If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"David Brooks" wrote in message ... "David Brooks" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... snippety It sure would have helped to supply the URL for Mr. Lynch's web site. This all sounds like an urban legend to me. Latest is at http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc. The pdf seems to have been I thought of following up with a correction to fill in the missing word, but then I realized this was a nice example of self-referentiality, so I decided not to follow up. So instead, you decided to follow up to |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks wrote: Despite what others have said, here is a "yes, but it doesn't help much" response from the Seattle FSDO. Newsgroupies from some other parts of the country have said that their ATC contacts like the idea. - Following is the only reference I could find to the subject in the FAQs to which you referred. I agree with the following language and it is quite different than the BS you got from the Seattle FSDO. FSDOs are so often full of it. ANSWER: Ref. § 61.57(d); If you’re intending to serve as the pilot in command during the instrument proficiency check (and in most cases the flight instructor is always considered to be the pilot in command on a flight where flight training/checking is being provided) and you intend to file an IFR flight plan, regardless whether the flight is in VMC or IMC, you must be instrument current in accordance with § 61.57(c). As per § 61.57(c), “. . . no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than minimum prescribed for VFR, unless . . .” |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I have tried to do such a thing down here in the Houston terminal
airspace to try and circumvent a common practice by the TRACON. It didnt work for me. What I did, which I garnered from usenet, was file an IFR plan under DUATS with VFR in the altitude block, and VFR flight following in the remarks section. The rationale was based on the fact that when you are placed in the system from a flight following standpoint, you have to submit nearly the same info that you would to get an IFR plan (pop up or pre-filed). You are assigned a data block just like any other IFR plan, the only diff is that unless in Class B, separation isnt the controllers "fault". Well.. it may work elsewhere, but it does NOT work in Houston. The standard practice in Houston is NO HANDOFFS for VFR's at all. Cant even get a "center" code, rather than a "local" code if you call up early on clearance delivery. If its night, and slow, sometimes I can get Houston to take the handoff coming back IN from the Center's territory but never on the outbound leg. Dave PPSEL Paul Safran wrote: I seem to have read or been told once that, one can file an IFR flightplan with remark for VFR flight conditions when not instrument rated, or current, to get routing and practice within the system. Comments? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Nathan Young wrote: On Fri, 7 May 2004 11:02:22 -0400, "Paul Safran" wrote: I seem to have read or been told once that, one can file an IFR flightplan with remark for VFR flight conditions when not instrument rated, or current, to get routing and practice within the system. Comments? I'm not an expert, but believe an IR is required to file an IFR flightplan. This makes sense as the controllers can't be expected to know whether or not they will be vectoring you into IMC conditions, and whether or not you can handle it. Not quite correct. An Instrument rating is required to operate under an IFR clearance. Anyone can "file" it. What this person COULD be trying to do is prefile for radar services/flight following. Filing a VFR plan goes to FSS. Filing an "IFR" plan goes to Center/ATC. This isnt tooo unlike what is happening in the DC ADIZ, P49 and other selected locations (Without referring to the specifics, here goes). You can operate VFR out of there, but you have to have a discreet code and are in continuous contact with ATC (essentially flight following). The mechanism that this occurs is by inputting you into the "IFR" system with a "VFR" tag or stipulation. But I agree, its not ATC's job to keep you out of clouds. What you can do is ask controllers for VFR practice approaches, this will help with IFR radio comm in the terminal environment. For IFR radio comm enroute, this is harder to duplicate, but VFR flight following is reasonably close to IFR comms. What you won't get is clearances and reroutes. Departing Love or some other busy fields (Besides Houston), your VFR departure clearance is quite similar to the material you would get during an IFR clearance. I agree about the reroutes, though. Dave -Nathan |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks wrote: wrote in message ... snippety It sure would have helped to supply the URL for Mr. Lynch's web site. This all sounds like an urban legend to me. Latest is at http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc. The pdf seems to have been The part about the airline dispatcher is meaningless, because that is a certificated person operating under a requirement of Part 121. To compare that to Part 91 operations is a very big stretch. He was just pointing out that not only pilots file plans as a general illumination. And, all these years I haven't let my maid file flight plans for me. ;-) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave S" wrote in message link.net... I have tried to do such a thing down here in the Houston terminal airspace to try and circumvent a common practice by the TRACON. It didnt work for me. What I did, which I garnered from usenet, was file an IFR plan under DUATS with VFR in the altitude block, and VFR flight following in the remarks section. The rationale was based on the fact that when you are placed in the system from a flight following standpoint, you have to submit nearly the same info that you would to get an IFR plan (pop up or pre-filed). You are assigned a data block just like any other IFR plan, the only diff is that unless in Class B, separation isnt the controllers "fault". Well.. it may work elsewhere, but it does NOT work in Houston. The standard practice in Houston is NO HANDOFFS for VFR's at all. Cant even get a "center" code, rather than a "local" code if you call up early on clearance delivery. If its night, and slow, sometimes I can get Houston to take the handoff coming back IN from the Center's territory but never on the outbound leg. Hello Dave, Regarding VFR flights departing the Houston area... Are you saying that Houston Center will generally not take a VFR handoff from Houston Approach? Or are you saying Approach will not accept a VFR handoff from a tower? Which airport exactly are you talking about, as an example? DWH? SGR? ?? Cheers, John Clonts Temple, Texas N7NZ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave S" wrote in message link.net... I have tried to do such a thing down here in the Houston terminal airspace to try and circumvent a common practice by the TRACON. It didnt work for me. What I did, which I garnered from usenet, was file an IFR plan under DUATS with VFR in the altitude block, and VFR flight following in the remarks section. The rationale was based on the fact that when you are placed in the system from a flight following standpoint, you have to submit nearly the same info that you would to get an IFR plan (pop up or pre-filed). You are assigned a data block just like any other IFR plan, the only diff is that unless in Class B, separation isnt the controllers "fault". Well.. it may work elsewhere, but it does NOT work in Houston. The standard practice in Houston is NO HANDOFFS for VFR's at all. Cant even get a "center" code, rather than a "local" code if you call up early on clearance delivery. If its night, and slow, sometimes I can get Houston to take the handoff coming back IN from the Center's territory but never on the outbound leg. VFR handoffs are procedurally suppressed in many parts of the country because the local controllers have convinced themselves that they are too busy and too important to bother themselves with trivial matters like VFR flight following. Houston suffers from that corporate attitude, as do other facilities. In most locations, like in Houston, this controller attitude is pathetically laughable. Chip, ZTL |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Butler" wrote in message ... [snipped] You cannot act as PIC on an IFR flight plan or accept an IFR clearance without an instrument rating. There is no prohibition against -filing- an IFR flight plan. There was an extensive thread here (or in one of the r.a.* groups) about how to file a flight plan for a VFR flight and get your proposal strip into all the relevant controllers' hands by checking the "IFR" box on the flight plan form, then coding "VFR/altitude" in the altitude block. Google for it. I've used it and it works for me. I have an instrument rating, but it seems legal to me even if I didn't. Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR flightplan. I say "isn't exactly" because while I am one of the proponents of your method, I don't consider using this particular trick to get into the system to be the same as "filing" an IFR flightplan. The ATC flightplan that this method generates is clearly a VFR flightplan to the controller because it says "VFR" in the requested altitude block. It does not generate routings other than what is filed by the pilot because the IFR pref routings are suppressed by the ATC computer. Chip, ZTL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
FAA letter on flight into known icing | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 78 | December 22nd 03 07:44 PM |
Sim time loggable? | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 6th 03 07:47 AM |
IFR flight plan filing question | Tune2828 | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | July 23rd 03 03:33 AM |