Irrespective of the finer arguments of the legal position, it is sobering to remember history suggests enforcement by terrain is more usual than enforcement by the relevant authorities.

Bookworm

That is not something that anybody has taken issue with. Nonetheless the rules on aerodrome operating minima do also exist.

A point already made by many posters. So far the nearest anyone has come to disagreeing with it are the posters including yourself who think homebrew approaches are perfectly legit.

According to you. But the regulations and the CAA guidance I have quoted above tell a different story.

By your logic you can descend from safety altitude 'for the purpose of landing', without following any approved procedure and therefore not observe any further minimums below that point. But the regulations say you have to obey the aerodrome operating minima which in turn has to be approved by the state. Equally, by your logic, it would be legal to descend from safety altitude on some half baked procedure, then pick up a published approach, then arrive at minimums without the required visual references and still legally continue, merely because it was 'for the purpose of landing'. What a nonsense.

No, they don't say that the aerodrome operating minima have to be approved by the state. Approval is only required if you wish to conduct Low Visibility Operations (landing with an RVR less than 550 m). If the state has notified AOM for a particular approach, you cannot choose lower AOM. If the state has not, you may select your own AOM. States generally do not notify AOM for other than runways with instrument approach procedures.

So far so good -- that's not significantly different from vectoring.

No, that aspect is not permitted by NCO.OP.210(e):

NCO.OP.210 Commencement and continuation of approach — aeroplanes and helicopters
(a) The pilot-in-command may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported runway visual range/visibility (RVR/VIS).
(b) If the reported RVR/VIS is less than the applicable minimum, the approach shall not be continued:
(1) below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome; or
(2) into the final approach segment in the case where the decision altitude/height (DA/H) or minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H) is more than 1 000 ft above the aerodrome.
(c) Where the RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility.
(d) If, after passing 1 000 ft above the aerodrome, the reported RVR/VIS falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.
(e) The approach may be continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed provided that the visual reference adequate for the type of approach operation and for the intended runway is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.
(f) The touchdown zone RVR shall always be controlling.

In a country where the state pays for countless IAPs to small airports, I can just about understand a rule that makes their use obligatory. In the UK approval and publication of an approach procedure offers significant value in mitigating risk. But that does not mean that a trajectory to landing without that £30,000 stamp of approval is not safe enough.

I'm sure it does, but your company's ops manual isn't the law.

I don't think Bookworm is claiming people should do it, just that there is no legal obstacle to doing so.

Bookworm, thanks for providing relevant quotes.

tmmoris, precisely.

Some forget that company Ops manuals are not necessarily the same as the legal requirement.

The term "should" does not denote a legal requirement, it's a recommendation. The term "shall" denotes the former.

I have absolutely no intention of killing myself, or anyone else. But thanks for your advice anyway.

This old chestnut of 'for the purpose of landing' crops up time and again from one particular group...

Anyway, here's what the UK IAIP states:

No doubt some barrack room lawyer will now jump up and say that the UK IAIP isn't actually a legal instrument, so this is only 'guidance' :rolleyes:

Beagle, I'm no barrack room lawyer but again, the term "should" has never been used by the UK CAA to denote a mandatory action. The term "shall" has always been used for that purpose, as you will no doubt recall. It is important to understand the difference.

Not my personal interpretation, but that of the CAA.

Edit: For the benefit of those who like quotes, I dug out my copy of "Aviation Law For Pilots", which dates back to 1971. At the time I was studying for my commercial licence (late 1980s) this was the CAA recommended study guide. I remember taking their advice and pre-ordered the impending new sixth edition so it was bang up to date and had to drive quite along way to collect it!

Section 1 is VFR/IFR and a summary "tree" is on page 3.

Quote (carefully copied word for word):

IFR

If the flight is INSIDE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE
The pilot must comply with the following requirements:
1. He must hold an Instrument Rating.
2. He must file a flight plan with the appropriate ATC.
3. He must obtain ATC clearance to proceed or to enter the airspace and he must obey the instructions.
4. He must make position reports in accordance with notified procedures or as required by the appropriate ATCC.
5. Unless he is on a notified route, taking off/landing or authorised otherwise by an ATSU, he must maintain adequate ground clearance, i.e. clearance by 1000 ft (minimum) of the highest obstacle within 5 nm of the aircraft.

(and)

If the flight is OUTSIDE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE
at 3000 ft amsl and below

1. Fly at least 1000 ft above the highest obstacle within 5nm of the aircraft, unless the aircraft is clear of cloud and in sight of the surface, or is on a notified route or taking off/landing or authorised by an ATSU.

Obviously some things have changed since then; for a start we have women pilots (!) and we have gone over to the metric system and via JAR to SERA. However, the same principle has been maintained.

While 'Shall' denotes a mandatory requirement, the word 'should' expresses a recommendation or advice. Such recommendations or advice are expected to be followed unless satisfactory reasons are stated for not doing so.

Which is why, for example, one is expected to follow AMC/GM (in which 'shall' is never used) unless a derogation or an AltMoC is in place.

Unpublished procedures are used in numerous places I can think of and have been used safely by some pilots for decades
The thing that few admit or of course they were visual

This isn't a statement on whether they should be done or not just an ackowlegemrnt that they are
Just because it published that makes it safe
If it's not published it's not safe ?

One recommendation above is letting down at an airport with a published procedure and going to your destination below
The most dangerous procedure is low level scud running with low cloud and poor visibility
I can remember decades back flying to Caernarfon it was common practice to cross the mountains in IMC fly over the NDB and then let down over the sea I suppose that's a non published procedure

I am sure we would all love to Lock onto a nice ILS but sadly smaller airfields are not so equipt! The have to fly brigade concoct all manner of solutions and always have For as long as I can remember

So it's probably something publicly shunned but privately ??

IMHO when things like aeroglass have a few years experience and debugging this discussion will become moot.

Beagle, I was taught never to use abbreviations in written text unless they were explained in full at first instance. I'd be grateful if you could do so with regard to your post, thanks.

As Pace wrote, not everyone has the luxury of operating from an ILS equipped, fully lit airfield.

For those in any doubt as to the CAA's position over the legalities (over and above the sensibilities) of this subject, this fairly recent AAIB report, which includes CAA input, hopefully makes it clear. It was referred to earlier by Sir Niall Dementia.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...y-s-76c-g-wiwi

Some unknown persons opinion of what he/she would like the law to mean (because the laws are so well written :ugh: )

In the 2014 AOC rewrite due to EASA law changes it was mandated that "should" references in the manuals be changed to "shall" - there were hundreds of them.

As for unpublished let downs with GPS ..... having studied TERPS and PANS-OPS I think most people would be shocked, given the accuracy of the aids, at the "protection" available at certain stages of a non-precision approach not withstanding it was over mountainous terrain at night on the coast with the aid not co-located with the airport .... I know what I'd rather have.

Fascinating thread.

Isn't it true that in the real world of (non commercial) flying pilots do whatever the heck they want ? They are only normally held accountable when something goes wrong, which thankfully doesn't happen often. And of course it is difficult to argue why you did something when you're six feet under ("but St Peter[insert personal faith equivalent], I was in visual contact with the ground ....").

That is why there are those that fly in IMC without a rating, in planes not certified for IMC, sometimes with a lapsed licence/medical/insurance.

I'm not going to argue with any of the legal interpretations above, FWIW given my training and experience (IR(R), with less than a dozen 'real' (i.e. non training) instrument approaches logged) I wouldn't fly an unapproved one, legal or not.

Beagle, That's exactly why I posted my reply and we obviously agree on that point. But the discussion I entered was with regard to the legality of a descent from the required "1,000 ft above" under IFR in order to land. Some here have stated that it has never been legal except on a published let down. The CAA, now our "Competent Authority" do not presently agree with that statement and as far as I can tell, have never historically decreed it illegal, although the documentation I have to hand only goes back 45 years or so. :)

ShyTorque

The argument is not about what happened going back 45 years. Early on it was established that it most certainly used to be 'legal'. The problem is you believe that it is still legal for GA pilots to carry out unapproved let downs below safety altitude.

In your opinion. But in the CAA's opinion:

User-defined approaches can be dangerous and are not authorised

Bookworm, I wrote:

You wrote:

But it is. The minimum vectoring altitude is not below safety altitude. The only time you would be vectored below the 1000' obstacle clearance is when on final of a radar approach (but even then you will still be getting the required obstacle clearance).

Oggers, read the AAIB report. It's not my opinion - it's there in black and white (actually, black and pink in the report, for the more argumentative ones among us)!

Oggers,
Here is the relevant "present" rule (copied direct from the CAA website which links to a .PDF):

Terrain clearance reduces to 500ft when being vestored for any type of iap provided the CAA have approved an 'imntermediate approach area' on your SMAC. Ths ONLY applies to being radar vectored however not to self positioning.

Yes, if you meant shortcutting a segment of a procedure with obstacles less than 1000 ft below, I can't see much reason to do that. But I don't really see the relevance. You wrote:

It would not be legal to continue, however you got on to the procedure. NCO.OP.210(e) forbids it.

The CAA or any regulatory body will regulate to cover their own backs as well as the obvious safety angle.
I have been flying for 35 years nowadays totally CAS but going back knew many airfields where unpublished procedures were used by even professional pilots usually with a lot of local knowledge and usually on an NDM or other aid with a GPS overlay

A bad pilot can mess up and crash on a published procedure the published part doesn't mean an unpublished procedure isnt cannot itself be a good procedure only that it is not published i.e approved

I am not at all promoting the use of un published procedures but stating the fact that throughout that course of 35 years I know of many even used by professional pilots

OCAS it was probably considered as "creative flying" for those who must fly rather than choose to

Chev, I've often wondered how accurate ATC radars are when compared to modern, IFR certified on-board GPS equipment.

Almost every time I ask for a radar service I'm given a reason why it's only a limited service.

Bookworm:

...which is why your cherry picking of the rule permitting 'descent in IMC below safety altitude for the purpose of landing' without the need to be established on an approved procedure is such patent cobblers. If it were permitted to carry out home-made approaches there would be no reason that you could not start out on an approved procedure and at some point lower down decide 'I'm going to work to my own made-up minima from here on, and it will be legal because I intend to land'. :ugh:

ShyTorque

Well, we are actually discussing what is legal for GA not public transport, and that recommendation pre-dates the publication of both the latest ANO and Part-NCO by 2 years. Anyway, here is the CAA guidance you remain in denial of:

User-defined approaches can be dangerous and are not authorised

I'm not in denial of anything. I'm pointing out the difference between official guidance (which I don't disagree with in any way) and the legal position.

It appears that some don't understand that there is a difference.

The CAA website I quoted from has been placed by the authority itself to highlight national differences from the regulations under SERA. With regard to the subject under discussion, they have not elected to differentiate or change what the regulations state. The website was placed to inform all interested parties and is updated more regularly than the ANO.

The rules for public transport are obviously more strict than those for private operations, for very good reason. Part-NCO is a way of further regulating private operations. But not all operations will be covered by those new regulations, based on aircraft maximum weight.

For some reason, many controllers seem to cover their backs nowadays by saying 'poor radar performance' or something similar. This only refers to low coverage, not to overall accuracy which is regularly (at least in the UK) checked.
I once watched a certain rock star attempt to fly his own approach into Blackbushe in his newly purchased Navajo (normally flys a Harvard - gives the game away doesn't it!) . We could see he was on final for Lasham not Blackbushe, but no amount of us telling him would convince him until he broke cloud and could see we were right.

Could somebody please define the difference between "unpublished or 'home-grown' instrument let-downs" and "flying low"?

If there is no published procedure to land, there is no procedure to land. If I am performing a flight in IMC under IFR to fly low to check whether I am able to land VMC at an uncontrolled airfield, when does "let-down" begin? At a specific height, or a distance to the field, or? The pilots intention is not (yet) a measurable quantity.

I shake my head at some of the stuff on this thread.

How many posters actually hold an instrument rating?

Chickenhouse, to me "Flying Low" infers you are VMC below the cloudbase in sight of the ground but in order to stay VMC you need to fly lower than the legal minimum above ground level altitude.

For me (unless you're in controlled airspace) the let down starts the minute (assuming you are still IMC) you descend below the MSA (Minimum Safe Altitude) for the Airway you're on and/or when you leave the Airway to track across no mans land (in other words you no longer have a promulgated MSA, unless you have radar coverage) towards the destination airfield.

Flying away from published tracks (random routing) outside of controlled airspace is strictly forbidden here below FL150

27/09

You are on a flight from say Gloucester to Caernarfon cloud base 1500 feet. You are IMCR rated and comfortable flying in clouds
How would you have completed that flight ?
I am not promoting un published or home made approaches just stating a fact that in 35 years of flying pilots flying OCAS regularly used such procedures

The most dangerous flying is attempting to fly vmc in lowering cloud and visibility around high ground or commonly known as scud running
A controlled procedure is better than no procedure

Assuming Class G UK airspace, pilot has an instrument qualification and is flying an aeroplane:

1. If completely certain of position, descend as you wish to no lower than 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 5nm.
2. Further descent may only be under a published Instrument Approach Procedure or in accordance with VFR.
3. If you do not have sight of the surface below 3000ft amsl (or 1000ft above terrain, whichever the higher), you do not meet VMC criteria (thanks to nanny-SERA) and should follow the UK IAIP guidance - divert to somewhere which is VMC or has a published IAP.
4. If you do have sight of the surface, remain clear of cloud and fly at 140KIAS or less, you are in VMC provided that the visibility is no less than 1500m.

So, putting all this together, I would see no problem with a pilot flying to an 'initial point' on the extended centreline of the RW, which is 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 5nm, then if in sight of the surface, clear of cloud and below 140 KIAS, flying a descent to the aerodrome with navigational guidance but under VFR. Thus a 'degraded visual environment' approach, not an 'unpublished instrument approach'.

27/09 - most of what you say is not applicable to this thread as your rules seem totally different to the UK which is where most of this discussion is talking about, IFR outside CAS is not only permitted but frequently flown.

For Paces flight I would fly to Caernarfon at an appropriate IFR level then let down out to sea down to a 1,000' minima, preferably talking to Valley for both traffic, met reports and confirmation of position, if I could not get visual then I should be able to get an approach to Valley.

Foxmouth

Exactly you would probably cross the NDB confirmed with GPS and ATC and let down in a teardrop a so called un published but safe approach

Strictly speaking it is a cloudbreak rather than an unpublished approach!

Strictly speaking...define "cloudbreak"!

2 s

Descent to MSA to get below cloud not neccesarily to a runway, an "approach" is normally to a runway, so in Paces example you could be in or above cloud at say 6,000' and descend en route to do a cloud break at the en route MSA of say 4,300' (not looked up the actual MSA here) but with a cloudbase of 1500' the only realistic cloudbreak is going to be out over the sea - and I would want to be below cloud before I was back within 5nm of the coast.

I was just making the point that terms such as cloudbreak and unofficial letdown are bandied about when they are not defined and may therefore imply different things to different people. What you are advocating is compliance with the Rules of the Air!

2 s

I never said otherwise!

Actually There are cloudbreak procedures officially promulgated, iirc one of the Cuban airfields has one

Beagle, please post your reference for that statement.

part-NCO spells out that aerodromes are subject to national limits.
UK IAIP makes clear the UK policy on aerodromes without IAPs.

By the way, do you fly on an EASA licence? If so, you should be well aware of the meaning of AMC/GM and AltMoCs...

Pace I have NFI where those two places are nor the surrounding terrain. I don't have any charts of the area

However I assume there is an Airway linking those two places, I'd descend to the MSA for that route and if not visual proceed to the closest suitable airfield with a promulgated IAP and land there.

Our rules may be different, but descent below a minimum flight altitude in IMC while not on a published procedure doesn't make any sense no matter which rules you operate under.

By the way there is a significant amount of IFR flying conducted outside of CAS in this part of the word. I'd guess at least some part of about 70 - 80 % of my IFR flights has been outside of CAS.