SMA IN A FLT OF 2 MAKES ILS APCH WITH NON INST RATED PLT.

Narrative

ON APCH TO PFN; I WAS ADVISED CONDITIONS WERE 900 FT BROKEN CEILING RESULTING IN IMC. I REQUESTED A SPECIAL VFR CLRNC FOR A 'FLT OF 2.' AFTER A HOLD OF APPROX 1/2 HR; APCH SUGGESTED I COULD REQUEST AN ILS APCH TO RWY 14 AT PFN. I REQUESTED AND THE ILS APCH WAS COMMENCED. THE APCH WAS UNEVENTFUL AND RESULTED IN A NORMAL LNDG BY BOTH ACFT. THE CONCERN IS THAT AN ILS APCH IN FORMATION MAY NOT BE SAFE AND/OR PER FARS. CORRECTIVE ACTION MAY HAVE BEEN TO BREAK OFF THE 'FLT OF 2' AND PERFORM SEPARATE APCHS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THE FLT WAS CONDUCTED IN AN RV6 AND RV4 ACFT. THESE ARE EXPERIMENTAL ACFT. RPTR DOES NOT HAVE AN INST RATING AND STATED THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION REGARDING THE CLRNC. HE DID NOT REALIZE HE WAS ACTUALLY ACCEPTING AN IFR CLRNC WHEN THE QUESTION 'CAN YOU ACCEPT AN ILS APCH' WAS ASKED. MORE DISTURBING TO HIM IS THE QUESTION OF A FORMATION INST APCH. HE HAS HAD VARYING DEGS OF CONFIRMATION AND NEGATIVE RESPONSES SINCE THE EVENT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT ALONE. IT IS NOT A PRUDENT PROC; ATC SEPARATION STANDARDS WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED COMPROMISED. RPTR CLAIMS HE HAS REALLY LEARNED FROM THIS EXPERIENCE.