Filing IFR flight Plan in VMC

On 07/28/08 12:15, Howard wrote:
"Cyberfly via AviationKB.com" u45015@uwe wrote in message
news:87d5dd402195d@uwe...
I have a question for the group. Im working on my IFR ticket, and will be
finished in about another 2-3 months, depending on how much I fly (Im
renting.
so at $165/hr with instructor,, the $$$$ flow is very high right now) . I
was told by one of the "old guys" at the airport that if I wanted to file
an
IFR flight plan in VMC and remain totally VFR, that I could do so by
myself
without an instructor with me (and without my IFR ticket). The premise is
that it is not illegal to file an IFR plan and fly it VMC while keeping
VFR
the entire time. It is very "ILLEGAL" to file IFR flight plan and fly in
IMC
without either your IFR ticket or an IFR rated instructor. The practice
would
be great of getting into the system, approaches, vectors, etc.,,but my
fear
is that if I try this,,I could wind up in deep dodo with my local FSDO. I
have searched the FARs and cant find any reference to this scenario and so
I
cant verify if I could actually do this or not legally.
This would be quite easy to do at night on a clear night. I do most of my
IFR
training at night because of my work schedule and love the night flights,
less traffic, no turbulence, etc... Your thoughts?

Thanks ron..

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/ifr/200807/1

This one I think is pretty straightforward.

You may not accept or fly under an IFR clearance unless the plane and PIC
are IFR current.

Time of day, visibility, class of airspace do not play a part in this
determination.

You can file (for the practice of filing) but you cannot accept the
clearance as PIC unless you are IFR current.

Which raises the question "is the safety pilot PIC" if the pilot operating
the controls with a vision restricting device is has not met the 6/6
requirement? You are VFR but operating under an IFR clearance for the
purposes of the practice approaches. Who has legally accepted the
approaches?




You do not have to be under an IFR clearance to practice approaches. In
fact, some controllers will say "Practice Approach Approved" rather than
the normal "Cleared for the approach" to make this point clear.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Mark Hansen wrote:

You do not have to be under an IFR clearance to practice approaches. In
fact, some controllers will say "Practice Approach Approved" rather than
the normal "Cleared for the approach" to make this point clear.


That matches my experience.

You're still VFR while flying IFR practice approaches. No separation or
terrain warning is provided.

My local guys usually say "Cleared for the ILS XX practice approach,
remain VFR".

Real requests for approach usually include the "Are you rated and
equipped?" query if you're not arriving on an IFR plan.

B A R R Y wrote:

You're still VFR while flying IFR practice approaches. No separation
or terrain warning is provided.


FAA policy is to provide separation to VFR aircraft while conducting
practice instrument approaches where it is practical to do so. Generally,
that means Class D airspace or higher with good radar coverage.



Real requests for approach usually include the "Are you rated and
equipped?" query if you're not arriving on an IFR plan.


Shouldn't be. It is reasonable to assume the pilot is capable of the
service he requests. There is a requirement to ask the pilot if he is
qualified for and capable of conducting IFR flight when a VFR aircraft
requests radar assistance when it encounters or is about to encounter IFR
weather conditions. But in that case it's the controller that's suggesting
IFR, not the pilot requesting it.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
You're still VFR while flying IFR practice approaches. No separation
or terrain warning is provided.


FAA policy is to provide separation to VFR aircraft while conducting
practice instrument approaches where it is practical to do so. Generally,
that means Class D airspace or higher with good radar coverage.

It very well could be traffic volume, but I am often specifically told
"no separation services..." by PVD and BDL during practice approaches.

I appreciate the clarification as I hear it so often I thought it was SOP.


Real requests for approach usually include the "Are you rated and
equipped?" query if you're not arriving on an IFR plan.


Shouldn't be. It is reasonable to assume the pilot is capable of the
service he requests. There is a requirement to ask the pilot if he is
qualified for and capable of conducting IFR flight when a VFR aircraft
requests radar assistance when it encounters or is about to encounter IFR
weather conditions. But in that case it's the controller that's suggesting
IFR, not the pilot requesting it.

That's what I'm talking about. A VFR aircraft arriving at an IFR
airport, so it needs an IFR approach. This is very common on Cape Cod
and the Islands. I hear Cape and Boston approach ask the question so
often, my rarely flying pax even know what it means.

B A R R Y wrote:

That's what I'm talking about. A VFR aircraft arriving at an IFR
airport, so it needs an IFR approach. This is very common on Cape Cod
and the Islands. I hear Cape and Boston approach ask the question so
often, my rarely flying pax even know what it means.


Apparently an unnecessary local custom.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Apparently an unnecessary local custom.


Wouldn't be the first...

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
B A R R Y wrote:

That's what I'm talking about. A VFR aircraft arriving at an IFR
airport, so it needs an IFR approach. This is very common on Cape Cod
and the Islands. I hear Cape and Boston approach ask the question so
often, my rarely flying pax even know what it means.

Apparently an unnecessary local custom.

Given the sudden and unexpected weather conditions around
the Cape, it's not a bad idea to ask.

Everett M. Greene wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
B A R R Y wrote:

That's what I'm talking about. A VFR aircraft arriving at an IFR
airport, so it needs an IFR approach. This is very common on Cape
Cod and the Islands. I hear Cape and Boston approach ask the
question so often, my rarely flying pax even know what it means.

Apparently an unnecessary local custom.

Given the sudden and unexpected weather conditions around
the Cape, it's not a bad idea to ask.


Why? What's the benefit in asking?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
B A R R Y wrote:
You're still VFR while flying IFR practice approaches. No separation
or terrain warning is provided.


FAA policy is to provide separation to VFR aircraft while conducting
practice instrument approaches where it is practical to do so. Generally,
that means Class D airspace or higher with good radar coverage.

Some local data points.

I flew three practice approaches tonight (7/29).

#1 - LDA 2 into KHFD. BDL Approach specifically stated "remain VFR".
HFD Tower called out so much traffic, I couldn't call my missed. None
of the traffic was anything near IFR separation.

#2 - ILS 5 to KGON. PVD Approach stated "Remain VFR, no traffic
separation provided" KGON tower controller seemed pretty bored, I was
the only thing around.

#3 - VOR-A to KIJD. PVD Approach stated "Remain VFR, no traffic
separation provided after ORW VOR." He did have me keep the squawk all
the way to the airport, even after switching to CTAF.

On the funny side... PVD was providing advisories to a guy who would
launch into a 5 minute dissertation with each traffic call! G The
guy narrated the current position in relation to his aircraft as the
traffic passed. He would also keep coming back and update approach on
the position once he passed it! Haven't heard that before!

B A R R Y wrote:

I flew three practice approaches tonight (7/29).

#1 - LDA 2 into KHFD. BDL Approach specifically stated "remain VFR".
HFD Tower called out so much traffic, I couldn't call my missed. None
of the traffic was anything near IFR separation.

None was needed unless that traffic was IFR or another VFR aircraft
practicing approaches. Still not needed if visual separation was being
used.