filing IFR plan for VFR flight conditions

wrote:

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 . . .”

Sounds like pretty-much the same thing the Seattle FSDO said -- anyone can
file an IFR flight plan in the U.S., but only an instrument-rated, current
pilot may fly it (in IMC *or* VMC). Since there's no point filing a flight
plan that you cannot legally use, that seems to settle the point.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote:

wrote:

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 . . .”

Sounds like pretty-much the same thing the Seattle FSDO said -- anyone can
file an IFR flight plan in the U.S., but only an instrument-rated, current
pilot may fly it (in IMC *or* VMC). Since there's no point filing a flight
plan that you cannot legally use, that seems to settle the point.

Upon re-reading the FSDO stuff, you're right. I misread it the first time.

"David Megginson" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com

Since
there's no point filing a flight plan that you cannot legally use,
that seems to settle the point.

Not necessarily. I certainly filed quite a number of IFR flight plans
during my instrument training and I certainly did use them legally even
though I was not PIC for the training flights.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

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?

"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

I am saying that Houston APPROACH will not hand off outbound VFR's to
Center, and Approach will RARELY accept inboung VFR's as handoff's with
regards to flight following. It is particularly frustrating because
folks at Regional Approach (Dallas) work the handoff's both ways pretty
much 100% of the times I've been there. I personally would much rather
be talking to someone, or be in the system. I dont mind taking a vector
even though its "voluntary" if it helps me stay separated. And while I
dont rely on it, it's nice to have another set of eyes calling pertinent
traffic when able

The occasions that I have departed from towered fields in the HOU
terminal airspace, I have only recieved a local (tower or Tracon) code
with regards to VFR flight following. Never a center code, even when
they know you are heading out of bounds. The drill is "get terminated,
call up the center in a few miles"

I apologize for not being more clear in my initial post.

Dave

John Clonts wrote:
"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

"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...



The occasions that I have departed from towered fields in the HOU
terminal airspace, I have only recieved a local (tower or Tracon) code
with regards to VFR flight following. Never a center code, even when
they know you are heading out of bounds. The drill is "get terminated,
call up the center in a few miles"

We do this as standard procedure because that's what people want. We have
found that virtually nobody wants center flight following, less than 5% ask
for it, whether on the ground before departure or in the air.

We have
found that virtually nobody wants center flight following, less than 5% ask
for it, whether on the ground before departure or in the air.


If somebody calls asking for center flight following, do you still assume they
dont' want it?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"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

"Chip Jones" wrote:
In most locations, like in Houston, this controller
attitude is pathetically laughable.

Yes, it's bad in Houston; I never ask them for advisories anymore. Even
if they do take you, they may fail to call traffic.

But if you listen to their frequencies on a nice Friday afternoon, you
can almost understand their attitude. The miserable radio technique of
a lot of VFR pilots can really clog up the air. It's embarassing to
listen to, sometimes.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM