I never said it was a choice. However, seeing as you brought it up...
I was merely pointing out that many instrument students/pilots forget that it IS required under the regs to stay VFR and if you don't you better be able to explain it.
Departing a busy terminal area, one experiences a lost communication situation. It could be a bad ATC transmitter. It could be a stuck microphone. It could be an aircraft antenna problem. Really doesn't matter; the point being you can't communicate. Departing on a published proceedure in congested airspace, you find that for a short portion of that routing, you are in the clear. Do you continue the departure out of the congested airspace, or immediately divert to remain in the clear.
I disagree with you...I would not continue into IMC if I was VFR (not just in the clear for a brief moment) if their was a stuck mic on the frequency ESPECIALLY in congested airspace. I've flown for years in the Northeast (BOS, JFK, EWR, LGA, PHL, DCA...) and REALLY would not trust SIDS/STARS and 5 minute old vectors to keep me seperated from other aircraft. IFR clearences protect seperation in the event a single aircraft loses communication. The system does little to protect aircraft from communication failures of multiple aircraft.
If you divert to remain in the clear, indeed if everyone did this during a stuck mic or similiar situation, multiple disasters would be a high probability.
I don't buy this...if you are in VMC you are required to see & avoid regardless. Better to See & Avoid then pray the controller had positive seperation of his traffic prior to the comm failure.
One is far better off continuing the routing to a less congested location where one can still exercise the option of diverting under VFR if such conditions are encountered.
One is enroute and finds VFR while experiencing an inability to communicate. Under the circumstances in this example, to maintain VFR, fuel reserves would be compromised. No immediate acceptable landing site is available, nor would a divert produce one. In such a situation, again, one may be better off continuing the route structure.
Under the above scenario you would still be required to continue under VFR until you ACTUALLY do have a FUEL EMERGENCY in which case you could attempt an instrument approach under your emergency authority. Going into your fuel reserves is understandable during these circumstances and precisely the reason you have fuel RESERVES. 45 minutes is a planning minimum...the regulations do not require you to LAND with 45 minutes in the tank.
An appropriate alternative may be available under VFR, or it may not. The specific circumstances dictate what will be done, not a blanket edict to remain VFR at all costs. Accordingly, I worded my statement that "you're far better to remain VFR..." rather than simply state that one must remain VFR.
One must consider the circumstances and apply some common sense. Safety of flight is always paramount, above any standard requirements such as this to remain VFR.
I think we pretty much agree on the general principals even though our actions during specific situations would vary, however, I fear many pilots would interpret your statements too loosely and get themselves into trouble. The REGULATIONS dictate you MUST remain VFR unless you have a very good reason not to.
If you do continue on your IFR flight plan after encountering VFR conditions, you need to have a good reason. If you flew by 3 airports reporting severe clear on your way to shooting an approach at your destination you WILL be hanged from the highest tree if the FAA catches wind of the situation.
Later
I was merely pointing out that many instrument students/pilots forget that it IS required under the regs to stay VFR and if you don't you better be able to explain it.
Departing a busy terminal area, one experiences a lost communication situation. It could be a bad ATC transmitter. It could be a stuck microphone. It could be an aircraft antenna problem. Really doesn't matter; the point being you can't communicate. Departing on a published proceedure in congested airspace, you find that for a short portion of that routing, you are in the clear. Do you continue the departure out of the congested airspace, or immediately divert to remain in the clear.
I disagree with you...I would not continue into IMC if I was VFR (not just in the clear for a brief moment) if their was a stuck mic on the frequency ESPECIALLY in congested airspace. I've flown for years in the Northeast (BOS, JFK, EWR, LGA, PHL, DCA...) and REALLY would not trust SIDS/STARS and 5 minute old vectors to keep me seperated from other aircraft. IFR clearences protect seperation in the event a single aircraft loses communication. The system does little to protect aircraft from communication failures of multiple aircraft.
If you divert to remain in the clear, indeed if everyone did this during a stuck mic or similiar situation, multiple disasters would be a high probability.
I don't buy this...if you are in VMC you are required to see & avoid regardless. Better to See & Avoid then pray the controller had positive seperation of his traffic prior to the comm failure.
One is far better off continuing the routing to a less congested location where one can still exercise the option of diverting under VFR if such conditions are encountered.
One is enroute and finds VFR while experiencing an inability to communicate. Under the circumstances in this example, to maintain VFR, fuel reserves would be compromised. No immediate acceptable landing site is available, nor would a divert produce one. In such a situation, again, one may be better off continuing the route structure.
Under the above scenario you would still be required to continue under VFR until you ACTUALLY do have a FUEL EMERGENCY in which case you could attempt an instrument approach under your emergency authority. Going into your fuel reserves is understandable during these circumstances and precisely the reason you have fuel RESERVES. 45 minutes is a planning minimum...the regulations do not require you to LAND with 45 minutes in the tank.
An appropriate alternative may be available under VFR, or it may not. The specific circumstances dictate what will be done, not a blanket edict to remain VFR at all costs. Accordingly, I worded my statement that "you're far better to remain VFR..." rather than simply state that one must remain VFR.
One must consider the circumstances and apply some common sense. Safety of flight is always paramount, above any standard requirements such as this to remain VFR.
I think we pretty much agree on the general principals even though our actions during specific situations would vary, however, I fear many pilots would interpret your statements too loosely and get themselves into trouble. The REGULATIONS dictate you MUST remain VFR unless you have a very good reason not to.
If you do continue on your IFR flight plan after encountering VFR conditions, you need to have a good reason. If you flew by 3 airports reporting severe clear on your way to shooting an approach at your destination you WILL be hanged from the highest tree if the FAA catches wind of the situation.
Later
Last edited:
