Filing and flying IFR without a ticket to ride

[jlunseth]

Its pretty simple folks.  You are not IFR unless you accept an IFR clearance.  If you accept an IFR clearance, you are IFR whether the conditions are VMC or IMC.  You can file all the IFR flight plans you want, whether you are instrument rated or not, you just cannot accept a clearance and takeoff (legally) without the IR.  CFII's will sometimes have you do just that as a classroom exercise.  Accepting a clearance invokes many things if you think about it.  You are going to have a transponder code, you are going to fly at an IFR altitude, the controllers are going to be in constant contact with you.  I guarantee that if you are dumb enough to accept a clearance and take off, and then just lark around without talking to ATC, that you will be violated.  They "save" a segment of airspace for you, and need predictability about who you are, what altitude you are flying, where you are going, how fast, and that they can get ahold of you if they need to.

 

Could a non-IR-rated pilot accept an IFR clearance?  Sure.  It would not be legal, but someone could do it.  Could they get caught and violated because they are not IR rated - in about a New York minute, because ATC now has a record of the whole flight including track, altitude, your unique transponder code, your tail number, radio tapes, etc.  If someone checks you are toast, and they do check.  It is just like an IRS audit, maybe they check you maybe they don't, but sooner or later if you are flying non-rated, they will check.

 

You can practice IFR skills as a non-rated pilot, including approaches, all you want as long as you ask for and obtain a  VFR clearance and stay in VMC.  Say, "I would like a VFR clearance to fly practice approaches starting with the ILS 20 at KABC."  Don't just ask for "a clearance" to fly an approach, even a practice approach, because they will assume you want an IFR clearance and you cannot accept or fly an IFR clearance if you are not rated.  When you practice approaches VFR, ATC will give you instructions for the approach just like you were an IR pilot, except that the missed approach instructions will be something like "fly north, maintain VFR" instead of "360, 4,000 feet."   Just remember that if you are in or around Bravo airspace when you do this, if you are going to do a missed that involves climbing or flying into the Bravo, you need to hear the magic words "cleared to enter the Bravo airspace" or similar.  If you are under an IFR clearance, the clearance to enter the Bravo is implied if they give you a heading and direction that takes you into the Bravo, you do not need to hear additional magic words.

[201er]

Its pretty simple folks.  You are not IFR unless you accept an IFR clearance.

Unless you're in uncontrolled airspace. Then you're IFR whenever you're in IMC as long as you are instrument rated

[AndyFromCB]

I missed you were kidding around - I wasn't in the mood for funny I guess worry about that airplane in Norfolk.  My source of disagreement is we are supposed to be able to live and survive anyway by handflying even if the autopilot goes INOP and in an INOPportune time, like in hard IFR on a difficult approach.

 

European regulators apparently do not believe in super pilots and require functioning autopilot for any IFR. Neither does FAA when it comes to single pilot exemptions for all jets, MU2 and anything over 12,500lb. Should we be able to fly IFR without a functioning autopilot. Sure? Should we actually do? I would not depart into IMC without a functioning autopilot and would consider an autopilot failure to be an emergency in IMC if single pilot, requiring an immediate action. An yes, I can shoot ILS down to minimums by hand, with the best of them. And I do shoot about every third approach by hand, without a flight director, but when things get busy as they sometimes do, an George is invaluable to safety. I cannot imagine going missed, messing with the radios, looking up weather at the alternate, etc, etc, etc, without at very least a functioning wing leveler. I like all the help I can get.

[HRM]

Its pretty simple folks.  You are not IFR unless you accept an IFR clearance.

 

Not as simple as you may think. Let's first quote Spinoza: many errors, of a truth, consist mainly in the application of the wrong names of things.

 

When one starts to argue semantics, even with the best intentions, which is following rules, one must be careful with acronyms.

 

IFR means Instrument Flight Rules, or maybe it means Instrument Flight Rated. A person can be flying under rules without the rating, or not following the rules and be rated. Who makes the rules? To go all Zen on you: Can you break a rule if there is no one enforcing the rules?

 

Then there is IMC, or Instrument Meteorological Conditions, which is a state of the weather in an area. 

 

Things fall apart fairly quickly if you bandy about acronyms.

[aviatoreb]

European regulators apparently do not believe in super pilots and require functioning autopilot for any IFR. Neither does FAA when it comes to single pilot exemptions for all jets, MU2 and anything over 12,500lb. Should we be able to fly IFR without a functioning autopilot. Sure? Should we actually do? I would not depart into IMC without a functioning autopilot and would consider an autopilot failure to be an emergency in IMC if single pilot, requiring an immediate action. An yes, I can shoot ILS down to minimums by hand, with the best of them. And I do shoot about every third approach by hand, without a flight director, but when things get busy as they sometimes do, an George is invaluable to safety. I cannot imagine going missed, messing with the radios, looking up weather at the alternate, etc, etc, etc, without at very least a functioning wing leveler. I like all the help I can get.

 

I'm not doubting that - and I certainly use my AP.  I train to try train to be as capable as possible just in case.

[HRM]

European regulators apparently do not believe in super pilots and require functioning autopilot for any IFR. Neither does FAA when it comes to single pilot exemptions for all jets, MU2 and anything over 12,500lb. Should we be able to fly IFR without a functioning autopilot. Sure? Should we actually do? I would not depart into IMC without a functioning autopilot and would consider an autopilot failure to be an emergency in IMC if single pilot, requiring an immediate action. An yes, I can shoot ILS down to minimums by hand, with the best of them. And I do shoot about every third approach by hand, without a flight director, but when things get busy as they sometimes do, an George is invaluable to safety. I cannot imagine going missed, messing with the radios, looking up weather at the alternate, etc, etc, etc, without at very least a functioning wing leveler. I like all the help I can get.

 

Thanks for steering this thread in this direction. SPIFR has become an operative, heavily discussed acronym and it speaks to workload, personal minimums, conditions and, obviously, equipment.

 

My Mooney has 3-axis, but I want to stay away from it during my training for the reasons others have discussed--just too easy to get dependent on it and then get panicked if it fails.

[AndyFromCB]

Thanks for steering this thread in this direction. SPIFR has become an operative, heavily discussed acronym and it speaks to workload, personal minimums, conditions and, obviously, equipment.

 

My Mooney has 3-axis, but I want to stay away from it during my training for the reasons others have discussed--just too easy to get dependent on it and then get panicked if it fails.

 

I actually would not stay away from using your autopilot during training at all. Autopilots are like cranky old rat terriers. Takes a while to figure them out. and how to use them effectively. I would recommend splitting your training half and half approach wise, it will teach you how to recognize problems with George early on. 

[HRM]

I actually would not stay away from using your autopilot during training at all. Autopilots are like cranky old rat terriers. Takes a while to figure them out. and how to use them effectively. I would recommend splitting your training half and half approach wise, it will teach you how to recognize problems with George early on. 

 

Well, just say'in, but I think my CFI/I will let me know when to use it and when not 

[aviatoreb]

I actually would not stay away from using your autopilot during training at all. Autopilots are like cranky old rat terriers. Takes a while to figure them out. and how to use them effectively. I would recommend splitting your training half and half approach wise, it will teach you how to recognize problems with George early on. 

 

My CFI is also like a crank old rat terrier.

[201er]

IFR means Instrument Flight Rules, or maybe it means Instrument Flight Rated. A person can be flying under rules without the rating, or not following the rules and be rated. Who makes the rules? To go all Zen on you: Can you break a rule if there is no one enforcing the rules?

Not if the rules specify that one must be rated in order to be flying under those rules.

 

FAR 61.3

(e) Instrument rating. 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;

[AndyFromCB]

Well, just say'in, but I think my CFI/I will let me know when to use it and when not 

 

Remember, if so equipped, you will be required to shoot one coupled approach using your autopilot during your check ride...

[HRM]

Remember, if so equipped, you will be required to shoot one coupled approach using your autopilot during your check ride...

 

...and based on what has transpired here, that will be the easy one.

[jlunseth]

Not as simple as you may think. Let's first quote Spinoza: many errors, of a truth, consist mainly in the application of the wrong names of things.

 

When one starts to argue semantics, even with the best intentions, which is following rules, one must be careful with acronyms.

 

IFR means Instrument Flight Rules, or maybe it means Instrument Flight Rated. A person can be flying under rules without the rating, or not following the rules and be rated. Who makes the rules? To go all Zen on you: Can you break a rule if there is no one enforcing the rules?

 

Then there is IMC, or Instrument Meteorological Conditions, which is a state of the weather in an area. 

 

Things fall apart fairly quickly if you bandy about acronyms.

 

 

Sorry, its still simple and in this thread we should not try to make it complicated.  IFR means Instrument Flight Rules.  Period. 

 

I don't believe, if you look at the FAR's or the AIM, that you will find the terms IR or IA used.  Those are abbreviations that pilots use just to shorten things up.  IFR, however, is a clearly defined term used in both the FARs and the AIM, and it should not be confused with anything other than Instrument Flight Rules.

 

I don't mean to give offense, and I would be delighted to argue philosophy with anyone in a thread on philosophy.  But this is a thread on instrument flight, where precision and clarity are most important, and we should not leave anyone with any imprecise impressions. 

[midlifeflyer]

Not as simple as you may think. Let's first quote Spinoza: many errors, of a truth, consist mainly in the application of the wrong names of things.

 

When one starts to argue semantics, even with the best intentions, which is following rules, one must be careful with acronyms.

 

IFR means Instrument Flight Rules, or maybe it means Instrument Flight Rated. A person can be flying under rules without the rating, or not following the rules and be rated. Who makes the rules? To go all Zen on you: Can you break a rule if there is no one enforcing the rules?

 

Then there is IMC, or Instrument Meteorological Conditions, which is a state of the weather in an area. 

 

Things fall apart fairly quickly if you bandy about acronyms.

 

The FAA makes the rules. There is an unfortunate tendency by us to interchange similar terms even if they have specific meanings and that definieitel doens;t help with understanding.

 

"IFR" means instrument flight rules. [FAR 1.2]

"IFR conditions" means "weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules" [FAR 1.1] Essentially the same as the term "IMC" [FAR 170.3]. And very, very different from what they mean when the word "actual" is placed in front of them.

 

Your comment is absolutely the very first time I have ever heard it even suggested IFR means "instrument flight rated."

[PaulB]

European regulators apparently do not believe in super pilots and require functioning autopilot for any IFR. Neither does FAA when it comes to single pilot exemptions for all jets, MU2 and anything over 12,500lb. Should we be able to fly IFR without a functioning autopilot. Sure? Should we actually do? I would not depart into IMC without a functioning autopilot and would consider an autopilot failure to be an emergency in IMC if single pilot, requiring an immediate action. An yes, I can shoot ILS down to minimums by hand, with the best of them. And I do shoot about every third approach by hand, without a flight director, but when things get busy as they sometimes do, an George is invaluable to safety. I cannot imagine going missed, messing with the radios, looking up weather at the alternate, etc, etc, etc, without at very least a functioning wing leveler. I like all the help I can get.

This is how I feel too.  To me the AP is required equipment when I'm flying single pilot IFR. 

[HRM]

 

 

Your comment is absolutely the very first time I have ever heard it even suggested IFR means "instrument flight rated."

 

That was my point, glad you got it.

[midlifeflyer]

That was my point, glad you got it.

I don't know if I did or not.

If your point was that we collectively need to be accurate and consistent in our use of terms in order to have a discussion of any value, I guess I got your point but not until this post. Unless one uses an emoticon to assist (and many times even then) few of us are good enought prose writers to convey subtlety.

If that wasn't your point I didn't get it at all.

[rbp]

last week, when emailing with an instructor about getting my CFI-G, I used the abbreviation "CPL" for "commercial pilots license." He berated me back in email for using what he called "hipster lingo", so I stopped corresponding with him, not because he didn't like the term but for being a jerk about it. 

[midlifeflyer]

last week, when emailing with an instructor about getting my CFI-G, I used the abbreviation "CPL" for "commercial pilots license." He berated me back in email for using what he called "hipster lingo", so I stopped corresponding with him, not because he didn't like the term but for being a jerk about it. 

 

There are times insisting on precision in language is necessary and times when it becomes just silly. The folks who feel they are getting points for saying "there's no such thing as a BFR" (because the FAA removed "biennial" from the phrase) are ridiculous. OTOH, 90% of the confusion over Part 61 PIC logging issues can be resolved if people did not use "certificate," "rating," and "endorsement" interchangeably. 

 

It's kind of like the decision whether to wear a suit to a job interview if you know it's a casual shop. You are not going to be "wrong" with the suit. You might or might not be right with the khakis and open-neck shirt.

 

PS - if this is US, are you sure he wasn't berating you for using "license" instead of "certificate"? (Not that it would make the berating any better)

[rbp]

exactly, its was the berating, not the content. 

[HRM]

I don't know if I did or not.

If your point was that we collectively need to be accurate and consistent in our use of terms in order to have a discussion of any value, I guess I got your point but not until this post. Unless one uses an emoticon to assist (and many times even then) few of us are good enought prose writers to convey subtlety.

If that wasn't your point I didn't get it at all.

 

You got a little of it. My point is just that when you start discussing rules, which is the same as discussing laws, you must be absolutely precise. In patent cases, as an example, a significant amount of time and money is spent on what is called claim construction. This is where both sides literally argue over the meaning of various terms until the judge decides what means what.

 

Our discussion moved from the notion of a pilot essentially flying illegally to what it means to fly "IFR". I put that in quotes because that is when the fun started.

 

So, if you want to quote FAA rules, then you need to be careful about the acronyms, if you want to just discuss flying, then you can be a bit looser with the terminology.

 

You as in the collective you, not necessarily you.

[HRM]

exactly, its was the berating, not the content. 

 

...and I think there you discovered that you would not enjoy instruction with him.

[midlifeflyer]

 

Our discussion moved from the notion of a pilot essentially flying illegally to what it means to fly "IFR". I put that in quotes because that is when the fun started.

 

 

I didn't have much trouble treating "fly 'IFR'" as meaning anything other than "fly under Instrument Flight Rules." And browsing quickly through the posts, I don't think anyone else did either. Except perhaps for this guy:

 

 

For example, I fly IFR in VMC, I don't file IFR, but I fly it.

 

in which I figured the person either misunderstood the phrase he was using, was intentionally departing from the proper use of the terminology just to produce an effect, or was telling us he flies unlawfully.

[HRM]

I didn't have much trouble treating "fly 'IFR'" as meaning anything other than "fly under Instrument Flight Rules." And browsing quickly through the posts, I don't think anyone else did either. Except perhaps for this guy:

 

That guy is the trouble maker, pay no attention to him.

[midlifeflyer]

That guy is the trouble maker, pay no attention to him.