Actual IFR usage for GA flying

[azure]

sounds like driving is quicker than filing IFR in New England. LOL

Depends on where you are in New England. People usually think only of the NY-Boston corridor and maybe up the coast to Portland, ME, but New England also includes Vermont, New Hampshire, and most of Maine away from the coast. In those less populated areas you will most likely get direct if you file it, and offered direct even if you don't - that's happened to me several times.

 

[gismo]

Depends on where you are in New England. People usually think only of the NY-Boston corridor and maybe up the coast to Portland, ME, but New England also includes Vermont, New Hampshire, and most of Maine away from the coast. In those less populated areas you will most likely get direct if you file it, and offered direct even if you don't - that's happened to me several times.

Plus there are plenty of places in NE where there's nothing close to "direct" when driving. The mountains there aren't a big obstacle for airplanes like the Rockies but they sure get in the way of the roads.

 

[iRyan]

Last thought. I know of some independent instructors who teach instrument flying by going on 5-6 day trips with their students over thousand of miles in a wide variety of airspace and weather, featuring towered and non-towered ops and a huge range of approaches. Students come out of that with real confidence as to how to fly IFR in the system. Whereas, 40 hours under the hood shooting approaches in the local area just doesn't yield the same result.

This is the way I did it; flew all over the NE & SE plus out to OH in all types of wx. I'd like to incorporate this when I have IR students.

 

[Cavorter]

Yea there are a few people who I know who won't fly VFR and always file even on clear and a million days. Sometimes it makes sense like going into busy airspace but if I can go VFR, I will. It beats sitting on the ground, waiting for the release and getting a screwy route by ATC.

You can always cancel IFR if it is VMC and you get messed around by ATC.

I'm in the group of always filing IFR if I'm going a long distance. That way it is available if I need it.If I don't because it is VMC and I have been giving a screwy route, I can always cancel IFR.

 

[CMongoose]

That's funny. Most of my flying for a reason (going somewhere I need to be rather than cruising around) is between BOS and Philly. That is usually when I file and like I said I always get a pretty lengthy clearance consisting of multiple Victor airways. I just assumed that's how it was in the rest of the US.

For those of us with Single Engine Piston there are two main options around NY on that route.

V1 overhead JFK at 6000 ft, and routing out to what used to be the Lake Henry VOR (now LAAYK intersection) in NE PA.

Twice this year I've been given a routing other than one of those two options, and on both flights I was given an in flight re-route (to V1 over JFK).

Other parts of the country seem to easier. I've been offered direct from Chicago to Cleveland before (but refused it because of the significant overwater leg), and heading north from Central New England, direct is reasonably easy to get.

 

[Rcmutz]

It's not. Boston to Philly is the 'belly of the beast' when it comes to IFR clearances.

I thought it was more like the bowels of IFR clearance....just sh$#%y!

 

[Rcmutz]

And yes, one of the reasons we made the RW IFR program was to provide what we felt was some much-needed context around instrument flying, given that SO much emphasis is placed on approaches and holding during training. Well, if you spend all your 40 hours focusing on that, but you have little confidence about flight planning, departure and enroute phases of IFR, then you're much less likely to feel comfortable using your rating and as such, won't get much utility from your rating. You'll shoot your "6 and 6 with token holding" on a sunny day with your buddy, just like always, then you'll swap seats and let him/her do the same and you'll both walk away being "instrument current" but you both know you have zero confidence about flying in the system and wouldn't dream of filing on any significant trip into any significant weather.

I know that sounds super preachy, but I've literally lost count of the number of instrument rated pilots who have told me "yeah, I have a rating, but I've never used it and at this point...never well." That's a sad state of affairs when you consider how much work and misery goes into getting a rating (especially the way IFR is typically taught).

Pretty much on point. Not using the rating even when IFR, skills will erode, but confidence in flying in the system will erode faster... don't ask me...

 

[German guy]

In the eastern part of the US I entirely gave up on adding waypoints to my flight plan and now follow a recommendation I read on PoA: File what you want (direct), fly what you get. Most of the time I actually get direct and I file IFR on most flights!

When ATC sees waypoints in the flightplan, other than departure and destination, they assume that the pilot wants to go there - even if this is not the case and the pilot put in the waypoint only because he assumed that this route will be assigned to him. This can lead to some pretty interesting actual routing, as ATC will do their best to actually send you there, even if it doesn't make any sense at all, if the rest of the route differs for whatever from what was assumed.

If I prefer a certain route for a specific reasons, I simply mention it in the remarks section. E. g.: "Requesting minimal routing over water".

This is also the reason, why I don't think that it makes much sense to copy the routing of somebody else's flight into the own flightplan. Maybe the other guy requested it for a reason. Or ATC sent him there because they were busy at this time, but would give me direct.

I therefore either look the assigned route up on FlightAware, a few minutes after I filed the flight plan, or simply copy the clearance first and then figure out the position of the waypoints on the chart. Either way, no big deal.

 

[coma24]

Disagree with the theory that filing a route with waypoints reduces your chances of getting direct. I've flown NJ to FL maybe 8 times now and once I'm clear of the DC area, I nearly always get direct to my fuel stop in the Carolinas without asking for it. I'd much rather file what I'm LIKELY to get based on past experience and other people's clearances to improve my weather and fuel planning. If I get shortcuts once airborne, great. Those aren't going to be reflected in the flightaware cleared route after the fact.

 

[German guy]

[...] I'd much rather file what I'm LIKELY to get based on past experience and other people's clearances to improve my weather and fuel planning. [...]

I see no conflict between filing 'direct', but to still base the fuel and weather planning on the route you think you will likely get. That way the message to ATC is clear: I would like to fly as direct as possible. This makes it easier for everybody involved and ATC has the freedom to assign the route they consider the best, without having to bother with a route, specifically requested by the pilot. The advantage for the pilot is, that the assigned route will quite likely be closer to what he will actually fly vs. filing a complex route, of which later on half of the waypoints will be taken out.

Personally, I add a healthy margin to my fuel planning, assuming that I might get routed around Bravo airspace, but don't really bother with individual waypoints. I also feel that even a possible re-routing of 30 or 40 nm has under normal circumstances not such a great effect on the enroute weather that I have to worry about it too much in advance. Once I have the actual assigned route, I only make a feasibility check, to see if it is within the margins (fuel and possibly weather corridor) I was planning for.

 

[petrolero]

I file and fly IFR on every cross country, which is >90% of my flying. It works great. You can file any route you want and chances are you'll end up on a direct routing IF you are properly equipped (and I am going to assume so for this discussion). The route listed in a clearance is not necessarily entirely what you will fly. But it is where they expect you to go if comm is lost, and that is perhaps the biggest point.

I file, and my clearance in big cities almost always includes, DPs and STARs when they are available. I will usually start on a DP and may stay on the DP until I get switched to Center. Once I get handed to Center they very very *very* often clear me direct to either my destination airport or to the first fix on the STAR I filed for my destination. I seldom finish the entire DP before getting a "Cleared direct..."

I like IFR because it accomplishes all the stuff you would do VFR to get flight following anyway... plus way more. ATC is there for IFR traffic. Period. They are paying full attention to me. Does that mean more hassle in some cases? Seldom. I've flown IFR (in VMC) through active MOAs, for example. The old wisdom was that IFR traffic would almost always have to go around. Sometimes I do. Minor inconvenience.

I like IFR for busy or unfamiliar airspace. Especially DFW and Houston in my case. I will be in the B until they descend me to my destination and I will be receiving traffic alerts. So I stay out of the Cessna swarm below the B as long as possible. VFR I might get that, might not. IFR I nearly always do. I get vectors to my destination or to an approach. Super handy in unfamiliar airspace.

I like IFR least of all for flying in weather, although I use it for that too. It's just that out west the weather is seemingly a binary: 1 = certain death or 0 = 1000 mile visibility. . But sometimes I need to enter clouds or bust through a layer or whatever. There have been trips where I see nothing but cloud layers above and below for hundreds of miles. There have been many trips I would have cancelled or delayed due to lame but tame weather were it not for the availability of IFR.

Some people don't like to be told what to do and see IFR as the ultimate example of that. But it isn't. I tell ATC what I want to do and how I propose to do it. They let me do what I want to do unless there is a reason not to. But what I almost always want to do is get from A to B efficiently. It's not about low flying and sight seeing. For that there is still VFR. And VFR rules in the mountains.

I flew 100% of my instrument training with an instructor and 95% of it was in the airplane. I passed my check ride after 40.0 hours of training. Did I save money? No idea. Maybe not if I'd had a ready supply of safety pilots willing to fly with me on my schedule and at the drop of a hat. But such pilots weren't available to me. But I certainly didn't waste any flight time the way I did it.

 

[Rockymountain]

I like IFR least of all for flying in weather, although I use it for that too. It's just that out west the weather is seemingly a binary: 1 = certain death or 0 = 1000 mile visibility. .

That is funny. Pretty true but still funny. I have a friend that flies out of Denver that likes to say Mountains or IMC, pick one. I fly a fair bit of mountain IMC, but at best, I would say that mountain IMC is regularly hostile. Also agree about IFR in the system. What a great privilege that we are allowed, at this point, to participate without undue cost like some of our Brethren in other countries. Fly safe.

 

[Bonchie]

Speaking specifically to the route you want to fly, as long as you file 7000 or below, you'll usually always get direct in that part of the country. That's at least true for Memphis Center down into Houston Center in my experience, which you'd probably spend some time in.