Filing IFR for local approach work

[Patriot328]

One of the things I loved about Daytona was "Local IFR". We'd just call up like we were a VFR flight trying to leave the Class C but asked for a Local IFR. They'd give us a squawk and we'd have free reign in Daytona's airspace to go to any of the local airports (New Smyrna, Deland, Flagler CO, and DAB itself) and do the approaches.

Didn't have to deal with FSS or any filing of a flight plan.

 

[cookmg]

Isn't that illegal!

14 CFR Section 91.173: ATC clearance and flight plan required.

No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has --

(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.

________________

It seems that in many places, pilots are routinely flying under IFR WITHOUT filing an IFR flight plan. So far, no one has any legal justification for why this would be allowed. The FARs are pretty clear that a clearence and a flight plan are two SEPERATE and INDEPENDENT items that are BOTH necessary for operations under IFR.

2 Questions:

1) Can anybody provide a legal justification for flying under IFR without verifying that an "IFR flight plan" is on file?

2) Why is this very explicit regulation so misunderstood and/or neglected? I mean, I know examiners and Jet pilots in disagreement over this.

Thanks

 

[Timebuilder]

I think what you are referring to is a lack of filing a flight plan via the normal methods.

If you are granted a clearance for local IFR, the controller you speak with is noting the pertinent information on paper, and THAT is your flight plan, filed with ATC.

Simple, eh?

 

[cookmg]

Timebuilder,

If you are granted a clearance for local IFR, the controller you speak with is noting the pertinent information on paper, and THAT is your flight plan, filed with ATC.

I have been under this impression throughout my training, but it has been brought to my attention that this commonly accepted idea may not really be true. The way I think about it is, 91.173 requires both a clearence and a flight plan. If you could assume that a flight plan came with every clearence, then whey the requirment to file AND get a clearence? Why two requirements if you automatically get them both with a clearence?

Doc's website had a similar discussion which is where I got the reasoning for this position. Please review his comments as they are likely to be articulated far better AND they come with his reputation for knowing the FARs.

Thanks.

http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/messages//8297.html http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/messages//8309.html http://www.propilot.com/doc/bbs/messages//8303.html

 

[bobbysamd]

Pop-up IFR

Further to Timebuilder's comments, another way to look at it is in terms of "popping up." People do it all the time. Let's say you're flying along VFR and the weather goes down at your destination. You just call Center and request IFR to your destination. Center will receive your information and issue you a clearance. All the information it receives constitutes your flight plan.

I recall a paragraph in the Instrument Flying Handbook about filing IFR in flight. Filing with FSS is the correct way, but you can make it work by filing with Center.

 

[cookmg]

Bobby,

My first exposure to this idea that an IFR clearence doesn't imply a flight plan NECESSARILY came from this disscussion on pop up IFR on DOC's FAR forum. I hope that you will browse through and let me know what you think of the disscussion.

I have come to understand that it is perfectly acceptable to get a flight plan filed through ATC, BUT this is NOT to say that getting a clearence with ATC is synonomous with filing a flight plan. It is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that this has been done on any pop up IFR flight.

Please check out the thread.

Pop Up IFR

 

[bobbysamd]

Pop-ups, continued

I reviewed the thread and copied this from Doc's site:

Under FAR 91.169(a), ATC can authorize you to provide less than the "normal" information required on a flight plan. But in that case, you are still filing your flight plan with ATC. If ATC does not wish to, they are not required to accept the flight plan, and can insist that you file with FSS. . . . .

Personal comments: To avoid confusion as to whether the controller is issuing a clearance, or accepting a filed flight plan, or both, I recommend that you specifically ask the controller if you can file with him.

(emphasis added)

That's where I'm coming from. What I've experienced is that the control facility will ask for all the usual flight plan information; ergo, you've filed a flight plan. Of course, FSS will ask for all information. Also, of course, FSS is a branch of ATC.

My experience has been that a non-FSS control facility will extend to you courteous cooperation. Even in the L.A. Basin. I remember an IFR flight to the Basin with my Riddle students early in my experience. We did not file multiple flight plans. We were in IMC and asked for approaches to several airports. ATC approved them and rattled off the clearances like a machine gun. I had no clue at first. It was a great learning experience for all.

 

[KingAirer]

Cookmg sure gets an A for persistance.

 

[EMcx2]

As to the original question: There are significant differences between regions. In central Florida they have a code system that you are supposed to use to do multiple practice approaches. It short of works as long as you stay within Orlando approach, the moment you go to Tampa or Daytona approach you are persona non grata. In places with less traffic you can get almost anything. Despite all the traffic in Socal, Tower Enroute from the central coast to the Mexican border makes it relatively easy to get instrument approaches.


As far as whether a flight plan is a clearance.... If the controller says, "You are cleared to......" you have a clearance.