can a vfr pilot file ifr

Ron Levy said:
As your story keeps evolving, I don't think you really know what actually happened. :bye:
Click to expand...

Story hasn't changed, I know exactly what happened, I filed a complex round robin using 3 standard issue SoCal tower en-routes and flew them all VFR as published while under the hood with a safety pilot receiving the same instructions as I would if I was IFR. What it does is it opens the option for SoCal to ditch me if things get busy, and I'm perfectly good with that.
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, there used to be. I see it's not there any more. However, that "DC SFRA" in the Remarks block is essential, and it means it is not actually an IFR flight plan even if it looks like a lot like one. Leave out that remark, and you are telling them you are instrument rated and current to accept the real, no-foolin' IFR clearance which you have requested and are going to receive from ATC.
Click to expand...
I'm kinda hoping Steven (roncachamp) weighs in on this one, since I have the impression from what he's written that it's the VFR/025 in the altitude box that makes it not actually an IFR flight plan. I believe it generates the same kind of strip as for ordinary VFR flights under flight following. I've used this technique a number of times to expedite flight following when overflying Canada, and very rarely have I been offered a clearance. (Of course, the once or twice they offered one, I refused it.)
 
I'm not instrument rated yet, I've filed IFR, accepted clearances, flew the route and approach, in IMC without issue. The CFII riding shotgun didn't seem to mind :)
 
bartmc said:
I'm not instrument rated yet, I've filed IFR, accepted clearances, flew the route and approach, in IMC without issue. The CFII riding shotgun didn't seem to mind :)
Click to expand...

Yes, but in box 14 where it asks for pilot's name, it should have had your CFII's name, not yours!
 
Henning said:
Correct, but 'filing IFR' and 'accepting a clearance' are separate issues. You can file it on a VFR day, call CD tell them you'd like to fly the route as filed for IR training practice with a safety pilot and they'll handle you like it was an IFR flight, at least SoCal would back when.
Click to expand...

Well of course they'll handle it like it was an IFR flight, that's what it will be.
 
Henning said:
It was never opened as a clearance, just filed as a routing advisory and technically they handled it just like any traffic of VFR FF. I don't see where it would be illegal.
Click to expand...

You wrote, "You can file it on a VFR day, call CD tell them you'd like to fly the route as filed for IR training practice with a safety pilot and they'll handle you like it was an IFR flight, at least SoCal would back when.

If the clearance wasn't issued it wasn't handled like it was an IFR flight.
 
Henning said:
I have no knowledge of an IFR strip ever being issued, in fact as it was explained to me there would NOT be one.
Click to expand...

You said an IFR flight plan could be filed on a VFR day and ATC would handle it like it was an IFR flight. The filing of an IFR flight plan generates an "IFR strip".
 
denverpilot said:
Learned another interesting thing on the way home from Gaston's.

If you file via electronic means (in this case, Foreflight), the flight plan goes straight to the controlling facility and the AFSS folks can't even pull it up.

If you want any info on weather along your route of flight, you'll have to give the AFSS briefer the entire route again.

Stupidness. Utter stupidness.

I'm sorry but I can't easily bring myself to the conclusion that the same folks who built that data system aren't going to royally screw up NexGen in interesting and silly ways.

AFSS should be able to pull up what was filed. How dumb.
Click to expand...

What's dumb about it? An IFR clearance can only be issued by ATC, there's no reason for AFSS to pull it up.
 
azure said:
I'm kinda hoping Steven (roncachamp) weighs in on this one, since I have the impression from what he's written that it's the VFR/025 in the altitude box that makes it not actually an IFR flight plan. I believe it generates the same kind of strip as for ordinary VFR flights under flight following. I've used this technique a number of times to expedite flight following when overflying Canada, and very rarely have I been offered a clearance. (Of course, the once or twice they offered one, I refused it.)
Click to expand...

Sure, putting "VFR/025", or just "VFR", in the altitude box will generate strips just like an IFR flight does. That's useful for flight following, but you're not treated like an IFR flight.
 
roncachamp said:
If you never picked up a clearance ATC didn't handle it like it was an IFR flight.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's poorly worded by me. I flew the routing and was treated with instructions on the approaches and during navigation reflecting as it would be had I received a clearance, much the same as practicing without putting in the flight plan. This method just minimized communications necessity during practice as it was already known by them what I would be doing.
 
azure said:
I'm kinda hoping Steven (roncachamp) weighs in on this one, since I have the impression from what he's written that it's the VFR/025 in the altitude box that makes it not actually an IFR flight plan. I believe it generates the same kind of strip as for ordinary VFR flights under flight following. I've used this technique a number of times to expedite flight following when overflying Canada, and very rarely have I been offered a clearance. (Of course, the once or twice they offered one, I refused it.)
Click to expand...
VFR in the altitude box is the method that ATC uses to put aircraft receiving flight following in the system. This flags the flight to ATC (and probably their computers) as a VFR flight which means among other things that:

1) altitude is the pilot's choice and responsibility (outside of Class B/C)
2) separation from IFR traffic is not guaranteed
3) the pilot must maintain VFR cloud separation and visibility requirements
4) ATC's services are on a "workload permitting" basis
5) No clearance will be issued by ATC (again outside SUA)
6) The flight will be handled like any other FF instance
 
gismo said:
VFR in the altitude box is the method that ATC uses to put aircraft receiving flight following in the system. This flags the flight to ATC (and probably their computers) as a VFR flight which means among other things that:
Click to expand...
I suspect, though, that a flight plan filed using that format still shows up to them as a newly filed (IFR) flight plan rather than as something identical to the strip created when VFR flight following is initiated, since I can't otherwise explain why a couple of unwary controllers tried to read me a clearance. The first time it happened the Detroit Approach controller sounded genuinely confused when I refused the clearance.
 
azure said:
I suspect, though, that a flight plan filed using that format still shows up to them as a newly filed (IFR) flight plan rather than as something identical to the strip created when VFR flight following is initiated, since I can't otherwise explain why a couple of unwary controllers tried to read me a clearance. The first time it happened the Detroit Approach controller sounded genuinely confused when I refused the clearance.
Click to expand...

A flight plan filed using that format shows up to them with "VFR" in the requested altitude box, just as it has for more than thirty years.
 
roncachamp said:
A flight plan filed using that format shows up to them with "VFR" in the requested altitude box, just as it has for more than thirty years.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by "as it has for more than thirty years" since I didn't claim that anything has changed. I don't doubt that what you say is true. It also doesn't contradict what I said. So to clarify, what exactly would the TRACON controllers see on first call-up? The full flight plan as filed or something pre-digested for them by the computer?
 
azure said:
I suspect, though, that a flight plan filed using that format still shows up to them as a newly filed (IFR) flight plan rather than as something identical to the strip created when VFR flight following is initiated, since I can't otherwise explain why a couple of unwary controllers tried to read me a clearance. The first time it happened the Detroit Approach controller sounded genuinely confused when I refused the clearance.
Click to expand...

If there is a difference it's that the latter (FF initiated by pilot in the air) only comes to a controller prior to the pilot communicating with the controller when one controller passes the strip in a handoff. With the former (IFR flight plan filed with VFR in the altitude box) the first controller to see the strip might be more likely to mistake it for an actual IFR plan because that situation (IFR plan with VFR in the altitude box) is probably a lot rarer than a FF handoff. I'd be willing to bet a tiny sum that every fully qualified civilian center or TRACON controller has handled a FF handoff and that there are some if not several that have never seen this kind of strip show up at the initiation of flight (before takeoff).
 
gismo said:
If there is a difference it's that the latter (FF initiated by pilot in the air) only comes to a controller prior to the pilot communicating with the controller when one controller passes the strip in a handoff. With the former (IFR flight plan filed with VFR in the altitude box) the first controller to see the strip might be more likely to mistake it for an actual IFR plan because that situation (IFR plan with VFR in the altitude box) is probably a lot rarer than a FF handoff. I'd be willing to bet a tiny sum that every fully qualified civilian center or TRACON controller has handled a FF handoff and that there are some if not several that have never seen this kind of strip show up at the initiation of flight (before takeoff).
Click to expand...
I suppose that could be too. In that case there is no real difference between an IFR and a VFR strip except for the altitude box, but some controllers don't really read the strip carefully. I'd still like to understand better just what the controller sees, hence my question to Steven.
 
azure said:
I suppose that could be too. In that case there is no real difference between an IFR and a VFR strip except for the altitude box, but some controllers don't really read the strip carefully. I'd still like to understand better just what the controller sees, hence my question to Steven.
Click to expand...
Watch for seminars on www.FAASafety.gov. At least here in Chicago, they sometimes have Operation Raincheck back, where you can go tour Center, learn about how they work, and actually plug in with a controller for an hour. Talk about a great way to find out what he or she sees!
 
gprellwitz said:
Watch for seminars on www.FAASafety.gov. At least here in Chicago, they sometimes have Operation Raincheck back, where you can go tour Center, learn about how they work, and actually plug in with a controller for an hour. Talk about a great way to find out what he or she sees!
Click to expand...
Yep, I just got an email for one of those recently. The next one is next week I think and I've been thinking about going to it. The problem is, the local ARTCC is Cleveland Center which is in Oberlin, OH so that's where the seminar is. That's a little far to drive, though it's only a few miles from KLPR. I wonder how many pilots will be thinking the same thing, seems the courtesy car at LPR is likely to be scarce that day. If I have to arrange a rental to get there, forget it. I guess it's worth making a further inquiry though.

Thanks for the reminder!
 
Back when they established the FRZ procedures, the guy from the FAA who used to be a controller but has been in FAA management for a long time made a big thing about the effort to get VFR FRZ plans to approach. I asked him why they just didn't put them in as IFR plans. He wandered over to the FSS representative and said "of course, that's how they intended to do it."
 
azure said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "as it has for more than thirty years" since I didn't claim that anything has changed. I don't doubt that what you say is true. It also doesn't contradict what I said. So to clarify, what exactly would the TRACON controllers see on first call-up? The full flight plan as filed or something pre-digested for them by the computer?
Click to expand...

I mean there have been no changes on this matter since Flight Data Processing began in the '70s. Strips for IFR flights have a numerical value in the altitude box, strips for flight following have "VFR".
 
A few years ago, I wrote to the FAA Chief Counsel's office about the issue of filing IFR flight plans for the purpose of VFR flight with flight following, and whether doing so and listing a non-rated pilot as the PIC on such flight plans would be considered a violation. I recently located the FAA's response.

The response states that the FAA considers such a practice to be a stated INTENT by the non-rated pilot to violate FAR 61.3, regardless of whether or not a clearance is ever issued or accepted. The response further clarifies that neither filing an IFR flight plan nor accepting an IFR clearance is independently a "triggering action" for a flight to be considered as operating under IFR. The letter states that the appropriate method of filing flight plans for VFR flight is, in fact, to file a VFR flight plan and then request flight following directly from ATC.

The bottom line is that if you file IFR as a VFR PIC, and there is confusion at any point during the operation, you will have little to no defense should the FAA decide to pursue a violation in this regard. I flew VFR for years with flight following from underneath a busy Class B, and never had an issue with VFR flight plans and/or VFR flight following; if I was dropped by someone, I'd try again further along with a new guy, but I was rarely ever dropped. If someone is concerned about being "in the system," an instrument rating and operating IFR is probably the best way to go.


JKG
 
Well I'd like to see that letter because it is explicitly contrary to practice by several ATC facilities and the FSS system. There are certain terminal facilities that will not work you without an entered plan. You can argue that telling FSS that you want a VFR plan that will be sent to the approach control but they enter it exactly as if you were to do it in DUAT by clicking the IFR box and putting VFR in the alt block.

It's also how you get your plan to the right place in the case of the SFRA.
It's also how LockMart gets your plan to the PCT in the case of the FRZ (but only after they've done a few other things as well).
 
It's another situation of a long enough hanging rope that things get to function. The intent violation isn't being in the system, the intent violation is going into IMC. I'd like to see that letter as well, I believe there may be some paraphrasing in that that has lost some distinction.
 
Henning said:
It's another situation of a long enough hanging rope that things get to function. The intent violation isn't being in the system, the intent violation is going into IMC. I'd like to see that letter as well, I believe there may be some paraphrasing in that that has lost some distinction.
Click to expand...

The letter clearly states that filing shows a stated intent to violate. Operating IFR would trigger the actual violation, but the letter does not specify what event or series of events constitutes "operating."


JKG
 
Last edited:
JGoodish said:
A few years ago, I wrote to the FAA Chief Counsel's office about the issue of filing IFR flight plans for the purpose of VFR flight with flight following, and whether doing so and listing a non-rated pilot as the PIC on such flight plans would be considered a violation. I recently located the FAA's response.

The response states that the FAA considers such a practice to be a stated INTENT by the non-rated pilot to violate FAR 61.3, regardless of whether or not a clearance is ever issued or accepted. The response further clarifies that neither filing an IFR flight plan nor accepting an IFR clearance is independently a "triggering action" for a flight to be considered as operating under IFR. The letter states that the appropriate method of filing flight plans for VFR flight is, in fact, to file a VFR flight plan and then request flight following directly from ATC.

The bottom line is that if you file IFR as a VFR PIC, and there is confusion at any point during the operation, you will have little to no defense should the FAA decide to pursue a violation in this regard. I flew VFR for years with flight following from underneath a busy Class B, and never had an issue with VFR flight plans and/or VFR flight following; if I was dropped by someone, I'd try again further along with a new guy, but I was rarely ever dropped. If someone is concerned about being "in the system," an instrument rating and operating IFR is probably the best way to go.


JKG
Click to expand...

Useful information, can you scan it as a PDF and upload it, please?
 
Attached is the relevant response document.


JKG
 

Attachments

  • FAA IFR Response.pdf
    245.1 KB · Views: 63
JGoodish said:
Attached is the relevant response document.


JKG
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks; reads as you said and as you interpreted as well, 'should they want to', if you don't give them reason to want to...;) It's like my guy in SoCal, technically, he was a bad controller and CFII for giving me that. However, it worked out to everyone's benefit and was a bit of technical fine tuning used to meet local conditions and demands. I know I was not the only person who was taught that. As long as you were in good VMC with a safety pilot, as long as you don't draw attention to yourself or them, it's all good. You F- it up and you're going straight under the bus so... man up.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Cool, thanks; reads as you said and as you interpreted as well, 'should they want to', if you don't give them reason to want to...;) It's like my guy in SoCal, technically, he was a bad controller and CFII for giving me that. However, it worked out to everyone's benefit and was a bit of technical fine tuning used to meet local conditions and demands. I know I was not the only person who was taught that. As long as you were in good VMC with a safety pilot, as long as you don't draw attention to yourself or them, it's all good. You F- it up and you're going straight under the bus so... man up.
Click to expand...


The letter also makes statements about what individual actions aren't considered "triggering," but (perhaps intentionally) makes no clear statement on what WOULD be a triggering action for a violation.

Still, the practice in general seems unnecessarily risky to me. If I need to be IFR, I just file that way and fly that way in the system, and that's why I invested in the instrument rating in the first place. If I want to be VFR, I go that way, and if I can get flight following by request, it's a bonus.

From what I recall, the reason I wrote for an interpretation was due to a similar thread on another forum, where a pilot mentioned that he had been instructed by local ATC to file IFR with appropriate notations for VFR flight following to "help them out." I might go along with such a request if it was on a recorded line, or if it was otherwise documented as FAA-sanctioned, but apart from that the risk is all mine.


JKG
 
Last edited:
That letter sounds like they want to keep their options open as far as sanctioning pilots is concerned.
 
That's it. I just go with the flow. This guy tells us to do this, we do this, it works as advertised, rinse & repeat. BTW, I was the safety pilot on these flights. I only did 40hrs training in a week and it was all with a very different CFII, next day I was IR.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
Yep, I just got an email for one of those recently. The next one is next week I think and I've been thinking about going to it. The problem is, the local ARTCC is Cleveland Center which is in Oberlin, OH so that's where the seminar is. That's a little far to drive, though it's only a few miles from KLPR. I wonder how many pilots will be thinking the same thing, seems the courtesy car at LPR is likely to be scarce that day. If I have to arrange a rental to get there, forget it. I guess it's worth making a further inquiry though.

Thanks for the reminder!
Click to expand...

Azure, could you PM me with where and when that seminar is? I'm local to the Cleveland area and might be interested in going to that if im in town. If I can make it I would be more than willing to pick you up from a local airport.
 
bluesky74656 said:
Azure, could you PM me with where and when that seminar is? I'm local to the Cleveland area and might be interested in going to that if im in town. If I can make it I would be more than willing to pick you up from a local airport.
Click to expand...
Go to FAASAFETY.GOV. If you're not signed up in advance, you won't be able to get in. At least that's the way it is at Chicago Center.
 
You argument would be fine if ATC will let you into the airspace without the VFR-as-IFR subterfuge. You can't get near DC or into the class B around OAK unless you play this game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top