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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
filing IFR plan for VFR flight conditions
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. -Nathan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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? Absolutely not. You can certainly get flight following, and follow airways, and fly under the hood (with a safety pilot) and ask for practice approaches, but if the PIC isn't instrument rated and current, you absolutely cannot file an IFR flight plan, or accept an IFR clearance, or go into weather conditions which do not meet VFR requirements. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote: "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? Absolutely not. You can certainly get flight following, and follow airways, and fly under the hood (with a safety pilot) and ask for practice approaches, but if the PIC isn't instrument rated and current, you absolutely cannot file an IFR flight plan, or accept an IFR clearance, or go into weather conditions which do not meet VFR requirements. 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 Remove SHIRT to reply directly. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Very simply, NO.
You can ask for practice approaches, but you will be operating under VFR. "Paul Safran" wrote in message ... 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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Safran" wrote in message
... 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? 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. -- David Brooks WOW!!!!! Great question. My answer will be quite involved, so please, read the whole thing and don't take things out of context. First, FAR 61.3(e) says, "No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds: (1) The appropriate aircraft catagory, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown; (2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate aircraft catagory, class and type rating (if required) for the aircraft being flown." Since filing the flight plan technically is not acting as pilot in command, we say FAR 61.3 does not specifically prohibit the filing of an IFR flight plan by a non-instrument rated pilot. Consider, as an example, the airline industry, where Aircraft Dispatchers file the flight plans. Few of those Dispatchers hold instrument ratings (in fact most don't even hold pilot certificates) and yet, they file the flight plans. The Captains accept the clearances from ATC (this act is definitely considered acting as PIC). So, there is no regulation which would prohibit a non-instrument rated pilot from filing the flight plan. But non-instrument rated pilots who accept IFR clearances from ATC will definitely be in for massive FAA penalties. Having said that, our Air Traffic Division says your procedure of filing IFR for VFR Flight Following services does little to reduce their workload and plays no part in their decision to provide or not provide Flight Following to VFR pilots. It literally takes the controller just a few seconds to input the information. And they point out that there are significant disadvantages to VFR pilots who file IFR for VFR Flight Following. Consider that once the Flight Service Station sends the IFR flight plan to Air Traffic controllers, they are finished with it and FSS will NOT track the airplane to destination (because they assume the controllers will). This means that if Flight Following services are cancelled for any reason, no one will look for the airplane if it fails to reach destination. Our Air Traffic Division suggests pilots file VFR flight plans (for all the well know advantages) and then request Flight Following services at their earliest convenience. This request could be made to the FSS if the pilot is departing from a non-towered airport, or Ground Control when departing from a tower controlled airport, or from Departure Control, or from Center. But the sooner the request comes, the better for ATC. One more thing, I want you to consider asking John Lynch for the answer to your question. John Lynch is the FAA gentleman who was in charge of the re-write of FAR Part 61 and 141 back in 1997. As such, he is the nation's foremost authority on the interpretations of Part 61. He has placed all 500 pages of his interpretations on the Internet at a place he calls Frequently Asked Questions. I checked there today and your question has not been asked. But there is a place to ask unasked questions and I encourage you to do so. That is the best way to get a truly official answer. I have attached a copy of the May/June 2001 issue of AeroSafe which has a story on page 2 titled "FAQ's" which tells you how to access Mr. Lynch's web site. May you always find VFR and tailwinds. _|_ ___(_)___ Scott |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
May you always find VFR and tailwinds.
Quite frankly, I take exception to the first part of this statement. Hilton |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks wrote: "Paul Safran" wrote in message ... 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? 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. -- David Brooks WOW!!!!! Great question. My answer will be quite involved, so please, read the whole thing and don't take things out of context. First, FAR 61.3(e) says, "No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds: (1) The appropriate aircraft catagory, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown; (2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate aircraft catagory, class and type rating (if required) for the aircraft being flown." Since filing the flight plan technically is not acting as pilot in command, we say FAR 61.3 does not specifically prohibit the filing of an IFR flight plan by a non-instrument rated pilot. Consider, as an example, the airline industry, where Aircraft Dispatchers file the flight plans. Few of those Dispatchers hold instrument ratings (in fact most don't even hold pilot certificates) and yet, they file the flight plans. The Captains accept the clearances from ATC (this act is definitely considered acting as PIC). So, there is no regulation which would prohibit a non-instrument rated pilot from filing the flight plan. But non-instrument rated pilots who accept IFR clearances from ATC will definitely be in for massive FAA penalties. Having said that, our Air Traffic Division says your procedure of filing IFR for VFR Flight Following services does little to reduce their workload and plays no part in their decision to provide or not provide Flight Following to VFR pilots. It literally takes the controller just a few seconds to input the information. And they point out that there are significant disadvantages to VFR pilots who file IFR for VFR Flight Following. Consider that once the Flight Service Station sends the IFR flight plan to Air Traffic controllers, they are finished with it and FSS will NOT track the airplane to destination (because they assume the controllers will). This means that if Flight Following services are cancelled for any reason, no one will look for the airplane if it fails to reach destination. Our Air Traffic Division suggests pilots file VFR flight plans (for all the well know advantages) and then request Flight Following services at their earliest convenience. This request could be made to the FSS if the pilot is departing from a non-towered airport, or Ground Control when departing from a tower controlled airport, or from Departure Control, or from Center. But the sooner the request comes, the better for ATC. One more thing, I want you to consider asking John Lynch for the answer to your question. John Lynch is the FAA gentleman who was in charge of the re-write of FAR Part 61 and 141 back in 1997. As such, he is the nation's foremost authority on the interpretations of Part 61. He has placed all 500 pages of his interpretations on the Internet at a place he calls Frequently Asked Questions. I checked there today and your question has not been asked. But there is a place to ask unasked questions and I encourage you to do so. That is the best way to get a truly official answer. I have attached a copy of the May/June 2001 issue of AeroSafe which has a story on page 2 titled "FAQ's" which tells you how to access Mr. Lynch's web site. It sure would have helped to supply the URL for Mr. Lynch's web site. This all sounds like an urban legend to me. 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- David Brooks |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
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 |