File IFR when not rated

So then that answers my other question.. There is no solo time required for the IFR ticket like there is for the PPL, correct?
 
FAR 61.65

(d) Aeronautical experience for the instrument-airplane rating. A person who applies for an instrument-airplane rating must have logged:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, 50 hours of cross-country flight time as pilot in command, of which 10 hours must have been in an airplane; and

(2) Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) of this section, of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating, and the instrument time includes:

(i) Three hours of instrument flight training from an authorized instructor in an airplane that is appropriate to the instrument-airplane rating within 2 calendar months before the date of the practical test; and

(ii) Instrument flight training on cross country flight procedures, including one cross country flight in an airplane with an authorized instructor, that is performed under instrument flight rules, when a flight plan has been filed with an air traffic control facility, and that involves—

(A) A flight of 250 nautical miles along airways or by directed routing from an air traffic control facility;

(B) An instrument approach at each airport; and

(C) Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems.
 
Luckypants said:
Can I legally file and fly IFR solo when in VMC if I don't have the rating?
Click to expand...

Negative.


§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

(e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds:

(1) The appropriate aircraft category, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that person's pilot certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being flown;

(2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate aircraft category, class, and type rating (if required) for the aircraft being flown;

(3) For a glider, a pilot certificate with a glider category rating and an airplane instrument rating; or

(4) For an airship, a commercial pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air category rating and airship class rating.
 
File and fly are two different things. Nothing precludes you from filing anything, theoretically. Accepting an instrument clearance however...
 
How about when one is a student and the instructor asks the student to call up and file IFR for an instructional flight?
 
If you are instrument rated but not current can you file an instrument flight plan if you have a safety pilot (non instrument)?
 
alaskaflyer said:
File and fly are two different things. Nothing precludes you from filing anything, theoretically. Accepting an instrument clearance however...
Click to expand...

The FAA has stated, via legal interpretation, that they consider the filing of an IFR flight plan by an individual who does not possess an Instrument rating to be a clear intent to violate 61.3(e), regardless of whether the pilot requests or accepts an IFR clearance. This is true even if the pilot is an instrument student on a dual flight, with an apporpriately rated CFI in the right seat--the student can file the flight plan, but the CFI's name must go in the PIC block.

Filing an IFR flight plan if you're not rated carries risk, in my opinion, especially if you subsequently conduct a flight operation. If there is any confusion as to your status, the FAA is likely to revert to the filed flight plan to resolve the confusion, regardless of whether you requested or accepted a clearance, and therefore rather clearly find you in violation of 61.3. I can't think of any situation where the risk would be worth the potential cost. Earn the instrument rating and eliminate the risk.

EDIT: Since there is some confusion, to clarify: The FAA letter of interpretation to which I reference (see post #32) notes the listed pilot as the relevant item on the flight plan, which may not necessarily be the person who actually files the flight plan. Anyone can file a flight plan, and anyone can accept a clearance. However, only an appopriately rated and current pilot may act as pilot in command under IFR.


JKG
 
Last edited:
tmyers said:
If you are instrument rated but not current can you file an instrument flight plan if you have a safety pilot (non instrument)?
Click to expand...
If you're not current and your safety pilot isn't instrument rated, who is going to be PIC?

Oh, so you do your 6HITS under VFR and THEN fly IFR. That would work. Just be sure you have your logbook along and LOG the currency before you accept the clearance.

edit: not sure I buy the "intent to violate 61.3". I've heard that before in the context of checking the IFR box and then filing with VFR/xxx in the altitude box. How can you "intend" to violate if you don't actually violate (i.e. accept the clearance)? Especially if you're offered a clearance and you say "negative, 345 is VFR"?
 
Last edited:
azure said:
Oh, so you do your 6HITS under VFR and THEN fly IFR. That would work. Just be sure you have your logbook along and LOG the currency before you accept the clearance.
Click to expand...

No need to have your logbook along. If somebody challenged you, even on a ramp check, the logbook or record of currency can be produced later.
 
azure said:
If you're not current and your safety pilot isn't instrument rated, who is going to be PIC?

Oh, so you do your 6HITS under VFR and THEN fly IFR. That would work. Just be sure you have your logbook along and LOG the currency before you accept the clearance.

edit: not sure I buy the "intent to violate 61.3". I've heard that before in the context of checking the IFR box and then filing with VFR/xxx in the altitude box. How can you "intend" to violate if you don't actually violate (i.e. accept the clearance)? Especially if you're offered a clearance and you say "negative, 345 is VFR"?
Click to expand...

It's easy: If you're not rated or current, why else would you be filing an IFR flight plan as PIC if you didn't intend to violate 61.3(e)? You can "buy it" or not, I'm just reporting what the FAA has put in writing. I've posted the interpretation before; if it's not still around, then I can post it again.

The FAA also mentions, in the same interpretation, that accepting a clearance has nothing to do with determining an intent to violate, or whether a violation has occurred. I can accept a clearance without even being a pilot, but I can't act as PIC under IFR.


JKG
 
JGoodish said:
It's easy: If you're not rated or current, why else would you be filing an IFR flight plan as PIC if you didn't intend to violate 61.3(e)? You can "buy it" or not, I'm just reporting what the FAA has put in writing. I've posted the interpretation before; if it's not still around, then I can post it again.

The FAA also mentions, in the same interpretation, that accepting a clearance has nothing to do with determining an intent to violate, or whether a violation has occurred. I can accept a clearance without even being a pilot, but I can't act as PIC under IFR.


JKG
Click to expand...

Since when do you have to be PIC to file anything? Alert the airlines...

My post mentioned nothing about PIC.

But to answer your question: For practice; on behalf the rated and current pic flying with you; as a student about to launch with a CFII...
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Since when do you have to be PIC to file anything? Alert the airlines...
Click to expand...

FWIW

Airlines have licensed dispatchers (except for supplemental). Also, the Captain signs a flight release accepting the flight. While it's true he doesn't actually file the flight plan with ATC he is the one that accepts the clearance.
 
JGoodish said:
The FAA has stated, via legal interpretation, that they consider the filing of an IFR flight plan by an individual who does not possess an Instrument rating to be a clear intent to violate 61.3(e), regardless of whether the pilot requests or accepts an IFR clearance. This is true even if the pilot is an instrument student on a dual flight, with an apporpriately rated CFI in the right seat--the student can file the flight plan, but the CFI's name must go in the PIC block.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. There is no language in FAR 61.3(e) that supports that position.
 
roncachamp said:
Ridiculous. There is no language in FAR 61.3(e) that supports that position.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Of course that doesn't prove they didn't write the interpretation, they've come up with lots of idiotic nonsense before. But then a VFR-only pilot who checks the IFR box by accident and files what he thinks is a VFR plan electronically is already guilty of a FAR violation. I would like to see them make that stick, especially if the filed altitude was a VFR altitude or an ambiguous altitude like 3000. If they really can, then VFR pilots using Foreflight need to be careful, because that is fairly easy to do if you're in a hurry.
 
If anyone can come up with an enforcement action where the sole basis was the filing of an IFR flight plan by a non IFR-qualified PIC, without his actually accepting an IFR clearance or flying in IMC, I will be very surprised.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Since when do you have to be PIC to file anything? Alert the airlines...

My post mentioned nothing about PIC.

But to answer your question: For practice; on behalf the rated and current pic flying with you; as a student about to launch with a CFII...
Click to expand...

I never said that anyone had to be PIC to file anything; in fact, I specifically mentioned that who does the filing isn't important. What I did say is that, according to an FAA Chief Counsel interpretation:

a) The FAA considers filing a flight plan with an unqualified pilot listed as PIC to be an intent to violate the regulations;
b) The FAA does not consider accepting a clearance by such as a person as any kind of "trigger" action for a violation.

If you disagree, the disagreement isn't with me, it's with the Chief Counsel's office.


JKG
 
JGoodish said:
I never said that anyone had to be PIC to file anything; in fact, I specifically mentioned that who does the filing isn't important. What I did say is that, according to an FAA Chief Counsel interpretation:

a) The FAA considers filing a flight plan with an unqualified pilot listed as PIC to be an intent to violate the regulations;
b) The FAA does not consider accepting a clearance by such as a person as any kind of "trigger" action for a violation.

If you disagree, the disagreement isn't with me, it's with the Chief Counsel's office.
Click to expand...

If true, it speaks volumes about the intelligence and competence of the Chief Counsel.
 
roncachamp said:
Ridiculous. There is no language in FAR 61.3(e) that supports that position.
Click to expand...

Supports what position? That a pilot without and Instrument rating can't be Pilot In Command under IFR? You better go back and re-read FAR 61.3(e).

If you're arguing that the filing of a flight plan by a pilot without an Instrument rating is not a violation, you better go back and re-read what I wrote. Carefully this time.


JKG
 
roncachamp said:
If true, it speaks volumes about the intelligence and competence of the Chief Counsel.
Click to expand...

Seems logical to me. Why else would a non-qualified pilot list himself as PIC on a flight plan if he didn't intend to violate the regulations?

I highly doubt that the FAA is going to apply their interpretation to enforcement action for an instrument training flight with a qualified CFI on board, but an Instrument student filing an IFR light plan with his name as PIC is technically incorrect, since he is not qualified to act as PIC during the flight.


JKG
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
If anyone can come up with an enforcement action where the sole basis was the filing of an IFR flight plan by a non IFR-qualified PIC, without his actually accepting an IFR clearance or flying in IMC, I will be very surprised.
Click to expand...

Again, you guys need to read what I've written. More carefully this time.

Accepting a clearance and/or flying in IMC does not trigger a violation. A person acting as Pilot In Command of a flight operated under IFR must meet the qualifications in FAR 61.3(e), regardless of the status of a clearance or weather conditions.


JKG
 
JGoodish said:
Supports what position? That a pilot without and Instrument rating can't be Pilot In Command under IFR?
Click to expand...

There is no language in FAR 61.3(e) that supports the position that the filing of an IFR flight plan by an individual who does not possess an instrument rating is intent to violate that regulation.

You better go back and re-read FAR 61.3(e).
Click to expand...

For what purpose? It couldn't have been amended since I last read it.

If you're arguing that the filing of a flight plan by a pilot without an Instrument rating is not a violation, you better go back and re-read what I wrote. Carefully this time.
Click to expand...

The filing of an IFR flight plan by a pilot without an instrument rating is not a violation. Any person that reads that regulation and concludes otherwise does not understand what he has read.
 
JGoodish said:
Seems logical to me. Why else would a non-qualified pilot list himself as PIC on a flight plan if he didn't intend to violate the regulations?
Click to expand...
See post #19.

Also, there is the technique of checking the IFR box and putting "VFR/<some VFR altitude>" in the altitude box. Strictly technically, that is an "IFR flight plan" and I've heard a reliable report of an FAA lawyer who considers the FAA position to be that a VFR pilot filing such a flight plan to be in violation of 61.3. But as Steven has explained a number of times, the result of filing that plan is simply a VFR strip, indistinguishable from one created by a controller after the pilot called up for flight following. I would really like to hear the stretch of logic by which filing such a plan by someone not legal to act as PIC under IFR could be interpreted as showing intent to violate 61.3(e).

Personally I think that if they want 61.3 to say what they say it says, they should write it that way and stop creating new regs by "interpretation" .
 
Last edited:
JGoodish said:
I never said that anyone had to be PIC to file anything; in fact, I specifically mentioned that who does the filing isn't important. What I did say is that, according to an FAA Chief Counsel interpretation:

a) The FAA considers filing a flight plan with an unqualified pilot listed as PIC to be an intent to violate the regulations;
b) The FAA does not consider accepting a clearance by such as a person as any kind of "trigger" action for a violation.

If you disagree, the disagreement isn't with me, it's with the Chief Counsel's office.


JKG
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I'm saying (and what I meant from my first post on) that one can file an IFR flight plan without any intent to leave the ground at all, or in the circumstance when the person filing isn't going to be the PIC on the otherwise legal IFR flight, or in any number of other scenarios, and not have violated anything at all - even when lacking the rating or a pilot certificate of any kind. I'm not condoning recreational abuse of the system but there it is.

That you have called out one example out of an entire bucketful of possibilities, that MIGHT get one in trouble, is noteworthy (and appreciated) but not definitive. I'd like to see the opinion just so I can learn if you have the time.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
The filing of an IFR flight plan by a pilot without an instrument rating is not a violation. Any person that reads that regulation and concludes otherwise does not understand what he has read.
Click to expand...

Who is claiming that it is?


JKG
 
JGoodish said:
I've posted the interpretation before; if it's not still around, then I can post it again.
Click to expand...


Here's a copy of the LOI you mentioned.

BTW, I'm not taking a position on the letter, just posting for others to see.
 

Attachments

  • LOI-Filing IFR by non IFR cert. pilot (J Goodish).pdf
    245.1 KB · Views: 338
JGoodish said:
Again, you guys need to read what I've written. More carefully this time.

Accepting a clearance and/or flying in IMC does not trigger a violation. A person acting as Pilot In Command of a flight operated under IFR must meet the qualifications in FAR 61.3(e), regardless of the status of a clearance or weather conditions.
Click to expand...

Acting as pilot in command of a civil aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight without holding the required certificate and ratings triggers a violation, filing an IFR flight plan has nothing to do with it.
 
azure said:
See post #19.

Also, there is the technique of checking the IFR box and putting "VFR/<some VFR altitude>" in the altitude box. Strictly technically, that is an "IFR flight plan" and I've heard a reliable report of an FAA lawyer who considers the FAA position to be that a VFR pilot filing such a flight plan to be in violation of 61.3. But as Steven has explained a number of times, the result of filing that plan is simply a VFR strip, indistinguishable from one created by a controller after the pilot called up for flight following. I would really like to hear the stretch of logic by which filing such a plan by someone not legal to act as PIC under IFR could be interpreted as showing intent to violate 61.3(e).

Personally I think that if they want 61.3 to say what they say it says, they should write it that way and stop creating new regs by "interpretation" .
Click to expand...

That's a nice thought, but it's impossible for the FAA to write clarity into all of the regulations. And let's be honest, do we REALLY want them to do that?

In my letter to the Chief Counsel requesting the interpretation back in 2008, I specifically asked about the "IFR/VFR" technique, and the response was the same as I've noted here. How ATC sees the strip is really immaterial to how the FAA sees the intent of filing an IFR flight plan by a non-qualified pilot.

Again, I'm just the messenger. I'm not telling anyone what to do, but I am opining that claiming yourself as qualified to conduct a certain type of operation when you're not qualified to do so likely carries with it some type of unnecessary risk.


JKG
 
Steven, I posted the Interpretation at the same time you posted #33. You may have missed it.
 
So is it a violation of a regulation to exhibit what a law enforcement agency considers "evidence of an intent" to violate that regulation?

If the answer is yes, then we are governed not by laws but by men.
 
JGoodish said:
That's a nice thought, but it's impossible for the FAA to write clarity into all of the regulations. And let's be honest, do we REALLY want them to do that?

In my letter to the Chief Counsel requesting the interpretation back in 2008, I specifically asked about the "IFR/VFR" technique, and the response was the same as I've noted here. How ATC sees the strip is really immaterial to how the FAA sees the intent of filing an IFR flight plan by a non-qualified pilot.

Again, I'm just the messenger. I'm not telling anyone what to do, but I am opining that claiming yourself as qualified to conduct a certain type of operation when you're not qualified to do so likely carries with it some type of unnecessary risk.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
azure said:
So is it a violation of a regulation to exhibit what a law enforcement agency considers "evidence of an intent" to violate that regulation?

If the answer is yes, then we are governed not by laws but by men.
Click to expand...

No. But that evidence could potentially be used against you if there is an actual or apparent violation. For example, it would be much more difficult to claim that you weren't IFR or didn't intend to operate as PIC under IFR if you were violated for such, and had filed an IFR flight plan.

ATC can claim that IFR flight plans with VFR altitudes get spit out as VFR strips all day long, but the non-instrument pilot who files an IFR flight plan with himself as the listed PIC is taking all the risk. And it's an a completely unnecessary one, in my opinion.


JKG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top