Can they do this? Restrict airport to IFR traffic only?

Robert M. Gary wrote:
mindenpilot wrote:

Also, if the weather is VFR, there is nothing stopping us VFR pilots

from

filing an IFR flight plan and flying in, as long as we maintain VFR.
This would further add to the congestion.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III


Keep that quiet. You can lose your ticket if you get caught. Remember,
the instrument rating is the right to FILE IFR.

No, it's the right to accept an IFR clearance.

Flying in the clouds is
not the priv of the rating, it's the filing. Technically, an instrument
student can't even call the FSS and file his dual IFR flight plan

Cite? I think this is wrong.

(although I don't think any FSDO would actually go after a student who
planned to fly with his CFII).

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
No need to fly a "practice approach" at all.

Right. I never suggested there was.

I never suggested you suggested there was.

Dave Butler wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Flying in the clouds is
not the priv of the rating, it's the filing. Technically, an instrument
student can't even call the FSS and file his dual IFR flight plan


Cite? I think this is wrong.

It is wrong. Anybody can file a flight plan. You don't even need to
be a pilot. It's illegal to be pilot in command while actually
operating IFR. The PIC name is a required item on the flight plan, so
it would behoove the non-rated student to list his instructors name on
the plan. The only quirky part of doing this is not the FSS but DUAT.
DUAT always inserts the account holders name in the PIC block on the
plan (you can't change it). Some overly worried students put the real
PIC name in the remarks to comply with the rules.

mindenpilot wrote:




In the article mentioned in the OP, it says that flights would be restricted
to IFR flights on an IFR flight plan.
I'm still not sure if you could get away with simply filing an IFR flight
plan and flying it maintaining VFR the entire time.
As Larry mentioned, could an ATC pro clear this up?

Sure that's no big deal.

Morgans wrote:

"Dave S" wrote


To operate under an IFR flight plan (as in UNDER A CLEARANCE) you must
be instrument rated and current. What the weather is like doesn't
matter. Either you CAN legally accept an IFR clearance or you CANNOT.



If that is true, how can a pilot who has let his currency lapse, get current
again?

Doesn't he have to be on an IFR flight to get current again?

No.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

[...]
Thanks for the information. I had a feeling it was contained in FAA
Order 7110.65, but wanted to avoid the work of locating the specific
regulation(s), although it would be interesting to read them.


That answer didn't really address your question (unless I misunderstood it).

Simulated instrument conditions refer to the *meteorological* conditions
being simulated for the flight, not the regulatory conditions. The
restriction to IFR traffic addresses the regulatory conditions, not the
meteorological conditions.

You can simulate instrument meteorological conditions all you want, that
doesn't qualify you for an arrival into an airport restricted to IFR
arrivals. Not even if you get ATC to help you by simulating IFR services.

And there's no way you'll get any practice approaches into that airport
on that day or days whether you're IFR or VFR.

This whole deal about restricting VFR flights has nothing to do with
what the tower/approach control can handle. This is a parking problem.
As a controller I can get many times more VFR aircraft into an airport
than IFR.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Non-IMC practice approaches are flown VFR,

I wish you had an authoritative citation for that opinion.


You posted the citation yourself. While the 7110 provides some insight into
ATC activities, all you really need to know is that the airport is
(according to this thread) requiring all arrivals to occur under IFR, on an
IFR flight plan, and that that can only occur with an instrument rated and
current pilot acting as PIC.

If you bring a safety pilot along who is instrument rated, and who files an
IFR flight plan, and who acts as PIC during your "practice" approach, that's
fine. But if you had that guy along, you could just get him to fly you
there. Or even to just file and act as PIC while you fly there. No need to
fly a "practice approach" at all.

If the reasoning is really to provide for more efficient arrivals, then they
will not be allowing navaid approaches in VMC. That would negate the whole
point of providing for efficient arrivals (you can land a heck of a lot more
planes in a given time period if they are doing visual approaches with
visual separation than you can for instrument approaches).

All that said, someone else pointed out that the reality may well be that
VFR traffic will be allowed under a reservation system, and that arrivals
won't be restricted to IFR flights at all. I think that's certainly likely,
and would allow for efficient use of the airport without blocking access by
pilots who are not instrument rated.

Pete

In a previous article, Newps said:
mindenpilot wrote:
In the article mentioned in the OP, it says that flights would be restricted
to IFR flights on an IFR flight plan.
I'm still not sure if you could get away with simply filing an IFR flight
plan and flying it maintaining VFR the entire time.
As Larry mentioned, could an ATC pro clear this up?

Sure that's no big deal.

Maybe ATC won't care, but the FAA does care because you'd be violating a
FAR.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
It could have been raining flaming bulldozers, and those idiots would have
been standing out there smoking, going 'hey, look at that John Deere burn!'
-- Texan AMD security guard

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
[...]
I'm still not sure if you could get away with simply filing an IFR
flight
plan and flying it maintaining VFR the entire time.
As Larry mentioned, could an ATC pro clear this up?

Sure that's no big deal.

Maybe ATC won't care, but the FAA does care because you'd be violating a
FAR.

That depends on the intent behind "mindenpilot"'s question. Nothing he
specifically said precluded legal operation.

A pilot not instrument rated filing an IFR flight plan would indeed be
violating the FARs. And perhaps that's what "mindenpilot" meant. But
that's not what he said.

As "Newps" said, it is perfectly fine to file IFR, fly with an IFR
clearance, and yet maintain visual conditions the entire time, and even fly
under the more relaxed standards of VFR, using a "VFR on top" clearance
(which is what I presume "maintaining VFR" in "mindenpilot"'s post really
means...you don't "maintain" a set of rules, you follow them, but you DO
maintain a certain kind of visual conditions).

Pete

"Newps" wrote in message
...
This whole deal about restricting VFR flights has nothing to do with what
the tower/approach control can handle. This is a parking problem.

Perhaps. But if so, it makes no sense. After all, a parking problem can
easily be addressed with a reservation system, or a "first-come,
first-served" basis. And discrimination on a flight rules basis certainly
would seem to violate the intent of the AIP rules, if not the letter (which
is, of course, the original question here), there being no legitimate safety
or operational advantage to prohibiting VFR arrivals.

As a controller I can get many times more VFR aircraft into an airport
than IFR.

Yes, agreed. I even said so in my post.

Pete