Not Current - Need to file IFR

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
I've looked in the regs and I haven't found anything that I can really sink my teeth into to answer this question.

Can a non-current IFR pilot file an IFR flightplan on a clear VMC daytime conditions? If so, what regulation would allow him to do this?
 
Last edited:
Sure, anyone can file an IFR flight plan.

Accepting an IFR clearance, on the other hand, is a no-no.

14 CFR 61.57(c) prohibits acting as PIC under IFR OR in IMC. Not "and."

You can, however, have a current instrument pilot other than you act as PIC on the flight.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I would not recomend using a view limiting device....without a current safety pilot. :D
Click to expand...

Of course. But the safety pilot need not be instrument current nor even rated unless the flight is to take place under IFR. An instrument rated safety pilot is helpful under VFR, but less than essential.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
what do you think a current safety pilot needs? :D
Click to expand...

To be a private pilot in category and class (the reg does not mention type even if a type rating is required), and current medical. Even under IFR (but not as PIC).

If the safety pilot is also to be PIC, he must satisfy the requirements to be PIC. The safety pilot need not be PIC. There is nothing wrong with the left seat being PIC under VFR; in fact, some safety pilots prefer that.

It becomes a bit fuzzy if neither pilot has 90 day currency. A required crew member is not a passenger, so 90 day currency certainly doesn't apply while the crew member is required. It's debatable if the crew member is required while the pilot doesn't have foggles on (such as takeoff and landing).
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
I've looked in the regs and I haven't found anything that I can really sink my teeth into to answer this question.

Can a non-current IFR pilot file an IFR flightplan on a clear VMC daytime conditions? If so, what regulation would allow him to do this?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about "filing" an IFR flight plan or "flying" an IFR flight plan?

Filing? There's nothing prohibiting anyone, even someone who is not a pilot at all, from filing an IFR flight plan.

Flying? As in accepting an IFR clearance and operating as PIC under instrument flight rules? There's FAR 61.3(e) to start with.
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
Is there a written exception in the regs that allows this to occur?
Click to expand...

Yes. If there is a current instrument rated pilot in the airplane other than the "sole manipulator of the controls," than that pilot can be PIC legally under IFR. And the non-current pilot can become current that way.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Lot of good stuff in that thread but not quite. I think I got enough though but not the specific reg that says "you can (do such and such)"
Click to expand...
What do you want the reg to say? Very seldom will a reg be written to state what you CAN do. They are generally written to state what you CAN'T do. You
 
I've honestly never found 61.57 to be confusing.
 
You can always file,you just can't fly IMC if your not current. VFR pilots file IFR frequently when dealing with TFRs.
 
you can accept an IFR clearance .....and not be current?...even if VMC?
 
There's no point in filing IFR if you don't intend to accept a clearance. If you're not current, you can't legally accept a clearance. IMC or VMC doesn't matter, a clearance is a clearance. If you intend to do hood work under VFR, there's no need to file IFR.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
you can accept an IFR clearance .....and not be current?...even if VMC?
Click to expand...

No accepting an IFR clearance in ANY conditions is a clear violation of 14 CFR 61.57(c)

(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command under IFR or weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR only if: [is IFR current]

If you are VMC and on an IFR flight plan, you are still IFR.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySectLookup/61.57

There is not regulation however that says one needs to be current to FILE an IFR flight plan with the exception of the FAA interpretation mentioned above. You can just not ACCEPT a clearance from ATC unless you are current. That is black and white clear.
 
midlifeflyer said:
How much longer and more convoluted do you want the FAR to be?
Click to expand...

How difficult is
==============================
No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;
(2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate aircraft category, class, and type rating (if required) for the aircraft being flown;
(3) For a glider, a pilot certificate with a glider category rating and an airplane instrument rating; or
(4) For an airship, a commercial pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air category rating and airship class rating.
==============================
to understand?
 
I'd give it about a 4. Its fairly clear to read, but its hard to find.
 
coloradobluesky said:
I'd give it about a 4. Its fairly clear to read, but its hard to find.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Looking at the Table of Contents for Part 61 (the Part that deals with pilot certification) I immediately see

§ 61.1 Applicability and definitions.
§ 61.2 Exercise of Privilege
§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.​

That third one looks like it just might apply to a question about whether a certificate or rating is required for a particular type of operation. ;)
 
Witmo said:
There's no point in filing IFR if you don't intend to accept a clearance. If you're not current, you can't legally accept a clearance. IMC or VMC doesn't matter, a clearance is a clearance. If you intend to do hood work under VFR, there's no need to file IFR.
Click to expand...

Filing IFR with no intention of getting the clearance can be of use sometimes. It can be a way to get VFR service from ATC a little easier and quicker sometimes. I've done it when I've wanted do practice instrument approaches in VFR. When I taxi out I tell ground or clearance delivery I'm on file but just want to depart VFR and do practice approaches. They say "squawk", "approach frequency will be". Neither I nor they have to go through the whole "I'm a whatever slant whatever wanting to do this and that" boogie. They don't have to enter all that data into the computer, it's already there. All they do is change the altitude from a number to VFR. Because I've filed electronically I haven't wasted Radio's time.
This might not be the best thing to do everywhere. A lot will depend the "culture" of ATC there.
 
MAKG1 said:
I've filed IFR on Foreflight to see if LMFS picks it up on their website (they don't).
Click to expand...

Hmm. I don't know how all that works. I've never been to the LMFS website. I'm pretty sure Foreflite "routes" it through them. I guess it just goes directly into "the system" and they assume because you filed in Foreflite, you will go there to make any changes instead of LMFS's site. I have filed VFR flight plans on fore flight and then called 800wxbrief on the phone later to get an update briefing and they know who I am although it does seem to take them an extra couple seconds to find.
 
Actually, what I wanted was some of LMFS' notifications, particularly their text message activation and canceling. When Foreflight files with LMFS, it isn't under your account.
 
I wonder if anyone has ever brought that up with them. Doesn't seem like it would be all that complicated. I suppose a downside to making the connection between Foreflite and LMFS's site complete is if the pilot is going back and forth between the two, they would have to put a very high priority on those two websites exchanging data instantly to be sure the pilot gets timely information. That could slow other things down.
 
luvflyin said:
Filing IFR with no intention of getting the clearance can be of use sometimes. It can be a way to get VFR service from ATC a little easier and quicker sometimes. I've done it when I've wanted do practice instrument approaches in VFR. When I taxi out I tell ground or clearance delivery I'm on file but just want to depart VFR and do practice approaches. They say "squawk", "approach frequency will be". Neither I nor they have to go through the whole "I'm a whatever slant whatever wanting to do this and that" boogie. They don't have to enter all that data into the computer, it's already there. All they do is change the altitude from a number to VFR. Because I've filed electronically I haven't wasted Radio's time.
This might not be the best thing to do everywhere. A lot will depend the "culture" of ATC there.
Click to expand...
I've never had any problem talking to clearance delivery on the ground or Approach in the air and asking for practice VFR approaches. I don't see how filing an IFR flight plan and not activating it does anything to expedite ATC services. I don't know what they might have to be entering in the computer that would be different than any other request for flight following. If anything it may confuse them but I don't know what it is they might be doing. It may be as you say something that's totally local to you.
 
Ok, say I am current however I do not have a medical. I have a current pilot in the right seat with a medical. I can act as sole manipulator and log pic. Does the right seat pilot have to be listed on the flight plan as pic? Which pilot is technically receiving the clearance?

Jim
 
Topper said:
Ok, say I am current however I do not have a medical. I have a current pilot in the right seat with a medical. I can act as sole manipulator and log pic.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Does the right seat pilot have to be listed on the flight plan as pic?
Click to expand...
Some will say yes, others will say no. It's the same question as whether an instrument student needs to put the instructor's name in the flight plan when filing IFR for a training flight in the system. My first CFII said yes he does, but I don't know of any regulation that answers this.
Which pilot is technically receiving the clearance?
Click to expand...
The pilot with the medical, who must also be acting PIC.
 
midlifeflyer said:
How difficult is
==============================
No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:
(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;
(2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate aircraft category, class, and type rating (if required) for the aircraft being flown;
(3) For a glider, a pilot certificate with a glider category rating and an airplane instrument rating; or
(4) For an airship, a commercial pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air category rating and airship class rating.
==============================
to understand?
Click to expand...

Im guessing the difficulty is simple, and probably exists in the misuse of the acronym "IFR". I think a lot of folks erroneously read the "under IFR" part of the regs as "under IMC", rather than reading it as it is intended. It seems clear that it is saying: 'you can't be the PIC under instrument flight rules, unless...'

But, I hear often hear pilots talking about how they ended up in IFR on their flight, rather than saying they ended up in IMC.

It seems obvious, but many pilots strangely miss the fact that:

IFR = Instrument Flight Rules

While

IMC = Instrument Meterological Conditions
 
azure said:
Correct.

Some will say yes, others will say no. It's the same question as whether an instrument student needs to put the instructor's name in the flight plan when filing IFR for a training flight in the system. My first CFII said yes he does, but I don't know of any regulation that answers this.
Click to expand...
There are two regs that deal with flight plans. They are 91.153 for VFR flight plans and 91.169 for IFR flight plans. Both say "flight plan: Information required"
in the title, and 169 starts by telling you to look at 153.

Doesn't "shall include...The full name and address of the pilot in command or, in the case of a formation flight, the formation commander" answer the question?
 
Coloradokevin said:
Im guessing the difficulty is simple, and probably exists in the misuse of the acronym "IFR". I think a lot of folks erroneously read the "under IFR" part of the regs as "under IMC", rather than reading it as it is intended. It seems clear that it is saying: 'you can't be the PIC under instrument flight rules, unless...'

But, I hear often hear pilots talking about how they ended up in IFR on their flight, rather than saying they ended up in IMC.

It seems obvious, but many pilots strangely miss the fact that:

IFR = Instrument Flight Rules

While

IMC = Instrument Meterological Conditions
Click to expand...

Adding to the confusion is that the Pilot/Controller Glossary contains a definition for "IFR conditions."
 
MAKG1 said:
And there are a few regulations that cite "IFR conditions." Like 14 CFR 91.167.
Click to expand...
...and it's even defined in the regulations.

IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.​

Gee, if I didn't look, just using standard US English, I would have thought it meant "weather conditions that require the application of instrument flight rules."

Oh wait, they mean the same thing. Just English after all.
CBSigh2.png
 
MAKG1 said:
Of course. But the safety pilot need not be instrument current nor even rated unless the flight is to take place under IFR. An instrument rated safety pilot is helpful under VFR, but less than essential.
Click to expand...
An instrument rating for the safety pilot is also not essential under IFR, if the pilot at the controls is instrument current and is acting as PIC, because the FAA Chief Counsel's office has written that a safety pilot is not acting as second-in-command.

Beaty interpretation

(They have, however, written that the safety pilot can log second-in-command for the time that a pilot-in-command at the controls is under the hood.)

Trussell interpretation

Cato interpretation
 
Palmpilot said:
An instrument rating for the safety pilot is also not essential under IFR, if the pilot at the controls is instrument current and is acting as PIC, because the FAA Chief Counsel's office has written that a safety pilot is not acting as second-in-command.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the scenario at hand is that the pilot at the controls is not current.
 
MAKG1 said:
To be a private pilot in category and class (the reg does not mention type even if a type rating is required), and current medical. Even under IFR (but not as PIC)....

It becomes a bit fuzzy if neither pilot has 90 day currency. A required crew member is not a passenger, so 90 day currency certainly doesn't apply while the crew member is required. It's debatable if the crew member is required while the pilot doesn't have foggles on (such as takeoff and landing).
Click to expand...

90 day?

http://flash.aopa.org/asf/single_pilot_ifr/site/html/misc/instrument_currency.cfm
 
MAKG1 said:
That's not all you have to do to be PIC under IFR. 3 takeoffs and landings in 90 days. Full stop if at night or in a taildragger.
Click to expand...
Three takeoffs and landings in 90 days are not required to be PIC under IFR. They're only required to carry passengers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top