However, the approach ban is law for good reason and written in blood.
Absolutely true. But not ATC’s to enforce.
Apparently it is in the UK.
as to stop people attempting approaches in manifestly unsuitable weather.
But, how do you define “manifestly unsuitable weather”?
What is wrong with flying an approach to minima, and if at the MAP you can’t see the runway environment (as per the Part 91 definition) then going around?
The Cork crash had other factors. To start with, by the time you have flown an approach to minima, and flown it using an autopilot so presumably accurately, and seen absolutely nothing, nowt, zilch, not even a glimpse of anything down there, wouldn’t you think that doing it a few more times is just a waste of fuel?
Fair enough, if you are going to have a rule for AOC ops then may as well have it (not my business; I am just a private pilot with an IR) but the 1000ft “decision point” shows that it is arbitrary. 1000ft is nowhere near the runway. I recall doing an approach (GPS/LNAV) where the ATC-reported vis (not measured RVR) was 1100m but I could see the PAPIs at 3.5 miles and the runway lights at about 2 miles.
So it isn’t black and white.
But not ATC’s to enforce
Would you be refused a landing clearance?
I don’t think so because ATC cannot know that you are not CAT 2 approved. They can be 99.9% sure you aren’t (in say a TB20 
) but they can’t be totally sure because some totally obscessive character with loads of time and money and who loves punishment could have perhaps done it.
I think, in the UK, ATC just fill in a form and send it off to the CAA for investigation. I have never heard of a prosecution under this heading, of a private pilot, and I guess that in AOC ops the pilot gets the boot.
ATC will never refuse a landing clearance. They will ask for your intentions at 1000ft. Peter, I really do not think a single piston could be Cat II approved.
When an airport is CAT III, I cannot land and ATC would most likely inform me about that but I could for example just tell them I want to do an approach to minimum just to practise. This would be granted over here. Not in the UK?
The approach ban is not just a UK thing. It is also present in Europe.
Where would I find this pan-European approach ban? Never heard about it and I have been granted practise ILS in sub CAT I conditions.
Where would I find this pan-European approach ban? Never heard about it and I have been granted practise ILS in sub CAT I conditions.
For GA it’s in NCO.OP.210 and NCC.OP.230.
In countries which have not yet adopted part-NCO and part-NCC, it is up to national legislation. Sweden has it.
I’ve been in Lufthansa Cockpits three times at CAT IIIc / automatic landings. Scary stuff …
Achim,
I am disappointed 
. For Germany, the “approach ban” or “look-and-see ban” is found in the 3. Durchführungsverordnung zur LuftBO, which went into force in 2009. It’s the same revision that brought us the stricter rules on O2, life raft / life vest carriage, etc. For the approach ban, see §31.
By the way, the LuftBO also bans take-offs in visibilities of lower than 400 metres (at least in the absence of further approvals). However, as you will know, the LuftBO is valid only for D-reg aircraft. It does not apply for example to N-regs. However, all that will change when Part-NCO goes into force.
What “airways” has’t understood is the difference between what is not allowed and what ATC has to enforce. Big difference. ATC is indeed not air police. Which doesn’t make busting a rule any more legal.
That’s probably why the controller in your scenario (flying practice approaches in conditions well below the procdedure minima) did not deny you the approach clearance. Not his job to do.
§ 31 3. DV LuftBO requires the intention to land. This does not restrict me from performing practise approaches in CAT II conditions.
NCO.OP.210 says:
(a) The pilot-in-command may commence an instrument approach regardless of the
reported runway visual range / visibility (RVR/VIS).
(b) If the reported RVR/VIS is less than the applicable minimum, the approach shall not be
continued:
(1) below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome; or
(2) into the final approach segment in the case where the decision altitude/height
(DA/H) or minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H) is more than 1 000 ft
above the aerodrome.
So only down to 1000ft AGL with EASA rules, once implemented. Well, not a major restriction really for GA pilots. A small mistake in these conditions comes with a death sentence.
