Is it possible to switch from VFR to IFR and back?

Ron Garret writes:

Just ask ATC for a clearance. If they aren't too busy they will just
give you one. If they are busy you will need to contact flight service
by radio to file an IFR flight plan, then get back in touch with ATC to
activate it.

Do I have to work out a whole list of waypoints and stuff to give to
them? Can I just ask for IFR clearance to my destination (or to some
specific point where I expect to find VMC again), without specifying
waypoints or altitudes?

Usually I have a VFR flight plan which in fact does include waypoints,
because I've worked something out with a chart beforehand, but not
always. If I've filed a VFR flight plan that mentions way points, can
I refer to it when asking ATC for IFR clearance? In other words, just
convert part of the VFR flight plan to an IFR flight plan?

Landing somewhere first is also an option.

Yes, but if I can't see anything out the window, this is not without
risk (mainly from conflicting traffic, even if I have instruments that
allow me to land in poor visibility).

Yes, you can switch from IFR to VFR at any time by simply telling ATC
that you are "canceling IFR."

Do I get in trouble if I file VFR, encounter IMC, and have to ask for
IFR clearance as a result? I know I'm not supposed to take off in
IMC, but it seems like on a trip of substantial length, it's hard to
guarantee that it will all be fair weather, especially in some regions
of the world (the area around Seattle seems very pretty, although it
also seems that one can rarely _see_ the area around Seattle).

Why? People fly IFR in VFR conditions all the time.

I recall reading that the vast majority of private pilots (80%?) are
not instrument rated, and that many accidents involving small planes
occur when non-IR pilots fly into IMC and become disoriented. So I
assume that it's rare for the pilot of a small plane to fly IFR
"unofficially" while under VFR. It sounds like a lot of them have no
idea how to do it.

It's much better to be IFR the whole way if there's any chance of
encountering instrument conditions anywhere on the flight.

Because ... ?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
says...


I recall reading that the vast majority of private pilots (80%?) are
not instrument rated, and that many accidents involving small planes
occur when non-IR pilots fly into IMC and become disoriented.


It is possible to read many things that are not true - particularly if you
hang out in places like this!!

The number of US private pilots who are instrument rated is much better than
this - which unfortunately does not preclude them from becoming disoriented
in IMC. The subject of instrument flight and training is very interesting,
but relatively complex, involving matters of human factors, training
methods, regulations and their interpretation, currency requirements and
their interpretation and usefuleness and I could go on - All of these
considerations put the subject out of reasonable bounds for those who have
no genuine interest in learning.

GF

Greg Farris writes:

It is possible to read many things that are not true - particularly if you
hang out in places like this!!

I don't remember where I read it.

The number of US private pilots who are instrument rated is much better than
this - which unfortunately does not preclude them from becoming disoriented
in IMC.

Does that include private pilots who fly only small GA aircraft, or is
it _all_ private pilots (including commercial airline pilots)?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote

Does that include private pilots who fly only small GA aircraft, or is
it _all_ private pilots (including commercial airline pilots)?

It doesn't matter what the statistics are like in the real world. In your
simulator, the program will not change.
--
Jim in NC

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Garret writes:

Just ask ATC for a clearance. If they aren't too busy they will just
give you one. If they are busy you will need to contact flight service
by radio to file an IFR flight plan, then get back in touch with ATC to
activate it.

Do I have to work out a whole list of waypoints and stuff to give to
them?

Nope, they (actually their computer) will figure that out for you.

Can I just ask for IFR clearance to my destination (or to some
specific point where I expect to find VMC again), without specifying
waypoints or altitudes?

Yep.

Usually I have a VFR flight plan which in fact does include waypoints,
because I've worked something out with a chart beforehand, but not
always. If I've filed a VFR flight plan that mentions way points, can
I refer to it when asking ATC for IFR clearance?

Nope, ATC has no access to VFR flight plans.

In other words, just
convert part of the VFR flight plan to an IFR flight plan?

Nope.

Landing somewhere first is also an option.

Yes, but if I can't see anything out the window, this is not without
risk (mainly from conflicting traffic, even if I have instruments that
allow me to land in poor visibility).

If you can't see anything out the window and you are VFR then you're
already screwed. Time to declare an emergency.


Yes, you can switch from IFR to VFR at any time by simply telling ATC
that you are "canceling IFR."

Do I get in trouble if I file VFR, encounter IMC, and have to ask for
IFR clearance as a result?

Not unless you actually enter IMC without an IFR clearance.

I know I'm not supposed to take off in
IMC, but it seems like on a trip of substantial length, it's hard to
guarantee that it will all be fair weather, especially in some regions
of the world (the area around Seattle seems very pretty, although it
also seems that one can rarely _see_ the area around Seattle).

That's why having a plan B is always advisable.

Why? People fly IFR in VFR conditions all the time.

I recall reading that the vast majority of private pilots (80%?) are
not instrument rated, and that many accidents involving small planes
occur when non-IR pilots fly into IMC and become disoriented. So I
assume that it's rare for the pilot of a small plane to fly IFR
"unofficially" while under VFR. It sounds like a lot of them have no
idea how to do it.

I have no idea what you mean by 'flying IFR "unofficially"'. It's true
that many people don't have instrument ratings. Those people have fewer
options when flying cross-country.

It's much better to be IFR the whole way if there's any chance of
encountering instrument conditions anywhere on the flight.

Because ... ?

I'll leave that as an exercise for you to figure out.

rg

Ron Garret writes:

If you can't see anything out the window and you are VFR then you're
already screwed. Time to declare an emergency.

Well, if you are equipped for instrument flight and rated for it and
there isn't too much traffic, I wouldn't call it an emergency,
although you do need to get flight separation services or get back to
VMC as quickly as possible.

I have no idea what you mean by 'flying IFR "unofficially"'.

Flying using instruments even though you haven't filed an instrument
flight plan. For example, my habit of flying with a GPS or by
following VORs rather than looking for landmarks out the window.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Garret writes:

If you can't see anything out the window and you are VFR then you're
already screwed. Time to declare an emergency.

Well, if you are equipped for instrument flight and rated for it and
there isn't too much traffic, I wouldn't call it an emergency,

Then you are missing something very fundamental: there is more to IFR
flight than simply flying by reference to instruments. It is also
flying according to a much more rigidly planned and stylized repertoire
of routes and maneuvers designed to keep you from hitting not only other
airplanes but also (and more importantly) terrain. That is why even
instrument-rated pilots flying instrument-equipped planes die on a
regular basis as a result of VFR flight into IMC.

although you do need to get flight separation services or get back to
VMC as quickly as possible.

That takes time. How are you going to keep from hitting things in the
meantime?

I have no idea what you mean by 'flying IFR "unofficially"'.

Flying using instruments even though you haven't filed an instrument
flight plan. For example, my habit of flying with a GPS or by
following VORs rather than looking for landmarks out the window.

Flying using instruments is NOT the same thing as flying IFR.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote

That takes time. How are you going to keep from hitting things in the
meantime?

His simulator will not hit anything, and if it does, the game will start over
again.

Ron, just tell him to go ask the simulator folks. They have all of the
information he needs to know, for his game.
--
Jim in NC

Ron Garret writes:

Then you are missing something very fundamental: there is more to IFR
flight than simply flying by reference to instruments. It is also
flying according to a much more rigidly planned and stylized repertoire
of routes and maneuvers designed to keep you from hitting not only other
airplanes but also (and more importantly) terrain. That is why even
instrument-rated pilots flying instrument-equipped planes die on a
regular basis as a result of VFR flight into IMC.

If you have the right instruments, and an instrument rating, and ATC
to provide separation, why would it be dangerous?

I know that most IFR flights are rigidly planned, but it appears that
they don't have to be. You need to know where you are and where you
are going, but you don't have to plan every detail in advance.

That takes time. How are you going to keep from hitting things in the
meantime?

All it takes is a call to ATC. If you already know your instruments
and you already have your navaids and what-not set up, you already
know where you are and where you are going, irrespective of what you
can see out the window. You just look out the window for separation
and as an additional sanity check on your navigation, or just for
sightseeing. If visibility drops, you're covered, except for
separation--whence the call to ATC when you approach IMC.

Flying using instruments is NOT the same thing as flying IFR.

What are the differences? ATC provides separation and guidance for
IFR flights, but besides that, what changes?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Garret writes:

Then you are missing something very fundamental: there is more to IFR
flight than simply flying by reference to instruments. It is also
flying according to a much more rigidly planned and stylized repertoire
of routes and maneuvers designed to keep you from hitting not only other
airplanes but also (and more importantly) terrain. That is why even
instrument-rated pilots flying instrument-equipped planes die on a
regular basis as a result of VFR flight into IMC.

If you have the right instruments, and an instrument rating, and ATC
to provide separation, why would it be dangerous?

Because ATC only provides separation from other airplanes. It does not
provide separation from terrain. Also, with VFR into IMC situations you
often don't have contact with ATC. So you have to get out your chart,
try to figure out where you are (not all planes have moving map GPS),
find the right frequency, dial it in, call them up, wait for a
response... and all the time you have to fly the plane without being
able to see where you're going. It's not so easy in real life as it
might appear in a sim.

I know that most IFR flights are rigidly planned, but it appears that
they don't have to be. You need to know where you are and where you
are going, but you don't have to plan every detail in advance.

And what will you do if your GPS fails?

That takes time. How are you going to keep from hitting things in the
meantime?

All it takes is a call to ATC.

No. ATC does not provide terrain separation.

If you already know your instruments
and you already have your navaids and what-not set up, you already
know where you are and where you are going, irrespective of what you
can see out the window.

Those are all big IFs.

You just look out the window for separation
and as an additional sanity check on your navigation, or just for
sightseeing. If visibility drops, you're covered, except for
separation--whence the call to ATC when you approach IMC.

Sure. But you keep switching the topic back and forth between "when you
approach IMC" and when you are IN IMC. Those are two very different
circumstances.

Flying using instruments is NOT the same thing as flying IFR.

What are the differences? ATC provides separation and guidance for
IFR flights, but besides that, what changes?

The major differences a 1) in IMC you cannot rely on your peripheral
vision. This makes a much bigger difference than you might imagine (and
you can't experience it in simulation unless you have a lot of
monitors). 2) approach to landing must be done in a much more stylized
and pre-planned way in order to avoid terrain that you can't see. 3) if
you don't have a moving-map GPS you have to twiddle a lot of knobs in
the right way at the right time, which adds to your workload. The
combination of all three of these factors makes for a very different
experience.

rg