Vfr 135

[groundpointsix]

Our POI has asserted that a pilot who does not meet the requirements to fly IFR 135 but who is qualified as a VFR pilot may file and fly on an IFR flight plan just so long as he never enters IMC. He maintains that the spirit of the reg is to keep lower time pilots from operating in low weather but that it really makes no sense to try to go VFR into a busy class B airport and therefore it's ok.

I cannot find anything in the regulations to support this. Has this been interpreted by the chief counsel's office? Thanks.

 

[mike1mc]

For some reason I was thinking about this reg the other day. Your explaination seems logical, but my arguement is that the reg says VFR/IFR, not VMC/IMC so i'd say you'd ahve to be VFR on a VFR flight plan.

Your POI can get you in a lot of trouble that way. If you have an accident on an IFR flight plan, you can't hide behind your POI because he said you could do it. The regs are the regs and despite what their "intention is", you can still be violated.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Ask another FAA inspector, and you'll get a different answer.

When I was flying VFR charter, I was not allowed to file IFR, even though the checkride was mostly under the hood.

I once was told that in the King Air, we had to file a parallel VFR flight plan in case a loss of pressurization required us to descend into Class G airspace.

David

 

[groundpointsix]

For some reason I was thinking about this reg the other day. Your explaination seems logical, but my arguement is that the reg says VFR/IFR, not VMC/IMC so i'd say you'd ahve to be VFR on a VFR flight plan.

Your POI can get you in a lot of trouble that way. If you have an accident on an IFR flight plan, you can't hide behind your POI because he said you could do it. The regs are the regs and despite what their "intention is", you can still be violated.

Your response pretty much sums up everything I was thinking during this conversation. I wasn't about to go blasting off IFR just because our POI said it even though it would be so much easier than worrying about going into places like the D.C. ADIZ VFR. When people more experienced than you start to say things that sound wrong it starts to make you question your own understanding of things.

 

[nosehair]

Well, FWIW, I remembered when we (part 91, not 135) used to be able to file IFR without an instrument rating. The (part 91) rule was something like "No person may act as PIC under IFR (maybe "in IFR conditions") unless they have an instrument rating..."
The interpretation was that you couldn't operate in IMC withot the IR, but you could file IFR and stay in VMC conditions.

That changed about 15 or 20 years ago when the certification rule changed to read "no person may file IFR unless...",
...so I was looking to quote that reg and relay how it had changed, and now I see it is changed again to: FAR 61.3(e) "No person may act as PIC under IFR...", same as 135.243(c) "No...person may serve as PIC under IFR..."

In FAR definitions, Par 1, "IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

Now, I cannot find anywhere, any regulation, that says "to file IFR...", they seem to all use the phrase "under IFR", which could have the meaning as defined by the definition regulation FAR 1.

Of course, the best bet is to have your 135 company manual spell that out, and if approved by the POI, then you would have some written authorization by a fed, which would hold up in front of an NTSB judge.
I think it would be ok to file IFR as long as you did not "go IFR".

 

[Ralgha]

In FAR definitions, Par 1, "IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

That definition isn't telling you what IFR means, it's telling you what IFR conditions are. IFR means you're operating under Instrument Flight Rules, whether IMC or not.

 

[Lead Sled]

Your POI can get you in a lot of trouble that way. If you have an accident on an IFR flight plan, you can't hide behind your POI because he said you could do it. The regs are the regs and despite what their "intention is", you can still be violated.

Wiser words were never spoken. POIs have been wrong in the past, some frequently. The defense of "My POI approved it." won't cut it. Back when I was flying 135, a couple of my buddies and the company that we worked for got into trouble with the Feds over an issue that our POI and local FSDO both had signed off on. One of the FSDO guys even got fired over it. The regs are what they are and the only interpretation that counts is the one that comes from the Chief Counsel's Office.

'Sled

 

[A Squared]

FAR 61.3(e) "No person may act as PIC under IFR...", same as 135.243(c) "No...person may serve as PIC under IFR..."

In FAR definitions, Par 1, "IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

Now, I cannot find anywhere, any regulation, that says "to file IFR...", they seem to all use the phrase "under IFR", which could have the meaning as defined by the definition regulation FAR 1.

Of course, the best bet is to have your 135 company manual spell that out, and if approved by the POI, then you would have some written authorization by a fed, which would hold up in front of an NTSB judge.
I think it would be ok to file IFR as long as you did not "go IFR".

Like Ralgha said: :Under IFR" means that you are operating under "Instrument Flight Rules"

If you accept an IFR clearence in controlled airspace, you re iunder Instrument FLight Rules. It doesn't mattter if there isn't a clouod in the sky. At my c0mapny we are required to fly under IFR most of the time. This often happens on clear cloudless days. It's still "under IFR"

That being said, I did recently read something, I think it was some policy statement, form someone other than FAA counsel, so it's validity is dubious, which said that you can file IFR in a helcopter not IFR certificated for instrument trraining purposes, as long as you didn't enter clouds. There was a thread on that a while back.

 

[minitour]

There actually ARE VFR 135's out there?

Most of the people around here say its pointless...

of course that's because it's ovc004 a lot...

...back to topic.

I'd not file IFR...just my recommendation.

What kind of VFR 135 are you doing? People? boxes?

-mini

 

[Lead Sled]

There actually ARE VFR 135's out there? Most of the people around here say its pointless...

Mini...
my first flying job was flying the Grand Canyon on a VFR 135 certificate. It's kind of tough showing someone a 17 mile wide canyon unless the visibility is at least 17 miles.

'Sled

 

[groundpointsix]

Mini-

I work for an FBO, all the full time instructors who meat 135 mins (IFR or VFR) are given checkrides so that they are available should something come up. As far as VFR stuff goes, typically it would be something like "So and so diverted in here for mx and needs to be taken on to their destination" or "we need a box delivered 100 miles away." We don't have any scheduled runs or contracts so it's hit or miss as to whether something's going to come up. On the other hand, we've had 3 flight requests in the past 24 hours.

 

[minitour]

That sounds pretty cool!

-mini

 

[Say Again Over]

There actually ARE VFR 135's out there?

I don't know the statistics are but besides sight seeing in the Canyon and Hawaii there are many other VFR operators out there, I don't think the vast majority of operators in Alaska could be considered pointless.

 

[CFIse]

Our POI has asserted....

You can always solve these questions very quickly. Politely ask the POI if they'd be good enough to write down what they just said on FAA headed notepaper and sign it and just pop it in the mail for you.

Most of the time you don't get anything, and so what you end up with is a verbal statement that isn't backed up by paper - now what do you think that's worth?

I've asked FSDO inspectors to just "drop us a note" on items that *I* thought we both violently agreed on and that were in compliance with the regulations and we get nothing, so you can imagine what happens when they start spouting off their opinions on what you should be doing......

 

[Lead Sled]

You can always solve these questions very quickly. Politely ask the POI if they'd be good enough to write down what they just said on FAA headed notepaper and sign it and just pop it in the mail for you.

Most of the time you don't get anything, and so what you end up with is a verbal statement that isn't backed up by paper - now what do you think that's worth?

I've asked FSDO inspectors to just "drop us a note" on items that *I* thought we both violently agreed on and that were in compliance with the regulations and we get nothing, so you can imagine what happens when they start spouting off their opinions on what you should be doing...

CFIse...
Even if you got that proverbial note from the POI it would be meaningless. See my earlier post. Our company had certain items included in our Ops Specs that were found by the NASIP (Spelling ?) Team to be "issued in error" and both the company and the crews that flew those particular aircraft were found to be in violation. It took a long time and a lot of money for those guys to defend themselves.

'Sled

 

[A Squared]

I've asked FSDO inspectors to just "drop us a note" on items that *I* thought we both violently agreed on and that were in compliance with the regulations and we get nothing, so you can imagine what happens when they start spouting off their opinions on what you should be doing......

OK I gotta ask, how do you "violently agree"?

I agree that asking them to put it into writing generally proves the point that they don't have the authority to interpret regulations.

I also agree with lead sled though, even if they *do* put it writing, it's not worth anything. You're still obligated to follow the regulations.

 

[A Squared]

CFIse...
Even if you got that proverbial note from the POI it would be meaningless. See my earlier post. Our company had certain items included in our Ops Specs that were found by the NASIP (Spelling ?) Team to be "issued in error" and both the company and the crews that flew those particular aircraft were found to be in violation. It took a long time and a lot of money for those guys to defend themselves.

'Sled

Yeah, I can think of a bunch of theings that our POI has bought off on which are pretty questionable. I just smile and nod my head and try to do things in accordance with *my* understanding of the regulations.

 

[charter dog]

I just smile and nod my head and try to do things in accordance with *my* understanding of the regulations.

Well said! At least when your interpretation is the more conservative of the two!

As far as the original VFR/IFR question is concerned, Instrument flight rules are just that. Any fuzzy logic applied to say you can file IFR on a 135 Visual flight rules flight without a an OpSpec authorizing IFR operations sounds like a slam dunk violation waiting to happen if anyone at the FAA should happen to feel like pursuing it. I would not count on them to look the other way if anything should occur which brings attention to this practice. The "but my POI sez" defense won't cut it.

All of that aside, if unable to maintain VFR during a flight due to unforecast meteorological conditions, getting an IFR clearance may be the safest thing to do under some circumstances. In that case, being required to make an explanation of the reasons for deviating from the rules is the lesser of the two evils!

Good discussion.

Best,

 

[minitour]

I don't know the statistics are but besides sight seeing in the Canyon and Hawaii there are many other VFR operators out there, I don't think the vast majority of operators in Alaska could be considered pointless.

I figured as much....but like I said...we're near CLE. If you know about CLE, you know it's LIFR about 364.5 days a year...maybe that's what they were getting at.

-mini

*yes I'm exaggerating(sp)...it only SEEMS like its LIFR so much when you're vectored for the ILS on a CAVU day and slowed to approach speed 30 miles out on a daily basis.