Do I have to file?

[smf]

If I want to go from Hollywood N. Perry (HWO) to Tamiami (TMB) Do I have to
file a IFR flt plan if I want to go IFR. Is it possible to pick up a (local)
ifr?


thanks


Steve

[Jose]

> If I want to go from Hollywood N. Perry (HWO) to Tamiami (TMB) Do I have to
> file a IFR flt plan if I want to go IFR. Is it possible to pick up a (local)
> ifr?

I'm not sure I understand the question. To legally fly under IFR in
controlled airspace (which you will be in), you need an IFR clearance,
which means filing an IFR flight plan. You can do that beforehand ("the
usual way"), or you can depart VFR (weather permitting) and then try to
get a popup clearance. Getting a popup generally involves filing a
flight plan in the air. It can be done through approach if they are not
busy, but they may tell you to contact flight service (on the radio) and
file it there, and then wait until approach gets it.

If you have plenty of VFR weather while you're doing this, there's
usually not a problem. But if the weather is closing in and approach is
busy, you are taking a risk that they can't take you in. Then you're stuck.

If you already know this and are just asking the likelihood of getting
stuck on this particular route, then I don't know the answer.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mitty]

A local IFR flight plan _is_ an IFR flight plan. Call the TRACON if you want to
know if that type of request will be granted. IIRC it would have to involve
only handoff(s) between TRACONs and not involve Center.

On 5/28/2007 10:34 PM, smf wrote the following:
> If I want to go from Hollywood N. Perry (HWO) to Tamiami (TMB) Do I have to
> file a IFR flt plan if I want to go IFR. Is it possible to pick up a (local)
> ifr?
>
>
> thanks
>
>
> Steve
>
>

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mitty > wrote:
> A local IFR flight plan _is_ an IFR flight plan. Call the TRACON if you want to
> know if that type of request will be granted. IIRC it would have to involve
> only handoff(s) between TRACONs and not involve Center.

Wouldn't this be the same as Tower En Route (TEC)?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGXIWayBkZmuMZ8L8RAnW/AKC9q/njS30kFPxQ7DCOtigPst4MnwCg3Wc8
JxGmF70NHyNZ5u+Lq2xweFU=
=c8QS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Newps]

Mitty wrote:

> A local IFR flight plan _is_ an IFR flight plan. Call the TRACON if you
> want to know if that type of request will be granted. IIRC it would
> have to involve only handoff(s) between TRACONs and not involve Center.

IFR is IFR. If a center is involved the TRACON will take care of it.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 28, 8:34 pm, "smf" > wrote:
> If I want to go from Hollywood N. Perry (HWO) to Tamiami (TMB) Do I have to
> file a IFR flt plan if I want to go IFR. Is it possible to pick up a (local)
> ifr?
>
> thanks
>
> Steve

I think he's asking about local availability of IFR. I'm not familiar
with your area but in the Los Angeles are the answer is *NO*. If you
are not IFR when you take off there is little chance you're going to
get an IFR while airborne (even prefiled). Generally if you need to
pick up an IFR clearance in the LA area they ask you to land to pick
up the clearance.

-Robert, CFII

[Bob Gardner]

Out here in the wide open spaces of the west, when you say you want to go
present position direct to your destination the controller usually says "Say
type and filed airspeed," followed by an abbreviated clearance. In the more
constricted north-south airspace of Florida, that might not work.

Bob Gardner

"smf" > wrote in message
...
> If I want to go from Hollywood N. Perry (HWO) to Tamiami (TMB) Do I have
> to file a IFR flt plan if I want to go IFR. Is it possible to pick up a
> (local) ifr?
>
>
> thanks
>
>
> Steve
>

[[email protected]]

This is nuts.

There should be no reason a properly filed IFR plan cannot be
initiated airborne, if it starts at a VOR or intersection , for
example.



On 29 May 2007 16:11:29 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>On May 28, 8:34 pm, "smf" > wrote:
>> If I want to go from Hollywood N. Perry (HWO) to Tamiami (TMB) Do I have to
>> file a IFR flt plan if I want to go IFR. Is it possible to pick up a (local)
>> ifr?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Steve
>
>I think he's asking about local availability of IFR. I'm not familiar
>with your area but in the Los Angeles are the answer is *NO*. If you
>are not IFR when you take off there is little chance you're going to
>get an IFR while airborne (even prefiled). Generally if you need to
>pick up an IFR clearance in the LA area they ask you to land to pick
>up the clearance.
>
>-Robert, CFII

[Ron Natalie]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mitty > wrote:
>> A local IFR flight plan _is_ an IFR flight plan. Call the TRACON if you want to
>> know if that type of request will be granted. IIRC it would have to involve
>> only handoff(s) between TRACONs and not involve Center.
>
> Wouldn't this be the same as Tower En Route (TEC)?
>
>
No TEC in Florida.

California is the only place where TEC has any meaning with respect
to how flight plans get filed. In the NE (the only other place with
an official TEC program) it's little more than preferred routes that
keep you out of center airspace.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 30, 2:45 am, wrote:
> This is nuts.
>
> There should be no reason a properly filed IFR plan cannot be
> initiated airborne, if it starts at a VOR or intersection , for
> example.

Especially in LA. There is more need to do composite flights in LA
because going IFR through some areas of LA can increase your distance
by as much as 50 miles (vs. using the VFR coridors). I've often
wondered if I could get an airborne IFR clearance by contacting the
tower and doing a low pass vs. actually landing. Over SMO (where most
people want to pick up their IFR in the air because they just got out
of the VFR route) it would also save you $4.14 if you don't touch the
ground.

-Robert

[Dave S]

To fly IFR in controlled airspace you must have a clearance.

To have a clearance you have to file for it.

You can file by phone, computer or radio, but you must file it.

Radio can be to the FSS... or to an ATC controller. Depending on the
local ATC environment and workload, the local tower MAY accept and enter
a requested flight plan into the system, or they MAY NOT.

My question is.. to conduct this flight, you need to essentially have a
weather and tfr briefing to familiarize yourself will all information
pertinent to the flight. That is able to be accomplished with DUATS or
with a phone call to the FSS.

Once you are done with a brief, they can file your briefed route as a
plan. If you are a US certed pilot, you most likely can use DUATS. It
seems the most reasonable thing to do is to prepare ahead of time, file
the plan, then get clearance when you are ready to depart, rather than
impose on the local controllers to do your work for you.

Dave

smf wrote:
> If I want to go from Hollywood N. Perry (HWO) to Tamiami (TMB) Do I have to
> file a IFR flt plan if I want to go IFR. Is it possible to pick up a (local)
> ifr?
>
>
> thanks
>
>
> Steve
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

Dave S wrote:
> To fly IFR in controlled airspace you must have a clearance.

You also must have a flight plan. It is more than a prerequisite
for the clearance, it is an explicit requirement of the same regulation
that requires the clearance.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> You also must have a flight plan. It is more than a prerequisite
> for the clearance, it is an explicit requirement of the same regulation
> that requires the clearance.
>

Unless otherwise authorized by ATC.

[smf]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
> To fly IFR in controlled airspace you must have a clearance.
>
> To have a clearance you have to file for it.
>
> You can file by phone, computer or radio, but you must file it.

Where does a "pop-up" clearance fit into this?

steve

[Ron Natalie]

smf wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> To fly IFR in controlled airspace you must have a clearance.
>>
>> To have a clearance you have to file for it.
>>
>> You can file by phone, computer or radio, but you must file it.
>
> Where does a "pop-up" clearance fit into this?
>
You file an abbreviated plan with ATC...the first part of
the rule for IFR plans says "Unless authorized by ATC..."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"smf" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Where does a "pop-up" clearance fit into this?
>

Immediately following "information required" in FAR 91.169(a).

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You also must have a flight plan. It is more than a prerequisite
>> for the clearance, it is an explicit requirement of the same regulation
>> that requires the clearance.
>>
>
> Unless otherwise authorized by ATC.
>
>
Sorry Steven, incorrect. There is no qualification on the requirement
for the flight plan. What ATC can do is authorize deviations on the
content of an IFR plan. It is in the "Information required" section
that starts with "unless otherwise authroized by ATC." This is what
permits the filing of the "abbreviated" (most places) or TEC
(californicate) plans.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> You also must have a flight plan. It is more than a prerequisite
>>> for the clearance, it is an explicit requirement of the same regulation
>>> that requires the clearance.
>>>
>>
>> Unless otherwise authorized by ATC.
>>
>
> Sorry Steven, incorrect. There is no qualification on the requirement
> for the flight plan. What ATC can do is authorize deviations on the
> content of an IFR plan. It is in the "Information required" section that
> starts with "unless otherwise authroized by ATC." This is what
> permits the filing of the "abbreviated" (most places) or TEC
> (californicate) plans.
>

So the regulation does not permit a popup?

[Dave S]

smf wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>To fly IFR in controlled airspace you must have a clearance.
>>
>>To have a clearance you have to file for it.
>>
>>You can file by phone, computer or radio, but you must file it.
>
>
> Where does a "pop-up" clearance fit into this?
>
> steve
>
>

By radio.

If you get a popup clearance from ATC.. the controller/specialist is
entering your information into the computer, and requires much if not
all the same information as if you filed on the phone.

Call sign, type/identifier, /whatever .. souls on board, etc. Point of
origin tends to be where you are at, even if airborne.

You are filing a flight plan by radio.

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> You also must have a flight plan. It is more than a prerequisite
>>>> for the clearance, it is an explicit requirement of the same regulation
>>>> that requires the clearance.
>>>>
>>> Unless otherwise authorized by ATC.
>>>
>> Sorry Steven, incorrect. There is no qualification on the requirement
>> for the flight plan. What ATC can do is authorize deviations on the
>> content of an IFR plan. It is in the "Information required" section that
>> starts with "unless otherwise authroized by ATC." This is what
>> permits the filing of the "abbreviated" (most places) or TEC
>> (californicate) plans.
>>
>
> So the regulation does not permit a popup?
>
>
You know the answer and you're being obstinate.

The regulations require a flight plan. It is an ABSOLUTE
UNQUALFIED requirement just as the clearance is.

The discretion given ATC is to accept other than full ifr
plans from pilots in the case of popups or californicate TEC
routes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> You know the answer and you're being obstinate.
>
> The regulations require a flight plan. It is an ABSOLUTE
> UNQUALFIED requirement just as the clearance is.
>
> The discretion given ATC is to accept other than full ifr
> plans from pilots in the case of popups or californicate TEC
> routes.
>

Of course I know the answer. You said a flight plan is a prerequisite for
the clearance. ATC issues popup clearances to pilots without them having
filed any flight plan beforehand.

[Jose]

> ATC issues popup clearances to pilots without them having
> filed any flight plan beforehand.

Is the clearance issued before ATC has the information it requests of
the pilot (which would then constitute the flight plan)?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>> You know the answer and you're being obstinate.
>>
>> The regulations require a flight plan. It is an ABSOLUTE
>> UNQUALFIED requirement just as the clearance is.
>>
>> The discretion given ATC is to accept other than full ifr
>> plans from pilots in the case of popups or californicate TEC
>> routes.
>>
>
> Of course I know the answer. You said a flight plan is a prerequisite for
> the clearance. ATC issues popup clearances to pilots without them having
> filed any flight plan beforehand.
>
>
I did NOT say that. I specifically said the opposite.
It was someone else's point that "You need a clearance, to get
a clearance you have to file." I said filing a flight plan is
an explicit requirement, not just a prerequisite to getting
a clearance.

[Newps]

Dave S wrote:


>
> If you get a popup clearance from ATC.. the controller/specialist is
> entering your information into the computer, and requires much if not
> all the same information as if you filed on the phone.
>
> Call sign, type/identifier, /whatever .. souls on board, etc. Point of
> origin tends to be where you are at, even if airborne.

ATC does not care about alternates, souls on board, fuel on board, etc.
We want equipment suffix, altitude and route. I'll make up a speed as
I type it in.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did NOT say that. I specifically said the opposite.
> It was someone else's point that "You need a clearance, to get
> a clearance you have to file." I said filing a flight plan is
> an explicit requirement, not just a prerequisite to getting
> a clearance.
>

Saying that a flight plan is an explicit requirement and not JUST a
prerequisite to getting a clearance is saying that it is a prerequisite for
the clearance.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Is the clearance issued before ATC has the information it requests of the
> pilot (which would then constitute the flight plan)?
>

You tell me, here's a complete exchange from first call:


N2293M: "Green Bay Approach, Arrow 2293M, over Clintonville at 3000 with
Lima, request IFR clearance into Green Bay."

GRB Approach: "Arrow 2293M, Green Bay Approach, cleared to Austin Straubel
Field via radar vectors for the ILS runway 6, maintain 3000, fly heading
130, squawk 0401."

N2293M: "Arrow 93M cleared to Green Bay, maintain 3000, heading 130."

GRB Approach: "Arrow 93M radar contact one mile southeast of Clintonville."

[Jose]

>> Is the clearance issued before ATC has the information it requests of the
>> pilot (which would then constitute the flight plan)?
>
> You tell me, here's a complete exchange from first call:
>
> N2293M: "Green Bay Approach, Arrow 2293M, over Clintonville at 3000 with
> Lima, request IFR clearance into Green Bay."
>
> GRB Approach: "Arrow 2293M, Green Bay Approach, cleared to Austin Straubel
> Field via radar vectors for the ILS runway 6, maintain 3000, fly heading
> 130, squawk 0401."
>
> N2293M: "Arrow 93M cleared to Green Bay, maintain 3000, heading 130."
>
> GRB Approach: "Arrow 93M radar contact one mile southeast of Clintonville."

This was a VFR flight prior to the first call, quoted above? (I assume
yes). In that case, I guess clearances can precede flight plan info.

Is Clintonville an IAP or transition for the Green Bay airport? (I
assume so, in which case I'd ask the more limited question of whether
clearance is issued before flight plan info is received, if one is not
"inside an approach plate".

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> This was a VFR flight prior to the first call, quoted above?
>

Yes, a VFR flight not receiving any ATC services at the time of the call.


>
> (I assume yes). In that case, I guess clearances can precede flight plan
> info.
>
> Is Clintonville an IAP or transition for the Green Bay airport? (I assume
> so, in which case I'd ask the more limited question of whether clearance
> is issued before flight plan info is received, if one is not "inside an
> approach plate".
>

Clintonville Municipal Airport is about 27 miles WNW of GRB, Clintonville
NDB is on the field.

[Jose]

> Clintonville Municipal Airport is about 27 miles WNW of GRB, Clintonville
> NDB is on the field.

Ok. I guess at least one flight got its clearance when not inside an
approach plate, and prior to flight plan info being communicated.

I take it from your responses that this is normal procedure. Hmmm.
What are the criteria used to determine when flight plan info is to be
required first, and when not?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John R. Copeland]

"Jose" > wrote in message . net...
>> Clintonville Municipal Airport is about 27 miles WNW of GRB, Clintonville
>> NDB is on the field.
>
> Ok. I guess at least one flight got its clearance when not inside an
> approach plate, and prior to flight plan info being communicated.
>
> I take it from your responses that this is normal procedure. Hmmm.
> What are the criteria used to determine when flight plan info is to be
> required first, and when not?
>
> Jose
>

Steven's post said the initial callup included the A/C identification,
its current position, altitude, and its intended destination.
Would the controller need more flight plan information than that?

[Newps]

John R. Copeland wrote:


>
> the initial callup included the A/C identification,
> its current position, altitude, and its intended destination.
> Would the controller need more flight plan information than that?

You better give me a route if you don't want direct because that's what
I'm entering into the computer.

[John R. Copeland]

"Newps" > wrote in message . ..
>
>
> John R. Copeland wrote:
>>
>> the initial callup included the A/C identification,
>> its current position, altitude, and its intended destination.
>> Would the controller need more flight plan information than that?
>
> You better give me a route if you don't want direct because that's what
> I'm entering into the computer.

I'm sure I'd also give a route if I wanted other than direct.
In Steven's example of Clintonville - Green Bay,
"direct" seemed appropriate.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Ok. I guess at least one flight got its clearance when not inside an
> approach plate, and prior to flight plan info being communicated.
>

When not inside an approach plate?


>
> I take it from your responses that this is normal procedure.
>

It's not uncommon.


>
> Hmmm. What
> are the criteria used to determine when flight plan info is to be required
> first, and when not?
>

I don't know of any.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven's post said the initial callup included the A/C identification,
> its current position, altitude, and its intended destination.
> Would the controller need more flight plan information than that?
>

Not in a case like this. The pilot listened to the ATIS, which indicated an
IFR clearance would be needed to get to his destination.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> You better give me a route if you don't want direct because that's what
> I'm entering into the computer.
>

The guy called for a popup because an IAP was needed to get to his
destination less than 30 miles away. He doesn't need to specify a route,
he's going to be vectored for the advertised approach.

[Jose]

> When not inside an approach plate?

Yes. A colloquialism which means not in a position where the approach
plate would provide navigational guidance.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John R. Copeland]

"Jose" > wrote in message et...
>> When not inside an approach plate?
>
> Yes. A colloquialism which means not in a position where the approach
> plate would provide navigational guidance.
>
> Jose
>

That's a realistic expression when your panel is equipped with a
multifunction display and Jeppesen's JeppView.
The plate depiction is part of the moving-map display.
The little airplane symbol moves smoothly onto the approach plate.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 3, 3:05 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
>
> t...
>
>
>
> > Is the clearance issued before ATC has the information it requests of the
> > pilot (which would then constitute the flight plan)?
>
> You tell me, here's a complete exchange from first call:
>
> N2293M: "Green Bay Approach, Arrow 2293M, over Clintonville at 3000 with
> Lima, request IFR clearance into Green Bay."
>
> GRB Approach: "Arrow 2293M, Green Bay Approach, cleared to Austin Straubel
> Field via radar vectors for the ILS runway 6, maintain 3000, fly heading
> 130, squawk 0401."
>
> N2293M: "Arrow 93M cleared to Green Bay, maintain 3000, heading 130."
>
> GRB Approach: "Arrow 93M radar contact one mile southeast of Clintonville."

I guess it isn't obvious in all parts of the country. I live in fog
country and we often fly wonderful VFR all the way to our destination
and then ask for the ILS IFR to break out at 100 feet. We certainly
don't file a flight plan.

-robert

[Jose]

> I live in fog
> country and we often fly wonderful VFR all the way to our destination
> and then ask for the ILS IFR to break out at 100 feet. We certainly
> don't file a flight plan.

I've done that too. I seem to remember supplying flight plan
information prior to actually being cleared.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ray Andraka]

Ron Natalie wrote:


>
> No TEC in Florida.
>
> California is the only place where TEC has any meaning with respect
> to how flight plans get filed. In the NE (the only other place with
> an official TEC program) it's little more than preferred routes that
> keep you out of center airspace.

Ron,
Here in the Northeast, if you don't file the TEC, you are probably going
to get it anyway, at least around the NYC area. For example, going from
Providence to BWI, I've got a choice of 6000' on V16, or if I want
higher I either get there via MANTA, which is some 60 miles offshore or
I get stuck with going north to Barnes (BAF) then V292 to SAGES to Lake
Henry (LHY) to get the long way around. If I want to go through NYC,
then my only choice is V16 at 6000'. Period. And that is regardless of
what I might file.

[Mark Tanner]

so my question is, if going further south, can you somehow file for 6K
through the JFK VOR and then get higher? Every year I travel from
EWB to Florida, and have chosen the MANTA routing at 14K.

>Here in the Northeast, if you don't file the TEC, you are probably going
>to get it anyway, at least around the NYC area. For example, going from
>Providence to BWI, I've got a choice of 6000' on V16, or if I want
>higher I either get there via MANTA, which is some 60 miles offshore or
>I get stuck with going north to Barnes (BAF) then V292 to SAGES to Lake
>Henry (LHY) to get the long way around. If I want to go through NYC,
>then my only choice is V16 at 6000'. Period. And that is regardless of
>what I might file.

[Ray Andraka]

Your flight plan gets the "final" altitude for your first segment. If
you want higher later, you can ask for it. I don't think you'll get
higher than 6K until you get past Coyle (CYN) though. Also, I think the
6000' over JFK is single engine only, but not being a twin driver I
can't say with certainty.

> so my question is, if going further south, can you somehow file for 6K
> through the JFK VOR and then get higher? Every year I travel from
> EWB to Florida, and have chosen the MANTA routing at 14K.
>
>
>>Here in the Northeast, if you don't file the TEC, you are probably going
>>to get it anyway, at least around the NYC area. For example, going from
>>Providence to BWI, I've got a choice of 6000' on V16, or if I want
>>higher I either get there via MANTA, which is some 60 miles offshore or
>>I get stuck with going north to Barnes (BAF) then V292 to SAGES to Lake
>>Henry (LHY) to get the long way around. If I want to go through NYC,
>>then my only choice is V16 at 6000'. Period. And that is regardless of
>>what I might file.
>
>