Graham wrote:
I just request vectors and then once vectored onto the intercept am given “cleared ILS runway 31 approach”.
As far as I understand, that would imply an IFR clearance. So if you don’t have an IR things could get murky.
Airborne_Again wrote:
As far as I understand, that would imply an IFR clearance
What is an IFR clearance?
You can do NDB & ILS practices OCAS (inclu ATZ) on a PPL, the key is to call the guys before jumping in the aircraft and tell you are a PPL, call them on radio to check if the nav aid is serviceable, tell them you will be flying in the area without you/them making any further calls, then call when leaving the area? All VFR/VMC without taking any clearance (you are in G-airspace anyway)
Some places will refuse you to do this, some places are ok and some will even charge you to do it, you only need a safety pilot if in simulated instruments (that has nothing to do with crossing an ILS path or datum setups inside the cockpit)
For the case of Nantes, yes it is a bit murky if controlled airspace & weather is marginal but nothing will prevents them from “helping with ILS vectors while calling you to remain VMC & avoid terrain” (actually this is what they will exactly tell you if you are one of stuck VFR 
) but I don’t think the inbound flight did present himself to ATC as a VFR needing practice or assistance…
Airborne_Again wrote:
As far as I understand, that would imply an IFR clearance. So if you don’t have an IR things could get murky.
My experience is limited to the UK because I have an IR(R).
All the instrument approaches I am likely to fly are either OCAS or in Class D. In Class D, yes, that does mean an IFR clearance into the zone but that’s not a problem. When OCAS the words IFR are not spoken – one just pitches up and upon initial contact with the radar controller requests a traffic service and vectors to the ILS.
There is a funny thing around the UK training scene with this. Some people, for whatever reason, seem intent on defining everything in the most restrictive possible terms and come up will all sorts of stuff about requiring a safety pilot if flying an ILS ‘for training’ in VMC. Well, if it’s ‘training’, then don’t you need an instructor rather than a safety pilot? Oh what’s that you say? Not training then, just ‘practice’? Right, well there’s no differentiation between ‘practice’ and just flying the ILS.
If you are OCAS in the UK and on a traffic service then you’ll get traffic info on the ILS whether you’re in VMC or IMC. In Class D you’re in a known traffic environment. From the perspective of the controller it makes no difference at all whether you’re flying the ILS ‘for practice’ in good VMC or whether you’re in solid IMC right down to minimums.There is no such thing as a practice ILS.
David Ibbotson certainly had no instrument qualification valid on that aeroplane in France. Whether that made it illegal for him to fly the ILS at Nantes in good VMC is open to debate. Controllers do not ask if you have an instrument rating when you request the ILS.
Honestly, guys, I’ll have to check whether the word ‘practice’ is necessary or wanted or appreciated or whatever. No clue. Maybe it’s not, but it doesn’t matter really.
All I was saying was that you don’t need be flying IFR, nor somehow have an IR rating, nor need a IR or whatever safety pilot, nor anything else to actually use an ILS of an airport to land there.
If you are on an IFR flight plan you’ll get it automatically, i.e. by radar or the director, and if you are VFR you request it from the tower when sending your intentions, i.e. when approaching a visual reporting point. They might deny it, i.e when there’s a lot of regular IFR traffic, or they might put you in a 360 before entering the control zone, and they might charge you, after landing, with the additional cost of an IFR approach, but hey….
I only wrote all that because there was this (IMO) false perception that because the Malibu pilot wrote in facebook that he was ‘rusty on the ILS’ he somehow must have been under IFR rules, or have an IR rated pilot with him, or whatever. That’s not the case, is all I’m saying.
Ah, now is all clear.
Graham wrote-
“The conditions, visual or otherwise, are irrelevant.
Some prat will be along in a moment to tell me that this is illegal without a safety pilot. Or perhaps they won’t here, but they would over at the red place."
I’m disappoint to find out I am a Prat.
I thought that The conditions, visual or otherwise, were relevant under SERA, as was the now inability to declare IFR without an instrument qualification regardless of VMC or IMC.
I’m very interested to learn where the boundaries are as it’s relevant to maintaining currency.
GA_Pete wrote:
I thought that The conditions, visual or otherwise, were relevant under SERA, as was the now inability to declare IFR without an instrument qualification regardless of VMC or IMC.
I’m very interested to learn where the boundaries are as it’s relevant to maintaining currency.
I can’t find anything that says one must be IFR in order to fly an ILS outside controlled airspace. At least in the UK, IFR vs VFR outside controlled airspace is purely a state of mind. If I fly down to Exeter or Newquay then I just request traffic service and vectors to the ILS – neither I nor the controller says ‘IFR’ at any point.
On the ‘prat’ question, are you telling me that I need a safety pilot to fly an ILS in VMC? If so, that’s barmy. I don’t need one in IMC so why should I in VMC? There’s nothing about that in the privileges of the rating. Whether I am just flying the ILS or, as some say, flying a practice ILS (if such a thing exists) is entirely up to me. In my case, it is always the former.
When I say the conditions are irrelevant, what I mean is in terms of the approach. Of course they are relevant to you, because depending on your qualification you may or may not be permitted to fly in them. The ILS approach is still just an ILS approach, whether one can see out of the window or not. The controller does not handle it any differently, nor does the procedure become somehow legally different just because you can see outside and don’t need the needles. The only operational difference for a controller is that if you’re there for training or you’ve requested a low approach and go-around then he/she is expecting the go-around. But a controller is expecting and planning for a go-around anyway, even if you intend to land.
Airliners conduct ILS approaches in severe CAVOK every day, and these are not ‘practice’ approaches.
I often practice approaches on my own, but if I’m going to have my eyes stuck on the instruments, then I declare I am IFR. If the clearance includes “VFR”, then either I need a safety pilot OR I need to do some lookout myself.
Noe wrote:
then I declare I am IFR
If you are OCAS then how does that help? You are still ultimately responsible for your own separation in an unknown traffic environment. You can get a deconfliction service, but that is not perfect.
Graham wrote:
The controller does not handle it any differently, nor does the procedure become somehow legally different just because you can see outside and don’t need the needles.
When flying an instrument approach under IFR in a class D CTR, ATC does not provide separation from VFR traffic when in VMC but it does when in IMC (because the remaining VFR flights would then be special VFR traffic). Also, I believe separation and collision avoidance are two different things. If one can look out the window to see and avoid (e.g. other aircraft but also birds, parachutes or the ground), then one should regardless of weather, airspace class or flight rules. It is a PIC responsibility. Hence a legit concept of “practice ILS” where one only pretends it is not possible to get external reference and unless someone else is on board to see and avoid, it is not a good practice. A bit off-topic though.
