Approach Services
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
This thread seems to have converged around the right answer 
.
Flight under IFR in France in illegal unless the person acting as PIC holds a valid Instrument Rating. This applies regardless of the prevailing Weather conditions, and the airspace in which the flight is conducted.
An instrument approach may be flown by a non-IR holder in France, providing that the clearance requested and accepted is a VFR clearance, and the flight is conducted within VMC minima, and providing that an appropriate person acts as lookout for the pilot, where vision-obscuring devices are used.
Where the pilot flying the approach is accompanied by a non-instructor IR holder. Should the need arise to conduct an instrument approach for real, the IR holder must act as PIC, and the initial PIC will need to relinquish command for logging purposes. Both pilots will need to satisfy themselves that matters such as insurance cover remain adequate following the change of commander.
Where the flight is instructional, and the supervising pilot is a qualified IR Instructor, the approach may be conducted either under an IFR or VFR clearance, as may be operationally appropriate. In the case of the IFR option being adopted, ATC will be responsible for assuring the aircraft's separation from other flights, to a degree defined by the class of airspace in which in the approach is being flown. Le Touquet is Class E. The level of protection practically offered for IFR flights is somewhat slight... Better keep the eyes peeled
.Flight under IFR in France in illegal unless the person acting as PIC holds a valid Instrument Rating. This applies regardless of the prevailing Weather conditions, and the airspace in which the flight is conducted.
An instrument approach may be flown by a non-IR holder in France, providing that the clearance requested and accepted is a VFR clearance, and the flight is conducted within VMC minima, and providing that an appropriate person acts as lookout for the pilot, where vision-obscuring devices are used.
Where the pilot flying the approach is accompanied by a non-instructor IR holder. Should the need arise to conduct an instrument approach for real, the IR holder must act as PIC, and the initial PIC will need to relinquish command for logging purposes. Both pilots will need to satisfy themselves that matters such as insurance cover remain adequate following the change of commander.
Where the flight is instructional, and the supervising pilot is a qualified IR Instructor, the approach may be conducted either under an IFR or VFR clearance, as may be operationally appropriate. In the case of the IFR option being adopted, ATC will be responsible for assuring the aircraft's separation from other flights, to a degree defined by the class of airspace in which in the approach is being flown. Le Touquet is Class E. The level of protection practically offered for IFR flights is somewhat slight... Better keep the eyes peeled
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
EA,
Under your interpretation two non-rated (vanilla PPL) pilots could fly with the screens up, RHS doing the VFR compliance bit, LHS "practicing" in simulated IMC, with the RHS being P1 and neither qualified to fly in IMC.
Sounds a bit iffy to me.
Where's the experts when you need them? Irv?! 2D?!
Edited cos 2D answered at the same time I posted this - do I know you 2D, your answer sounds familiar...
Under your interpretation two non-rated (vanilla PPL) pilots could fly with the screens up, RHS doing the VFR compliance bit, LHS "practicing" in simulated IMC, with the RHS being P1 and neither qualified to fly in IMC.
Sounds a bit iffy to me.
Where's the experts when you need them? Irv?! 2D?!
Edited cos 2D answered at the same time I posted this - do I know you 2D, your answer sounds familiar...
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Rustle wrote to EA:
And indeed EA is correct.
In France, a pilot is legally permitted to simulate flight in Instrument Conditions providing he carries an appropriate lookout. This lookout pilot does not need to be Instrument Rated but must be able to maintain an adequate look-out despite any vision limiting devices that are in use. The Lookout is supernumary, and may not log time. Flight conducted in this fashion must obey VFR. This extends to ensuring that the flight is flown at the appropriate VFR cruising level (semi+500).
If two such pilots elect to practise an instrument approach, they are free to do so in France, although it is customary to telephone in advance for permission. In requesting the approach, the PIC must make it clear that the approach will be flown under a VFR clearance. This clarifies (especially in Class E airspace such as LFAT) just who is responsible for separation between the flight and other VFR traffic.... ie The PIC, not ATC.
Under your interpretation two non-rated (vanilla PPL) pilots could fly with the screens up, RHS doing the VFR compliance bit, LHS "practicing" in simulated IMC, with the RHS being P1 and neither qualified to fly in IMC.
In France, a pilot is legally permitted to simulate flight in Instrument Conditions providing he carries an appropriate lookout. This lookout pilot does not need to be Instrument Rated but must be able to maintain an adequate look-out despite any vision limiting devices that are in use. The Lookout is supernumary, and may not log time. Flight conducted in this fashion must obey VFR. This extends to ensuring that the flight is flown at the appropriate VFR cruising level (semi+500).
If two such pilots elect to practise an instrument approach, they are free to do so in France, although it is customary to telephone in advance for permission. In requesting the approach, the PIC must make it clear that the approach will be flown under a VFR clearance. This clarifies (especially in Class E airspace such as LFAT) just who is responsible for separation between the flight and other VFR traffic.... ie The PIC, not ATC.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Yorkshire
Under the FAA system you can take someone who to sit RHS whilst you conduct a practice ILS under the hood, they should hold a PPL and be rated on aircraft type (i.e. multi, etc!). They maintain a lookout for you for conflicting traffic. Obviously the fact they can see the runway and will know if you are way off course would enable them to call a halt if they think you are seriously out of kilter.
FF, there is nothing to stop the RHS IR being utilisied to get the approach if to flown under IFR rules, PIC is merely transferred and an airbourne clearance requested by the qualified PIC.
On that point, is there anything that says that the PIC HAS to sit RHS or is it just the way its always been done?
FF, there is nothing to stop the RHS IR being utilisied to get the approach if to flown under IFR rules, PIC is merely transferred and an airbourne clearance requested by the qualified PIC.
On that point, is there anything that says that the PIC HAS to sit RHS or is it just the way its always been done?
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
From: TL487591
Generally speaking, there is nothing to prevent the handling pilot from sitting in either seat. The LHS thing is tradition. It is, however, not unknown for insurers to insist that the aircraft is flown from that seat, or that the pilot has a satisfactory check-out, before piloting from the RHS.
It is this, rather than the law which might determine the seat in which the PIC sits.
It is this, rather than the law which might determine the seat in which the PIC sits.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
matsmart
Aviation as a whole, and particularly ATC, are obviously vastly different Stateside. I have no experience of it, but is it really THAT busy? Are the skys really black with aeroplanes?....Maybe the standards of airmanship are higher?
Not sure the sky is black with aeroplanes, but when receiving radar services round here, I always hear approach control saying 'multiple VFR targets in your vicinity and I cannot distinguish between them' (essentially you are on your own for now).
I even heard somebody cancel IFR yesterday after receiving multiple RAs, he thought it was "safer" to vector himself around the traffic. I could almost hear the thud when the controller fell off his chair in shock.
There are also GA airports in the US which are busier than anything outside the US (movement wise) and you just turn up un-announced and do your thing.
I think the difference is mainly because US ATC is far better resourced than in the UK. The GA community is also quite powerful, and if a unit round here was to suggest booking in advance, there would be some nasty stuff flying.
So what's this about having to shut down approach services when the controller isn't approach certified? Don't you all have to know how to read a plate???
Cheers.
Aviation as a whole, and particularly ATC, are obviously vastly different Stateside. I have no experience of it, but is it really THAT busy? Are the skys really black with aeroplanes?....Maybe the standards of airmanship are higher?
Not sure the sky is black with aeroplanes, but when receiving radar services round here, I always hear approach control saying 'multiple VFR targets in your vicinity and I cannot distinguish between them' (essentially you are on your own for now).
I even heard somebody cancel IFR yesterday after receiving multiple RAs, he thought it was "safer" to vector himself around the traffic. I could almost hear the thud when the controller fell off his chair in shock.
There are also GA airports in the US which are busier than anything outside the US (movement wise) and you just turn up un-announced and do your thing.
I think the difference is mainly because US ATC is far better resourced than in the UK. The GA community is also quite powerful, and if a unit round here was to suggest booking in advance, there would be some nasty stuff flying.
So what's this about having to shut down approach services when the controller isn't approach certified? Don't you all have to know how to read a plate???
Cheers.
