Filing IFR for a VFR Flight?

[azure]

Interesting perspective. I would not consider using this method to cover my butt when required to be on an active flight plan. Obviously ATC won't care since enforcement of this type of rule is not their main concern and they can't "see" VFR flight plans. I doubt that active US VFR flight plans get transmitted to Canada since that would be an administrative problem. Prolly difficult to determine if compliance is a problem until well after the fact of the flight.

Considering that it's filed as a flight plan in the ATC system and that it's for all intents and purposes "active", I'm not sure what the issue would be (other than the FAA frowning on the practice, cf. the Goodish letter). It's essentially an IFR flight plan without the IFR clearance, and it certainly satisfies similar requirements in the SFRA/FRZ since that's the way you are supposed to do it.

 

[Clark1961]

Considering that it's filed as a flight plan in the ATC system and that it's for all intents and purposes "active", I'm not sure what the issue would be (other than the FAA frowning on the practice, cf. the Goodish letter). It's essentially an IFR flight plan without the IFR clearance, and it certainly satisfies similar requirements in the SFRA/FRZ since that's the way you are supposed to do it.

Without the clearance is it an active IFR flight plan? Just imagine how a lawyer could spend days or weeks dancing around on that question.

 

[azure]

I don't have you on ignore. It clearly works with every approach control that I've ever seen. In fact, despite protestations, we've had one guy say it doesn't work in centers, though Steve disagrees and I've certainly used it with several of the east coast centers. I was addressing that aspect.

I still think the FCC opinion is silly and disconnected with just about every operational aspect of the system. If I wanted to "FAKE" IFR, I'd not write VFR in the alt box, I'd just file what appeared to be an entire legitimate IFR plan (nothing stops you).

Yep, I've been following the thread. I'm not sure why he was unable to get "VFR" in the box, I've done it that way, though of course I was using different software than @Gmonnig .

And yeah, I agree that the FAA opinion is silly. I've said so many times, and also hold this case up as a perfect example of why it's stupid to write the Chief Counsel for an opinion about something which isn't causing confusion, difficulty in using the system, or safety of flight issues. The result is all too likely to be, as in this case, complete idiocy.

 

[azure]

Without the clearance is it an active IFR flight plan? Just imagine how a lawyer could spend days or weeks dancing around on that question.

If I'm not mistaken it qualifies as an active flight plan in the SFRA. Yes you could dance around on the issue of whether it's really "active", but frankly that's good enough for me. I'm not that paranoid about the Canadians coming after me, I'm mostly concerned about CBP, and all they'll see is a flight plan and a pilot talking to ATC.

 

[Clark1961]

If I'm not mistaken it qualifies as an active flight plan in the SFRA. Yes you could dance around on the issue of whether it's really "active", but frankly that's good enough for me. I'm not that paranoid about the Canadians coming after me, I'm mostly concerned about CBP, and all they'll see is a flight plan and a pilot talking to ATC.

As I understand it the SFRA is a different animal. Mostly it’s the illegitimate child born of paranoid security agencies and mostly careless (in the security sense) airspace management folks. On the cross-border stuff I think we’re more interested in accounting for aircraft with respect to the fine folks on the other side of whatever the border may be. In the event of landing out questions may be asked. Dunno what the answers might lead to. Anyway, I’ve never tried to use flight following as a means to deal with regulatory requirements to be on an active flight plan. I’ve just used the file IFR with VFR for altitude to get flight following while saving radio time and controller keystrokes. If an active flight plan is required then I go with an IFR clearance.

 

[flyingron]

If I'm not mistaken it qualifies as an active flight plan in the SFRA. Yes you could dance around on the issue of whether it's really "active", but frankly that's good enough for me. I'm not that paranoid about the Canadians coming after me, I'm mostly concerned about CBP, and all they'll see is a flight plan and a pilot talking to ATC.

You need more than a flight plan in the SFRA. You also need a discrete squawk which PCT won't give you unless they can find a plan for you. In practice they do not care if it was an IFR IFR plan or a "SFRA VFR" IFR plan. PCT will allow you to use them interchangably. I've filed IFR and told them I could just come in VFR once I got to the boundary, they were fine with that. Oddly the thing that really screwed up one controller was when I had multiple plans on file (he said he had to figure out which one he was supposed to use...not that I have any idea why it matters in the SFRA, the FRZ that's a different story).

Yeah, the (then) ADIZ was a complete disaster when they rolled it out. They cut and pasted pieces of other procedures (part from the FRZ, part from elsewhere) and royally screwed it up. As I've pointed out before, this was demonstrated in complete stupidity, when there was a joint AOPA/FAA meeting where they were supposed to show us how easy it was and they demonstrated a flight that it didn't work right. The pilots filed to start at EMI which flight plans are routed to ZNY. It took them months later to come up with the "GATE" idea which exists for no reason other than to give a "known" fix that will cause the flight plans to be routed to a PCT controller who knows what to do with them. It was never required that you actually go anywhere near the fix.

 

[UngaWunga]

So, five pages in. Have we found out what oil they use yet, and if they preheat?

 

[azure]

As I understand it the SFRA is a different animal. Mostly it’s the illegitimate child born of paranoid security agencies and mostly careless (in the security sense) airspace management folks. On the cross-border stuff I think we’re more interested in accounting for aircraft with respect to the fine folks on the other side of whatever the border may be. In the event of landing out questions may be asked. Dunno what the answers might lead to. Anyway, I’ve never tried to use flight following as a means to deal with regulatory requirements to be on an active flight plan. I’ve just used the file IFR with VFR for altitude to get flight following while saving radio time and controller keystrokes. If an active flight plan is required then I go with an IFR clearance.

That might be the underlying reason, but back then we were told to fear not the Canadian authorities but the CBP. I remember being specifically warned by more than one CFI that CBP was aggressively enforcing the requirement, patrolling for noncompliant planes, and that some pilots had come to grief over it. There are places downriver from Detroit where it is very easy to clip the Canadian border without realizing it. One example is at KONZ, where a wide pattern can easily take you over the border. Whether anyone actually had an enforcement action taken over this I don't know; @Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe might be able to say better as he is based at KONZ.

Today, of course being instrument rated I would simply go IFR too - but back then I didn't have that option. And one time many years ago, coming back from one of the Lake Erie islands (Kelleys I think), in the confusion and work overload trying to raise both ATC and FSS while still stateside, I neglected to follow through with FSS and didn't realize it until I called them on the ground to close my VFR flight plan (yeah, pretty spacey of me). Just about then a light twin with no markings landed, did a quick taxi back, and took off again. I was petrified at the time, thinking it was the Feds had followed me over the border and were going to take my tail number and pursue enforcement action, but nothing ever came from it. That was while I was still renting from Marine City, and was one of the factors motivating me to find a way around having to deal with FSS when crossing the border.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

One example is at KONZ, where a wide pattern can easily take you over the border. Whether anyone actually had an enforcement action taken over this I don't know; @Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe might be able to say better as he is based at KONZ.

I have not heard of anyone getting busted - and I can say that it appears to me that people tend to be sloppy when it comes to the boarder - but it's possible that they are squawking and talking.
The TRACON controllers I've talked to don't seem to care if you are on a flight plan if you want to shoot approaches at Windsor (CYQG, Canada) - kind of a "not my problem" attitude. But they also said that the radar feed was being sent somewhere else and watched by enforcement types.