Guest Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I will organise this when back from Palma. SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean_barker Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Awesome! I LOVE flying over the cloud! it's the best feeling that exists! SW I would have to say if the PMC instructor fly's above clouds and said we should do it then i dont think it would be illegal if it is then is the pmc encouraging new pilots to bareak the law Morgy, my personal interpretation of the law is that there is nothing wrong with flying over, under or near cloud as long as it is at or below 3000ft and you have sight of the ground (as Phil pointed out the last bit could be tricky as well). I don't think anyone would dispute this and it certainly is common practice for various aircraft types. Above 3000ft however the minimum separation requirements increase significantly (for very sensible reasons). In my view the only aircraft exempt from these minimum separation requirements are unpowered sailplanes, so foot launchers like us don't have the same dispensation. (This is my personal view since I've never seen any documentation overriding the very explicit statements made in the footlaunch ANO exemption under which we fly - but I certainly am open to correction). I obviously don't know what you were taught or told by your instructor and I certainly am not trying to openly contradict him or be inflamatory. And to be fair I don't think anything I've said contradicts him in anyway (at or below 3000 ft ) My original comment to Rob was simply that he should perhaps consider editing the movie a bit because it clearly states that cloudbase was at 4000ft and to someone like me (who holds the rather strict stated interpretation of the law) the movie _seems_ to be evidence of a violation and therefore looks a little bad for us. Obviously all of this is open to interpretation and most of the people on here seem to disagree or disregard my interpretation of the law and/or the video so that means there's probably nothing to be worried about. However, in the light of the midair (two weeks ago) that happened a couple of miles away and which claimed two lives I personally would be a little hesitant to post a video like this, which is open to interpretation/misinterpretation, into the public domain because there must be people who are currently unusually interested in the aerial activity in this neck of the woods. I guess I'm just another one of the old wet blankets urging you to be careful (not for the sake of your own safety, that's your prerogative, but for the sake of rousing sleeping dragons). P.S. In my view it’s every pilot’s personal responsibility to be acquainted with the airlaw pertaining to any flight they wish to undertake (so what someone else tells you is irrelevant; even if it’s an instructor). P.P.S Perhaps I should change my forum nickname to "Wet Blanket". Whitter's what do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_P Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I believe that the 2005 amendment to the ANO is what resulted in us being grouped together with gliders. I am not sure if there is a minimum instrumentation requirement on board a glider in order to be permitted to fly under IFR. Gliders certainly CAN fly under IFR, and this can be part of a clearance from an ATSU in order to cross I believe, certain class D airspace. Also of course, things like headings dependant on altitude and semi-circular rule come into play. It is unlikely that we as paramotorists would meet such a minimum equipment standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean_barker Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Phil, what I'm actually referring to when I mention sailplanes is a specific dispensation or memorandum of agreement outside of the ANO which allows them to indulge in "cloud flying". This is non-VFR flight within clouds in open G airspace. When I say non-VFR I don't mean IFR (so they are not flying according to VFR rules - since they're in cloud - and neither are they flying according to IFR rules i.e. no need to obey quadrantals etc. which is impossible for them anyway). There doesn't seem to be any clear definition of mandatory equipment other than a parachute for the pilot although in general turn and slip indicators are expected and an artificial horizon is recommended. A dedicated "cloud flying" frequency, 130.4, should also be used to broadcast position and altitude information. It's an interesting situation which kind of became illegal with the European acceptance of ICAO VFR rules and which the gliding community seems to be struggling to formally legalize through a set of proposals to EASA. Didn't Norman used to be a BGA member? I'm sure he'll be able to dispel any myths or misinformation I may have propagated above. The only reason I originally brought this up is because Morgy mentioned his sailplane instructor's reference to cloud flying (or that's what I thought he was referring to) and I don't think our classification as gliders in the ANO allows to invoke the above mentioned dispensation when we accidentally get too close to cloud above 3000ft. Nuff said I guess. Blue skies. DB[/b] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcusFlyer Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Hey I've seen some gliders recently! This bad boy flew straight between (beneath) my legs when I was PGing on Parlick on Sunday. I wish I could have got my camera out earlier cos I had a great view straight down into the cockpit but these chaps move at some pace compared to us. Sorry - I did post this earlier but removed it cos I decided it had naff all to with PPG but the mention of sailplanes above gave me a good excuse to reinsert it in a different thread. I counted 15 paragliders in the air when I shot this. I think this sailpane was maverick and goose. MG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_P Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I counted 15 paragliders in the air when I shot this. I think this sailpane was maverick and goose. Nah, can't have been. If it had been, he'd have been upside down over the top of you giving you 'the bird'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 a couple of PDF's from the CAA..... http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/20090108UK ... ilotA5.pdf http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/200890108A ... tionV3.pdf I always find that a picture paints 1000 words. Hope someone finds it helpful. Woody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.