Are you IFR Rated ? Surprises in the results
“I’m not IFR rated because, because weather where I fly is too good”. Two commenters answered my “Are you IFR rated ?” readers poll this way, and to be fair this surprised me. I always lived in places where clouds are frequent all year round, and icy in winter. While I understand the “good weather” argument for not being IFR rated, I don’t fully agree with it.
Flying in IMC condition is one of the privileges, but it is not the only one. Depending where you fly, airspace structure can impose serious restrictions to VFR navigation. Julien, I know that Australia is a vast continent. JB, I don’t know in which part of Spain you fly, but I guess that airspace around Madrid or Barcelona is rather crowded, and the respective TMAs probably impose some deviations and indirect routes. Military airspace and other danger areas which are not always can also make VFR routing complex.
The IFR routes are not always direct, but flying the airways makes the planning, and in-flight navigation easier. No need for visual landmarks, no hard times to find the town north of the roads crossing with a castel on the east side, … IFR navigation is all VOR / NDB based, not to mention GPS. Even better, ATC frequently takes over the navigaton task, using radar vectoring. I imagine that many VFR pilots fly using the same means – except vectoring – when not flying super-easy routings like “around the lake”, “along the river”, or “beach on the right hand side”, in large areas away from controlled airspace.
Another thing I personally like in IFR is the simplicity of the approach and departure procedures. Flying holdings, track reversal procedures, VOR, NDB and ILS tracking are the building blocks of all approaches. No need to identify VFR reporting points, which is sometimes an art, if not a lottery. IFR navigation is so easy that it can become boring…
My longest flight to date was from Geneva (LSGG) to Biggin-Hill (EGKB) – click here to read more about it – and flying it IFR made the routing and the crossing of various TMAs en-route very easy. I was on the right seat on the VFR flights home, and negotiating all the crossing clearances kept me busy. Navigation was all VOR and GPS based, as flying accurately between restricted airspace using map, compass and clock over the vast areas of green in central France is not exactly easy
Flying IMC in a light aircraft is not always easy, nor possible. Without on-board weather radar, any forecast for embedded thunderstorm is a no-go. As some commenters correctly pointed out, entering or flying close to a thunderstorm in a light aircraft is simply not an option. Even airliners avoid them, so this is not the subject. I don’t exactly know on what the excellent record from François is based (thanks for it, indeed), but I guess that we’re talking mostly about a de-iced and radar equipped twin. Possibly pressurized ?
This discussion is not over, you can raise your voice via comment on this post, on or the original “Are you IFR rated” post. But please, as I mentionned there, I won’t approve any comment tending to oppose these two different ways of flying in an aggressive way.
PS: I’ll periodically post new reader’s polls. If you want to suggest one, contact me to submit your question.
7 Comments, Comment or Ping
jb
Hi Plastic,
I understand and agree with your reasoning…
For sure, most of the Barcelona TMA (I’m based at Sabadell, LELL) is prohibited to VFR flights, with intrincated visual corridors and sectors, (but out of that it’s not so bad…)
Besides, I agree with you that the IR ticket has a lot more benefits than flying into IMC, specially on long trips where you have to cross a lot of airspace.
Even in a VFR flight in marginal VMC your situational awareness can be very much improved, if you can cross check your visual cues with instrument indications.
My point is that, where most of you simply cannot go without it, because of weather, we, sunny pilots, can be a little bit more lazy…
I believe that because of that, and because of regulations, there are places like ours where looks like there is no “tradition” of IFR rated PPL. (in Spain is something relatively new).
Cheers,
Sep 14th, 2008
Xavier
“No need to identify VFR reporting points, which is sometimes an art, if not a lottery”
Thank you!
I thought I was the only one to think the same.
Sep 14th, 2008
Wayne Conrad
Why does a VFR pilot have to navigate visually, necessarily? Couldn’t a VFR pilot also use navaids to simplify their flight planning and navigation? You could spin your own direct routes, or you could even fly the airways if you wished, maintaining proper VFR altitudes, thereby taking advantage of the planning done by the chart makers. In the US, a VFR pilot may lawfully fly the victor airways, maintaining proper VFR altitudes, and doesn’t even have to be talking to ATC (although being in contact with ATC is never a bad idea–isn’t it nice to know ahead of time what traffic is coming the opposite way?).
IFR is great stuff, I agree, but it seems to me that navaids can be a good tool for the VFR pilot as well.
I’m just some schmuck on the net, not a rated pilot. Please poke my opinion with a sharp stick, if it deserves it.
Sep 15th, 2008
PlasticPilot
@Xavier, no, you’re by far not alone…
@Wayne: you’re 100% correct, VFR pilots can use radio-navigation, safely and legally. I do it frequently as well, particularly for long trips, in regions I don’t know well, or where there are not many landmarks. It can also be used as a back-up for GPS.
As for any navigational help, it shall not distract VFR pilots from their main tasks: flying, and look-out for other traffics. On nice VFR days, the traffic over and at proximity of VORs can be very dense. GPS made the situation even more risky, because of the increased precision… When flying IFR, the responsibility of traffic separation lies by ATC.
PS: not being a pilot does not makes your opinion less interesting. Not being an aviation fan would be different
Sep 15th, 2008
Wayne Conrad
PlasticPilot, Thanks so much for your kindness to this aviation fan. As you point out, it’s always the pilot’s responsibility to look out for traffic. In the US, I think that is the case even when IFR, as long as the pilot is also in VMC. That is, when the visual conditions permit, the pilots are still expected to be looking outside for traffic, even though they have ATC also watching for traffic. That’s in the US, and again, I aways have to point out that I’m not a rated pilot, so my understanding is just based upon what I’ve read and soaked up from people who actually know things. I rely upon the kindness of others to correct any misunderstandings I have (and point out differences between the US and other parts of the world). And thanks again for the great blog. When do you sleep?
Sep 15th, 2008
David Megginson
As others have hinted, VFR privileges are very different in Canada and the U.S. (and probably Australia) from what you experience in Europe.
VFR flights *are* allowed in busy airspace here (including major airports and terminal areas), but they have to make contact with ATC or follow ATC clearances just like the IFR flights do. It’s also common for VFR pilots to follow Victor airways for long cross-country flights and talk to ATC center controllers using “VFR flight following”, making VFR flights hard to distinguish from IFR, aside from the fact that the VFR pilot is getting advisories rather than clearances and is flying on the 500s instead of the 1,000s. Most airspace below FL180 is accessible to VFR flights.
If you are just transiting a busy terminal area VFR, ATC might just say “remain clear of class bravo airspace” (in the U.S.), or “remain clear of terminal airspace” (in Canada), though they’re just as likely to offer you vectors through. If you’re transiting a busy terminal area IFR in a slow plane, you’re also likely to get vectors far out of your way, so there’s no advantage — often, the low-altitude VFR corridors will be more direct.
On the other hand, if you’re landing at an airport *inside* the terminal airspace — either a big hub, a GA reliever, or a smaller airport — you’ll be allowed in whether you’re IFR or VFR, as long as your transponder and radios are working.
I do have an instrument rating — and nearly 100 hours actual IMC — because the weather in eastern Canada and the northeastern US is similar to the weather in western Europe (lots of cloud and fog). If I flew mainly in Arizona, on the other hand, I’m not sure an instrument rating would be worth the hassle.
Sep 28th, 2008
Reply to “Are you IFR Rated ? Surprises in the results”