@Timothy:
Sure, but the AIP merely quotes from the ANO, which is here. See page 344 for the Instrument Flight Rules.
NCYankee:
Thanks…, that’s where air law really starts to get complicated… personally, I don’t see where 91.703 says that 91.175 does not apply when abroad…
Timothy is right. This has been done to death on the UK aviation scene and ought to be considered “settled” – by the “regulars”, anyway.
Whether it is sensible is obviously a different matter.
The whole concept of MSA goes out of the window if your navigation is less than 100% – obviously.
The German crash clearly had some navigation issues, because there is no way they would have crashed so far off if flying any kind of DIY straight-in approach (which is the only approach you should be flying as DIY).
So, you have to assume the nav is good, otherwise any flight in IMC = potential death, whether you are enroute or landing.
If your nav is good, then there are basically two kinds of approaches
It doesn’t matter if the approach is published or not; the above applies equally.
I would be happy to do a DIY IAP, subject to
If you wanted to, you could use TERPS or PAN-OPS 
Some years ago, I plotted the EGKA 20 NDB/DME approach (on which you are doing well to be within 20 degrees of the NDB inbound bearing) on the 1:25k Ordnance Survey map and found it came to within about 300ft of Truleigh Hill… so in many ways we beat ourselves up unnecessarily, when these crappy procedures are by definition “good”.
I do think 91.175 applies anywhere; the difference is merely whether anybody will be looking at you carefully. In the UK, nobody is going to report you (unless you also do something to really piss off the CAA, and keep doing it). In some other N European countries, reportedly, people will report you. It has happened in the USA, too.
I do think 91.175 applies anywhere; the difference is merely whether anybody will be looking at you carefully. In the UK, nobody is going to report you (unless you also do something to really piss off the CAA, and keep doing it). In some other N European countries, reportedly, people will report you. It has happened in the USA, too.
91.175 is a US regulation that only applies to aircraft in US airspace, regardless of registry. Outside of the US, another country may adopt the similar regulation in their airspace, but the US will only enforce it if a violation occurs in the US. Outside of the US, it is totally up to each respective state authority to enforce their regulation and they would not be enforcing ours. Paragraph 91.1 states:
Sec. 91.1
Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and Secs. 91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.
[(b) Each person operating an aircraft in the airspace overlying the waters between 3 and 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United States must comply with Sec. Sec. 91.1 through 91.21; Sec. Sec. 91.101 through 91.143; Sec. Sec. 91.151 through 91.159; Sec. Sec. 91.167 through 91.193; Sec. 91.203; Sec. 91.205; Sec. Sec. 91.209 through 91.217; Sec. 91.221, Sec. 91.225; Sec. Sec. 91.303 through 91.319; Sec. Sec. 91.323 through 91.327; Sec. 91.605; Sec. 91.609; Sec. Sec. 91.703 through 91.715; and Sec. 91.903.]
Nothing has changed since 2008 with regards to this topic. The individual who wrote the reference, be he a lawyer or not, is wrong. If you note in 91.175, it doesn’t state that the regulation applies to N registered aircraft, but to aircraft.
Sec. 91.175
Takeoff and landing under IFR.
[(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.
This regulation applies to all aircraft of any registry while operating in the US airspace with the exception of US military aircraft.
Section 91.1 describes where the regulations for part 91 are applicable outside of the US or its 12 mile limit and there are a few exceptions, but 91.175 is not one of them. Section 91.701 and 91.703 essentially state that N registered aircraft must comply with the regulations of the state in which they are operating.
Note the difference in the wording of 91.101 which states the applicability for subpart B – Flight Rules which includes 91.175:
Subpart B—Flight Rules General
Sec. 91.101 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes flight rules governing the operation of aircraft within the United States and within 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United States.
Compare this with Subpart E, section 91.401 which covers maintenance of N registered aircraft:
Subpart E—Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations
Sec. 91.401 Applicability.
(a) This subpart prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations of U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating within or outside of the United States.
The plain language of the law is clear in my opinion.
Ok, ok. I red that stuff on pg 344. Unbelievable for my German mind set 
I also am enlightened, I think. I will check the Trevor Thom book, obviously not the ANO, but used as a reference for setting minima, and generally quite respected.
Taking a different tack does the NW Flying Order Book not have restrictions, and do they have any standing in Law?
I have just installed the GPS-ILS app (it does a virtual ILS and comes with a database of airports) and instantly found an error on the Shoreham EGKA 20 data, where the platform is given as 1500ft but should be 2200…
This reminded me of various IAPs which exist or have existed, often officially, for various airfields, and which are unpublished, usually because the airfield no longer has ATC and, under UK rules, cannot have an IAP.
Sometimes the IAP is in current use but under a special permission from the CAA for a specific commercial operator, who may have copyright on it (no kidding!).
There is a number of them around the UK. Is the same found elsewhere in Europe?
I am not sure whether openly posting the ones I have collected is such a great idea… I have ones for Elstree, Wellesbourne, Welshpool and a few others.
I looked at GPS ILS and it would have put you in the trees of Loxley wood on Wellesbourne runway 36. It also doesn’t react like an ILS (track rather than heading).
Peter wrote:
Is the same found elsewhere in Europe?
Apart from some selfmade ones I am not aware of many official or semi-official procedures. Buochs (LSZC) has instrument procedures that are only to be used by the Pilatus company. The approach is published in Jeppesen (but with a note limiting it to Pilatus), the departure routes are only available locally as photocopied sheets.
NB: I just had a look at that APP and what caught me is the name of the developer. He was at university with me for some years but later went to the States and nobody ever heard again from him. First time in 30 years that I come across his name.
