IFR vs VFR operational priority

[Termine]

I've heard multiple people (including my sup on my radar checkout) mention that "IFR has priority over VFR." I usually call them out on it, referencing the Note at 2–1–4:

It is solely the pilot's prerogative to cancel an IFR flight plan. However, a pilot's retention of an IFR flight plan does not afford priority over VFR aircraft. For example, this does not preclude the requirement for the pilot of an arriving IFR aircraft to adjust his/her flight path, as necessary, to enter a traffic pattern in sequence with arriving VFR aircraft.

(IFR aircraft do have priority over special VFR aircraft, but not regular VFR.)

I have occasionally gotten responses to the effect of "that's not how I was trained" or "that must have been a recent change" so I went digging on the FAA website. The oldest version of the .65 that's actually available to view is the 7110.65L [22 MB PDF warning], effective 02/26/1998, and that same exact wording is right there.

So I'm curious: How were you trained? Do any of our more venerable members (N90-EWR perhaps) happen to have access to a version of the .65 from earlier than 1998, and is the Note there too?

 

[MJ]

"that must have been a recent change"

I'm going to submit a request that this be added to the P/CG since its pretty standard phraseology for "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about but even in the face of evidence I'm not going to admit I'm wrong."

That said, I do vaguely remember something to the effect you're referencing. Are the people who are telling you this prior military by chance? Because I'm thinking that's where it comes from, where the local regs often have things like this.

 

[GulfCharlie]

I'm going to submit a request that this be added to the P/CG since its pretty standard phraseology for "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about but even in the face of evidence I'm not going to admit I'm wrong."

That said, I do vaguely remember something to the effect you're referencing. Are the people who are telling you this prior military by chance? Because I'm thinking that's where it comes from, where the local regs often have things like this.

“I refuse to work approach, change the rotation!” *changes the rotation and watches the person walk out the TRACON*

 

[Termine]

Are the people who are telling you this prior military by chance?

Some of them, yes.

 

[32andBelow]

From a center perspective if we give someone on an IFR approach there might be more people coming in behind them so you can’t exactly just have number 1 start doing laps to get some VFRs in. But we’ll coordinate when we are gonna do this with a class D tower

 

[MJ]

Here's some examples

4.9.1. All aircraft will be sequenced to provide an orderly flow of air traffic in accordance with FAAO 7110.65 and the following local priorities:
4.9.1.1. In-flight emergencies.
4.9.1.2. MEDEVAC/Air evacuation (when requested) ambulance.
4.9.1.3. Actual air defense/Scramble/Airborne Order Launches/NAOC ops. Note: Actual/Practice scramble aircraft are required to be airborne no earlier than 5 minutes prior to proposed departure time and no later than the proposed departure time.
4.9.1.4. Rescue Coordination Center (RCC) directed launch or aircraft using the call sign “RESCUE”
4.9.1.5. OPEN SKIES aircraft.
4.9.1.6. Distinguished Visitor (DV) departures and arrivals.
4.9.1.7. Practice ABO/Scramble Launches.
4.9.1.8. RED FLAG recovery operations.
4.9.1.9. Departures with Controlled Takeoff (CTO) times. Note: Requests for a CTO shall be passed to ground control on initial contact or at least 10-minutes ahead of the CTO time. The ground controller should respond with a time check to ensure both parties are operating on the same timeline. Coordination requirements with Anchorage Approach require 10-minutes. If conditions preclude meeting a CTO, Twr will advise the aircraft of the length of expected delay. 4.9.1.10. RED FLAG launch operations.
4.9.1.11. Other military and commercial traffic supporting the military mission (full stop landings will receive priority over practice approaches).
4.9.1.12. General Aviation traffic (IFR or VFR). Note: Elmendorf Airfield is a military airfield. Normal circumstance provides military and commercial traffic supporting the military mission priority over all other traffic.

1. Emergency
2. Minimum Fuel
3. NORDO
4. Blue Streak
5. Instrument Approaches
6. Controlled Departure Times
7. Flight Examination (Check Rides)
8. T-38 Operations
9. Local Stereo Departures
10. All other Operations

I'm pretty sure that I've had ones that specified things like:
9. IFR departures/arrivals
10. VFR Departures/arrivals

 

[COWTOWN]

People probably just say IFR takes priority over VFR this because flight following is an additional service. Either way, first come first served unless one is way slower than the congo line, that applies VFR or IFR.

 

[TimShady]

It’s a common misconception and nothing more. It is very common though. IRF has priority over VFR practice approaches but that’s the only other time it’s referenced in the .65 that I can think of.

 

[Termine]

priority over VFR practice approaches

Everyone has priority over any practice approach, regardless of whether the practicing aircraft is IFR or VFR, except at military fields.

 

[Spoony90]

I vaguely remember there being something that said something like “clearance and control instructions for IFR A/C” then next in order was “clearance and control instructions for VFR A/C”

 

[Citation_Needed]

They may be conflating the interphone transmission priority which says that movement messages on VFR is last.

 

[Mike Kilo]

I was taught it’s more a matter of itinerant vs VFR over flight or pattern work. And usually the majority of VFR stuff isn’t itinerant so it gets ingrained in people that they are second priority.

 

[Homsar]

I was trained that way over many years at different facilities, but I can never find a source backing it up. Where it affects me most is usually IFRs on a visual approach being sequenced in with VFR arrivals to a runway; I try to part the VFR waters to allow the IFR to come in first because they’re typically something faster like a jet, but if it’s a IFR Cessna, they can typically just join the sequence and may need an extension or follow/base turn instructions.

I’ve seen people take this too far, though, and give IFR citations 360s and 7 mile extensions to follow three cherokees because they were too lazy to change a sequence, using the “well, they’re on a visual approach so they’re basically VFR to me” excuse. That attitude really grinds my gears.

 

[AB19]

Part of our job is orderly traffic flow, it’s that’s making the slow dude number 5 to make sure everyone else isn’t delayed well then that’s how it happens

 

[ebk2992]

The 7110 states it isn't supposed to be "so rigidly applied" so it's all situational

 

[N90-EWR]

I've heard multiple people (including my sup on my radar checkout) mention that "IFR has priority over VFR." I usually call them out on it, referencing the Note at 2–1–4:

(IFR aircraft do have priority over special VFR aircraft, but not regular VFR.)

I have occasionally gotten responses to the effect of "that's not how I was trained" or "that must have been a recent change" so I went digging on the FAA website. The oldest version of the .65 that's actually available to view is the 7110.65L [22 MB PDF warning], effective 02/26/1998, and that same exact wording is right there.

So I'm curious: How were you trained? Do any of our more venerable members (N90-EWR perhaps) happen to have access to a version of the .65 from earlier than 1998, and is the Note there too?

Sorry for the late reply. While I did keep my 7110.65J from 1991 for many, many years, it was lost in a move back in 2005. I did indeed hear that "IFR has priority over VFR" line from both my trainers and supervisor while I was in training, but I don't have any recollection of actually reading it in the .65.

 

[Atcbrownie]

4-8-11 is the only reference to IFR having priority over VFR. It is in regard to practice approaches.

 

[Bob44zw]

I studied your -65 equivalent in the 1970s. Back then it was nowhere near a 300 page document - but it was quite clear that IFR aircraft had no priority over VFR when conditions were VFR.

We recently had a pilot complain that a VFR aircraft was in his flight path - in Class E airspace! Tower said "call us on the telephone."

Serco controllers often forget the "first come, first-served" bit.

 

[HenryTheAce]

VFR’s aren’t even people…..

Trainer: “Why’d you tell tower to put that departure on a heading!?!?”

Trainee- “for that VFR off the departure end”

Trainer: “HE’S FUCKING VFR!!!! LOA!!! RUNWAY HEADING!”

Trainee- “shit you’re right… he’s not even real”

Trainee- “hey tower actually runway heading on XXX”

Center xxx out of 2,000 climbing 3,000 responding to an RA

 

[D-Dub]

I'm going to submit a request that this be added to the P/CG since its pretty standard phraseology for "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about but even in the face of evidence I'm not going to admit I'm wrong."

That said, I do vaguely remember something to the effect you're referencing. Are the people who are telling you this prior military by chance? Because I'm thinking that's where it comes from, where the local regs often have things like this.

It's almost like you've worked with military who've said you were dead wrong even while backing it up with regs... ??