Malibuflyer wrote:
The fact that in many cases you are not allowed to enter IMC if you are not flying under IFR (note: in most cases! In some countries it is completely legal under certain requirements to e.g. do VFR glider flying in clouds), doesn’t in turn mean that you automatically become IFR as soon as you are in clouds.
Maybe it’s splitting hairs, but I would rather say that these countries permit gliders to fly IFR under these specified circumstances.
And btw.: It is a good thing for pilots that you are wrong. If you were right that you became IFR as soon as you entered the clouds, accidentally touching clouds on a VFR flight would be flying without license which is a crime and not an administrative offense as it is in reality.
Now that’s interesting! My interpretation of the rules has always been the opposite, if you’re “touching cloud” – or indeed flying closer to cloud than the specified minima – then you are automatically flying according to IFR. Your interpretation makes some sense, though. I wonder if there has ever been a court case about this.
Airborne_Again wrote:
but I would rather say that these countries permit gliders to fly IFR under these specified circumstances.
Even EASA calls it “Cloud flying with gliders” (e.g. in NCO.IDE.S.120) and not “IFR with gliders”.
I’m also not aware that time in gliders in clouds can be credited against IFR experience when applying for an CB-IR.
Airborne_Again wrote:
My interpretation of the rules has always been the opposite, if you’re “touching cloud” – or indeed flying closer to cloud than the specified minima – then you are automatically flying according to IFR. Your interpretation makes some sense, though. I wonder if there has ever been a court case about this.
Don’t know any court decisions either, but at least the (German) accident reports typically talk about “VFR in IMC” accidents that technically can not happen if the flight is no longer VFR at the moment it enters clouds.
Your interpretation would also have some quite nasty “technical” implications if it was true. Just one example: If you were touching clouds in CAS (e.g. Echo), the controller would immediately become responsible for your separation to “other” IFR traffic. Yes, they can not practically fulfill their responsibility if the pilot did not stick to the (non existing) clearance, but they are responsible anyways (and the legal aftermath of a loss of separation can be a completely different if the controller has not been responsible than if he is responsible but just wasn’t able to create it).
Malibuflyer wrote:
Even EASA calls it “Cloud flying with gliders” (e.g. in NCO.IDE.S.120) and not “IFR with gliders”.
The sailplane part of part-NCO has been revoked. Sailplane ops rules are now in part-SAO of EU regulation 2018/1976
Anyway. Calling it “cloud flying” does not say anything about the flight rules. Consider this, particularly the last sentence.
GM1 SAO.IDE.105(b) Flight and navigational instruments
CONDITIONS WHERE THE SAILPLANE CANNOT BE MAINTAINED IN A DESIRED ATTITUDE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ONE OR MORE ADDITIONAL INSTRUMENTS
Sailplanes operating in conditions where the sailplane cannot be maintained in a desired attitude without reference to one or more additional instruments refers to a condition where the sailplane is still operating under visual flight rules (VFR), under visual meteorological conditions (VMC), although there is no external reference such as the natural horizon or a coastline, that would allow the attitude to be maintained. Such conditions may occur over water, in a desert or in snow-covered areas where the colour of the surface cannot be distinguished from the colour of the sky and therefore no external reference is available. Cloud flying is not considered to be one of these conditions
I’m also not aware that time in gliders in clouds can be credited against IFR experience when applying for an CB-IR.
Neither am I – which is to be expected as such time must be in “aeroplanes”. An “aeroplane” is defined as “an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air which is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.” And if the sailplane has an engine it must be turned off when in cloud.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The fact that in many cases you are not allowed to enter IMC if you are not flying under IFR (note: in most cases! In some countries it is completely legal under certain requirements to e.g. do VFR glider flying in clouds), doesn’t in turn mean that you automatically become IFR as soon as you are in clouds.
I agree, legally glider cloud flying is considered VFR in IMC, you also don’t have to comply with IFR aircraft certification, IFR MSA, IFR altitudes, IFR flying & navigation equipment and you won’t get ATC IFR-IFR separation in airspace…
Also, you won’t get IFR clearance to fly gliders in clouds in airspace, this is tricky for bimbling in waves in Scotland then back to find an shallow overcast without much holes in Echo, Delta, Charlie, Alpha…the old UK Rules used to allow Gliders to cross Alpha Airways VFR under some “technical QNH/1013 conditions” but that has disappeared since SERA, however, up north they invented TRA(G) and LetterOfAgreement, I am not sure if G means Golf or Glider? but you get VFR clearance to fly in any airspace and I understand “solo cloud flying” there is ok on that VFR clearance (practically, not possible with 2 or 3 gliders as you have to talk to controllers while in airspace and talk to gliders in the same cloud on common frequency, unless you get controllers to issue clearance for tight formation in clouds, it will not work 
)
Even without “UK/FCL cloud rating” one can fly gliders VFR in IMC up to cloud-base but can’t go inside clouds: cloud and terrain distances don’t apply to gliders in UK, you are VFR when out of “clouds & terrain” as long as you have the required visibility for the airspace
The situation we have on the accident in question is rather special in nature.
We have a VFR airfield in airspace G which in that particular area of Austria reaches up to 7500 ft but at least 2000 ft AGL which ever is higher.
We have a fog situation with a low ceiling and a top WITHIN airspace G.
So assuming that the conditions on the ground are sufficient to execute a take off, e.g. in a low stratus situation rather than fog, the actual IMC/IFR part of the climb to reach VFR on top is all done in airspace G. There is no penetration of CAS, not E, not D, not C. This eliminates the need of a clearance.
Does it also eliminate the need for an ATC FPL? I would argue yes because all of this happens in G, but then again, there might be other reasons a FPL is needed, in which case the question comes up, how do you deal with a 2-3 minute IFR segment in G in such a case?
The situation would be different, if the top is in airspace E. To enter E under IFR, you need a clearance. So e.g. in Croatia (1000 ft G) or Switzerland (2000 ft G) the likelyhood of penetrating airspace E during a fog take off is much more likely.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Does it also eliminate the need for an ATC FPL? I would argue yes because all of this happens in G, but then again, there might be other reasons a FPL is needed, in which case the question comes up, how do you deal with a 2-3 minute IFR segment in G in such a case?
You do not need a flight plan unless Austrocontrol specifically demands it. SERA allows the competent authorities to require flight plans in more cases than are listed in SERA. E.g. in Sweden IFR in class G above the highest of 5000’ AMSL and 3000’ AGL must have a flight plan.
I have to say I really start to like the freedoms in Sweden. So unless you want to fly high level, you can „just depart“ from anywhere and arrive anywhere else in Sweden, all IFR. I understand this is similar in the UK, but there, you have to get PPR, book instrument approaches, etc.
Unfortunately, not only since Corona, many Swedish IFR airports have quite reduced ATS hours, and I think you can‘t fly instrument approaches without ATS, right? Plus, every landing at a Swedavia airport is always 60€.
Well lot of it has to do with “cost convenience”, who can afford the high cost of ILS to 2km instrument runway? and now GPS is getting cheaper (of course EASA GA Roadmap and ICAO IFR to non-instrument runway), if one goes a bit earlier they may start talking about “celebrating 20 years after legalizing first GPS IAP in Alaska” (people flew it way before), also the “legal convenience” also applies to those who flew IFR last year (with all ATC shortages) or IFR in winter in non-FIKI (above MSA but way bellow ATC)
The ICAO standards and EASA rules do enable it but it will take sometime to past-tough to the AIP
Why NAA/AIP can’t have Echo down to surface around “VFR airfield” then we are done with debating? (ah forgot, SERA does not allow it )
boscomantico wrote:
I have to say I really start to like the freedoms in Sweden
I taught US & New Zealand were better? the latter even allows everything one could imagine NAA IAP without ATS and straigh-in, DIY IAP approaches, IFR OCAS, Gliders cloud flying…I am talking about NZ not OZ, you can’t walk into CASA airports without permission
Here are some money & politics caveats why landing DIY IAP situation would never get clarified for NCO operators,
1. ATC APP with airspace won’t offer FIS and IAP sequencing to “VFR airports” in Golf (especially Alpha ATC, they rarely do FIS outside), they need written procedures (they follow rules or people die, as simple as that), then won’t even know where your “ULM Int airport” sits nor where you did put your DIY IAP IAF and it’s high likely away from their radar screens they have to pick/dump and then you are on your own…
2. “VFR airports” are “too short” to support any IFR IFP beyond what SERA VMC landing already allows (1.5km & 500ft?)
3. “VFR airports” in Golf are damn busy on sunny days and “princess IFR” going straigh-in is not welcome (in most countries)
4. Big IFR airports will lose revenues if small VFR airports can operate in/out IFR (in some countries)
5. ATC APP will get more workload and need some reward (in some countries)
For takeoff DIY SID, nothing to clarify: you need 1.5km visibility and to make MEA/MVA like a grown man but we can debate 400m, at least EASA NCO NPA excludes 150m
Most of the above has nothing to do with clouds 
boscomantico wrote:
Unfortunately, not only since Corona, many Swedish IFR airports have quite reduced ATS hours
I believe they’re opening up again.
and I think you can‘t fly instrument approaches without ATS, right?
You can. (It is permitted by part-NCO after all.) I have even done it to an airport with closed tower but below an active TMA. The approach controller was very careful to say that I was not “cleared for the approach” but “cleared to follow the approach procedure”…
At the present time two airports have declared that their IAP are not to be used outside of ATS hours. The legality of this is highly dubious, though.
Plus, every landing at a Swedavia airport is always 60€.
Yes and no. If you pay for single landings it is SEK 625 (incl. VAT), which is approximately €60. On the other hand, you can pay SEK 1000 (incl. VAT) for an unlimited number of landings and free parking at most Swedavia airports for one week. (ESSA, ESSB and ESGG are excluded.)
