AFAIK, VFR operations can use both instrument (IFR) runway & non-instrument (VFR) runway…
Is there a rule that says IFR operations has to be confined on instrument (IFR) runways?
1) Does publishing circle-to-land entitles one to swap any runway for landing? swap for takeoff?
2) Does landing on VFR runway cancels IFR? is taxi time after landing = IFR time
3) Balked landing on CTL for VFR runway, go IFR missed? or VFR circuit?
4) Can you get IFR takeoff from ATC on VFR runway?
What if CTL is not published but it’s CAVOK?
PS: For 4, I asked once if I can get IFR takeoff from VFR runway, ATC answer was NO (you are IFR and you have to use the IFR runway)
Is this related to weather? IFR runways have published runway minima that are legally binding and also have controlling visibility RVR/CMV that is reported by ATC while VFR runways have no legal binding runway minima and not controlled by visibility, the only minima are those of airspace above and any prescribed state minima…
I am not after these user cases: B747 doing CTL to grass strip when RVR < 550m on Cat1 ILS? or some PIC with 7 strips who was banned on LNAV with 1500m RVR in A380 decides to go “visual with 800m RVR” to land on a runway without RVR…
However, if it’s possible to fly IFR in/out of IFR & VFR runways in ATC aerodromes under some well documented conditions (circle-to-land & circle-to-takeoff) then one can extrapolate to IFR operations from “VFR airfields” 
Do you mean something like this?
https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/instrument-approaches-non-instrument-runways
1) There aren’t many IFR runway, only Cat3 and above I think (perhaps Cat 2) All the rest are runways where you need runway in sight.
A1) Circle to land or an indirect approach means you can use any runway, providing it meets the following a) it is into wind b) it is available c) if there is an ATS they agree it.d) itbis not restricted.
For take off the same applies.
A2)No landing on a VFR runway does not cancel IFR you must close your IFR or VFR flight plan in the usual manner depending on the airfield.
You cancel IFR whenever you wish. So if your flight is on an IFR flight plan and you do not cancel it in EASA land it is recorded block to block
A3) That will depend on IAC ,PiC and ATC. What you are calling a VFR field has no Missed approach procedure.
A4) Yes, taking into account any departure limits.
Everything is with regards to weather or at least to visibility. RVR minima are for the individual runway not for the airfield in general.
We have discussed in another thread (and I am still trying to track down the exact rule.) that if there is no ATS and no departure procedure your minimum take off visibility is 1.5km ahead on the runway and in the initial climb (not talking RVR but VIBAL. With ATC you might be allowed an Omnidirectional departure restricted to ATC directions or vectors.
All is dependent on the individual airfield and runway.
To your extrapolation you might wish to add the thought that if you use an alternate that has no IAP you need 8km of horizontal visibility.
Thanks for the answers
To your extrapolation you might wish to add the thought that if you use an alternate that has no IAP you need 8km of horizontal visibility.
During planning? or during diversion and descent?
Do you have a reference for NCO operations on this
Thanks for the answers
To your extrapolation you might wish to add the thought that if you use an alternate that has no IAP you need 8km of horizontal visibility.
During planning? or during descents?
Do you have a reference for NCO operations on “8km”? (I recall NCO only adds +1000m to vis & 200ft to ceiling on for alternates with 2D non-precision aprooaches, nothing about VFR alternates but some operators flying VFR to alternates will use safe height, vectoring height or visual circuit height +200ft as guidance for MDH then may calculate CFDA visibility from that)
gallois wrote:
1) There aren’t many IFR runway, only Cat3 and above I think (perhaps Cat 2) All the rest are runways where you need runway in sight.
I take it Ibra really means “instrument runway” which is usually required for IFR approaches.
A_A what makes an instrument runway an instrument runway apart from an IAP? Ibra was asking about a runway without an IAP but using this runway by circling to land on it.
Here it would be called an “indirect or non direct landing”.
@Ibra, the 8km thing I will have to go back to my books for that, I just vaguely remember it from a time, before NCO. I broke cloud at LFBH on the ILS, went missed and used LFFK as an alternate (before the GNSS procedure there). An instructor reminded me that I needed 8km horizontal visibility.
Sorry I don’t want to be pedantic on definitions but Cat1 ILS is an IFR instrument runway as well as the LFFK RNP+MVL is an IFR instrument runway
I think I did put that clear on my first line: instrument (IFR) runway and non-instrument (VFR) runway, the circle to land is done from instrument runways to both instrument & non-instrument runway
To avoid getting lost an instrument runway will have a legal binding published takeoff & landing minima 
For 8km I need to see a reference, I have done ILS & GPS then IFR/VFR on Southend to Stapleford or Melun to Etampes probably more than hundreds of times including few times with IR examiners sometimes in SVFR weather, this should have come up somewhere when discussing planning on IFR Y-FPL (they are the same as IFR planning on I-FPL)
For flying on VFR V-FPL in NCO, there are no legally binding AD WX minima other than those for VFR & SVFR in CTR/ATZ, actually VFR has zero planning restrictions in Golf: 1.5km forward visbility, remain VMC (like with ground in sight) and 30min extra fuel and you are legal, France “strongly recommends” 5km visbility & 2000ft ceiling for VFR planing minima in Golf but legally under SERA one can fly VFR with 1.5km visbility & 100ft ceiling as long as they keep VMC and land with 30min fuel
Of course, aeroclubs or schools may have higher minima for VFR planning like “8km” in their order book that are likely to invalidate their insurance when flying with insuructors & examiners but that is different question we are talking about the legal AD minima on mixed VFR & IFR operations not the typical DTO/ATO operationel minima dual & solo student flying…in DTO, the VFR minima I used for teaching students was 1200ft ceiling & 5km visibility for circuit flying and +8km for cross-country teaching
gallois wrote:
A_A what makes an instrument runway an instrument runway apart from an IAP?
It’s requirements on things like runway markings, lighting, obstacle free surfaces etc. That is quite distinct from the IAPs themselves.
I am certainly not talking about club, DTO or ATO rules I am writing about National regulations.
I will ask the question again what makes an instrument runway an instrument runway?
You quote LFFK as an instrument runway. It has an IAP yes, and you could therefore call any runway where you circle to land off an IAP approach as an instrument runway which then makes one of your questions about
circling to land to a VFR runway a bit strange.
You then say an instrument runway will have legally binding published landing and take off minima. LFFK does not have published take off minima.
Is there a legal definition which I have missed of a VFR or Instrument runway?
In setting up the GNSS IAP at LFFK, apart from the design of IAP itself, the other changes that we had to make to cater for the approach did not affect the runway at all. It did slightly affect the holding points. However, for a pilot landing at LFFK there is no difference to the runway before we installed the IAP.
Nothing on the IAC or VAC states that this is an instrument runway, although I have seen VACs which say that this is a VFR only airfield.
In the text there is usually the usage VFR/IFR
but never this is an instrument runway, and I don’t recall ever seeing a runway marked instrument only.
SVFR here is a red herring as it is only available at a controlled airfield environment.
I cannot comment on UK or Swedish national regs, I am writing only on French National rules here.
Did you fly Melun to Etampes VFR or IFR?
You write there is no legally binding VFR AD WX and you would be correct if you don’t count visibility and clouds as weather.
And under NCO there may be no planning restrictions in golf, but then you go onto mention 1.5km.visibility (is forward mentioned in this rule) out of clouds and in sight of the surface. Are you saying you don’t check these things out in your pre flight planning?
How can you legaĺly fly 1.5km visibility, out of clouds and in sight of the surface with a ceiling of 100ft when the rule is that flight should be minimum of 500ft above ground level?(brief wording)
France strongly recommends flying VFR above 1500ft, but that is because below that there is often a great deal of military fast jet traffic which OCAS is relying also on see and avoid.
I have never heard 2000ft and 5km recommended.
Anyway when time allows I will continue to search for the rules I mentioned in previous posts and will post it here when found.
