Cloud break procedure

RobertL18C wrote:

PS: in UK, I can legally descend bellow my MSA to my MDH on stopwatch & compass heading from PLOG to land in uncontrolled airfields

Not under IFR, where the R is rules.

@RobertL18C, as we’ve discussed it many time here, I think Ibra is correct here. Have you got anything contradicting what he said?

@arj1 not sure where it has been discussed but if DIY approaches were legal why do we have the let down rule on not going below 1,000’ AGL (taking into account obstacles within a 5nm radius, in effect 1,300’ AGL outside of an obstacle survey area), or the approach ban rules? More precisely where exactly in the ANO is an un-published approach allowed outside these let down rules under IFR?

RobertL18C wrote:

not sure where it has been discussed but if DIY approaches were legal why do we have the let down rule on not going below 1,000’ AGL (taking into account obstacles within a 5nm radius, in effect 1,300’ AGL outside of an obstacle survey area), or the approach ban rules? More precisely where exactly in the ANO is an un-published approach allowed outside these let down rules under IFR?

@RobertL18C, I think it was discussed afterwards that for the PART-NCO that is not the case – @Airborne_Again has got it documented somewhere that you can go down to lower alts. It was in the wording difference between CAT/NCC/NCO.

RobertL18C wrote:

More precisely where exactly in the ANO is an un-published approach allowed outside these let down rules under IFR?

I don’t know what changes the UK may have done since Brexit, but SERA is clear that the minima you mention do not apply when necessary for landing. Part-NCO makes clear (even more so with a new AMC which applies from October 30) that if no approach is published for the runway you’re going to use, then you don’t have to use a published approach.

Getting back to the origins of this. Dan was VFR on top on what AIUI a VFR flight plan.
To land where he wanted to land there appeared to be no safe and/or convenient hole to descend through. So as is usually possible in this situation he contacted ATS for assistance in getting under the clouds in order to land at his chosen airport.
This meant descending through the clouds which in VFR is an emergency procedure. Not necessarily a panne panne or mayday.
AIUI Dan and his aircraft are both capable of IFR flight. Whether they met the legal requirements does not really come in to it as this is an emergency as would say being lost. But it should be something to be mentioned as ATS might react differently to you if you had never had any training for such. Again AIUI the airfield Dan was flying to did not have an IAP so wanted ATS assistance in making his cloud break (IOW coming through the cloud to where he could see the ground/airfield in all safety.)
Is the phrase “cloud break procedure” actually used in ICAO or EASA phraseology? Or is it something that has become a common term/ short cut way of pilot communication?

@Ibra can you explain your RNP A approach comment at LFFK. AIUI it is just an IAP using GNSS equipment.
@Airborne_Again I have not seen the AMC to the NCO you refer to. Are you saying that you can now fly IFR into any airfield and if it doesn’t have an instrument procedure you can make up the approach and minima yourself?

gallois wrote:

Are you saying that you can now fly IFR into any airfield and if it doesn’t have an instrument procedure you can make up the approach and minima yourself?

Not “now”. This has been legal for nine years. The rule was introduced with part-NCO (EU Commision regulation 800/2013). However, many pilots and authorities haven’t wanted to believe it can be true. So with the update of the Air Ops regulation this October 30, EASA has published an AMC to clarify. See also the discussion on my blog.

The rules:

SERA.5015 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) – Rules appliable to all IFR flights
[…]
(b) Minimum levels
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority, an IFR flight shall be flown at a level which is not below the minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown, or, where no such minimum flight altitude has been established: […]

NCO.OP.115 Departure and approach procedures – aeroplanes and helicopters
(a) The pilot-in-command shall use the departure and approach procedures established by the State of the aerodrome, if such procedures have been published for the runway or FATO to be used

The AMC:

AMC1 NCO.OP.115 Departure and approach procedures — aeroplanes and helicopters
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES UNDER IFR WHERE NO INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURES ARE PUBLISHED
When arriving or departing under IFR to/from an aerodrome or operating site with no published
instrument flight procedure, the pilot-in-command should ensure that sufficient obstacle clearance is
available for safe operation. This may be achieved, for example, by climbing or descending visually
when below a minimum altitude at which obstacle clearance is known to exist.
When operating IFR in uncontrolled airspace, separation from other aircraft remains the responsibility
of the pilot-in-command. The pilot-in-command should also comply with any flight planning and
communication requirements designated by the competent authority under SERA.4001(b)(3) and
SERA.5025(b). Any ATC clearance required to enter controlled airspace must be obtained prior to
entry