That seems exactly like in Germany with the only difference that you can fly in IMC in G.
That seems exactly like in Germany with the only difference that you can fly in IMC in G.
I think that, ahem, is what I was getting at – except I would insert “legally” before the word “fly” 
If I can think of this, I am sure a million Germans already have. One German bizjet pilot I know says it is called “IVFR”.
In the UK you are legal doing that only if you hold the IMCR or the full IR. But so many people in the UK have the IMCR (some 20000 issued since 1969) and when you revalidate it it is just a logbook entry with no paperwork going back to the CAA, so nobody knows if Pilot X drilling a hole in some cloud is rated or not, so the presumption is that he is, and you can just turn up at any airport at say 2000ft (typically Class D or Class G; only Jersey or Heathrow are Class A) with say an ILS and ask to land on it. Maybe some people are doing it with a lapsed IMCR or (probably more frequently, due to the harder revalidation business) with a lapsed JAA IR, but the question is never asked.
Funnily enough an FAA PPL/IR is also good for IFR in a G-reg, worldwide, but only in Class F or G – they obviously did that to protect the JAA IR. I think this concession may now be gone entirely, or maybe it goes in April 2015 (Tumbleweed might know). EASA hates it, for sure.
Yes. VIFR, I mentioned it in #07.
The law is quite clear. You can make an approach in IMC to North Weald, or anywhere else without an IAP, and there are no limitations on visibility/RVR or cloudbase/DA/MDA.
There is one law which could catch you out, which is Rule 5 of rules of the air, saying that you cannot go below 500’ (actually within 500’ of any person, vehicle, vessel or structure, but if you are IMC you could not know that there isn’t a person or car beneath you) except when taking off or landing “In accordance with normal aviation practice.” Now that last phrase opens a big can of worms. Is it “normal aviation practice” to perform an IFR approach to a VFR field? Well, it has never been tested in court, so nobody knows. My assumption is that you could get enough pilots together to say that it is normal to prevent a tribunal from finding against you, beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus you could make an approach in dense fog without breaking the letter of the law.
However, there is a catch-all law called “Reckless Endangerment” which is designed to dissuade you from doing something so stupid that any expert witness in court is going to say that what you did was reckless.
So, from a barrack-room lawyer’s point of view, there is almost no restriction on you landing at NW in IMC.
What prevents you is what happened to that Citation at Trier last week.
As Clint Eastwood would say “Are you feeling lucky, punk?”
In my understanding: If there is no published instrument approach for an airfield I simply can’t execute an instrument approach. If I fly IFR in G I can fly down to -the minimum allowed IFR altitude of (see below) and that’s it. There is no further IFR minimum during land at an airfield, except there is a published instrument approach. “Do-it-yourself approaches” aka DIY is just bullshit and doesn’t allow you to go any further than (see below).
Or, as the UK CAA states in their Safety letter
When cruising under IFR, a pilot is required to maintain 1000 feet above any object within 5 miles of his track unless the aircraft is below an altitude of 3000 feet, clear of cloud with the surface in sight and an in-flight visibility of 800 metres (although PPL holders without an instrument qualification are restricted to a minimum in-flight visibility of 3000 metres).
Following these Instrument Flight Rules at low altitude does not provide any collision avoidance protection. When away from Controlled Airspace, a certain amount of protection comes from climbing above 3000 feet, setting 1013 HectoPascals, and flying at the appropriate quadrantal flight level above the safety altitude.
I am not aware of a loophole for DIY instrument approaches. If you are in IMC and are not using a published approach, then you let down to MSA using the 1,000’/5nm radius rule, and for SE the rules for flying over towns, and if not visual you divert to an alternate. In short my understanding is in line with muelli’s.
The CAA if it chooses to throw the book at you it is a reasonably formidable and well resourced plaintiff, thankfully they appear to be quite judicious in exercising this with a sense of proportionality.
Muelli,
that quote is taken out of context however. See again the AIP extract that I quoted above.
That “except when necessary for takeoff or landing” does allow you to go lower than 1000 feet and still be in accordance with the instrument flight rules.
As you are N-reg. however, that 91.175 restriction that Peter mentioned applies. But that is not really very enforceable at an uncontrolled airfield.
But in practical terms: do you really want to be flying to an uncontrolled field (whose surrounding terrain you are not too familiar with) when the ceilings are less than 1000 feet AGL?
I won’t fly that. I just wanted a clarification of the IFR rules in UK.
Edit: I think this takeoff/landing exempt implicits an published instrument approach.
muelli,
I assure you that my reading of the law is correct.
There is a lot of myth about this, and all sorts of inaccurate information published, including by the CAA itself, but I am something of a know-it-all when it comes to this subject, as I was invited by the CAA to write a paper for them about it.
If you really want legal argument, forget letters, forget the AIP, forget AICs and Safety Sense leaflets. The law is the Air Navigation Order. If you really want me to spell out chapter and verse I will, but it’s a bit of an effort.
So, on the UK principle of “if it’s not forbidden, then it is permitted” let me challenge you to find the law which prohibits it.
It may be dumb, but it’s legal.
As you are N-reg. however, that 91.175 restriction that Peter mentioned applies. But that is not really very enforceable at an uncontrolled airfield.
Part 91.175 only applies to flight in US airspace.
Sec. 91.703
Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States.
(a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall—
(1) When over the high seas, comply with annex 2 (Rules of the Air) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and with Secs. 91.117(c), 91.127, 91.129, and 91.131;
(2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force;
[(3) Except for Sec. Sec. 91.117(a), 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; and]
