VFR flying for IFR pilots

I’m surprised the airline SOP let them do that!

I completely agree with the OP. I still enjoy flying VFR but never do non-IFR trips anymore, only local flights huh tend to be in areas I know well. I remove the navigation issue by flying from IFR waypoint to IFR waypoint as much as possible, never hesitate to use the autopilot (even more than when IFR actually!) and using a tablet with VFR software. I also have a TAS system which helps with the lookout. I particularly enjoy the listening squawk system in the UK, where I don’t have to talk to anybody but am still known to them if needed on their side.

Yes you’re still supposed to check terrain AND traffic if you’re VMC even IFR I’m controlled airspace, but we all know the risks are smaller.

Having said that many of my flights end up VFR or IFR outside controlled airspace. I find the mindsets to be so different that I have a specific call out (“leaving CAS” turning on the flashing taxi lights or “entering CAS” turning them off) to remind me that I need to look out for airplanes and airspace. It’s a more focused mode.

wbardorf wrote:

With VFR flying, the primary means of navigation is visual landmarks[…]

I think this is a key misunderstanding. When flying VFR, you are doing nothing more than agreeing to comply with the visual flight rules. It doesn’t place any restriction on how you navigate, other than you have to do the navigation for yourself.

Most of us did indeed learn to navigate with a map, compass and stopwatch, but that doesn’t mean that’s what VFR flight is.

VFR flights can generally be divided into two types.

1. Flight in areas (usually local) where the pilot is already very familiar and doesn’t need to dedicate much brain power to navigation,
2. Flight further afield where the pilot isn’t very familiar with the area.

For the first category, there are many pilots who will still use a map and compass long after they have got their licence. But for the second category, flights into areas that the pilot isn’t familiar, I don’t think that there are all that many pilots who would do that without a good aviation GPS system. Of course there are some who will do it with a map and compass. Reasons vary from not having the gps/tablet/phone equipment and not wanting to invest in it for their one further trip per year, wanting to challenge themselves, wanting to keep their old skills alive, flying slow aircraft etc. But I believe that the vast majority of pilots undertaking flights into unfamiliar areas are using a modern aviation GPS system.

Not being 100% sure of where you are, is a big ‘No-No’ in modern VFR flight. Airspace infringements aren’t accepted anymore (if they ever really were), and the airspace structure is getting more and more complicated so you need a proper GPS to help. Also it’s becoming less acceptable to have a chart that’s showing airspace that’s 6 months out of date, which really means having a modern system which updates at least every 28 days.

While you don’t get led to the runway under VFR, if you have a good GPS system, you don’t need to be. You know where it is, and you decide how to get there. Usually you join a circuit rather than a runway centreline, but once you’ve joined the circuit your navigation is over and you just follow the circuit around. Using a GPS will remove any concern about finding the runway (except for perhaps some grass strips which can be hard to see even when you’re on top of them!).

Terrain separation isn’t an issue as you should be able to see outside. It’s hard to hit a mountain if you can see it. What I think makes IFR pilots find this a bit harder is that they don’t see clouds as an absolute barrier when flying VFR. They often accept a temporary entering of clouds and then the worries start about terrain separation. To a VFR pilot, going into cloud is a big ‘No-No’, even briefly. A VFR pilot might have reason to get worried about being trapped by weather building around them, but they should always be able to see where they’re going, even if that’s around in circles!

Traffic is indeed a valid consideration. While it’s more to do with the type of airspace you’re in, it can be harder to fly your whole flight inside controlled airspace when VFR. There isn’t a lot that can be done about this without big expenditure. It’s really a matter of looking outside and asking ATC for help.

wbardorf wrote:

IFR flying is all about attitude flying and precise execution of turns, flying of headings/tracks, altitudes and speeds. […]With VFR, most of the time is supposed to be spent looking outside the cockpit

I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive. VFR does allow the freedom to wander all over the sky but not everyone does. Personally, I like to try and maintain my heading/altitude so precisely that it’s hard to tell from the breadcrumbs on my GPS if the flight was hand flown or flown on autopilot. It’s certainly a skill that can be achieved why flying VFR. But you still have the possibility to go off track if you want to look at something interesting. The main difference is that with IFR, your reference for maintain your precise track/altitude is your instruments inside the cockpit. With VFR, you look outside and use the natural horizon to maintain your attitude (instead of an AI), with occasional glances at the instruments. If you maintain the correct attitude and heading, then your track and altitude won’t diverge much in 30 seconds. That’s plenty of time for a quick glance at the instruments to make sure you don’t need a new attitude.

To me (a VFR only pilot) the big difference between VFR and IFR flight is the implied airspace clearance for IFR flight and negotiating your own way with VFR. This is where the hard work comes from. It becomes increasingly difficult if the weather starts to go south and causes a change of plan. The rest is just as easy but requires a different thought process.

Get yourself a really good tablet based GPS system for your VFR flights and life will become immensely easier, and planning will only take a fraction of the time it would otherwise take.

dp

I think I have mentioned before how I was in a TRUCE session with a large and well known CTR/CTA ATC and the controllers were asking me how it was possible that VFR pilots were quoting their position relative to RNAV waypoints, rather than surface features.

I explained it to that particular roomful of ATCOs, but there is clearly a wider educational task to be done. Especially as you can fly VFR in VMC on top, at night and over water.

Sorry TRUCE – Tr aining in U nusual C ircumstances and E vents

Dublinpilot has written it very well.

I too find VFR is a lot more work than “Eurocontrol IFR” (basically IFR in controlled airspace, under ATC control) but it is a useful tool for a job which is basically simpler local flights. Or flights where the base of controlled airspace is at high levels so you cannot file a meaningful IFR route and get a service on it; a flight Shoreham to Scilly Isles is one example where there is no useful route below FL200 but the VFR flight is a straight line.

Otherwise, VFR nav is nowadays done almost 100% with GPS, not landmarks. It is amazing that ATC don’t know about this, but they are not required to do so for a VFR flight, and are entitled to disregard position reports based on IFR waypoints (a practice I regard as scandalous, especially if the controller does IFR traffic at the same time). Formally, the world of VFR is where it was in 1918.

Peter wrote:

entitled to disregard position reports based on IFR waypoints

What does that even mean? Is this some UK thing?

EuroFlyer wrote:

downwind, crosswind, final.

Eek!!!!

base…. of course.

No, I had it in France Spain Italy… See the thread I linked.

The mad ATCO at La Rochelle and his Silver Point VRP was enough reason to do the IR!

VRP Zone entry/exit points have always been a thing all over Europe, but life is very easy as they are marked in SkyDemon (and, I assume, other products.)