IFR in a different category question

[luvflyin]

FAA doesn’t investigate NASA form reports.

Is there some rule that NASA can’t inform the FAA of a problem in the system?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Say you were ‘over the top’ and said you didn’t see it. What would you expect them to do?

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘over the top’ but I did say “seem to be getting close.” I have not heard it and would not expect to hear it if it were not a factor - a potential obstacle in my lateral and vertical path.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Is there some rule that NASA can’t inform the FAA of a problem in the system?

ASRS - Aviation Safety Reporting System

The Aviation Safety Reporting System captures confidential reports, analyzes the resulting data, and disseminates vital information to the aviation community.

asrs.arc.nasa.gov

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is there some rule that NASA can’t inform the FAA of a problem in the system?

Just a WAG - he’s referring to investigating an individual based on an ASRS filing as opposed to fulfilling its purpose of identifying and reporting systemic problems.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Is there some rule that NASA can’t inform the FAA of a problem in the system?

And the problem is?

 

[Pinecone]

From the posted excerpt of the manual, it is seems it not to ding the pilot or refuse service, but to let you, the controller, know the situation.

A BIG difference between a rated, current, proficient pilot who decided the clouds were too close together to be legal VFR and a newly minted PP inadvertently flying into IMC.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Is there some rule that NASA can’t inform the FAA of a problem in the system?

A specific problem with a specific pilot? no, they can’t.

A general trend that shows up? That’s what it’s for.

 

[luvflyin]

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘over the top’ but I did say “seem to be getting close.” I have not heard it and would not expect to hear it if it were not a factor - a potential obstacle in my lateral and vertical path.

FAR 1.1 ‘Over-the-top means above the layer of clouds or other obscuring phenomena forming the ceiling.’ If you were VFR above a solid layer and could not see any terrain, what do you think a Controller might/should/could do when you answer the question ‘do you have the terrain in sight’ with negative.

 

[midlifeflyer]

FAR 1.1 ‘Over-the-top means above the layer of clouds or other obscuring phenomena forming the ceiling.’ If you were VFR above a solid layer and could not see any terrain, what do you think a Controller might/should/could do when you answer the question ‘do you have the terrain in sight’ with negative.

Same answer.

I have not heard it and would not expect to hear it if it were not a factor - a potential obstacle in my lateral and vertical path.

This doesn't seem much different than a traffic call to me. If it is a factor, I'd expect a suggestion for a turn or at least telling me where it is in relation to my position so I can evade. I'm not expecting, "well, too bad, so sad, buh-bye."

I must be missing something. This seems pretty obvious and simple to me. Maybe just because I'm not irked by it?

 

[MauleSkinner]

FAR 1.1 ‘Over-the-top means above the layer of clouds or other obscuring phenomena forming the ceiling.’ If you were VFR above a solid layer and could not see any terrain, what do you think a Controller might/should/could do when you answer the question ‘do you have the terrain in sight’ with negative.

If you were VFR over the top and couldn’t see terrain, I would assume that you would be at least 1000 feet above the clouds, and if not seeing any terrain includes the fact that the top of the tower is still in the clouds, you’re probably far enough above it that it wouldn’t be a factor, and ATC wouldn’t be calling it out to you.

 

[luvflyin]

Same answer.

This doesn't seem much different than a traffic call to me. If it is a factor, I'd expect a suggestion for a turn or at least telling me where it is in relation to my position so I can evade. I'm not expecting, "well, too bad, so sad, buh-bye."

I must be missing something. This seems pretty obvious and simple to me. Maybe just because I'm not irked by it?

You’re VFR so you are at least 1000 feet above any terrain down there. When Controllers do this it is because you are below the MVA/MIA. You could be many thousands of feet above any terrain anywhere near you because of the size of MVA/MIA sectors. Particularly the MIA video maps Centers use.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You’re VFR so you are at least 1000 feet above any terrain down there. When Controllers do this it is because you are below the MVA/MIA. You could be many thousands of feet above any terrain anywhere near you because of the size of MVA/MIA sectors. Particularly the MIA video maps Centers use.

Personally, I've never gotten it unless it was a factor. If I did, I have far more important things to be irked about.

 

[mcmanigle]

I’ve heard it every time I or someone else on the radio asked for an IFR clearance in flight without filing a flight plan first. I believe it’s a normal ATC procedure.

Yes. Oddly enough, I've been handed off to a controller on an IFR flight plan, then canceled IFR, then requested a new IFR clearance (it was a whole "can I stay out of turbulence better VFR; okay I guess maybe not, let's try to get above" type situation).

And even though that controller presumably remembered I was on an IFR plan five minutes ago, I still got the "rated and equipped" question.

 

[Larry in TN]

If you were VFR above a solid layer and could not see any terrain, what do you think a Controller might/should/could do when you answer the question ‘do you have the terrain in sight’ with negative.

They ask you if you can provide your own terrain and obstacle separation through their minimum IFR altitude. If you are above the clouds, and no terrain or obstacles are extending above the clouds, then you can provide your own separation in the climb.