I take it you know how to fly?
I am not being rude - just pointing out that you are practising a pre-existing
skill.

Same with an ILS - if you know what you are doing you are practising.
If you don't know then you are learning.
On your own, in controlled airspace = not a good learning enviroment.

I'm still a bit confused about this. Can I, using my IMC rating, request an ILS approach in VMC when flying alone?

I would think on an IFR clearance yes. VFR no.

That is my common sense answer. Someone will probably be along in a minute to say I'm wrong.

D.O.

I wouldn't attempt it in class G without someone looking out of the window for me, IFR clearance or no IFR clearance. So for me the answer is "no", regardless of whatever the rules might say.

Absolutely correct Gertrude. I was thinking class D. Separates IFR but not VFR.

D.O.

I did an SRA and an ILS at Southend for practice 3 weeks ago. Booked 24 hours in advance-no problem. Paid over phone next day £46

As an IMCR holder, I regularly request and get accepted ILS arrivals at the airfield I fly from.

You need to maintain a level of proficiency and whilst my flight might be a VFR departure, upgrading the return leg to vectors and ILS benefits no end, regardless of the met conditions.

It doesn't take long to go rusty on this kind of stuff.

Yes. I ask, they say yes if they're not too busy with pre-booked stuff or real IFR traffic, cost 0p. But only if I've got a passenger willing to do the looking out of the window bit.

;)A controller from a major airport said a few weeks ago when asked about an ILS approach, just request a visual, we don't know if you are doing an ILS! I would suggest another pair of eyes on board would be essential.

There seem to be a couple of misconceptions people have on this subject. The following all relates to approaches in Glass G or D airspace within the UK.

1. Regardless of IFR or VFR clearance, practice/simulated/'real' - you have no separation from VFR traffic - You MUST maintain a lookout. In class D the traffic should be called. In class G you have no separation from general IFR either - just participating IFR (ie. participating in your approach controller's service).
2. I believe the logic for having an observer when 'practicing' vs. flying for real. Is that in VMC flying an ILS for real under IFR you will be flying predominantly looking outside for orrientation and positioning and looking at the needles to cross check. If you are 'practicing' you will be trying to fly the needles without looking out - and hence need someone else looking for traffic
3. Being cleared for an ILS does not imply an IFR clearance (as demonstrated in the G-EYES accident)
4. Obviously if you are in cloud looking out will be futile and hopefully there will be no 'VFR' or non-participating IFR traffic intersecting your approach track (and for example Lydd's DME arc that could be a 25 mile long path you are cutting through the sky on the approach).

A 'real' ILS in VMC IMHO provides very little training value as you need to be looking out the window for traffic and you get all the visual references as well.

Au contraire - if you are operating at a radar-equipped aerodrome, you could request a deconfliction service and be provided with "separation" (more accurately, deconfliction distance) from all other observed traffic, regardless of the flight rules under which you choose to operate.

2 s

mm flynn, you got it and it's right there in the relevant excerpt from the ANO I posted above. You interpreted it correctly, unlike some who obviously can't or don't want to, if they ever actually bother to read the rules, that is ;) ).

If you fly under VFR you are required to be able to see and avoid; if your nose is aimed at the dials, you are deemed not able.

Isn't a "deconfliction" service an ATSOCAS service and thus - by definition - only applicable OUTSIDE controlled airspace?

Within controlled airspace (D and up for VFR) you get whatever service the operator is required to give you under ICAO rules. I don't know if asking for a "deconfliction" service in class D is going to achieve what you think.

Unless one is flying the ILS for the purpose of avionics systems testing, e.g. flying an autopilot coupled approach, which is a perfectly legitimate and very common requirement.

I fly about 50% of "practice" ILSs autopilot-coupled, because that stuff has to work.

Of course you could do a practise ILS in real IMC in which case you wouldn't need a safety pilot. But then I suppose it wouldn't be a practise ILS; although if you had taken off in IFR conditions solely to practice instrument approaches then I suppose it would be construed as a 'practise real ILS'. Or a real ILS that was flown intentionally. But then any ILS flown in IMC conditions would be intentional I suppose. Mmmmmm....semantics.

For what it's worth if I do a practise instrument approach in vmc I always take a safety pilot. Would be a bit daft not to.

I would also disagree that a practise instrument approach in vmc has no training value. What woud be the point of flying an expensive a/c, getting a mate to sit alongside and then looking up out of the cockpit during the approach? I did a PAR the other day, at night to kill two birds with one stone. The vis was superb, I can state with hand on heart that once past 500' I didn't look away from the instruments until at minimums on the approach. Waste of money otherwise.

I do believe I said 'real' not practice. Practice approaches (i.e. head down looking at the instruments and flying in response) of course provide value - but equally you have no possible way of avoiding traffic hence the need for the observer.


2Sheds is of course correct, however, I think you will find it very very challenging to fly an ILS into an airport while staying 5 miles and 1000 feet away from any flying object and remaining above the minimum vectoring altitude!

I would agree with Peter that there is systems management proficiency that you can build/maintain on 'real' approaches in VMC. As an example when Alderney had their LPV approach approved, I flew IFR there on a gin clear day and asked for the full procedure - which I allowed the coupled autopilot, roll steering and GPS to fly. I flew it single crew as I had plenty of time to look out the window and make sure the position the box of tricks was flying me to made sense and that there was no conflicting traffic. I suspect if I had let it, the autopilot would have landed me within about 10 feet of the theoretical aiming point - I was impressed - but I didn't get any practice at interpreting the instruments and responding to them or making the transition from instrument to visual flight.

But that is the controller's problem - to achieve these ideal minima as well as an effective ILS interception. See the last two CHIRPs on this topic.

2 s

So you did, my fault for not reading what's there. :O

But every flight you do results in you getting some practice. Well, so long as you sit in one of the front seats and are sitting upright and awake.

This whole debate is meaningless re legality of single pilot IAP flying.

There is another angle worth a mention: most pilots with an IR fly IFR all the time they fly outside the UK. IFR is far easier. And ATC expects an IFR flight to fly the IAP. To argue as some here do that somebody will hit you because you are in VMC and therefore this is illegal, and therefore you should never fly an IAP but, presumably, either cancel IFR and fly VFR to land, or ask for a "visual approach", is nuts.

I've done a radar vecotred app into Prestwick once which was certainly fun, but didn't use the ILS. If I were you I would do a radar vectored approach into EGPH without the ILS. I'm flying next week and you've given me a good idea of something I could try! :) Do pople think EGPH would charge for such a service? I assume they would for an ILS but just a radar vectored low app and go around, I'm not so sure if they would? Anyone care to clarify?