IFR approaches in VFR flight

[StraightnLevel]

Question:

When flying VFR to an untowered field (i.e., no involvement from tower or ATC), is there any legal or procedural reason not to use an IFR (RNAV) approach as opposed to the standard pattern?

 

[AvNavCom]

Legal reason? No. It wouldn't adhere to recommended VFR traffic pattern entries, but those are optional. Considerations would be the possibility of screwing up aircraft actually flying that approach on an IFR plan (if you're not monitoring ATC on the same frequency), as well as screwing up everyone else who may be flying a standard pattern. That wouldn't be any worse than the usual straight-in approach guys, so I don't see any particular issue with it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Agree with @AvNavCom. But I'm curious about the reason for the question. A straight in instrument approach is just a procedure that gives you guidance for a straight in approach and landing. It's something many pilots use especially when going into an unfamiliar airport (before databases began adding "visual approaches" ) What would make it improper if you are going straight in?

 

[Matthew]

We have a nearby untowered field with an ILS that gets a lot of use by people on practice approaches trying to maintain instrument currency. The only complaint most people have is with position reports. VFR pilots don’t necessarily know anything about the final approach fix.

 

[ateamer]

VFR pilots don’t necessarily know anything about the final approach fix.

This. The usual “Cessna 4AB inbound on the RNAV 5 at NOWARE” doesn’t help anyone who isn’t familiar with the particular approach and waypoints. Even an instrument-rated pilot won’t get much out of that unless he’s probably a local and has flown the approach a few times.

A better way is what I heard from a corporate pilot on an approach: “Smalltown Traffic, Bizjet 89Z, six mile final 5, three minutes out.” Even a solo student will get that and and can work with it.

 

[StraightnLevel]

This. The usual “Cessna 4AB inbound on the RNAV 5 at NOWARE” doesn’t help anyone who isn’t familiar with the particular approach and waypoints. Even an instrument-rated pilot won’t get much out of that unless he’s probably a local and has flown the approach a few times.

A better way is what I heard from a corporate pilot on an approach: “Smalltown Traffic, Bizjet 89Z, six mile final 5, three minutes out.” Even a solo student will get that and and can work with it.

Good thought - that makes sense.

 

[StraightnLevel]

We have a nearby untowered field with an ILS that gets a lot of use by people on practice approaches trying to maintain instrument currency.

Yup - that's the reason for my question. I'm working towards instrument rating and wondering about ways to practice and improve proficiency with the avionics and procedures while flying solo.

 

[eman1200]

I fly full approaches at night under VFR conditions under the Foggle with a safety pilot on a regular basis no issues at all. Never had a conflict with another plane that I can recall but if I did, I wouldn’t treat it any differently than entering the pattern normally. Just communicate and be respectful. That’s pretty much it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yup - that's the reason for my question. I'm working towards instrument rating and wondering about ways to practice and improve proficiency with the avionics and procedures while flying solo.

There are many places where, even with a CFI, practice approaches are done into nontowered airports without ATC.

But I am going to add that, aside from using approaches as an assist to a VFR approach, it is far better to "practice and improve proficiency with the avionics and procedures" with another pilot on board, even if not under the hood. Especially during the training for the rating phase, there can be a lot of head down time in learning that stuff.

 

[darthanubis]

Yup - that's the reason for my question. I'm working towards instrument rating and wondering about ways to practice and improve proficiency with the avionics and procedures while flying solo.

I use Xplane coupled to Foreflight to fly any approach in the country. Can’t log it of course, but I can fly practice approaches for my local procedures.

Hasn’t everyone here heard your CFII make the sane calls to CTAF while on approach? I trained at an untowered, one of the first things I asked about the jargon guys were using on approach and was told never to do that.

One of the sad things I’ve found about becoming a pilot, people still do whatever the hell they want risking everyone’s safety. There was one location in NC with a school shooting non stop approaches calling approach fixes over ctaf. They had double IIs onboard and no one thought to make sane calls, at night. They were even going missed directly over the field, against departing traffic! I was like wtf?! On occasion we shot approach to 16 while 34 was departing, my CFII talked with the other CFIs and we would break off our approach to a circle to land on 34. These guys were just going down to minimus then missed right over the field. I asked if they could let us out and they obliged. I’m new to the skies, but is this normal?

 

[Matthew]

Yup - that's the reason for my question. I'm working towards instrument rating and wondering about ways to practice and improve proficiency with the avionics and procedures while flying solo.

I’d probably recommend against doing that. For several reasons: one has already been mentioned, too much head down time, and the other is the tendency to self-teach bad habits.

I only found one way that helped me prep for IR training and that was to use flight following a lot. Use that to get used to talking and listening to ATC. You’ll also start noticing patterns that will help later.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hasn’t everyone here heard your CFII make the sane calls to CTAF while on approach?

Bad calls are not a monopoly belonging to any particular group.

 

[midlifeflyer]

the tendency to self-teach bad habits.

The cure for that is to treat these flights as the instrument version of student solo - to practice what has been taught.

 

[darthanubis]

Bad calls are not a monopoly belonging to any particular group.

I think there’s a miscommunication somewhere. I’m asking if you’ve heard the CFIIs make the proper/sane calls to CTAF, instead of instrument jargon.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think there’s a miscommunication somewhere. I’m asking if you’ve heard the CFIIs make the proper/sane calls to CTAF, instead of instrument jargon.

I don't know if there's a miscommunication. I've absolutely heard CFIIs make proper/sane calls instead of instrument jargon. I give distance straight in and correct the people I fly with when they don't.

And I've heard non-CFIIs make the bad calls which is what I've meant by the lack of a monopoly.

 

[darthanubis]

I don't know if there's a miscommunication. I've absolutely heard CFIIs make proper/sane calls instead of instrument jargon. I give distance straight in and correct the people I fly with when they don't.

And I've heard non-CFIIs make the bad calls which is what I've meant by the lack of a monopoly.

Oh, you quoted me, stating the obvious as though making a point. If there was a point, I thought I missed it. If I said something incorrect, I missed the correction, if you were just stating the obvious, ok.

Just wondering why, if we’re all taught to be safe and clear on the radio to avoid catastrophe, why some are so lax about it? I don’t think anyone’s concerned about who’s the bigger offender. I would hope current and former instructors would do the right thing. I think new instrument pilots might not have had it explained to them, if they didn’t have the good sense to determine the reasoning on their on.

 

[ateamer]

I don’t think my CFII ever touched the push-to-talk on any of our flights together.

 

[rhkennerly]

Question:

When flying VFR to an untowered field (i.e., no involvement from tower or ATC), is there any legal or procedural reason not to use an IFR (RNAV) approach as opposed to the standard pattern?

not unless you insist that you have ROW over VFR traffic by being on the IFR approach (but not on an IFR flight plan). I think the best of these practice approach calls don't stand out because you can't tell they're anything beyond a position report:
- "Piper 3XY 10 miles NW at 3,000 maneuvering to join the pattern." That pilot knows we don't know or care about his approach. Or, at worst,
- "Piper 3XY 10 NW shooting a practice ILS for 10. I'll break off 1 mile out and join the pattern." (that last is particularly helpful where the approach is opposite to the landing runway and you keep seeing that worrying landing light coming your way).

I think the kind informationless calls we are complaining about here are just guys a bit full of themselves.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Just wondering why, if we’re all taught to be safe and clear on the radio to avoid catastrophe, why some are so lax about it?

Because some people simply don’t think it’s important.

 

[AV8R_87]

One things that bothers me a bit is the guys calling "Podunk traffic, Slowtation 36X at FIXXR, RNAV GPS approach runway 36". The other six VFR planes in the pattern have no clue where FIXXR is. If there isn't a lot of radio traffic on the CTAF, I'll usually throw a "No idea where that is, what's your actual distance and bearing from the airport?" just to remind them that the world doesn't revolve around their approach plate.

 

[darthanubis]

Because some people simply don’t think it’s important.

Which part, the colliding midair, or being a responsible community member part?
Is this more stating the obvious or do you share that sentiment? I would find that shocking as from your posts you appear experienced and one of the posters I’ve learned from.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Which part, the colliding midair, or being a responsible community member part?
Is this more stating the obvious or do you share that sentiment? I would find that shocking as from your posts you appear experienced and one of the posters I’ve learned from.

I consider it stating the obvious, but it’s probably not as obvious if you’re not actively involved in training. I see a lot of pilots “go along to get along” to get through a training event who revert back to “whatever” as soon as they think they’re not being observed/evaluated.

 

[StraightnLevel]

The cure for that is to treat these flights as the instrument version of student solo - to practice what has been taught.

Right - that's the idea. I can't legally fly an actual IFR flight plan, but why not fly IFR procedures in VFR in prep for the instrument checkride?

 

[Hang 4]

Right - that's the idea. I can't legally fly an actual IFR flight plan, but why not fly IFR procedures in VFR in prep for the instrument checkride?

Because with out a safety pilot, you aren't really practicing IFR procedures (e.g. your scan). Having said that, I do practice coupled approaches in VFR without a safety pilot. Memorizing the buttonology to join and get the AP to follow an approach is a good thing to practice so it's second nature. Trying to follow needles and ensure separation in VFR, not going to be that helpful.

 

[darthanubis]

Right - that's the idea. I can't legally fly an actual IFR flight plan, but why not fly IFR procedures in VFR in prep for the instrument checkride?

Nobody knows what you’re doing or not doing in the plane if you don’t announce it, legal or otherwise. Plenty of those YouTube crash videos of non rated pilots accepting instruments to get down.

In the end or beginning, you’ll do whatever you please.

That said, I’m starting to never want to go anywhere without a tower.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Nobody knows what you’re doing or not doing in the plane if you don’t announce it, legal or otherwise.

Where did I say that I wouldn't be making appropriate calls on CTAF?

 

[darthanubis]

Where did I say that I wouldn't be making appropriate calls on CTAF?

Where did I say you weren’t?

 

[robin ardoin]

Question:

When flying VFR to an untowered field (i.e., no involvement from tower or ATC), is there any legal or procedural reason not to use an IFR (RNAV) approach as opposed to the standard pattern?

I do it often, as long I am not going to interfere with normal traffic flow. It is a good way to practice ‘buttonology’ to breed familiarity with your avionics. In fact, on my return from 3T0, I did a practice RNAV, full approach with procedure turn, when returning to KIYA. Our local Charlie approach is very accommodating with traffic callouts and offered to keep me on frequency even though I had the field in sight/close by. I told them of my intentions so they could predict my flight path and give appropriate advisories. They will give vectors for the same most any time asked. I find it valuable but will always break off an approach and feed into the pattern if appropriate.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

One of the sad things I’ve found about becoming a pilot, people still do whatever the hell they want risking everyone’s safety. There was one location in NC with a school shooting

For a second there I didn't realize you were talking about a flight school and instrument flying.

non stop approaches calling approach fixes over ctaf. They had double IIs onboard and no one thought to make sane calls, at night. They were even going missed directly over the field, against departing traffic! I was like wtf?! On occasion we shot approach to 16 while 34 was departing, my CFII talked with the other CFIs and we would break off our approach to a circle to land on 34. These guys were just going down to minimus then missed right over the field. I asked if they could let us out and they obliged. I’m new to the skies, but is this normal?

Not for most of us, but for the "puppy mill" schools, yes. They're just doing their thing on the way to the airlines and aren't known for their courtesy to other GA pilots. In addition, their instructors are generally their students as well, so they're learning from very inexperienced people.

 

[M20K]

I'm working towards instrument rating and wondering about ways to practice and improve proficiency with the avionics and procedures while flying solo.

That's going to be hard and basically unsafe when going into a Non Towered field. You never know when there's a non electrical plane in the pattern with no ADS-B Out and no radio calls. So if you have your head buried inside the plane, it's an accident waiting to happen. (And I know you know you can't log the Approach if you're not under the Hood.)

Best thing would be to get friendly with some of the others at your flight school or that your CFII is training. Then you can swap with them being the Safety PIC while the other one is under the hood. I flew with a guy after my training when we were both still renting. I'd fly one way and we'd have lunch, then he'd fly back and we split the rental fee. Worked great.

 

[StraightnLevel]

That's going to be hard and basically unsafe when going into a Non Towered field. You never know when there's a non electrical plane in the pattern with no ADS-B Out and no radio calls. So if you have your head buried inside the plane, it's an accident waiting to happen. (And I know you know you can't log the Approach if you're not under the Hood.)

I'm not talking about logging an approach, and I don't think I have said that anywhere in this thread.

 

[M20K]

I'm not talking about logging an approach, and I don't think I have said that anywhere in this thread.

Out of what I said you take the little bit in the parentheses where I said that I figured you already knew...

But flying into a Non Towered Airport with your head buried inside the plane, aka flying an Approach, is not an issue. That gave me a good chuckle.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Out of what I said you take the little bit in the parentheses where I said that I figured you already knew...

But flying into a Non Towered Airport with your head buried inside the plane, aka flying an Approach, is not an issue. That gave me a good chuckle.

Don’t get so ruffled. When he commented on the logging part, I figured it was because it was the only new thing mentioned.

 

[StraightnLevel]

I do it often, as long I am not going to interfere with normal traffic flow. It is a good way to practice ‘buttonology’ to breed familiarity with your avionics. In fact, on my return from 3T0, I did a practice RNAV, full approach with procedure turn, when returning to KIYA. Our local Charlie approach is very accommodating with traffic callouts and offered to keep me on frequency even though I had the field in sight/close by. I told them of my intentions so they could predict my flight path and give appropriate advisories. They will give vectors for the same most any time asked. I find it valuable but will always break off an approach and feed into the pattern if appropriate.

So, that sounds a lot like flying VFR under flight following, and just requesting a standard RNAV approach. Do I have that right?

 

[robin ardoin]

So, that sounds a lot like flying VFR under flight following, and just requesting a standard RMAV approach. Do I have that right?

Yes, FF as well as visual approaches at the end of an IFR flight. Typically goes like this- "LFT approach, 0SD has airport in sight but will fly the RNAV for RW34 for practice, full approach at GASVE with proc. turn" "Roger 0SD, No aircraft observed between you and Abbeville airport....thanks for letting us know your plan, do you want to stay on frequency for now?" "No, I'll change to the common, 0SD" "0SD, maintain VFR, squawk 1200, Freq. change approved, see ya". I'll ask for vectors if the Charlie is busy and the approach I want to practice at my home field crosses the approach/departure in use at the Charlie. They are very accommodating at all fields on the northern gulf coast except Houston approach at busy times.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Yes, FF as well as visual approaches at the end of an IFR flight. Typically goes like this- "LFT approach, 0SD has airport in sight but will fly the RNAV for RW34 for practice, full approach at GASVE with proc. turn" "Roger 0SD, No aircraft observed between you and Abbeville airport....thanks for letting us know your plan, do you want to stay on frequency for now?" "No, I'll change to the common, 0SD" "0SD, maintain VFR, squawk 1200, Freq. change approved, see ya". I'll ask for vectors if the Charlie is busy and the approach I want to practice at my home field crosses the approach/departure in use at the Charlie. They are very accommodating at all fields on the northern gulf coast except Houston approach at busy times.

Yes, I've had several times where Houston declined FF due to workload. Some days you can hear the tension in their voice before asking.....

 

[midlifeflyer]

So, that sounds a lot like flying VFR under flight following, and just requesting a standard RMAV approach. Do I have that right?

Yep. That's all there is. I don't know if you have done it with your instructor, but it's exactly the same. Just tell ATC what you want.

Two sample examples:
Approach, N1234X would like the VFR practice ILS 35 into KABC with vectors to final.
Approach, N1234X would like VFR the practice RNAV 17 into KABC from [FIXNAM]. [If applicable] With the course reversal at [FXNAM].

I've never actually said "VFR." They know you are VFR but if you are playing on your own as an instrument student, it's not bad idea to mention it. Kind of on the same level a "student pilot." Unnecessary but can be helpful.

Then it's just a matter of following instructions. At some point, your instructors for the approach will take one of two forms:
1. ".... Cleared for the approach. "That doesn't mean you are under IFR. It just means that ATC is providing separation services.
2. ".... Practice approach approved. "No separation services provided.

The difference between the two tends to be destination, facility and sometimes controller preference.

It's not even preparation for brain surgery . But it is really so much easier if you do it with your instructor first, tell them you want to practice with a safety pilot, and pay attention to what they do and say.

 

[chaser]

I have used terps to guide my descent,once near pattern altitude.RNAV approach plates are most helpful,esp.LPV. It is especially important when descending on that long final.It is all about CFIT & how to avoid it.

 

[eman1200]

Yep. That's all there is. I don't know if you have done it with your instructor, but it's exactly the same. Just tell ATC what you want.

Two sample examples:
Approach, N1234X would like the VFR practice ILS 35 into KABC with vectors to final.
Approach, N1234X would like VFR the practice RNAV 17 into KABC from [FIXNAM]. [If applicable] With the course reversal at [FXNAM]......

for what it's worth, which isn't much, I will add "terminating in a full stop", because they ALWAYS ask how the approach will end. they seem to appreciate not having to ask, so I go with that.

 

[luvflyin]

Yep. That's all there is. I don't know if you have done it with your instructor, but it's exactly the same. Just tell ATC what you want.

Two sample examples:
Approach, N1234X would like the VFR practice ILS 35 into KABC with vectors to final.
Approach, N1234X would like VFR the practice RNAV 17 into KABC from [FIXNAM]. [If applicable] With the course reversal at [FXNAM].

I've never actually said "VFR." They know you are VFR but if you are playing on your own as an instrument student, it's not bad idea to mention it. Kind of on the same level a "student pilot." Unnecessary but can be helpful.

Then it's just a matter of following instructions. At some point, your instructors for the approach will take one of two forms:
1. ".... Cleared for the approach. "That doesn't mean you are under IFR. It just means that ATC is providing separation services.
2. ".... Practice approach approved. "No separation services provided.

The difference between the two tends to be destination, facility and sometimes controller preference.

It's not even preparation for brain surgery . But it is really so much easier if you do it with your instructor first, tell them you want to practice with a safety pilot, and pay attention to what they do and say.

@StraightnLevel ,to find out if you’ll get 1. or 2., find out if there is a Letter to Airmen. When separation services will be provided, an LTA will be issued. Here is an example. I’ll be back later with how to find them.