IFR Flight Plan Starting at a VOR?

[SoCal 182 Driver]

Friends - I'm a newly-minted IFR pilot, so please forgive me if this is a basic question.

It looks like I may be taking a flight on Saturday that will start in VFR conditions, and end in IFR conditions. I want to avoid having to climb to a relatively high altitude for an IFR victor airway on the first part of the flight. The victor airways are lower later in the flight.

Is it possible to file an IFR flight plan starting at a VOR along my route, and ask ATC to activate it when I reach that VOR?

Thanks!

 

[Eldorado]

Yep, I find it easier to pick up at an enroute airport, seems like the controllers are more familiar with this pickup scenario in my experience.

 

[4CornerFlyer]

Yes, you can use any fix as a beginning, middle or end of an IFR flight plan. This could be a VOR, a VOR with radial and distance (eg DCA010030), a lat-long fix or whatever.
I have done this many times.
Jon

 

[RussR]

Yes, it absolutely is possible.

Another option is to file from an airport close to that VOR. Yes, you'll already be in the air, but really all you're doing is to make it so the flight plan starts in that controller's airspace (so they get the notification/strip). The fact that you're already in the air doesn't matter.

 

[RyanB]

I don't particularly want to deal with a SID at the departure airport

Specify “NO SID” on your flight plan. You don’t have to accept a SID.

then climb to a relatively high altitude for an IFR victor airway on the first part of the flight.

Why do you have to? Are the MEA’s/OROCA’s really high on the first part of the flight? Do you not have the proper equipment to do so? Don’t feel like you have to stay on an airway.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

Why do you have to? Are the MEA’s/OROCA’s really high on the first part of the flight? Do you not have the proper equipment to do so? Don’t feel like you have to stay on an airway.

Yes, they are, and I have the equipment to fly at the higher altitudes.

I'm still gaining confidence as an IFR pilot, so my preference would be stay on a Victor airway in IFR conditions. Since the first part of the flight will almost certainly be VFR, my thought is to get out of the airport VFR, and then pick-up an IFR flight plan to get into my home airport, which looks like it will be IFR tomorrow morning.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Yes, you can use any fix as a beginning, middle or end of an IFR flight plan. This could be a VOR, a VOR with radial and distance (eg DCA010030), a lat-long fix or whatever.
I have done this many times.
Jon

I used to fly a route that ended in lower terrain, and often from sunshine to clouds as you are planning - I did as Jon suggests many times.

 

[luvflyin]

Friends - I'm a newly-minted IFR pilot, so please forgive me if this is a basic question.

It looks like I may be taking a flight on Saturday that will start in VFR conditions, and end in IFR conditions. I want to avoid having to climb to a relatively high altitude for an IFR victor airway on the first part of the flight. The victor airways are lower later in the flight.

Is it possible to file an IFR flight plan starting at a VOR along my route, and ask ATC to activate it when I reach that VOR?

Thanks!

Yes. More about that here https://pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/ifr-flight-plan-waypoint.146408/

 

[flyingron]

The trick is to figure out what airtraffic facility the flight plan will get routed to if you have the VOR as a origin point. Sometimes it's obvious. Sometimes it's not. Usually, a patient conroller can dig it out anyhow.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Friends - I'm a newly-minted IFR pilot, so please forgive me if this is a basic question.

It looks like I may be taking a flight on Saturday that will start in VFR conditions, and end in IFR conditions. I want to avoid having to climb to a relatively high altitude for an IFR victor airway on the first part of the flight. The victor airways are lower later in the flight.

Is it possible to file an IFR flight plan starting at a VOR along my route, and ask ATC to activate it when I reach that VOR?

Thanks!

May I ask where you are planning your flight to?

In answer to your question, yes, you can. You can pick up a 'pop-up' clearance. This and a clearance to the VFR on top happen often in Sunny So Cal, especially this time of year with the marine layer. This is one of the good things about the TEC routes we have in place. SoCal Approach may give you a code and ask you to stand by, as it may take them a few minutes to get back to you, so ask far enough in advance to your destination.

Have a safe flight.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

May I ask where you are planning your flight to?

In answer to your question, yes, you can. You can pick up a 'pop-up' clearance. This and a clearance to the VFR on top happen often in Sunny So Cal, especially this time of year with the marine layer. This is one of the good things about the TEC routes we have in place. SoCal Approach may give you a code and ask you to stand by, as it may take them a few minutes to get back to you, so ask far enough in advance to your destination.

Have a safe flight.

I'll be flying KHND-KCMA. Henderson will almost certainly be VFR, but this time of year KCMA often has a marine layer.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Specify “NO SID” on your flight plan. You don’t have to accept a SID.

Right. You can always choose to copy the same routung orally and enter it in your GPS point by point by point instead of just loading the procedure.

 

[RyanB]

Right. You can always choose to copy the same routung orally and enter it in your GPS point by point by point instead of just loading the procedure.

Not what I meant. You can decline a SID as long as you indicate it. You’ll still have to fly the ODP if there is one, however.

 

[Ventucky Red]

I'll be flying KHND-KCMA. Henderson will almost certainly be VFR, but this time of year KCMA often has a marine layer.

KCMA is my airport... Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday are trip-tip day at the Waypoint Cafe.

I am assuming you're going to pivot off the PMD VOR... If so, when Joshua hands you off to SoCal, I recommend getting the clearance then. You should expect the handoff a few minutes west of PMD or before the SAUGS intersection. It may direct SUANA, or who knows... Expect a handoff to Pt Mugu Approach (124.7) shortly after; when that happens, you're getting close.. you should be able to smell the tri-tip...

Oh! Self-serve fuel is $5.75 a gallon...

 

[mandm]

File direct? Choose your lower altitude first then request desired altitude later.

Get a pop up IFR clearance.

 

[luvflyin]

Right. You can always choose to copy the same routung orally and enter it in your GPS point by point by point instead of just loading the procedure.

Yeah, they might do that, verbally give you the SID point by radial by turn to heading at altitude etc. It’s not so much something you ‘choose’ to do. It’s what you might get when you play the ‘no SIDS’ card. Your ‘choice’ is to copy and accept it, or say nah, on second thought I don’t really need an IFR Clearance, I’ll just go VFR. Or not go.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Not what I meant. You can decline a SID as long as you indicate it. You’ll still have to fly the ODP if there is one, however.

But it is what I meant. A SID is nothing more than a canned and charted set of instructions for a, well, “standard instrument departure” sequence used in an area. “Declining a SID” means nothing more than saying, “I don’t want to use the chart. Read it to me.” I laughed when a friend complained when it happened to him. He thought declining it would give him special privileges to get a different routing than everyone else that day. All it did was give him a bigger clearance to copy and read back.

People forget the origin of “NO SIDS NO STARS.” It’s from a time in the past when they were in a different book than approaches. It really meant, “I don’t have the book, so I need a full route clearance.” Declining a SID makes no sense unless it’s because you don’t have the equipment needed to fly it, it has climb gradients and speeds you can’t perform, or you jus like full route clearances,

 

[RussR]

But it is what I meant. A SID is nothing more than a canned and charted set of instructions for a, well, “standard instrument departure” sequence used in an area. “Declining a SID” means nothing more than saying, “I don’t want to use the chart. Read it to me.” I laughed when a friend complained when it happened to him. He thought declining it would give him special privileges to get a different routing than everyone else that day. All it did was give him a bigger clearance to copy and read back.

People forget the origin of “NO SIDS NO STARS.” It’s from a time in the past when they were in a different book than approaches. It really meant, “I don’t have the book, so I need a full route clearance.” Declining a SID makes no sense unless it’s because you don’t have the equipment needed to fly it, it has climb gradients and speeds you can’t perform, or you jus like full route clearances,

Thank you Mark for saving me the effort of typing the exact same thing.

NO SIDS is a relic of the past that has no applicability in today's world. IMO, if an instrument pilot isn't comfortable flying SIDS, then that pilot probably doesn't know what they are anyway and needs retraining.

The thing is, SIDS make things easier. Putting NO SIDS is saying "I would like you to make it more difficult please".

The best example ever was the Mooney pilot getting a SID read to him out of McKinney, TX. Don't want a SID? The controller may then have to read you the whole thing, step by step.

Now, that all is a sidebar from the OP's statement of not wanting to deal with SIDS. I think he just meant he wanted to get out of there VFR in hopefully a more direct route, not that he was unprepared to fly a SID. Going IFR but saying NO SIDS probably isn't going to result in a better routing.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thank you Mark for saving me the effort of typing the exact same thing.

NO SIDS is a relic of the past that has no applicability in today's world. IMO, if an instrument pilot isn't comfortable flying SIDS, then that pilot probably doesn't know what they are anyway and needs retraining.

The thing is, SIDS make things easier. Putting NO SIDS is saying "I would like you to make it more difficult please".

The best example ever was the Mooney pilot getting a SID read to him out of McKinney, TX. Don't want a SID? The controller may then have to read you the whole thing, step by step.

Now, that all is a sidebar from the OP's statement of not wanting to deal with SIDS. I think he just meant he wanted to get out of there VFR in hopefully a more direct route, not that he was unprepared to fly a SID. Going IFR but saying NO SIDS probably isn't going to result in a better routing.

That's great. But think the pilot was having more issues than not knowing what a SID was. As soon as I heard the pilot trying to reach Clarence Oveur at Clearance Delivery, I knew we were in for trouble.

I'm saving that video in my special list though

 

[midlifeflyer]

Now, that all is a sidebar from the OP's statement of not wanting to deal with SIDS. I think he just meant he wanted to get out of there VFR in hopefully a more direct route, not that he was unprepared to fly a SID. Going IFR but saying NO SIDS probably isn't going to result in a better routing.

Good point. @SoCal 182 Driver, what's the departure airport and the SID? I cant imaging its any more complicated than some of those SoCAL TEC routes.

 

[Jim Carpenter]

Good discussion on SIDs, but, all moot at this point. Note, OP edited out the SID comment, and, besides, for that direction of flight, the 2 SIDs for KHND are turbojet only anyway.

 

[RussR]

Good discussion on SIDs, but, all moot at this point. Note, OP edited out the SID comment, and, besides, for that direction of flight, the 2 SIDs for KHND are turbojet only anyway.

Well, seeing as how the OP's question was answered correctly 3 times in the first 3 responses within 12 minutes of posting, if we stopped discussing things when comments became moot regarding the original question, it wouldn't be much of a discussion board.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

Now, that all is a sidebar from the OP's statement of not wanting to deal with SIDS. I think he just meant he wanted to get out of there VFR in hopefully a more direct route, not that he was unprepared to fly a SID. Going IFR but saying NO SIDS probably isn't going to result in a better routing.

^^This^^

I'm trained on and could fly the SID if necessary. In this case, I just want to get out of the air space as quickly as possible.

 

[SoCal 182 Driver]

To be filed under "man plans and God laughs..."

The southern Nevada and Southern California weather is such that I'm filing IFR start to finish.

Thanks, everyone, for your help. Very much appreciated!

 

[AlleyCat67]

Just to tack on a lesson learned from this week's flight.

Because of high headwinds aloft, I decided to depart VFR, stay low, and pick up my IFR outside an enroute airport (KMTV). The plan was to cruise down at 2500' until just before MTV, then pickup my IFR and climb to 4000' for the remainder of the trip (cloud bases were lowering along my route so I needed to transition to IFR at some point). When I contacted Washington Center I was told that they couldn't issue my clearance until I had reached the MVA, which was 3900' in that area. I responded that I couldn't reach the MVA without an IFR clearance since the clouds were at 3000'! So I was stuck. I decided to land at MTV and pick up my IFR on the ground. Fortunately the clouds started to break up a little so instead I spiral-climbed to 4000', picked up my IFR, and continued as planned.

Anyway, probably obvious to you more experienced pilots, but I now realize it's not enough to be able to depart VFR in order to pick up your clearance in route. You also have to be able to climb to the MVA under VFR.

 

[midlifeflyer]

When I contacted Washington Center I was told that they couldn't issue my clearance until I had reached the MVA, which was 3900' in that area.

In your situation, the dialog should have sounded something like this.

When you request an IFR clearance when VFR and are below the minimum IFR altitude, ATC is required to ask, "Can you maintain you own terrain and obstruction clearance to [the minimum IFR altitude]." In your case, sounds like that would be 3,900 MVA.

If you say no, ATC is not permitted to issue the clearance. They can't guarantee terrain or obstruction clearance below the MVA. and you are saying you can't either. What do you expect them to do?

Reference: FAA Order 7110.65AA, ¶4-2-8.

 

[AlleyCat67]

In your situation, the dialog should have sounded something like this.

When you request an IFR clearance when VFR and are below the minimum IFR altitude, ATC is required to ask, "Can you maintain you own terrain and obstruction clearance to [the minimum IFR altitude]." In your case, sounds like that would be 3,900 MVA.

If you say no, ATC is not permitted to issue the clearance. They can't guarantee terrain or obstruction clearance below the MVA. and you are saying you can't either. What do you expect them to do?

Reference: FAA Order 7110.65AA, ¶4-2-8.

I’m not arguing with or criticizing ATC. It was my oversight for not considering the MVA and cloud bases when planning to pick up the clearance enroute. However, I’m guessing I’m not the only one who doesn’t usually pull up the FAA MVA charts during flight planning, so it’s a useful lesson.

 

[flyingron]

Anyway, probably obvious to you more experienced pilots, but I now realize it's not enough to be able to depart VFR in order to pick up your clearance in route. You also have to be able to climb to the MVA under VFR.

Actually, technically all you need do is state that you can maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I’m not arguing with or criticizing ATC. It was my oversight for not considering the MVA and cloud bases when planning to pick up the clearance enroute. However, I’m guessing I’m not the only one who doesn’t usually pull up the FAA MVA charts during flight planning, so it’s a useful lesson.

I didn't think you were criticizing anyone and nether was I. And I don't check MVA charts either. But yes, I do consider the ceiling, surrounding terrain, and whether I can clear surrounding obstructions, especially if I am going to enter the clouds. As
@flyingron said, the question is whether you can maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance, not whether you can maintain VFR.

And, you probably know this, but while you probably won't be asked the question when you pick up your IFR on the ground, you are just as responsible for terrain and obstruction clearance to the MIA or until you receive a vector (a heading and altitude after hearing the words, "radar contact").

 

[asicer]

Actually, technically all you need do is state that you can maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance.

Is the Terrain page of a GTN sufficient information for maintaining your own terrain and obstruction clearance? How about the Terrain page of a portable?

 

[tsts4]

Is the Terrain page of a GTN sufficient information for maintaining your own terrain and obstruction clearance? How about the Terrain page of a portable?

I’m thinking the legal answer is no to both.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is the Terrain page of a GTN sufficient information for maintaining your own terrain and obstruction clearance? How about the Terrain page of a portable?

It depends.

The problem is that the terrain data - basically the same in both - isn't foolproof. It's not assessed in the same detailed way as, for example, instrument approaches. So while it can be helpful, it's not quite the same as relying on an ODP or your personal local knowledge of the area.

Here's what Garmin has to say in the Limitations section of the AFMS for the GTN Series:

The terrain display is intended to serve as a situational awareness tool only. By itself, it may not provide either the accuracy or the fidelity on which to base decisions and plan maneuvers to avoid terrain or obstacles.​

​

The newer GTNxi is even more direct:

Maneuvers and navigation must not be based solely on the display of terrain, obstacles, or wires on the moving map terrain displays.​

 

[AlleyCat67]

I didn't think you were criticizing anyone and nether was I. And I don't check MVA charts either. But yes, I do consider the ceiling, surrounding terrain, and whether I can clear surrounding obstructions, especially if I am going to enter the clouds. As
@flyingron said, the question is whether you can maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance, not whether you can maintain VFR.

And, you probably know this, but while you probably won't be asked the question when you pick up your IFR on the ground, you are just as responsible for terrain and obstruction clearance to the MIA or until you receive a vector (a heading and altitude after hearing the words, "radar contact").

This is helpful - thanks. But the distinction between "maintaining terrain and obstacle clearance" and "maintaining VFR" isn't completely clear to me in this context (I did read 7110.65AA).

Certainly if I depart an uncontrolled airport after receiving my clearance on the ground, I'm responsible for my own obstacle and terrain clearance until I hear “radar contact”. But I have the clearance and can climb through the clouds to controlled airspace.

But the situation above where I'm VFR below a cloud base, if the controller had asked if I could maintain obstacle/terrain clearance until 3900', could I have simply looked around below the cloud base and verified that there were no terrain or obstacles within my climb gradient? If I had answered "affirmative" and she responded "cleared to XXX upon reaching 3900'" would I legally have been able to climb into IMC to 3900' ? Seems like I'm still under VFR rules until reaching 3900' which includes maintaining VFR cloud clearances.

 

[tsts4]

It depends.

The problem is that the terrain data - basically the same in both - isn't foolproof. It's not assessed in the same detailed way as, for example, instrument approaches. So while it can be helpful, it's not quite the same as relying on an ODP or your personal local knowledge of the area.

Here's what Garmin has to say in the Limitations section of the AFMS for the GTN Series:

The terrain display is intended to serve as a situational awareness tool only. By itself, it may not provide either the accuracy or the fidelity on which to base decisions and plan maneuvers to avoid terrain or obstacles.​

​

​

And even if you are using terrain info you still have to maintain VFR until you get the clearance, correct? In my this mind this is the big potential gotcha with pop-up or even planned enroute IFR requests.

 

[Palmpilot]

It depends.

The problem is that the terrain data - basically the same in both - isn't foolproof. It's not assessed in the same detailed way as, for example, instrument approaches. So while it can be helpful, it's not quite the same as relying on an ODP or your personal local knowledge of the area.

Here's what Garmin has to say in the Limitations section of the AFMS for the GTN Series:

The terrain display is intended to serve as a situational awareness tool only. By itself, it may not provide either the accuracy or the fidelity on which to base decisions and plan maneuvers to avoid terrain or obstacles.​

​

​

I have used sectionals or TACs for that purpose. I would think that consulting one of those on an EFB would be legal. Obviously, such roll-your-own obstacle avoidance needs to incorporate generous safety margins.

 

[midlifeflyer]

And even if you are using terrain info you still have to maintain VFR until you get the clearance, correct?

Yes. Until you get an IFR clearance you cannot go below VFR minimums in controlled airspace. But if you say you can maintain your own obstruction clearance, will will get your IFR clearance.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I have used sectionals or TACs for that purpose. I would think that consulting one of those on an EFB would be legal. Obviously, such roll-your-own obstacle avoidance needs to incorporate generous safety margins.

The MEF is giving you a whole 300' feet of clearance based on the state of the FAA's obstacle information at the time the chart was published. OTOH, if you are already above the OROCA or MORA, with their minimum 1000' obstacle clearance, you probably won't hear the question.

Question back to you: have you used the MEF method to enter the clouds in an unfamiliar area?

 

[midlifeflyer]

BTW, for those who listen, Max and I touched on some of this terrain avoidance stuff in the Aviation NewsTalk Podcast, Episode 311. The topic there was departures from airports with no IAPs, the same considerations apply.

 

[flyingron]

This is helpful - thanks. But the distinction between "maintaining terrain and obstacle clearance" and "maintaining VFR" isn't completely clear to me in this context (I did read 7110.65AA).

Certainly if I depart an uncontrolled airport after receiving my clearance on the ground, I'm responsible for my own obstacle and terrain clearance until I hear “radar contact”. But I have the clearance and can climb through the clouds to controlled airspace.

But the situation above where I'm VFR below a cloud base, if the controller had asked if I could maintain obstacle/terrain clearance until 3900', could I have simply looked around below the cloud base and verified that there were no terrain or obstacles within my climb gradient? If I had answered "affirmative" and she responded "cleared to XXX upon reaching 3900'" would I legally have been able to climb into IMC to 3900' ? Seems like I'm still under VFR rules until reaching 3900' which includes maintaining VFR cloud clearances.

From an instrument airport with a diverse departure or flying the ODP, you have terrain/obstacle clearance (within limits). You can fly up to the minimum IFR alittude with impunity.
The problem occurs when you depart from an airport without an approach, or when you pick it up from some point in space that's not an airport. ATC is required to ask you if you can maintain the clearance yourself. If you can, they may issue you a clearance (just like you left from a instrument airport). If you can not, they are obliged to tell you to maintain VFR and say intentions.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is helpful - thanks. But the distinction between "maintaining terrain and obstacle clearance" and "maintaining VFR" isn't completely clear to me in this context (I did read 7110.65AA).

Don’t overthink it. It’s no different than in any other context.

Maintaining VFR: I can maintain the VFR cloud clearances and visibility which apply to the to the airspace I am in.

Maintaining terrain and obstacle clearance: I won’t hit anything on the way up.