"normal" procedure for pop-up filing

I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
Moline approach?

"paul kgyy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
contact ATC.

Usually when I need to do this it's a flight where IFR conditions arise
unexpectedly. I then don't have time to file with FSS, wait for the plan to
be in the system and then call center. If I need to call FSS then I usually
land, regroup, file the usual way and restart the trip.

On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
Moline approach?

Yup, that has been my experience. I think is is not possible to predict when
center will have the time to accept your plan and when they will tell you to
file with FSS.

Howard

What Howard said.

I've done both and had ATC both ask me to file with FSS and simply take
my pop-up request.

Everything seems to 'depend'.

It I arrive at my destination VFR with a cloud deck below, asking the
destination approach for an IFR clearance to get there will invariably
be granted.

If halfway thru a trip I ask Center or a non-destination approach for a
clearance, they will often ask me to file with FSS. Just pick a handy
intersection 15 mins out in front and file from it to my destination.

Happens less now. I generally file IFR unless there is a specific
reason to file VFR beyond CAVU. Why give up the extra eyes for
traffic,extra traffic separation standards, airspace management (MOA,
prohibited, restricteed obstacle avoidance), and TFR avoidance services
unless there is a clear advantage to not filing. Reduced low level
winds is sometimes my excuse - slow plane means winds have a larger effect.

And I can't afford to pass up the practice -

paul kgyy wrote:
I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
Moline approach?

paul kgyy wrote:
I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
Moline approach?

It absolutely depends on how busy ATC is. Around here (New York), if
they're not busy, you can call them up cold and and make your
request. They'll take the important info (destination, aircraft type,
etc) and give you a route. Sometimes they'll say they're too busy and
tell you to go talk to FSS like you're supposed to.

What I find works best is if things are iffy, is to get VFR flight
following first. Once they've already got you in the system, assigned
a code, radar identified, etc, if you later tell them you need to get
a clearance, they're more likely to handle you directly.

If push comes to shove, if you tell them you need a clearance NOW,
they'll get you one. But the idea is to never let things degenerate
to the point where you have to start playing trump cards.

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
. com...
What Howard said.

I've done both and had ATC both ask me to file with FSS and simply take
my pop-up request.

Everything seems to 'depend'.

It I arrive at my destination VFR with a cloud deck below, asking the
destination approach for an IFR clearance to get there will invariably
be granted.

"Depends" probably depends on workload.

I've never had a problem in the vast mid-west, but have had problems trying
it nearer to Denver and their frantic pace.

Happens less now. I generally file IFR unless there is a specific reason to file VFR beyond CAVU. Why give up the extra eyes for traffic,extra traffic separation standards, airspace management (MOA, prohibited, restricteed obstacle avoidance), and TFR avoidance services unless there is a clear advantage to not filing.

Time, range, and convetion. VFR you can usually go direct. IFR you get
routed around willy nilly so you use more gas and time, and require
reserves to an alternate plus forty five minutes after a non-direct
flight. Sometimes this makes a one leg flight into two legs, and the
VFR option is better (even from a safety POV).

Not always. Sometimes.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Agreed. It depends. From where I base near KRDU, I can get cleared
direct towards almost anywhere except DC/Phillie/NY. Routing is almost
never a reason for me. Even direct thru Charlotte will usually get
cleared then amended - but same for VFR.

Coming back for Annapolis MD (DC ADIZ)last week I filed airways all the
way home but not long after clearing the PXT (where all the MOAs were
hot, the Potomac controller asked for my direct home. I didn't
understand at first and didn't give it. She cleared me direct on her
own initiative. Turned out she picked the exact point from which I
could go direct while missing the hot MOAs south of Richmond. Nice
work! That was a first.

The alternate thing is interesting. In VMC, I just file IFR anyway.
When I get close I'll either amend if I want to go further or cancel and
go to FF. Nothing wrong with planning for IFR fuel and flying VFR fuel
once there. Kind of good conservative planning. I'll do that next week
flying to Tampa. With 4.5 hours, I can and have made Tampa without a
stop but never plan it. I will file and get a clearance and see how it
works this time.

But all this is *very* geo dependent. YMMV


Jose wrote:
Happens less now. I generally file IFR unless there is a specific
reason to file VFR beyond CAVU. Why give up the extra eyes for
traffic,extra traffic separation standards, airspace management (MOA,
prohibited, restricteed obstacle avoidance), and TFR avoidance
services unless there is a clear advantage to not filing.

Time, range, and convetion. VFR you can usually go direct. IFR you get
routed around willy nilly so you use more gas and time, and require
reserves to an alternate plus forty five minutes after a non-direct
flight. Sometimes this makes a one leg flight into two legs, and the
VFR option is better (even from a safety POV).

Not always. Sometimes.

Jose

Roy has put his finger on it. Transitioning from flight following to hard
IFR takes the FSS out of the loop. I have never understood why pilots ignore
the benefits of flight following.

Bob Gardner

"paul kgyy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
Moline approach?

Why don't more people use flight following? It distracts them from being
able to enjoy their satellite radio, Bob.

I'm with you; I feel weird flying VFR more than fifteen miles without
talking with ATC for flight following. Being based under a Class B, I see
a lot of benefits to talking with ATC, including being practiced enough to
be able to work with busy approach controllers.

I've heard people asking for radar service from NY Tracon. The people that
make their request well tend to get service. The folks that don't seem to
know where they are and what they want generally aren't as fortunate. If
you practice ATC communication (by getting VFR flight following), you'll
be more comfortable when you need to fly IFR in the system.

-Jack



"Bob Gardner" writes:

Roy has put his finger on it. Transitioning from flight following to hard
IFR takes the FSS out of the loop. I have never understood why pilots ignore
the benefits of flight following.

Bob Gardner

"paul kgyy" wrote in message
roups.com...
I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
Moline approach?

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
Happens less now. I generally file IFR unless there is a specific
reason to file VFR beyond CAVU. Why give up the extra eyes for
traffic,extra traffic separation standards, airspace management (MOA,
prohibited, restricteed obstacle avoidance), and TFR avoidance services
unless there is a clear advantage to not filing.

Time, range, and convetion. VFR you can usually go direct. IFR you get
routed around willy nilly so you use more gas and time, and require
reserves to an alternate plus forty five minutes after a non-direct
flight. Sometimes this makes a one leg flight into two legs, and the
VFR option is better (even from a safety POV).

Again it depends a lot. I have never had problems when flying IFR in VMC
with the routing. I fly from fulton county in Atlanta, and when I fly south
IFR is much nicer because I'll get vectored to fly over ATL inside the class
B, instead to try to scoot under the class B and go around ATL, which takes
more time. I guess I could get a clearance to go inside the class B under
VFR, but I'll probably be vectored in the same way anyways. I usually go
direct if I file like that. Well, maybe if you don't have an IFR capable GPS
you may lose a lot of time following airways, so in that case VFR will be
better. Not worrying about the airspaces is the greatest thing of IFR.
About the alternate, you only need the fuel for the alternate in the case
the weather is below 1-2-3, in which case its a good idea to have enough
fuel to go to the alternate + 45 minutes anyways. If the weather is clear,
you only need 45 minutes extra fuel from your first landing point (unless
the airport doesn't have an IAP). Ok, this is 15 minutes more than VFR, but
I won't do only 30 minutes reserve anyways. I like to keep it at one hour
reserve in ANY flight.
So agree that there may be certain situations in which you don't want IFR,
but I think in most of the cases it is the best thing to do if you are going
somewhere other than sigthseeing or training (especially if you have an IFR
GPS)