Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
When I was based in San Diego, I used to include an IAF when I’d file, but eventually stopped because inevitably ATC would never clear me that way.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
IFR: File to IAF or Airport?
- Thread starter CC268
- Start date
When I was based in San Diego, I used to include an IAF when I’d file, but eventually stopped because inevitably ATC would never clear me that way.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Same here. I notice that coming back in to MYF or SEE they always clear us to MZB then direct to the airport. I assume that's for lost comms, they eventually send you direct ASIXY or some sort
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Fair enough...but these answers have been helpful and provided a good learning experience. That’s what these forums are for
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Lol somehow this comment doesn’t surprise me coming from you
I’ve found his audiobook for the IFR oral to be great and very comprehensive. Not that it is his content, but I learn very well through listening and watching rather than reading, so it has been helpful.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Oh come now. You’re just secretly hoping to take up rotary wing flying. Admit it.
And the funny part is, Ron documented what FAA wanted to do to change the AIM and that thread is from 2009. Looks like they haven’t gotten around to it yet, but if they hurry they can get the proposed change into the AIM before a full decade has passed since he talked to his contact there.
LOL.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Oh come now. You’re just secretly hoping to take up rotary wing flying. Admit it.
And the funny part is, Ron documented what FAA wanted to do to change the AIM and that thread is from 2009. Looks like they haven’t gotten around to it yet, but if they hurry they can get the proposed change into the AIM before a full decade has passed since he talked to his contact there.
LOL.
Yeah I noticed that as well. 9 years ago and they still haven’t updated the AIM.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Exactly. No matter what you file, they will give you V66 to MZB.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
That’s great that you like his style, but he frequently puts out information that is wrong and then argues with Gold Seal instructors who call him on his BS.
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
For what it is worth this is the only training content I’ve ever used from him. It was a nice break from watching and listening to Martha King though lol
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well put.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
To, too, two, tutu. In IFR 'to' has a very specific meaning. It's not just a preposition or what ever. When preceded by the word 'cleared,' the word(s) following 'To' is your CLEARANCE LIMIT.
Last edited:
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm guessing they never cleared you to MZB. To SEE via MZB, yeah
Larry in TN
En-Route
Many of the answers are inconsistent with the guidance from the FAA on how to file IFR flight plans.
You aren't supposed to be filing a route only because that's what you want to fly. You are filing a route that gives you the structure to fall back on in the event of a communications or radar failure. You are filing a route that provides the ATC computers, and controllers, the information they need about your route when it extends well past the borders of their airspace.
Read the AIM--or at least reference the applicable AIM sections. Read Don Brown's Say Again? series on AvWeb. Find out how the system is supposed to work, not just what "works for me".
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Yeah it was usually something like "then MZB direct SEE" after following some victor airway. I've never actually flown all the way to MZB though, typically will start getting vectors to something like ASIXY or something else
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
Filing to an IAF has kinda fallen out of favor in the GPS and modern radar world.
Back when all the Nav was VOR | NDB and many airports were without radar service, it was standard procedure to file to an IAF or a VOR with a feeder route.
Today I just file to the airport.
CC268
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,532
- Display Name
Display name:
CC268
Gotcha thanks for the feedback
danhagan
En-Route
I fly VFR and don't worry about it...
Ha! Got THAT beat. I fly inverted near IMC to meet cloud clearance requirements
FlySince9
En-Route
Ha! Got THAT beat. I fly inverted near IMC to meet cloud clearance requirements
GROAN!
Steven Untet
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 125
- Display Name
Display name:
88Echo
On any flight plan I file the route as complete as possible as most of where I fly is out of radar coverage.
But direct answer to your question is that the flight plans end in either an airport or some sort of landing zone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But direct answer to your question is that the flight plans end in either an airport or some sort of landing zone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
John Collins
En-Route
The vast majority of the time, I just file to an airport. On a few occasions I will file to an IAF, for example when practicing at the departure airport, a round robin IFR flightplan needs to have at least one waypoint, so I pick the IAF of one of the approaches. The other time I will file to an IAF is when it shortens my actual route substantially rather than first going to the airport and being vectored, but most times the controller is going to clear me direct to the airport anyway when I get close.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
But why waste time and gas flying off course?
If you know you're going to be shooting XYZ approach seems silly to not file to the most effective route to said approach, seems it saves you time and also keeps ATC even more informed in the case of a 7600.
It's Section 2 of the Chart Supplement.
I remember being particularly unimpressed with this statement in the FAA's message to Cap'n Ron:
"You are correct, there is no way for a non-GPS equipped aircraft to navigate from the JFK VOR to KFRG." 
https://skyvector.com/?ll=40.72870056642626,-73.41339110665146&chart=301&zoom=4&fpl= KJFK JFK KFRG
At 17 NM, FRG is well within the service volume of JFK VOR/DME.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
“123AB cleared Xray Yankee Zebra Airport as filed, climb and maintain 6000 ft Podunk Approach 118.75 Squak 4321.
“If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.”
Your clearance limit is the XYZ airport, not the IAF you filed as part of your route. If you go 7600, the regulation says go to the clearance limit then commence the approach not commence the approach / descent when you cross the IAF if you filed one.
Last edited:
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I almost always file to an airport. Sometimes direct, sometimes via airways, fixes and other waypoints. I have filed to VOR’s and Fixes. That was when the weather was scuzzy at the departure airport and I intended to cancel when reaching VFR
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Oh come now. You’re just secretly hoping to take up rotary wing flying. Admit it.
And the funny part is, Ron documented what FAA wanted to do to change the AIM and that thread is from 2009. Looks like they haven’t gotten around to it yet, but if they hurry they can get the proposed change into the AIM before a full decade has passed since he talked to his contact there.
LOL.
That’s a Lonnggg thread. Can you give me the post#’s where that is?
@Clip4 answered the one about technical lost comm procedures*. And if not lost comm, there's nothing wrong with asking direct to an IAF while en route so you don't waste your time.
(*which the FAA Chief Counsel recently reaffirmed)
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Do you have a link to that?
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
Just the airport.
I've mentioned this before but I'll throw it out again here since it was brought up. The arrival strips at the TRACON (can't speak for center's) does not show your filed route. For example, you file to DuPage Airport (DPA) and based on the winds you assume ILS 2L will be in use. If you file JOT (IAF) then DPA, the controller will not see the IAF. As you approach the boundary of our airspace the center will "flash" you to us. On your data block on the scope we will see your callsign, altitude, type aircraft, speed and destination. When we click on the flashing target your strip will print at the position and will only show your destination airport (not the IAF you filed). I will then tell you what approach I'm vectoring you to and may give you vectors to final or direct an IAF/IF. In the DPA case, more likely you'll get direct Bomer and rarely get JOT unless you ask verbally.
I personally don't file IAF's because it probably won't be seen by the arrival controller. If you want to increase your chance of the arrival controller seeing the IAF you want, your best option is to put it in the remarks as that will print on the arrival controllers strip. I usually just verbalize it when talking to the arrival controller if I have a request.
If anyone cares to see a bit about what the controllers are looking at, you can watch this video I made starting at 12:40. This shows a departure strip which does include everything you file and what remarks looks like. On an arrival strip, all fixes filed are gone and the arrival airport is displayed only but the remarks still looks the same.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah airport, always have. Even at the airline I flew at the flight plans did not include IAFs. But file what ya want. Radar's explanation shows you what the approach controller has on the strip and you'll be vectored for whatever approach is in use unless you request a different approach.
Disclaimer: I only watched Radar's video for the future Mrs thar....
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
If my Clearance Limit was an Airport, when I got to it I would get off the Runway and find parking, call ATC and let them know I was down unless I knew they already knew, like at a towered airport. Then I’d start trying to figure out what was wrong with my radios and get it fixed before ‘leaving’
Last edited:
Sure. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...18/van west - (2018) legal interpretation.pdf
It's one of a few opinions I talk about in an upcoming IFR Magazine article.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
This whole controversy is for lack of proper wording. 91.185 (3) is about getting ‘cleared short.’ Always has been. The intent of, and how (ii) should have been worded is ‘when the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach does not begin’
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
The reg made perfect sense in 29 years ago (1989) when it was written and the reg makes perfect sense today. Just an ETE that will have expired by the time you arrive, fly to the airport, go to the approach of your choice and land. I don’t understand why people have so much problem with this.
It makes sense to file to a VOR or intersection when you intend to cancel (due to it being VFR). I filed from Gary Indiana to Des Moines and got my clearance the ATC guy asked me if I was going to land at Des Moines. I said no, Ill cancel before I get there. He said I should file to the VOR. So he changed my clearance to the VOR. Like so Des Moines doesnt have to worry about some small plane landing at their big airport or something. He said "Why did you file to Des Moines?" I said "I figured you'd know where that is". He said "We know where the VOR is too". Big deal right?
BTW, this used to be true, sometimes ATC doesn't have ALL intersections. They can find them but its extra work. I tried to file from the nearest intersection when picking up a clearance in the air (deteriorating weather) and the guy said he didnt know where that one was, just tell him where I am in relationship to closest airport or VOR. Not sure if thats still true or not, maybe they have them all at their fingertips now.
BTW, this used to be true, sometimes ATC doesn't have ALL intersections. They can find them but its extra work. I tried to file from the nearest intersection when picking up a clearance in the air (deteriorating weather) and the guy said he didnt know where that one was, just tell him where I am in relationship to closest airport or VOR. Not sure if thats still true or not, maybe they have them all at their fingertips now.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Exactly. In fact, the most recent letter which Ms Peters affirms was addressed to me in response to three questions I posed, not to the Chief Counsel, to the Air Traffic Organization. My questions were all about amendment 91-189 and how it meant to change lost communications procedures. Specifically, the title of 91.185(c)(3) was changed from "Leave Holding Fix" to "Leave Clearance Limit", the former being approved holding airspace and the latter almost always just an airport. The answer given me was:
"In your email, you asked whether Amendment 91-189, which affected 14 C.F.R. 91.185(c)(3), had the practical effect of moving the holding area from an approved fix to the clearance limit for an IFR flight. The answer is no. Amendment 91-189 replaced the title of section 91.185(c)(3), "Leave Holding Fix", with the title "Leave Clearance Limit"."
So there's no reason to read further in their letter because "Clearance Limit", today means the same thing as "Holding Fix" meant yesteryear. The rest of what the Chief Counsel wrote me is gibberish, not at all responsive to my questions--which is something I've observed with letters of interpretation. They don't reveal the actual questions asked, verbatim, they make up answers to their own.
Amendment 91-189 also deleted the paragraph requiring holding until ETA before beginning descent. The title was "Descent". Long gone from 91.185 today. No need to delay descent until ETA as before except when holding has been specifically given. That makes perfect logical sense and is what controllers hope a pilot will do when you ask them.
I have a tutorial on my experience in this process. The bibliography is a good source of historical background, including Exam-O-Grams which were made obsolete by amendment 91-189: http://www.avclicks.com/lost_comm/Lost_comm2/index.html
Dave Tuuri
I'm glad to see that the FAA has started redacting people's addresses on their interpretation letters.
It has been around and commented on for long enough to make the idea it was intended to be something different a bit questionable. Do you have an FAA reference describing what was really meant.
I generally agree with the "get out if their hair" philosophy. But even that assumes the lack of communication is your airplane and not something systemic which effectively prevents ATC from following you and getting everyone else out of your way. I think the predictability of 91.185 course, altitude, and timing is intended to address that. And, as the AIM discusses, not every scenario fits the mold and pilots are expected to exercise their best judgment, including exercising emergency authority.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
There was a Counsel letter that made it clear, don’t remember which one. Probably the response to dturri’s. But it didn’t say exactly what I said. I can’t prove it. What I can prove is that an Airport is on the ground, not some point in space above it to hold at or be treated as an Approach Fix