Can they do this? Restrict airport to IFR traffic only?

[[email protected]]

Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].

Link to the article:
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=04-20-2005&ID=2005102705

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Sure they can. They close/open airports to only specific traffic all the
time.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
> doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].
>
> Link to the article:
> http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=04-20-2005&ID=2005102705
>

[alexy]

wrote:

>Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
>doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].

Odd question/statement combination. Doesn't the statement answer the
question?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[John E. Carty]

"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>>Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
>>doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].
>
> Odd question/statement combination. Doesn't the statement answer the
> question?
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
> infrequently.

I would assume (I know, bad word) the OP is asking whether they can legally
do this :-)

[alexy]

"John E. Carty" > wrote:

>
>"alexy" > wrote in message
...
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
>>>doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].
>>
>> Odd question/statement combination. Doesn't the statement answer the
>> question?
>> --
>> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
>> infrequently.
>
>I would assume (I know, bad word) the OP is asking whether they can legally
>do this :-)

I agree. And I didn't mean to be one of the most hated of netizens,
the grammar cop. It just struck me as a humorous juxtaposition.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Larry Dighera]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
>> doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].
>>
>> Link to the article:
>> http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=04-20-2005&ID=2005102705
>>
>
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:00:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in <TdP9e.2910$Xg.714@okepread02>::

>Sure they can. They close/open airports to only specific traffic all the
>time.
>

I thought it was a condition for receipt of AIP funds, that ALL
categories and types of aviation be served by the airport.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
>>> doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].
>>>
>>> Link to the article:
>>> http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=04-20-2005&ID=2005102705
>>>
>>
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:00:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in <TdP9e.2910$Xg.714@okepread02>::
>
>>Sure they can. They close/open airports to only specific traffic all the
>>time.
>>
>
> I thought it was a condition for receipt of AIP funds, that ALL
> categories and types of aviation be served by the airport.
>
>

Well Larry that's true but have you ever been to an air show? Was the
airport closed to traffic while the show was going on?

Neither what I alluded to in my post or the original post was talking about
a ongoing and forever ban on any type of traffic. Only a ban for a specific
type of traffic for a specific period of time.

In the OP it was non-IFR traffic on the dates and times mentioned in the
story. In my post it was non-airhow participants during airshows.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:34:33 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in <ZmS9e.2916$Xg.336@okepread02>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>>> Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
>>>> doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].
>>>>
>>>> Link to the article:
>>>> http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=04-20-2005&ID=2005102705
>>>>
>>>
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:00:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in <TdP9e.2910$Xg.714@okepread02>::
>>
>>>Sure they can. They close/open airports to only specific traffic all the
>>>time.
>>>
>>
>> I thought it was a condition for receipt of AIP funds, that ALL
>> categories and types of aviation be served by the airport.
>>
>>
>
>Well Larry that's true but have you ever been to an air show? Was the
>airport closed to traffic while the show was going on?

Yes; during air show operations, the airport was closed to non air
show operations. This was doubtless done in the name of safety, and
it is obviously required for an air show to take place, unlike what is
occurring in Idaho.

>Neither what I alluded to in my post or the original post was talking about
>a ongoing and forever ban on any type of traffic. Only a ban for a specific
>type of traffic for a specific period of time.

This is the reason for the ban on VFR operations given in the Idaho
Mountain Express article:

Because an unprecedented crunch of arriving and departing aircraft
at the end of the July 4 holiday weekend, Friedman Memorial
Airport officials have decided to restrict operations during some
hours only to aircraft on instrument flight plans.

Rick Baird, airport manager, said the field would be closed
Tuesday, July 5, to all VFR (Visual Flight Rules) arriving traffic
between noon and 8:30 p.m. Only aircraft on IFR (Instrument Flight
Rules) flight plans would be allowed during those hours.

>In the OP it was non-IFR traffic on the dates and times mentioned in the
>story. In my post it was non-airhow participants during airshows.
>

As you can readily discern, the cause of the closure is apparently
economically based (as opposed to safety based) due to limited
aircraft parking facilities available on the airport. My question is,
why should VFR operations be banned in favor of IFR operations if
discrimination is forbidden under AIP agreement contract terms?

If Friedman Memorial Airport has not received any AIP funding within
the last 20 years, my question is moot, but that's unlikely. The
prime qualification for employment as an airport manager is the
ability to successfully write AIP grant proposals.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:34:33 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in <ZmS9e.2916$Xg.336@okepread02>::
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>>>> Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
>>>>> doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].
>>>>>
>>>>> Link to the article:
>>>>> http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=04-20-2005&ID=2005102705
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:00:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>> <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in <TdP9e.2910$Xg.714@okepread02>::
>>>
>>>>Sure they can. They close/open airports to only specific traffic all the
>>>>time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought it was a condition for receipt of AIP funds, that ALL
>>> categories and types of aviation be served by the airport.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well Larry that's true but have you ever been to an air show? Was the
>>airport closed to traffic while the show was going on?
>
> Yes; during air show operations, the airport was closed to non air
> show operations. This was doubtless done in the name of safety, and
> it is obviously required for an air show to take place, unlike what is
> occurring in Idaho.
>
>>Neither what I alluded to in my post or the original post was talking
>>about
>>a ongoing and forever ban on any type of traffic. Only a ban for a
>>specific
>>type of traffic for a specific period of time.
>
> This is the reason for the ban on VFR operations given in the Idaho
> Mountain Express article:
>
> Because an unprecedented crunch of arriving and departing aircraft
> at the end of the July 4 holiday weekend, Friedman Memorial
> Airport officials have decided to restrict operations during some
> hours only to aircraft on instrument flight plans.
>
> Rick Baird, airport manager, said the field would be closed
> Tuesday, July 5, to all VFR (Visual Flight Rules) arriving traffic
> between noon and 8:30 p.m. Only aircraft on IFR (Instrument Flight
> Rules) flight plans would be allowed during those hours.
>
>>In the OP it was non-IFR traffic on the dates and times mentioned in the
>>story. In my post it was non-airhow participants during airshows.
>>
>
> As you can readily discern, the cause of the closure is apparently
> economically based (as opposed to safety based) due to limited
> aircraft parking facilities available on the airport. My question is,
> why should VFR operations be banned in favor of IFR operations if
> discrimination is forbidden under AIP agreement contract terms?
>
> If Friedman Memorial Airport has not received any AIP funding within
> the last 20 years, my question is moot, but that's unlikely. The
> prime qualification for employment as an airport manager is the
> ability to successfully write AIP grant proposals.
>

While the article does mention the parking problem that isn't the reason for
the IFR only period. The article also says..." IFR aircraft under radar
control of Salt Lake Air Route Traffic Control Center can be sequenced to
land at Friedman at closer intervals to keep traffic moving. "

So, the reason is they feel they can get more aircraft into the airport
during the time period. So the lack of ramp space issue will acctully be
made worse by the IFR rule if they really can get more aircraft on the
ground.

The point of my post was, while I'm not an expert on AIP funding, I doubt
that a short term ban on certain flights in the name of getting more planes
into the airport in a safe manner would put the funding in jepordy.

[mindenpilot]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:NsT9e.2920$Xg.960@okepread02...
>
> While the article does mention the parking problem that isn't the reason
> for the IFR only period. The article also says..." IFR aircraft under
> radar control of Salt Lake Air Route Traffic Control Center can be
> sequenced to land at Friedman at closer intervals to keep traffic moving.
> "
>
> So, the reason is they feel they can get more aircraft into the airport
> during the time period. So the lack of ramp space issue will acctully be
> made worse by the IFR rule if they really can get more aircraft on the
> ground.
>
> The point of my post was, while I'm not an expert on AIP funding, I doubt
> that a short term ban on certain flights in the name of getting more
> planes into the airport in a safe manner would put the funding in jepordy.
>

Also, if the weather is VFR, there is nothing stopping us VFR pilots from
filing an IFR flight plan and flying in, as long as we maintain VFR.
This would further add to the congestion.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:02:21 -0700, "mindenpilot"
> wrote in >::

>
>Also, if the weather is VFR, there is nothing stopping us VFR pilots from
>filing an IFR flight plan and flying in, as long as we maintain VFR.

There's nothing stopping VFR pilots from filing an IFR flight plan,
but the FAR requirement* for the PIC to be instrument rated and
current.


*

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=40760189a03dfea0b501608f33820a45&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14
§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations
...
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a
civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the
minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:

(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required),
and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any
airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;

But


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3a3ccdd681a8a603d8139ce0510aac31&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.5&idno=14
§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and
certain flight tests.
...
(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument
flight unless—

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who
possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and
class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

seems to permit Simulated instrument flight in VMC without mention of
the PIC having an instrument rating on his pilot certificate. The
question then becomes, is Simulated instrument flight in VMC conducted
under VFR or IFR?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"mindenpilot" > wrote in message
...

>
> Also, if the weather is VFR, there is nothing stopping us VFR pilots from
> filing an IFR flight plan and flying in, as long as we maintain VFR.
> This would further add to the congestion.
>

Well, nothing except the FARs 61.3
(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:

[BTIZ]

Limited discrimination is not restricted under AIP terms... this is for a
set period during periods of abnormally high traffic... there are various
ways to restrict traffic flow... if this were a permanent restriction.. then
there may be arguments.

This happens all the time when a major aviation convention is in a certain
area. AOPA, SnF, NBAA, etc.

Another way to restrict traffic is to require Prior Approval or a
reservation slot for arrival. Some aircraft can be guaranteed a parking
spot.. others must only drop pax, gas and go..

BT

> As you can readily discern, the cause of the closure is apparently
> economically based (as opposed to safety based) due to limited
> aircraft parking facilities available on the airport. My question is,
> why should VFR operations be banned in favor of IFR operations if
> discrimination is forbidden under AIP agreement contract terms?
>
> If Friedman Memorial Airport has not received any AIP funding within
> the last 20 years, my question is moot, but that's unlikely. The
> prime qualification for employment as an airport manager is the
> ability to successfully write AIP grant proposals.
>
>

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message ups.com...
> Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
> doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].
>
> Link to the article:
> http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=04-20-2005&ID=2005102705
>

Instrument conditions prevail? Class B is sorta IFR like...

[mindenpilot]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:KmU9e.2946$Xg.1033@okepread02...
>
> "mindenpilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Also, if the weather is VFR, there is nothing stopping us VFR pilots from
>> filing an IFR flight plan and flying in, as long as we maintain VFR.
>> This would further add to the congestion.
>>
>
> Well, nothing except the FARs 61.3
> (e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
> aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
> prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
>
>

It looks like the FAR you listed specifically says "IFR" or "weather less
than VFR".
If the weather is VFR (as I stated) then you only need a safety pilot, who
does not need to be instrument rated.
Otherwise, how do you train for IFR? Always have an instrument rated safety
pilot?

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[Larry Dighera]

>> As you can readily discern, the cause of the closure is apparently
>> economically based (as opposed to safety based) due to limited
>> aircraft parking facilities available on the airport. My question is,
>> why should VFR operations be banned in favor of IFR operations if
>> discrimination is forbidden under AIP agreement contract terms?
>>
>> If Friedman Memorial Airport has not received any AIP funding within
>> the last 20 years, my question is moot, but that's unlikely. The
>> prime qualification for employment as an airport manager is the
>> ability to successfully write AIP grant proposals.
>
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:06:48 -0700, "BTIZ" >
wrote in <XtV9e.15984$%c1.13283@fed1read05>::

>Limited discrimination is not restricted under AIP terms...

I was unable to locate the document(s) governing AIP terms, but I did
find the section I had in mind (included below). It doesn't seem to
address what is happening in Idaho however.

> this is for a set period during periods of abnormally high traffic...

Yes. That's what the article indicates.

>there are various ways to restrict traffic flow... if this were a
>permanent restriction.. then there may be arguments.

Are you familiar with other incidents of similar traffic restrictions
using IFR flight as the criterion?

>This happens all the time when a major aviation convention is in a certain
>area. AOPA, SnF, NBAA, etc.

When an airport is unable to accommodate the traffic, ATC has various
methods of restricting the flow, but I've never seen the requirement
for an IFR flight plan in VMC used to govern traffic flow.

>Another way to restrict traffic is to require Prior Approval or a
>reservation slot for arrival. Some aircraft can be guaranteed a parking
>spot.. others must only drop pax, gas and go..
>
>BT



================================================
United State Code
TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
SUBTITLE VII - AVIATION PROGRAMS
PART B - AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE
CHAPTER 471 - AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

SUBCHAPTER I - AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

Sec. 47101. Policies

(a) General. - It is the policy of the United States -
(1) that the safe operation of the airport and airway system
is the highest aviation priority;
....

9) that artificial restrictions on airport capacity -

(A) are not in the public interest;

(B) should be imposed to alleviate air traffic delays
only after other reasonably available and less
burdensome alternatives have been tried; and

(C) should not discriminate unjustly between categories
and classes of aircraft; ...

[mindenpilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3a3ccdd681a8a603d8139ce0510aac31&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.5&idno=14
> § 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and
> certain flight tests.
> ...
> (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument
> flight unless-
>
> (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who
> possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and
> class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
>
> seems to permit Simulated instrument flight in VMC without mention of
> the PIC having an instrument rating on his pilot certificate. The
> question then becomes, is Simulated instrument flight in VMC conducted
> under VFR or IFR?
>
>

That's the beautiful part of instrument training.
If you have a buddy working on his rating, too, you can both log PIC time on
a trip.
You'd fly it IFR. Of course, it would have to be in VMC.
One way, you're under the hood (logging it as hood time), he's logging PIC.
Then you switch on the way back. Can't beat that.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:48:00 -0700, "mindenpilot"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3a3ccdd681a8a603d8139ce0510aac31&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.5&idno=14
>> § 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and
>> certain flight tests.
>> ...
>> (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument
>> flight unless-
>>
>> (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who
>> possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and
>> class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
>>
>> seems to permit Simulated instrument flight in VMC without mention of
>> the PIC having an instrument rating on his pilot certificate. The
>> question then becomes, is Simulated instrument flight in VMC conducted
>> under VFR or IFR?
>>
>>
>
>That's the beautiful part of instrument training.
>If you have a buddy working on his rating, too, you can both log PIC time on
>a trip.
>You'd fly it IFR. Of course, it would have to be in VMC.
>One way, you're under the hood (logging it as hood time), he's logging PIC.
>Then you switch on the way back. Can't beat that.
>

Being instrument rated, I am aware of practice instrument approaches
in VMC. But does ATC consider them as being conducted in under IFR or
VFR regulations? That is my point.

Perhaps one of the ATC professionals among the readership of this
newsgroup is will be able to cite the relevant FAA Order governing
this.

[Kyle Boatright]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
> doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].
>
> Link to the article:
> http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=04-20-2005&ID=2005102705

I'm obstinate enough to make a "precautionary landing due to rough engine"
just to tweak these idiots... Too bad I don't make it to Idaho very often.

If someone found the real story, I'd wager that it comes down to the fact
that IFR aircraft, particularly turbines, put a lot more $$ in FBO pockets
than the typical light aircraft that is VFR only. This is <probably>
another chapter in the ongoing story where FBO's and airport authorities
make life difficult and/or expensive for light aircraft in order to run them
off busy airports in order to increase the number of corporate aircraft
based at the field. We've got at least 2 airfields in the Atlanta area that
are suffering from this plight. The corporate guys don't realize that
having all the light aircraft owners around the field at odd hours and on
weekends is one of the things that reduces or eliminates the need for more
formal and expensive airport security.

KB

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:48:00 -0700, "mindenpilot"
> wrote:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3a3ccdd681a8a603d8139ce0510aac31&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.5&idno=14
>> § 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and
>> certain flight tests.
>> ...
>> (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument
>> flight unless-
>>
>> (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who
>> possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and
>> class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
>>
>> seems to permit Simulated instrument flight in VMC without mention of
>> the PIC having an instrument rating on his pilot certificate. The
>> question then becomes, is Simulated instrument flight in VMC conducted
>> under VFR or IFR?
>>
>>
>
>That's the beautiful part of instrument training.
>If you have a buddy working on his rating, too, you can both log PIC time on
>a trip.
>You'd fly it IFR. Of course, it would have to be in VMC.
>One way, you're under the hood (logging it as hood time), he's logging PIC.
>Then you switch on the way back. Can't beat that.

If neither of you are instrument rated and current you would still be
afoul of 61.3 and you *cannot* fly it IFR. Non-IMC practice
approaches are flown VFR, thus the requirement for the safety pilot to
look out for other traffic and ensure you don't violate cloud
separation, etc. Which also answers Larry's question regarding
simulated flight - it's VFR. If I had a nickel for every time
approach has told me "Maintain VFR at all times at or above two
thousand five hundred until established, cleared GPS 23 approach"...

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:


>
>
> Being instrument rated, I am aware of practice instrument approaches
> in VMC. But does ATC consider them as being conducted in under IFR or
> VFR regulations?

Depends on whether you are VFR or IFR at the time. If you are flying
under IFR rules then you will get standard IFR separation and all the
standard IFR rules apply. If you are doing approaches VFR then you will
get 3 miles of lateral separation, just like a regular IFR aircraft, but
you only get 500 feet of vertical separation. Two other differences
are that your 3 miles of lateral only extend to the approach end of the
runway, so you have three miles decreasing to zero once inside of three
miles. At your missed you are strictly VFR and have to request the
published missed if that's what you want. It's all in the .65.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:11:32 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote in
>::

>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Can they close an airport to all VFR traffic? This is what they're
>> doing at Friedman Memorial Airport at Hailey, Idaho [HLE].
>>
>> Link to the article:
>> http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=04-20-2005&ID=2005102705
>
>I'm obstinate enough to make a "precautionary landing due to rough engine"
>just to tweak these idiots... Too bad I don't make it to Idaho very often.
>
>If someone found the real story, I'd wager that it comes down to the fact
>that IFR aircraft, particularly turbines, put a lot more $$ in FBO pockets
>than the typical light aircraft that is VFR only.


The news article had this to say about the reason for banning VFR
flights:

Rick Baird, airport manager, said the field would be closed
Tuesday, July 5, to all VFR (Visual Flight Rules) arriving traffic
between noon and 8:30 p.m. Only aircraft on IFR (Instrument Flight
Rules) flight plans would be allowed during those hours.

That's the day when July 4 holiday visitors would be leaving and
corporate jets of media executives attending the annual Allen &
Co. retreat would be arriving. Baird estimates the airport will
rack up 300 to 400 operations in one day.

A similar ban on VFR arrivals will be in place on July 10 between
7 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. because of the departure of corporate jets at
the end of the Allen & Co. conference. IFR aircraft under radar
control of Salt Lake Air Route Traffic Control Center can be
sequenced to land at Friedman at closer intervals to keep traffic
moving.


Hoover's had this to say about Allen & Company:


http://www.hoovers.com/allen-&-company/--ID__51026--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml
For Allen & Company, there's no business like financing show
business. The investment bank serves variously as investor,
underwriter, and broker to some of the biggest names in
entertainment, technology, and information. Viewed as something of
a secret society, the firm has had a quiet hand in such hookups as
Seagram (now part of Vivendi Universal) and Universal Studios,
Hasbro and Galoob Toys, and Disney and Capital Cities/ABC. In
2004, the company participated in the much-ballyhooed initial
public offering of Google. The firm's famous annual retreat in Sun
Valley, Idaho, attracts more moguls than a double-black ski run
(Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, and Oprah Winfrey have attended).


So it would appear that the monied "beautiful-people" are being
accommodated by the airport. Give the manager a call at:
208-788-4956, and see ask him/her why VFR flights are being
discriminated against.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:30:17 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote in
>::

>Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,

I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.

>thus the requirement for the safety pilot to look out for
>other traffic and ensure you don't violate cloud
>separation, etc.

Of course aircraft on an IFR flight plan flying an approaches in VMC
are _required_ to see-and-avoid also.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:54:57 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> Being instrument rated, I am aware of practice instrument approaches
>> in VMC. But does ATC consider them as being conducted in under IFR or
>> VFR regulations?
>
>Depends on whether you are VFR or IFR at the time. If you are flying
>under IFR rules then you will get standard IFR separation and all the
>standard IFR rules apply. If you are doing approaches VFR then you will
>get 3 miles of lateral separation, just like a regular IFR aircraft, but
> you only get 500 feet of vertical separation. Two other differences
>are that your 3 miles of lateral only extend to the approach end of the
>runway, so you have three miles decreasing to zero once inside of three
>miles. At your missed you are strictly VFR and have to request the
>published missed if that's what you want. It's all in the .65.

Thanks for the information. I had a feeling it was contained in FAA
Order 7110.65, but wanted to avoid the work of locating the specific
regulation(s), although it would be interesting to read them.

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:03:36 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:30:17 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote in
>::
>
>>Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,
>
>I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.

Nothing except pages like http://www.awp.faa.gov/lta/lta_list.cfm
containing references to ATC services provided to VFR aircraft doing
practice approaches, and the aforementioned controller telling us
"maintain VFR at all times" when giving us our approach instructions,
lack of hard IFR altitude assignments, filing an IFR flightplan, or
requesting a popup IFR clearance.......

>>thus the requirement for the safety pilot to look out for
>>other traffic and ensure you don't violate cloud
>>separation, etc.
>
>Of course aircraft on an IFR flight plan flying an approaches in VMC
>are _required_ to see-and-avoid also.

But are not required to avoid clouds, the point I was attempting to
make.

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:03:36 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:30:17 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote in
>::
>
>>Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,
>
>I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.

And 7110.65P, section 4-8-11 - Practice Approaches
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0408.html#4-8-11

Specifically section A paragraph 5:

"5. All VFR aircraft shall be instructed to maintain VFR on initial
contact or as soon as possible thereafter.

NOTE-
This advisory is intended to remind the pilot that even though ATC is
providing IFR-type instructions, the pilot is responsible for
compliance with the applicable parts of the CFR governing VFR flight."

[mindenpilot]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:48:00 -0700, "mindenpilot"
> > wrote in
> >::
>

> Being instrument rated, I am aware of practice instrument approaches
> in VMC. But does ATC consider them as being conducted in under IFR or
> VFR regulations? That is my point.
>
> Perhaps one of the ATC professionals among the readership of this
> newsgroup is will be able to cite the relevant FAA Order governing
> this.
>
>

In the article mentioned in the OP, it says that flights would be restricted
to IFR flights on an IFR flight plan.
I'm still not sure if you could get away with simply filing an IFR flight
plan and flying it maintaining VFR the entire time.
As Larry mentioned, could an ATC pro clear this up?

Thanks,

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[Dave S]

>
> In the article mentioned in the OP, it says that flights would be restricted
> to IFR flights on an IFR flight plan.
> I'm still not sure if you could get away with simply filing an IFR flight
> plan and flying it maintaining VFR the entire time.
> As Larry mentioned, could an ATC pro clear this up?
>

To operate under an IFR flight plan (as in UNDER A CLEARANCE) you must
be instrument rated and current. What the weather is like doesn't
matter. Either you CAN legally accept an IFR clearance or you CANNOT.

Also, in a general comment regarding the whole thread... I'm noting that
this discussion is being based on a lay-media article that is not being
written to a pilot/industry audience. I wouldn't be surprised if either
an STMP is placed in effect for this event, with reservations required,
or perhaps other clarification being disseminated by NOTAM closer to the
event.

Dave

[Morgans]

"Dave S" > wrote

> To operate under an IFR flight plan (as in UNDER A CLEARANCE) you must
> be instrument rated and current. What the weather is like doesn't
> matter. Either you CAN legally accept an IFR clearance or you CANNOT.
>

If that is true, how can a pilot who has let his currency lapse, get current
again?

Doesn't he have to be on an IFR flight to get current again?
--
Jim in NC

[Dave S]

mindenpilot wrote:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:KmU9e.2946$Xg.1033@okepread02...
>
>>"mindenpilot" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>Also, if the weather is VFR, there is nothing stopping us VFR pilots from
>>>filing an IFR flight plan and flying in, as long as we maintain VFR.
>>>This would further add to the congestion.
>>>
>>
>>Well, nothing except the FARs 61.3
>>(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
>>aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
>>prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
>>
>>
>
>
> It looks like the FAR you listed specifically says "IFR" or "weather less
> than VFR".
> If the weather is VFR (as I stated) then you only need a safety pilot, who
> does not need to be instrument rated.

Correct. You can shoot PRACTICE approaches without an IFR flight plan.
As long as you and ATC are clear that YOU are NOT on an IFR flight plan,
you are operating under VFR rules. Cloud Clearance, Visibility, etc.

> Otherwise, how do you train for IFR? Always have an instrument rated safety
> pilot?
>

You train for it under VFR rules. If you do not have a pilot who can
Legally accept an IFR clearance (rated and current) then you cannot
accept an IFR clearance. Period. If you DO, then you shoot practice
approaches under an IFR clearance.. you can even shoot REAL approaches
in actual. You can PRACTICE under VFR or under IFR.. but if under IFR
someone has to be able to accept the clearance.

Dave

[mindenpilot]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> You train for it under VFR rules. If you do not have a pilot who can
> Legally accept an IFR clearance (rated and current) then you cannot accept
> an IFR clearance. Period. If you DO, then you shoot practice approaches
> under an IFR clearance.. you can even shoot REAL approaches in actual. You
> can PRACTICE under VFR or under IFR.. but if under IFR someone has to be
> able to accept the clearance.
>
> Dave
>

Got it. I understand now.

Thanks,

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[BTIZ]

Comments in text...


> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:06:48 -0700, "BTIZ" >
> wrote in <XtV9e.15984$%c1.13283@fed1read05>::
>
> Are you familiar with other incidents of similar traffic restrictions
> using IFR flight as the criterion?

Yes... NBAA convention at LAS some years back.. no VFR flights other than
helicopters based at LAS were accepted.. all flights were IFR only and had
to include their landing reservation number in the remarks section of their
IFR flight plan. It helped that LAS is a ClassB airfield.

>
>>This happens all the time when a major aviation convention is in a certain
>>area. AOPA, SnF, NBAA, etc.
>
> When an airport is unable to accommodate the traffic, ATC has various
> methods of restricting the flow, but I've never seen the requirement
> for an IFR flight plan in VMC used to govern traffic flow.
>

Airport managers can set up a "Traffic Management" requirement when
conditions or events will limit the available capacity in either landing
slots on the runway or available parking on the airport.

>
>
> ================================================
> United State Code
> TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
> SUBTITLE VII - AVIATION PROGRAMS
> PART B - AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE
> CHAPTER 471 - AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
>
> SUBCHAPTER I - AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT
>
> Sec. 47101. Policies
>
> (a) General. - It is the policy of the United States -
> (1) that the safe operation of the airport and airway system
> is the highest aviation priority;
> ...
>
> 9) that artificial restrictions on airport capacity -
>
> (A) are not in the public interest;

Is it not in the public interest to limit traffic congestion that could
result in mid air collisions in the airport area?

>
> (B) should be imposed to alleviate air traffic delays
> only after other reasonably available and less
> burdensome alternatives have been tried; and

hard to tell from the article given what other alternatives are available or
have been tried...

>
> (C) should not discriminate unjustly between categories
> and classes of aircraft; ...
>

They are not discriminating between category and class of aircraft... VFR
vs. IFR is not category/class... restricting to "multi engine only" would
be.. or limiting to helo only would be.. or restricting glider operations
from an airport that normally handled gliders would be a restriction in
category/class.

One thing I've found from Newspapers... you can't trust the ink on the paper
its written on.
Don't go by the newspaper.. look for the NOTAM that gets set up.. and
perhaps AOPA should be involved now before the "town fathers" at the airport
screw it up.

I'd bet that the restriction is not totally "IFR only".. but.. a requirement
to contact ATC and sequence to the airport.. for better spacing and flow
control.. which can be done with VFR aircraft... aka.. ClassC or ClassB

Does not OSH require the same thing? but it is done VFR with visual
observers out on the inbound route.. not IFR...

BT

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Thanks for the information. I had a feeling it was contained in FAA
> Order 7110.65, but wanted to avoid the work of locating the specific
> regulation(s), although it would be interesting to read them.

That answer didn't really address your question (unless I misunderstood it).

Simulated instrument conditions refer to the *meteorological* conditions
being simulated for the flight, not the regulatory conditions. The
restriction to IFR traffic addresses the regulatory conditions, not the
meteorological conditions.

You can simulate instrument meteorological conditions all you want, that
doesn't qualify you for an arrival into an airport restricted to IFR
arrivals. Not even if you get ATC to help you by simulating IFR services.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,
>
> I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.

You posted the citation yourself. While the 7110 provides some insight into
ATC activities, all you really need to know is that the airport is
(according to this thread) requiring all arrivals to occur under IFR, on an
IFR flight plan, and that that can only occur with an instrument rated and
current pilot acting as PIC.

If you bring a safety pilot along who is instrument rated, and who files an
IFR flight plan, and who acts as PIC during your "practice" approach, that's
fine. But if you had that guy along, you could just get him to fly you
there. Or even to just file and act as PIC while you fly there. No need to
fly a "practice approach" at all.

If the reasoning is really to provide for more efficient arrivals, then they
will not be allowing navaid approaches in VMC. That would negate the whole
point of providing for efficient arrivals (you can land a heck of a lot more
planes in a given time period if they are doing visual approaches with
visual separation than you can for instrument approaches).

All that said, someone else pointed out that the reality may well be that
VFR traffic will be allowed under a reservation system, and that arrivals
won't be restricted to IFR flights at all. I think that's certainly likely,
and would allow for efficient use of the airport without blocking access by
pilots who are not instrument rated.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:42:47 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote in
>::

>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:03:36 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:30:17 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote in
>::
>>
>>>Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,
>>
>>I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.
>
>Nothing except pages like http://www.awp.faa.gov/lta/lta_list.cfm
>containing references to ATC services provided to VFR aircraft doing
>practice approaches,

This is the first reference I looked at from the link you provided
above:

http://www.awp.faa.gov/lta/oprdoc/GetFile.CFM?File_ID=2212
----------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FRESNO AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
5055 E. Andersen Ave. Suite 2
Fresno, Ca. 93727

ISSUED: March 11, 2005
EFFECTIVE: April 5, 2005

FRESNO AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL LETTER TO AIRMEN NO. 05-1

SUBJECT: VFR Practice Instrument Approaches

CANCELLATION: April 5, 2007

Fresno ATCT/TRACON (ATC) provides approach control service and
standard IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approach
procedures to Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The primary
approach control frequencies for Fresno Yosemite are 119.6/351.95
(North) and 132.35/323.25 (South).

ATC provides VFR aircraft practicing instrument approach procedures
with standard IFR separation, applying 500-foot vertical separation.
When separating from heavy/B757 aircraft, vertical separation is
increased to 1000 feet. IFR separation begins when the approach
clearance becomes effective and continues throughout the missed
approach procedure. However, pilots of VFR aircraft practicing
instrument approach procedures can expect to receive VFR departure
instruction (i.e., MAINTAIN AT OR BELOW 2000 feet or FLY RUNWAY
HEADING) in lieu of published missed approach procedures. When
vectoring and sequencing for an approach procedure, ATC provides Class
C separation and service to radar identified VFR aircraft.

At secondary airports under our jurisdiction with published instrument
approaches, pilots conducting VFR practice instrument approaches will
receive standard IFR separation, applying 500-foot vertical
separation. Some delays may be anticipated dependent on workload, and
radar capability.

These airports are: Fresno Chandler-Executive (frequency 119.0),
Visalia Municipal (frequency 118.5, Madera Municipal (frequency
119.45) and Hanford Municipal (frequency 123.9).

For further information, refer to the Airmen's Information Manual.
Subject “Practice Instrument Approaches” or call Fresno ATCT/TRACON at
(559) 255-5754.


Original signed by Kenneth J Hyman
Kenneth J Hyman
Acting Air traffic Manager/Fresno Tower/TRACON
----------------------------------------------------------

That does seem to substantiate your claim. Thanks.

>and the aforementioned controller telling us
>"maintain VFR at all times" when giving us our approach instructions,
>lack of hard IFR altitude assignments, filing an IFR flightplan, or
>requesting a popup IFR clearance.......

Right.

>>>thus the requirement for the safety pilot to look out for
>>>other traffic and ensure you don't violate cloud
>>>separation, etc.
>>
>>Of course aircraft on an IFR flight plan flying an approaches in VMC
>>are _required_ to see-and-avoid also.
>
>But are not required to avoid clouds, the point I was attempting to
>make.

[G Farris]

Well, it certainly appears to be discriminitory, and probably could be
challenged. Probably SHOULD be challenged, lest Bill Gates and friends get the
impression they can shut down any airport they choose, just by virtue of their
being there. The whole system is heavily subsidized, and the subsidy is
predicated on equal, unprejudiced access to all legitimate users.

I can understand the predicament of the airport manager, and it includes a
security concern, because a gathering of VIP's like this is almost as much of
a lighnting rod as a gathering of political heavy-hitters. Nevertheless, the
airport should make an effort to accomodate all users - and this includes
asking for volontary limitations from VFR and training activities, rather than
just hanging out the NO VACANCY sign.

G Faris

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:15:19 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>No need to fly a "practice approach" at all.

Right. I never suggested there was. It was another poster who did.

[Dave S]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote
>
>
>>To operate under an IFR flight plan (as in UNDER A CLEARANCE) you must
>>be instrument rated and current. What the weather is like doesn't
>>matter. Either you CAN legally accept an IFR clearance or you CANNOT.
>>
>
>
> If that is true, how can a pilot who has let his currency lapse, get current
> again?
>
> Doesn't he have to be on an IFR flight to get current again?

Either with another pilot in the plane serving as safety who can accept
the IFR clearance (and IS the PIC for that purpose), or under VFR under
the hood with a safety pilot..

Or with an authorized instructor for an IPC. (Who can conduct it under
either above listed method)

Dave

[Dave S]

Everyone is screaming bloody murder about "discrimination" but there are
several public use airports that operate under an traffic management
program on a daily basis. The practical effect is no VFR into there
except in an emergency (La Guardia and JFK).. yea.. you can ask.. but if
they are busy, I don't see them dropping what you are doing to shoehorn
you in during the "push" unless you demand it by saying the E-word. And
by requiring the reservation, they are expecting that you NOT plan to be
in there unless you can get the magic blessing beforehand

This sort of thing happens all the time on a temporary, but recurring
basis: Nascar, Superbowl, NBAA Championship events

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/faq.cgi?_recurse=1&file=15
http://www.fly.faa.gov/estmp/jsp/main.html

Just because the lay-media doesn't say thats (STMP) whats going on, I
will bet that is what REALLY is going to happen for this event.

Dave


G Farris wrote:

> Well, it certainly appears to be discriminitory, and probably could be
> challenged. Probably SHOULD be challenged, lest Bill Gates and friends get the
> impression they can shut down any airport they choose, just by virtue of their
> being there. The whole system is heavily subsidized, and the subsidy is
> predicated on equal, unprejudiced access to all legitimate users.
>
> I can understand the predicament of the airport manager, and it includes a
> security concern, because a gathering of VIP's like this is almost as much of
> a lighnting rod as a gathering of political heavy-hitters. Nevertheless, the
> airport should make an effort to accomodate all users - and this includes
> asking for volontary limitations from VFR and training activities, rather than
> just hanging out the NO VACANCY sign.
>
> G Faris
>

[Robert M. Gary]

mindenpilot wrote:
>> Also, if the weather is VFR, there is nothing stopping us VFR pilots
from
> filing an IFR flight plan and flying in, as long as we maintain VFR.
> This would further add to the congestion.
>
> Adam
> N7966L
> Beech Super III

Keep that quiet. You can lose your ticket if you get caught. Remember,
the instrument rating is the right to FILE IFR. Flying in the clouds is
not the priv of the rating, it's the filing. Technically, an instrument
student can't even call the FSS and file his dual IFR flight plan
(although I don't think any FSDO would actually go after a student who
planned to fly with his CFII).


-Robert, CFI

[Dave Butler]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> mindenpilot wrote:
>
>>>Also, if the weather is VFR, there is nothing stopping us VFR pilots
>
> from
>
>>filing an IFR flight plan and flying in, as long as we maintain VFR.
>>This would further add to the congestion.
>>
>>Adam
>>N7966L
>>Beech Super III
>
>
> Keep that quiet. You can lose your ticket if you get caught. Remember,
> the instrument rating is the right to FILE IFR.

No, it's the right to accept an IFR clearance.

> Flying in the clouds is
> not the priv of the rating, it's the filing. Technically, an instrument
> student can't even call the FSS and file his dual IFR flight plan

Cite? I think this is wrong.

> (although I don't think any FSDO would actually go after a student who
> planned to fly with his CFII).

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>No need to fly a "practice approach" at all.
>
> Right. I never suggested there was.

I never suggested you suggested there was.

[Ron Natalie]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:

>> Flying in the clouds is
>> not the priv of the rating, it's the filing. Technically, an instrument
>> student can't even call the FSS and file his dual IFR flight plan
>
>
> Cite? I think this is wrong.
>
It is wrong. Anybody can file a flight plan. You don't even need to
be a pilot. It's illegal to be pilot in command while actually
operating IFR. The PIC name is a required item on the flight plan, so
it would behoove the non-rated student to list his instructors name on
the plan. The only quirky part of doing this is not the FSS but DUAT.
DUAT always inserts the account holders name in the PIC block on the
plan (you can't change it). Some overly worried students put the real
PIC name in the remarks to comply with the rules.

[Newps]

mindenpilot wrote:


>
>
> In the article mentioned in the OP, it says that flights would be restricted
> to IFR flights on an IFR flight plan.
> I'm still not sure if you could get away with simply filing an IFR flight
> plan and flying it maintaining VFR the entire time.
> As Larry mentioned, could an ATC pro clear this up?

Sure that's no big deal.

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

> "Dave S" > wrote
>
>
>>To operate under an IFR flight plan (as in UNDER A CLEARANCE) you must
>>be instrument rated and current. What the weather is like doesn't
>>matter. Either you CAN legally accept an IFR clearance or you CANNOT.
>>
>
>
> If that is true, how can a pilot who has let his currency lapse, get current
> again?
>
> Doesn't he have to be on an IFR flight to get current again?

No.

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...]
>>Thanks for the information. I had a feeling it was contained in FAA
>>Order 7110.65, but wanted to avoid the work of locating the specific
>>regulation(s), although it would be interesting to read them.
>
>
> That answer didn't really address your question (unless I misunderstood it).
>
> Simulated instrument conditions refer to the *meteorological* conditions
> being simulated for the flight, not the regulatory conditions. The
> restriction to IFR traffic addresses the regulatory conditions, not the
> meteorological conditions.
>
> You can simulate instrument meteorological conditions all you want, that
> doesn't qualify you for an arrival into an airport restricted to IFR
> arrivals. Not even if you get ATC to help you by simulating IFR services.

And there's no way you'll get any practice approaches into that airport
on that day or days whether you're IFR or VFR.

[Newps]

This whole deal about restricting VFR flights has nothing to do with
what the tower/approach control can handle. This is a parking problem.
As a controller I can get many times more VFR aircraft into an airport
than IFR.

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,
>>
>>I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.
>
>
> You posted the citation yourself. While the 7110 provides some insight into
> ATC activities, all you really need to know is that the airport is
> (according to this thread) requiring all arrivals to occur under IFR, on an
> IFR flight plan, and that that can only occur with an instrument rated and
> current pilot acting as PIC.
>
> If you bring a safety pilot along who is instrument rated, and who files an
> IFR flight plan, and who acts as PIC during your "practice" approach, that's
> fine. But if you had that guy along, you could just get him to fly you
> there. Or even to just file and act as PIC while you fly there. No need to
> fly a "practice approach" at all.
>
> If the reasoning is really to provide for more efficient arrivals, then they
> will not be allowing navaid approaches in VMC. That would negate the whole
> point of providing for efficient arrivals (you can land a heck of a lot more
> planes in a given time period if they are doing visual approaches with
> visual separation than you can for instrument approaches).
>
> All that said, someone else pointed out that the reality may well be that
> VFR traffic will be allowed under a reservation system, and that arrivals
> won't be restricted to IFR flights at all. I think that's certainly likely,
> and would allow for efficient use of the airport without blocking access by
> pilots who are not instrument rated.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Newps > said:
>mindenpilot wrote:
>> In the article mentioned in the OP, it says that flights would be restricted
>> to IFR flights on an IFR flight plan.
>> I'm still not sure if you could get away with simply filing an IFR flight
>> plan and flying it maintaining VFR the entire time.
>> As Larry mentioned, could an ATC pro clear this up?
>
>Sure that's no big deal.

Maybe ATC won't care, but the FAA does care because you'd be violating a
FAR.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
It could have been raining flaming bulldozers, and those idiots would have
been standing out there smoking, going 'hey, look at that John Deere burn!'
-- Texan AMD security guard

[Peter Duniho]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>>> I'm still not sure if you could get away with simply filing an IFR
>>> flight
>>> plan and flying it maintaining VFR the entire time.
>>> As Larry mentioned, could an ATC pro clear this up?
>>
>>Sure that's no big deal.
>
> Maybe ATC won't care, but the FAA does care because you'd be violating a
> FAR.

That depends on the intent behind "mindenpilot"'s question. Nothing he
specifically said precluded legal operation.

A pilot not instrument rated filing an IFR flight plan would indeed be
violating the FARs. And perhaps that's what "mindenpilot" meant. But
that's not what he said.

As "Newps" said, it is perfectly fine to file IFR, fly with an IFR
clearance, and yet maintain visual conditions the entire time, and even fly
under the more relaxed standards of VFR, using a "VFR on top" clearance
(which is what I presume "maintaining VFR" in "mindenpilot"'s post really
means...you don't "maintain" a set of rules, you follow them, but you DO
maintain a certain kind of visual conditions).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> This whole deal about restricting VFR flights has nothing to do with what
> the tower/approach control can handle. This is a parking problem.

Perhaps. But if so, it makes no sense. After all, a parking problem can
easily be addressed with a reservation system, or a "first-come,
first-served" basis. And discrimination on a flight rules basis certainly
would seem to violate the intent of the AIP rules, if not the letter (which
is, of course, the original question here), there being no legitimate safety
or operational advantage to prohibiting VFR arrivals.

> As a controller I can get many times more VFR aircraft into an airport
> than IFR.

Yes, agreed. I even said so in my post. :)

Pete

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" > said:
>A pilot not instrument rated filing an IFR flight plan would indeed be
>violating the FARs. And perhaps that's what "mindenpilot" meant. But
>that's not what he said.

Well, except in a previous post, he said:
>Also, if the weather is VFR, there is nothing stopping us VFR pilots from
>filing an IFR flight plan and flying in, as long as we maintain VFR

Since he referred to himself as "us VFR pilots", it would indeed be a FAR
violation for him to file and fly an IFR flight plan, even if he did it in
VMC.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Zero Tolerance" in this case meaning "We're too stupid to be able to
apply conscious thought on a case-by-case basis".
-- Mike Sphar

[Peter Duniho]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> Well, except in a previous post, he said:
>>Also, if the weather is VFR, there is nothing stopping us VFR pilots from
>>filing an IFR flight plan and flying in, as long as we maintain VFR

There was, in fact, already an answer to that question. IMHO, it makes more
sense to address questions in the post to which one is replying, rather than
those found elsewhere.

> Since he referred to himself as "us VFR pilots", it would indeed be a FAR
> violation for him to file and fly an IFR flight plan, even if he did it in
> VMC.

The question in the post to which Newps and I were responding asked "if YOU
could get away with simply filing an IFR flight plan and flying it
maintaining VFR the entire time" (emphasis on "you" mine). Not "us".
"You". Now, granted, not all of us are instrument rated, but many of us
are, and in any case the use of the word "you" there is a colloquial way of
saying "a person in general".

Pete

[Dave S]

>
>>Since he referred to himself as "us VFR pilots", it would indeed be a FAR
>>violation for him to file and fly an IFR flight plan, even if he did it in
>>VMC.
>

Just a nitpick.. but ANYONE can file an IFR flight plan... you have to
be instrument rated and current to accept the clearance when issued
under the flight plan.

Airlines use dispatchers who are non-pilots to file their plans. Again..
anyone can file, but not anyone can use.

Nit Mode off.
Dave

[Blueskies]

"Dave S" > wrote in message link.net...
>
>
> Morgans wrote:
>>
>> If that is true, how can a pilot who has let his currency lapse, get current
>> again?
>>
>> Doesn't he have to be on an IFR flight to get current again?
>
> Either with another pilot in the plane serving as safety who can accept the IFR clearance (and IS the PIC for that
> purpose), or under VFR under the hood with a safety pilot..
>
> Or with an authorized instructor for an IPC. (Who can conduct it under either above listed method)
>
> Dave
>

This is what the instrument proficiency check is all about - what is it, six months after the 6 months? Requires a CFII
if I understand correctly...

[[email protected]]

All technicalities aside, it comes down to the fact that the resort
owners at Sun Valley [we call them "greedheads"] are sucking up to the
"Richie Riches" [Gates, Schwarzenegger, Willis, Cruise, Eastwood,
Buffet, et al] and pressure the airport manager to cater to their jets.


That and the fact that the jets & turbines that come into Friedman
[HLE] put a lot more $$ in the FBO's pockets [there's only one FBO on
the field, thus the 100LL is $4/gallon!] than us VFR'ers.