I have a question, can anybody remember if you can legally fly an instrument approach in VMC with a non-IFR certified plane? Assuming instrument rated pilot.
My recollection is you can't, but I thought I would ask anyway.
Loads of instrument training goes on in planes which would be illegal to fly IFR in the airspace in question, or illegal to fly IFR at all. The training is done as a VFR flight as far as the ATC are concerned.
I'm not convinced.... For FAA, If you are filing for an IFR approach even under VMC, then you would have to be in compliance with FAR 91.205. Notably Nav equipment appropriate to the ground facilities being used.
A good example being a GPS approach, if your database is out of date then you cannot legally perform a GPS approach and cannot file as /G - even if your approach ends up being in VMC.
LH2's question asked: if you can legally fly an instrument approach in VMC
My response is that you cannot fly an IFR approach in VMC unless IFR equipped.
I think the thread is getting mixed up with between an IFR approach and a 'practice approach' under VFR. LH2 makes no mention of Flight Rules or of a 'practice' VFR approach.
I am inferring from his question that he is asking if a Instrument Rated pilot can perform a IFR Instrument approach which happens to be in VMC in a non IFR approved aircraft. To which I believe the answer would be no.
Simple question. Here I am on my VFR flight with my single donk spamcan fitted with the nav kit (VORx2, DME, ADF, ALTx2, AIx1) but not approved for IFR (non-FM immune, amongst other things), and I'm approaching an airport in Europe, which looks easier to get to by flying the instrument procedure (VORDME) than by joining VFR (reporting points inconveniently located and all that). Now if I were to ask ATC for the instrument approach, a) would they approve it? and b) would it be legal?
Just to make it clear, as this is hypotetical (yes, really) I'm not interested about alternatives to the scenario above other than asked, e.g., asking for a direct join without proceeding to the VRP first, which would be the normal solution in these cases.
Saw one such case the other day and got me wondering, that's all.
I think there are a number of subtleties to the question and the answer will depend a bit on country, airspace, and possibly controller's view of how they manage the airspace.
In principle you can fly the vertical and profile of an instrument approach under VFR. The conversation in any part of Europe other than the UK is probably fairly simple as you will clearly not be IFR (having not arrived on an IFR clearance). I have had comment from some UK controllers that while flying the lateral and vertical profile of an approach may be legal they would not authorise this in Class D unless the flight was conducted under an IFR clearance (on the other hand I have had from the CAA SRG a response of 'why wouldn't you, we do it frequently').
In the UK it is a bit more complex if you are in an aircraft that is definitely not certified for IFR (as compared to simply not being FM immune) in that the controller can not know if you are VFR or IFR in Class G unless you specifically tell them. Hence it would be easy to have controller and pilot not share the same view of the flight rules being used (not good).
So I think the answer is (Aircraft not certified for IFR, pilot with IR rating) 1 - The airspace, country rules, ATC practice allows for aircraft to be cleared VFR via the lateral and vertical profile of an approach - Legal 2 - Something causes the clearance to be given as an IFR clearance (outside UK Class G) - illegal 3 - VMC, UK, Class G - legal (I can't think of any rule that prevents one from choosing to be IFR in VMC during the day - even in a non-IFR certified machine)
The conversation in any part of Europe other than the UK is probably fairly simple as you will clearly not be IFR (having not arrived on an IFR clearance).
Even outside the UK the issue may be confusing. Personally, I've been in a situation twice (once as a student, once as a passenger in the back on another instruction flight) where the instructor requested the ILS 24 approach for Rotterdam and gotten it after some coordination with Amsterdam Approach. But the thing is, we were on a VFR flight plan in both cases. We never formally asked for an IFR flight plan to be opened. There was no indication whatsoever that our airplane was fully IFR capable, other than S/C on the FPL. There was no indication to ATC that the instructor was instrument rated. Yet both flights took us through the Amsterdam TMA, which is class A, without a formal declaration of SVFR. And in once case we actually went into IMC.
So to be honest, if you ask for something that's normally understood to be an IFR procedure, I think the controller is leaving it up to you to stay legal, but he will treat you as an IFR arrival, regardless of what's actually on the FPL.
Oh, and I don't think he'd be happy if you deviated from the procedure "due cloud".
(To be fair, the aircraft was IFR capable and the instructor, who was PIC on both flights, was instrument rated and even an instrument rating instructor, so we were legal, but ATC had no way of knowing this.)
I've never seen a flight progress strip (the info from the FPL the controller actually see) eighter in paper or electronic format include details from field 10.
In practice the controller don't give a toss is you have an IFR sertified aircraft or not, if you ask for an IFR approach.
It's not the controllers job to second guess the pilot as to his/her credentials AND indeed the aircrafts credentials. If I have a aircraft on an VFR flight plan that asks for an IFR clearence for whatever reason, I see no reason other then traffic not to grant its request. The only reason I've ever had to ask a pilot about his/her IR status, is when aircraft on VFR flights gets stuck VFR on top or run into IMC low level and a climb to MSA is fast becoming one of few options. (I.E ask if IFR flight in IMC is an option for that particular flight)
Even outside the UK the issue may be confusing. Personally, I've been in a situation twice (once as a student, once as a passenger in the back on another instruction flight) where the instructor requested the ILS 24 approach for Rotterdam and gotten it after some coordination with Amsterdam Approach. But the thing is, we were on a VFR flight plan in both cases. We never formally asked for an IFR flight plan to be opened. There was no indication whatsoever that our airplane was fully IFR capable, other than S/C on the FPL. There was no indication to ATC that the instructor was instrument rated. Yet both flights took us through the Amsterdam TMA, which is class A, without a formal declaration of SVFR. And in once case we actually went into IMC.
I think that strictly speaking what happened there is that you asked for an IFR clearance, got it, an IFR flight plan got opened (implicitly) and then you proceeded IFR to destination. This can be done anywhere, but can take a bit of time because one may need to hand you over to a higher-up controller. My experience of doing it in France is that it either takes a few mins, or is instant if the controller is the same bloke.
What one cannot ever do, it seems, is an IFR departure without a full IFR flight plan filed via Eurocontrol.
ATC's job does not include asking the pilot if he has the right bits of paper. Sometimes they suspect you don't but even then they don't like to get into this. I could tell a story or two...
In the UK, this whole business is pretty informal because of the large # of pilots who have the IMC Rating and who can and do randomly (and legally) switch from VFR to IFR in Class G. You can just turn up at any airport and ask for an ILS or whatever. The Q of whether you are VFR or IFR is not likely to be even asked. The exception is Cranfield who will tell you to go away because they have training traffic - however if you flew there on a Eurocontrol flight plan they would have had to accept you.
In the UK, it gets more involved if you want a clearance into Class A but even those can be done. They have to hand you over to London Control or whatever.
IMHO the Q of whether FM Immunity is required if the conditions are VFR and the VFR/IFR flight status is never formally established on the radio, is a grey area.
I think that strictly speaking what happened there is that you asked for an IFR clearance, got it, an IFR flight plan got opened (implicitly) and then you proceeded IFR to destination. This can be done anywhere, but can take a bit of time because one may need to hand you over to a higher-up controller. My experience of doing it in France is that it either takes a few mins, or is instant if the controller is the same bloke.
I think this is the key.
As we know in the UK you cant fly an approach in CAS without FM immunity. The ANO does not distinguish between flight conditions it simply refers to IFR. As we also know in the UK you can be IFR in VMC without a IR or IMCr, but in Europe you cannot be IFR without an IR. Consequently the pilots license priviliges gets wrapped up with the aircrafts equipment.
Strictly you could not accept an IFR approach clearance in VMC without the carriage of the correct equipment.
The issue is therefore whether you have or have not been given an IFR clearance.
I dont see because you are flying an approach you MUST be IFR, but of course in the majority of cases you will be and the controller will apply IFR standards. On the other hand I have very rarely heard a controller specifically asking if you are IFR. If you are coming off airways as would be usual or in the UK en route but under an IFR clearance the contract will have already been agreed with approach radar. I guess the usual rules apply for establishing a contract between controller and pilot. A contract cannot be implied - both parties have to consent. Therefore if an aircraft pitches up under a VFR en route "clearance" or FP and asks to fly the approach (he might even say I would like a vectored approach for ILS 25, but will maintain VMC at all times) unless the controller specifically states that he is giving you an IFR clearance and you agree to that contract then the flight remains under VFR. If he does offer you an IFR clearance and you decline then I guess the controller might be entitled to refuse you the approach, but I see no good reason why he should do so. I suppose one possibility is that if he has other aircraft in the approach procedure who are on an IFR clearance he might feel that because you will not / cannot accept an IFR clearance he has no guarantee that either you or the aircraft or both will be able to operate to IFR standards and that this could endanger other traffic. Arguably the fact you are VMC has nothing to do with his assessment because as we know pilots can assess their position totally inaccurately under VMC or exhibit very poor altitude control. As we know their are many fields with some form of approach without any radar feed so the controller is totally reliant on the pilots to guarantee they are where they say they are.
In summary, perhaps the answer is you cannot accept an approach without the corect equipment IF you accept an IFR clearance. If you do not accept an IFR clearance then you are VFR and can fly with only the equipment required for visual flight rules.
Reminds me that an aircraft sometimes does have a mind of its own in the sense that even though the pilot is qualified to do something the aircraft is not. I guess that is why when the pilot announced the aircraft was going around after failing to establish visual the controller asked what the pilots intentions were. The pilot replied "I guess I had better go around with it".
Heading home from training (in Class C airspace, as usual around here), instructor called up approach asking if we could be vectored for the ILS approach for traiining purposes. Not a problem, flew the ILS (me under the hood at the time), handed off to tower etc etc, landed from the ILS. But no doubt in anyone's mind that we were VFR and in VMC the whole time.
When it's not busy, people frequently call up asking for a straight in approach (i.e., bypassing the VFR reporting points), or are given an approach clearance from tower before even reaching the CTR. That's how I'd see following an instrument approach VFR in VMC; no different from any other non-standard flightpath when arriving VFR at a controlled airport.
Then again, we don't have that grey zone of aircraft in Class G being VFR/IFR/both?/neither?? without telling anyone...
When it's not busy, people frequently call up asking for a straight in approach (i.e., bypassing the VFR reporting points),
Of course, a straight in approach is not a procedural approach. There is no doubt it is flown under VFR in the same way as any other approach clearance (such as an overhead join, or join right base etc).
I think this question is only relevant to where a published procedural approach is being requested, not any form of VFR join.
I've never seen a flight progress strip (the info from the FPL the controller actually see) eighter in paper or electronic format include details from field 10.
Interesting. I've always assumed that when I was getting direct clearances to some obscure reporting point it was because the controller knew I was RNAV capable from the FPL. So they were essentially just banking on me to figure out how to get there one way or another?
I've always assumed that when I was getting direct clearances to some obscure reporting point it was because the controller knew I was RNAV capable
I think this one can be argued two ways.
Formally, ATC don't care how you find your way around so long as you are outside CAS. It's not their problem.
If the ATCO does actually care, and many VRPs are seriously hard to find for all other than the locals, especially if you have to circumnavigate a chunk of CAS to get to the VRP which is on the other side of the airport, the only easy way is to have a moving map GPS which shows the VRPs on the map. IOW, I agree with you
I have been asked if we could accept an SRA for controller training. This was in class D and the controller knew the aircraft was not IFR equipped, (he flew it). At night we were often offered an ILS if traffic permitted. DO.
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
