Legality of flying an IAP abroad, on the IMCR

[peterh337]

This one has come up many times but AFAIK has never been settled.

I reckon it is not illegal in VFR conditions. What one obviously cannot do is request an IFR Clearance, and one must do that if one is to depart VFR conditions (which includes entering cloud).

Some have said that an IAP is an IFR procedure, but it is self evidently not illegal to fly under IFR on a PPL, anywhere, simply by flying in accordance with instrument flight rules i.e. X feet above cloud, Y metres away from it horizontally, above the MSA, and obeying the correct semicircular level.

A separate argument is what you will be doing regarding lookout. One should have a safety pilot.

[englishal]

I suppose it depends on which bit of "abroard" ! I have flown many "practice approaches" in the USA under VFR so clearly it is legal there.

I suppose it depends on whether the country you are flying in calls an IFR approach an IFR clearance and whether their equiv. of the ANO allows for an IFR clearance to be given to someone without an IR even though it is in VMC. Personally IFR in VMC is really VFR so I can't see a problem with it. However in the USA one cannot get an IFR clearance without an IR (in CAS) so if they didn't have this wonderful "practice approach" then theoretically you could not ask for an approach.

I wonder what the French would do if you asked them for a "VFR practice instrument approach" ?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

From http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf


Practice instrument approaches

24
(1) An aircraft shall not carry out an instrument approach practice within the United
Kingdom if it is flying in Visual Meteorological Conditions unless the conditions in
paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:
(a) the appropriate air traffic control unit has previously been informed that the flight
is to be made for the purpose of instrument approach practice; and
(b) if the flight is not being carried out in simulated instrument flight conditions, a
competent observer is carried in such a position in the aircraft that he has an
adequate field of vision and can readily communicate with the pilot flying the
aircraft.


So long as you remain in VMC throughout, you would be legal here. You would need to look at the CAP393 equivalent in the country you intend to fly in.

[FlyingStone]

Instrument rating itself by definition grants the holder right to fly under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), so basically: no IR = no IFR.

FCL.600 IR — General
Operations under IFR on an aeroplane, helicopter, airship or powered-lift aircraft shall only be conducted by holders of a PPL, CPL, MPL and ATPL with an IR appropriate to the category of aircraft or when undergoing skill testing or dual instruction.

In most European countries, night visual flying is allowed on a VFR flight plan, which is common sense (at least to me) - visual flying under VFR flight rules on VFR flight plan. Just because in the UK you must fly at night under IFR flight plan, even though (I assume) you have fully comply with VFR rules (see the irony: VFR flight rules with visual flying on an IFR flight plan), it doesn't neccesarily mean you can do it wherever you wish to do so.

In my experience, controller will let you fly an IAP in VMC, provided there isn't any confusion that it will be simulated (e.g. you are able to maintain VMC and own separation from traffic and terrain). As soon as the controller doubts that the weather is appropriate to execute an IAP as VFR, he will request that you either accept the IFR clearance or follow the normal route for VFR arrival.

[BackPacker]

Just because in the UK you must fly at night under IFR flight plan,

The UK is peculiar in that flight at night requires compliance with IFR rules, but as far as I know, NOT an IFR flight plan.

And this is going to change in the imminent future anyway (or has it already?), where VFR at night is allowed just like anywhere else.

[peterh337]

Instrument rating itself by definition grants the holder right to fly under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), so basically: no IR = no IFR.

I don't think so, because the UK system of IFR in VMC on a plain PPL would then have always been illegal. And anyway (as I say above) you can be flying "in accordance with" IFR anywhere, purely by coincidence :)

I think the way to state that is that an IR (or IMCR in the UK) is required if the flight requires compliance with instrument flight rules (i.e. sub VFR conditions).

[bookworm]

I think the way to state that is that an IR (or IMCR in the UK) is required if the flight requires compliance with instrument flight rules (i.e. sub VFR conditions).

You can state it any way you choose. But the rule for EASA aircraft, from the time Part-FCL is introduced to the UK, is as FlyingStone quotes.

[englishal]

I don't believe that. For example, if one had no IR, one could track a VOR, enter a hold, do whatever while under the hood as long as there is a safety pilot onboard.

If I am tracking a VOR in VMC as above, under the hood, I am flying "IFR" but as far as the rest of the world is concerned it is actually "VFR".

Therefore I see no reason why one could not fly an IAP under VFR anywhere. Whether or not you could do it with ATC assistance is another matter depending on how anal they are, but you could certainly fly the GPS approach into Shoreham and no one could stop you could they(as long as you remain VFR). You could also track inboaund on the L2K ILS and follow the glideslope down to landing if you wanted, no?

[peterh337]

You can state it any way you choose. But the rule for EASA aircraft, from the time Part-FCL is introduced to the UK, is as FlyingStone quotes. That means flying in Class G, coincidentally in compliance with IFR (as per my example above) is illegal.

I better avoid flying VFR at whole numbers of altitude or flight level then, and need to stick quite close to clouds, and need to fly at the wrong semicircular levels just for good measure, in case I end up flying in accordance with IFR :)

Surely this EASA reg is crappily worded - unless "under IFR" also requires an IFR clearance to be obtained.

But that makes IFR in Classes F,G illegal / impossible because ATC has no power to give you any clearance in these airspace classes (outside an ATZ). OK in Germany where IFR in G is illegal (yeah, must be well enforced...) but a slight problem in the UK :)

Anyway, we are probably off at a tangent w.r.t. my original Q.

I also do not understand how one proposes to define "practice" in

An aircraft shall not carry out an instrument approach practice within the United
Kingdom if it is flying in Visual Meteorological Conditions unless the conditions in
paragraph (2) are met.
Presumably anybody not holding an IMCR/IR is deemed to be flying for "practice" but what about those with an IMCR/IR? Such a rule could render illegal all instrument approaches in VMC conditions in aircraft certified for and operated under single pilot conditions.

I once landed off an ILS at Manston and one chap hanging around there (an instructor) told me they don't allow IAPs to be flown without an observer. This was after I told him I had a CPL/IR.

[bookworm]

Oh come on, this is not rocket science. The RotA sets out a choice:

Annex 2 (and SERA)
2.2 Compliance with the rules of the air
The operation of an aircraft either in flight or on the movement area of an aerodrome shall be in compliance with the general rules and, in addition, when in flight, either with:
a) the visual flight rules; or
b) the instrument flight rules.

UK RotA
Choice of VFR or IFR
20.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) an aircraft shall always be flown in accordance with the Visual Flight Rules or the Instrument Flight Rules.

If you wish to make the latter choice, you (will, for an EASA aircraft) need an IR. If you don't have an IR, you must choose to fly VFR (or SVFR).

There's enough poor drafting in EU regulation to keep PPrune going forever. This one is clear enough.

[peterh337]

May be more productive to seek an answer to my original Q...

Can one fly an IAP abroad in VFR conditions, without an IR, assuming ATC approves and assuming that an IFR clearance has not been requested?

[englishal]

Yes I agree, if you have no IR you have to fly in accordance with VFR. (note: In accordance with VFR can also be in accordance with IFR but in VMC conditions - I.e. quadrantal level, tracking navaids etc...)

But the ambiguity comes, when is IFR VFR? Example, flying a practice ILS with a "competent observer" (presumably looking out the window). Is this VFR or IFR? To me this is "IFR practice under VFR in VMC conditions".

[mm_flynn]

Yes I agree, if you have no IR you have to fly in accordance with VFR. (note: In accordance with VFR can also be in accordance with IFR but in VMC conditions - I.e. quadrantal level, tracking navaids etc...)

But the ambiguity comes, when is IFR VFR? Example, flying a practice ILS with a "competent observer" (presumably looking out the window). Is this VFR or IFR? To me this is "IFR practice under VFR in VMC conditions".

I think this is the essence of the issue. Pretty much everywhere in the world accept the UK has a clear distinction between IFR and VFR. for example:

1- Most countries say IFR must be above MSA,MEA,MORA, MOCA , published leg of procedure (which ever is relevant), UK then adds, 'or any height you like if you can see the ground and 800 m in front of you'.
2 -Most countries say in the cruise IFR should be at even thousands and VFR should be at thousands +500, but the UK recommend VFR cruise at the same levels as IFR.
3 - Most countries say to be IFR you must be on an IFR clearance (CAS) or in contact with ATC (and I believe declared as IFR), The UK OCAS, says do as you like
4 - In all countries you must be in VMC to be VFR and you must have an IR to be IFR, the UK however allows PPLs to fly in IMC (subject to being ISOS and having PPL flight visibility - broadly this allows PPLs to ignore the cloud separation aspect of VMC)

So countries other than the UK people cruising at even thousands will be IFR those cruising at +500 will be VFR, Those who are declared to ATC as VFR or who are not in contact with ATC are VFR, those who are declared as IFR are IFR.

In the UK it is a muddle and you can't really tell who is IFR and who is VFR OCAS.

None of that is actually relevant to the original question. I believe most countries in most cases allow approach procedures to be flown under VFR and as such, these can be flown by a PPL (IMC rated or not). However, if a country, situation or controller will not provide a clearance to follow e approach procedure unless it is issued as an IFR clearance, then you are stuck if you don't have an IR

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I once landed off an ILS at Manston and one chap hanging around there (an instructor) told me they don't allow IAPs to be flown without an observer. This was after I told him I had a CPL/IR.


If you were flying without a competent observer, it wouldn't matter if you had an ATPL/IR or current Air Force Master Green, he was right. Had he been an ATCO he would have told you the same. If you were steaming down the ILS gazing intently at the ASI/VSI/Altimeter/ILS Indicator, you would not be keeping adequate lookout for other VFR traffic. If, say another A/C was converging on you from your right, how would the driver know that his A/C was probably invisible to you and you probably wouldn't be giving way? Rule 24 wasn't written just to sod us around.

[mm_flynn]

If you were flying without a competent observer, it wouldn't matter if you had an ATPL/IR or current Air Force Master Green, he was right. Had he been an ATCO he would have told you the same. If you were steaming down the ILS gazing intently at the ASI/VSI/Altimeter/ILS Indicator, you would not be keeping adequate lookout for other VFR traffic. If, say another A/C was converging on you from your right, how would the driver know that his A/C was probably invisible to you and you probably wouldn't be giving way? Rule 24 wasn't written just to sod us around.

bo!!0cks,

you ALWAYS need to be looking out for traffic when flying an IFR approach in VMC or potential VMC and nowhere requires IFR operations to always carry a second crew or competent observer. The assumption is if you are training, you are going to at minimum be head down practicing following the needles (and maybe using a view limiting device) - so need someone to watch for traffic. If you really just flying an IFR arrival on an ILS, you fly primarily visually once you have solid visual reference, as such, keeping the needles centred becomes very easy with the odd glance inside and you can scan perfectly well for traffic (even easier if you are coupled )

[peterh337]

If you were flying without a competent observer, it wouldn't matter if you had an ATPL/IR or current Air Force Master Green, he was right. Had he been an ATCO he would have told you the same. If you were steaming down the ILS gazing intently at the ASI/VSI/Altimeter/ILS Indicator, you would not be keeping adequate lookout for other VFR traffic. If, say another A/C was converging on you from your right, how would the driver know that his A/C was probably invisible to you and you probably wouldn't be giving way? Rule 24 wasn't written just to sod us around. You are assuming that everybody flying a single pilot certified aircraft in VMC is an idiot and is head-down all the way to the MDH/DH :ugh:

In reality, the pilot is most likely flying the approach coupled (autopilot) while looking around outside. This is completely legitimate; for example one may wish to periodically test the avionics functionality; it's not particularly smart to discover it doesn't work when you are under load, with a sick passenger, and it is OVC002...

It is only with somebody observing in the RHS that one might fly it head-down.

If you had it your way, every pilot flying single-pilot would be legally forced to request a visual approach whenever the conditions look like VMC :ugh:

[bookworm]

Example, flying a practice ILS with a "competent observer" (presumably looking out the window). Is this VFR or IFR? To me this is "IFR practice under VFR in VMC conditions".

It's whatever ruleset you and ATC agreed. Note that the rule requiring an observer does not say "IFR practice", it says "an instrument approach practice".

Can one fly an IAP abroad in VFR conditions, without an IR, assuming ATC approves and assuming that an IFR clearance has not been requested?

"VFR conditions" (US terminology) = "VMC" (Euro/ICAO terminology)

Yes. Just bear in mind that not every ATSU will approve IAPs under VFR, though clearly many do.

The ambiguity in this is only what the word "practice" means, and how this differs from operational IFR. I don't think one can resolve the ambiguity except by common sense.

[Slopey]

Abroad, no idea, but we flew one last week in VMC without issue. Just came back to the zone, asked for an ILS recovery and was asked by the controller if we wanted to fly it VFR or IFR. No issues with VFR. Was CAVOK over the field, but misty all around it.

[achimha]

It seem like you're discussing a non-issue here.

Of course you can fly IAPs under VFR. Just the fact that you follow some radials and RNAV way points doesn't mean you're not flying VFR. You have to maintain VMC all the time. As to looking out the window as opposed to only watching the needles -- even under IFR you are required to see and avoid when in VMC. And under VFR you are not required to constantly look out your window either.

Most IAPs are in controlled airspace so you're actually doing CVFR.

The other case would be you under the hood. That depends on regulations of the country. In Germany, it's no problem provided the copilot is a licensed pilot. Both can log the flight as PIC time. Same thing in the US from what I remember.

Regarding "practice ILS" -- that is old and abolished terminology in EASA land. It is now called "simulated ILS" as the old term could theoretically mean that it is an actual instrument approach so the notorious VIFR pilots would request "practice ILS" for cloud breaking. Now they have to do it with "simulated" ILS instead :)

If you had it your way, every pilot flying single-pilot would be legally forced to request a visual approach whenever the conditions look like VMC :ugh:

In the US, the pilots can be "forced" to accept a visual approach. The pilot cannot be forced (or even asked) to perform a "contact" approach which is closer to what we consider to be a "visual approach". In the US, there are less strict separation requirements for visual approaches so controllers like to use those to expedite traffic flow. Eurocontrol doesn't allow it as far as I know.

[421C]

Peter, as OP could you restate where we are in the question? This looks an interesting discussion but I'm not sure what is resolved/unresolved?
brgds
421C

[soay]

After reading the thread so far, I'm now confused as to what the practical difference is between flying an instrument approach under VFR or IFR - assuming VMC.

[achimha]

After reading the thread so far, I'm now confused as to what the practical difference is between flying an instrument approach under VFR or IFR - assuming VMC.

IFR: when needle and eye differ: follow needle

VFR: when needle and eye differ: follow eye

[bookworm]

Regarding "practice ILS" -- that is old and abolished terminology in EASA land. It is now called "simulated ILS" as the old term could theoretically mean that it is an actual instrument approach

Not quite. ICAO, SERA and the UK all have a rule for a safety pilot in "simulated instrument flight conditions" (or very similar). That rule does not apply unless instrument flight is simulated with screens or a view-limiting device.

The UK has an extra rule, quoted above, which applies to practice approaches in VMC. By implication, a practice approach can also be carried out in IMC. There is no equivalent ICAO/SERA rule.

[bookworm]

After reading the thread so far, I'm now confused as to what the practical difference is between flying an instrument approach under VFR or IFR - assuming VMC.

The separation, as in any stage of flight.

Usually (classes C to E and UK class G), if you do so under IFR, ATC will separate you from other IFR traffic. If you do so under VFR, ATC usually will not.