I will need to do my IR(R) revalidation by next summer and it sounds like finding approaches might be a challenge. Perhaps if I position the TB10 to Enstone for a few days then I can do them at Oxford at short notice.
Farnborough used to allow random ILS approaches to a low approach and go around on weekdays. You couldn’t book, but if you just turned up and it wasn’t too busy they’d fit you in and there was no charge. Did it there for my initial IR(R) test (which was than an IMCr) and have done it once of twice for the hell of it since.
Cranfield was the place of choice when I was training but it seems they’re pretty much closed to visitors these days. Even if you can get in then I don’t want to give my custom to a place with their attitude.
Tests out of White Waltham tend to cover the non-precision approach with the unofficial (though a realistic plate is in circulation and I still have a copy) NDB or VOR approaches into Waltham from WOD and CPT. I don’t know how legal this is, but it goes on.
Need to find an examiner too.
Anyway, this is the video.
I like Timothy’s idea of using the GTN visual approaches for training! Unfortunately won’t solve the problem for FAA IR holders who need 6 approaches in either real or simulated (with safety pilot) IMC, who need the practice AND the record of the practice, I guess.
One Solution could be for the CAA to publish RNP/RNAV approaches with LPV in an airspace block that is not in the way of anything.
It doesn’t even need to have an airport at the end of the approach and could also be between 4000 and 6000 ft or so.
To satisfy the 2D requirements, we would just deselect EGNOS.
Could something like that be published legally ?
arj1 wrote:
I’ve always looked at that as:
1. to fly in IMC you must be VFR and must fly 1000 ft above the highest obstacle and that is “Except when necessary for take-off or landing” (SERA)
You mean IFR, but yes.
2. takeoff and landing IFR under IMC must be under a published procedure (don’t remember where I got this from? ANO? SERA? PART-NCO?)
Under part-NCO you don’t need that if there is no procedure published for the runway in question. (NCO.OP.115 a.) Under part-CAT you do. SERA doesn’t mention anything about procedures and any air ops rules in the UK ANO are not applicable to EASA aircraft as the EU Air Ops regulation has precedence over any national legislation.
3. when performing an approach you must adhere to minima as published by, say, PART-NCO
For (M)DA, yes, but surprisingly the visibility minima rules are in the AMC of NCO.OP.110 and in the case of part-NCO you may make you own AltMOCs without the approval of a competent authority. (NCO.GEN.101.)
arj1 wrote:
don’t remember where I got this from
I hear this all the time.
At my instructor renewal seminar they pretty much shouted it at me.
I would love someone to publish the law that prevents it, then I’d shut up about it.
Practically you can’t fly a DIY approch except at you home airfield (you know your local area, runways and obstacles layouts better than what you have seen on a gps/map and you have flown that flight path load of times vmc/imc)
However, I don’t see how someone can turn up zero-to-zero for a first time at another unfamiliar airfield? so you still need to get something published/accepted by aerodromes and regulators and viewed by everybody as safe…
There is no such reg, for a DIY IAP. They could get you for endangerment, as stated above.
It probably also follows that departure minima also don’t apply, where no departure procedure is published. RVR will deffo be pilot interpreted 
and we already know there is no minimum cloudbase anyway.
It may be stupid, in certain situations, but it isn’t illegal.
There is a pilot here who used to fly zero-zero DIY IAPs at night, to grass strips, in an SR22 with SV.
I have this one data point from someone “in the system”:
I don’t see any reason why you could not fly approaches at Calais, a
number of schools at Shoreham used to go to Calais. However, only in a
multi-engine aircraft. The CAA will not condone water crossing in a SEP
for approved training.
The last sentence is interesting in itself because the “cross channel checkout” flights were and are done in normal school SEPs. But of course that was purely a revenue raising flight (a PPL holder and an FI in the RHS); there is no such training requirement.
