A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

filing IFR plan for VFR flight conditions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 8th 04, 01:49 AM
John Clonts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
"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.



So instead, you decided to follow up to


  #12  
Old May 8th 04, 08:29 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



David Brooks wrote:


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.

-


Following is the only reference I could find to the subject in the FAQs to which
you referred. I agree with the following language and it is quite different
than the BS you got from the Seattle FSDO. FSDOs are so often full of it.

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.57(d); If you’re intending to serve as the pilot in command
during the instrument proficiency check (and in most cases the flight instructor
is always considered to be the pilot in command on a flight where flight
training/checking is being provided) and you intend to file an IFR flight plan,
regardless whether the flight is in VMC or IMC, you must be instrument current
in accordance with § 61.57(c). As per § 61.57(c), “. . . no person may act as
pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than minimum prescribed
for VFR, unless . . .”

  #13  
Old May 8th 04, 10:17 AM
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have tried to do such a thing down here in the Houston terminal
airspace to try and circumvent a common practice by the TRACON. It didnt
work for me.

What I did, which I garnered from usenet, was file an IFR plan under
DUATS with VFR in the altitude block, and VFR flight following in the
remarks section.

The rationale was based on the fact that when you are placed in the
system from a flight following standpoint, you have to submit nearly the
same info that you would to get an IFR plan (pop up or pre-filed). You
are assigned a data block just like any other IFR plan, the only diff is
that unless in Class B, separation isnt the controllers "fault".

Well.. it may work elsewhere, but it does NOT work in Houston. The
standard practice in Houston is NO HANDOFFS for VFR's at all. Cant even
get a "center" code, rather than a "local" code if you call up early on
clearance delivery. If its night, and slow, sometimes I can get Houston
to take the handoff coming back IN from the Center's territory but never
on the outbound leg.

Dave
PPSEL

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?



  #14  
Old May 8th 04, 10:23 AM
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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


  #17  
Old May 8th 04, 03:22 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



David Brooks wrote:

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.


And, all these years I haven't let my maid file flight plans for me. ;-)

  #18  
Old May 8th 04, 03:49 PM
John Clonts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...
I have tried to do such a thing down here in the Houston terminal
airspace to try and circumvent a common practice by the TRACON. It didnt
work for me.

What I did, which I garnered from usenet, was file an IFR plan under
DUATS with VFR in the altitude block, and VFR flight following in the
remarks section.

The rationale was based on the fact that when you are placed in the
system from a flight following standpoint, you have to submit nearly the
same info that you would to get an IFR plan (pop up or pre-filed). You
are assigned a data block just like any other IFR plan, the only diff is
that unless in Class B, separation isnt the controllers "fault".

Well.. it may work elsewhere, but it does NOT work in Houston. The
standard practice in Houston is NO HANDOFFS for VFR's at all. Cant even
get a "center" code, rather than a "local" code if you call up early on
clearance delivery. If its night, and slow, sometimes I can get Houston
to take the handoff coming back IN from the Center's territory but never
on the outbound leg.



Hello Dave,

Regarding VFR flights departing the Houston area...

Are you saying that Houston Center will generally not take a VFR handoff
from Houston Approach? Or are you saying Approach will not accept a VFR
handoff from a tower? Which airport exactly are you talking about, as an
example? DWH? SGR? ??

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ


  #19  
Old May 8th 04, 03:57 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...
I have tried to do such a thing down here in the Houston terminal
airspace to try and circumvent a common practice by the TRACON. It didnt
work for me.

What I did, which I garnered from usenet, was file an IFR plan under
DUATS with VFR in the altitude block, and VFR flight following in the
remarks section.

The rationale was based on the fact that when you are placed in the
system from a flight following standpoint, you have to submit nearly the
same info that you would to get an IFR plan (pop up or pre-filed). You
are assigned a data block just like any other IFR plan, the only diff is
that unless in Class B, separation isnt the controllers "fault".

Well.. it may work elsewhere, but it does NOT work in Houston. The
standard practice in Houston is NO HANDOFFS for VFR's at all. Cant even
get a "center" code, rather than a "local" code if you call up early on
clearance delivery. If its night, and slow, sometimes I can get Houston
to take the handoff coming back IN from the Center's territory but never
on the outbound leg.


VFR handoffs are procedurally suppressed in many parts of the country
because the local controllers have convinced themselves that they are too
busy and too important to bother themselves with trivial matters like VFR
flight following. Houston suffers from that corporate attitude, as do other
facilities. In most locations, like in Houston, this controller attitude is
pathetically laughable.

Chip, ZTL


  #20  
Old May 8th 04, 03:57 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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










 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:26 PM
Logging approaches Ron Garrison Instrument Flight Rules 109 March 2nd 04 06:54 PM
FAA letter on flight into known icing C J Campbell Instrument Flight Rules 78 December 22nd 03 08:44 PM
Sim time loggable? [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 12 December 6th 03 08:47 AM
IFR flight plan filing question Tune2828 Instrument Flight Rules 2 July 23rd 03 03:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.