Ibra wrote:
I think many did their Basic Instrument Flying (Ex19) during PPL training without being IFR certified & equipped? surely no one have filed IFR flight plans or got IFR clearances to do that
Yeah. Lo and behold, we even flew through clouds for that! No flight plan, no clearance, no IRI and in an aircraft which cannot be IFR certified.
We even flew precision radar approaches into a Luftwaffe airbase with the “IFR goggles” on…again without a flight plan.
I think many did their Basic Instrument Flying (Ex19) during PPL training without being IFR certified & equipped? surely no one have filed IFR flight plans or got IFR clearances to do that
For flying by sole reference to instruments (FBSRI), I am sure many still do UK IMCr training or revalidation where the aircraft is certified & equipped for instrument flying but not legal for any route navigation except following the roads on a sunny day 
Peter wrote:
strongly country dependent
That definitely used to be true before EASA-OPS, but if the type is IFR approved and the aircraft has the IFR equipment required by part-NCO (for most of us) and by airspace, then any further requirements by the NA would be, I believe, gold-plating and in violation of EASA regs. I wonder if European rules are really that much different from FAR 91. While a functioning 6-pack of flight instruments or equivalent PFD would always be required for IFR by part-NCO, the need for NAV equipment like DME, ADF or GPS would depend on the planned flight and procedures – and even the weather: Visual navigation is specifically mentioned as a valid means of navigation (AMC1 NCO.IDE.A.195) and so could be your legal navigation “equipment” backup.
I think the above is strongly country dependent. No doubt it applies to the US but the situation in Europe is much more fluid. In the UK especially it its very normal to teach IFR procedures in a plane which would be totally illegal for IFR due to missing or defective equipment; I remember this well from my IMCR training.
Just read this:
FAA Order 8900.1 allows an exception for aircraft not certified for IFR to be operated under IFR in VMC only:
A. IFR Training in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). Instrument flight training may be conducted during VMC in any aircraft that meets the equipment requirements of part 91, §§ 91.109, 91.205, and, for an airplane operated in controlled airspace under the IFR system, §§ 91.411 and 91.413. An aircraft may be operated on an IFR flight plan under IFR in VMC, provided the PIC is properly certificated to operate the aircraft under IFR. However, if the aircraft is not approved for IFR operations under its type certificate, or if the appropriate instruments and equipment are not installed or are not operative, operations in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) are prohibited. The PIC of such an aircraft must cancel the IFR flight plan in use and avoid flight into IMC.
Cobalt wrote:
So in theory the VFR aircraft on the ILS in class D actually reduces the separation requirement with IFR traffic compared to the same aircraft flying under IFR.
There is no IFR-VFR separation in class D, so that is correct. Flying an IAP VFR in class D causes zero problems of traffic permits. Which is why I said that if it is an airport with significant traffic, the best is to call ATC beforehand and inquire.
Balliol wrote:
If you are flying in Class D, you will be on an IFR clearance, trying to fly IAPs on a VFR clearance would invoke all sorts of issues with ATC traffic information and separation requirements
Not necessarily. I have flown “Practice ILS” on VFR clearances in Class D in Germany. It is of course at ATC’s discretion to accept it.
Separation is a bit misunderstood, IMO. A formal separation requirement by ATC means minimum distances, ensured by radar and/or timing and speed restrictions and/or clearance limits when no radar is there. In Class D, only IFR gets separated from IFR that way, nothing else.
So in theory the VFR aircraft on the ILS in class D actually reduces the separation requirement with IFR traffic compared to the same aircraft flying under IFR.
But ATC will ALSO try to sequence traffic in a way that there is no conflict, so while formally only required to separate IFR from IFR in Class D, the controllers will also not put a VFR aircraft in conflict with another aircraft, although not applying the same strict separation standards.
So in practice, this will make no difference whatsoever.
It only creates a problem if the VFR traffic has to decline a vector or has to deviate to maintain VMC, so I would expect ATC to decline this sort of thing in less than CAVOK, or at least ceiling 1,000ft above the highest point in the procedure.
EuroFlyer wrote:
PS: *=?
PS = Post Scriptum… An after-thought….something added to the bottom of a written message at the last moment…
If you are flying in Class D, you will be on an IFR clearance, trying to fly IAPs on a VFR clearance would invoke all sorts of issues with ATC traffic information and separation requirements.
I am currently a trainee for CBIR and so anything that helps me getting it into my head, I try to do, i.e. when I don’t have my instructor sitting next to me.
However it does not compare to a real exercise in IMC with only the radio “clocks” used. Flying it with GPS or even the AP is peanuts, really, and is not really an exercise. PS: *=?
