X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:27:55 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: <2thman1@gmail.com> Received: from mail-gh0-f169.google.com ([209.85.160.169] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6024933 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:09:54 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.160.169; envelope-from=2thman1@gmail.com Received: by mail-gh0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r18so456313ghr.14 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:09:20 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.119.69 with SMTP id m45mr8110849yhh.128.1358917760613; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:09:20 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: <2thman1@gmail.com> Received: from [172.20.16.206] ([63.245.15.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a30sm19030761yhl.12.2013.01.22.21.09.05 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:09:19 -0800 (PST) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3367304E-450A-4E98-AAB9-0E6FFDFBB84C X-Original-Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10A523) From: John Barrett <2thman1@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [LML] Re: WPR13FA076 X-Original-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:01:42 -0600 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List --Apple-Mail-3367304E-450A-4E98-AAB9-0E6FFDFBB84C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just occurs to me maybe there is some validity to the semantics theory. Onc= e you air file for IFR to VFR on top and declare you are in VMC you are then= flying VFR altitudes at pilot's discretion but still on an IFR flight plan.= Only when you cancel the IFR clearance are you on your own and no longer u= nder obligation to ATC. Could this be the confusion? Of course, you would u= sually cancel as soon as you break through so you can continue on your way w= ith freedom, but it doesn't alter the fact that you're under ATC control unt= il you do cancel. Am I correct? John Barrett=20 Sent from my iPad On Jan 22, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Paul Besing wrote: > Don: >=20 > First of all, I am a CFII and have not only taught in IMC conditions, but h= ave flown cargo operations in IMC/IFR situations without a flight plan. =20 >=20 > There are many times where you can have an IFR clearance without a flight p= lan. Tower in route clearance is a perfect example. VFR on top is another.= Yes, it is an IFR *Clearance* but it does NOT require a flight plan. How= ever, you can be on an IFR flight plan and get a VFR on Top clearance. I th= ink this is semantics, and as usual get 10 pilots (or engineers :-P ) in the= same room and get different opinions. =20 >=20 > Nevertheless, you absolutely can be VFR on Top without a flight plan. Don= , I'm sure you are a knowledgable pilot, but suggesting that everyone is wro= ng and to consult a CFII should be backed up by you consulting a CFII (or ho= w about the AIM, for example) before you accuse people of being wrong. =20 >=20 > Paul Besing > ATP, CFII >=20 >=20 > On Jan 23, 2013, at 1:17 AM, Danny wrote: >=20 >> Don, >> No, it=E2=80=99s you who is wrong. IFR to VFR on top is a common clearan= ce, especially in places such as southern CA where an early morning and late= evening marine layer is common. I=E2=80=99ve done it so many times I=E2=80= =99ve lost count, not that anybody was counting in the first place. Raise y= our awareness. >> =20 >> Danny >> LNC2-360 >> N 38=C2=B0 43' 25.7" >> W 77=C2=B0 30' 38.6" >> Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. >> =20 >> From: Don Karich [mailto:donkarich@gmail.com]=20 >> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:25 PM >> To: lml@lancaironline.net >> Subject: [LML] Re: WPR13FA076 >> =20 >> My one word response was a clue that you definitely need to discuss this w= ith a CFII. You are soo wrong >>=20 >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Paul Miller wrote:= >> Yep Skip, another waste of everyone's time and non-helpful response ("wro= ng"). The fact is I have done exactly the same thing, VFR Flight, needed a= n IFR clearance to VFR conditions without a flight plan. My last was in the= Legacy at night with a layer on top of the destination airport. I asked ap= proach for a IFR descent clearance from 4000 to 2000 through the clouds, got= it, broke out and cancelled, landed VFR. In the last 5 years I've found co= ntrollers extremely willing to be helpful to VFR pilots who ask for assistan= ce. >>=20 >> Paul >> Legacy >> On 2013-01-21, at 12:37 PM, "Skip Slater" wrote:= >>=20 >> > Possibly IFR to VFR on top, then cancel. I've done that a couple of ti= mes to take off from coastal airports with a marine layer that only extended= a few miles inland. Don't need a flight plan to do that. >> > >> > Skip Slater >> > >> > -- >> > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.= html >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht= ml >=20 --Apple-Mail-3367304E-450A-4E98-AAB9-0E6FFDFBB84C Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just occurs to me maybe there is some v= alidity to the semantics theory.  Once you air file for IFR to VFR on t= op and declare you are in VMC you are then flying VFR altitudes at pilot's d= iscretion but still on an IFR flight plan.  Only when you cancel the IFR= clearance are you on your own and no longer under obligation to ATC.  = Could this be the confusion?  Of course, you would usually cancel as so= on as you break through so you can continue on your way with freedom, but it= doesn't alter the fact that you're under ATC control until you do cancel. &= nbsp;Am I correct?
John Barrett 

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 22, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Paul Besing <paulbesing@me.com> wrote:

Don:

=
First of all, I am a CFII and have not only taught in IMC conditi= ons, but have flown cargo operations in IMC/IFR situations without a flight p= lan.  

There are many times where you can have= an IFR clearance without a flight plan.  Tower in route clearance is a= perfect example.  VFR on top is another.  Yes, it is an IFR *Clea= rance* but it does NOT require a flight plan.   However, you can be on a= n IFR flight plan and get a VFR on Top clearance.  I think this is sema= ntics, and as usual get 10 pilots (or engineers :-P ) in the same room and g= et different opinions.  

Nevertheless, you absolutel= y can be VFR on Top without a flight plan.  Don, I'm sure you are a kno= wledgable pilot, but suggesting that everyone is wrong and to consult a CFII= should be backed up by you consulting a CFII (or how about the AIM, for exa= mple) before you accuse people of being wrong.  

Paul Besing
ATP, CFII


On J= an 23, 2013, at 1:17 AM, Danny <danny= @n107sd.com> wrote:

Don,
<= font size=3D"3" color=3D"#1f497d" face=3D"Times New Roman">No, it=E2=80=99s you who is wrong.=   IFR to= VFR on top is a common clearance, especially in places such as southern CA w= here an early morning and late evening marine layer is common.  I=E2=80=99ve done it= so many times I=E2=80=99ve lost count, not that anybody was counting in the= first place.  = Raise your awareness.
 
Danny
LNC2-360
N 38=C2=B0 43' 25.7"=
W 77=C2=B0 30' 38.6"
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficien= tly talented fool.
 
From: Don Karich [mailto:don= karich@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:25 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: WPR13FA076=
=  

My one word response was a clue that you definitely need= to discuss this with a CFII. You are soo wrong

=
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Paul Miller <= pjdmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
Yep Skip, another waste of eve= ryone's time and non-helpful response ("wrong").   The fact is I have d= one exactly the same thing, VFR Flight, needed an IFR clearance to VFR condi= tions without a flight plan.  My last was in the Legacy at night with a= layer on top of the destination airport.  I asked approach for a IFR d= escent clearance from 4000 to 2000 through the clouds, got it, broke out and= cancelled, landed VFR.  In the last 5 years I've found controllers ext= remely willing to be helpful to VFR pilots who ask for assistance.

Pa= ul
Legacy
On 2013= -01-21, at 12:37 PM, "Skip Slater" <skipslater@verizo= n.net> wrote:

> Possibly IFR to VFR on top, then cancel. &n= bsp;I've done that a couple of times to take off from coastal airports with a= marine layer that only extended a few miles inland.  Don't need a flig= ht plan to do that.
>
> Skip Slater
>
 =

= --Apple-Mail-3367304E-450A-4E98-AAB9-0E6FFDFBB84C--