Legalistic debate moved out of the Cessna P210 N731MT thread

What is the typical SOP for reconfig aircrafts on low IMC takeoffs?

I am sure there is one but I honestly don’t think it should make much difference even not touching anything up to 1000ft agl one should be able to achieve climb % to clear obstacles even when flying at Vy with gear down & takeoff flaps, most of the drag comes from pulling stick without looking at airspeed…

IFR takeoff should be feasible with barely 2deg climbs (3%), we are not talking about farm strips in IMC? what if electric gear & flaps CB pop-up on rotation and they fail to retract? or I just forgot to raise them? (guilty as charged: I did that with the gear once when going missed in IMC )

One lose lot of climb by turing and besides when turning into a mountain, raising gear & cleaning flaps is considered second order effect…

Malibuflyer wrote:

in full compliance with ICAO (and hence EASA) rules ATC won’t clear you IFR in the bottom 500ft of CAS.

This is correct in the same way that it is correct to say that for many years, the UK CAA complied with all regulations for GPS Approaches simply because they didn’t approve any.

It is an example of heel dragging by an ATC provider and an NAA to make a rule change ineffective. Of course they can’t provide a radar service below the MRVA, but they could very easily provide procedural separation, for example by only clearing one aircraft per sector in that altitude band.

Interestingly enough, the net result of this is that in Germany, the weather minima in that bottom bit of class E are now stricter than they were pre SERA. Some time ago, in Germany IFR traffic could climb into controlled airspace and descend out of controlled airspace with reduced VFR minima – IIRC, pretty much the class G minima, and definitely without observing the minimum cloud distance rules for class E airspace. Not anymore.

But this is theory anyway because this rule is not followed in practice, “everyone” pretends the air between bottom of class E and MRVA is VMC.

One thing for sure, it’s impossible to maintain VMC in Echo above 3kft with SCT, it has to be CAVOK or FEW for the geometry to work I suggest we fine any pilot who flies VFR above the cloud-base in Echo with BKN or OVC !

cpt_om_sky wrote:

but could you really “declare” and “do” an ifr takeoff from an vfr only airport into g where there is no radar, no ifr procedure, no squawk, no atc …. ?!

For the n-th time (with the caveat that you probably need to take off VFR and then switch to IFR), YES.

I completely understand that for those who “grew up” in countries where that was prohibited this is an uncomfortable idea. But it is actually the standard globally, and completely normal in the UK and in Scandinavia, for example. Literally thousands of UK IMC rating holders have flown that way for many decades; in fact, other than control zones, airspace with formal ATC clearances was the one airspace they were NOT allowed to use.

In practice, you of course call an ATC unit and see if you can get a service, but that may very well not be possible until you are high enough or, depending on where you are, not at all.

We all need to get used to that we have freedoms that are perhaps unwise to use, or require great diligence to use safely.

Ibra wrote:

One thing for sure, it’s impossible to maintain VMC in Echo above 3kft with SCT, it has to be CAVOK or FEW for the geometry to work I suggest we fine any pilot who flies VFR above the cloud-base in Echo with BKN or OVC !

What are you on about?

Airspace E is often several thousand feet high, between 3000 and up to 13000 msl. You can get as much cloud you want as long as VFR you stay outside the prescribed distances. I’ve had flights with BKN and OVC in E without any problem, all that is to it is to stay below or above them by at least 1000 ft and you are fine.

I’ve had flights with BKN and OVC in E without any problem, all that is to it is to stay below or above them by at least 1000 ft and you are fine.

In the context here it’s about who do you descend & climb in Echo while keeping VMC with SCT, BKN & OVC? not how you cruise above it (or bellow with some courage)

I have done gliding in Germany in Echo with SCT, I am glad the cloudbase was higher in Bavaria, 4 times more than what I was used to in the UK

Ibra wrote:

In the context here it’s about who do you descend & climb in Echo while keeping VMC with SCT, BKN & OVC?

We agree that it is very rarely possible to climb/descent VFR through a BCN layer in Echo. In SCT it is, however, sometimes possible as the clouds are not evenly distributed. It does typically include some steeper turns therefore it is possible more often in descent than in climb.

But in principle I agree: To fly VFR on top of a layer you typically need to have FEW or NSC where you want to climb above or descent below.
Cobalt wrote:

Of course they can’t provide a radar service below the MRVA, but they could very easily provide procedural separation, for example by only clearing one aircraft per sector in that altitude band.

It’s at all about MVRA and no, the problem can’t be solved by procedural separation as ATC has no control over IFR traffic in Golf. In Echo ATC is responsible for separation to other IFR traffic – not only to other IFR traffic in the same airspace class. Therefore it is ATC responsibility to separate you from IFR-traffic that is flying below Echo in Golf. As this can fly up to the boundary of Golf, the only way ATC can ensure this separation is to keep you at a sufficient vertical distance to Golf – therefore no clearance to the bottom of Echo possible.

The simple fact that other countries have no such restriction demonstrates that this is not a universally held view.

Also, following that logic, ATC could never clear anyone from class C airspace into class E, because in class C IFR-VFR separation is required, but there may be unknown VFR traffic in class E so separation cannot be assured in the last 500ft or couple of miles to the boundary because there may be unknown VFR traffic.

Malibuflyer wrote:

Therefore it is ATC responsibility to separate you from IFR-traffic that is flying below Echo in Golf. As this can fly up to the boundary of Golf, the only way ATC can ensure this separation is to keep you at a sufficient vertical distance to Golf – therefore no clearance to the bottom of Echo possible.

Many other countries have a quite different view of this so it is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

Once the aircraft leaves controlled airspace (be it E or anything else) it will not be separated from anything. Of course the pilot knows this. So motivating a refusal of a clearance to descend out of controlled airspace by separation being lost 500 ft earlier seems to me simply a way of obstructing.

By the same logic, it would be impossible for an IFR aircraft to leave controlled airspace laterally.

Cobalt wrote:

Also, following that logic, ATC could never clear anyone from class C airspace into class E, because in class C IFR-VFR separation is required, but there may be unknown VFR traffic in class E so separation cannot be assured in the last 500ft or couple of miles to the boundary because there may be unknown VFR traffic.

Touché!