What's wrong with this idea?

After reading the “Do you always file IFR?” thread, I
began thinking about some of the benefits of IFR flight that some
mentioned. The two biggest being that you can cruise at altitudes that
decrease your chances of colliding with a VFR aircraft and
you’re guaranteed flight following. If those two benefits
outweigh the downside of flying IFR (in your opinion), wouldn’t
it make sense to always file and fly IFR, even if not legal to do so?
Specifically, I’m thinking that if you follow these 2 rules:

1. Fly under VMC conditions only (i.e., treat it just like a VFR
flight for visibility and cloud clearance).
2. If given a clearance you are unable to follow, inform ATC
“Unable” and get another clearance, or, as a last resort,
cancel IFR.

then it would be safer to fly IFR than VFR, even in an aircraft that
is not IFR certified. Taking it a step further, it would also be safer
to fly IFR than VFR, even if you aren’t IFR current.

Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
m

Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

John T ) wrote:

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
m

Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

VFR FF can be, and often is (here in the Northeast US) canceled by ATC if
the next controller is unable to accept the hand-off.


--
Peter

"John T" writes:

What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

(I won't comment on filing IFR in VMC without a rating -- I'm pretty
sure that's illegal in Canada, even if there is some loophole in the
U.S.)

When I got passed on from Ottawa Terminal to Toronto Centre on Monday,
the controller initially didn't bother to check his slips (or
whatever) or pay attention to my reported altitude, but just answered

"aircraft requesting flight following, standby"

and went straight to another call. Oops. I gave him five minutes to
figure things out, while he was possibly busy on the phone with other
ATC units, or just hoping I'd give up and leave him alone (the
frequency wasn't busy), then I called again with a small addition to
the end:

"Toronto Centre, this is Cherokee foxtrot bravo juliet oscar, level
8 thousand on victor 316, *IFR*."

Boy, I got an answer quickly that time. South of the border in New
Jersey, before I was rated, I had trouble getting VFR flight following
from New York on a departure out from KCDW after 11:00 pm -- the
controller just didn't want to talk to me. I could hear his
transmission to every other aircraft perfectly clearly, but every time
he called me he broke up into static (do controllers ever play tricks
with their mic buttons to get rid of VFR pilots, instead of simply
saying "unable," or was it just a weird coincidence?).


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

David Megginson wrote:

do controllers ever play tricks
with their mic buttons to get rid of VFR pilots, instead of simply
saying "unable," .....

Well, if it can be done, it'll be a New York controller that figures out
how.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

"John T" wrote in message ews.com...
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
m

Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

As stated above, it reduces your chances of colliding with VFR traffic
because you will be at a different enroute altitude than VFR traffic
(e.g., 5,000 feet vs. 4,500 or 5,500 feet).

How many enroute mid-air collisions have there been in the past century?

Mike
MU-2


"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
"John T" wrote in message
ews.com...
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
m

Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

As stated above, it reduces your chances of colliding with VFR traffic
because you will be at a different enroute altitude than VFR traffic
(e.g., 5,000 feet vs. 4,500 or 5,500 feet).

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
...

How many enroute mid-air collisions have there been in the past century?


At least one.

In article link.net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
...

How many enroute mid-air collisions have there been in the past century?


At least one.

I can think of at least four.
One in mid USA over the Grand Canyon. Constellation/ DC-7
One over New York DC-8/ Super Constellation
One over Yugoslavia Trident/ DC-9
One over Switzerland (or that region) quite recently

Flicking through one of my books I spotted a couple of others. Would
include civil/military accidents?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to
-----------------------------------------------------------

On 30 Jul 2003 07:28:22 -0700, (Ace
Pilot) wrote in Message-Id:
:

The two biggest being that you can cruise at altitudes that
decrease your chances of colliding with a VFR aircraft...

Are you referring to Class A airspace?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,