VFR Climb vs. VFR Climb on course

[Forbidden Donut]

When on an IFR clearance, is there a difference between VFR Climb and VFR Climb on course? I've heard that a VFR Climb on course requires you to actually fly the course (including the DP), just in VFR conditions. I appreciate any info. Thank you.

FD

 

[avbug]

There is no difference. If you'e doing a VFR climb, you needn't comply with the departure proceedure, as it's an instrument proceedure. Even if you're flying under IFR.

If under IFR, you may state ability to maintain own terrain separation and request a VFR climb, in which case you accept responsibility for terrain and obstacle separation. It is assumed that you will fly on course; in other words, you won't fly the opposite direction. Climb VFR, and climb VFR on course, are the same, for this purpose.

From FAA Order 7110.65N, Air Traffic Controllers Handbook:

7-1-2 VFR Conditions

a. You may clear aircraft to maintain "VFR conditions" if one of the following conditions exists:

1. The pilot of an aircraft on an IFR flight plan requests a VFR climb/descent.

2. TERMINAL. The clearance will result in noise abatement benefits where part of the IFR departure route does not conform to an FAA-approved noise abatement route or altitude.


From the Pilot-Controller Glossary:

VFR CONDITIONS - Weather conditions equal to or better than the minimum for flight under visual flight rules. The term may be used as an ATC clearance/instruction only when:

a. An IFR aircraft requests a climb/descent in VFR conditions.

b. The clearance will result in noise abatement benefits where part of the IFR departure route does not conform to an FAA approved noise abatement route or altitude.

c. A pilot has requested a practice instrument approach and is not on an IFR flight plan.

Note: All pilots receiving this authorization must comply with the VFR visibility and distance from cloud criteria in FAR Part 91. Use of the term does not relieve controllers of their responsibility to separate aircraft in Class B and Class C airspace or TRSA's as required by FAAO 7110.65. When used as an ATC clearance/instruction the term may be abbreviated "VFR;" e.g., "MAINTAIN VFR," "CLIMB/DESCEND VFR," etc.

 

[profile]

Just note that "VFR climbs" or "VMC climbs" or the same animal by any other name is NOT legal for part 121 operations or part 135 turbojet operations under the current standard Ops Specs.

 

[Forbidden Donut]

Actually I think some 121 operators (such as SkyWest) have it in their Ops Specs, though it may be specially written in.

Avbug,

Thanks for your response. I was pretty sure they were the same thing, just wanted some other input. If anyone else has differing viewpoints on this, I'd be interested in hearing them.

 

[profile]

There are many operators that do VMC/VFR climbs, and they do them based on authorization they got from their POI. Just one catch- the POI does not have the authority to issue such an authorization.

The only way that it can be done legally is if there is a full on-point authorization in your ops specs, that could only be issued from AFS-200. Anything less and it doesn't make the grade.

 

[kelbill]

VFR climbs are not prohibited at SWA from what I've read. It helps at places like Ontario and El Paso. So the reference regarding standard Opspecs from 121 operators is a generality. I might be wrong, but I've never read that we can't do it. We aren't cancelling IFR, just remaining visually away from cumulo granite and towers. Its like a visual approach on departure.

 

[CaSyndrm]

I've worked under a few companies Ops Specs (135 and 121) and been a Chief Pilot working with the feds and our specific POI and the applicable Ops Specs from conception through proving runs and on in to everyday ops, don't recall any restrictions regarding VFR climbs. The restrictions have to do with IFR clearances and operations. I think the original question had to do with a vfr climb while on a ifr flight plan. It is very common to ask for this type of clearance to expedite departures and departure corridors for those willing to do it during vmc conditions. I would find it very hard to believe that those of us that have been doing it for years have all been wrong, including the feds i've done it with.

 

[profile]

The proviso for flying a VFR/VMC climb is the same as that for VFR on-top, so, essentially, you're saying that SWA and other 121 operators, or 135 turbojet operators, can file VFR on-top.

As far as the POI is concerned, they do not have the authority to override AFS-200 or the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel at hq. If you think that they do, try to explain that you have your POI authorization to an ALJ and see how far that gets you. You can have a letter from your Region that says you can do something, but if AFS-200 doesn't agree, you WILL lose. Period.

My committee got legal interps on this issue back in 1995, and they left no wiggle room. I have since spoken with the manager of AFS-200 and several others at FAA hq and they assured me that FAA has not changed their position on this issue.

If you want to play "bet your ticket", go ahead. If it were me, I'd check to see if SWA (or whomever) has actually applied for and received an actual approval to deviate from the standard ops specs in this regard. It is a possiblity, but I would check. CYA, eh?

 

[profile]

Incidentally, a VFR climb is NOT considered the same as a visual arrival, and the clearance is not based on that criteria. Again, check with AFS-200. VFR climb is considered the same as VFR on-top. Incidentally, having the ATC clearance doesn't make it legal, ATC will approve just about anything you ask for based on known traffic and the assumption that YOU know what is legal for your operation.

 

[SATCFI]

Check out this discussion on the same subject over at Doc's FAR forum:

Discussion Thread