The whole fundamental use of IFR/VFR to differentiate traffic just doesn’t fit the UK as well as it does in other regimes. We sort of squeeze ourselves into the model, but it doesn’t fit very well, and it’s uncomfortable.
I could give many examples, but they are all well rehearsed.
This mismatch between the model and our infrastructure is the cause for all sorts of misnomers and misunderstandings.
In theory, it would be better if we just changed to the same infrastructure as the rest of Europe, but that would be like asking us to drive on the right side of the road. (There is another analogy, but that’s probably best left 
)
I think this has little to do with regulations or anything.
Regardless of what the rules are, when flying in VMC you look out of the window as much as you can, or have somebody do it for you. See and avoid is poor enough as it is, but better than nothing.
That some people believe that regulations make any difference to the above is one of the subtle effects of overly prescriptive regulation.
When flying an instrument approach in VMC, the needles or screens are occasionally glanced at for navigation, not more.
When “practising an instrument approach”, most people mean practising flying it by sole reference to the panel without looking outside. Whether a hood is worn or not, in that case, regardless of rules, there should be an observer, or the pilot is exhibiting, to be polite, extreme lack of airmanship and common sense.
“Simulating flight in IMC” is the important point here. If you do that, you have to
a) have an instrument rating (CBIR, EIR, or IMCR in the UK), or
b) be a student in an IR training flight with an instructor sitting in the RHS
You are not allowed to do that if you are a VFR pilot, and it doesn’t help you to take an IR rated safety pilot with you in the RHS, except maybe in the UK. It either has to be an official IR training flight or you have to have the IR rating. Or the IMCR in the UK, but that’s only the UK, so..
Simulating an IR approach in VMC, however, can be done by anybody, VFR license, no safety pilot, anytime. Is ‘not using’ a hood somehow limiting ? I don’t think so, I find the hood very unpractical and even dangerous because it limits your field of view in an unrealistic way, and because it forces you to move the head (i.e. to the right to view frequencies in the COM/NAV units) which in IMC in a turn may cause spatial disorientiation and should be avoided. I have never found it limiting and never had any problems to focus on the instruments even in plain sunshine outside. So, again, ‘practicing / training’ ILS approaches in VMC, under VFR flight rules, no hood, I always found rewarding.
EuroFlyer wrote:
Simulating an IR approach in VMC, however, can be done by anybody, VFR license, no safety pilot, anytime
never had any problems to focus on the instruments even in plain sunshine outside.
Are you saying it is ok to fly in VMC looking at your panel and no lookout?
Ibra wrote:
What is an IFR clearance?
I assume this question is not intended to be taken literally. So what are you asking?
Graham wrote:
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.
The difference is that if you are VFR and flying a “practise ILS”, the controller does not have to separate you from other VFR traffic, while if you are IFR they do have to separate you. Even in class D where there is no formal VFR-IFR separation requirement, the controller still has a the general responsibility to prevent collisions and should not allow VFR and IFR traffic to get so close to each other that there is a collision risk. Not to mention that CAT pilots will be upset if they get a TCAS RA because ATC let VFR traffic get too close.
(Obviously I am talking about controlled airspace here.)
Ibra wrote:
I am not sure if 7000 defines VFR/IFR split but it does give some ATC perspective
7000 has nothing whatsoever to do with the VFR/IFR distinction. 7000 is simply the code you should set if ATC hasn’t given you another code. E.g. in Sweden VFR traffic in controlled airspace or in contact with FIS routinely get discrete squawks. My uncontrolled home airfield is in the control zone of another airport. When I depart IFR, I pick up the clearance on the ground the other tower. I’m usually instructed to start with 7000 until the tower obtaines my discrete code.
Same in Denmark. If you call Copenhagen Information (VFR) they will give you a code. They have full radar coverage and sit in the same room as Copenagen Control.
Cobalt wrote:
Are you saying it is ok to fly in VMC looking at your panel and no lookout?
No, that’s not what I’m saying, because, as you might have realized by now, we are talking about flying down the GS of an ILS (the context was Dave Ibbotson claiming in facebook to be ‘rusty’) which as you know takes place in a control zone. You are implying I fly in uncontrolled airspace without looking out the window, which of course I never do, which you have to assume, but you couldn’t resist the effort of pulling my leg. Nice try.
EuroFlyer wrote:
You are implying I fly in uncontrolled airspace without looking out the window, which of course I never do, which you have to assume, but you couldn’t resist the effort of pulling my leg. Nice try.
I imagine that Cobalt is not pulling your leg, but looking at this as an experienced IFR instructor in the UK.
Here, we have many IFR approaches in Class G. I train at Cambridge, Cranfield, Oxford, Lydd and Gloucester on a regular basis. Often the training is in VMC. It is then very hard for the instructor/examiner to both keep an eagle eye on the student under the hood and out for traffic in the FIR.
I have several times had close encounters with aircraft legally, but stupidly, flying through the procedures.
I have also very recently been the stupid one when I (as the examinee) was dealing with multiple simulated emergencies and hadn’t yet clocked that Cambridge was, unusually, on 05, and flew straight through the RNAV procedure, to the chagrin of the controller.
This is the background for UK IFR instructors, such as Cobalt and me, being very sensitive to aircraft flying on or near IFR procedures in VMC, not looking out of the window.
