@AlexG: I never heard a tower asking ‘are you IFR or VFR?’ after a request for practice approach. Yes, there are academic differences with separation and collision avoidance for IFR or VFR, but in reality a tower usually makes no difference, if conditions are VMC of course. Maximum I encountered was the request for the ‘practice approach’ aircraft to abort training to let other traffic pass.
dejwu wrote:
I never heard a tower asking ‘are you IFR or VFR?’
Southend EGMC routinely ask when they know it’s a practice approach.
dejwu wrote:
I never heard a tower asking ‘are you IFR or VFR?
ATC does not need to ask in Eurocontrol area, they can tell from the FPL (or lack thereof). I did hear ATC at LFPM asking one VFR aircraft whether they wanted to switch to IFR for their practice approach or remain VFR. Presumably, they asked because if they switch flight rules, they can then display the plot on the radar screen in a different color with an IFR sqwawk, use the IFR FPL system (useful if the training aircraft makes several approaches and go arounds) so it probably makes their life a bit easier all in all.
There seems to be a lot of possible interpretations of a “practice” approaches: from VFR pilots who wish to see what it feels like, from IFR pilots who do it for currency but don’t really need to land at the airport (in which case saying it is practice lowers priority level in ATC’s mind), and an ILS flown in VMC where one is pretending to be in the clouds to the minimums (we hear of practice CAT IIIc approaches in VMC from the big planes, requires special treatment from ATC to make sure the ILS sensitive area remains clear). Some of them imply some sort of differienciation from the ATC (at least in their mind, sometimes actions).
I have never flown a ‘practice approach’ and I don’t know how you’d define one.
I have flown training approaches with an instructor (when I first got the IMCr and at subsequent renewals/revals) and then everything I’ve done as P1 is just an ‘approach’, regardless of the weather conditions.
I would just let ATC know what I want to do by phone call, they will tell you if it can be done then go over there and do what I want, works fine if you avoid places where you will be competing with busy CAT or CPL/IR training, just be clear you will doing it VFR (AFAIK I don’t any qualification than a PPL for that)
I would flip over the argument the other way, the only IFR clearance a PPL can have is to “remain VMC”, anything else depends if you are inside CAS or OCAS, I really don’t see any issue with a PPL getting headings, altitudes or procedures to fly as long as he remains VMC?
If a PPL can’t fly an ILS on what right he can take radar vectors, fly assigned FLs, track VOR/NDB radials or report navigation using IFR way points a Saturday afternoon bimble? (all of these are IFR clearances? probably someone in ATC knows better?)
Peronally when flying VFR, I never got offered “on track NDB to join/transit” by ATC but when requested I got it, few times it did confuse ATC, are you IFR/VFR? reply: VFR but want to check my ADF, ok, report beacon overhead or airfield in sight (I never heard ATC coming back with “please stop using your ADF and use my VRP instead” 
)
I conducted an LPV approach into EDAZ yesterday. It was severe clear but operationally I choose to do one if I am at an unfamiliar airport where a visual approach is not comfortable for me. It wasn’t for training but nor was it required due to met conditions. If outside class C (and even inside although to a lesser extent) I would always maintain a watch outside the window in those conditions.
Was there a fatal collision between a microlight(?) and a twin flying calibration, OCAS, near Coventry(?), with the microlight VMC, and legal VFR?
I think there is some logical points here that havent been addressed.
While there may be some benefits flying an ILS in VMC looking out the window a “bit” the benefits are possibly limited to procedural aspects because inevitably if you are looking out the window, even a bit, you will be using the visual references to help you. That is why a hood is used and why it isnt a good idea to cheat if you are intending to practice your instrument flying skills. If you really arent looking, or are under a hood or behind a screen, then you cant seperate yourself from other traffic, and while other traffic should know better than to fly through an approach in VMC, they do as we know from the accident record.
I think even OCAS as soon as you are granted a procedure, be it vectors, or any form of published approach, the controller will treat you as IFR and I think is legally obliged to do so. You might not think you are IFR, but you are.
I have read the usual picky debate in France and elsewhere in Europe whether you can fly an ILS in VMC without an IR. I am not sure if the debate has been settled, but, I suspect the assumption is you do hold an IR and are complying with IFR.
I think that I was actually the “prat” that made the original observation and I hope as much as anyone I hate such prattish comments, but actually, there is a basis for doing so, because as the accident reports indicate there is a real danger doing so, and, as ever, if I am correct, it is worth knowing so God forbid your insureres or others hold you culpable if things go wrong.
More than happy for those that know the rules far better than me to tell me this is no longer the case.
Further to some while a Bookie said,
“ICAO Annex 2, Part-SERA and the UK RotA all require you to have a safety pilot if you are simulating flight in IMC (i.e. you are “under the hood”). AFIK only the UK RotA require an observer if you practising instrument approaches in VMC. If you’re going to ask what “practising” means, there’s no definition in law, but I would suggest it requires intent, not merely an operational IAP that happens to be flown in VMC."
and he knows his stuff.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I think even OCAS as soon as you are granted a procedure, be it vectors, or any form of published approach, the controller will treat you as IFR and I think is legally obliged to do so. You might not think you are IFR, but you are.
It could be the opposite in the UK? where even as IFR you could be on “VFR sqwak” while in cloud or on ILS/NDB tracks, I am not sure if 7000 defines VFR/IFR split but it does give some ATC perspective
Few places have special sqwak for their procedural IFR OCAS but they also tend to use them for inbound VFR on frequency, so good luck figuring that out unless the day is 500ft overcast or 1km vis (you can still fly VFR with 600ft cloud base and 1.5km vis )
