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
  #1  
Old May 7th 04, 04:02 PM
Paul Safran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?


  #2  
Old May 7th 04, 04:11 PM
Nathan Young
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #3  
Old May 7th 04, 04:18 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #4  
Old May 7th 04, 04:33 PM
Dave Butler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.

  #5  
Old May 7th 04, 05:17 PM
S Narayan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Very simply, NO.

You can ask for practice approaches, but you will be operating under VFR.

"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?




  #6  
Old May 7th 04, 09:22 PM
David Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.

May you always find VFR and tailwinds.

_|_

___(_)___



Scott


  #7  
Old May 7th 04, 11:53 PM
Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

May you always find VFR and tailwinds.

Quite frankly, I take exception to the first part of this statement.

Hilton


  #8  
Old May 8th 04, 12:44 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.

  #9  
Old May 8th 04, 01:30 AM
David Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

-- David Brooks


  #10  
Old May 8th 04, 01:36 AM
David Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


 




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 11:15 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.