An MVL not prescribed circle to land
Sorry it’s my English, yes we all agree on that, flying the “no ATS 360 IFR procedure” (let’s call it this way to avoid confusion) at MVL height will not guarantee obstacle protection unlike an IFR CTL at MDH (you maintain +295ft above any obstacles all the way during an IFR circle to land, until the landing threshold is identified and you can go toward it)
You also don’t need to see the runway to carry the “no ATS 360 IFR procedure” (just like VPT/MVI you only need to see the ground), better to just view it as low level VFR circuit (overhead, downwind, base, final) flown under IFR rules…
I will try to find again the rule of 1.5km foward visibility on take off and initial climb, that I was writing about.
That would be interesting find
Firstly, I will try to find again the rule of 1.5km foward visibility on take off and initial climb, that I was writing about.
You ask about the circle to land at LFFK.
There is a few things I should mention here.
Firstly in France IFR pilots are made aware of a general rule that when an airfield with a IAP but no ATS, one must circle to land.
In fact the use of the words circle to land come from the English language, ie France has sort of adopted the English phraseology.
In French the phrases are MVI and MVL, as you well know. The MVI equates to the VPT (Visual Prescribed track.) and there will be a separate plate for it. The MVL (manœuvre visual libre or a visual manouver which is not.prescribed and therefore for the pilot to decide how he does it. Normally with the MVL you keep pretty close to the runway but the airfield, for category A aircraft will be protected with a radius of 2.4nm centred on the ARP. The radius for protection grows for categories B, C, D aircraft. All ICAO standards. Both the MVI and MVL are normally used when a straight in approach (within an angle of 30°) from a procedure. It is used to circle and land on a runway which does not have an IAP and not necessarily the reciprocal, there can be several other runways making up an airport complex. That is the background and covered under ICAO.
The problem now comes in that as I mentioned France has adopted the phraseology "Circle to land " as a shorthand when they should really stick to MVL, for landing on airfields with no ATS, it doesn’t matter whether you are VFR or IFR. The regulation doesn’t actually mention circle to land. What it simply says is that you must have the parameters necessary for landing. What those parameters are, are listed in the AIP (They are National rules).
In VFR this means, in the absence of other methods of getting those parameters eg from another aircraft on site, you fly vertical the runway and get the parameters from such things as the windsock to get runway in use and the signal square for any restrictions plus you check the manouvering area to make sure its clear of obstacles such as other aircraft, people, vehicles, animals etc. All very normal so far, yes.
The same parameters apply to an IFR arrival with one extra. One must obtain the QNH. The IAC will normally carry a note on where you can get this parameter. You cannot make an IFR approach without it. But how do you get the other parameters? The answer is that you do the same as you would VFR. If the IFR plaform is 2000ft you will descend at the FAF as normal. But say you get to the highest VFR circle altitude plus 500ft , (at LFFK this the normal circuit is 1000 ft AAL or 1100 ft QNH) so we are talking about an altitude of 1600ft, and you find yourself in wonderful VMC conditions. Then recommended practice would be to do the same as you.would in a VFR arrival.
But of course the weather is not usually that kind and that’s why you are flying on IFR rules in IMC down the final approach. At any time, down to the circling minima if you are in VMC you can go and find your parameters. Once you have them you visually join downwind for the runway in use and land. An MVL not prescribed circle to land.
I apologise if I have been long winded here but this subject seems to come up quite a lot on here.
99 times out of 100 no one will notice you making a straight in approach without the parameters, especially if you arrive between 12noon and 2.00pm. And if someone is there to to remind you of the circle to land rule, you might well just pass it off that it slipped your mind or you didn’t know of it and that would usually be greeted with a simple shrug (meaning dumb foreigner). But that 1 in 100 or 1 in a thousand time when you have an incident or accident on landing even if it had nothing to do with lack of parameters you will more than likely face charges of negligence. And whereas in France an infraction might be resolved by a simple REX report, negligence can carry heavy penalties including imprisonment.
Of course I can always be wrong and am willing to listen to a different point of view.
The 394ft is only omnidirectional departures design, there are departures with turn right after you can turn you leave the ground (but not before the DER) and on IFR protected departures with enough MOC you can enter clouds 1ft
AFAIK, there is no rule that says you have to stay “visual” between lift off and end of initial climb segment in any type of IFR departure if no obstacles penetrate your enveloppe, I doubt it’s the case in TERPS ( @NCYankee ) or in PANS-OPS ( @Airborne_Again ), of course one can invent that rule, after all: it’s risky to enter clouds on IFR climbs, it’s way better stay visual low near ground & obstacles as that tend to guarantee the ability to avoid them visually…
However, if obstacles penetrates the IFR takeoff protection surface at LFFK, then you will have visibility & cloud addon to cover your lack of MOC on IFR departure but even without MOC, you can depart VFR and avoid visually with 300ft ceiling to do TnG circuits? or just go on cross country as long as you sneak through some hole in the ceiling?
Do you know why LFFK IAP is restricted to IFR circling only? is it the lack of AFIS and French rules? or there are obstacles that penetrates the final segment on IFR straight-in into RWY26 and you have to reposition & offset?
I think I already mentioned climb to 120metres before a turn on an omnidirectional departure. In France that can be reduced to 90 metres the same as for helicopters.. This is a caŕry over from ICAO which has not yet been transferred to EASA law but still remains in French law.(Or some convoluted explanation which I haven’t quite got to grips with.)
@Ibra you keep quoting what happens at Toussus but you cannot compare thar with LFFK, or LFBN or even La Rochelle when downgraded to class G. All are very different.
Here we are debating the minimum visibility for take off at a field like LFFK or any other airfield in France which is unmanned, has no take off procedures or take off minima noted in rhe VAC or IAC charts and at what point one can enter IMC. My point is simple.
In the type of aircraft that many of us on here fly. Ie initial climb speee less than 140 kts, there is a rule that at an airfield in Class G, which has no ATS, and no noted procedures or take off minima, you need to maintain 1.5km of forward visibility from the threshold up to the completion of the initial climb. Whilst I accept that you might be IMC with 1.5km forward visibility if there are other conditions that prevent you from being VMC (although I can’t visualise such a condition ar the moment) IMO this rule prevents you from entering.cloud at 50ft because at that altitude IIUC you will still be in the initial climb.
However it is difficult to maintain 1.5km forward visibility for the initial climb
Well in SID departures you are allowed to enter clouds on initial climb (only when obstacles penetrates protection surface that you will have a visual segment), remember it’s about having enough obstacle clearances by climbing steep without even having to look outside, it’s not aboout pushing the yoke to avoid clouds then twisting it to dodge the trees !
Also takeoff minima concept is linked to runway rather than airport or airspace, for Toussus without ATC: IFR from 25R is 550m & 0ft (instrument runway with SID) while IFR from 25L is 1500m & xxft (non-instrument runway without SID), then let’s say xx = 100ft which is enough to takeoff from 25L lift off and join 25R SID 
In France, it’s even doable to depart from one airport and join nearby SID in the other airport if you are stuck with low ceiling and ask nicely on the phone
the 400ft AGL or AAL
In an ‘omnidirectional departure’, you have to climb to that height on the runway heading. After that, you can start your turn in any direction. This should give you, IIRC, 300ft obstacle clearance.
“Unless otherwise specified, omnidirectional departure procedures assume a 3.3% (5% for Helicopters) PDG and a straight climb on the extended runway centre line, until reaching 120m (394ft) (90m (195ft) for Helicopters).”
This is only the default, there can be excluded sectors or other minimum altitudes.
Yes there is no ceiling mentioned in class G or IFR take off. However it is difficult to maintain 1.5km forward visibility for the initial climb, if you are in a cloud. It does depend on where you think initial climb ends.
Yes AD visibility minima for IFR takeoff is 1500m without published departure and without ATS, that is the state AD minima, there is no state AD ceiling minima for IFR takeoffs (also a general principal in every country), there is no OPS ceiling minima for IFR takeoff under NCO (we do not factor failed engine, or return condition, or takeoff alternate)
For VFR takeoff, I think 300ft ceiling (*) in METAR is enough for VFR departure in most French Golf AD, 600ft ceiling is the lowest ceiling for SVFR departure for AD inside controlled airspace…
*to complicate things as people make the mistake of “ceiling = VMC/IMC”, there is a clear distinction between cloud ceiling, cloud base and cloud holes depending on BKN/OVC & SCT/FEW, let’s say you have 1.5km visibility you can be VMC at 500ft (ground in sight and clear of clouds) and also IMC at 200ft (inside clouds without ground sight) even when the METAR shows 200ft SCT cloudbase and 400ft BKN ceiling…of course if it’s OVC001 in the METAR you will need a serious poker face to depart VFR and maintained VMC at 100ft !
I agree but I thought we were debating fields with no ATS, no departure procedures and no take off minima noted on the charts.
So as I wrote I can find no mention of when one could enter IMC from an unmanned or for that matter VFR airfield
Toussus LFPN allows takeoff without ATS if you have 550m visibility during the day, you ARE in IMC conditions at startup and taxi (even with that you will only lose sight of ground at 50ft-100ft agl), maybe this example (and +40 others) answers the question when you can enter IMC on unmanned IFR airfields? for unmanned VFR airfields I agree it’s up to debate and personal opinion:
Most VFR airfields in France allow VFR TnG circuits at 300ft (when an instructor is the cockpit), I can’t see why that is not possible with 1.5km visibility & 301ft ceiling? so it’s fine to depart VFR with 301ft ceiling
So we can debate if it’s fine to enter clouds IFR at 301ft around unmanned VFR airfields but I don’t see why not? after all it’s Golf airspace & unmanned airfield with an IR rated pilot and IFR equipped aircraft, we are not discussing ULM pilots privilèges…
All French airports allow I-FPL in CFMU FPL validation as DGAC thinks they are IFR at the surface, the only exceptions are “VFR ATC/AFIS airfields in Golf” with strict WX minima and briefing for IFR flights, see the last two pages of GEN3.5, these airports don’t allow I-FPL but rather Y/Z-FPL contraints in CFMU, the only “VFR airfields” in France are Étampes, Maux, Chavenay, Lognes, StCyr and Courchevel & Grenoble (has IFR GPS PINS for helicopters with VMC minima VMC)
Of course it’s way safer to stay VMC up to 1000ft agl (even when ATC are around)
