(This is a spin-off from a thread discussion the accident at Hohenems)
Both EASA as well as many national regulations (for different types of airfields) create the option that an airfield is designated as “VFR operations only”. The question is what the implications of such a designation really are, specifically in terms of:
- Does that designation only affect what is happening on ground or does it imply the entire aerodrome traffic (i.e. including airborne traffic arriving and departing at this airfield)?
- Which min visibility and or min. cloud base requirements are applicable to such an airfield?
- If you take off from such an airfield, can you do it on an I-FPL or do you have to file an Z-FPL?
- What is the earliest possible point to switch flight rules to IFR when departing from such an aerodrome?
Quoted from a different thread to get the discussion over here.
Cobalt wrote:
Here is the history of these rules:At the starting point was a set of rules in Austria and Germany which
prohibited IFR in Class G
required aircraft to only use approved airports and in line with that approval (opening hours, type of aircraft, type of operation)
required aircraft to use established instrument procedures
required aircraft to have specific approval for IFR (rather than just minimum equipment). NB – I know this was the case in Germany, but not sure about Austria.
Both intent and letter of the (national, there was no other) law reflected the above.Then SERA and Part-NCO came along, and all of the sudden they
allowed IFR in Class G (explicitly written in the regs)
allowed IFR operations only subject to certain weather minima (e.g., 400m) with no mention of anything else required
allowed IFR ops without established procedures (in contrast to CAT, where procedures are required)
only requires certain equipment for IFR (not individual approval of aircraft)
The EASA intent here is clear – as long as you have 400m visibility, you can (subject to some conditions) take off IFR and fly in IFR in class G. It is explicit in SERA, and the absence of a prohibition in part NCO or other parts also means that EASA allows this.BUT…
EASA never regulated where aircraft are allowed to take off and land, and at what times. So old national regulations remain in place for that – in Austria and Germany, it is mandatory to use an approved airport, and approval is subject to operating hours, particular type of aircraft, and as relevant here, flight rules (IFR/VFR).
I don’t follow your representation that this is a clash between “old” national law and “new” EU law.
Even “New” EU law explicitly stipulates that an airfield is designated as “VFR operations only”. So the EU clearly had not the intention to allow IFR takeoffs anywhere as long as RVR is good enough. As EASA only regulates certain types of airfields (e.g. those with commercial use, etc.), for all other airfields the national regulation is primary and not a “legacy from the pre EASA world”.
So for the discussion on LOIH it is not really relevant if the airfield is designated VFR by EASA or by national authority – the question in both regulations remains, what the consequences of a designation as “VFR-only” really means
Malibuflyer wrote:
the question in both regulations remains, what the consequences of a designation as “VFR-only” really means
I think this is closely related to the general question of airports and airport licensing. In some countries you basically may only land or take off at an approved airport (Germany comes to mind, but my impression from this discussion is that this also applies to Austria). In other countries (e.g. Sweden, and, as far as I understand, the UK) you can take off and land anywhere without the need for any permission from the aviation authorities. In the latter case, there is not necessarily any involvement of the aviation authorities at all and thus not necessarily a “designation” of any kind. If the Swedish AIP, only airports with TWR or AFIS have an explicit “VFR” or “VFR/IFR” designation. Other airports do not. (Not even licensed airports.)
In the latter case, there is not necessarily any involvement of the aviation authorities at all and thus not necessarily a “designation” of any kind
I fully agree, anyway if airport does not have an ICAO code (military runway or private backyard), it won’t even get listed in the country index under AD1.3, the I-FPL will be filed with ZZZZ and DCT to next point, it’s impossible to find a rule that make 400m IFR takeoff operations on those runways prohibited…
For AIP airports, you can get into all sorts of classifications: ATC/AFIS vs no ATS, public, private, licence, training, commercial…
One important distinction is that NAA do not allow IFR training or IFR commercial operations in “VFR AD” (or even “IFR AD without at least an AFIS”) without having explicit NAA approval (there are few exceptions with proprietary ILS/GPS to AD with training/commercial ops only), VFR departures & VFR landings on those cases are obligatoire
Airborne_Again wrote:
In other countries (e.g. Sweden, and, as far as I understand, the UK) you can take off and land anywhere without the need for any permission from the aviation authorities.
So in Sweden and UK I can literally land in my backyard (if it is large enough) and no NAA, City or neighbour can prevent me doing so?
Malibuflyer wrote:
So in Sweden and UK I can literally land in my backyard (if it is large enough) and no NAA, City or neighbour can prevent me doing so?
In the UK – yes, you are only limited on 28 days of operation per year – it becomes more complicated after that in terms of planning permission, but not aviation safety.
Malibuflyer wrote:
So in Sweden and UK I can literally land in my backyard (if it is large enough)
In France, in ULM with land owner permission but it’s VFR only, the machine not the backyard nor the pilot…
In UK, yes -28days/year without nothing and +28days/year with more paperwork, aeroplanes VFR & IFR
Ibra wrote:
I fully agree, anyway if airport does not have an ICAO code (military runway or private backyard), it won’t even get listed in the country index under AD1.3, the I-FPL will be filed with ZZZZ and DCT to next point, it’s impossible to find a rule that make 400m IFR takeoff operations on those runways prohibited…
That’s not possible in Croatia (IIRC Austria and Germany also) because ZZZZ can be used for take off / landing only on Z/Y plans and operations from/to ZZZZ require special permission issued by CAA.
Malibuflyer wrote:
So in Sweden and UK I can literally land in my backyard (if it is large enough) and no NAA, City or neighbour can prevent me doing so?
In Sweden, in principle they can’t prevent you from doing so for occasional movements. Of course you can’t do it in a way that would put your neighbour at risk as the general rules about reckless operations still apply. Then there are exceptions for nature reserves etc.
There is an interesting court case in Sweden where a helicopter pilot literally did land in his own backyard and was prosecuted on grounds of endangering the public. (There were a lot of other houses close by.)
Malibuflyer wrote:
don’t follow your representation that this is a clash between “old” national law and “new” EU law
It is not a clash. It’s just that nobody made it clear where one rule starts and the other one ends.
Before leaving the runway (which can only be done VFR) to being established in the climb out, a switch from VFR to VFR happens, and nobody has made it clear exactly where earliest point for that transition is.
Austria didn’t because when it made the rules, it was the 1950s (Flugplatzzwang) or 1971 (the regulation cited above), and the issue was dealt with in national law, which prohibited IFR in class G, and required an IFR flight plan and IFR clearance for IFR. So it was never in question.
When EASA abolished the class G IFR prohibition, flight plan and clearance requirements, it didn’t clarify the earliest point for an IFR transition because as far as they are concerned, IFR can start on the ground, as it does for example in countries without “Flugplatzzwang”.
Malibuflyer wrote:
So in Sweden and UK I can literally land in my backyard (if it is large enough) and no NAA, City or neighbour can prevent me doing so?
As someone else wrote, yes. In the UK, with landowner’s permission, you can also take off from a licenced airfield outside the licencing conditions, e.g., at night or outside the licenced hours or without the minimum fire cover. This is legally the same as operating from a farmer’s field.
Hence you get different people arguing the different extremes – those used to “IFR only with ATC clearance, either on the ground (I flight plan) or well after departure above MSA in controlled airspace (Z flight plan)” argue that “Operating from an airfield” ends quite some time after take-off, while those used to “in class G, I fly IFR when I say I am flying IFR” at the other extreme argue that once the wheels have left the ground, the airfield is irrelevant and they can switch.
Neither of the two can pinpoint to an exact regulation which clarifies where that boundary is; it is (so far) all interpretation of other regs and guessing the “intent”.
