IFR - A definition

[Smurfjet]

Greetings all,

I'm trying to find out what an IFR flight is (something along the lines of laywer talk :))

I tried looking in the CARs but found nothing that clearly states what is an IFR operation/flight.

Basically I'm looking for a definition. Nothing in CARs VI Division VII...

Give it your best shot :)

SJ

[paco]

'Seasy - a flight conducted under certain rules, namely a minimum distance away from hard objects and following certain procedures, which has nothing to do with the weather, so you can be IFR in VMC (but always IFR in IMC). The rules allow you to fly in certain controlled airspaces - the ICAO definition is:

A set of rules governing the conduct of flight under instrument meteorological conditions.

Phil

[Luftwaffle]

I would define an IFR flight as: "A flight for which an IFR flight plan or IFR flight itinerary is filed."

I say that because I could follow all the same procedures and rules paco mentioned while VFR.

So this probably shifts your question to "what are the conditions under which I am
legally required to file an IFR flight plan?"

That would be:
* in weather below VFR minima
* in class A airspace, or
* under any conditions where your company ops manuals require it

Part of the confusion of "IFR" is that the same term is used to describe the weather, the rules, the flight plan, the aircraft cababilities and the pilot's qualifications.

[Smurfjet]

Thanks for the replies guys (and Gals? :))

Paco's desciption is still far off what I was looking for, but thanks for the input.

Waffle you used what I initially found in the AIP, but as you said IFR is a term used to describe several things and that can lead to confusion.

Here is what I came up for VFR, for non flyers : :)

A VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flight is a flight conducted under Visual Flight Conditions, i.e. in good weather.

I wish IFR can have a simple one like that ;)

Input always appreciated.

SJ

PS: CVFR is only valid in Class B, it has nothing to do with being under ATC's control right?

[paco]

I think the essential point is the reason for instrument flying in the first place, i.e. navigation without reference to the ground, which means stricter procedures to make it safer.

When VFR, you don't *have* to keep minimum distances necessarily, unless in airspace that requires it or your Ops Manual says otherwise.

If it helps any, the UK ANO IFR conditions cover minimum height, flight plans and reporting for controlled airspace, and minimum height and quadrantals for uncontrolled airspace.

Phil

[This message has been edited by paco (edited 01 May 2001).]

[Luftwaffle]

You asked for legalese, and as the IFR flight plan/itinerary is a necessary and sufficient condition for an IFR flight, that defines IFR flight.

The other uses of "IFR" are informal. People will ask if a pilot "has his IFR". That means they want to know if he has an instrument rating. To file IFR, your instrument rating must not have expired and you must have flown 6 hours actual or simulated IMC and done 6 approaches to minima in the last six months. Your instrument rating must also match the airplane you are flying in, with respect to number and placement of engines and nationality.

For an airplane to "be IFR" it needs to have the equipment listed in CARs 605.18.

If "the weather is IFR" that means it is instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The conditions defining IMC are laid out in 602.114 and 602.115. If the weather is below those minima, you are technically in IMC. For example, if you are at flying at 2000' agl, with a cloud deck 400' above you, you are technically in IMC. If you're not on an IFR flight plan/itinerary you're technically VFR in IMC. I say "technically" because when most people say "in IMC" they mean you're looking out the window and seeing nothing but the grey (or black, at night) insides of clouds.

You could also have a pilot and aircraft that were IFR capable, but not be able to file IFR because your company's operating certificate only approves VFR operations.

Your VFR "definition" isn't defining, however. The term you are trying for when you said "visual flight conditions" is VMC -- visual meteorological conditions. But have you heard the expression "continued VFR"? It's short for "continued VFR flight into IMC," and you see it on accident reports. If you were VFR and had the weather close in on you, so you decided to fly an IFR altitude, on an airway, you would still be a VFR flight. VFR in IMC is illegal and dangerous, but shows that a definition of VFR based on VMC is not accurate.

That really is the only legal difference between an IFR and VFR flight: the flight plan. Remember that the R in IFR stands for rules, and there are a LOT of them.

On a VMC day, you could file IFR between two adjacent airports. Your IFR clearance could ask you to maintain runway heading to some altitude, and then contact the approach controller for the destination airport. That approach controller could then clear you for a visual approach. You would have done nothing different on that flight from someone flying the same hop VFR, but you'd be IFR because of your flight plan.

Near the end of your posting you said these definitions were for non-flyers. That makes it easy. Forget all this and just tell them "IFR flights are allowed to go into clouds but VFR flights have to stay certain distances away from clouds."

And for your PS: yes, CVFR is only relevant in class B airspace. If you're obeying a controller's instructions in class C or D, you are not in CVFR flight.

Now, are you more or less confused? :)

[Smurfjet]

Paco,

You raise a good point in your second post.

You say <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">If it helps any, the UK ANO IFR conditions cover minimum height, flight plans and reporting for controlled airspace, and minimum height and quadrantals for uncontrolled airspace.</font>

Does it apply in Canada and is this available at the CAA's or AIS's websites?

Waffle,

Thanks for the lengthy reply, I appreciate the details. I'm just trying to make sure whatever I read in the CARs/AIP is interpreted correctly and stuck in my head :)

Of course passing on the info to others will be a big help too :)

Another question along the lines of my PS above.
Is FL180 usable on the westbounds?

SJ

[Luftwaffle]

In Canada, IFR altitudes guarantee you different minimum terrain/obstacle clearances for various regions and stages of flight. That's anything from 2000' clearance at the GASA (geographical area safe altitude) as marked on LO charts down to 35' over the end of the runway for take-off minima. I don't know of any one place where you will find all the guaranteed/required clearances written down.

See CARs 602.124 for off-airways obstacle clearance rules. Published MOCAs guarantee you the same clearances, but you need to adjust them for cold temperatures.

Reporting procedures for IFR flight are in AIP RAC 8.1 and in CARs 602.125.

Re: FL180: Yes, it's a usable flight level but not in low pressure conditions. If the altimeter setting is below 29.92" then there would not be 1000' between aircraft at 17,000' and aircraft at FL180. See AIP RAC 6.4.3.

Edited because I hadn't answered the FL180 part of the question.

[This message has been edited by Luftwaffle (edited 01 May 2001).]

[paco]

&gt;That really is the only legal difference &gt;between an IFR and VFR flight: the flight &gt;plan. Remember that the R in IFR stands for &gt;rules, and there are a LOT of them.

Hmm, don't agree with that one. If there are a lot of rules, why is the flight plan the only difference? The rules for IFR are more stringent or there would be no point in having them. As I said before, you can be IFR in VMC, by flying quadrantals keeping certain heights and reporting at certain points, and filing the obvious flight plan. I find people often get confused because of the lose usage of the terms. When IMC, you must obey the Instrument Flight Rules.

UK rules don't apply in Canada, but they are both signatories to ICAO, so I guess the rules would be very similar. If you have a copy, the definition is actually in the Rules of the Air, where it tells you what paragraphs to include depending on the airspace (I used the term ANO to mean the big green book).

cheers

Phil



[This message has been edited by paco (edited 02 May 2001).]

[Luftwaffle]

I say it's the flight plan/itinerary because I cannot think of any other rule or condition that applies to all IFR flights and to no VFR flights. Can you?

IFR position reports? CVFR fligts or VFR flights on IFR air routes make pretty much the same calls. An IFR flight within radar contact no longer has to make those calls unless asked, and a VFR flight still has to make the calls if asked.

IFR obstacle clearances? I could scrupulously adhere to IFR obstacle clearance rules while VFR, and some company ops manuals require similar clearances. An IFR flight that ends in CFIT was still an IFR flight.

[paco]

Well, when you mix IFR/VFR there's bound to be confusion, but you don't have to fly quadrantals when VFR, and minimum altitudes don't apply either, outside certain airspaces. Well, according to ICAO anyway.

IFR conditions assume certain parameters that don't apply to VFR - for example, an IFR departure is based on the premise that an aircraft will clear an imaginary obstacle 35 ft high at the end of the runway, climb straight ahead to 400 feet and maintain a minimum gradient of whatever. You may of course do the same under VFR, but if you were to provide a definition of IFR, then it must refer to the *requirement* to follow certain procedures described above.

Phil

[This message has been edited by paco (edited 03 May 2001).]

[PlayersLight77]

As an IFR controller in Canada i am wondering what the specific equipment requirements for the pilots to be IFR qualified would be...i was taught a while ago and i have forgotten exactly what they are required to have in the aircraft. I figure most likely VOR/DME, ADF, com, what else is required? I am sick of military pilots flying in having virtually no navigational equipment requiring vectors and not able to even follow an airway. And yet they still expect to file IFR cause they want to be in Class A....just wondering if this is not supposed to be normal or i am just ranting?

G

[Smurfjet]

This has turned to be a really interesting topic.

Just a clarification. People some times confuse having Navigation quipement with being "IFR" equipped.

So I might be flying in a Cessna, that is not IFR equipped, but that has an ADF, VOR/DME etc...

I can't comment further since I really can't :) I'll let the more experienced pass their knowledge along!

Thanks!
SJ

[paco]

The minimum navigational equipment for IFR operations in most areas is 2 VOR + 1 ADF or 1 VOR + 2 ADF, ILS, DME, Transponder, Marker and 2 720 channel VHF Comms (below FL100 in Amsterdam you can get away with 1 VOR and 1 ADF, but watch out for Germany).

Don't forget the reason for Special VFR - it's to allow you to fly visually when the wx is officially IMC - if there weren't a requirement for rules, you wouldn't need such an exemption.

cheers

Phil

[GRpr]

Just blundered in here!

Just my two pennyworth. Luftwaffle is adamant that the defining item for an IFR flight is the flight plan.

Regrettably I don't have my library with me - all in a foreign land at the moment!

However, in South Africa a flight plan does NOT have to be filed for a flight under IFR. And I would be prepared to bet a good few drinks that this is NOT an ICAO departure!! (I certainly can't recall it as being such, whereas the UK quadrantal rule, for example, is very much an ICAO departure!). There is no problem flying IFR between unmanned fields in SA without a flight plan as long as the normal legal minimum heights, cruising levels, minimum equipment etc requirements are adhered to.

I appreciate that, in the UK, for example, you are unlikely to fly under IFR without going into controlled airspace, which is going to need that flight plan; some countries are a bit bigger and more deserted - I would have thought Canada would be one!

Of course, one would be a bit daft to go off into the bright blue yonder without filing a flight plan, but my concern would be the SAR!

I would dearly like to give a definitive answer to the original question, to fit all countries (if possible), but all my stuff is overseas. South African Air Law has been recently revised and is VERY closely modelled on the JARs. From memory (and I did have to answer this quesion once) the problem is that the legislation refers blithely to flight under the Instrument Flight Rules without actually defining "the rules". One then has to do the legislation hop-hop-hop to find what one is obliged to do if flying under IFR. These tend to be scattered (hence the hop-hop-hop), but include minimum enroute altitudes, cruising level, minimum equipment, flight planning as to fuel, alternates etc.

So, my little input is: "flight under IFR is flight under the legislative rules that must be followed if the flight is to be conducted under IFR."

A bit circular, but I reckon that's it. And, at least in SA (and I think ICAO), not a flight plan in sight.

My definition is not as daft as it seems. Remember that if you are flying from Toronto to Cape Town, or Bombay for that matter, the flight might be under IFR, but the rules can CHANGE as you enter the airspace of different states, who have different rules to be followed for an IFR flight, eg flight plans required in Canada! So what we need is a definition that can encompass a variety of changing rules.

God, I wish I had never looked in the Canada forum!! I feel a bit like a trespasser; sorry guys!

[This message has been edited by GRpr (edited 05 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by GRpr (edited 05 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by GRpr (edited 05 May 2001).]

[Luftwaffle]

GRpr
You're right, in Canada you can get away without filing an IFR flight plan if you won't be entering controlled airspace; you can file a flight itinerary (e.g. tell your mother) instead. And yes, the primary purpose is SAR.

Are the planless flights in IMC in the UK actually IFR flights? They do have a separate rating there that allows pilots to fly in IMC without having an instrument rating.

Your suggested definition is well-written, but as you say circular, and it becomes even more circular when you use it to expand any instance of "IFR flight" in the air law: you end up with something to the effect of 'flights that are required to follow the rules that such flights must follow are obliged to follow this rule'.

PL77
Regarding IFR navigational instrument requirements. When I initially did my instrument rating the memorized answer was "two VORs, a VOR and an NDB, or two NDBs, plus you must have at least one NDB in Northern Domestic Airspace." When I was working on my IATRA I searched and searched for the source of this in air law. All I could find was CARs 605.18 (j). My course instructor considered that definitive.


605.18 No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft for the purpose of IFR flight unless it is equipped with

[a-i are the equipment required for VFR flight, and equipment unrelated to navigation]

(j) sufficient radio navigation equipment to permit the pilot, in the event of the failure at any stage of the flight of any item of that equipment, including any associated flight instrument display,

(i) to proceed to the destination aerodrome or proceed to another aerodrome that is suitable for landing, and

(ii) where the aircraft is operated in IMC, to complete an instrument approach and, if necessary, conduct a missed approach procedure.

So if your errant military pilots are flying in constant radar contact, with a PAR approach available at the other end, and they have two comm radios and a transponder, they may be able to legally claim that they have all they need.

[PlayersLight77]

Thanks for the replies guys...
After chatting with one of the ATC's at work who used to be a commercial pilot he stated that for IFR in Canada you require only the comm, and two radio nav units, either one each VOR/ADF or 2 VOR (not allowed on NDB airways) or 2 ADF (not allowed on VOR airways), but you don't need to have an ILS. This kind of frightened me lol.
With all the non-radar airspace out there, i just hope these guys can find their ways around. And when they flightplan into a non-radar airport anticipating vectors, it gets pretty difficult to handle. You really don't know what they are capable of doing. Anyway my $.02 worth.

[GRpr]

Hi Luftwaffle

In South Africa you can certainly fly under IFR in IMC without a flight plan, as long as one is not required under the legislation governing when flight plans must be filed. We don't have 'flight itineraries' and, if SAR is required, then a flight plan becomes a mandatory legal requirement.

In the UK too, you can fly under IFR, in IMC, without a flight plan. Indeed, to give just one quote from the UK AIP: "An aircraft electing to change the conduct of its flight from compliance with the instrument flight rules to compliance with the visual flight rules shall, IF (my bold!) a flight plan was submitted....."

The UK AIP actually has a section headed "Instrument Flight Rules" which has as point 1 :"IFR flight. ICAO Annex Rules as applied within UK Airspace and incorporating UK differences." It doesn't say it is a definition but this must be the intention. Points 2 et sequitur are the "rules".

So we come back to flight under instrument flight rules being flight following the rules. And these rules will change from one state's airspace to anothers.

I think it just comes down to that if one wants to fly under "instrument flight rules", one first decides what state's airspace one will be in, and then follow their particular rules for coplying with the "instrument flight rules".

What a pity IFR wasn't originally called IF for instrument flight, (just for example.) We would then have no problem, I think, with "Flight under IF, whether in IMC or VMC, must be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules as laid down by the state in whose airspace one is conducting the flight".

The apparent circularity of my definition is only because the word "rules" is included in the term IFR when it is being used to determine the rules that have to be followed!!!

A thought provoking thread!



[This message has been edited by GRpr (edited 06 May 2001).]

[GRpr]

Hey guys, what's going on here?

I just had a look at the Canadian CAR's because I thought they can't be that unclear. It's all there laid out for you! Unfortunately, in SA we have to hunt around our poorly worded legislation.

Definitions follow:

"IFR" - means instrument flight rules; (IFR)

"IFR air traffic control message" - means a message that contains an air traffic control clearance or instruction, a position report or procedure related to the conduct of an IFR flight; (message IFR du contrôle de la circulation aérienne)

"IFR aircraft" - means an aircraft operating in IFR flight; (aéronef IFR)

"IFR flight" - means a flight conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules; (vol IFR)

So there we have it, couldn't be much clearer. Check out division VII and there you have the rules. Fly in accordance with the rules and it is an IFR flight.

Geez! And I've never been to Canada. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing!

Hope that clears it up for you Smurfjet.

[This message has been edited by GRpr (edited 06 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by GRpr (edited 06 May 2001).]

[paco]

Yes, that's right - you have to be under IFR in IMC, regardless of the airspace. As you say, it just happens that UK is one big control zone!

phil