Descending through cloud without a procedure
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So come on some one must have a view about how FM interference would manifest itself while tracking a VOR and whether the pilot would spot the problem and what he would do about it.
The aircraft I fly is FM immune, it also mode S all done before any of this became mandatory and all at substantial cost. I sometimes wonder why particularly when I often ask for verification of my mode S and have yet to find anyone able to do so - the usual comment is "we only wish we could".
If I rented an aircraft and found the VORs were placarded not FM immune and I had to fly IFR outside controlled airspace would I - I think I would
.
The aircraft I fly is FM immune, it also mode S all done before any of this became mandatory and all at substantial cost. I sometimes wonder why particularly when I often ask for verification of my mode S and have yet to find anyone able to do so - the usual comment is "we only wish we could".
If I rented an aircraft and found the VORs were placarded not FM immune and I had to fly IFR outside controlled airspace would I - I think I would
.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude, here is my take on your question. I am nowhere near an expert, and will never say I am. But if I am flying along, and not on an IR flight plan, then I have to ask for a specific clearance (FAA IR Rated) to desend below the clouds, and no I cannot go below MSA(My view of going below MSA is not favorable). so what would I do. if the airport has an IAP then I would request the approach from present position or fly to an nearby airport that has an approach and shoot the approach to a missed with instructions or request to stay below the cloud layer toproceed to my destination. I now carry current plates for England. The plane I also fly doesn't have ADF so I am limited to ILS, LLZ and VOR approaches. It does have a very nice in panel IFR certified GPS.
This is my view, not necessarilly correct.
Always looking for new folks to fly with, so contact me if you want to go shoot some approaches at different airports.
This is my view, not necessarilly correct.
Always looking for new folks to fly with, so contact me if you want to go shoot some approaches at different airports.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longbow55
You don't need ATC clearance to descend "below clouds", here or in the USA.
In the USA, FAR something.something appears to prohibit an instrument approach other than a published one. In the UK there is no such rule (yet).
But if you happen to be able to do a visual approach from some level which you can get an IFR clearance to fly at then obviously you can then land under VFR. You can call this a DIY instrument approach with a MSA of 1000ft AGL or more
Or you can call it "cancelling IFR". Same thing.
In the UK this is a bit of a non event anyway because in Class G you won't normally be receiving a radar control service so you can fly under own navigation as you wish. The only case I know of of a RCS in G is a low level letdown which is basically a radar vectored descent over a surveyed bit of ground, down to 1000ft AGL, but even then you can ask to switch to own navigation at any time.
The question then becomes: how low will you go? Flying at the MSA (or your MOCA; I have the FAA IR too) gives you an IAP with a DH of 1000ft - not unreasonable over open flat country. Of course Americans have never discovered this
It all gets much more tricky if trying to get below say OVC005.
You don't need ATC clearance to descend "below clouds", here or in the USA.
In the USA, FAR something.something appears to prohibit an instrument approach other than a published one. In the UK there is no such rule (yet).
But if you happen to be able to do a visual approach from some level which you can get an IFR clearance to fly at then obviously you can then land under VFR. You can call this a DIY instrument approach with a MSA of 1000ft AGL or more
Or you can call it "cancelling IFR". Same thing.In the UK this is a bit of a non event anyway because in Class G you won't normally be receiving a radar control service so you can fly under own navigation as you wish. The only case I know of of a RCS in G is a low level letdown which is basically a radar vectored descent over a surveyed bit of ground, down to 1000ft AGL, but even then you can ask to switch to own navigation at any time.
The question then becomes: how low will you go? Flying at the MSA (or your MOCA; I have the FAA IR too) gives you an IAP with a DH of 1000ft - not unreasonable over open flat country. Of course Americans have never discovered this
It all gets much more tricky if trying to get below say OVC005.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
Longbow55
You don't need ATC clearance to descend "below clouds", here or in the USA.
In the USA, FAR something.something appears to prohibit an instrument approach other than a published one. In the UK there is no such rule (yet).
But if you happen to be able to do a visual approach from some level which you can get an IFR clearance to fly at then obviously you can then land under VFR. You can call this a DIY instrument approach with a MSA of 1000ft AGL or more Or you can call it "cancelling IFR". Same thing.
In the UK this is a bit of a non event anyway because in Class G you won't normally be receiving a radar control service so you can fly under own navigation as you wish. The only case I know of of a RCS in G is a low level letdown which is basically a radar vectored descent over a surveyed bit of ground, down to 1000ft AGL, but even then you can ask to switch to own navigation at any time.
The question then becomes: how low will you go? Flying at the MSA (or your MOCA; I have the FAA IR too) gives you an IAP with a DH of 1000ft - not unreasonable over open flat country. Of course Americans have never discovered this
It all gets much more tricky if trying to get below say OVC005.
You don't need ATC clearance to descend "below clouds", here or in the USA.
In the USA, FAR something.something appears to prohibit an instrument approach other than a published one. In the UK there is no such rule (yet).
But if you happen to be able to do a visual approach from some level which you can get an IFR clearance to fly at then obviously you can then land under VFR. You can call this a DIY instrument approach with a MSA of 1000ft AGL or more
Or you can call it "cancelling IFR". Same thing.In the UK this is a bit of a non event anyway because in Class G you won't normally be receiving a radar control service so you can fly under own navigation as you wish. The only case I know of of a RCS in G is a low level letdown which is basically a radar vectored descent over a surveyed bit of ground, down to 1000ft AGL, but even then you can ask to switch to own navigation at any time.
The question then becomes: how low will you go? Flying at the MSA (or your MOCA; I have the FAA IR too) gives you an IAP with a DH of 1000ft - not unreasonable over open flat country. Of course Americans have never discovered this
It all gets much more tricky if trying to get below say OVC005.
Now I just read somewhere, Can't remember, that the different ICAO states are trying to make the rules and regs equal, so if you fly in Europe, UK, US you know what the rules are. This is new info for myself, maybe old for some others.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540.
Please don't say "Americans have never discovered this" as your post demonstrates you are quite confused about the American system yourself and you are misleading people. You should stick to stuff you know about, like fuel flow meters. It is a very brave man who only held an FAA IR for only a few months & has only flown there once, to say "Americans have never discovered" something when it comes to flying in America.
Please don't say "Americans have never discovered this" as your post demonstrates you are quite confused about the American system yourself and you are misleading people. You should stick to stuff you know about, like fuel flow meters. It is a very brave man who only held an FAA IR for only a few months & has only flown there once, to say "Americans have never discovered" something when it comes to flying in America.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
longbow55
I agree, but as we were talking about DIY instrument approaches I assumed you were talking about somebody flying under IFR. Then, if you have legally descended sufficiently to become visual with the airport, you can cancel IFR and land there.
That is the bit which I was suggesting Americans have discovered too
There is no practical difference between that, and landing somewhere on a DIY IAP with a 1000ft DH.
In the UK, the only difference is that you don't need to cancel IFR because, in Class G, nobody much cares what rules you think you are flying under at any given moment.
I wasn't suggesting a flight that's illegal (outside one's license privileges) to start with, but now that you mention it:
I don't know how many Americans do the obvious illegal thing which is to fly VFR, perhaps on a plain PPL, and just drop into their home base through a bit (or a lot) of cloud. With the large number of highly equipped GA spaceships flying out there, some capable of flying a "virtual ILS" on autopilot, I would be rather suprised if nobody out there has discovered this option which would surely have the last 10 FAA administrators revolving in their graves at 2575 RPM. Of course no plain PPL in Europe has discovered this either...
But there are two very big differences: in the USA many small fields have an IAP of some sort (often GPS) and the FAA IR is far more accessible to private pilots without commercial aspirations than the JAA IR. So I would suspect that DIY approaches are a lot less common out there.
I agree, but as we were talking about DIY instrument approaches I assumed you were talking about somebody flying under IFR. Then, if you have legally descended sufficiently to become visual with the airport, you can cancel IFR and land there.
That is the bit which I was suggesting Americans have discovered too
There is no practical difference between that, and landing somewhere on a DIY IAP with a 1000ft DH.
In the UK, the only difference is that you don't need to cancel IFR because, in Class G, nobody much cares what rules you think you are flying under at any given moment.
I wasn't suggesting a flight that's illegal (outside one's license privileges) to start with, but now that you mention it:
I don't know how many Americans do the obvious illegal thing which is to fly VFR, perhaps on a plain PPL, and just drop into their home base through a bit (or a lot) of cloud. With the large number of highly equipped GA spaceships flying out there, some capable of flying a "virtual ILS" on autopilot, I would be rather suprised if nobody out there has discovered this option which would surely have the last 10 FAA administrators revolving in their graves at 2575 RPM. Of course no plain PPL in Europe has discovered this either...
But there are two very big differences: in the USA many small fields have an IAP of some sort (often GPS) and the FAA IR is far more accessible to private pilots without commercial aspirations than the JAA IR. So I would suspect that DIY approaches are a lot less common out there.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In the UK, the only difference is that you don't need to cancel IFR because, in Class G, nobody much cares what rules you think you are flying under at any given moment."
I am not sure I entirely agree.
If you are working a station in class G and report IFR, at FLX then I think both the controller and other users are entitled to expect you to remain at that level unless you agree a new level.
I am not sure I entirely agree.
If you are working a station in class G and report IFR, at FLX then I think both the controller and other users are entitled to expect you to remain at that level unless you agree a new level.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say the same as Fuji but for a different reason.
Not an uncommon situation to be in flying VFR below a 2500ft overcast and knowing that the tops are about 3500 to 4000ft and hearing a pilot announce that they are flying VFR through the same area at 3000ft.
Seriously bad practice not to let an ATS service know of any change in flight rules because while it may be class G and a free for all out there, there are many rules and requirements that change as the flight rules change and some of those affect other airspace users.
It can also fool pilots into thinking that they will be VMC at a particular level when they will not!
Regards,
DFC
Not an uncommon situation to be in flying VFR below a 2500ft overcast and knowing that the tops are about 3500 to 4000ft and hearing a pilot announce that they are flying VFR through the same area at 3000ft.
Seriously bad practice not to let an ATS service know of any change in flight rules because while it may be class G and a free for all out there, there are many rules and requirements that change as the flight rules change and some of those affect other airspace users.
It can also fool pilots into thinking that they will be VMC at a particular level when they will not!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
longbow55
I agree, but as we were talking about DIY instrument approaches I assumed you were talking about somebody flying under IFR. Then, if you have legally descended sufficiently to become visual with the airport, you can cancel IFR and land there.
That is the bit which I was suggesting Americans have discovered too
There is no practical difference between that, and landing somewhere on a DIY IAP with a 1000ft DH.
In the UK, the only difference is that you don't need to cancel IFR because, in Class G, nobody much cares what rules you think you are flying under at any given moment.
I wasn't suggesting a flight that's illegal (outside one's license privileges) to start with, but now that you mention it:
I don't know how many Americans do the obvious illegal thing which is to fly VFR, perhaps on a plain PPL, and just drop into their home base through a bit (or a lot) of cloud. With the large number of highly equipped GA spaceships flying out there, some capable of flying a "virtual ILS" on autopilot, I would be rather suprised if nobody out there has discovered this option which would surely have the last 10 FAA administrators revolving in their graves at 2575 RPM. Of course no plain PPL in Europe has discovered this either...
But there are two very big differences: in the USA many small fields have an IAP of some sort (often GPS) and the FAA IR is far more accessible to private pilots without commercial aspirations than the JAA IR. So I would suspect that DIY approaches are a lot less common out there.
I agree, but as we were talking about DIY instrument approaches I assumed you were talking about somebody flying under IFR. Then, if you have legally descended sufficiently to become visual with the airport, you can cancel IFR and land there.
That is the bit which I was suggesting Americans have discovered too
There is no practical difference between that, and landing somewhere on a DIY IAP with a 1000ft DH.
In the UK, the only difference is that you don't need to cancel IFR because, in Class G, nobody much cares what rules you think you are flying under at any given moment.
I wasn't suggesting a flight that's illegal (outside one's license privileges) to start with, but now that you mention it:
I don't know how many Americans do the obvious illegal thing which is to fly VFR, perhaps on a plain PPL, and just drop into their home base through a bit (or a lot) of cloud. With the large number of highly equipped GA spaceships flying out there, some capable of flying a "virtual ILS" on autopilot, I would be rather suprised if nobody out there has discovered this option which would surely have the last 10 FAA administrators revolving in their graves at 2575 RPM. Of course no plain PPL in Europe has discovered this either...
But there are two very big differences: in the USA many small fields have an IAP of some sort (often GPS) and the FAA IR is far more accessible to private pilots without commercial aspirations than the JAA IR. So I would suspect that DIY approaches are a lot less common out there.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DFC
Seriously bad practice not to let an ATS service know of any change in flight rules because while it may be class G and a free for all out there, there are many rules and requirements that change as the flight rules change and some of those affect other airspace users.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So in summary:
One cannot descend below 1000' above obstacles within 5nm, except to land/take off (rule 29), but:
One cannot descend below 1000' aal unless the actual weather is above the notified aerodrome operating minima (approach ban, article 49).
Where there is no notified aerodrome operating minima, one can calculate the AOM using the approved method (based on the Obstacle clearance height applicable to your aircraft type and the system minima) (para 7, article 49).
In other words the simple answer is one has to be visual at MSA to continue approach or shoot a published instrument approach. As far as I can see, a DIY approach is pretty much unfeasible to GA, unless of course one is referring to an approach with a 1000' MDH, which isn't really an approach, it is more a descent enroute.
One cannot descend below 1000' above obstacles within 5nm, except to land/take off (rule 29), but:
One cannot descend below 1000' aal unless the actual weather is above the notified aerodrome operating minima (approach ban, article 49).
Where there is no notified aerodrome operating minima, one can calculate the AOM using the approved method (based on the Obstacle clearance height applicable to your aircraft type and the system minima) (para 7, article 49).
In other words the simple answer is one has to be visual at MSA to continue approach or shoot a published instrument approach. As far as I can see, a DIY approach is pretty much unfeasible to GA, unless of course one is referring to an approach with a 1000' MDH, which isn't really an approach, it is more a descent enroute.
Originally Posted by Droopystop
In other words the simple answer is one has to be visual at MSA to continue approach or shoot a published instrument approach.
"(4) Without prejudice to [Cat II/III approaches] an aircraft to which this article applies when making a descent at an aerodrome to a runway in respect of which there is a notified instrument approach procedure shall not descend from a height of 1000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1000 feet above the aerodrome if the relevant runway visual range for that runway is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing." (my italics)
No notified IAP, no approach ban.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Bookworm, yours is a much more precise mind that mine
Droopystop
unless of course one is referring to an approach with a 1000' MDH, which isn't really an approach, it is more a descent enroute.
Yes and no. To make a typical visual approach (not a 3deg ILS type of thing) you want to be say 1000ft AGL 3 miles before the runway. I wouldn't call that an en route descent. The entire length of such a "procedure" will be no more than any published one.
I wouldn't descend to 1000ft above the runway elevation say 20 miles out. Not many runways have zero obstacles that far back. So there is a lot more opportunity to hit something that you have missed.
Droopystop
unless of course one is referring to an approach with a 1000' MDH, which isn't really an approach, it is more a descent enroute.
Yes and no. To make a typical visual approach (not a 3deg ILS type of thing) you want to be say 1000ft AGL 3 miles before the runway. I wouldn't call that an en route descent. The entire length of such a "procedure" will be no more than any published one.
I wouldn't descend to 1000ft above the runway elevation say 20 miles out. Not many runways have zero obstacles that far back. So there is a lot more opportunity to hit something that you have missed.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm,
So how is para 7 in article 49 supposed to be interpreted?
In this article “specified” in relation to aerodrome operating minima means such particulars of aerodrome operating minima as have been notified in respect of the aerodrome or if the relevant minima have not been notified such minima as are ascertainable by reference to the notified method for calculating aerodrome operating minima.
Does that not say if there is no notified minima, you have to calculate them yourself?
And on the generation of DIY approaches, the AIP defines what radio aids are used for (enroute or aerodrome, including relvant IAPs) so can one assume that rule 40 prohibits their use for anything else?
So how is para 7 in article 49 supposed to be interpreted?
In this article “specified” in relation to aerodrome operating minima means such particulars of aerodrome operating minima as have been notified in respect of the aerodrome or if the relevant minima have not been notified such minima as are ascertainable by reference to the notified method for calculating aerodrome operating minima.
Does that not say if there is no notified minima, you have to calculate them yourself?
And on the generation of DIY approaches, the AIP defines what radio aids are used for (enroute or aerodrome, including relvant IAPs) so can one assume that rule 40 prohibits their use for anything else?
Last edited by Droopystop; 25th May 2006 at 19:15.
So how is para 7 in article 49 supposed to be interpreted?
It's supposed to be interpreted as defining "specified" in the context that the word is used. And it's used in the context of runways with notified IAPs.
And on the generation of DIY approaches, the AIP defines what radio aids are used for (enroute or aerodrome, including relvant IAPs) so can one assume that rule 40 prohibits their use for anything else?
"3.7 Those procedures at aerodromes which lie within Controlled Airspace are notified for the purposes of Rule 31(3)(a)(ii) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996. Those procedures at aerodromes which do not lie within Controlled Airspace are notified for the purposes of Rule 40 of those Rules.
These Rules require that, where an aerodrome is provided with one or more notified Instrument Approach Procedure, unless otherwise authorized by ATC, pilots requiring to use an Instrument Approach Procedure shall use only such notified procedures. This applies irrespective of whether the aerodrome is situated inside or outside Controlled Airspace." (my italics, again)
There is also an issue over the interpretation of "requiring to use an Instrument Approach Procedure".
While the words "Instrument Approach Procedure" are not used, I think there's a clear difference in intent between:
"Art 47(9) An aircraft [registered in the UK flying for public transport] when making a descent to an aerodrome, shall not descend from a height of 1000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1000 feet above the aerodrome if the relevant runway visual range at the aerodrome is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing."
"Art 48(6) Without prejudice to paragraphs (4) and (5), [registered outside the UK flying for public transport], when making a descent to an aerodrome, shall not descend from a height of 1000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height of less than 1000 feet above the aerodrome if the relevant runway visual range at the aerodrome is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing."
and
"Art 49(4) (4) Without prejudice to paragraph (2) [a non-public-transport aircraft] when making a descent at an aerodrome to a runway in respect of which there is a notified instrument approach procedure shall not descend from a height of 1000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1000 feet above the aerodrome if the relevant runway visual range for that runway is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing."
Last edited by bookworm; 26th May 2006 at 13:57.
An interesting, lengthy and, ultimately, futile discussion. Consider two things:
Rule 29 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996 -
Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 5, in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless:
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft is flying on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority; or
(d) the aircraft is flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 feet above mean sea level and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
Clearly, in the case of a 'self made' procedure, one is relying upon Rule 29(a) but, since GPS is not yet approved as a Class 1 aid in the UK, any legal procedure must be based upon a radio navigation aid and Rule 40 states that:
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the commander of an aircraft shall not make use of any radio navigation aid without complying with such restrictions and appropriate procedures as may be notified in relation to that aid unless authorised by an air traffic control unit.
(2) The commander of an aircraft shall not be required to comply with this rule if he is required to comply with rule 31.
Therefore, any approach procedure that is not notified in accordance with Rule 40 is, unless authorised by an air traffic control unit, by definition, illegal.
Whilst anyone who thinks it is OK to conduct a 'self-made' instrument approach procedure is no loss to the aviation industry, the consequent loss of a perfectly serviceable aircraft, not to mention the innocent victims of such crass incompetence, is to be deplored.
Rule 29 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996 -
Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 5, in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless:
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft is flying on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority; or
(d) the aircraft is flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 feet above mean sea level and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
Clearly, in the case of a 'self made' procedure, one is relying upon Rule 29(a) but, since GPS is not yet approved as a Class 1 aid in the UK, any legal procedure must be based upon a radio navigation aid and Rule 40 states that:
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the commander of an aircraft shall not make use of any radio navigation aid without complying with such restrictions and appropriate procedures as may be notified in relation to that aid unless authorised by an air traffic control unit.
(2) The commander of an aircraft shall not be required to comply with this rule if he is required to comply with rule 31.
Therefore, any approach procedure that is not notified in accordance with Rule 40 is, unless authorised by an air traffic control unit, by definition, illegal.
Whilst anyone who thinks it is OK to conduct a 'self-made' instrument approach procedure is no loss to the aviation industry, the consequent loss of a perfectly serviceable aircraft, not to mention the innocent victims of such crass incompetence, is to be deplored.
Originally Posted by BillieBob
Whilst anyone who thinks it is OK to conduct a 'self-made' instrument approach procedure is no loss to the aviation industry, the consequent loss of a perfectly serviceable aircraft, not to mention the innocent victims of such crass incompetence, is to be deplored.
Where notified IAPs exist, there would be little point in not using them -- and the law requires that they are used.
At airports where IAPs do not exist, however, the situation is more complex. Scud-running in poor vis for 30 mins to make an under-the-deck VFR arrival is certainly legal, but not usually safer than a carefully planned and executed let-down which has not been notified as an IAP by the CAA.
The law currently recognises that. The only notification for the purpose of Rule 40 is in ENR 1.5 in the passage that I have already quoted, and the intention appears very clear from the second paragraph.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the commander of an aircraft shall not make use of any radio navigation aid without complying with such restrictions and appropriate procedures as may be notified in relation to that aid .. .. .."
Forgive me if I have not correctly followed this thread but what restrictions and procedures apply to a VOR in open FIR that it is being suggested would prevent that VOR being used for a cloud break without air traffic consent. For example at GWC there used to be a published approach procedure I believe. At least one operator on the airfield has CAA approval to continue to use that procedure. However, for someone flying the "procedure" without CAA approval what restricitons prevent using the procedure for a cloud break?
Forgive me if I have not correctly followed this thread but what restrictions and procedures apply to a VOR in open FIR that it is being suggested would prevent that VOR being used for a cloud break without air traffic consent. For example at GWC there used to be a published approach procedure I believe. At least one operator on the airfield has CAA approval to continue to use that procedure. However, for someone flying the "procedure" without CAA approval what restricitons prevent using the procedure for a cloud break?