This thread has been very helpful in exploring all sides of the debate.
Hmmmm. Does that mean that the debates on this forum actually may influence the legislative process of EASA? 
I would have thought it obvious that they do, even if only by influencing what stakeholders submit as comments.
Loads of national CAA and EASA staff read EuroGA, probably as a daily activity.
Stephan_Schwab wrote:
Seems pretty sensible and most does apply to a CAVOK day as well. Thank you for publishing it.
There is not a huge difference between a low vis take-off and an ordinary VMC one, you just have to turn all the knobs in your brain up to 11.
Timothy wrote:
you just have to turn all the knobs in your brain up to 11.
That video is excellent.
Timothy wrote:
1. LVO are only permitted in aeroplanes of MTOM less than 5.7 Tonnes on non-commercial operations.2. Passengers will be told that Low Visibility Operations carry higher risks than normal and be given the opportunity to decline to join the flight or deplane at any time.
3. The following visibility minima will apply.
An absolute minimum RVR or visibility of 150m.
ii. In the absence of runway centreline lighting or markings: RVR or visibility of 200m.
iii. In the absence of runway edge lighting: RVR or visibility of 250m.4. If the aircraft to be flown is an SEP, the operator will review the terrain in the take-off path and will not take-off if an engine failure would result in risk to third-parties, whether in buildings or on roads.
5. If operating from an airfield with Low Visibility Procedures, the pilot will read them before starting engines.
6. The operator will ensure that the runway surface is clear of obstacles, whether by relying on the airfield operator’s inspection or, in the absence of an inspection, by taxying the length of the runway within 15 minutes prior to take-off.
7. A waypoint will be set in the RNAV system on the extended centreline as the first point in the route. Where possible, this should be set at least 2nm from the ARP and the HSI or OBS will be set to provide guidance to that point.
8. All external lights will be switched on for taxiing and take-off.
9. All taxiing will be exactly on taxiway centrelines.
10. Stop bars will not be crossed under any circumstances, even with ATC clearance.
11. If Safe-Taxi is available on the aircraft panel or on a portable device, it will be used.
12. As part of taxiing checks, the pilot will ensure that all artificial horizons and turn co-ordinators are working in the correct sense. If any are not working, they are to be covered, and the minimum equipment will be two working instruments, of which one is an artificial horizon.
13. At an uncontrolled airfield, the pilot will announce his intentions on the VHF frequency most likely to be in use by potential other users of the airfield. This will include a call immediately before applying power or releasing brakes for take-off.
14. The pilot will ensure that the aircraft is aligned on the middle of the runway and will check that all compasses, DGIs and HSIs are indicating the runway QDM. If a heading bug is available it will be set on the runway QDM.
15. If Synthetic Vision is available on the aircraft panel it will be switched on.
16. Immediately before take-off the pilot will ensure that the windscreen is clear of both dew and mist. If the windscreen is not clear, the departure will be discontinued.
17. Before applying power, the pilot will ensure that he has identified correctly the runway edges and centreline if available.
18. During the take-off run, engine parameters will be monitored regularly. Any unusual signs will cause the pilot to stop immediately.
19. In the event of an engine failure or puncture, the throttle(s) will be closed immediately and the aircraft kept straight using nosewheel steering. Maximum braking commensurate with not skidding will be used.
Why is there no speed check?
I recently had the experience of a partially blocked pitot. On departure it was eventually obvious from the length of runway used and the aircrafts anxiety to fly. FWIW arrving fast but thinking you are slow is also interesting.
I would have thought the pilot would want to have a defined speed marker given that he is bereft of the usual visual cue.
If the speed was slow at the marker but all other indications were normal what would you do?
I see the last post was in June. OK, I’m not on time. But, possibly, I can contribute.
In the US, Part 91 pilots have no visibility or ceiling restriction on takeoff. I think most all participants know that. There are IFR takeoff accidents, but to my knowledge, I don’t know of one specifically related to using the ability to take off without a ceiling or visibility limit as an accident causal factor. There are examples of aircraft that failed to climb after takeoff for various reasons, but they are related to the difficulties establishing the climb, not to staying on the runway. There are examples of failure to line up properly before starting.
The ability to depart in low visibilities is used. Not very frequently to my knowledge. But successfully.
In my experience, the really low visibility occurs in fog conditions that are generally low wind, calm conditions. That helps. It is actually much easier than an ordinary windy day trying to takeoff using, say, a hood to restrict visibility, to learn/demonstrate (to yourself!) capability while you have a fully visual safety pilot.
The airplane does make a difference. Our Skylane uses about 700 – 900 feet to take off. If the runway you are using is 100 or 150 feet wide, you have a really pretty big tolerance on heading. A proficient pilot (self preservation tends to enforce this.) can actually maintain very close to the centerline for a normal takeoff.
My wife and I commuted to work every day for about 2 years. Seattle gets quite a bit of fog in the fall, so we occasionally got to use this capability. Fog is mostly pretty local, so it was normal that where we took off could be foggy, but where we were landing was at least at landing minimums. We used the capability there, for real, probably about 10 times. During trips we have used the capability at Albuquerque, Spokane Felts Field, Boise, that I can think of.
At some airports (I am think of Boise, Idaho specifically) they send out a “Follow Me” car during low visibility operations to ensure they track the aircraft locations during taxi. That ensures the tower knows exactly where all users are located. At Albuquerque, it is a major airport, but when we were leaving there were no other operations.
The ability to depart under low visibility conditions has a demonstrated history of working. And it expands the usefulness of our aircraft.
The emphasis on engine failures seems misguided (to me). Engine failures of properly maintained engines that have fuel are rare. And airplanes fly over places that are difficult to land in very routinely. In VFR conditions. Some do come down. But it isn’t the dominant safety issue. And engine failures don’t care if it is foggy or not. They happen in nice weather also. Same problem. At low altitude, you are landing basically straight ahead.
Cobalt wrote:
aaaand – compared to that, so far nobody has mentioned a single accident of a light aircraft taking off in <400m visibility from an uncontrolled airfield.
There are, and quite a lot of them actually, if you go through the accidents. Guys taking off from the frisian islands with very low ceiling / steam fog conditions, ending up disoriented and crashing into the Watt. Guys trying to land in these conditions and crashing into the Watt. Guys taking off in morning radiation fog from a Bavarian airfield, ending up dead a couple hundred meters after takeoff. Guys flying into IFR airfields with RVR000 and crashing the plane onto the tarmac resulting in a fire with all passengers ending up in the burn care unit.
There are plenty of them.
One should not confuse departures with arrivals.
A zero-zero departure is purely a bet on the engine failing and you having to do a zero-zero forced landing. It is never actually zero-zero i.e. even in fog you can see the runway centreline (IF there is one – one would not do it otherwise) even if it is not lit.
Personally I would have no trouble with doing a departure in say 50m vis which is usual for fog. I would make sure, somehow, the runway is clear… in the absence of ATC probably by driving along the whole length first. One would also not do it if there is no airport fence (animals etc).
I have done true zero-zero under the hood, using just the heading bug, but would not do that with a ~20m wide runway 
Actually I did it on an 18m wide runway (EGKA) with an instructor. That is more risky because it hangs on your compass system working, and AHRS does fail – as I well know.
Arrivals are a whole different thing, which is why we have the massive regulatory and procedural overhead there.
Were any of the above departure accidents by current instrument rated pilots?
