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?

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

Nathan Young wrote:

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.

Not quite correct. An Instrument rating is required to operate under an
IFR clearance. Anyone can "file" it. What this person COULD be trying to
do is prefile for radar services/flight following.

Filing a VFR plan goes to FSS. Filing an "IFR" plan goes to Center/ATC.
This isnt tooo unlike what is happening in the DC ADIZ, P49 and other
selected locations (Without referring to the specifics, here goes). You
can operate VFR out of there, but you have to have a discreet code and
are in continuous contact with ATC (essentially flight following). The
mechanism that this occurs is by inputting you into the "IFR" system
with a "VFR" tag or stipulation.

But I agree, its not ATC's job to keep you out of clouds.

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.

Departing Love or some other busy fields (Besides Houston), your VFR
departure clearance is quite similar to the material you would get
during an IFR clearance. I agree about the reroutes, though.

Dave

-Nathan

"Dave S" wrote in message link.net...
Filing a VFR plan goes to FSS. Filing an "IFR" plan goes to Center/ATC.
This isnt tooo unlike what is happening in the DC ADIZ, P49 and other
selected locations (Without referring to the specifics, here goes). You
can operate VFR out of there, but you have to have a discreet code and
are in continuous contact with ATC (essentially flight following).

You are in radio contact with ATC, but there is no guarantee of services provided.

"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.

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.

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...

[snipped]

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, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
flightplan. I say "isn't exactly" because while I am one of the proponents
of your method, I don't consider using this particular trick to get into the
system to be the same as "filing" an IFR flightplan. The ATC flightplan
that this method generates is clearly a VFR flightplan to the controller
because it says "VFR" in the requested altitude block. It does not generate
routings other than what is filed by the pilot because the IFR pref routings
are suppressed by the ATC computer.


Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:
"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...

[snipped]

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, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
flightplan. I say "isn't exactly" because while I am one of the proponents
of your method, I don't consider using this particular trick to get into the
system to be the same as "filing" an IFR flightplan. The ATC flightplan
that this method generates is clearly a VFR flightplan to the controller
because it says "VFR" in the requested altitude block. It does not generate
routings other than what is filed by the pilot because the IFR pref routings
are suppressed by the ATC computer.


OK, thanks, Chip. I accept your refinement.

What you say about IFR pref routings is interesting. Care to expand on that a
little? Are you saying that the ARTCC computer will come up with a new route for
an IFR based on preferred routings, but since this is a VFR plan, it skips that
rerouting step?

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...


Chip Jones wrote:


Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
flightplan. I say "isn't exactly" because while I am one of the
proponents
of your method, I don't consider using this particular trick to get into
the
system to be the same as "filing" an IFR flightplan. The ATC flightplan
that this method generates is clearly a VFR flightplan to the controller
because it says "VFR" in the requested altitude block. It does not
generate
routings other than what is filed by the pilot because the IFR pref
routings
are suppressed by the ATC computer.


OK, thanks, Chip. I accept your refinement.

What you say about IFR pref routings is interesting. Care to expand on
that a
little? Are you saying that the ARTCC computer will come up with a new
route for
an IFR based on preferred routings, but since this is a VFR plan, it skips
that
rerouting step?

The ARTCC computers are all programmed locally, so the automation varies
slightly from Center to Center. However, one of the common routines of the
Host computer everywhere is to compare an IFR aircraft's filed route of
flight with ATC preferential IFR routes. It does this in New York, it does
this in Chicago, it does this in Atlanta.

These ATC IFR pref routes are more commonly referred to as "Red Routes" in
ATC parlance because back in the days before thermal strip printing (which
only prints in black), these IFR Pref routes would be printed in red on the
flight strip. Red ink on a flight progress strip indicates a planned action
or instruction. Black ink indicates an issued or exectuted action or
instruction. Since you filed one way, and the computer wants you to go a
different way, the Red Route would kick out at the appropriate sector or
facility and ATC would issue you a reroute. This would often be a STAR, but
not always.

The automation techs have drawn imaginary lines across ATC sectors. If the
line of your route of flight crosses one of these lines, and if you meet
other preconditions (like you are at or above a certain altitude, at or
below a certain altitude, flying into a particular destination, flying a
turbo jet, a turbo-prop, a prop, wearing an AOPA shirt, etc) then your
flightplan may trigger the local ATC computer's Red Route for your flight.
The computer actually stops processing your flightplan from that point
forward, and instead picks up the Red Route and goes from there. This makes
it *imperitive* for the controller holding that Red Route on you to either
issue you the reroute or else suppress the pref route by over riding it.

An example, take an IFR departure from LOU up in Louisville Kentucky, flying
down to PDK here in the Atlanta terminal area. Suppose that the pilot files
LOU direct PDK (I can hear Don Brown sighing right now). Indy Center will
process the flightplan to Atlanta Center as a direct flight. Indy Center
(ZID) does not had a Red Route on this airplane, so neither Louisville FSS
nor Louisville Departure will have one. Louisville sits under Indy Center
and is covered by the ZID host computer. The airplanes launches and flies
south, direct PDK. When the Atlanta Center (ZTL) computer gets the ATC
flightplan from ZID's computer, it generates a flight progress strip for
each of the sectors this aircraft will fly through. Before it does this, it
compares the filed route of flight (direct PDK) with any appropriate pref
routes. In this case, direct PDK is a no-no. At the first ZTL sector, a
Red Route is generated. Plus, the computer then stops processing the route
direct, and begins to kick out stips along the Red Route.

The Red Route will be *GQO BUNNI2*. The controller can then look at several
factors before he/she issues this route. If the aircraft is a jet, he will
issue the Red Route as printed because the aircraft has to cross GQO at
FL240 or below, and is likely at or above FL290 coming off of LOU. This is
a coordination issue with the Center NW arrival sector and there are
beaucoup jets heading into the Atlanta terminal area at any given time. If
this aircraft is a turboprop and is at or above FL240, likely there will be
no short cut and the full red route will be issued just like the computer
dictated, for the same reason as the jet example. If this aircraft is a
turboprop operating at or below FL230, then the controller has more options.
The controller may offer the aircraft a reroute of *DUMBB BUNNI2*, *BUNNI
BUNNI2" or maybe even take them over onto another STAR like *AWSON AWSON1*
which is closer to PDK when you hit terminal airspace. If the aircraft in
question is a prop at or below 12,000, then the controller may very well
suppress the red route all together (a process known as "splatting the
route") and work the airplane strait in to PDK. This GA pilot will never
know that the controller has gone out of his way to supress a pref route
because it won't ever be mentioned.

If this aircraft was VFR from LOU to PDK, no matter if it were a jet, a
turboprop or a prop, at any altitude below the Class A, the IFR Red Route
will never be generated. For VFR aircraft, the existence of "VFR" in the
altitude field supresses this pref routing routine. The computer processes
VFR ATC strips just like you filed, right on down the line of your route of
flight. This VFR aircraft flight data would shoot right down the line as
filed. That is, *unless* the local ATC facility is "too busy" or "too
important" to process VFR's receiving Flight Following via ATC automation.
The local automation gurus can customize the computer routines in each
ARTCC. In some cases, for those really, really busy places like Houston,
Pago Pago, Chicago, Podunk etc, they likely use modified routines that
procedurally supress VFR flightplan coordination. In other, less busy,
places, like New York, Southern California, Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, etc,
VFR ATC flightplans are processed just like IFR's, enhancing the chances of
you getting service and a VFR hand-off to the next facility. In none of
these places shoud an IFR Red Route be generated for a VFR aircraft.

Chip, ZTL

Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
flightplan.

Your co-worker, Don Brown, is hostile towards the procedure for just
this reason. He says that an IFR sqwawk code gets reserved for these
flight plans and sometimes center runs out.