What's wrong with this idea?

After reading the “Do you always file IFR?” thread, I
began thinking about some of the benefits of IFR flight that some
mentioned. The two biggest being that you can cruise at altitudes that
decrease your chances of colliding with a VFR aircraft and
you’re guaranteed flight following. If those two benefits
outweigh the downside of flying IFR (in your opinion), wouldn’t
it make sense to always file and fly IFR, even if not legal to do so?
Specifically, I’m thinking that if you follow these 2 rules:

1. Fly under VMC conditions only (i.e., treat it just like a VFR
flight for visibility and cloud clearance).
2. If given a clearance you are unable to follow, inform ATC
“Unable” and get another clearance, or, as a last resort,
cancel IFR.

then it would be safer to fly IFR than VFR, even in an aircraft that
is not IFR certified. Taking it a step further, it would also be safer
to fly IFR than VFR, even if you aren’t IFR current.

Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
m

Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

John T ) wrote:

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
m

Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

VFR FF can be, and often is (here in the Northeast US) canceled by ATC if
the next controller is unable to accept the hand-off.


--
Peter

"John T" writes:

What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

(I won't comment on filing IFR in VMC without a rating -- I'm pretty
sure that's illegal in Canada, even if there is some loophole in the
U.S.)

When I got passed on from Ottawa Terminal to Toronto Centre on Monday,
the controller initially didn't bother to check his slips (or
whatever) or pay attention to my reported altitude, but just answered

"aircraft requesting flight following, standby"

and went straight to another call. Oops. I gave him five minutes to
figure things out, while he was possibly busy on the phone with other
ATC units, or just hoping I'd give up and leave him alone (the
frequency wasn't busy), then I called again with a small addition to
the end:

"Toronto Centre, this is Cherokee foxtrot bravo juliet oscar, level
8 thousand on victor 316, *IFR*."

Boy, I got an answer quickly that time. South of the border in New
Jersey, before I was rated, I had trouble getting VFR flight following
from New York on a departure out from KCDW after 11:00 pm -- the
controller just didn't want to talk to me. I could hear his
transmission to every other aircraft perfectly clearly, but every time
he called me he broke up into static (do controllers ever play tricks
with their mic buttons to get rid of VFR pilots, instead of simply
saying "unable," or was it just a weird coincidence?).


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

On 30 Jul 2003 07:28:22 -0700, (Ace
Pilot) wrote in Message-Id:
:

The two biggest being that you can cruise at altitudes that
decrease your chances of colliding with a VFR aircraft...

Are you referring to Class A airspace?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

"Guy Elden Jr." wrote in message
...
Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

Well, one way to look at it is this: if you don't have the rating, then
it's
reasonable to assume you're not qualified to fly in the IFR system without
an instructor on board.

I agree. Besides, I worked for my IR, and proved I was able to use it (at
least as far as the DE was concerned). Flying IFR includes both
responsibility and privilege. If you want the privilege, earn it.

"John T" wrote in message ews.com...
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
m

Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

As stated above, it reduces your chances of colliding with VFR traffic
because you will be at a different enroute altitude than VFR traffic
(e.g., 5,000 feet vs. 4,500 or 5,500 feet).

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:27:36 -0400, Guy Elden Jr.
wrote:

[filing and flying IFR without the rating]

is wreckless and selfish, not to mention inconsiderate, and of course,
illegal.

Sadly, it is all too frequently not wreckless, which is what makes
it reckless. :-)


Morris (not a spelling flame, just a bad pun)

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:28:22 -0700, Ace Pilot wrote:

After reading the "Do you always file IFR" thread, I
began thinking about some of the benefits of IFR flight that some
mentioned. The two biggest being that you can cruise at altitudes that
decrease your chances of colliding with a VFR aircraft and
you're guaranteed flight following.

The point of VFR conditions is that you should be able to avoid other
aircraft. Also, as my IFR ground school instructor insisted almost every
session... IFR doesn't mean that you're separated from VFR traffic.

You're also not guaranteed "flight following".

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/183139-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182649-1.html

Check those out.

outweigh the downside of flying IFR (in your opinion), wouldn't
it make sense to always file and fly IFR, even if not legal to do so?

No.

If so, then that's what we'd do.

Specifically, I'm thinking that if you follow these 2 rules:

1. Fly under VMC conditions only (i.e., treat it just like a VFR
flight for visibility and cloud clearance).

2. If given a clearance you are unable to follow, inform ATC
"Unable"; and get another clearance, or, as a last resort,
cancel IFR.

Want to think about this a little bit more? So if you're in the IFR
system, and the controllers are expecting you to be IFR trained, tested,
and current - or at least HAVE been at some point, and when they issue you
a clearance - and you suddenly cancel...

So you'll (without all the training), in a plane that doesn't meet the
requirements (not _all_ regs are there just to give bureaucrats a job)
overload the system, then cause mass confusion? And that will be safer?

it would also be safer
to fly IFR than VFR, even if you aren't IFR current.

_If_ you're IFR rated, I might agree. But then, in that case, why not
just _get current_?

Addison

(Ace Pilot) writes:

I was referring to the fact that IFR cruising altitudes are offset by
500 feet from VFR cruising altitudes.

All of the IFR pilots in any given sector are on the same altimeter
setting, as provided by ATC. Unless they have flight following, God
only knows what altimeter setting the VFR pilots are using -- if a
front's moving in, a VFR pilot's 7500 ft may well be the same as your
8000 ft.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/