Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1845914
Basic PPL holder, flying solo, class D airspace, with the appropriate equipment onboard, good VMC, wants to practise a procedural instrument approach...

As I understand it, you cannot legally accept an IFR clearance (being class D), but can you get a VFR clearance, and still fly the approach as if it were IMC (assuming ATC cooperation)?

I feel I should know the answer, but I don't :?
#1845922
Correct.

Personally I dont see a problem as long as you maintain a normal visual scan, and cross reference with the instruments. Because you are watching a few more instruments pay particular attention to your speed and landing checks, set a sensible DH at which point to forget anything other than a normal approach and dont hesitate to go around.

I agree do a couple with an instructor first, this will be beneficial.
#1845925
FitToFly wrote:Basic PPL holder, flying solo, class D airspace, with the appropriate equipment onboard, good VMC, wants to practise a procedural instrument approach...

As I understand it, you cannot legally accept an IFR clearance (being class D), but can you get a VFR clearance, and still fly the approach as if it were IMC (assuming ATC cooperation)?

I feel I should know the answer, but I don't :?


That is legally correct.

I'd strongly recommend flying with an IR holder, ideally one with an instructor rating however. Not unlike people who try to teach themselves to fly on a simulator, it's far too easy to develop and self-teach bad habits that'll take longer to unlearn than starting from scratch later if you then go for an instrument qualification.

Frankly, you want a safety pilot anyhow, as you'll be fixated on the instruments.

G
T67M liked this
#1845929
Even if you are IR rated you need a safety observer for IAP practice in VMC

Best to find someone who is IR rated, ideally IRI or IMCr instructor, you can even count & log dual IFR hours

In Class D, I doubt it's possible on PPL as you will be on controlled IFR clearance with separation

In Class G, with safety observer, you can ask ATC to "fly ILS VFR on Basic Service" or "long VFR final" and see what they say? or just say you want to test autopilot or avionics? as PIC in Class G you decide what is VFR/IFR and being on ILS path on Basic Service does not mean you are procedural IFR separation and clearance, but do give approach a call even if you stay uncontrolled outside ATZ (and most importantly pay for it :wink: )

If you are flying a well equipped aircraft and doing VFR touring worth getting some proper IFR training while on PPL with no IMCr/IR yet, also know how to hook AP to ILS/VOR/HDG, it will be a shame dying in IMC with good working AP and available ILS/GPS just because someone on a forum told you a PPL can't do it, you should know how to get out of troubles on 7700 safely even with PPL, there should be zero doubt on safety, for legality, you can go later to a school and get an IMCr/IR to fly that again :lol:
Last edited by Ibra on Sun May 09, 2021 6:04 pm, edited 7 times in total.
#1845930
SERA.3220 says:
An aircraft shall not be flown under simulated instrument flight conditions unless:
...
(b) an additional qualified pilot (in this rule called a safety pilot) occupies a control seat to act as safety pilot for the person who is flying under simulated instrument conditions. The safety pilot shall have adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in communication with the safety pilot shall occupy a position in the aircraft from which the observer's field of vision adequately supplements that of the safety pilot.


To gain benefit from flying an approach requires significant attention being paid to the instruments, along with other flight management tasks. If this compromises your lookout then you are simulating IMC, so you should be carrying a qualified person to act as safety pilot.
#1845932
Only quiet airports would allow it, and as our would be unusual you'd be best to phone and discuss your requirements in advance.

However, as soon as you compromise your lookout ( by eg focusing on instruments), as said above, you need a safely pilot to do the lookout. Flying a route VFR that approximates an instrument approach shouldn't be confused with doing an instrument approach. Completely different mindset.
#1845933
as if it were IMC (assuming ATC cooperation)?


Sadly I don’t think you’re going to gain as much as you think out of this I’m afraid?

It would be a better experience to be a IR student, sat with an instructor, wear foggles, then given a suitable IFR approach, and briefed before the flight, to gain the full benefit of this.

For example you may realise how difficult it is to trust the instruments despite your body telling you otherwise, keep up the scan, and have the precision needed in hand flying, as well as managing cockpit workload of interpreting those approach plates and listening to ATC instructions.

And ATC will also be able to give you the real procedure.

Otherwise this “procedural instrument approach” you’re looking to do will end up being a visual approach with vectors to final, which is what some VFR-only pilots already get today anyway.
#1845936
MattL wrote:I doubt any Class D ATC ops manual would allow you to fly an IAP on a VFR clearance due to the separation responsibility mess it would create the controller. You certainly couldn’t take vectors.


From an ATC perspective I don’t recall ever seeing it written down anywhere that the proposed scenario couldn’t happen, it’s down to the pilot of course to ensure they comply with any relevant requirements such as safety pilot.

Given its slightly unusual nature though I’d probably suggest that it is all set up by phone or tower visit before getting in the aeroplane, as opposed to just making the request from cold over the r/t whilst already in the air. That at least gives ATC some time to think about it and what if any caveats they might need to consider.
FitToFly liked this
#1845944
Of course this is a bit of an old chestnut. I thought the conclusion in the past is that you didnt need a safety observer in VMC as long as you are not restricting your vision in any way? I mean if for example you are monitoring an ILS, you might just as well ask for a direct, positioning long final for a visual approach which is all you are doing.

Is it useful. Well, I actually think it is. I think it is quite a good thing to see how the ILS responds and that you are able to set it up correctly. As long as you are just glancing at the instrument I dont see a risk, after all it is only adding one instrument to your visual scan, and if you are flying glass it is all part of your scan of the instruments anyway.

I agree well worth taking along an instrument rated mate or instructor and taking the procedure further, but this isnt always possible, so why not just fly a long final?

Happy to be corrected if it is illegal in these circumstances.
#1845952
I think that IMCR has the full measure of it.

Staying outside an ATZ you can do what you like so long as you don't restrict your vision. Ditto following an ILS on a long final.

But, there so many reasons that doing this solo without having been trained in instrument flying by a suitably qualified instructor, is unwise, for reasons that have been mentioned by multiple people above.

G
#1845958
I’d question what value the OP seeks to get from this.

If it’s learning how to use the avionics, far cheaper (and somewhat safer) to do this on a sim at home.

If it’s leaning basic IF skills then flying an ILS is last thing you want to do - get an IR or IRR instructor for a few hours.

but can you get a VFR clearance, and still fly the approach as if it were IMC (assuming ATC cooperation)?


You can’t be VFR and IMC
Edward Hawkins liked this
#1845960
I am not following this "unsafe" bit entirely.

So you set up on a nice long final (with the agreement of ATC), fly down the glideslope, and while monitoring the airspeed take an interest in what the crosshairs are doing.

You dont fly the crosshairs, you fly a visual approach looking out the screen. You arent tempted to fly the crosshairs and at 500 feet you ignore them.

Which bit is unsafe?

(OK I appreciate all the temptation to have a go not looking out, but dont, and after all you had some basic instrument training during your PPL so you have the basics.)