Yes there is.
And the point of such a statement is exactly what, Timothy?
It is a visual departure in IMC.
I wondered how one can tell but it looks like a grass runway with no lights so unlikely to be an airport with instrument procedures. The vis looks like 50m or so.
I believe airliners can depart in 75m but obviously they will have appropriate runway lighting.
WilliamF wrote:
I must have watched this video a dozen times. Trees flashing by the wing tips in the fog. Brave….
It’s difficult from a video to judge the visibility. Most likely it is better than it appears.
JasonC wrote:
If by Brave you mean stupid then yes. That isn’t an IFR departure. It is a visual departure in IMC.
JasonC wrote:
If by Brave you mean stupid
You have no idea what sensible precautions the pilot too. A car may have checked the runway seconds earlier, there may have been a clear bright aiming point and hazard marking; we just don’t know.
Also, the fact that the camera could pick out the trees means that that was nowhere near the zero-zero of the thread title. To me, it looks like a vis of about 300m, though very difficult to tell, as cameras, particularly micro cameras, tend to be worse than the human eye for this kind of representation.
Internet comments are often too quick to use insulting epithets without sufficient information.
Peter wrote:
And the point of such a statement is exactly what, Timothy?
I don’t understand the question. I am affirming that there is such a move, in EASA and CAA at least. I am involved, but others more so.
What is the point of your question? I am confused.
What is the point of your question? I am confused.
The answer would depend on whether one wants to create and maintain an informative site… I know this sort of “I know something you don’t know but I am not gonna tell you” thing goes on everywhere else on the internet, but the relative lack of it here is one of the things which make EuroGA unique. And as a mod I like to keep it that way, so every “I know something you don’t know but I am not gonna tell you” post will be followed up.
Airborne_Again wrote:
In what sense is it not an IFR departure?
Because obviosly it’s not runway with official instrument departure.
Oh, ok. There is no secret, but very little to say.
PPL/IR Europe does not consider the blanket 400m restriction proportionate or necessary and is lobbying at various levels, mainly at EASA, to have it ameliorated. I would say more if there were more to say. I will certainly keep you posted.
On the more general point, what is the best way of pointing out to you when you use that kind of inference? You are by far the greatest offender (only partially by dint of being the most prolific poster) and you clearly don’t recognise it in yourself. How often do you tell us about “people you have spoken to” or “most pilots” or “companies you can’t name”?
So how do you take your feedback?
Emir wrote:
Because obviosly it’s not runway with official instrument departure.
This must be a cultural, or local, thing. In the UK we would not say that an IFR departure is only possible with an official instrument departure. And we would not say that a departure in IMC is under VFR. It is under the IFR; that’s seems fairly obvious.
Timothy wrote:
PPL/IR Europe does not consider the blanket 400m restriction proportionate
Why is it not viewed as ‘proportionate’?
