Originally Posted by
Whopity
One could argue that below 3000 feet there are no instrument flight rules as the only two rules 29 and 30 do not apply! Therefore, if there are no instrument flight rules to comply with the only option under Rule 22 is to comply with the VFR.
Of course the rules apply below 3000 ft. But you are in compliance with the rule if you fall within the exceptions.
AD 1.1.2 specifies that the flight should be conducted in VMC where there is no instrument approach.
AD 1.1.2 is not regulatory, except where in provides notifications cited in the ANO. Its advice is very sensible.
(Night IFR is a Red Herring. The only reasons for requiring compliance with IFR at night are for terrain clearance and use of quadrantal cruising altitudes en route)
Those are the only reasons for requiring compliance with IFR in IMC, too!
The ANO may be a mess in this respect however, if you apply logical reasoning, the only way to fly a visual approach to an airfield is in accordance with the VFR.
If you ignore the VFR minima and the information given in the AIP you are likely to be in breach of 73 and 74 endangerment.
Once you start introducing Art 73 and 74, you're starting to evaulate what is safe, not what is permitted by other regulations. It's perfectly possible to endanger the aircraft and others while complying with VFR. VFR flights manage to scud run into obstacles and terrain all too often. An approach is not "safe" with a vis of 1501 m and "unsafe" with a vis of 1499 m. Rather the safety case depends on other circumstances.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that it is reasonable to fly approaches to airports without IAPs in low visibility. Personally I'd be very uncomfortable attempting to avoid obstacles visually in anything less than 5000 m or so. But there is no specific regulation that sets a minimum visibility for such an arrival.