
Timothy wrote:
I believe that Germany has even filed an exception with ICAO to prevent IFR in Class G?
Germany has indeed an exception from SERA rules and only allows IFR in airspaces G along published instrument arrivals and approaches and departures. All airfields in airspace G that I know which have instrument procedures also require a minimum visibility for take off.
