Pop-up vs. airborne pickups

[azure]

Nope, I've never picked up or popped up in the air unless I could maintain VFR for a while. I did once ask for an airborne pickup and told them I could not maintain traffic separation on the way up. They said hold on and came back with the clearance.

Have you ever had that experience up here in VT or even northern NH? I really can't imagine it happening here.

But yes, as I said, I would NOT request an airborne pickup if I didn't have outs. I can always stay VFR, but I may not be able to go where I intended. Usually they do not even ask whether you can maintain separation (did you mean traffic, or terrain?), and if they do, it still won't get you an immediately effective clearance regardless of what you answer.

If I need to be IFR before reaching the MIA, I have to get my clearance on the ground. That's been pretty much an absolute ever since I moved here.

You do this if you're departing IFR from the ground.

Not sure what you mean. If you're departing IFR from the ground, it's not an airborne pickup.

I think in twelve years of instrument flight, I've only been told to go to FSS to file once when requesting a pop up. Both times I came back and picked it up in the air. Usually, I'm already getting flight following and I say "Can I get IFR at 6000" and a few seconds later comes back CLEARED TO DESTINATION VIA DIRECT MAINTAIN 6000.

When I was doing an IPC a couple of months ago, we tried to get a "pop-up on the ground", i.e. a clearance from ZBW before departing, but without filing. We were told to go to FSS. I imagine the same thing would have happened if we'd been airborne.

I don't really know what it is with ZBW, I hope it's a management issue that will change someday, but for now, I've learned not to even try to pick up a clearance in the air unless i can reach 5400 feet under VFR.

 

[Clip4]

The question implies an IFR clearance is actually issued in each case.

The point is while the workload imposed on the controller may differ in an airborne pickup of an already filed IFR flight plan v. a pop-up, the treatment received by the pilot is the same.

Shall I link an ATC video where a controller tells a pilot requesting a pop up He is unable and to land and file?

 

[Velocity173]

Shall I link an ATC video where a controller tells a pilot requesting a pop up He is unable and to land and file?

Well sure, you call up for an IFR with nothing on file, the controller might very well tell you to file with FSS. Just like calling up for FF and the controller doesn't want to deal with you, they might deny the service. Both aren't the norm though

Doesn't change the fact that both an airborne and a pop up are treated the same as far as the rules for issuing the clearance. And in either case, the pilot shouldn't be getting a clearance, then told to maintain VFR until reaching their MIA. That is a misunderstanding of the order. Doesn't surprise me though because I've read forums where controllers have stated they wouldn't issue a clearance below the MIA while conditions are IMC.

 

[roncachamp]

This thread has been interesting for me. I've been through the Void Clearance, received via telephone with the props spinning. I've been en-route and when the reported weather switched from VFR to MVFR we got a pop-up as a precaution (good decision in retrospect). Have not done an airborne pickup for IFR.

For those at non-towered airports: On a CAVU day, do you phone for the Void or pickup in the air? Or is that area dependent?

Another possibility, direct pilot-controller radio communications is available on the ground at a fair number of non-towered airports. Ask ATC about it on the way in.

And for the controllers: Preference?

Never mattered to me.

 

[azure]

Another possibility, direct pilot-controller radio communications is available on the ground at a fair number of non-towered airports. Ask ATC about it on the way in.

Yes indeed, including at my home base KMPV - thankfully, as it makes the no airborne pickup below the MIA thing much less of an issue.

It would be nice if that information were in the A/FD. If there is an ATC frequency listed for clearance delivery (e.g. at KLCI), that's a dead giveaway of course. But many times (including at KMPV) there is no listed frequency for clnc and yet you can still get your clearance from ATC on the ground. Something like "for clnc dlv ctc Boston Center on 135.7" would do the trick.

 

[roncachamp]

Personally I am not sure what to expect in the issuance of a pop-up clearance because I have very little experience asking for that type of clearance. I have much more experience with trying to pick up an IFR airborne, and that's one reason I made the distinction. The other is that you said that a pilot who is asked whether they can maintain their own terrain/obstruction clearance is normally a pop-up and therefore presumably can NOT continue VFR and really needs to have a means of navigating to avoid obstructions. My experience, with airborne pickups, is different. I don't do that unless I have outs, so I can always continue VFR, but I may not be able to continue VFR to my intended altitude, and depending on where I am and my direction of flight, I may or may not be able to maintain my own terrain and obstruction clearance from some random point in space if I'm cleared into IMC.

This is what I said; "In my experience, pilots request IFR popups because they don't think they'll be able to continue under VFR."

In practice, here in ZBW airspace, it's all moot because I'm pretty much guaranteed NOT to get an IFR clearance that's effective below the MIA unless I pick it up on the ground. Doesn't matter whether I can maintain my own terrain/obstruction clearance or not. If they do ask that question and I answer yes, I'll get a clearance "upon reaching...", but that won't get me into the clouds below the MIA. More often they'll refuse to issue the clearance until I'm at or above the MIA. So it's mostly irrelevant whether I can navigate a route to clear the rocks without seeing them; I can't get a clearance that would legally allow me to do that, in a situation in which I would be asked that question.

The requirement to ask if the pilot can maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance while climbing to the minimum IFR altitude applies only when the pilot informs the controller, or the controller is otherwise aware, that the pilot is unable to climb in VFR conditions. A controller who issues an IFR clearance in that situation with a restriction to maintain VFR is just flat out stupid.

I assume that would apply equally well to an airborne pickup or a pop-up, but again, I don't do pop-ups as a rule so I don't really know.

Here's the note that follows subparagraph 4-2-8.d.1.:

NOTE−
Pilots of pop−up aircraft are responsible for terrain and
obstacle clearance until reaching minimum instrument
altitude (MIA) or minimum en route altitude (MEA). Pilot
compliance with an approved FAA procedure or an ATC
instruction transfers that responsibility to the FAA;
therefore, do not assign (or imply) specific course guidance
that will (or could) be in effect below the MIA or MEA.

The note is correct but a bit misleading. Whether a pop-up or airborne pickup of an already filed IFR flight plan the pilot's responsibility for terrain and obstacle clearance is the same. Even when picking up an IFR clearance from the ground, the pilot is responsible for terrain and obstacle clearance unless ATC has issued a SID, DP, or vector.

 

[roncachamp]

Before Steven or someone else jumps on me, let me correct something I said, that I can't get a clearance that's effective below the MIA. That's true on airborne pickups on departure. Of course if I'm cleared lower than the MIA to begin an approach, or cleared for the approach, the clearance doesn't vanish just because I descend below the MIA.

How do you get cleared lower than the MIA without being cleared for the approach?

 

[roncachamp]

Nope, I've never picked up or popped up in the air unless I could maintain VFR for a while. I did once ask for an airborne pickup and told them I could not maintain traffic separation on the way up. They said hold on and came back with the clearance. You do this if you're departing IFR from the ground.

Please expand on that. Why would you be expected to maintain traffic separation?

A few years back we were arriving Oshkosh the Wednesday before the show (before the NOTAM was in effect). I'd just cleared the Chicago airspace and was getting flight following from MKE approach. I check the weather ahead and it doesn't look VFR.

27K: It looks like OSH is IFR can I get a clearance from you or do I have to go to FSS to file.
MKE: (sigh - yes he literally sighs over the air like "it's starting already") Are you rated and equipped?
27K: Affirmative
MKE: Cleared Direct to Oshksoh MAINTAN 4000 expect the VOR 9 approach.
27K: How about the RNAV 9?
MKE: OK expect that.

After that it was pretty mundane. First time I've busted out of the clouds looking at the show...

Inserting likely thoughts...

27K: It looks like OSH is IFR can I get a clearance from you or do I have to go to FSS to file.
MKE: (sigh - yes he literally sighs over the air like "it's starting already") Are you rated and equipped?
27K: (Of course I'm rated and equipped, I wouldn't request a fookin' IFR clearance if I wasn't rated and equipped.) Affirmative
MKE: Cleared Direct to Oshksoh MAINTAN 4000 expect the VOR 9 approach.
27K: How about the RNAV 9?
MKE: OK expect that.

 

[roncachamp]

Shall I link an ATC video where a controller tells a pilot requesting a pop up He is unable and to land and file?

If you'd like, but why ask me? You don't need my permission, America is still a semi-free country.

 

[azure]

The requirement to ask if the pilot can maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance while climbing to the minimum IFR altitude applies only when the pilot informs the controller, or the controller is otherwise aware, that the pilot is unable to climb in VFR conditions. A controller who issues an IFR clearance in that situation with a restriction to maintain VFR is just flat out stupid.

They don't explicitly issue an IFR clearance with a restriction to remain VFR. I can't think of any situation where it would even make sense to do that. As I said, what they typically do is either REFUSE to issue an IFR clearance until I am above the MIA, or else issue a clearance that does not go into effect until reaching the MIA, and is therefore useless for climbing through the clouds up to cruise altitude. They do not usually ask whether I can maintain terrain/obstruction clearance - in fact, I've volunteered that I can do that in an attempt to get the clearance earlier, just for convenience (in VFR conditions), and it made no difference. But at times when they have asked that question, and I've answered yes, all I've gotten is an "upon reaching" clearance that in a couple of cases was useless, because I needed the IFR to GET to the MIA.

Pilots of pop−up aircraft are responsible for terrain and
obstacle clearance until reaching minimum instrument
altitude (MIA) or minimum en route altitude (MEA). Pilot
compliance with an approved FAA procedure or an ATC
instruction transfers that responsibility to the FAA;
therefore, do not assign (or imply) specific course guidance
that will (or could) be in effect below the MIA or MEA.

The note is correct but a bit misleading. Whether a pop-up or airborne pickup of an already filed IFR flight plan the pilot's responsibility for terrain and obstacle clearance is the same. Even when picking up an IFR clearance from the ground, the pilot is responsible for terrain and obstacle clearance unless ATC has issued a SID, DP, or vector.

Right. And the usual way (for me anyway, since I rarely fly out of places where there is a SID, and the MVA is usually well above any obstructions) would be to fly the DP. The places where this would really be a sticky issue are VFR-only fields like 2B3 that don't have a DP, where there is rapidly rising terrain to the north. Getting out of there in low IFR conditions would require a void-time clearance relayed from FSS and there is no DP or other approved procedure for avoiding terrain. Unless there is a way to do this that I'm not aware of, I'd consider fields like that places to stay on the ground when visual terrain avoidance isn't possible.

 

[azure]

How do you get cleared lower than the MIA without being cleared for the approach?

I've been told to descend to 5000 (MIA is 5400) and maintain that altitude until reaching a fix on the approach, and then given the approach clearance. Maybe that's the same thing, but they do explicitly give me the altitude.

 

[azure]

Right. And the usual way (for me anyway, since I rarely fly out of places where there is a SID, and the MVA is usually well above any obstructions) would be to fly the DP. The places where this would really be a sticky issue are VFR-only fields like 2B3 that don't have a DP, where there is rapidly rising terrain to the north. Getting out of there in low IFR conditions would require a void-time clearance relayed from FSS and there is no DP or other approved procedure for avoiding terrain. Unless there is a way to do this that I'm not aware of, I'd consider fields like that places to stay on the ground when visual terrain avoidance isn't possible.

Well I take it back regarding 2B3, I see there is an RNAV-A there now and a DP. That's good to see. Anyway substitute 8B3 or any one of the other VFR-only fields in the area with significant terrain issues.

 

[roncachamp]

They don't explicitly issue an IFR clearance with a restriction to remain VFR. I can't think of any situation where it would even make sense to do that. As I said, what they typically do is either REFUSE to issue an IFR clearance until I am above the MIA, or else issue a clearance that does not go into effect until reaching the MIA, and is therefore useless for climbing through the clouds up to cruise altitude. They do not usually ask whether I can maintain terrain/obstruction clearance - in fact, I've volunteered that I can do that in an attempt to get the clearance earlier, just for convenience (in VFR conditions), and it made no difference. But at times when they have asked that question, and I've answered yes, all I've gotten is an "upon reaching" clearance that in a couple of cases was useless, because I needed the IFR to GET to the MIA.

There are those that do.

 

[roncachamp]

I've been told to descend to 5000 (MIA is 5400) and maintain that altitude until reaching a fix on the approach, and then given the approach clearance. Maybe that's the same thing, but they do explicitly give me the altitude.

Sounds like you're referring to an IAP segment with a minimum altitude above the MVA/MIA.

 

[azure]

There are those that do.

I don't doubt it - but I was talking about the ZBW controllers working northern New England.

 

[azure]

Sounds like you're referring to an IAP segment with a minimum altitude above the MVA/MIA.

Yes, an IAP segment, but below the MIA not above.

 

[roncachamp]

I don't doubt it - but I was talking about the ZBW controllers working northern New England.

I was speaking in general.

 

[roncachamp]

Yes, an IAP segment, but below the MIA not above.

Where? How do you know what the MIA is?

 

[Shawn]

They don't explicitly issue an IFR clearance with a restriction to remain VFR. I can't think of any situation where it would even make sense to do that.

I get that all the time on pop ups which are quite common to get down through a marine layer that is commonplace at my home drone....will be something like "maintain VFR direct RISPE at or above 3000'"...while you are correct it is not truly an IFR clearance until "Cleared to the XXX airport..." we get vectors and sequencing to the approach all the time while VFR and often will get the actual clearance in conjunction with the approach clearance...VFR instructions as part of the IFR pop up process in getting the clearance are very common in my parts.

 

[azure]

Where? How do you know what the MIA is?

On the RNAV 35 approach into KMPV, between LEB and XIMKY. I've been told by ZBW controllers (I asked them) that the MIA is 5400 in this sector. Admittedly, I'm not sure exactly where the sector boundary is.

 

[azure]

I get the all the time on pop ups which are quite common to get down through a marine layer that is commonplace at my home drone....will be something like "maintain VFR direct RISPE at or above 3000'"...while you are correct it is not truly an IFR clearance until "Cleared to the XXX airport..." we get vectors and sequencing to the approach all the time VFR while and often will get the actual clearance in conjunction with the approach clearance...VFR instructions as part of the IFR pop up process in getting the clearance are very common in my parts.

Interesting, I've never heard of that before. Thanks.

 

[roncachamp]

I get the all the time on pop ups which are quite common to get down through a marine layer that is commonplace at my home drone....will be something like "maintain VFR direct RISPE at or above 3000'"...while you are correct it is not truly an IFR clearance until "Cleared to the XXX airport..."

It's not even slightly an IFR clearance until a clearance limit, route, and altitude are assigned.

we get vectors and sequencing to the approach all the time VFR while and often will get the actual clearance in conjunction with the approach clearance...

Where radar and communications coverage permit, procedures are often established to provide IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches. A clearance limit is not assigned and aircraft are instructed to maintain VFR. An altitude is not assigned but an altitude restriction may be. Separation begins when the approach clearance is issued, altitude separation is 500 feet.

VFR instructions as part of the IFR pop up process in getting the clearance are very common in my parts.

It may be common but it's wrong.

 

[roncachamp]

On the RNAV 35 approach into KMPV, between LEB and XIMKY. I've been told by ZBW controllers (I asked them) that the MIA is 5400 in this sector. Admittedly, I'm not sure exactly where the sector boundary is.

LEB to XIMKY is a segment of the approach, LEB is an IAF, the minimum altitude is 5000. You don't need to be told descend to 5000 and maintain that altitude until reaching a fix on the approach, you're on a published route, all you need is approach clearance.

 

[Shawn]

It's not even slightly an IFR clearance until a clearance limit, route, and altitude are assigned.

Where radar and communications coverage permit, procedures are often established to provide IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches. A clearance limit is not assigned and aircraft are instructed to maintain VFR. An altitude is not assigned but an altitude restriction may be. Separation begins when the approach clearance is issued, altitude separation is 500 feet.

It may be common but it's wrong.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem...as I said you are indeed not IFR until that actual clearance limit is given which often in my case does not happen when requesting a Pop Up to get down through the marine layer until you also get the approach clearance, but there is absolutely nothing wrong or incorrect with ATC vectoring a VFR pilot to an expected approach while they work on getting the IFR clearance sussed out and issued.

Nothing prevents ATC from vectoring a VFR aircraft to an approach...that happens day in and day out on VFR practice approaches everywhere in the country. In my scenario you just need to receive that clearance limit before entering IMC and receiving the separation that being IFR affords.

When we have multiple arrivals into my uncontrolled field when it is IMC and we are all stuck on top, NorCal will often sequence us all while VFR so they can issue the clearances and provide the spacing they need to do that as efficiently as possible. They will not issue the final clearance to each aircraft until the separation can be assured, but we are sure being lined up as if we were all IFR...yet we are still VFR. Heck, I have even had them vector me to the IAF and start the approach VFR not yet having received the IFR clearance cuz the jackwaggon that went in front of me is taking his sweet time canceling from the ground.

While it is correct to say that IFR aircraft will not/should not receive VFR instructions...it is indeed commonplace and correct to receive instructions while still VFR and going through the process of getting a pop up IFR clearance issued.

 

[roncachamp]

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem...as I said you are not IFR until that actual clearance limit is given which often in my case does not happen when requesting a Pop Up to get down through the marine layer until you also get the approach clearance, but...

My reading comprehension is fine, your writing skills are deficient. You wrote, "while you are correct it is not truly an IFR clearance until 'Cleared to the XXX airport...', implying it's somewhat of an IFR clearance before all the elements of an IFR clearance are issued.

...there is absolutely nothing wrong or incorrect with ATC vectoring a VFR pilot to an expected approach while they work on getting the IFR clearance sussed out and issued.

No, not if that VFR pilot maintains VFR visibility and cloud clearance requirements while descending through that layer.

Nothing prevents ATC from vectoring a VFR aircraft to an approach...

Actually, a couple of things can prevent it. Vectoring an aircraft requires direct pilot-controller radio communications and radar coverage at the altitudes to be vectored. Lacking either one means no vectoring of any aircraft, IFR or VFR, approach or enroute.

that happens day in and day out on VFR practice approaches everywhere in the country. In my scenario you just need to receive that clearance limit before entering IMC.

Dude, you cannot enter IMC while doing VFR practice approaches.

 

[Shawn]

I'm sorry, you are right...you don't have a reading comprehension problem...you have a context comprehension problem.

You must be a hoot at parties...

 

[azure]

LEB to XIMKY is a segment of the approach, LEB is an IAF, the minimum altitude is 5000. You don't need to be told descend to 5000 and maintain that altitude until reaching a fix on the approach, you're on a published route, all you need is approach clearance.

Right, given an approach clearance, you can descend to 5000. Without an approach clearance, you need to be cleared down explicitly. That is what ZBW (sometimes) does.

Not sure why you're pressing this point.

 

[roncachamp]

I'm sorry, you are right...you don't have a reading comprehension problem...you have a context comprehension problem.

Please identify, explicitly, what you feel I took out of context and explain why you feel that way.

If you can.

 

[Shawn]

Please identify, explicitly, what you feel I took out of context and explain why you feel that way.

If you can.

That is simple...see the last line of my original post in the this thread:

VFR instructions as part of the IFR pop up process in getting the clearance are very common in my parts.

Note I said part of the "process" in actually obtaining a pop up clearance, not park of the actual clearance. You glossed over that nuance in the scenario we are discussing in your attempt to disprove the real world actual examples I gave because they do not fit into every possible scenario and situation that exists in the world like radar coverage.

No s#!t VFR practice approach aircraft can not enter IMC...if that is what you thought I was implying in my example then you do indeed have a reading and context comprehension problem. The context was ATC vectoring of VFR aircraft to an approach before receiving their IFR clearance...which for some reason you continue to assert is "wrong".

 

[roncachamp]

Right, given an approach clearance, you can descend to 5000. Without an approach clearance, you need to be cleared down explicitly. That is what ZBW (sometimes) does.

In message #51 you wrote; "I've been told to descend to 5000 (MIA is 5400) and maintain that altitude until reaching a fix on the approach, and then given the approach clearance. Maybe that's the same thing, but they do explicitly give me the altitude." The MIA is irrelevant when on a published route like an airway or approach segment. Stating the MIA, and that you were to maintain an altitude until reaching a fix, implied you were not on a published route. Not being on a published route and assigned an altitude lower than the MIA was a red flag.

In message #60 you wrote; "On the RNAV 35 approach into KMPV, between LEB and XIMKY. I've been told by ZBW controllers (I asked them) that the MIA is 5400 in this sector. Admittedly, I'm not sure exactly where the sector boundary is." So you were on a published route and the question about the MIA was just casual conversation as it had no effect on your operation.

 

[roncachamp]

Note I said part of the "process" in actually obtaining a pop up clearance, not park of the actual clearance. You glossed over that nuance in the scenario we are discussing in your attempt to disprove the real world actual examples I gave because they do not fit into every possible scenario and situation that exists in the world like radar coverage.

VFR instructions are not part of the IFR pop-up process.

No s#!t VFR practice approach aircraft can not enter IMC...if that is what you thought I was implying in my example then you do indeed have a reading and context comprehension problem. The context was ATC vectoring of VFR aircraft to an approach before receiving their IFR clearance...which for some reason you continue to assert is "wrong".

You wrote; "that happens day in and day out on VFR practice approaches everywhere in the country. In my scenario you just need to receive that clearance limit before entering IMC."

VFR practice approaches do not include a clearance limit and do not permit entering IMC.

 

[Shawn]

Thank you for confirming your comprehension problems.

 

[azure]

In message #51 you wrote; "I've been told to descend to 5000 (MIA is 5400) and maintain that altitude until reaching a fix on the approach, and then given the approach clearance. Maybe that's the same thing, but they do explicitly give me the altitude." The MIA is irrelevant when on a published route like an airway or approach segment. Stating the MIA, and that you were to maintain an altitude until reaching a fix, implied you were not on a published route.

I'm not following your logic. I have indeed been given an altitude to maintain until reaching a fix, even when on a published route. I'm not sure what "stating the MIA" has to do with anything.

I can accept, though, that the altitude being below the MIA wasn't anything unusual because I was on a published route.

In message #60 you wrote; "On the RNAV 35 approach into KMPV, between LEB and XIMKY. I've been told by ZBW controllers (I asked them) that the MIA is 5400 in this sector. Admittedly, I'm not sure exactly where the sector boundary is." So you were on a published route and the question about the MIA was just casual conversation as it had no effect on your operation.

The exchange about the MIA was at a different time, in the same general area (between MPV and LEB).

 

[wsuffa]

I've done both.

I've used the pop-up to get below a cloud deck or marine layer that was unexpected. Probably 3 or 4 times I was told to go to FSS to file, usually when the controller was too busy to take the flight plan info (longer flight). Once when either FSS or Potomac lost my flight plan into the SFRA, leaving me circling somewhere southeast of Stafford until it was filed.

Airborne pickups I did regularly off of uncontrolled fields, especially where I would be talking to Center and there was no RCO on the field. In pre-cellphone days it was more common. More than once I got the clearance on the ground up picked up the release in the air after departing VFR (uncontrolled airport with inbound IFR). Typical issuance would be to get a squawk code and "maintain VFR" - once identified, and there was a real in the action, I'd get the full clearance. That was more common in the Midwest, Great Plains, and down toward Texas. With Potomac it's hit or miss - sometimes you'll get it right away, sometimes there might be a 5-10 minute delay depending on sector. Obviously with the SFRA it was a different matter.

 

[roncachamp]

I'm not following your logic. I have indeed been given an altitude to maintain until reaching a fix, even when on a published route.

So what were you to do when you reached that fix?

I'm not sure what "stating the MIA" has to do with anything.

Stating the MIA implied you were not on a published route.

 

[azure]

So what were you to do when you reached that fix?

Descend to 4000 feet, as charted.

The sequence, as I recall it, was:

ZBW: Nxx8JT, descend and maintain 5000.
<exchanges with other aircraft, then a couple of minutes later...>
ZBW: Nxx8JT, maintain 5000 until XIMKY, cleared for the RNAV 35 approach.

Stating the MIA implied you were not on a published route.

Apparently it implied that to you, but as I said, I was indeed on a published route.

 

[roncachamp]

Descend to 4000 feet, as charted.

The sequence, as I recall it, was:

ZBW: Nxx8JT, descend and maintain 5000.
<exchanges with other aircraft, then a couple of minutes later...>
ZBW: Nxx8JT, maintain 5000 until XIMKY, cleared for the RNAV 35 approach.

The second one could have been just "Nxx8JT cleared RNAY runway 35 approach".

Apparently it implied that to you, but as I said, I was indeed on a published route.

It would imply it to everyone with a complete understanding of these procedures, you did not say you were on a published route when you were issued an altitude below the MIA.