How do I file IFR to an airport with no nearby navaid?

R

rookie1255

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
108
Display Name
Display name:
rookie1255
No GPS in airplane, no ADF. How does one file the IFR route to an airport with no nearby navaids? For example, flying to KOGS or KPTD?

Do I file to the closest fix and get routed from there? Do I have to stay on airways as long as possible? How does the transition to the instrument approach work?

Thanks in advance for the responses.
 
That’s such a short route... just file direct. Both published approaches require equipment that you don’t have, so they wouldn’t be applicable.
 
I'm sure someone smarter than I will pipe in, but I would not worry about atc in this case and file what works for you. Make sure your equipment suffix is correct in your flight plan so they don't give you gps fixes, and go for it. My experience is it's a crap shoot as to whether I'll get what I want when I file, but I use an aircraft with all the bells and whistles, so it really doesn't matter that much. You need to confirm you can navigate what they give you, if not, speak up. If you can fly direct, file direct, but I think you are concerned as to whether you can navigate from one fix to another.
 
To clarify, not from KOGS to KPTD, but to either of those places from say KSYR, and yes, MSS is still active.
 
For KPTD it will have to be vfr or you can't land. KOGS has a localizer, so there is that if you have the equipment.
 
after looking at the approaches........ptd has all gps approaches and u said u don't have gps so, well, question answered. ogs only has one non-gps and adf is required for that and u said u don't have adf (or a substitute ifr gps) so, well, question answered.
 
Whatever the closest usable navaid is, then direct (using the radial you found with your plotter).

don’t forget to file an alternate.

edit: see @Ravioli ’s post below if you won’t be able to see the airport from MEA/MVA/whatever.
 
If the OP's question is actually, "How do I get to an airport that has no approaches that my plane is equipped for" the answer is simply to plan to the nearest airport you are equipped for. IF you can continue from there VFR than do so. Otherwise land where you can and live to fly another day.

My home drome has no approaches (yet, they're working on it) so filing to either airport within 20nm is the way to go.
 
rookie1255 said:
No GPS in airplane, no ADF. How does one file the IFR route to an airport with no nearby navaids? For example, flying to KOGS or KPTD?

Do I file to the closest fix and get routed from there? Do I have to stay on airways as long as possible? How does the transition to the instrument approach work?

Thanks in advance for the responses.
Click to expand...
You can file to an airport that has no approach at all, but you need to file an alternate. The same would apply here. Would be more of a learning experience if you research some terms yourself:

"Cruise clearance"
Alternate requirements
MEA
MOCA
Minimum IFR altitudes
Designated mountainous areas
VOR service volumes
An IFR Pilot's Mindset :)​
 
This is easier under military rules. We would file to a specific fix or location where the descent from the lowest IFR altitude could be made into VFR conditions, then continue visually to the airport.

Sometimes that meant filing to a nearby airport and completing the instrument approach procedure, then continuing in legal VFR conditions below 1200 AGL.

The hardest part is getting accurate weather condition reporting from either the nearest reporting station or an area report.

The concept of a composite flight plan is unfamiliar to most non-military folks...
 
IK04 said:
The concept of a composite flight plan is unfamiliar to most non-military folks...
Click to expand...
True...I always just canceled IFR and went VFR with no flight plan (possibly SVFR to clear the airspace where I flew the approach).

How do you file and/or make the transition on a composite flight plan?
 
MauleSkinner said:
True...I always just canceled IFR and went VFR with no flight plan (possibly SVFR to clear the airspace where I flew the approach).

How do you file and/or make the transition on a composite flight plan?
Click to expand...

On the 1801, in the ROUTE field, you put the last fix or point (LAT/LON or Radial/Distance) followed by "VFR," then the following route points to the destination.

The flight plan is filed as a "Y" plan, so that makes it easy. There was no way to depict it on the old FAA 7233-1 form, so two flight plans would be filed to attempt to avoid confusion. That rarely worked, by the way...

Do people still use the 7233-1, or has it been lost in the digital filing via (name your tablet app)?
 
The 7233-1 has been superseded by the ICAO form. It’s history.
 
dtuuri said:
You can file to an airport that has no approach at all, but you need to file an alternate. The same would apply here. Would be more of a learning experience if you research some terms yourself:
Click to expand...

I asked that of the FAA Chief Counsel and got the answer that it would be a violation of 91.205 if the destination airport had approaches, but my aircraft was not equipped to fly any of them, even if I filed an alternate which had approaches that I was equipped to fly.
 
John Collins said:
I asked that of the FAA Chief Counsel and got the answer that it would be a violation of 91.205 if the destination airport had approaches, but my aircraft was not equipped to fly any of them, even if I filed an alternate which had approaches that I was equipped to fly.
Click to expand...

Did their letter show any awareness of visual approaches?

In any case, I'll start worrying about it if and when they start busting people over it.
 
John Collins said:
I asked that of the FAA Chief Counsel and got the answer that it would be a violation of 91.205 if the destination airport had approaches, but my aircraft was not equipped to fly any of them, even if I filed an alternate which had approaches that I was equipped to fly.
Click to expand...
Did you ask if you could file to an intersection and request a cruise clearance the remainder of the way in Remarks?
 
John Collins said:
I asked that of the FAA Chief Counsel and got the answer that it would be a violation of 91.205 if the destination airport had approaches, but my aircraft was not equipped to fly any of them, even if I filed an alternate which had approaches that I was equipped to fly.
Click to expand...
Hi John,

Is that interpretation available online?
 
You file to the airport with the equipment you intend to navigate with. There's no requirement that the airport have an approach (that you can fly). People fly IFR to airports without approaches all the time. They even put a rule in for the alternate in that case (you always need an alternate). So you navigate to the destination. If you can descend in VMC and land, then land. If not come up with plan B. It may be advantageous to go to plan B even before you arrive at the airport if the weather looks bad.
 
Palmpilot said:
Did their letter show any awareness of visual approaches?

In any case, I'll start worrying about it if and when they start busting people over it.
Click to expand...

I asked the question because of a pilot being busted for a similar reason. The pilot filed to an airport that only had an ILS with a DME requirement and he did not have a DME.
 
John Collins said:
I asked the question because of a pilot being busted for a similar reason. The pilot filed to an airport that only had an ILS with a DME requirement and he did not have a DME.
Click to expand...
I'm confused by the answer that you received.

The way they paraphrased your question (part 2) was that the airplane did not have the navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown. That seems to be the wrong question.

If I'm flying to an airport where the only approach(es) require equipment that my airplane does not have then I am not going to fly any of those approaches. I do have all of the navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown because I am not going to fly routes, those approaches, for which I'm not equipped.

If your question you asked stipulated flying a route for which you were not equipped then I agree with their response. I don't think that is the question being asked in this thread, though.
 
John Collins said:
I asked the question because of a pilot being busted for a similar reason. The pilot filed to an airport that only had an ILS with a DME requirement and he did not have a DME.
Click to expand...
Was the weather forecast to be good enough for a visual approach?
 
You could file to OGS with ART as your alternate (assuming you can fly an appropriate VOR route, have appropriate approach equipment for ART, and the alternate minimum conditions are met), but you will only be able to land at your destination if you can do so VFR if you do not have the appropriate approach equipment. Or, perhaps more pertinent if flying in IMC, only if you encounter VFR conditions at or above the MVA and can find the destination airport in VFR conditions.

It seems like this question came up before regarding flying into PTD from central NY without IFR GPS. IIRC the answer was basically the same...the last segment basically has to be flown VFR in some fashion if you can't fly the approaches at PTD.
 
Was the weather forecast to be good enough for a visual approach?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if you're part 91. There's never any requirement for weather at your destination. And if you can't fly the approaches at the destination, you have to have an alternate no matter what the weather is.
 
Larry in TN said:
I'm confused by the answer that you received.

The way they paraphrased your question (part 2) was that the airplane did not have the navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown. That seems to be the wrong question.

If I'm flying to an airport where the only approach(es) require equipment that my airplane does not have then I am not going to fly any of those approaches. I do have all of the navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown because I am not going to fly routes, those approaches, for which I'm not equipped.

If your question you asked stipulated flying a route for which you were not equipped then I agree with their response. I don't think that is the question being asked in this thread, though.
Click to expand...

The attorney took great liberty in paraphrasing my actual question. Here is the actual question I asked:

20 August 2014

Background:

When a pilot files an IFR flightplan in accordance with CFR 14 91.169, they are required to file a suitable alternate airport with the only exception being described in paragraph (b). This exception is conditional based on:

(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if :
(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport of intended landing; and

…

This wording permits an IFR flight to an airport without an instrument approach as long as an alternate is specified. However, if the aircraft is not equipped to fly any of the Part 97 standard Instrument approaches at the first airport of intended landing, may the pilot still conduct the flight as long as they have specified a suitable alternate that they are equipped to fly. To be able to complete a landing at the first airport of intended landing requires that the aircraft be able to descend from the minimum IFR enroute altitude in VFR conditions as they are not equipped to fly any of the approaches in a similar way if they had filed to an airport without any approaches. Would this be a violation of CFR 91.205 (d)(2) as long as they filed a suitable alternate airport which has approaches that the aircraft is equipped to fly. For example would it be permissible for an aircraft to file an IFR flightplan to an airport that only had RNAV (GPS) approaches and the aircraft was only equipped with a VOR/ILS navigation equipment as long as they selected a suitable alternate airport that had VOR or ILS approaches that the aircraft could fly?
Click to expand...
 
flyingron said:
Here he accepted a clearance that he was not able to fly legally. The FAA and the board held that it didn't much matter what the weather conditions were.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but the pilot made a "purposeful choice" when he filed the flight plan to an airport for which he didn't have equipment for an approach. I think if the flight plan reflected a feasible strategy to descend under VFR conditions (cruise clearance, visual approach) and was acted upon, this pilot probably winds up at his alternate and this violation never happens. Unless he lands opposite the direction of traffic there too, that is. :)
 
John Collins said:
The attorney took great liberty in paraphrasing my actual question. Here is the actual question I asked:
Click to expand...
He certainly did! He changed the whole nature of your question by assuming that the flight would be flying a route for which the aircraft was not suitably equipped.

He answered the question that he wanted to answer, not the one that you asked.
 
dtuuri said:
Agreed, but the pilot made a "purposeful choice" when he filed the flight plan to an airport for which he didn't have equipment for an approach. I think if the flight plan reflected a feasible strategy to descend under VFR conditions (cruise clearance, visual approach) and was acted upon, this pilot probably winds up at his alternate and this violation never happens. Unless he lands opposite the direction of traffic there too, that is. :)
Click to expand...
As I said, the FAA has policies for planning IFR to fields without (usable) approaches. You have to plan to do so such that you can land in VMC. As I said before, the FAA requires you ALWAYS to have an alternate if the destination doesn't have an approach. His fault was to take the clearance when he couldn't fly it.

This is near and dear to my heart. My home field has no approaches. I have to file an alternate, which leads to an interesting dichotomy. I can file to the nearby field with an ILS which is only 5 NM away. However, if I were to file to that field as a destination, I'd need a more distant (19NM) alternate if the 1-2-3 rule applied. So you have more stringent fuel requirements if you're going to a field with an ILS than if you were going to one with no approaches at all. I always plan CLT as an alternate anyhow. That's about 30NM distant.
 
Larry in TN said:
He certainly did! He changed the whole nature of your question by assuming that the flight would be flying a route for which the aircraft was not suitably equipped.

He answered the question that he wanted to answer, not the one that you asked.
Click to expand...

I sent a follow up today to the General Counsel and said in part:

Even though it has been some time, this question has come up again. On re-reading the response from your office, it is not a satisfactory answer to my actual question.
Click to expand...

Those are not the question I asked and appears to me to be a material change to my questions. In my opinion, one should not state “Specifically you ask two questions:” and then not quote what I actually asked. If quoting my original questions, the answer would remain unchanged, would you please re-draft the letter with my actual questions quoted precisely and not paraphrased or modified. It seems the questions answered were not ones that I asked.
Click to expand...
 
I got a response from the FAA General Counsel and they declined to answer. But it got referred to AFS-800 flight standards and they provided a more direct answer.
 

Attachments

  • Signed 09-04-20 - Collins Response - AFS-800E filing to an airport with approaches.pdf
    281.9 KB · Views: 61
Where the FAA is concerned, some questions are better left unasked.
 
I get why it's not allowed. You are accepting clearance that takes you to the airport, but you cannot execute that clearance(i.e. part of accepted route) in IMC(i.e. presumed operation under IFR). Couldn't you craft your route as to fly over(or near) your intended destination(A) on the way to your alternative destination(B)? If VMC at A, cancel IFR(or divert) and land at A. If cannot descent VFR, continue to B. May need airport C for alternate, but that shouldn't be too difficult.

Edit: Might also raise some eyebrows at ATC when filing, but that could be explained in remarks as you want to overfly A.
 
That makes no sense to me...it's okay to file to an AP with no approaches, but not okay to file to an AP that has approaches you can't fly? Only a bureaucrat could come up with that logic. I guess just file to 'Bob's Farm Strip" that's a couple miles from your real destination.
 
John Collins said:
This question might save a pilot from a deviation, ignorance is not a defence.
Click to expand...
The argument would make sense to me if there was a history of pilots receiving violations for filing and flying an IFR clearance to an airport in the expectation of flying a visual approach or diverting to an alternate that had an approach they were equipped to fly. So far I haven't heard of such a history.
 
I am not aware of an "on point" deviation, but I know of at least one where the pilot was cited for violating 91.205 for making an approach he was not equipped for. It will come up more often as so many VOR approaches are getting eliminated leaving only RNAV procedures at many smaller airports. There still are aircraft that are /A and /U that might file such a plan via IFR to one of these airports and it would be a shame to get a deviation due to ignorance of the rule.
 
So file to an intersection near the airport, not the airport, under a cruise clearance:

CRUISE− Used in an ATC clearance to authorize a pilot to conduct flight at any altitude from the minimum IFR altitude up to and including the altitude specified in the clearance.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top