filing IFR plan for VFR flight conditions

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.