GrahamB wrote:flyer5 wrote: the law is strangely silent on making up your own approaches, so making one up that closely follows a surveyed and properly designed track and profile is probably safer than one to your home strip in the back of beyond.
To keep up currency this time of the year I do night circuits. Although obviously I can see where I am all the time, I do like to use SkyDemon. Just for fun.
It does however raise the question of what is wrong with this model of IFR?: Fly on GPS to the overhead at a safe level. Then descend to join 'the circuit' as if in VFR. Then fly the circuit on GPS, descending down to what you judge to be a safe level. I would have thought, for most airfields/strips in England, you could make a case for anything from 400' down to 250'.
I started making instrument approaches over half a century ago, and you took comfort from some clever people working out all the angles to keep you safe. However billions upon billions have been spent since then on providing a truly miraculous alternative - GPS. Beyond that, your £150 tablet picks up multiple GNSS constellations and knows where it is in the twinkling of an eye. (Don't you remember receivers from 25 years ago that would often take minutes to make their first fix?).
Of course this reticence to accept that high street GPS is much safer than most ridiculously expensive approved GA kit is not the only problem. We also have the huge barrier that you can't fly IMC unless you have an IR or an IMC Rating (or whatever it's now called).
You might then say "What's the point in having a technical solution to flying IMC to your local field if ATC can't ensure separation in the local zone ie there isn't ATC?". Again we have simple, cheap solutions to providing basic surveillance and your local field normally isn't like Heathrow. And - really - do you need highly qualified personnel to keep 2-3 planes apart? I'm always impressed how ordinary folk man the R/T and telephones, and Reception.
Ah, well. One day.