Question For Jack About VFR Pilot Filing IFR

The Federal Aviation Regulations (also know as FAR's). This is the Bible of aviation, the rules under which we operate. This is where you'll find everything you want to know about pilots and airplanes in the United States. Ask questions. Get answers.

Moderator: drseti

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Question For Jack About VFR Pilot Filing IFR

Postby FastEddieB » Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:56 am

This thread just shows in a fascinating fashion that there's always something new under the sun.

Not taking sides on this one, but let me say it never occurred to me that a non-rated pilot could use an IFR flight plan to his or her advantage.

Interesting, though I'd be unlikely to do it!
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
CFI, CFII, CFIME
FastEddieB@mac.com

Merlinspop
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm
Location: WV Eastern Panhandle

Re: Question For Jack About VFR Pilot Filing IFR

Postby Merlinspop » Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:14 pm

Nomore767 wrote: Or is he not accepting a clearance but just asking for FF? In which case why bother? They've had pilot busts for this although some may have got through via the controller.
Cheers, Howard

Howard... yeah, I think this is the crux of where you and I were seeing this procedure differently.

I agree completely with your position (and FFF's and your FSDO friend) that a VFR-only (or IFR rated in a non-IFR airplane) pilot cannot accept an IFR clearance. But that's not the point of the process, as I understand it. The point was just to get the information that the controller would need when initiating Fight Following into the computer for him (or her) as an aid (i.e. lowering the 'workload' part of 'workload permitting') to establishing FF. Based on what VL just wrote, seems there's not that much they have to type now anyway, so maybe it's moot. I also fully, absolutely agree that Flight Following never, ever reduces the VFR pilot's responsibility to See and Avoid (nor does ADS-B traffic, if one has that).

[I have to repeat... I have NOT done this and don't intend to without further clarification, and am not advising anyone to do so.]
- Bruce

FlyingForFun
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: Question For Jack About VFR Pilot Filing IFR

Postby FlyingForFun » Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:40 pm

Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nomore767
Posts: 895
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Question For Jack About VFR Pilot Filing IFR

Postby Nomore767 » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:03 pm

A couple of thoughts …at the three airlines I flew for, we had a motto…"Fly today as if you're going to be in a hearing tomorrow explaining what you did."

I don't think, personally, there is anything sinister about this practice, indeed it has a lot of merits. I just think there is a potential for some problems.

For me a couple of simple fixes might make it a proper procedure and get everyone on the same page.

I think there is a loophole of sorts in that DUATS will accept a VFR altitude on the IFR box on the flight plan. Fix this.
Then add a Flight Following box, on the flight plan form, along with VFR and IFR.
The additional FF box is coded to allow for a pilot to file a request for FF and propose a route and VFR altitude. Now no need to back door the IFR box, and it avoids a potential violation if the pilot makes a mistake over the IFR clearance.
This would be beneficial to ATC and the 'system' as everyone knows what's the INTENT of the pilot and they can prepare to handle the workload in advance.
The written procedure outlining filing for FF is pretty simple and could be added to the rules for filing VFR/IFR.

Cheers, Howard.

VL Roberts
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Leesburg Executive Airport

Re: Question For Jack About VFR Pilot Filing IFR

Postby VL Roberts » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:30 pm

Nomore767 wrote:A couple of thoughts …at the three airlines I flew for, we had a motto…"Fly today as if you're going to be in a hearing tomorrow explaining what you did."

I don't think, personally, there is anything sinister about this practice, indeed it has a lot of merits. I just think there is a potential for some problems.

For me a couple of simple fixes might make it a proper procedure and get everyone on the same page.

I think there is a loophole of sorts in that DUATS will accept a VFR altitude on the IFR box on the flight plan. Fix this.
Then add a Flight Following box, on the flight plan form, along with VFR and IFR.
The additional FF box is coded to allow for a pilot to file a request for FF and propose a route and VFR altitude. Now no need to back door the IFR box, and it avoids a potential violation if the pilot makes a mistake over the IFR clearance.
This would be beneficial to ATC and the 'system' as everyone knows what's the INTENT of the pilot and they can prepare to handle the workload in advance.
The written procedure outlining filing for FF is pretty simple and could be added to the rules for filing VFR/IFR.

Cheers, Howard.


The reality is that the IFR system is about airline traffic, anything to do with GA is an after thought, so not much effort is going to be made to make FF more efficient .

If the practice of filing a FP for FF in the IFR system were to become wide spread I think it would start to raise some eyebrows. On extremely heavy traffic days ( like the day before Thanksgiving ) it is possible for the ATC computer to run low on available beacon codes, so you wouldn't want proposed FP's for FF consuming codes needed for IFR aircraft.

FlyingForFun
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: Question For Jack About VFR Pilot Filing IFR

Postby FlyingForFun » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:54 pm

Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Merlinspop
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm
Location: WV Eastern Panhandle

Re: Question For Jack About VFR Pilot Filing IFR

Postby Merlinspop » Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:33 pm

FlyingForFun wrote:
Nomore767 wrote:A couple of thoughts …at the three airlines I flew for, we had a motto…"Fly today as if you're going to be in a hearing tomorrow explaining what you did."

I don't think, personally, there is anything sinister about this practice, indeed it has a lot of merits. I just think there is a potential for some problems.

For me a couple of simple fixes might make it a proper procedure and get everyone on the same page.

I think there is a loophole of sorts in that DUATS will accept a VFR altitude on the IFR box on the flight plan. Fix this.
Then add a Flight Following box, on the flight plan form, along with VFR and IFR.
The additional FF box is coded to allow for a pilot to file a request for FF and propose a route and VFR altitude. Now no need to back door the IFR box, and it avoids a potential violation if the pilot makes a mistake over the IFR clearance.
This would be beneficial to ATC and the 'system' as everyone knows what's the INTENT of the pilot and they can prepare to handle the workload in advance.
The written procedure outlining filing for FF is pretty simple and could be added to the rules for filing VFR/IFR.

Cheers, Howard.
This is absolutely the correct solution. I will wait for this to be implemented. Good proposal.


Disagree somewhat. The first suggestion would require the SFRA filing process to be redone and probably others. Getting the word out on the current process was a huge education effort to get everyone local to get it, and it still scares off people from the real world. Now... IF redoing this would come along a reduction of the SFRA process, too, then I'd be ALL for that. But since the Secret Service is the major power behind it's existence... don't hold your breath.

Now as to the second suggestion of adding a "Flight Following Requested" box that would parse the data that goes to the FSS along with the SAR VFR flight plan. That's an excellent idea. It'd still be on a workload permitting (and code availability... good point, VL!) basis, but can pre-populate some fields and just be there in the background waiting until it times out of the system. Heck, you wouldn't even need to add a box... just a "Would you like to request Radar Advisory Services" as a system pop-up in DUATS and DUAT (two different contracts, doing essentially the same thing...) after clicking the send button. Several 3d party software that taps into one or the other would have to accommodate this addition, but that just keep developers gainfully employed. This IS really doable and is a great idea (probably just doomed it).
- Bruce

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5754
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Question For Jack About VFR Pilot Filing IFR

Postby drseti » Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:26 pm

Jack Tyler wrote: (That's a rhetorical Q).


Why does Jack always ask rhetorical questions? :wink:
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
fly@AvSport.org
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US


Return to “FARs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests