Failure to File = NTSB report (eventually)?

[dennyleeb]

Of course the "system" ain't foolproof either. Lost a pilot a few years ago who was switched over to advisory frequency and his last words were that he was probably going to have to come back on the missed. Unfortunately he crashed before he got back on frequency and the controller forgot about him. They didn't go looking for him until the next day.

absolutely, I just feel safer with a IFR flight plan

 

[Fearless Tower]

I have been involved in four aviation lawsuits and the weather source issue has never been a factor.

Maybe, but I'd be willing to bet it has been a factor in more than one FAA enforcement action.....

 

[Fearless Tower]

Just because most accident reports (if you're willing to buy that premise) indicate that the pilot didn't file a plan, it doesn't mean that those who didn't crash did file a plan with more frequency.

Actually they don't. Just about EVERY accident report I have ever seen will state whether or not the flight was on a flight plan (IFR or VFR).

There are thousands of accident reports in the database with the statement that the airplane was on a flight plan (usually IFR). The only difference is that the media doesn't understand NTSB language and has blown it out of proportion.....the words 'no flight plan was filed' just sounds menacing to people without inside knowledge.

 

[Jaybird180]

Actually they don't. Just about EVERY accident report I have ever seen will state whether or not the flight was on a flight plan (IFR or VFR).

There are thousands of accident reports in the database with the statement that the airplane was on a flight plan (usually IFR). The only difference is that the media doesn't understand NTSB language and has blown it out of proportion.....the words 'no flight plan was filed' just sounds menacing to people without inside knowledge.

That needn't be discussed here because we all understand what it means. We all know that VFR filing is not required. Nor is my premise that the act of filing adds a layer of safety, but I only surmise that it may be indicative of attitude and other behaviors that contribute to accidents where the determining cause is either pilot error and/or poor judgement in go/no go.

 

[Fearless Tower]

but I only surmise that it may be indicative of attitude and other behaviors that contribute to accidents where the determining cause is either pilot error and/or poor judgement in go/no go.

And so how do you propose to prove or disprove that idea?

An internet poll here ain't gonna do that.

My point is that the mention of it in an NTSB report means absolutely nothing unless it is found in the probable cause section.

 

[Jaybird180]

And so how do you propose to prove or disprove that idea?

An internet poll here ain't gonna do that.

My point is that the mention of it in an NTSB report means absolutely nothing unless it is found in the probable cause section.

None of us really know what the pilot was THINKING. We can only look for patterns of behavior and show a statistical relationship. My gut tells me that filing vs not filing could mean several things, including:

1- A reasoned, deliberate choice
2- An attitude of carelessness
3- fill in your own ideas here

 

[SkyHog]

None of us really know what the pilot was THINKING. We can only look for patterns of behavior and show a statistical relationship. My gut tells me that filing vs not filing could mean several things, including:

1- A reasoned, deliberate choice
2- An attitude of carelessness
3- fill in your own ideas here

3. Its a waste of time in most cases, because you would be better off with Flight Following or having an out other than waiting a few hours after you just shattered your skull on your yoke and slipped out of the plane in a bloody heap.

I'd wager that if you're relying on a VFR Flight Plan to save your bacon, you've already made a careless decision and you're displaying "macho" behavior in and of itself.

 

[COFlyBoy]

3. Its a waste of time in most cases, because you would be better off with Flight Following or having an out other than waiting a few hours after you just shattered your skull on your yoke and slipped out of the plane in a bloody heap.

I'd wager that if you're relying on a VFR Flight Plan to save your bacon, you've already made a careless decision and you're displaying "macho" behavior in and of itself.

Wow, I'm a "macho" pilot.

VFR flight plans provide a useful layer of risk reduction. They're not perfect and neither is FF. I've been on FF over Raton Pass at 10500 and was out of Radar and Radio coverage for more than 10 miles, and thats a low and fairly open pass. In Colorado west of Denver, FF is pretty much useless. Also, I've been on an IFR flight plan over eastern Colorado and not been on the radar even at 10000.

I like flight plans, IFR or VFR. They are a part of my total risk reduction package:
Flight Plan + ELT + FF(or IFR) + Tell someone where you're going

 

[poadeleted21]

Wow, I'm a "macho" pilot.

VFR flight plans provide a useful layer of risk reduction. They're not perfect and neither is FF. I've been on FF over Raton Pass at 10500 and was out of Radar and Radio coverage for more than 10 miles, and thats a low and fairly open pass. In Colorado west of Denver, FF is pretty much useless. Also, I've been on an IFR flight plan over eastern Colorado and not been on the radar even at 10000.

I like flight plans, IFR or VFR. They are a part of my total risk reduction package:
Flight Plan + ELT + FF(or IFR) + Tell someone where you're going

East of Missoula, even radio coverage is not available especially around CutBank. I always file VFR flight plans for any XC over 30 miles or so. For less than that I usually just tell someone where I'm going. If nothing else, it's one less thing the newspapers get to write about. You get dropped from FF like a bad habit 15 miles east of Missoula.

 

[SkyHog]

Wow, I'm a "macho" pilot.

VFR flight plans provide a useful layer of risk reduction. They're not perfect and neither is FF. I've been on FF over Raton Pass at 10500 and was out of Radar and Radio coverage for more than 10 miles, and thats a low and fairly open pass. In Colorado west of Denver, FF is pretty much useless. Also, I've been on an IFR flight plan over eastern Colorado and not been on the radar even at 10000.

I like flight plans, IFR or VFR. They are a part of my total risk reduction package:
Flight Plan + ELT + FF(or IFR) + Tell someone where you're going

Obviously, the safest option would be to use FF + VFR Flight Plan. But I'm not sure I buy into much of an incremental increase in safety over just FF. Even if you're off radar coverage for 10 miles, that still reduces your searchable area a whole lot more than "Somewhere between Albuquerque and Denver."

If I had to choose between FF or VFR Flight Plan, I'd choose FF anyday.

 

[poadeleted21]

Obviously, the safest option would be to use FF + VFR Flight Plan. But I'm not sure I buy into much of an incremental increase in safety over just FF. Even if you're off radar coverage for 10 miles, that still reduces your searchable area a whole lot more than "Somewhere between Albuquerque and Denver."

If I had to choose between FF or VFR Flight Plan, I'd choose FF anyday.

"VFR Traffic calling Seattle Center, we don't have time" I've heard that before.

 

[Jaybird180]

If I had to choose between FF or VFR Flight Plan, I'd choose FF anyday.

They are not exclusive of each other. IOW, you can have BOTH.

I said in my OP thanks to the SFRA both sarcastically and realistically. There has been an occasion where the time it took me to file allowed me to mentally slow down and find something that could have been an issue if left unchecked.

I have also scrubbed once when I was just about ready to go, until I remebered that I didn't yet file.

 

[BellyUpFish]

Can't remember the last time I filed VFR. If I'm filing it's IFR or nothing.

 

[flyingron]

absolutely, I just feel safer with a IFR flight plan

At least the VFR plans has an alarm clock the fires a half an hour after the ETA.
IFR you have to rely on the controller remembering you didn't cancel.

 

[Ghery]

"VFR Traffic calling Seattle Center, we don't have time" I've heard that before.

Interesting. I've never heard it. And my home field is just outside the SEA mode C veil. YMMV

 

[gismo]

There's not even a correlation here. Just because most accident reports (if you're willing to buy that premise) indicate that the pilot didn't file a plan, it doesn't mean that those who didn't crash did file a plan with more frequency.

Given that about 99% of the pilots I know don't file VFR flight plans I'd say the main reason that most VFR accident reports indicate that no flight plan was filed is because most flights (whether terminated with a landing or a crash) aren't on VFR flight plans.

Also FWIW, AFaIK the flight plan that you must file in the DC SFAR for any VFR flight outside the pattern is not a "real" VFR flight plan and will not trigger SAR if you don't show up at your destination (outside the SFAR). Inside the SFAR you're tracked on radar and I assume they will either send the F18s or fire trucks if your flight disappears unexpectedly inside the area.