Oggers, again, you regurgitate the same wording that is available to all. Again, the term "should" has never prefaced a mandatory item.
"Should" indicates advice. If the wording read "shall" or "must" I would agree it was mandatory. But it doesn't, even under framework of SERA, which you rather strangely seem to think I haven't read.
The new regulations have had a very significant effect on certain parts of the U.K. industry. Thankfully the CAA have listened to the coal face in a number of areas and gave allowed certain easements. I'm grateful to have been asked for my personal input in a couple of areas in that regard. This (topic under discussion) is one area where SERA has not imposed further restrictions, despite Oggers thinking otherwise.
However, I most definitely wouldn't ever advise any pilot, "private" or otherwise (SERA doesn't differentiate, Oggers) to descend below MSA on a whim, for obvious safety reasons and I certainly would not do so. IFR flights need to be very carefully planned with nominated diversions found as necessary. That latter requirement remains in the ANO, but it rather strangely states:
"If, according to the information available, an aircraft would as regards any flight be required to be flown in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules at the aerodrome of intended landing, the pilot in command of the aircraft must select before take-off a destination alternate aerodrome unless no suitable aerodrome suitable for that purpose is available.
The text I have quoted in bold would rather tend to lead a pilot into the very situation we are discussing! The only possible reason for that wording isn't immediately obvious, but it allows a pilot to use judgement on a forecast weather clearance, such as early morning fog. My personal judgement would be not to take such a risk.
That is a separate issue to the legality of a descent below MSA when necessary to do so in order to land, iaw SERA 5015.
What hasn't really been discussed fully is what constitutes a published approach/letdown and what doesn't. For example, the meaning, in legal terms, of "published". In the past I've been given details of a number of approaches designed and fully surveyed by a CAA recognised expert which the CAA has been fully aware of. You won't find them in any flight guide or the AIP. Some of them are for easily recognised airfields and some are not. Where might an approach be classed as "published" and where might it otherwise exist?
Last edited by ShyTorque; 17th Feb 2017 at 19:06.