From here
Peter wrote:
It is definitely legal to fly DIY IAPs in the UK in a G-reg. Whether you can do it in other regs depends on whether their country of registry prohibits this. For example the N-reg position is potentially restricted by 91.175 and the applicability of 91.175 outside the US has been discussed a few times e.g. here. I am on holiday and don’t have the time to study it all currently, but it appears illegal to fly an unpublished IAP in N-regs.
Peter, 91.175 applies to operation within the US airspace. Outside of US, 91.703 applies. It states in part:
§91.703 Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States.
(a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall—
(1) When over the high seas, comply with Annex 2 (Rules of the Air) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and with §§91.117(c), 91.127, 91.129, and 91.131;
(2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force;
(3) Except for §§91.117(a), 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or Annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation;
Many thanks NCyankee. I have updated the original 2008 article.
It means N-regs can fly DYI IAPs in the UK, for example.
Doesn’t 91.703.(3) say that all of Part 91 applies to N-regs outside the USA, with the only exceptions being:
The real question is: what does “inconsistent” mean?
A more restrictive Pt91 rule is not necessarily inconsistent with SERA. You do not have to breach any part of SERA to comply with the US rule. I don’t think it is clear at all that DIY approaches are legal for N reg in Europe.
JasonC wrote:
A more restrictive Pt91 rule is not necessarily inconsistent with SERA. You do not have to breach any part of SERA to comply with the US rule. I don’t think it is clear at all that DIY approaches are legal for N reg in Europe.
The legality (or not) of DIY approaches are not regulated by SERA but by the air ops rules (such as part-CAT and part-NCO).
Part 91, subpart B does not apply to N numbers, it applies to aircraft of all registries. Part 91, Subpart B applicability states:
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.
If you look at 91.175, it starts off with prescribing what can’t be complied with outside of the US.
§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.
So how is the FAA planning on exorcising its authority on approaches outside of the US airspace and not under its control? Furthermore. when it states “each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport.” and Part 97 is limited to prescribing approach procedures inside the US using TERPS:
Sec. 97.1 Applicability
(a) This part prescribes standard instrument approach procedures to civil airports in the United States and the weather minimums that apply to landings under IFR at those airports.
So, I don’t see any restriction on aircraft of US registry that 91.175 would apply to. If a rule applies to aircraft of US registry, the rule or section will so state. For example, in Part 91, Subpart E.
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.
lionel wrote:
Doesn’t 91.703.(3) say that all of Part 91 applies to N-regs outside the USA, with the only exceptions being:all that is inconsistent with applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or Annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation;
91.117(a) – limitation to 250knot below 10000ft
91.307(b) – limitations to non-emergency use of parachutes
91.309 – regulation of towing Gliders and unpowered ultralight vehicles
91.323 – increased maximum certificated weights for certain airplanes operated in Alaska.
91.711 – Special rules for foreign civil aircraft (operating in the USA)
The real question is: what does “inconsistent” mean?
So clearly approaches may be made in countries outside of the US by aircraft of US registry and 91.175(a) is inconsistent with specifying the regulations for approaches using PANS OPS. I don’t know if DYI approaches are permitted or not in the UK, but if they are, it makes no sense to me that they would be restricted based on the country of the aircraft registry. I don’t see the restriction in the US 91.175 regulation requiring the use of a part 97 approach procedure and that applies to all registries and is inapplicable outside of the US has any impact on approaches in the UK.
The reference in 91.175(a) to “civil airport” must be taken as meaning “US civil airport” in the example of instrument approaches to RWY 27 at Victoria, Vancouver Island, which begin in US airspace.
I think I agree. Although both IAF on CYYJ RNAV (GNSS) Z RWY 27 approach are inside US airspace, control of that US airspace is delegated to NavCanada by agreement with Seattle Center and the approach is not covered by 91.175(a) because CYYJ is not a civil airport within the US. 91.101 defines that Subpart B which includes 91.175 applies to US Airspace. For that matter, KBLI is in the USA, but NavCanada handles ATC services for the airport and flight plans have to be routed to NavCanada. If the flight plan is routed to Seattle Center, it will be rejected. But the approaches at KBLI are subject to 91.175(a).
