I think you might be confusing old an new regs.
Old regs used to be that on an uncontrolled airfield you must circle to land. And that was certainly the case when I did my IR. The AIP appears to have clarified or changed its wording.
Now it says that you need the parameters and lists the parameters needed.
It was always the case that you needed QNH. This you got from the nearest approach controller. Usually shown on the IAC. In the case of LFFK this is usually La Rochelle app.
You still need that. The other parameters are things like runway in use, wind direction ((basically you get these from the windsock) no obstacles etc. If however you have got these parameters from another reliable source, you can land straight ahead if that is the runway in use or you might have to circle to land, anyway, because the runway in use is the reciprocal.
I do not associate this with a “cloud break procedure” although I might break out of cloud at 670ft (LFFK) . I see this as an IAP with a cloud break being a different thing for a different purpose. However, I have seen no regulation which would stop a suitably qualified pilot in a suitably equipped aircraft (although this might need to be certified) from flying to LFFK , VFR on top and if no holes in the cloud cover calling up and making a RNP approach and landing.
Similarly, I see no reason why that same pilot and aircraft could not go to LFBH la Rochelle and asking to do the ILS approach for a cloud break to return to LFFK.
ATS might well not consider this an emergency procedure.
However, things might get a little more complex if the aircraft is not IFR certified, although they still might not have a problem if its annexe 1 suitably equipped (depends on ATSO).
It gets even more complex if the pilot has not done any IMC training or the aircraft doesn’t have any suitable equipment.
All this is really a safety matter and anyone stuck on top will be helped in any way the ATS can. They will also engage the help of military controllers if the situation is really bad.
It seems to me that Dan knew exactly what he was doing but was covering his bases from a legal point of view.
So should this French rule be contrary to SERA?
Old regs used to be that on an uncontrolled airfield you must circle to land
It is still the case under new regs in France but you are mixing French public aerodrome rules with simular rules in other EASA countries, many allow straight-in IFR in uncontrolled airfields
The UK sometimes mandate overhead joins in licenced airports like Elstree, you can still do it in clouds without issue, don’t ask me how I know: I had to fly their overhead in 700ft ceiling, the retired AFIS refused my call for straight-in (on GPS) and requested me to do overhead join at 2000ft in clouds, which is what I did, I MOR’ed him to CAA and guess what, now I more convinced that I was doing is 100% legal 
In your privately owned strip, you can fly straight-in IFR on wet compass, who can say NO to it
PS: DGAC said they have zero objections to IFR flying to uncontrolled airfields in Golf with or without instrument procedures, ATC/CFMU also allow such operations, French/SERA laws clearly state it’s ok to operate IFR witout procedure but the pilot has full responsibility of his “anti abordage et anti collision” (traffic & obstacles), yes circling is mandatory in all public aerodromes in France without AFIS, now if you ever come acroos anyone in France thinks they know better than DGAC on the topic, they better complain to them (that may ban IFR in Golf in many places if we are talking absolute safety and zero risks)
Peter wrote:
So should this French rule be contrary to SERA?
I don’t think so. There is a published procedure and it is part of the procedure (even if specified separately) that when ATS is closed, a straight-in landing is not authorised.
My understanding in France, the instrument circling & visual circuit are mandatory even when no procedure is published on public aerdromes: those in VAC & AIP, this is national aerdrome law and state aerodrome minima applies…only in private aerodromes where you can fly straight-in arrivals (VFR or IFR)
This may be achieved, for example, by climbing or descending visually
when below a minimum altitude at which obstacle clearance is known to exist.
@Airborne_Again thank you for posting the AMC and very helpful. Will read the blog as with all the changes, tweaks, it is difficult to keep up to date.
Am guessing the rub is ‘at which obstacle clearance is known to exist’. In the absence of an obstacle survey the old rule (will have to dig out where it originates from), of effectively 1,300’ AGL for published obstacles within 5nm, may still apply, and in the case of the UK using a regional pressure setting if to an unlicensed airfield? or does establishing a D-I-Y MDA remain a PIC responsibility and he/she makes up their own rules?
You would also need some PBN standard to establish your position?
I have arrived at airports with a non ADF aircraft where the only approach is an NDB one, and before the recent allowance to use IFR GPS up to the FAF, I would request a cloud break procedure. Typically this meant vectors on to the final track and descent to platform altitude. ATC was known to MOR aircraft flying the NDB approach without an ADF. Hopefully in due course Europe will finally see sense and allow overlay approaches. In the original scenario this would have allowed LOC only overlay using GPS.
RobertL18C wrote:
Am guessing the rub is ‘at which obstacle clearance is known to exist’. In the absence of an obstacle survey the old rule (will have to dig out where it originates from), of effectively 1,300’ AGL for published obstacles within 5nm, may still apply, and in the case of the UK using a regional pressure setting if to an unlicensed airfield? or does establishing a D-I-Y MDA remain a PIC responsibility and he/she makes up their own rules?
@RobertL18C, I think some of the ICAO documents suggested that it should be 250’ for a normal NPA, 300’ above obstacle (but at least 400’ AAL) – @Airborne_Again will know more. But I’d say that if you aim for 1500M vis and 500’ AAL/AGL/above obstacles within the affected area, that should be OK and no one could object to that – in the end, VFR rules are the same. :)
For the obstacles themselves – there is an AIP ENR 5.4 with digital dataset at https://nats-uk.ead-it.com/cms-nats/opencms/en/Publications/digital-datasets/.
Also for each airfield there is a 2.10 section for obstacles in approach and circling areas.
arj1 wrote:
RobertL18C, I think some of the ICAO documents suggested that it should be 250’ for a normal NPA, 300’ above obstacle (but at least 400’ AAL) – Airborne_Again will know more. But I’d say that if you aim for 1500M vis and 500’ AAL/AGL/above obstacles within the affected area, that should be OK and no one could object to that – in the end, VFR rules are the same. :)
Yes. I have a DIY GPS-based procedure to my home airfield. It is designed according to PANS-OPS with 250’ obstacle clearance on final approach and 500’ on intermediate approach. For the obstacle survey, I’ve used the AIP obstacle database together with the Swedish land survey authority’s terrain data plus 300 ft to cater for uncharted obstacles – except for the local control zone where I add only 100 ft because I know that all obstacles down to that height are charted. (My airfield is inside the CTR of another airport.) In the end my minima are 3000 m viz and 500/560 feet DH depending on the runway. I’ve also designed missed approach and holding procedures. And of course test flown several times in VMC. The obstacle situation is very uncomplicated, otherwise I might not have done this.
Arrêté 12th July 2019
7.2.1.3. At an aerodrome without ATS
On an aerodrome without ATS, the pilot-in-command of an aircraft:
- on departure, evaluates the parameters before leaving the apron; and
- upon arrival, becomes aware of the QNH altimeter setting of a designated station following a procedure approved by the territorially competent civil aviation authority, executes a published approach procedure then executes a visual maneuver in order to review the airfield. This examination must relate in particular to the signal area, the windsock, the surface condition of the maneuvering area in order to determine the runway or landing area to be used and ensure that the use of the aerodrome does not present any apparent danger. If the meteorological conditions permit, the pilot in command interrupts his descent in order to carry out the visual maneuver above the highest of the aerodrome circuits. In all cases, he performs the visual maneuver at an altitude compatible with the operational minima associated with the approach procedure performed.
If the aircraft performs a visual approach or a visual departure, it is flying in VMC conditions.
7.2.2. Case of aerodromes where no approach or departure procedure is published
On arrival, the aircraft in IFR flight performs a visual approach, flies in VMC and integrates in accordance with the provisions of the paragraph provided for VFR flights.
@Peter NAAs can supplement EASA/SERA or replace the if EASA have not yet formulated a regulation. It can also stick to ICAO if EASA haven’t regulated.
This is not necessarily a circuit to land. Earlier in the Arrête it points out that if you have the parameter eg from another pilot in the circuit or any other trustworthy source there is no necessity to review the airfield. IMO that means that a straight in would be possible.
69 and 70 seem to apply for defining descent below MSA without an IFR approach procedure? This is from the UK Rules of the Air.
