Or may be he realised that the weather is MUCH worse and was trying to return?
When I did my IMCR in UK, I was told one has to do “bad weather circuit/circling” to land back if visibility & ceiling was worse than expected following uncontrolled departures, I did the demo at 300ft agl in 100km visibility & 50kft ceiling, honestly, I don’t have the skills to do those shit shows and freestyle flying
I told the IRE, I will plan a straight departure into clouds and sort the logistics later on after drinking a cup of tea above my safe altitude after all I am IFR rated and can sort my own terrain clearance in Golf with wings being level
PS: the reason UK used to teach bad weather circuit has to do with old legacy rules that prohibits IFR in some VFR airfields and without ATIS/METAR the only way to know how high the ceiling is: well climb to it and you find out, the other reason is legacy 1.8km visibility for IFR on IMCr while VFR only required 1.5km, it’s a legal fudge but don’t kill yourself trying to fix it, just climb and trust your instruments 
The same for French MVL for arrival in IFR airfields without ATC, don’t be a hero, fly a straight-in
Here is LeTouquet, IFR circling is south, visual VFR circuit is north, why you want to mix the two? if weather is bad, just land like a princess on straight-in IFR?
I can see someone hitting the 830ft pylon by flying the north VFR circuit after circling on IFR at 830ft circling minima
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Isn’t that the job of the specialists who design SIDs and other IFR procedures? We pilots are not trained but particularly not AUTHORIZED to do this. DIY procedures have in the past claimed quite a lot of lifes.
We don’t have to make this more difficult than it is. In some cases, clearly, it would need specialist knowledge to construct a safe procedure. That may well have been the case at Hohenems. In other cases it is a no-brainer.
At my home base, I know that there is no low obstacle (below 330’) that you can hit on departure no matter how you manoeuvre unless you deliberately stop climbing and aim for buildings or trees. The closest higher obstacle (600’) is 10 km away. The MVA is 1600’. What could possibly go wrong? (That couldn’t also go wrong at an instrument airport with published departure procedures.)
arj1 wrote:
For some pilots that means just re-enforcing that mindset “unless the weather is really good, don’t takeoff from VFR airfield, it is illegal”.
For the others it is a completely legal manoeuver and they are trying to understand why it has happened, what went wrong.
Indeed, I agree with this distinction.
Imagine it is year 2023 and that NPA 2020-02 is in place in EASA world, which means you can do IFR departures and arrivals from VFR airfields or airfields with no published procedures.
It is in fact already legal in EASA-land. The update next year is not even an actual regulation but a Guidance Material that serves to clarify this.
Only two national authorities had negative comments on that proposed GM. The official reply from EASA was:
Some commentators expressed concerns on the introduction of new GM offering advice on arrivals and departures under IFR where no IFPs are published.
Part-NCO does not require the existence of IFPs for arrivals and departures under IFR, and Part-SERA has no prohibition on IFR operations in class G airspace; EASA has no intention of proposing new implementing rules to change the status quo. Thus the GM simply recalls the responsibilities of the pilot-in-command with respect to the two hazards, controlled flight into terrain and mid-air collision, that are otherwise mitigated by the provision of IFPs and ATC respectively. As with any safety responsibility, it is neither required nor possible to eliminate all risk, only to mitigate it to an acceptable level, proportionate to the operation. The GM has been improved in response to comments, including by its separation into two paragraphs, each dealing with one of the hazards.
Can it be put more clearly?
I have noticed that comment on NPA, I am sure some will point it has no legal basis but the text laws themselves are way pretty clear: you take care of yourself while IFR in Golf, if one needs safety and reassurance why can’t they just opt to fly fully in controlled airspace with ATC in CAS above MVA and SID/IAP bellow it and just stay out of Golf
The rest is common wisdom, pilot personal minima and peculiarities of local aerodrome or airspace and national procedures
My personal wisdom is to give terrain a good distance and keep wing level, the rest follow just fine !
@Ibra writes to ignore the MVL at French airfields and go straight in. The first thing I would point out is that the MVL or circle to land without a prescribed track has the main purpose of allowing you to descend on an IFR approach to a certain altitude and to land on the reciprocal runway when there is no procedure for that runway. It is a visual procedure.
For whatever reasons, France has ruled that when there is no ATS at an aerodrome, it is necessary to carry out a circle to land procedure (adapted when the final approach is to the runway in use.)
Ibra believes you should just ignore this rule and make a straight in landing.
We have discussed this on several occasions but the fact of the matter is that France has decided that this should be the way it is done at French airfields. Whether NCO or SERA or the EU overides this rule is for the lawyers to decide.
In the absence of a ruling that France is not allowed to do its own thing at its own airfields to do as Ibra suggests is an infraction.
Now in France, most infractions would normally be cautioned in one way or another and not penalised with fine or prison term.
However, there is a line which if crossed with an infraction the penalties, both fines or imprisonment can be severe. That line is usually drawn at whether or not the infraction you have committed was knowingly committed and could, would, or did put a third party at risk.
A hypothetical example might be 2 aircraft arriving at Le Touquet when no ATS is available (eg lunchtime) The first carries out the MVL the second one goes straight in. A near miss ensues. Even if the first aircraft were to perhaps have accidentally been transmitting on the wrong frequency and so the 2nd aircraft was unaware of the 1st aircraft’s presence it would be the 2nd aircraft that would face the force of the law because the PIC knowingly committed the infraction.
Although, this is a hypothetical there have been (according to an international lawyer who specialises in air law and who writes a column in Aviation magazine) several cases where heavy fines and/or imprisonment have resulted.
If two aircraft are landing better not go and mix in the visual circuit under low cloudbase with different speeds and bank angles? it’s the ABC of flying, I am assuming the two aircrafts will be on frequency and they should arrange to land as gentleman’s one after the other?
Don’t make this personal, if it’s a really bad weather day in LaRochelle with no ATC, I am happy to wait for your untill you land first, do your MVL and I will wait for you while minding my business, just let me know when you vacate the runway and how high the cloudbase is, I will come after on straight-in IFR like a princess, we can talk to our lawyers later if it’s sunny weather with busy VFR in circuit, we will join like everybody overhead and downwind then base and final but I am sorry I need 1500ft agl to do these visual circuits, bellow that it’s dangerous for me and I prefer IFR flying !
So just to get this clear, you are happy to break the rules so you can act like a princess. Interesting.🤔
BTW my hypothetical eg did say that #1 aircraft was on wrong frequency (accidentally)
gallois wrote:
For whatever reasons, France has ruled that when there is no ATS at an aerodrome, it is necessary to carry out a circle to land procedure (adapted when the final approach is to the runway in use.)
Ibra believes you should just ignore this rule and make a straight in landing.
Isn’t this contrary to international practise? i.e. a circle to land should be avoided where possible unless in solid day VFR conditions where there is ample time to reorientate to VFR ? In USA for certain situations it is indeed prohibited.
I think Ibra is trying to make the point where variations from “normal” practise my have adverse consequences. This is being an international if not pan European forum.
Indeed, I would gladly fly straight-in IFR in France if weather is bad, stable approach with classy IFR landing and “tout ça”
I am not very skilled (nor dumb) to opt for that kind of circle to land or freestyle circuits under tight cloudbase, in the post above I did one for fun, when I have pax I seek better comfort when flying and keep lot of self respect to myself & terrain…
arj1 wrote:
For some pilots that means just re-enforcing that mindset “unless the weather is really good, don’t takeoff from VFR airfield, it is illegal”.
I can tell you what it always has meant to me: Operations at any airfield is legal, when the published minima of either the airfield or if it has none for the airspace the airfield is in are fulfilled. Personally, I will not fly with my experience and airplane below 5km/1500 ft in VFR and I would shy away from flying my plane IFR if I had the rating back below 1500m/500 ft ceiling in flatlands and 1000 ft where it’s hilly. But that is me.
In this particular case, our Austrian colleagues have confirmed that the minima for flying in airspace G is 1500m vis and “out of clouds”. Out of clouds means AFAIK 300 ft vertical and 1.5 km horizontal below 10’000 ft. And while the take off might well have been within the 1.5 km vis (as a met observer I know very well how difficult it can be to determine that unless you have training and are at a vantage point where you know the relevant distance markers) but it was never ever more than 300 ft vertical.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Part-NCO does not require the existence of IFPs for arrivals and departures under IFR, and Part-SERA has no prohibition on IFR operations in class G airspace; EASA has no intention of proposing new implementing rules to change the status quo.
So basically the german rule applied also elsewhere that IFR in G airspace is prohibited has been overruled by Part NCO and Part SERA. So non-commercial IFR in class G, which generally is a small band of height AGL is allowed. Ok, fine. I was under the impression though that this is primarily intended for IFR approaches to airfields without ATC, hence in and out of airfields which have an IAP/SID but not for self-made procedures.
IMHO, that EASA rule will kill many people in the future, once people realize what has been done here. Still, IMHO this is NOT a free for all to do their own IFR procedures: minimum flight altitudes over built up areas and over non-inhabited areas still apply. Doing a SID or IAP into an airfield which has no such proceedure would forcibly violate the minimum flight altitude rules.
The other question is: What about aerodrome licensing? What I learnt was that aerodromes must be licensed to operate IFR flights, so that is all out of the window? I can legally McGyver myself whatever procedure I want and fly in clouds? I find this absolutely crazy and for many people outright suicidal.
