Can tou really be VFR in IMC orher than in error
Gliders near clouds and inside with cloud ratings 
Yep, but were we discussing gliders and cloud ratings? Not really VFR special do you think?
No it’s not Special VFR, that only for takeoff/landing in zones (maybe transit)
SVFR only allow matching airspace minima with those outside airspace?
gallois wrote:
Can you really be VFR in IMC orher than in error.
Yes, Special VFR is by definition VFR in IMC (but outside of cloud).
Isn’t VFR special only available in CAS?
It’s only available in control zones.
Then there is night VFR, but I guess it’s either night or it isn’t, and the minima are different than for VFR day. For the ATC though it has to be declared (at least here in Norway you have to have an explicit clearance for night VFR in controlled airspace).
LeSving wrote:
Then there is night VFR, but I guess it’s either night or it isn’t, and the minima are different than for VFR day.
The VMC minima are slightly different, but not in a way that matters to this discussion.
Looking at CRD comments for NPA,
- DGAC: ok in principal with I-FPL operation but responsibility on PIC to remain VMC for traffic & obstacles
- LBA: no I-FPL, it has to be Z/Y with VFR in VMC on pickup & cancel, going as far as MVA/CAS
- STA: not comfortable with I-FPL operation but expect IFR transition IMC/VMC at some point in final part
It’s pity that other NAA have not expressed their opinions on this?
DGAC France
AMC1 NCO.OP.115 Departure and approach procedures — aeroplanes and helicopters ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES UNDER IFR WHERE NO INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURES ARE PUBLISHED
It is suggested to add a GM to explain that the pilot is responsible for ensuring that the trajectory chosen is safe and that applying VMC minima is recommended to reach a minimum safe altitude (in particular to be cleared of potential obstacles and to be cleared of possible interfering aircrafts (no FIS is available, radio not mandatory…)).
LBA
Comments relating to AMC1 NCO.OP.115
The proposed amplification raises considerable safety concerns at the LBA as the text undermines current and standardised practises of maintaining obstacle clearance and separation to other airspace users.
The LBA therefore advises to clarify the text considering the following aspects:
Except for controlled aerodromes, most of the lower part of the lower airspace (in Germany) is class G airspace. Most aerodromes used for general aviation (GA) are located in class G airspace and do not have instrument procedures available. There is no clearance required to enter class G airspace and there is no clearance required for take-off and landing. Departing and arriving traffic can currently only be operated under VFR. Obstacle clearance and separation are maintained by the pilot according to class G airspace requirements. There is no requirement for airspace users to operate ACAS or other technology mitigating the risk of mid-air collisions. The proposal intends to change the principle without clarifying how separation to other aircraft can be maintained in concrete terms. It also leaves unclear how obstacle clearance could be maintained. How would a pilot know whether there was put up an obstacle (i.e. crane) at short notice in the vicinity of the aerodrome? There is usually no requirement to notify airspace users about relevant obstacles in the vicinity of smaller aerodrome used mainly by GA.
The proposed text should thus be clarified and the following is to be considered:
If there is no published IFR procedure, take-off and departure need to be conducted according to VFR rules for that airspace. However, if a flight plan was filed and accepted, a flight may transfer from VFR to IFR (so called “IFR-pickup”, Z flight plan). It must be clear that until the “IFR-pickup”, the operations take place in accordance with VFR in VMC according to the requirements of the airspace and that the pilot remains responsible for obstacle clearance and separation by means of visual reference.
For arrival and landing, accordingly, it must be clear, that as soon that the controller acknowledges the cancellation of IFR (IFR-cancellation, Y flight plan), the operation continues under VFR in VMC according to the requirements of the airspace and that the pilot remains responsible for obstacle clearance and separation by means of visual information.
Swedish Transport Agency
Civil Aviation Department (Transportstyrelsen, Luftfartsavdelningen)
Arrivals under IFR with no published procedures, allowing the pilot-in-command to investigate the obstacle situation is not supported.
EASA rationale:
“NCO.OP.115 is amplified to clarify that IFR operations are permitted in the absence of instrument flight procedures, but the pilot is responsible for ensuring that the trajectory chosen is safe” is not supported.
SE rationale:
This is not supported if the approach is intended to be flown in IMC. It needs to be clarified if the final part is to to be flown in IMC or VMC.
In short: national aviation authorities continue doing what they want, sometimes irrespective of European regulations introduced many years ago.
Yes the old story over again & again…
It would have been interesting to discuss a light version of “DIY IAP under IFR is to go down to 500ft DH before flying VFR to land” rather than the general talk, there another 100% legal alternative is VFR scud run which I hope LBA still considers legal at least? 
I am still puzzled about this statement
How would a pilot know whether there was put up an obstacle (i.e. crane) at short notice in the vicinity of the aerodrome?
I had the impression anything above 300ft agl is NOTAMed? including fireworks & flying kits…thousands of pages in SkyDemon briefing are about these including away from aerodromes
Also does Germany have commercial or public transport CAT/PT aircrafts operating in VMC to “VFR non-IFP airfields”? or such thing is explicitly prohibited? if no, don’t they have a legal requirement to have up to date obstacle charts & surveys as well as notifications to be able to plan for takeoff & landing performance in VMC with one engine? I recall it’s an ICAO requirement to produce aerodrome obstacle charts (type A and type B) for CAT/PT flights with regular notifications…they don’t cover much as far 4nm from extended runway axis but it’s a good start for a professional use if relying on own eye, SkyDemon & NOTAMS does seem odd, obviously young trees will grow every year about 12inches and things get outdated quickly !
Short of flying it regularly in VMC, can’t one just ask Flugleithers? or look at construction boards & planning permissions?
It also leaves unclear how obstacle clearance could be maintained. How would a pilot know whether there was put up an obstacle (i.e. crane) at short notice in the vicinity of the aerodrome? There is usually no requirement to notify airspace users about relevant obstacles in the vicinity of smaller aerodrome used mainly by GA.
I can´t remember anyone flying into a crane or newly erected wind turbine lately, but there have been many crashes, the latest two not too long ago, where people flew into well (or not so well) charted hills, possibly trying to maintain VMC.
