Hi.
With SERA (SERA.5001 VMC visibility and distance from cloud minima) the VMC visibility requirement for airspaces class F and G is 5km with the possibility for national CAAs to allow lower visibility minima. See below. Unfortunately, what I heard, is that the Swedish CAA is reluctant to allow any such lowering of the visibility minima. This would mean that the Swedish VMC minima in uncontrolled airspace will be 5km whereas it today, at low altitude, is 3km or 1,5km.
What VMC minima in untontrolled airspace are other national CAAs proposing?
“) When so prescribed by the competent authority:
(a) flight visibilities reduced to not less than 1 500 m may be permitted for flights operating:
(1) at speeds of 140 kts IAS or less to give adequate opportunity to observe other traffic or any obstacles in time to avoid
collision; or
(2) in circumstances in which the probability of encounters with other traffic would normally be low, e.g. in areas of low volume
traffic and for aerial work at low levels;
(b) Helicopters may be permitted to operate in less than 1 500 m but not less than 800 m flight visibility, if manoeuvred at a speed
that will give adequate opportunity to observe other traffic or any obstacles in time to avoid collision. Flight visibilities l”
and able to do a course reversal within visibility distance
Wow, so Switzerland requires an aircraft to have a rear window or do you have all those side mirrors that one often sees with tow planes? :)
Anders,
let’s wait a bit more. A strict 5km minimum in airspace Golf would seriously hinder flight training (can’t even do circuits on a bad day) and Zulu-Departures. It would also kill helicopter flying. I think most countries will reduce the minimums. But maybe yes, one or two CAAs might remain rigid. These will then probably follow a year or two later…
Swiss pilots are usually trained and qualified to fly a 180 deg turn without side mirrors and rear windows.
Maybe germany should introduce another PPL qualification, the mirrorless turn qualification, like the CVFR qualification 8-)
Boscomantico, YES, that is my concern too.
And for take-offs and landings to be permissible in visibility below 5km a I believe that a national exception to this section is needed too:
SERA.5005 Visual flight rules
(b)
Except when a special VFR clearance is obtained from an air traffic control unit, VFR flights shall not take off or land
at an aerodrome within a control zone, or enter the aerodrome traffic zone or aerodrome traffic circuit when the
reported meteorological conditions at that aerodrome are below the following minima:
(1) the ceiling is less than 450 m (1 500 ft); or
(2) the ground visibility is less than 5 km.
tomjnx, are you sure that the current Swiss regulations have been updated to take into account the coming SERA (Standardised European Rules of the Air)?
[updated: SERA acronym]
I haven’t heard about any upcoming change to this rule, and FOCA is usually intent on introducing EASA rules even before they are final, to the point one wonders whether they actually understand the difference between proposed and final rules…
In fact, this rule is always taken as the reason why IFR in G cannot be allowed by FOCA. If they were going to apply the same weather minima as E, then that reason for not allowing IFR in G would be gone.
Anders,
What you quoted is the rule for special VFR inside a CTR. No exception needed there. The (potential) problem is with departures or arrivals from airfields in airspace Golf.
On a different note, one thing that will change in Germany is the minimum cloud distances in CTRs. It used to be “clear of clouds” (a difference from ICAO standards) and it will soon be 1000ft./1.5km. That means that when there is a ceiling of 1500 feet, then we are supposed to fly at 500 feet AGL, which in turn means that one cannot overfly settlements. Wonder how this shall work with the fixed arrival and departure routes, which do in fact often route across towns and settlements. Obviously, I know that in practice, minimum cloud distances are not normally respected by anyone, but in airspace E, that is undetectable. In Delta airspace, it will be a bit more difficult for everybody to jut close their eyes and ignore them…
I really don’t think all this is so well thought out, but that would be no news in EASA-land…
I am worried about the potential requirement for 5km visibility when departing och landing at an uncontrolled airfield.
Is the section that I am quoting really only applicable when flying Special VFR?
I read in a totally opposite meaning. I interprete it to mean that the section is only applicable when you do not have a Special VFR clearance, for example when departing from an uncontrolled airfield. But maybe the rule can be circumvented at most airfields since at small airfields you do not have any “reported meteorological conditions”.
Special VFR exists, by definition, only in controlled airspace.
