File IFR when not rated

[azure]

Agreed. There may be a continued debate over the file portion and what happens if you accidently check the wrong item in the IFR/VFR box but Luckypants asked a legit question looking for an answer and the answer is NO. You're not allowed to act as PIC under IFR or in weather less than VFR minimums unless you hold... an instrument rating.

Exactly. The OP's question was answered early on page 1, and the thread morphed from there.

I admit that I helped drag it out in part out of unhappiness with the fact that someone had actually written a letter to the Chief Counsel about "the IFR/VFR technique", and then insisted that the ridiculous Chief Counsel interpretation actually made sense but turned out not to understand the technique he was trying to ask about.

I really wish that people would not send letters to the Chief Counsel asking for clarification on stuff like this unless there is a general consensus in the community that clarification is needed. I do realize that saying this is a little like trying to herd cats, but here we have an interpretation based on a misunderstanding of the technique being asked about, a misunderstanding on the Chief Counsel's part of how the flight data system works, that contradicts the plain language of the FAR, and as palmpilot said, comes perilously close to enshrining "thoughtcrime" in the canon of FAA administrative law.

 

[poadeleted20]

Here's a copy of the LOI you mentioned.

BTW, I'm not taking a position on the letter, just posting for others to see.

Mr. Goodish is reading into that letter something which is not there. Mere intent to commit an illegal act does not violate the law if the act is not committed. The only way it becomes an issue is if the illegal act is committed and the question of intent is a factor in the legal proceeding, e.g., the difference between murder and manslaughter or the degrees thereof.

 

[EdFred]

Mr. Goodish is reading into that letter something which is not there. Mere intent to commit an illegal act does not violate the law if the act is not committed. The only way it becomes an issue is if the illegal act is committed and the question of intent is a factor in the legal proceeding, e.g., the difference between murder and manslaughter or the degrees thereof.

Careful, the FAA make take a page from the criminal courts and charge pilots with "conspiracy" even if a violation doesn't occur.

 

[poadeleted20]

No. But that evidence could potentially be used against you if there is an actual or apparent violation.

Nobody doubts that, and it could make things worse for someone who actually violates 61.3 by acting as PIC under IFR without having the requisite instrument privileges. But the letter makes it clear that the filing of the flight plan in this situation is only proof of intent, not a violation in and of itself. As Goethe put it, "In the beginning was the deed." Without the deed of acting as PIC under IFR, the investigation never starts, and the flight plan is never an issue.

 

[dcmoser]

Mr. Goodish is reading into that letter something which is not there. Mere intent to commit an illegal act does not violate the law if the act is not committed.

Yes it does. Many people have served time because they tried to hire someone to commit a crime, even though the crime plan was not followed through.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes it does. Many people have served time because they tried to hire someone to commit a crime, even though the crime plan was not followed through.

I think you have that a bit distorted. Hiring someone to commit a crime (say, murder) is itself a crime whether or not the murder is ever committed or even attempted. OTOH, merely intending to hire someone to commit a crime but never actually trying to hire them is not -- there must be an overt act which itself is illegal.

 

[EdFred]

Yes it does. Many people have served time because they tried to hire someone to commit a crime, even though the crime plan was not followed through.

Uh, Part 61/91 violations are not crimes. Of course that doesn't preclude an action from being both a violation and a crime, but accepting an IFR clearance while not IR current/rated is not a criminal offense.

 

[snoboy]

I think you have that a bit distorted. Hiring someone to commit a crime (say, murder) is itself a crime whether or not the murder is ever committed or even attempted. OTOH, merely intending to hire someone to commit a crime but never actually trying to hire them is not -- there must be an overt act which itself is illegal.

Correct!

 

[snoboy]

Uh, Part 61/91 violations are not crimes. Of course that doesn't preclude an action from being both a violation and a crime, but accepting an IFR clearance while not IR current/rated is not a criminal offense.

Why in the world would a VFR pilot be receiving an IFR clearance from a controller? Oops he checked the wrong box. Well he still aint gonna get a CRAFT until he requests a clearance. If the controller starts to issue a clearance to him he'll be confused or he'll let the controller know that he's VFR. If he intenionally checked the wrong box and accepts the CRAFT and begins the flight then IMHO he's breaking the rules because he will have become PIC of an IFR flight at that point.

 

[snoboy]

So then that answers my other question.. There is no solo time required for the IFR ticket like there is for the PPL, correct?

True statement. All IFR training is with instructor. Your first IFR solo will be after successful completion of checkride.

 

[EdFred]

Why in the world would a VFR pilot be receiving an IFR clearance from a controller?

I've known non current pilots to fly IFR - purposefully.

 

[azure]

I've known non current pilots to fly IFR - purposefully.

And I once met an instrument student who bragged about filing and flying IFR on CAVU days just to get experience in the system.

 

[JimNtexas]

"No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under Instrument Flight Rules....

Note no mention of IMC or VMC.

How could the rule be more clear cut than that? Quibble all you want about flight strips and altitude remarks, a non-IFR qualified pilot has no business filing any sort of IFR flight plan unless he has a qualified IFR pilot with access to the flight controls to act as PIC.

I don't care how convient it is for a VFR pilot to break the rule, that's a rule that's there for a good reason.

A VFR pilot who files IFR has just forged the first link in his accident chain.

Having said that, it's clearly crazy in almost all cases to ask for an FAA Chief Counsel letter on any question that isn't an absolute life or death issue to the pilot populations.

The guys who write FARs can't write a rule set that allows for sensible and safe flight operations while at the same time specifically trying to prohibit all the ways idiots might act idiotically.

Asking the FAA for a legal interpretation is almost always asking a question to which you can't stand the answer.

 

[poadeleted20]

"No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under Instrument Flight Rules....

Note no mention of IMC or VMC.

How could the rule be more clear cut than that?

I think we're all agreed on that.

Quibble all you want about flight strips and altitude remarks, a non-IFR qualified pilot has no business filing any sort of IFR flight plan unless he has a qualified IFR pilot with access to the flight controls to act as PIC.

I won't get into a discussion over whether a VFR-only pilot "has no business filing any sort of IFR flight plan," but merely filing it is not by itself a regulatory violation.

 

[JimNtexas]

I think we're all agreed on that.

I won't get into a discussion over whether a VFR-only pilot "has no business filing any sort of IFR flight plan," but merely filing it is not by itself a regulatory violation.

If it is a violation, it's not one worth even talking about. Certainly not one worth asking for an FAA legal opinion.

 

[sferguson524]

I've been out flying on a VFR day (non instrument rated, but with about 50hrs towards the IR), and asked for practice approaches, and every time, the controller started giving me a clearance, and it was as simple as saying "unable, am not instrument rated" to the clearance. Still got the approaches.

 

[roncachamp]

I've been out flying on a VFR day (non instrument rated, but with about 50hrs towards the IR), and asked for practice approaches, and every time, the controller started giving me a clearance, and it was as simple as saying "unable, am not instrument rated" to the clearance. Still got the approaches.

IFR clearance or approach clearance?

 

[dell30rb]

Why in the world would a VFR pilot be receiving an IFR clearance from a controller? Oops he checked the wrong box. Well he still aint gonna get a CRAFT until he requests a clearance.

Usually you have to request it. Sometimes they respond directly to your initial call-up by reading a clearance. You would probably have to clearly decline it and state you were going to maintain VFR

 

[sferguson524]

IFR clearance or approach clearance?

They were trying to give me an IFR clearance.. It was VFR with the bases around 5K or so. Was for the ILS 28R into MYF and for the ILS 24 into CRQ

 

[roncachamp]

They were trying to give me an IFR clearance.. It was VFR with the bases around 5K or so. Was for the ILS 28R into MYF and for the ILS 24 into CRQ

Do you remember the phraseology?

 

[RotorAndWing]

If it is a violation, it's not one worth even talking about. Certainly not one worth asking for an FAA legal opinion.

Let me put it this way: If an Inspector tried to file a violation it wouldn't pass the "laugh test" with the FSDO Manager or the Region Attorney, and will probably land the Inspector on a month of phone duty.

 

[sferguson524]

Do you remember the phraseology?

NXXXXX fly heading xxx will have your clearance for you in a moment. Told them unable IFR clearance, am VFR only. Nxxxx roger, fly heading xxx altitude your discretion. as i got closer to the loc, i got the clearance for a VFR practice approach, maintain VFR

 

[EdFred]

as i got closer to the loc, i got the clearance for a VFR practice approach, maintain VFR

That's similar to "cleared to land" you obviously don't need to be IFR to get a landing clearance.

 

[douglas393]

NXXXXX fly heading xxx will have your clearance for you in a moment. Told them unable IFR clearance, am VFR only. Nxxxx roger, fly heading xxx altitude your discretion. as i got closer to the loc, i got the clearance for a VFR practice approach, maintain VFR

Basically, you did a straight in landing, and there is nothing that I have ever seen that says that a VFR pilot in VMC cannot use the information supplied by an approach (VOR, RNAV, ILS, LOC, whatever) to land. When I was doing my IR training, I would take flights to uncontrolled fields to do just that. Just would announce on the CTAF I was on such and such approach to where ever and how far out. I would also always add traffic permitting, and would always yield to the plane in the pattern if there was an issue, which rarely happened.

 

[roncachamp]

Basically, you did a straight in landing, and there is nothing that I have ever seen that says that a VFR pilot in VMC cannot use the information supplied by an approach (VOR, RNAV, ILS, LOC, whatever) to land. When I was doing my IR training, I would take flights to uncontrolled fields to do just that. Just would announce on the CTAF I was on such and such approach to where ever and how far out. I would also always add traffic permitting, and would always yield to the plane in the pattern if there was an issue, which rarely happened.

What if the plane in the pattern was trying to yield to you?

 

[douglas393]

What if the plane in the pattern was trying to yield to you?

Never happened, but I guess if he yielded to me I would have continued the approach. I picked fields that were pretty quiet to do this so rarely was there any one in the pattern.

 

[mcmanigle]

Agreed. Of course that doesn't prove they didn't write the interpretation, they've come up with lots of idiotic nonsense before. But then a VFR-only pilot who checks the IFR box by accident and files what he thinks is a VFR plan electronically is already guilty of a FAR violation. I would like to see them make that stick, especially if the filed altitude was a VFR altitude or an ambiguous altitude like 3000. If they really can, then VFR pilots using Foreflight need to be careful, because that is fairly easy to do if you're in a hurry.

I realize the discussion has moved a bit beyond this, but I was once in a hurry to get off the ground on a night trip over central PA hills and asked to file and open a VFR flight plan (with an ambiguous altitude) from the air. The FSS must have misheard, because when I went to close the flight plan upon landing, was told that rather than an open VFR flight plan, I had a closed IFR flight plan. [edit: should clarify that "closed" to mean "never opened"]

Also, interesting to note that in much of the rest of the world, any private pilot can file IFR, and an instrument rating is required only to fly in IMC, which makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, "much of the rest of the world" has other issues, like user fees and class A airspace all over the place.

 

[roncachamp]

Also, interesting to note that in much of the rest of the world, any private pilot can file IFR, and an instrument rating is required only to fly in IMC, which makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, "much of the rest of the world" has other issues, like user fees and class A airspace all over the place.

Any private pilot can file IFR in the US, an instrument rating is required only to operate under Instrument Flight Rules.

 

[snoboy]

Usually you have to request it. Sometimes they respond directly to your initial call-up by reading a clearance. You would probably have to clearly decline it and state you were going to maintain VFR

Precisely. You DO have to request it and you have to read it back. Both are deliberate acts.

 

[snoboy]

Any private pilot can file IFR in the US, an instrument rating is required only to operate under Instrument Flight Rules.

With the exception of IFR training (a student filing for the lesson). What reason would a non IR pilot have deliberately filing an IFR flight plan.

 

[Velocity173]

I've been out flying on a VFR day (non instrument rated, but with about 50hrs towards the IR), and asked for practice approaches, and every time, the controller started giving me a clearance, and it was as simple as saying "unable, am not instrument rated" to the clearance. Still got the approaches.

That's where proper communication comes in. If your VFR then tell the controller you'd like to get vectors for a practice instrument approach VFR. They'll say something like "maintain VFR, no separation services provided" (non primary airport) or you might even get a clearance for the approach with the caveat to "maintain VFR throught the approach."

If your IFR rated and equipped then tell the controller you'd like to pick up an IFR to execute a practice approach. That will differ in that they'll clear you to the airport. Now you're authorized to go IMC and your getting standard IFR separation service.

Sometimes it's like playing 20 questions with a controller when if they just would have clearly stated their intentions from the get go, it would have eliminated any confusion.

 

[roncachamp]

With the exception of IFR training (a student filing for the lesson). What reason would a non IR pilot have deliberately filing an IFR flight plan.

He just feels like doing it.

 

[alaskaflyer]

With the exception of IFR training (a student filing for the lesson). What reason would a non IR pilot have deliberately filing an IFR flight plan.

Number of examples up above your post aways.

For one thing, practice? Why not?

 

[roncachamp]

Thanks.

You're welcome. I've attached a screenshot of the DUAT input and a scan of the strip output for a VFR flight from Green Bay to Duluth.

 

[poadeleted20]

With the exception of IFR training (a student filing for the lesson). What reason would a non IR pilot have deliberately filing an IFR flight plan.

Beats me. Which is why I wonder why this thread (and that legal interpretation request) ever happened.

 

[poadeleted20]

For one thing, practice? Why not?

You think there's something to be gained by pushing that "file" button or reading the form to the briefer after you prepare an IFR flight plan?

 

[EdFred]

With the exception of IFR training (a student filing for the lesson). What reason would a non IR pilot have deliberately filing an IFR flight plan.

I filed an IFR flight plan with absolutely no intention of flying it in the hopes it would show up on Flightaware and get some tail number stalkers to go "WTF?!?"

 

[TangoWhiskey]

If we had EVERY pilot in the USA file an IFR flight plan for the same day and ETA from their home airport to JFK, would we crash the Traffic Management system?

 

[douglas393]

I filed an IFR flight plan with absolutely no intention of flying it in the hopes it would show up on Flightaware and get some tail number stalkers to go "WTF?!?"

I do not believe it will show up on FLightaware unless you open the plan. I know there have been a number of times I have filed and did not fly(other things came up, PFD crapped out, weather was too good so did not go IFR), and it did not appear of flightaware.

 

[EdFred]

I do not believe it will show up on FLightaware unless you open the plan. I know there have been a number of times I have filed and did not fly(other things came up, PFD crapped out, weather was too good so did not go IFR), and it did not appear of flightaware.

Sometimes they do - or at least used to - because I had shown up as a scheduled departure. Maybe they've changed it, but I know at one time it did because I verified it a couple time to make sure the flight plan actually got filed because I had one slip through the cracks once over the phone.