VOR/ADF Position Fixing

[DFC]

You can descend to any height for the purpose of a landing, on an unpublished instrument approach.

It would be correct to say that you can descend to the appropriate minima on an unpublished instrument approach.

There is no requirement for private instrument approaches to be published.

However, to be classed as an instrument approach, it would have to conform with the requirements of ICAO DOC 8168 which deals with the design of such procedures.

Dreaming up a convenient track from a local VOR towards your runway / strip is not an instrument approach procedure.

If you want to have an approach procedure at your strip you need to;

1. Have a full obstacle survey - Expensive.

2. Have the procedure designed by a qualified procedure designer - More Expensive

3. Have the procedure crosschecked - just as expensive as in 2.

4. Have the procedure flight checked by an approved organisation

and a few other admin bits gets you a private instrument approach procedure.

Having done so you can not complete the procedure unless you know the weather it at or above the applicable minima........therefore you need weather reporting (the US ASOS or AWOS expensive type of equipment could do)

So the question is.........do you spend enough for year round parking / landings and chaufered limo from your nearest regional airport to justify spending more on a private instrument procedure.........that you will use 10 or 12 times per year?

To sum up - A instrument approach meets the requirements of ICAO DOC 8168 including survey etc. If you do not have evidence of that then you do not have an instrument approach procedure.

Regards,

DFC

[llanfairpg]

But could there be a difference in the interpretation of 'approach to land' and 'cloudbreak' I have always considered, perhaps in error, a non precison approach to be a cloud break especially as it may need to be followed by visual manoevring to get onto the centreline. I seem to remember some wierd approaches in Europe were your track takes you more to a downwind position than final.

[mm_flynn]

As can be seen from DFC's post there are views that rule 33 of the IFRs has by implication a set of other rules applicable to the exceptions, which means the words can not be interpreted literally and on a stand alone basis. There is some sense in this as the ANO does use some tortured logic like

"Is not permitted in circumstances requiring ... " to mean "Is never permitted"

I have seen dozens of pages of debate on the law with regard to this point (relatively fewer on the sensibility of different actions) and don't think I have seen anyone change their view or an authoritative resolution of the question.