Can a non-current instrument pilot file IFR on a VMC flight?

[luvflyin]

The FAA assumes that if you file IFR you intend to fly IFR. I read that somewhere. might go hand in hand with forgetting something on your medical. The FAA doesn’t default to “he must have forgot” the assume you intended to deceive.

So why would you file if you didn’t intend to fly, barring a weather change. Besides quibbling and looking for reasons why you should be able to do something you have no reason to do that could go bad but probably won’t. What is your point?

Just what the regs say about it, if anything. Someone said you have to be rated to just file. I asked “where does it say that.” I’m not trying to make any point one way or the other whether you should or shouldn’t do it.

 

[Kritchlow]

Of course not. In busy airspace are you going to refuse a vector through a cloud?

 

[Witmo]

Of course not. In busy airspace are you going to refuse a vector through a cloud?

If you accept a vector into IMC, it had better be an emergency and not just because it's "busy" airspace. ATC can't suspend the rules unless there's an emergency. It's your ticket that is on the line. ATC can't see a cloud in their scope so you need to tell them unable when they try to vector you into a cloud when flying under vfr.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

No. You have to be rated and current even to file an IFR flight, no matter the Wx. conditions.

It is hard, maybe impossible to prove a negative but show me the regulation that says that specifically.

The FAA assumes that if you file IFR you intend to fly IFR. I read that somewhere.

Wow. You are going to base your opinion on “I read that somewhere”? Show me your legitimate reference.

Anybody can file a flight plan. Instrument rated or not. It happens every day at every airline in the world. I guarantee that not every dispatcher at every airline is instrument rated. Heck, I bet most of them aren’t even pilots.

And, as stated elsewhere, you DO have to be instrument rated and current to ACCEPT an IFR clearance filed in your name.

 

[EdFred]

It is hard, maybe impossible to prove a negative but show me the regulation that says that specifically.



Wow. You are going to base your opinion on “I read that somewhere”? Show me your legitimate reference.

Anybody can file a flight plan. Instrument rated or not. It happens every day at every airline in the world. I guarantee that not every dispatcher at every airline is instrument rated. Heck, I bet most of them aren’t even pilots.

And, as stated elsewhere, you DO have to be instrument rated and current to ACCEPT an IFR clearance filed in your name.

We will have no substantiation or fact checking here!!

 

[chemgeek]

The Goodish letter (in #33) suggests that the act of a pilot filing IFR is prima facie evidence of intending to violate the FARs, but then goes on to waffle about accepting a clearance without meeting IFR rating or experience requirements as being solely sufficient as a violation. As usual, the FAA is as clear as mud...

 

[MauleSkinner]

The Goodish letter (in #33) suggests that the act of a pilot filing IFR is prima facie evidence of intending to violate the FARs, but then goes on to waffle about accepting a clearance without meeting IFR rating or experience requirements as being solely sufficient as a violation. As usual, the FAA is as clear as mud...

Well, for starters, the letter was in response to a question about filing an IFR flight plan for use VFR...it wasn’t about JUST filing an IFR flight plan.

Second, IIRC, the person who wrote the response is not known for either clarity of communication or standing by a written interpretation.

 

[Palmpilot]

I doubt that "intending" to violate a regulation is itself a violation.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Ok, I read the Goodish letter. What was said was that if a person files an IFR flight plan with himself as PIC, that shows intent to fly that IFR flight and that in itself is a No No if that person is not appropriately rated.

I suppose it is possible that the FAA has a program that automatically cross references the Airman database to check and see if the listed PIC on a flight plan actually has instrument privileges, but I doubt it.

But that letter does NOT say that a non rated pilot CANNOT file for an appropriately rated pilot. You don’t have to be instrument rated to file an instrument flight plan. Only that the listed PIC must be legal to act as PIC of that flight.

And there really isn’t anything wrong with anything in Rebecca’s letter. It is all factually correct.

 

[EdFred]

Ok, I read the Goodish letter. What was said was that if a person files an IFR flight plan with himself as PIC, that shows intent to fly that IFR flight and that in itself is a No No if that person is not appropriately rated.

I suppose it is possible that the FAA has a program that automatically cross references the Airman database to check and see if the listed PIC on a flight plan actually has instrument privileges, but I doubt it.

But that letter does NOT say that a non rated pilot CANNOT file for an appropriately rated pilot. You don’t have to be instrument rated to file an instrument flight plan. Only that the listed PIC must be legal to act as PIC of that flight.

When I was IR training, every flight under IFR had me listed as PIC on the flight plan - because I filed it and never thought to put otherwise, and the CFII(s) never said to put them down either. I did have CFII with me, and I was never busted. I am fairly certain the FAA doesn't *really* care in cases like that, but who knows. I'm prettu sure they don't check the name on the flight plan either. I should file one as Scooby Doo and see if it goes through, or if anything is said when I go to open it.

 

[Palmpilot]

Ok, I read the Goodish letter. What was said was that if a person files an IFR flight plan with himself as PIC, that shows intent to fly that IFR flight and that in itself is a No No if that person is not appropriately rated....

I agree that the letter explicitly states that the filing shows "a clear intent to violate the provisions of 61.3(e)," but nowhere does it say that this intent is a violation by itself. One might think that the fact that they wrote what they did about intent implies that they did consider it a violation by itself, but notice that the questioner specifically asked "whether the filing of an IFR flight plan constitutes a stated intention to operate IFR, regardless of whether the pilot accepts a clearance resulting from the filing of the flight plan." (See first paragraph.) So the only thing we know for sure is that they were answering a question that was asked.

The inference that they meant to say that filing is a violation by itself is further weakened by the second from the last paragraph:

In that paragraph, notice that they explicitly state that the filing of an IFR flight plan is not independently a triggering action for an operation to be considered to be conducted under IFR.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Duly noted, Palm. I will admit that that wording inserted a tiny bit of confusion into the discussion. But I think the intent is crystal clear.

Since I am not affected in the least by this, I am not losing any sleep over it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Duly noted, Palm. I will admit that that wording inserted a tiny bit of confusion into the discussion. But I think the intent is crystal clear.

The intent to violate a reg, or the intent to explain the reg?

 

[Palmpilot]

Duly noted, Palm. I will admit that that wording inserted a tiny bit of confusion into the discussion. But I think the intent is crystal clear.

Since I am not affected in the least by this, I am not losing any sleep over it.

It's really academic for me, since I don't plan on checking the "IFR" box when I want VFR flight following unless and until they put that procedure in the AIM and the controllers' manual. I just enjoy the logic exercise.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I don’t recall

The intent to violate a reg, or the intent to explain the reg?

Sigh.

 

[bflynn]

How boring would this place get if the 15 correct answers were not followed up by nuances of why a particular answer is not as right as the others?

 

[Landing Fees]

How boring would this place get if the 15 correct answers were not followed up by nuances of why a particular answer is not as right as the others?

To be rightest is divine.