vfr to ifr airfile

[buffalochickenqueefadilla]

Curious what the consensus is on vfr aircraft requesting airborne IFR flight plans.

We had a vfr pop up call today (weather is 10 and clr) and want an ifr for 300 miles out of my airspace. I said I couldn't at the time and it's been a hotly debated thing the last 4 hours.

I've got about 17 years in and it's never been questioned. The .65 mentions "airfile" and "vfr to ifr" only a couple times.

Under clearance items section there is limited guidance.


What do you guys/ gals do and why? Thanks for the wisdom.

 

[showtime]

That's correct that if you give them "direct" or a vector then that is specific course guidance.

Clearing them As Filed - that is NOT specific course guidance. They can turn on course any direction etc.

Exactly, so if there isn’t any filed flight plan prior to them requesting IFR, you need to ensure the pilot can maintain their own obstruction and terrain clearance until they are at a safe altitude.

 

[GroundClutter]

Exactly, so if there isn’t any filed flight plan prior to them requesting IFR, you need to ensure the pilot can maintain their own obstruction and terrain clearance until they are at a safe altitude.

They did just file a flight plan, with you. If the routing is good then "cleared to as filed." Hell they can request clearance to XYZ airport via direct ABC. No changes needed? Send it.

If you change the routing, give a direct or a vector then sure that's specific course guidance.

 

[showtime]

I work in sectors with mountainous terrain, it’s not that simple in my opinion. Pilot unfamiliar with terrain, wanting to pick up IFR while in the clouds and below MIA, it is unsafe to assume they are good. Best practice is to use the phraseology given… “Are you able to maintain your own terrain and obstruction…”

 

[Termine]

I said I couldn't at the time

Why did you say you couldn't? Were you going down the tubes and you didn't have time to deal with it nor the space to fit another IFR in your problem, or was it a knee-jerk "we don't do that here" sort of thing? The first is understandable and the second is not.

In general I have no problem issuing an "airfile" IFR clearance. Yeah the FDIO can be a pain in the ass if you don't get everything right the first time but we're here to provide a service.

 

[GroundClutter]

I work in sectors with mountainous terrain, it’s not that simple in my opinion. Pilot unfamiliar with terrain, wanting to pick up IFR while in the clouds and below MIA, it is unsafe to assume they are good. Best practice is to use the phraseology given… “Are you able to maintain your own terrain and obstruction…”

I'm a flatlander so I get the difference and why there's inherently more risk. I will say the onus is on the pilot to be familiar with the local terrain when requesting a Pop-Up per the AIM and .65 but we know how that goes. In your example if they're already in the clouds and wanting an IFR they already screwed up. But that circles around to the disclaimer "if you're aware or the pilot states they are unable to climb to the minimum altitude." You're now aware..

You'll never be wrong by using that phraseology and that's the difference from what you're doing and guy I originally responded to. You either give the terrain and obstruction avoidance phraseology or you say as filed. Going half way and saying you're cleared leaving XXX is sketch.

 

[32andBelow]

I'm a flatlander so I get the difference and why there's inherently more risk. I will say the onus is on the pilot to be familiar with the local terrain when requesting a Pop-Up per the AIM and .65 but we know how that goes. In your example if they're already in the clouds and wanting an IFR they already screwed up. But that circles around to the disclaimer "if you're aware or the pilot states they are unable to climb to the minimum altitude." You're now aware..

You'll never be wrong by using that phraseology and that's the difference from what you're doing and guy I originally responded to. You either give the terrain and obstruction avoidance phraseology or you say as filed. Going half way and saying you're cleared leaving XXX is sketch.

It’s engrained at a mountainous facility that you will ask about terrain and obstruction

 

[KP-ATC]

Ice always just said "leaving (insert mva here) cleared to blank via direct maintain etc.".
But. I've heard so many people argue about this it's stupid. I understand both sides but were here to provide a service. On the other side. It's so fucking simple for them to file a ifr flight plan via foreflight.

It isn't possible while in the air to file via an app - you need a data connection to do that.

 

[TushingPin]

It isn't possible while in the air to file via an app - you need a data connection to do that.

Depending what sectors were talking about here. 10,000 agl? Sure. Less than that? They have a chance to have signal. (Just using a wag at the numbers, someone with more knowledge could probably give a more finite number.)

You realize how ridiculous this is right? A bunch of people at my facility do it this way.

Example: MIA is 25 in his area so clear him but predicate his clearance on him climbing above the MIA. So what is he now, still VFR and not IFR until leaving 2500? Okay, now there's a a layer at 2300 you want him to just punch through while "VFR" wink wink?

It's dumb. Just clear the guy.

"If the pilot tells you or you become aware that they cannot maintain vfr to an appropriate altitude" then give the maintain you're own obstruction clearance spiel THEN clear him.

Or.... he can say unable. Sounds wild I know.

I hate the argument that pilots can't make decisions on their own. Leaving xx cleared to blank. "Unable". Alright then. Can you maintain your own obstruction clearance through xx? "Unable". Now I have to figure out how to genuinely help this guy. It's the same method of getting there. One way. You hand hold them, and the other, you give them the option to tell you no. The entire section you're referring to is if a vfr aircraft is experience difficulty in weather. I would venture to say that in my 13 years of ATC, I've had 3 clearance with aircraft with that. And atleast 500 others that were doing it for either routing purposes, or practice purposes or something along the lines of that.

 

[GroundClutter]

Or.... he can say unable. Sounds wild I know.

I hate the argument that pilots can't make decisions on their own. Leaving xx cleared to blank. "Unable". Alright then. Can you maintain your own obstruction clearance through xx? "Unable". Now I have to figure out how to genuinely help this guy. It's the same method of getting there. One way. You hand hold them, and the other, you give them the option to tell you no. The entire section you're referring to is if a vfr aircraft is experience difficulty in weather. I would venture to say that in my 13 years of ATC, I've had 3 clearance with aircraft with that. And atleast 500 others that were doing it for either routing purposes, or practice purposes or something along the lines of that.

I wouldn't consider using a method in the book versus something you won't find handholding. The appropriate section to read isn't VFR Aircraft in Weather Difficulty.

4-2-8

d.
When VFR aircraft operating below the minimum altitude for IFR operations requests an IFR clearance and the pilot informs you, or you are aware, that they are unable to climb in VFR conditions to the minimum IFR altitude:

1.
Before issuing a clearance, ask if the pilot is able to maintain terrain and obstruction clearance during a climb to the minimum IFR altitude.

PHRASEOLOGY
(Aircraft call sign), ARE YOU ABLE TO MAINTAIN YOUR OWN TERRAIN AND OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE UNTIL REACHING (appropriate MVA/MIA/MEA/OROCA)

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.


Emphasis mine.

 

[Spoony90]

Ice always just said "leaving (insert mva here) cleared to blank via direct maintain etc.".
But. I've heard so many people argue about this it's stupid. I understand both sides but were here to provide a service. On the other side. It's so fucking simple for them to file a ifr flight plan via foreflight.

This right here. The ones that kinda bother me are the ones that fly up for an approach and don’t file back

 

[TushingPin]

When VFR aircraft operating below the minimum altitude for IFR operations requests an IFR clearance and the pilot informs you, or you are aware, that they are unable to climb in VFR conditions to the minimum IFR altitude:

So when the aircraft calls me up and I tell them leaving an altitude it now puts the responbility on the aircraft. Not myself. Because I'm not aware of what the weather is like at their altitude. Furthermore I'm not issuing course guidance until above the MVA.

Similarly. When working in the tower if you say #2 following the traffic on final, I'm not going to tell them to maintain some sort of separation with them, I'm going to tell them #2 cleared to land. Because the AIM and the .65 state that pilots aren't going to run into another airplane. I'd imagine they also say they won't run into a mountain.

Now if a pilot calls me and tells me they're in the soup, then sure. I'll go with what the book says. But if they're not telling me they can't maintain vfr in some capacity. I'm not going to ask them shit if they can activate an ifr clearance above my MVA.

 

[GroundClutter]

So when the aircraft calls me up and I tell them leaving an altitude it now puts the responbility on the aircraft. Not myself. Because I'm not aware of what the weather is like at their altitude. Furthermore I'm not issuing course guidance until above the MVA.

Similarly. When working in the tower if you say #2 following the traffic on final, I'm not going to tell them to maintain some sort of separation with them, I'm going to tell them #2 cleared to land. Because the AIM and the .65 state that pilots aren't going to run into another airplane. I'd imagine they also say they won't run into a mountain.

Now if a pilot calls me and tells me they're in the soup, then sure. I'll go with what the book says. But if they're not telling me they can't maintain vfr in some capacity. I'm not going to ask them shit if they can activate an ifr clearance above my MVA.

I see you I just don't agree with you.

 

[Papa_Mike]

So when the aircraft calls me up and I tell them leaving an altitude it now puts the responbility on the aircraft. Not myself. Because I'm not aware of what the weather is like at their altitude. Furthermore I'm not issuing course guidance until above the MVA.

Similarly. When working in the tower if you say #2 following the traffic on final, I'm not going to tell them to maintain some sort of separation with them, I'm going to tell them #2 cleared to land. Because the AIM and the .65 state that pilots aren't going to run into another airplane. I'd imagine they also say they won't run into a mountain.

Now if a pilot calls me and tells me they're in the soup, then sure. I'll go with what the book says. But if they're not telling me they can't maintain vfr in some capacity. I'm not going to ask them shit if they can activate an ifr clearance above my MVA.

When they call you for a clearance on the ground, do you ask if they can maintain their own terrain and obstruction clearance through the MIA or ‘leaving MIA cleared to from’?

 

[32andBelow]

When they call you for a clearance on the ground, do you ask if they can maintain their own terrain and obstruction clearance through the MIA or ‘leaving MIA cleared to from’?

No because they have ODPs and obstacle procedures they are supposed to use. If they are in a random mountain pass on a random route then it’s different

 

[showtime]

When they call you for a clearance on the ground, do you ask if they can maintain their own terrain and obstruction clearance through the MIA or ‘leaving MIA cleared to from’?

When they are picking up an already filed flight plan off or from an airport, it is assumed they are familiar with the terrain around the airport. If they want to pick up IFR because they were caught off guard by weather, one can’t make the same assumptions. This is when asking the pilot if he can maintain his own terrain and obstruction is required.

 

[Termine]

When they are picking up an already filed flight plan off or from an airport, it is assumed they are familiar with the terrain around the airport. If they want to pick up IFR because they were caught off guard by weather, one can’t make the same assumptions. This is when asking the pilot if he can maintain his own terrain and obstruction is required.

You're almost there but still not all the way right. Filing ahead of time does indicate some pre-planning on their part, but the distinction you have to make is whether or not they're in the air when they call.

However you deal with an air-file IFR request, you should do the same thing with a pre-filed but departed-VFR request. The .65 doesn't say otherwise. The fact that they are currently airborne and currently VFR is what matters.

 

[KP-ATC]

Depending what sectors were talking about here. 10,000 agl? Sure. Less than that? They have a chance to have signal. (Just using a wag at the numbers, someone with more knowledge could probably give a more finite number.)


Or.... he can say unable. Sounds wild I know.

I hate the argument that pilots can't make decisions on their own. Leaving xx cleared to blank. "Unable". Alright then. Can you maintain your own obstruction clearance through xx? "Unable". Now I have to figure out how to genuinely help this guy. It's the same method of getting there. One way. You hand hold them, and the other, you give them the option to tell you no. The entire section you're referring to is if a vfr aircraft is experience difficulty in weather. I would venture to say that in my 13 years of ATC, I've had 3 clearance with aircraft with that. And atleast 500 others that were doing it for either routing purposes, or practice purposes or something along the lines of that.

Well I flew this morning at 6000' and did not have cell service enroute. I find I generally need to be below 2000' to get cell service.

No because they have ODPs and obstacle procedures they are supposed to use. If they are in a random mountain pass on a random route then it’s different

Those only exist at airports with instrument approaches.

 

[32andBelow]

Those only exist at airports with instrument approaches.

That’s usually who calls for IFR off the ground. If not it’s supposed to be a VFR climb on course.

 

[KP-ATC]

That’s usually who calls for IFR off the ground. If not it’s supposed to be a VFR climb on course.

Nope. Pilots are responsible for their own terrain and obstacles avoidance from the surface to the enroute environment. They can do this by following published procedures when applicable. If an airport has instrument procedures, it has been surveyed for restrictions to the climb gradient and will have an ODP if necessary. If no approaches are published for an airport, pilots are responsible for coming up with their own terrain avoidance on climbout, but it needs not be VMC.

 

[acutetriangles]

That’s usually who calls for IFR off the ground. If not it’s supposed to be a VFR climb on course.

I would just ask your trainer to clarify for you, man.