First IFR flight after checkride

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
john smith wrote in news:59IWc.33911$cT6.15495
@fe2.columbus.rr.com:


Dave Butler wrote:

I've heard of VFR climbs and VFR descents while on an instrument flight
plan, but VFR departure is a new one on me. Is that published
nomenclature, or something you made up?

I typed the text from the new Instrument Procedures Handbook
FAA-H-8261-1), page 2-32, last night and posted it. It doesn't seem to
have come through. I will retype it later today and try posting it again.



Unless you are flying a DP, most departures are done under VFR - you see
and avoid obstacles instead of relying on a published procedures.

Most of my departures for flights that will conductred under IFR are done under
IFR, whether I am flying a DP or not.


I have received IFR clearances with a DP, but sometimes I have declined the
DP because I had not reviewed it ahead of time. In such cases I get a VFR
depature. But I am technically under IFR except for the departure.

How do you get a VFR departure? What is the specific request and clearance
terminology?

Do you just mean you depart VFR and then get a clearance after you're airborne?
In that case, you're not "under IFR" until the clearance is issued, technically
or otherwise.

Dave Butler wrote in
:


Going home, it was pretty much the same song, played backwards. But
instead
of picking up our clearance in the air, we made the small mistake of
waiting
for it on the ground. We waited almost 10 minutes at the hold line
with the
Hobbs turning like a dervish, and were just about to call and say
we'd be departing VFR and pick up the clearance later, when they
called us. Lesson
learned. But all in all, one of the most fun flights I've had in a
long time
and a big confidence builder.


Why not just accept the clearance and request a VFR departure?
You are on an IFR flight plan, you are just accepting responsibility
for separation on the takeoff and departure. After the conflicting
traffic is clear, the flight becomes normal IFR.

I've heard of VFR climbs and VFR descents while on an instrument
flight plan, but VFR departure is a new one on me. Is that published
nomenclature, or something you made up?



If another airplane is flying an approach into the airport, you cannot
depart IFR. In those cases ATC may assign a VFR departure. You see an avoid
the other airplane until you reach your cruising altitude.

If another airplane is flying an approach into the airport, you cannot
depart IFR. In those cases ATC may assign a VFR departure. You see an avoid
the other airplane until you reach your cruising altitude.

Oh, my.

It's not up to me to decide whether I can depart IFR because "another airplane
is flying an approach into the airport". I either get a clearance, or I don't.

AFAIK ATC can't "assign a VFR departure". Please show me where it says they can
do that.

*I* can decide to depart VFR rather than wait for a clearance. That is not an
IFR operation. In that case I am VFR, until I obtain a clearance, whether that's
at my cruising altitude or some other altitude.

*I* can request a VFR climb while on an instrument clearance. "VFR climb" is
defined terminology. "VFR departure" is not.

Others say a VFR climb can be requested right from the airport surface, with the
issuance of an instrument clearance for departure. I've never seen/heard this
done, but I don't see any regulatory reason why it should not be possible, and I
defer to those who say they have done it.

Dave

Dave Butler wrote:


AFAIK ATC can't "assign a VFR departure". Please show me where it says
they can do that.

Right, the pilot has to ask for it.




Others say a VFR climb can be requested right from the airport surface,
with the issuance of an instrument clearance for departure. I've never
seen/heard this done, but I don't see any regulatory reason why it
should not be possible, and I defer to those who say they have done it.

A VFR climb comes in handy in the mountains. Busy places like Salt Lake
see a lot of VFR climbs by the airlines so they don't have to get
vectored to hell and gone for their climb.

Dave Butler wrote:

If another airplane is flying an approach into the airport, you cannot
depart IFR. In those cases ATC may assign a VFR departure. You see an
avoid the other airplane until you reach your cruising altitude.

Oh, my
It's not up to me to decide whether I can depart IFR because "another
airplane is flying an approach into the airport". I either get a
clearance, or I don't.

You already have an IFR CLEARANCE, you just do not have an IFR RELEASE.
They are not the same thing.
Hence you can request a VFR DEPARTURE with an IFR CLEARANCE.
This is a spacing issue.
The controller is obigated to hold you on the ground or at a fix until
they have assurance that other IFR traffic in the vicinity (usually
around an uncontrolled airport) is clear or the requisite spacing is
attained.

While waiting for my release, ATC says "I have an aircaft on approach.
Can't release you until he cancels. Can you depart VFR?" I say fine. I
keep the same squawk code, depart under VFR, and then get my release in
the air. Why is this such a big deal?



Dave Butler wrote in
:


If another airplane is flying an approach into the airport, you
cannot depart IFR. In those cases ATC may assign a VFR departure. You
see an avoid the other airplane until you reach your cruising
altitude.

Oh, my.

It's not up to me to decide whether I can depart IFR because "another
airplane is flying an approach into the airport". I either get a
clearance, or I don't.

AFAIK ATC can't "assign a VFR departure". Please show me where it says
they can do that.

*I* can decide to depart VFR rather than wait for a clearance. That is
not an IFR operation. In that case I am VFR, until I obtain a
clearance, whether that's at my cruising altitude or some other
altitude.

*I* can request a VFR climb while on an instrument clearance. "VFR
climb" is defined terminology. "VFR departure" is not.

Others say a VFR climb can be requested right from the airport
surface, with the issuance of an instrument clearance for departure.
I've never seen/heard this done, but I don't see any regulatory reason
why it should not be possible, and I defer to those who say they have
done it.

Dave