@Airborne_Again thanks for this clarification. You are right, I was not aware at all that what I learnt is so outdated.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I guess what this discussion shows (aside from different approaches to risk management) is that although SERA has been with us for 7-9 years and part-NCO for 5-8 years (countries had some choice of implementation date) people who had a license earlier than that still apply the old national regulations they were once taught even though they have been replaced by EU regulations. I find that a bit disconcerning.
You are right and I guess this is why authorities rightly demand that anyone who has been out of every day IFR ops should need to repeat the whole theory before he gets his IR revalidated.
I guess what this discussion shows (aside from different approaches to risk management) is that although SERA has been with us for 7-9 years and part-NCO for 5-8 years (countries had some choice of implementation date) people who had a license earlier than that still apply the old national regulations they were once taught even though they have been replaced by EU regulations. I find that a bit disconcerning.
That is true some had their IR in old days and do like in old days 
There is another angle, even someone who got an IR recently would have been taught under Part-CAT and will parrot it all day along with it like he his flying B747 or ATR, one reason for it is that CPL/IR training are done or planned under Part-CAT, obviously this require IFP & ATC to take place, these guys tend to be like muppets for IFR in IMC flying Golf, half duck half chicken, usually found near terrain VFR in IMC trying to tie the knots…hopefully some of this will change with CBIR/BIR instruction to include IFR planning from VFR airfields?
There are not that many IRI/IRE who understands SERA & NCO, except those who operate under it (the two I come across one was bizjet pilot, the other was an IFR owner, both do operate from Golf airfields, the many others I come across were less on top new regulations)
What is lacking in proper discussion of SEP IFR departure is aircraft performance in straight-in and turn and aerodromes or obstacles charts that is what matters at the end of the day, if one want to get more scared about IFR or Night takeoffs, offer advices & wisdom, they can go to USA, under Part91, one can depart in zero/zero in non-towered airport without ODP/SID departures, apparently, as an evolved species or kind of IFR pilots, the FAA private IR pilots have zero requirement to “visually avoid obstacles”, they magically fly away from obstacles on instruments unlike EASA private IR pilots, we love close sights of obstacle or traffic to be able to avoid them
This will be my last post on this thread…
Emir wrote:
“Flying in VMC only, according to SERA.5001 Regulation (EU) 923/2012 with following minima: horizontal visibility 1500m, constant ground visual contact, cloud entry prohibited.”
What does the last part mean? That you can’t depart on a Z flight plan?
According to prior posts, EU law (SERA, NCO) allows taking off VFR into IMC/IFR.
LOIH is approved for VFR operations, however that might be based on national law which is second to EU law.
Additionally, the airfield operator/owner can specify terms of use such opening times or types of operations. LOIH is a „secondary aerodrome“ (open to the public?!) and types of ops are specified as VFR, so that might change things.
If I understand correctly, according EU law, taking off from LOIH with (hypothetically speaking) 400m RVR (or s it 1500m VIS?) and then joining IFR and entering IMC in airspace class G is legal.
IFR in G is possible. Need to find an area in Austria where airspace G meets SERA minimum altitude… maybe there is a small patch somewhere.
Regarding the take off, it seems a bit dodgy.
I’d consider the risk for loss of orientation/vertigo in IMC the main one during such an undertaking. No prescribed flight path/SID, no radar with ATC to watch/help out. Some minor glitch in avionics (that we’ve all experienced, right?) or simply a small distraction is enough for things to get ugly.
From here
Ibra wrote:
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 !
I don’t think there is anything personal, in this case your breaking the law. Even under SERA it is your responsibility to assure separation – France has interpreted, and the legislator has clarified it as follows – you doing a visual circuit to check the runway is free, what direction the wind is blowing from, there is no aircraft stuck on the runway etc. you cannot do that without circling the runway.
I wouldn‘t pick at Ibra here. He knows French air law better than most here, plus, he puts it
into practice regularly.
9 out of 10 IFR pilots visiting France violate this rule because they don‘t know about it. 1 out of 10 know about it and chose (in certain weather conditons) to ignore it on safety grounds. For me, the former isn‘t better than the latter, it‘s rather worse.
I don’t think there is anything personal, in this case your breaking the law. Even under SERA it is your responsibility to assure separation – France has interpreted, and the legislator has clarified it as follows – you doing a visual circuit to check the runway is free, what direction the wind is blowing from, there is no aircraft stuck on the runway etc. you cannot do that without circling the runway.
I fully understand it’s illegal to land on straight-in without ATC/AFIS in France (probably “grey area” for every country on the planet unless it’s your backyard)
As I said before, first, it’s illegal to fly near terrain let alone hit it (in marginal weather this takes priority, no matter what other rules are out there), second, I am not very good in evaluating windsocks and inspecting signal square areas in 1.5km visibility at 500ft agl bellow 600ft cloudbase nor an expert how to avoid traffic in those conditions (I have hundreds of hours near cloudbase in gliders and I once saw 3 people jumping with parachutes while I was pitching nose down to save myself), so I keep the amount of shit shows or terrain flirting bellow my MSA down to the bare minimum, 4min at +/-500fpm on straight lines is already too much for me !!
Here is how you ensure traffic separation at LeTouquet in marginal conditions (I was giving way to Gendarmes/Marine helicopter that was crossing VFR under marginal clouds, all it takes is simple IFR orbit in Golf at a comfortable and respectable heights, above IAP platform altitude, then land on stable IFR approach, no low flying shit-show or flirting with terrain or cloudbreaking on top of a helicopter, I know where the wind is coming from and how to go around if a truck is on the runway), if the circuit is busy in CAVOK, I join like everybody…
Not just yourself, but actually everybody following this thread. See runway used, runway normally in use at LOIH, VFR minima for airspace Golf in Austria, etc.
Where did I express a view on these? I have been telling bloody well everybody that this is in Austria and asking what are the regs applicable there. Even you moaned about the lack of focus and how you enjoyed the popcorn. If you have actual Austria specific and LOIH specific and aircraft specific info to contribute, do so, rather than complain that the film in the cinema is not to your requirements. EuroGA is not a cinema where you buy a ticket (have you donated recently? 
) and it is not a €300/year online newspaper. It is a community site.
No need to get angry. Actually, we are quite on the same page. This thread got derailed not only by irrelevant, but also wrong wrong information posted here. A good case to make the point that posters should only post when they something for sure. Sometimes, when one doesn’t know for sure, it is better to just post nothing, instead of something that later turns out to be not true. That would improve the quality.
