IMC outside CAS without runway approach systems

I am pretty sure from my IR(R) studies in 2011 that at least in the UK, the Instrument Flight Rules say that you may not fly IMC below the MSA without being on a published procedure. I’ll check the AIP.

I think you will find elsewhere in this forum advice about the wisdom or not of inventing your own unpublished procedures. It seems to be a regular topic.

Hmm, either my memory is wrong or the AIP has changed (well obviously the bit about SERA is a change since 2011):

“ENR 1.3 INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES
1 IFR Flight
SERA.2005 Compliance with the Rules of the Air and SERA.5015 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)— Rules Applicable to All IFR
Flights as applied within UK Airspace.
…
1.2 Minimum Levels
1.2.1 Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorized by the appropriate authority, an IFR flight
shall be flown at a level which is at least 1000 ft (300 m) above the highest obstacle located within 5 nm (9.25 km) of the
estimated position of the aircraft; except that the United Kingdom regulations do not apply to an aircraft operating under IFR and
flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 ft (900 m) if that aircraft is clear of cloud with the surface in sight and in a flight visibility of
at least 800 m.
Note 1: The estimated position of the aircraft will take account of the navigational accuracy which can be achieved on the
relevant route segment, having regard to the navigational facilities available on the ground and in the aircraft.
Note 2: See also SERA.3105 Minimum Heights and SERA.5015 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)— Rules Applicable to All IFR
Flights.”

The EASA wording is similar:

“SERA.5015 Instrument flight rules (IFR) — Rules applicable to all IFR flights
…
(b) Minimum levels
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority, an IFR flight shall be flown at a level which is not below the minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown, or, where no such minimum flight altitude has been established:
(1) over high terrain or in mountainous areas, at a level which is at least 600 m (2 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft;
(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a level which is at least 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft.”

Joe-fbs wrote:

I am pretty sure from my IR(R) studies in 2011 that at least in the UK, the Instrument Flight Rules say that you may not fly IMC below the MSA without being on a published procedure. I’ll check the AIP.

This has been discussed extensively both here and on the PPL/IR forum. The consensus among UK pilots seems to be that there has never been a requirement in the national regulations that private flights have to use published procedures.

Today, with EASA regulations, in my opinion it is clear that private flight do not need to use published procedures.

Whether it is wise or not to use do-it-yourself procedures is a different matter. In my opinion it is safe if the procedure is carefully constructed and you have made a risk analysis.

Airborne_Again – that is exactly my understanding. We all know poorly made up let downs can be the death of pilots, especially as the margins become small with terrain involved. There is an obvious exceptions were you can make an assured let down over the sea and know absolutely there is no terrain of concern (unless it is a very low let down which would be unwise). To state another obvious having a plan in the event you arent visual at your defined height and point is vital which would include an airport with a published procedure within range.

I think made up let downs can seem all too easy, but in reality require carefully planning and discipline and arent something to attempt without a few trial runs with a safety pilot in VMC.

Ibra wrote:

For private, one can use do-it-yourself procedures with own risk appetite and personal wisdom, I will be interested to see how many actually do it?

As far as I understand it is rather common in the UK. In most other European countries it wasn’t legal until part-NCO so there isn’t much of a tradition…

I think it’s theoretically feasible with a GPS and VNAV, and @Peter has posted about how he knows people who’ve used synthetic vision on Garmin Pilot to do stimulated zero/zero landings with a safety pilot. A VOR approach, as you mentioned, is obviously less precise. With high enough minima it should be fine, but in general I think you’re better off cloud breaking on an established approach and scud running to your destination, rather than flying a roll your own approach. Unless you really sit down with TERPS or PAN-OPS or something similar and properly design an approach, I think you’re asking to eventually become a statistic.

Peter has posted about how he knows people who’ve used synthetic vision on Garmin Pilot to do stimulated zero/zero landings with a safety pilot

Have I? I’ve never heard of that. I have not tested Garmin Pilot and know next to nothing about its feature set.

I have known an SR22 pilot who told me he used SV to do zero-zero approaches into grass strips, at night IIRC. But that used the panel mounted kit, not a tablet.

The latest GTN software can also set up a “virtual ILS”. Not sure if EASA has certified it yet.

There is also a tablet product called GPS-ILS. I tested it on a few flights and had mixed results, with the glideslope being nowhere near the actual ILS glideslope.

As far as I understand it is rather common in the UK. In most other European countries it wasn’t legal until part-NCO so there isn’t much of a tradition…

I think it is pretty common on mainland Europe too (one German pilot told me it is called “IVFR” and of course Germany has the famous total lack of IMC below the MRVA) but people don’t talk about it as readily because it wasn’t (generally) legal until recently, plus some countries have a rather strong self policing culture (even more than the UK!).

However it is true that the UK has a much higher % of people flying IFR – due to the IMC Rating which has existed since c. 1969 and which is unique in Europe. The full IR community has always been very small, in the UK and everywhere else in Europe.

DIY approaches are safe if designed right, done right (that’s true for any IAP) and with suitable minima, and with a designed missed approach segment.