On many flights, VFR pilots share air space with IFR aircraft and must communicate effectively with IFR pilots. Unfortunately, VFR pilots are often unfamiliar with the nature of IFR operations which may create special hazards for them. Additionally, far too many IFR pilots forget that the VFR pilot may not have the foggiest notion of the meaning of many of the terms they like to throw around. Consequently, VFR pilots need at least a basic understanding of IFR operation and IFR terminology. Scouring the flight training literature, I could find no publications available intended to provide the VFR pilot this background. The only information of this sort available was aimed at training the IFR pilot. It should not be necessary for VFR pilots to complete IFR training just to learn what they need to know about IFR operations. This document is intended to provide a concise source of information for the VFR pilot who does not necessarily desire to become an IFR pilot or an expert about IFR flight but who wishes to understand enough about IFR operations to fly safely and communicate effectively with IFR pilots.

The reasons that VFR pilots need to know about IFR operations and communications are not complex, but they are compelling. Pilots flying VFR share airspace with pilots flying IFR. The VFR pilot who understands the basics of IFR operations can better anticipate the actions of IFR pilots and can communicate more effectively with them. This understanding leads to safer operations for both IFR and VFR pilots; and like every thing else about flying, it is just more pleasant when you understand what is going on.

Understanding, IFR operations in the vicinity of un-towered fields or towered class D fields is particularly important. While there are some differences in class B or C airspace for aircraft flying under VFR and IFR, these differences are pretty much transparent to the VFR pilot. In the vicinity of un-towered fields and towered class D (or E and G) fields, the nature of the paths flown and the terminology used in communications may differ greatly and the possibility for conflict, misunderstandings, and even accidents increases dramatically.

There are two situations where it is particularly important that VFR pilots understand what it is that IFR pilots are doing. The first situation is when IFR pilots are practicing instrument approaches in good VMC. Normally, they will be under VFR but they will be following the paths of an IFR aircraft flying an approach under IMC. The second situation is where the weather conditions are such that IFR aircraft arrive at the airport on an IFR approach but the weather is good enough for VFR flight in the vicinity of the airport. We will first examine the nature of instrument approaches and what pilots do when flying an approach. We will then explore some of the consequences for VFR pilots and how to minimize potential conflicts and risks.

Aircraft approaching an airport for landing in IMC follow defined paths to avoid colliding with obstructions or other IFR aircraft. These paths are called instrument approaches. In addition to defining the route an aircraft must fly when coming to the airport, an instrument approach describes the altitude required along this path. There are many different types of approaches using a variety of navaids for guidance, including VOR’s, NDB’s, ILS, LOC, RNAV, DME, GPS and radar. Some are quite complex and some are simple. While the proficient IFR pilot needs to understand all of the various approaches and their subtleties, the VFR pilot need only understand them in general terms. The approaches are defined in publications called U.S. Terminal Procedures, sometimes referred to as TERP’s, but most commonly they are referred to as approach charts or approach plates by pilots.

Figure 1 is the approach plate for a relatively simple approach at my home airport at Manhattan, KS (MHK). This approach, the VOR RWY 3 (VOR Runway 3) approach, is typical of a simple approach to many airports. There is a lot of information crammed onto the approach plate, much of it of little interest to the VFR pilot. There is a plan view of the approach that fills the top half of the plate and a profile view just below it to the left. The plan view shows the route the aircraft follows for the approach and the profile view shows the required altitudes along the route.

The dark lines in the plan view define the route. Let’s step through the approach as it would be executed by an incoming IFR aircraft. A simplified version of the plan view and the route of an aircraft flying the approach is shown in Figure 1b. The navaid used to define the flight paths for this approach is the MHK VOR, which is on the field. The VOR is also the initial approach fix (IAF) for this approach. The IFR pilot starts the approach by flying to the IAF. The pilot then executes the approach by flying outward on the 207 ^o radial for some distance. The pilot then turns approximately 45^o to the left. We know the turn is to the left because of the dark half-arrow that points to the left. The pilot flies on this heading for a distance adequate to make room for a turn back to the same radial. The pilot then turns back to the right to intercept the radial inbound. This process of turning around is called a procedure turn. If the arrow is to the left, it is called a left procedure turn. If the arrow is to the right, the initial turn is to the right and it is call a right procedure turn. Not every approach contains a procedure turn, but many do.

After completing the procedure turn, the pilot then flies inbound on the 207 ^o radial until the airport/runway can be seen and a normal landing executed or until the missed approach point (MAP) is reached. In this case, the missed approach point is when the VOR is crossed. If a landing can not be initiated prior to the MAP the pilot must execute a missed approach and fly away from the airport. The MAP is shown in the profile view where the solid line becomes dashed. An IFR pilot may execute a missed approach at any time prior to this point if necessary, for example if the aircraft gets off course, but must execute it at the MAP if the landing has not been initiated.

The text in the profile view provides instructions for the pilot in the case of a missed approach. This text is referred to as the published missed. However, ATC often provides completely different instructions for a missed approach to accommodate traffic and other factors.

The primary purpose of the profile view is to show altitude requirements along the approach. The top dark line is for the outbound portion of the approach and the bottom dark line is for the inbound portion. The altitude figures are underlined if they are minimums, over-lined if they are maximums (rare). The first altitude figure encountered in the profile view in Figure 1 is 2900 which indicates the pilot must maintain an altitude of at least 2900 msl until reaching that point, completion of the procedure turn in this case. Once the pilot is established inbound on the 207 ^o radial, it is safe to descend to the next specified altitude of 1860 msl. The pilot can fly at or above this altitude until reaching the next approach fix which is 3 nm DME from the MHK VOR. At this point the final approach segment begins. The minimum altitude for the final approach segment is given in the tables below the profile view. The minimums are different for different aircraft and different situations. The msl altitude for each situation is listed in large print. The VFR pilot need only be concerned with the lowest specified altitude, 1640’ msl for this approach. That is the lowest altitude to which any aircraft may descend on an approach unless they have the runway in sight and can proceed with a normal landing. There are distances listed in small print at the bottom of the profile view. These numbers state the distance to each approach fix from a specified reference point, the VOR in this case.

No attempt will be made to present a comprehensive description of all possible instrument approaches. As indicated previously, this document is intended to address important information for the VFR pilot, and is not a training manual for IFR pilots. However, there are several features not represented in the MHK VOR 3 approach which are of interest to the VFR pilot. The approaches that I will use to describe these features are ones at airports with which I am familiar, but they are typical of approaches throughout the country.

The MHK ILS RWY 3 approach in Figure 2 appears a lot more complex than the VOR 3 approach. However, the basic principles are the same and the important features are readily understood if viewed one at a time. It has at least three features not seen in the VOR 3 approach. The curved segment in the plan view is referred to as a DME arc. A DME arc is a constant radius arc about a navaid with DME capability, the MHK VOR in this case. A pilot may initiate the approach by intercepting the arc and then following it to the inbound portion of the approach. Note the IAF at the top end of the arc. A pilot may also initiate the approach by flying to RAMZE intersection. Depending upon how the pilot gets to that point, he or she may turn inbound on the approach or may turn outbound. If the pilot turns outbound, then the procedure to get back on course inbound is pretty much the same as for the VOR 3 approach. The pilot will fly outbound for some distance, then turn around and intercept the inbound course. The "race track" symbol on this approach is a holding pattern. Its function is essentially the same as the procedure turn in the VOR 3 approach. In fact some IFR pilots will forget and say they are on a procedure turn when they are in fact executing a holding pattern. From a VFR pilot’s perspective, the only really important difference is that an aircraft may make multiple circuits around a holding pattern while a procedure turn is always used to turn around and then immediately proceed on the inbound course. Another important feature of this, and all instrument landing system (ILS) approaches, is that it provides continuous vertical guidance to the inbound aircraft on the final approach segment as well as horizontal guidance. The long, down-sloping, cross-hatched arrow in the profile view indicates the portion of the approach for which glide slope guidance is provided. Once established on this glide slope, instruments provide continuous vertical guidance all of the way down to the minimum altitude. Pilots flying this approach correctly will make a smooth descent on this part of the approach rather that the stepwise descent required in other approaches.

The tables below the profile view in Figure 2 refer not only to the ILS 3 approach but also the LOC 3 approach. The localizer (LOC) is the portion of the navigation system that provides the horizontal guidance on an ILS approach. If the glide slope equipment is inoperative, the aircraft does not have a glide slope receiver, or the pilot just does not want to use the glide slope information, then the approach becomes a localizer approach and the vertical aspects of the flight path are determined in the same manner as was described for the VOR 3 approach.

Figure 3 shows the SLN (Salina, KS) VOR RWY 17 approach. This approach has several of the features already discussed. It is included here to point out one particular feature, however. The primary navaid for this approach, the SLN VOR, is some distance from the field. This is a feature common to many approaches and in some cases the distance may be a good deal further than in this example. There are a couple of important consequences of this location. First, the accuracy of the horizontal guidance decreases with distance from the navaid. Thus, aircraft flying such an approach are likely to be less accurately positioned upon arrival to the airport than when the navaid is located on or very near the field. The second consequence is a little more subtle but is obvious as soon as you think about it. On the last portion of the approach, the DME distances increase as the aircraft gets closer to the field. It can be confusing, for IFR pilots as well as VFR pilots.

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the EMP (Emporia, KS) VOR RNAV RWY 19 approach and the EMP GPS RWY 19 approach, respectively. From a technical point-of-view, the RNAV and GPS approaches are very different from the other approaches discussed here. The fixes that define these approaches are not directly related to a specific land based naviad, and in the case of GPS approaches, there is no connection to a land base naviad at all. From the VFR pilot’s perspective they are not all that different. The lack of a direct reference to land base navaid can make it more difficult to determine the exact path which the approach follows. However, path directions with respect to the airport are generally sufficiently well defined that the path can be understood well enough for the VFR pilot’s information needs.

In the descriptions of the approaches in the preceding section, there is no discussion of how IFR aircraft actually get to the initial approach fixes (IAF). In this section we will examine the various methods and routes used by IFR aircraft to get to an IAF or other portion of the approach.

In general, an IFR aircraft can, at least in theory, travel directly from just about anywhere to an IAF as long as it has the appropriate navigation equipment to fly that route. The distance of this direct flight may only be 10-15 nm for a pilot flying to a low power NDB using an ADF for guidance, or it could be hundreds of miles for an aircraft with appropriate GPS navigation equipment. The minimum altitude along this route will of course depend upon the terrain and other considerations. However, near the approach it will normally be at least as high as the minimum altitude for the initial approach segment associated with that IAF.

For many approaches there are specified routes from certain points called transitions. Examples may be found in the bottom left corner of the plan view of the MHK ILS 3 approach in Figure 2. The dark arrows from the SLN VOR and from the KAKEL intersection are such transitions. The route and minimum msl altitude is specified for each transition. For example, the SLN VOR transition must be flown at an altitude of at least 3800 msl on the 084^o radial of the SLN VOR. The KAKEL transition also must be flown at 3800 msl and on a heading of 309 ^o until intercepting the localizer and is then flown inbound on the localizer course of 034 ^o.

The EMP GPS 19 approach in Figure 5 also includes two transitions, one in the upper left corner and the other on the right side. Note that these arrows are light rather than dark, but otherwise the information is pretty much the same as seen in the example above. The difference between a light and dark arrow is sometimes of importance to an IFR pilot as the start of a transition defined by a dark arrow is considered an IAF whereas that is not the case for a transition defined by a light arrow. This difference is of little concern for the VFR pilot.

In many situations the IFR aircraft is under radar surveillance and ATC directs it to a point where the pilot can fly directly to the IAF or beyond. Often this direction by ATC takes the IFR aircraft all of the way to the inbound portion of the approach allowing the aircraft to bypass the IAF and the initial portions of the approach. This direction by ATC is referred to as vectors or vectoring. The minimum altitude of aircraft on ATC vectors is governed by complex rules. However, it will generally be at least as high as the segment of the approach to which vectors are provided.

Except with the most advanced aircraft and instrument approach facilities, an instrument approach does not provide guidance all of the way to ground level. At some point the IFR pilot must fly the aircraft using visual guidance. These approach completions can be divided into two categories, "straight in" and "circle-to-land."

Approaches with a runway number in the name are aligned with that runway and are designed to allow a straight in landing to that runway. The approaches illustrated in Figures 1-5 are all examples of such approaches. The final segment of the approach does not need to be perfectly aligned with the runway to allow a straight in approach. For example the SLN VOR 17 approach in Figure 3 arrives at the end of the runway at about a 15 ^o angle to the runway. In rare cases, the angle can be up to 30 ^o. Runway alignment is not the only consideration. The length and width of the runway, and the altitude for the final approach segment all are factors in determining whether or not an approach may be designated for straight in landing.

Approaches that are not designed for straight in landings are designated by a letter rather than a runway number. The MHK NDB A approach shown in Figure 6 is such an approach. While this approach is reasonably well aligned with runway 31, other factors preclude it being designated a straight in approach. Such an approach requires a circle-to-land maneuver. From a VFR pilot’s perspective, the circle-to-land maneuver may be described as any path which allows the IFR aircraft to land on any runway. There may be restrictions for a given approach. The important consideration, however, is that the IFR aircraft does not necessarily follow the normal traffic pattern during a circle to land although they are supposed to, to the extent possible. One requirement for the circle-to-land is for the pilot to keep the airport in sight at all times. This requirement, in itself, may preclude a normal pattern during low visibility and/or low ceilings.

Most straight in approaches also provide a circle-to-land option, but with somewhat higher minimum visibility and ceiling requirements. Prevailing winds, for example, may require landing on a runway other than the straight in runway and require the pilot to use the circle-to-land option.

Similarly, a designated circling approach such as NDB A in Figure 6 does not necessarily preclude a straight in landing. If the aircraft is below the ceiling and the visibility is good early enough in the approach, the pilot may still opt for a straight in landing.

The exact nature of the completion of an approach depends a lot on the prevailing weather. With a ceiling of a couple hundred feet, the only approach feasible is an ILS or other precision approach and the straight in landing is the only possibility. Such situations are of little concern to the VFR pilot for rather obvious reasons. The other extreme is a ceiling of a thousand feet or more with good visibility. IFR aircraft will still have to fly an instrument approach to descend through the clouds. Because of the high ceiling, they are likely to descend into good VMC early in the inbound portion of the approach and well before reaching the airport. Once in good VMC and in a position to fly to the airport and land visually, the IFR pilot is expected to follow pretty much the same procedures as VFR aircraft arriving at the airport. There are obviously a lot of possibilities between these two extremes.

Various approach fixes are used to define the different segments of an approach. These fixes may be defined in a number of ways including, navaids, DME distances from navaids, airway intersections, and intersection of radials from navaids. Except for the fixes defined solely by DME distances, the fixes have names. Consider the ILS 3 approach in Figure 2. The following fixes are used to define the inbound segments of the approach: RAMZE intersection, CVY NDB, and HATAN outer marker. Both IFR pilots and ATC often refer to these names to identify or specify locations. While some of these fixes, such as the CVY NDB in the example above, will appear on sectional charts used by VFR pilots, most will not. They only appear on approach plates.

There is a diagram of the airport in the lower right-hand corner of each approach plate. In each of these diagrams there will be a light colored arrow which shows where an aircraft will arrive at the airport if the approach is flown precisely. In Figure 1, this arrow is at the lower left-hand corner of the airport diagram. In Figure 6, it comes in from the center right side of the airport diagram. Of course, not every approach is flown perfectly. Depending on the nature of the approach and the skill of the pilot, the actual arrival location can deviate considerably from what is shown. A pilot doing a sloppy job of flying an approach with a navaid based some distance from the airport may easily be one half mile or more from the indicated location. This same level of inaccuracy can apply to any segment of the approach. The paths shown on approach plates should be considered by VFR pilots as the centerline of a corridor through which aircraft flying the approach will pass. Near a navaid, the corridor will be narrow but away from the navaid it can easily be more than a mile wide.

While flying to an approach, the IFR pilot will normally be communicating with Center or Approach. At some point during an approach to a non-towered airport, the IFR pilot switches over to communicate on the CTAF. Likewise, the communication will switch to Tower at some point during the approach at towered airports.

The approach plates presented here are copies of those printed by the National Ocean Service (NOS). Approach plates are available from several sources. In addition to the NOS plates, the most common are those printed by Jeppsen. The format of the Jeppsen plates is a bit different, but the information contained is essentially the same. Since the VFR pilot can easily obtain NOS approach plates and they contain all the information needed, other approach plates will not be discussed. Also the NOS plates are government publications and may be freely reproduced whereas the plates from private sources are usually copyrighted.

Flying an instrument approach in IMC is not easy, the margin for error can be small, and the consequences of errors can be fatal. Consequently, IFR pilots often fly practice approaches to maintain and develop their IFR flying skills. These practice approaches are flown in VMC and a view limiting device is used to prevent the pilot from obtaining outside references. A safety pilot that looks out for traffic must always accompany a pilot using a view limiting device.

As far as the paths and procedures are concerned, a practice approach is pretty much the same as flying the approach in IMC. The primary difference is that a pilot often flies multiple practice approaches. Typically, the pilot flies the practice approach to the MAP, executes a missed approach, and then heads to the IAF for the next approach. However, the approach may be flown straight in to a landing or it may be completed by a circle-to-land. A missed approach may also be executed prior to the MAP.

At a towered airport, the air traffic controller may limit the options of the pilots practicing approaches and will attempt to ensure that the approach causes minimal interference with other traffic. For example, a pilot flying a straight in practice approach may be required to complete the approach with a circle-to-land that coincides with the traffic pattern being flown by other aircraft. At non-towered airports, good pilot etiquette calls for the same consideration, but there is no guarantee it will occur.

Even in good VMC, IFR pilots often fly under instrument flight rules for a variety of reasons. The same is true for practice approaches. In the case of a practice approach flown under IFR, the pilot generally will be communicating with Center or Approach during the outer portions of the approach and switch to the Tower frequency or CTAF on the final portion of the approach, just as if the approach were being flown in IMC. However, it is not necessary for practice approaches to be flown under IFR and, in fact, most are flown under VFR. In this case, the communication frequencies will be the same as for any other VFR aircraft.

We will first look at the more common situation where IFR and VFR pilots mix it up, that situation being when IFR pilots are conducting practice approaches. I would like to start this section with an experience of my own. It was my first solo cross-country flight. As I neared my destination of Emporia, KS (EMP), a non-towered airport not too far from my home base of Manhattan, KS (MHK), the CTAF was quiet and my carefully rehearsed radio transmissions went something like this:

There was only one response that went something like this:

Actually, I am not sure exactly what was said by the Bonanza as about the only thing I comprehended was 10 to the northeast………outbound. The rest was just a bunch of gobledegook as far as I was concerned. However, I do remember him saying something about a turn and that it seemed like he said a whole lot. Ten miles to the northeast and outbound sounded to me like an aircraft that should be of no concern. However, not being quite sure what all of the rest of his "babbling" meant made me a little uneasy. It was a good thing the airwaves were not busy. I gave position reports at every step along the way from there on in, partly due to this uneasiness and mainly due to the fact it was my first solo cross-country. Even if I was not quite sure what the Bonanza was doing, I was going to make darn sure he knew where I was.

There was no further communication from the Bonanza and by the time I got to final I was pretty confident that it had continued to the northeast and was long gone. Being my first solo landing at an airport other than my home field, my heart rate was running about 200 beats per minute as I came down on short final. But it went a whole lot higher, or maybe quit all together, when I spotted the Bonanza for the first time--on short final at the opposite end of the runway. Just as I started to initiate a go-around, the Bonanza made a hard break to the right and called: Bonanza 345, missed approach.

Even with this distraction I managed to make an acceptable landing but was quite concerned that I had somehow messed up big time. Two aircraft on short final from opposite directions to the same piece of asphalt definitely did not seem like normal procedures. Plus, causing a missed approach sounded really serious. Being the novice, surely I was the one who had made the serious error. I waited anxiously for the Bonanza pilot to come back on the air asking me what in the heck I was doing. But the call never came. As I taxied to the FBO, I dreaded what anyone who had witnessed this event was going to say, but there was no comment. Perhaps it was not quite as big a deal as I had first thought. However, I could not get this "incident" out of my mind during the flight home. I sort of casually mentioned something about it to my instructor during the debriefing that followed the flight and was relieved when he just said something like, "oh it was probably just someone doing a practice approach."

But it still bothered me then, and bothers me to this day, that VFR pilots are not likely to understand what IFR pilots are talking about during operations in the vicinity of an airport. The IFR pilots could eliminate this problem by explaining their intentions in terms that make sense to VFR pilots. However, we are not likely to change all of the IFR pilots in the world. Thus, the skilled VFR pilot needs to have some minimal understanding of IFR operations and use that knowledge effectively when communicating with IFR pilots.

While the following rule applies to all radio communication, it is especially important for VFR pilots that are mixing it up with IFR pilots. If you do not understand the intentions of the other pilots, ask them to clarify. Sometimes our egos get in the way of admitting that we do not understand all of the fancy terminology. Or we take what we understand and guess the rest, just like I did in the example above. Just remember, that the IFR pilot using terminology not readily understood by other pilots is just as poor a communicator as the VFR pilot who does not understand it. In my experience described above, had I simply replied with "Bonanza 345, Cessna 096 does not understand your intentions," most likely I would have gotten enough information to know where the Bonanza pilot was headed even though I new very little about instrument approaches. This simple statement alerts the IFR pilot to the fact that you do not understand his/her intentions and that he/she should clarify this transmission and make future transmissions in terms that a VFR pilot can understand. Most times it will have the desired effect.

In theory, pilots conducting practice approaches should present no special safety hazards to VFR aircraft since they too are expected to see and avoid other aircraft. The primary concern comes from confusion about communications and the non-standard flight path of the aircraft making the practice approach.

One of the biggest points of confusion is the use of approach fixes to define an aircraft’s location on an approach. Since most of these fixes do not appear on VFR charts, the VFR pilot is not likely to know where they are located. For example, Tower will usually ask aircraft on the MHK ILS approach in Figure 2 to "report HATAN inbound" where HATAN is the final approach fix. This works fine when the tower is operating and an air traffic controller keeps everything sorted out. But many IFR pilots will make the same report on the CTAF when the tower is closed. Since HATAN does not appear on any VFR chart, this position report is of little use to the VFR pilot who has not made the extra effort to learn something about the instrument approaches to the airport. I have to confess that the first time I heard a pilot report HATAN inbound, I thought ‘hatan was his abbreviated slang for Manhattan and that he was over the city, which is the opposite direction from the airport.

The second major point of confusion is the non-standard approaches to the airport made by pilots conducting practice approaches. The approach path may be very different than the standard pattern entry and may be opposite to normal traffic flow. While IFR pilots may feel that they have been very explicit in stating which instrument approach they are flying, this information is of little value to the VFR pilot that has not become familiar with the instrument approaches around the airport.

The solution is simple for the VFR pilot. Get some instrument approach plates and become familiar with the various approaches and approach fixes around your airport. However, this solution is not always practical, especially when you are going to an unfamiliar airport. When an unknown position report or approach path is given, the VFR pilot simply needs to be assertive and ask for clarification.

While aircraft on practice approaches in good VMC do represent a hazard and certainly can cause confusion for the VFR pilot, the more serious situation occurs in conditions where IFR aircraft are flying an actual instrument approach in IMC. Pilots flying VFR need to understand that what they may consider good VFR may still require an IFR pilot to fly an instrument approach. An IFR pilot must be able to fly from the minimum allowed enroute altitude all the way to landing in VFR or must fly an instrument approach. The ceilings required to eliminate the need for flying an instrument approach are typically 2000’ agl or more, much more in some mountainous terrain.

Flying an IFR approach in IMC requires intense concentration. It is especially demanding with single pilot operation. Tolerances both in the horizontal and vertical direction are small. Flying, maneuvering, and descending near ground level while unable to see anything outside the aircraft demands 100% concentration on the instruments to fly the approach correctly. When the pilot breaks out of the clouds, it takes some time to refocus attention outside the aircraft. This transition is one of the most difficult tasks in flying an instrument approach. Even with a skilled pilot, there is going to be a transition period when the aircraft may be in visual conditions but the pilot is not yet able to scan for other aircraft. This transition period of course normally occurs when the aircraft is descending and, in the case of a non-precision approach (one without guide slope guidance), the descent rate may be high. A common method to fly a non-precision approach is to descend as rapidly as practical to the minimum altitude for each segment and then fly level until the next segment of the approach is reached where the minimum altitude again drops. That is, the approach is flown as a series of step-downs with the descents made at high rates. Consequently, an IFR aircraft may break out of the clouds descending at a high rate with the pilot’s attention focused inside the aircraft.

Flight just below cloud bottoms is not wise in general and there is good reason for the required minimum distances below clouds for VFR flight. It is particularly dangerous in the vicinity of instrument approaches. To avoid IFR aircraft descending out of the clouds, the VFR pilot needs to stay clear of instrument approach paths. When it is not possible to stay clear of the approach paths, the VFR pilot needs to stay below the minimum altitudes for that segment of the approach or stay well below the cloud bottoms and maintain a high level of vigilance in the direction from which IFR aircraft may be descending. All of these measures require some knowledge of the instrument approaches.

These measures are particularly important at non-towered airports. At towered airports, the controllers generally will be aware of the incoming IFR aircraft and will alert you to their presence if you are communicating with the tower, but there is no guarantee. Monitoring the CTAF at a non-towered airport may not give you any warning as the IFR aircraft may fly much of the approach while communicating with Center or Approach. Of course there is no guarantee that the IFR pilot will effectively communicate position and intentions even after switching to the CTAF. Ultimately, the responsibility for separation from VFR aircraft rests on the pilots.

The VFR pilot must also realize that the approaches may extend well beyond the Tower’s control area, particularly at class D airports. Many approaches are also below the altitudes necessary for radar coverage. In this case (on an approach, outside class D, and below radar) the IFR pilot is flying blind and has no way of knowing if you are lurking just below the clouds in front of him or her. It is definitely not a good place to be.

Air traffic control "guarantees" separation between IFR aircraft and uses procedures that ensure there are no other IFR aircraft in the path of an IFR aircraft. However, ATC is not required to provide IFR aircraft separation from VFR aircraft although they generally will if possible. For aircraft below radar coverage, it obviously is not possible.

In areas where two or more airports are close to each other, the VFR pilot needs to be concerned with possible conflicts between IFR aircraft on an instrument approach to a nearby airport. Consider the VOR/DME 21 approach to Forbes Field (FOE) in Figure 7. The plan view shows that this approach passes near the Topeka Philip Billard Airport (TOP). The 2700’ msl minimum altitude restriction prior to the 7 DME fix keeps aircraft on the approach above the TOP traffic pattern. However, a VFR aircraft approaching TOP from the south could easily tangle with an aircraft on this approach. The same is true for an aircraft climbing out from TOP on an east departure.

In general, the VFR pilot needs to be aware of any approach for any airport that may cross his/her path of flight and/or stay well below cloud bottoms when such knowledge is not available.

Once the aircraft on an IFR approach is below the clouds, potential conflicts between IFR and VFR aircraft do not end. Generally, if the aircraft breaks out well before reaching the airport and at or above pattern altitude, it will enter the traffic pattern and proceed to land pretty much the same as a VFR aircraft. However, an aircraft on a straight in approach may well continue straight in to landing, even if it breaks out 2000’ agl 5 miles from the airport. Of course VFR pilots sometimes choose to do straight in landings too, so this possibility is nothing new.

As conditions become more marginal, the potential for conflict, particularly at non-towered airports increases. A pilot executing a circle-to-land maneuver from an IFR approach will not necessarily fly a traditional pattern. In fact, most any maneuver that gets the aircraft to a landing on any runway is possible. When conditions are marginal, the IFR pilot may be totally oblivious to any other aircraft and 100% focused on the circle-to-land maneuver on the assumption that no VFR aircraft will be flying. Even in less marginal conditions, the IFR pilot that may be a bit disoriented for a while (sometimes quite a while) after breaking out of the clouds. If an immediate circle-to-land is required, vigilance for other aircraft may be poor and flight paths may not be what the VFR pilot would expect.

The hazards here are clear and it is up to the VFR pilot that chooses to fly in such conditions to exercise the necessary vigilance and weigh the potential hazards.

Flying cross-country under a low cloud layer has a number of dangers associated with it and possible conflicts with IFR aircraft is one of them. Anytime you pass in the general vicinity of an airport on such a flight, there is the potential for encountering an IFR aircraft on an instrument approach. It may not be practical to study the approach plates and become familiar with every airport you go near on such a flight. However, you can tune to the CTAF or tower frequency and listen for aircraft on approach. Even without knowing the details of the approach, you can get some idea of an aircraft’s location if you know what approach it is on if that approach is a straight in approach. For example, an aircraft flying the VOR 17 approach is going to be descending and approaching from the south of the airport. Of course, making your presence know, even if you are well outside the traffic pattern or control area is a good idea. As always, do not be bashful to ask for clarification if you hear an aircraft on approach and do not understand its location or intentions.

In general, it is just not a good idea to fly close to cloud bottoms, tops, or edges if it can be avoided. Unless you are certain you are below IFR flight altitudes and that you are far from any instrument approaches, an aircraft could pop out of the clouds unexpectedly. Since the IFR pilot has been flying in IMC, the last thing he/she is thinking about is VFR aircraft.

If by chance you inadvertently end up in IMC on a VFR flight and are unable to extricate yourself from it quickly, you should of course contact ATC and follow instructions if possible. If you cannot contact ATC and find you must fly some distance in IMC, then fly at standard VFR altitudes, not IFR altitudes, until you are clear. It is highly unlikely their will be any other aircraft flying in the IMC at VFR altitudes but there is a real possibility that there will be other aircraft at standard IFR altitudes (integer multiples of 1000 msl).

In order to become familiar with the instrument approaches at your home airport or other airports you frequent, you will need to acquire the approach plates for these airports. Finding them should not be difficult as new ones are issued about every two months. Thus, there is a continual supply of outdated approach plates. For VFR purposes, you don’t need the most recent plates, just something that is reasonably current. The NOS approach plates divides the US into 20 regions, with the plates for each region in a bound volume. Ask any IFR pilot or your local FBO if they have any out-of-date approach plates for your region they would give you. Most likely they do. Even if you are unsuccessful in getting some for free, the new ones only cost a few dollars per bound volume. Some FBO’s sell the local plates, but many do not since they become outdated so quickly. A number of pilot supply houses carry them. One such source is Sporty’s Pilot Shop in Batavia, OH (1-800-543-8633). Figure 8 shows the regional division for the NOS approach plates so you can select the region(s) of interest to you.

One of the best ways to become familiar with instrument approaches and how they are flown is to fly as a safety pilot for someone flying practice approaches. As explained elsewhere, pilots flying practice approaches using a view limiting device must have a qualified safety pilot aboard. You should check FAR 91.109 to see the official requirements for a safety pilot. In general, if you are qualified to serve as pilot in command of the aircraft used, you are also qualified to serve as safety pilot. Since the practice approaches are flown in VMC you will be able to clearly see the routes followed by the instrument approaches with respect to local landmarks. Additionally, there is nothing like seeing the approach from the pilots perspective. You will be amazed at just how close to the ground an aircraft can get on an ILS approach before visual references are required. An additional benefit of flying as a safety pilot is that you can log the time since a safety pilot is a required crew member. You cannot log it as pilot in command, but you can include it in your total time.

Perhaps the most important thing you can do for yourself and other VFR pilots is to be politely assertive when communicating with IFR pilots. Insist that they explain their positions and intentions in terms that you understand.

This appendix contains a list of all of the abbreviations used in the document, excluding airport identifiers.

ADF - Automatic direction finder

ATC - Air traffic control

CTAF - Common traffic advisory frequency

DME - Distance measuring equipment

FAR - Federal Aviation Regulations

FBO - Fixed base operator

GPS - Global positioning system

IAF - Initial approach fix

IFR - Instrument flight rules.

ILS - Instrument landing system

IMC - Instrument meteorological conditions

LOC - localizer

MAP - Missed approach point

NDB - Non-directional beacon

NOS - National Ocean Service

RNAV - Area navigation

TERP’s - U.S. Terminal Procedures

RWY - Runway

VFR- Visual flight rules.

VMC - Visual meteorological conditions

VOR - VHF omni-directional range

agl - above ground level

msl - above mean sea level

nm - nautical mile

We expect those who write training materials for pilots to themselves be seasoned veterans of the air, graybeards with thousands of hours, if not tens of thousands of hours, of flight time. Well, I have to confess that the graybeard description is starting to fit, but I cannot say that I got it piloting airplanes. So what business does this 350 hour pilot with a private pilot certificate that is less than three years old and an instrument rating that is just over one year old have trying to write about instrument flight? While my piloting experience is limited and recent, I do have 25 years of experience in engineering education. These years of experience have shown me over and over that the student who has just learned new material is often far more successful at explaining it to the next student than is the instructor who knows it forward and backwards. The student that has just learned the material understands the perspective of the new learner and can often explain it in ways that the highly experienced instructor would not. Sometimes the material is so familiar to the experienced person that many concepts, which were once difficult to grasp, are now intuitively obvious. It is sometimes very difficult to change our mindset to that of the new learner and explain the material in a manner they can easily comprehend.

The opportunity for me to write from the perspective a new learner has long since past in my engineering fields as I have joined the ranks of the grizzled veterans. Piloting is quite a different matter and it has been a refreshing and enjoyable experience to change roles and be the student again. It is also a new opportunity to write from the perspective of the beginner. It is also an opportunity that I have to take advantage of now. The longer I wait, the less likely I am to retain this insight. Hopefully, in a few more years I too will be viewing life as a seasoned pilot.

Now, I certainly do not intend to imply that the training materials prepared by highly experienced pilots are not good. Quite the contrary, there are a lot of excellent resources out their for the pilot and nearly all were prepare by highly experienced individuals. Nevertheless, there seems to be no other published information on the topic of this manual. Given this lack of training material, it seemed a perfect opportunity to test my belief that the newly trained individual has a special insight and can produce a useful training aid.

Another conclusion resulting from my experience in engineering education is that authors often write far too complex and detailed texts in an attempt to prepare THE definitive work on a topic. In an attempt to be thorough and complete, every detail is addressed. The result may be a quite impressive publication. Unfortunately, there is so much information that learning is actually hindered. The reader has to wade through so much material to find the particular information desired, that often the needed information is never found and, if found, not understood. Consequently, this manual is purposely short and to the point. Certainly, no attempt is made to write a comprehensive manual on IFR operations. In fact, no attempt is made to include every single piece of information that perhaps a VFR pilot ought to know about IFR operations. Instead, an attempt is made to present some important considerations for the VFR pilot in a simple and straightforward manner.

Hopefully, you will find this manual informative and easy to understand. Feedback would be appreciated.

Byron Jones

Manhattan, KS

jones@ksu.edu

January 2000