This US AOPA article depicts what must be a common situation.
It’s a grayish fall day with a 900-foot ceiling and two miles visibility as a turboprop breaks out of the clouds on an instrument approach to a nontowered airport. The runway is in sight—and there’s a Piper J–3 Cub taxiing on it.
Presumably the inbound must make a call on some common frequency, eventually?
Clearly this cannot operate with anyone being non-radio.
In the US, the inbound would have had an IFR clearance to the airport, given to him by a remotely located approach controller. It is after that, that the issue needs to be dealt with.
Having flown IFR to uncontrolled fields in DK the controllers usually remind the pilot of this fact. After asking for descend they say “cleared unrestricted descend into uncontrolled airspace – suggest you contact xxx radio on xxx.x”.
I don’t know how it is in other countries in the EU.
I really don’t see much fuss about it, t how much that is different from landing in Gatwick with runway still occupied due to miss-coordinating between earth & pilot & tower? or the same story with cloud ceiling at 3000ft? tough at 500ft ceiling/1.5km vis, I agree it is a different story…
In the other hand, many G-airspace airports will have a 600ft ceiling/2km vis limits in their ops manuals for IFR/VFR, if not it tells you about how much cowboy things are going on 
How that is work in the air when you get dumped from airways to G-airspace around London, I guess London control will check their radars for you on anything that may come up bellow FL25 but nothing guaranteed, it will be tough to get them to check the ground for you
I understand, not having a radio while wondering at 1500ft in G-airspace does really make sense as long as the cooling fan rotates but not having a radio for take-off/landing/circuit on mixed VFR/IFR ops is plain stupid…
It works just fine. ATC will just have you switch to CTAF as you get close, advising you to contact them again on frequency xx.yyy in the event of going missed.
In fact, and that‘s what the article is about, it‘s just the way flying at uncontrolled airfields works and the TBM pilot didn‘t know. It‘s in the word: uncontrolled. Hence, nobody decides for the pilot which runway to use and also, no obligation to use a radio.
I don’t see the issue, if the Cub or whatever is flying VFR it’s in VMC… Meaning that the aircraft on an instrument approach will be looking out the windows just as he would on any other final approach. If there’s a non-radio Cub on the runway, the approaching aircraft goes around. That’s how instrument approaches into uncontrolled airports work, and accordingly how the minimums are defined. If the ceiling is 900 feet, as in the article, obviously there is no issue.
One time I was flying a safety pilot for a friend, doing instrument approaches at an uncontrolled field. I watched carefully until he pulled the hood off to land, and then pointed out that there were half a dozen parachutists directly in front of him. I will admit to giving him some warning prior to that, and in low ceiling conditions with no hood obviously they would not have been there.
In practical terms, this might be inconvenient for the approaching aircraft but there is no hazard and it happens so infrequently in real IFR that it’s a non issue even on the basis of creating an inconvenience. In places where non-radio Cubs fly, there are very few aircraft making instrument approaches in IMC. In places where aircraft make instrument approaches and Cubs fly, the Cubs will almost always have a handheld… Which BTW requires no approval, license or other claptrap in the US.
Silvaire wrote:
Meaning that the aircraft on an instrument approach will be looking out the windows
Looks like restating an obvious thing that we usually forget, at 50ft from touchdown, looking out of the window is advisable even if that Cub was operating IFR in IMC on CATII conditions
I am probably wrong, but think as PIC you have a requirement to “look outside the window/do avoidance” irrespective of the ATC service you receive or the conditions of your flight (say, you fly IFR in class D airspace in VMC/IMC, atc will take care of keeping their complex separation criteria as practical as they can, or get a black mark/suspension, but as PIC you are still liable to look outside and take the necessary avoidance actions?)
It’s a grayish fall day with a 900-foot ceiling and two miles visibility as a turboprop breaks out of the clouds on an instrument approach to a nontowered airport. The runway is in sight—and there’s a Piper J–3 Cub taxiing on it.
And how is this different than flying VFR at 7-800 ft and suddenly seeing a J-3 or an elephant, a diesel truck or whatever on the runway ? I presume this is in G? Seriously, on an untowered airport, you don’t know what is on the runway. It’s an unknown variable. That is why, there is a tower on AFIS units, and it’s the main duty of the person in there to report the condition of the runway, if it’s “free” or not, to both VFR and IFR. Two way communication is a must of course, but the article say nothing about that or airspace.
Doesn’t SERA say something about this? It’s always the pilot’s duty on an untowered airport to make sure the runway is in a shape that makes it possible to land.
The system has a built-in safety function already : Class E airspace. It works wonderfully.
First off, in the US, a radio is not required equipment for VFR flight. So a Cub could be in the pattern in crap weather flying circuits without a radio, as long as they are clear of clouds and have 1 mile visibility (below 1200 ft AGL) – in class G airspace…but there wouldn’t be an instrument approach to such an airport, because…
…essentially all uncontrolled airports with instrument approaches in the US are designed to be protected by Class E airspace, either to the ground (in that case the Cub wouldn’t be flying in the circuit in weather below VFR minimums anyway) or down to 700 ft AGL – in which case that Cub would also need to meet Class E VFR weather minimums while in the circuit, which means at least 500 feet below the base of the cloud layer PLUS 3 miles visibility. If the Cub were flying in the pattern at 800 ft AGL, then the lowest minimum for the cloud base while still being legal would be 1300’ AGL. That’s plenty of time for see and avoid for the approaching IFR traffic.
So it works beautifully. There is a buffer of 500’ vertically should instrument traffic pop out of the clouds and encounter a no radio traffic – safety backstop #1 “see and avoid” and failing that there is safety backstop #2, the CTAF frequency, should said VFR traffic have a radio (and be using it).
HighFly wrote:
…essentially all uncontrolled airports with instrument approaches in the US are designed to be protected by Class E airspace, either to the ground (in that case the Cub wouldn’t be flying in the circuit in weather below VFR minimums anyway) or down to 700 ft AGL – in which case that Cub would also need to meet Class E VFR weather minimums while in the circuit, which means at least 500 feet below the base of the cloud layer PLUS 3 miles visibility. If the Cub were flying in the pattern at 800 ft AGL, then the lowest minimum for the cloud base while still being legal would be 1300’ AGL. That’s plenty of time for see and avoid for the approaching IFR traffic.The cloud distance requirements don’t extend to neighbouring airspace. If it’s class E down to 700 AGL, then it is class G below that, correct? So there could be a cloudbase of 700 ft with the Cub flying a circuit clear of clouds at 699 ft with 1 SM visibility. Smart? No. Legal? Yes.
