I have never heard the phrase and i do not actually think it exists of a simulated ILS approach under VFR .
Out of interest, which bit do you object to? 'Simulated'? Although I don't think it's strictly necessary here, it seems to adhere to the general principle that I've been taught to distinguish
practice from
simulated. If I announce that I'm flying
practice asymmetric, it means that I've shut an engine down for training. If I'm
simulated asymmetric, it means that the power on one engine has been retarded but I can get it back at short notice. Similarly with IAPs, I can (and sometimes do) go and make
practice approaches on a day with 1000 m vis and a ceiling of 400 ft. If I'm ending an operational flight with an ILS in VMC, I'm
simulating the need for the instrument approach, even though I'm not flying for the practice. I don't know of any official definitions to justify the distinction, but it seems to be a widely held convention.
If when I am quiet and a local aircraft requests from myself an ILS approach all I ask from them is if they are doing the approach VFR or IFR.
What if you're not quiet? In my experience there is an implicit assumption that an aircraft that requests an ILS approach will fly it under IFR. If a pilot wants (or is obliged) to fly it under VFR, I think he needs to make that explicit.