Peter wrote:
There is another aspect to this: does flying an IAP imply you are IFR?
Why not? It is just flying a trajectory through a piece of airspace. You do not even need to tell ATC what your are really doing, just tell them you are going to fly some wide patterns with long finals.
EuroFlyer wrote:
In Gernany you may fly departures and arrivals including an ILS approach in VMC as long as you ask for a “practice”. I regularly ask for a practice ILS approach on my home airport to save me the cumbersome VFR reporting points and pattern. Or I ask radar to provide me with vectors.ATC then asks you to maintain VMC at all times and “all headings are suggestions”.
I have never tried that, I wonder what the ATC here would say. I have had the ILS “on”, just to follow it. But, then I don’t know how to properly execute an ILS approach in the first place (from start to finish). In VMC the big jets usually fly visual approaches here in any case, much faster and more effective, only foreigners not used to flying here do ILS approaches in VMC. The MGL in my Onex has something called “GLS”, a GPS “overlay” ILS sort of thing, only it works on any strip. (Not to be confused with the proper certified GLS they use on many fields here).
VFR is flying according to the Visual Flight Rules. Now, these rules are only weather minima and distance from clouds. As long as these rules are obeyed, you can do whatever you want, use any equipment you have on board. The airspace doesn’t matter, except A of course. As I understand it, the Instrument Flight Rules allows you to disregard the weather minima, completely or partially, but this usually also comes with a price, the flight will be controlled to assure separation (in G this will mean VMC, or some other assurance of separation (radio, radar, ADSB, whatever, desolation), because the pilots are responsible for this separation, and the flight is not controlled).
It seems rather clear from the sited regulations that you cannot log or file IFR flights without a rating. But you can fy “IFR” all you want, from following the lines on SD or EasyVFR to full ILS approaches.
EuroFlyer wrote:
In Gernany you may fly departures and arrivals including an ILS approach in VMC as long as you ask for a “practice”. I regularly ask for a practice ILS approach on my home airport to save me the cumbersome VFR reporting points and pattern. Or I ask radar to provide me with vectors.
This is exactly what I did today – I asked to fly a practice RNAV approach, the tower just asked whether I wanted vectors or to follow the published procedure – I elected to follow the published route and flew it that way – having an STEC 55X makes flying those sort of approaches a piece of cake….. ;-)
I am currently a trainee for CBIR and so anything that helps me getting it into my head, I try to do, i.e. when I don’t have my instructor sitting next to me.
However it does not compare to a real exercise in IMC with only the radio “clocks” used. Flying it with GPS or even the AP is peanuts, really, and is not really an exercise. PS: *=?
If you are flying in Class D, you will be on an IFR clearance, trying to fly IAPs on a VFR clearance would invoke all sorts of issues with ATC traffic information and separation requirements.
EuroFlyer wrote:
PS: *=?
PS = Post Scriptum… An after-thought….something added to the bottom of a written message at the last moment…
Balliol wrote:
If you are flying in Class D, you will be on an IFR clearance, trying to fly IAPs on a VFR clearance would invoke all sorts of issues with ATC traffic information and separation requirements
Not necessarily. I have flown “Practice ILS” on VFR clearances in Class D in Germany. It is of course at ATC’s discretion to accept it.
Separation is a bit misunderstood, IMO. A formal separation requirement by ATC means minimum distances, ensured by radar and/or timing and speed restrictions and/or clearance limits when no radar is there. In Class D, only IFR gets separated from IFR that way, nothing else.
So in theory the VFR aircraft on the ILS in class D actually reduces the separation requirement with IFR traffic compared to the same aircraft flying under IFR.
But ATC will ALSO try to sequence traffic in a way that there is no conflict, so while formally only required to separate IFR from IFR in Class D, the controllers will also not put a VFR aircraft in conflict with another aircraft, although not applying the same strict separation standards.
So in practice, this will make no difference whatsoever.
It only creates a problem if the VFR traffic has to decline a vector or has to deviate to maintain VMC, so I would expect ATC to decline this sort of thing in less than CAVOK, or at least ceiling 1,000ft above the highest point in the procedure.
Cobalt wrote:
So in theory the VFR aircraft on the ILS in class D actually reduces the separation requirement with IFR traffic compared to the same aircraft flying under IFR.
There is no IFR-VFR separation in class D, so that is correct. Flying an IAP VFR in class D causes zero problems of traffic permits. Which is why I said that if it is an airport with significant traffic, the best is to call ATC beforehand and inquire.
Just read this:
FAA Order 8900.1 allows an exception for aircraft not certified for IFR to be operated under IFR in VMC only:
A. IFR Training in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). Instrument flight training may be conducted during VMC in any aircraft that meets the equipment requirements of part 91, §§ 91.109, 91.205, and, for an airplane operated in controlled airspace under the IFR system, §§ 91.411 and 91.413. An aircraft may be operated on an IFR flight plan under IFR in VMC, provided the PIC is properly certificated to operate the aircraft under IFR. However, if the aircraft is not approved for IFR operations under its type certificate, or if the appropriate instruments and equipment are not installed or are not operative, operations in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) are prohibited. The PIC of such an aircraft must cancel the IFR flight plan in use and avoid flight into IMC.
I think the above is strongly country dependent. No doubt it applies to the US but the situation in Europe is much more fluid. In the UK especially it its very normal to teach IFR procedures in a plane which would be totally illegal for IFR due to missing or defective equipment; I remember this well from my IMCR training.
