Originally Posted by
ACMS
I suggest you read the posts to you, they are correct you are not.
Which bit?
AEM was not on its flightplanned route - correct. Look at Flight Aware. It looks like ATC did its normal trick of routing IFR traffic around Melbourne above the Visual Route. Typically they will keep you on vectors until the a/c exits the control step then do the "resume own navigation" trick.
AEM descended from 6000 ft about co-incident with the 145.7 / 122.4 boundary. How many times have you (as an IFR pilot?) have requested a descent only to have the response to ask the next controller? My guess is that traffic for descent was requested and responded on the same frequency as JQM. We'll soon know.
AEM descended to 4,000 ft which would be the rational selection for a direct entry to the VOR approach. Why would you go 20nm further and deal with more traffic to do an RNAV at MNG compared with YLTV??
JQM had an IFR plan filed for YMEN - look at flight aware - its there. Lacey / Colds / Monty is the setup for the RWY 27 RNAV or ILS. They are IFR waypoints. That points to an IFR plan.
I'm suggesting that a call on area frequency requesting IFR traffic and requesting an airways clearance for an instrument approach to Essendon less than 20 min flying time away would be common practice. Are you really suggesting that its not prudent?? With an Instructor onboard??? With area frequency available on the ground?? When you are taking off expecting IMC???