No, there’s nothing. Basically a pilot isn’t subject to the minimum height rules when taking off or landing. There is nothing to say that an IAP is necessary if IFR (if there were to be a rule, it would be more sensible to link this to VMC/IMC).
Of course, common sense prevails and there’s always the catch-all “endangerment” clauses.
The discussion of when and how unpublished cloudbreaks and approaches should be made, what should be the attitude of the authorities and whether they should be trained is long and hard and reemerges every so often.
I have written two papers on the subject and submitted them to the CAA and they have both been Humphrey Appleby-ed.
The CAA and EASA agree that they are legal but will do nothing to make them safer. This appears to be because, as in a number of fields, it is safer for the career of individuals to worry about small Type 1 risks than to recognise a big reduction in Type 2 risks (the best, and most laughable, example being the switching off of LNVA/VNAV glidepaths in the UK.)
EASA agrees that “unpublished (IFR?) approaches” are legal? Where can I read about that?
Alexis wrote:
EASA agrees that “unpublished (IFR?) approaches” are legal? Where can I read about that?
It doesn’t say so in those words, but fortunately in Europe what is not prohibited is legal. 
For private flying there is no general requirement to use only published IFR approaches. But you do have to use one if one is published for the runway in question.
NCO.OP.115 (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.
There is also strong evidence that this wording is not unintentional, since the corresponding requirement in part-CAT does not have the “if such procedures…” part.
CAT.OP.MPA.125 (a) The operator shall ensure that instrument departure and approach procedures established by the State of the aerodrome are used.
(In item (c) of the same rule, there is an exception for approved company procedures.)
I think “agreeing they are legal” is one way to interpret. My take is that there are no regulations, hence they are not illegal.
There needs to be a sense of context in this discussion. On the one hand, the majority of IFR operations have clearly defined minima (200ft DH, RVR etc) and there is a whole encyclopaedia of rules/procedures/criteria associated with this. On the other, you can drop a couple of waypoints into SkyDemon and fly an approach to whatever height you wish with no prescribed minimum visibility (OK, there’s the 800m bit for a visual approach). Just think about that for a second and then ask yourself what is the intent of the regulations.
I’m sure Timothy will provide a robust response. My view is that the law is lacking on specifics and the use of self-generated GPS approaches/let downs etc is actually a side argument.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
I think “agreeing they are legal” is one way to interpret. My take is that there are no regulations, hence they are not illegal.There needs to be a sense of context in this discussion. On the one hand, the majority of IFR operations have clearly defined minima (200ft DH, RVR etc) and there is a whole encyclopaedia of rules/procedures/criteria associated with this. On the other, you can drop a couple of waypoints into SkyDemon and fly an approach to whatever height you wish with no prescribed minimum visibility. Just think about that for a second and then ask yourself what is the intent of the regulations.
I am also in the “whether it is legal or not does not make it a good idea” camp. I am not talking a letdown to 1000ft AGL, but going below that on a homemade approach. Plenty of highly capable aircraft with experienced crews have come to grief playing that game. Not for me I am afraid.
There seems little or no evidence of people hitting something on a DIY approach which they properly designed (including the missed approach segment) by reference to a topo map, created GPS waypoints for it, test flew it in VMC and always fly it coupled on autopilot
Dave_Phillips wrote:
ask yourself what is the intent of the regulations.
Since NCO.OP.115 is written the way it is (in particular compared with CAT.OP.MPA.125), how can it not be the intent of the regulations? Another thing is that I’m sure many NAA’s don’t like this at all.
JasonC wrote:
I am also in the “whether it is legal or not does not make it a good idea” camp. I am not talking a letdown to 1000ft AGL, but going below that on a homemade approach. Plenty of highly capable aircraft with experienced crews have come to grief playing that game. Not for me I am afraid.
I agree, but most (all?) of those cases I’ve heard of has happened in weather conditions that wouldn’t have made even a published approach successful.
I do believe that if you
then it can be flown as safely as a published approach,
Airborne_Again wrote:
then it can be flown as safely as a published approach,
Probably yes although there is also risk as you are not loading it from a published database. But clearly a published approach is just a set of lat longs and altitudes that has been rigorously surveyed and test flown.
But I am of the view that with homemade approaches people do not treat things such as visibility and minima the same as they do on a Jepp chart. And it isn’t the super dilligent people we have to worry about it is the man or woman caught out in deteriorating weather who decides to make one up in flight to get out of the sh*t and who misses the tower or terrain. This is why I don’t believe in encouraging them (or using them myself).
