Effective and efficient use of the IFR system requires you to know the essence of the FARs and AIM. Essentially FARs are typically written to define what the controller cannot let you do. But only your imagination and operational needs will determine what the controller can let you do. So, you must be somewhat creative, and negotiate with ATC.
Often negotiation is a simple process of communicating to ATC what you want to do and working around the limitations imposed by what the controller cannot legally let you do. Too often pilots fail in negotiation because they don’t fully understand the legal limitations under which the controllers are working. We’ll explore four areas of negotiation: approaches, altitudes, departures and routing.
Departures
Departing airports surrounded by high terrain often requires procedures that fly you away from your intended course, or require a climb to the MEA in holding during the initial part of the flight. Here is where negotiating with ATC can often save time. If you can maintain visual terrain separation for an on-course climb, let ATC know. Remember, the controller doesn’t know what you are able to see. If you understand why a controller has asked you to do something “inconvenient,” you can often come back with an alternative that will save time and money
Another example of working VFR into the IFR system involves the IFR release. On a particularly nice VFR day, a Learjet announced that he was ready to depart IFR. The tower advised there would be a ten-minute delay prior to release because another aircraft was executing an instrument approach. The day was CAVU and the inbound was an IFR training flight.
Yet that Lear captain, although annoyed that the “training flight” refused to cancel, didn’t think to depart VFR. An “unknown source” suggested that perhaps the Lear should consider departing VFR, maintain visual separation from the incoming, and then contact center to get into the “system.”
I was surprised to hear the Lear ask the tower if he could really do that. The answer was affirmative, the Lear departed, and a few people learned a bit more about the system.
With respect to this example, it is important for IFR pilots to recognize that, even though they have received a clearance, there may not be a space in the system for them when they announce, “ready for take-off.” If you do elect to depart VFR, you must remain VFR until accepted into the system by the departure or en route facility. If that facility is not able to accept you as IFR, you will be advised to “remain VFR.” This of course requires that you know the VFR minimums for the type of airspace you are flying. Obviously, you would not consider accepting a “maintain VFR” restriction if you are dealing with low ceilings or visibilities even if the Class D airspace is VFR.
Altitudes
Occasionally, I will choose to go VFR on-top during an IFR flight (conditions permitting, of course) to take advantage of several interesting options. When bucking a headwind or without oxygen, sometimes a lower IFR altitude is not available. Requesting VFR on-top allows me to use more favorable altitudes that would otherwise not be available. Switching to a VFR altitude can usually avoid a “hold” for conflicting traffic or an undesirable dogleg around traffic.
Block altitudes represent another area. Trying to maintain an assigned altitude during significant up and downdrafts can be tiring and dangerous. If you find yourself constantly reducing and then adding power to maintain altitude, request a “block altitude” from center. Again, this might not be approved in high density locations, but I have never had it refused in sparsely populated airspace.
Another reason for requesting a block altitude is the desire to provide “actual” IFR time when the clouds aren’t in the right places. Requesting a block from center and then picking a non-standard altitude may permit you to remain in IMC—and log the time.
A discussion of IFR altitude requirements can generate an argument at any hangar flying session. Recall that 14 CFR 91.179 defines altitude requirements for the direction of flight in uncontrolled airspace and VFR on-top operations. It doesn’t require “east odd” and “west even” for controlled airspace, although this practice is typical. In the western portions of the country, the MEAs are quite high and it’s often difficult for normally aspirated singles to reach higher than the MEA, especially in the summer. I often file for—and receive—the MEA, regardless of the direction of flight.
Routing
Flying aircraft with the equipment code ROMEO or GOLF indicates Performance Based Nav (PBN) or GPS aboard. Controllers tend to use that capability at every opportunity. I am often “cleared direct” to intersections and airports that would have required doglegs to the navaids themselves. Short-cutting an airway may require a higher off-route altitude, but requesting VFR-on-top can be the secret to this scenario.
Requesting direct routing is not a prerogative that belongs only to PBN or GPS systems. You can request direct based on radar coverage. I had filed to Bakersfield, California, from Livermore one stormy morning as the first leg of a “let’s see how bad it really is” flight. I wanted to press on to Prescott, Arizona, but ice and severe turbulence had been forecast over the Sierras.
As I reached the decision point it was obvious that, based on pilot reports and our current conditions, I could continue. I called Los Angeles Center and advised them that I would like to amend the flight plan to continue to Prescott. As I prepared to read-off the Victor airways and VORs that would be needed, the controller said, “I can give you direct HECTOR at this time. Would you like a vector?” Not only did a vector to HECTOR cut off two VORs and a big chunk of time, it also moved me through the restricted airspace over Edwards Air Force Base.
The most trying aspect of accepting vectors is that not everybody you get handed-off to knows what’s going on. On occasions, I’ve been given a vector by one controller and then handed off to another, who doesn’t know that I’m IFR traffic, and I get “what is your request” response. Sometimes when transiting approach control facilities, they try to get me to land at their airport. It can be an uncomfortable feeling to realize that this controller doesn’t know who you are and what you’re doing. When you are handed off while on a vector, advise the new controller that you are “IFR on a vector of 090, en route to Podunk.”
Negotiating a “direct” clearance can save time during the approach phase. Often, the published approach shows feeder routes to an IAF. It may be advantageous to request direct to that IAF from your en route position rather than flying to the navaid and then via the feeder route to the IAF. The key here is to tune and identify the navaid/intersection/waypoint you want to use. Then advise ATC that you are receiving that navaid and would like to go direct.
Approaches
During our IFR training we’re exposed to the terms Contact Approach and Visual Approach. But we have few practical examples of how these two procedures can realistically be used. We often get cleared for a visual approach when the conditions are good VFR, so we have seen that side of the coin. But many pilots don’t really know what can be done with each and under what conditions.
I was involved in a situation going into Dayton a few years back while being vectored for the ILS when I descended below the cloud layer and spotted the airport off to my left. I kept waiting for the controller to issue me a visual approach, so I could save some time. Only after I had been turned onto the localizer did it dawn on me that the controller was not aware that I had made visual contact with the airport and if I had advised him of this he might have approved a visual approach.
There are different criteria for the issuance of a visual approach depending on the ATC facilities. In general, you cannot expect the controller to issue a visual approach if the reported ceiling is less than 500 feet above the minimum vectoring altitude (MVA). In a radar environment the lowest minimums under which the visual approach could be approved would be a 1,500-foot ceiling and three miles visibility; Because the MVA varies with the terrain and radar coverage, some airports have considerably higher minimums for visual approaches. It is a good idea to know the MVA for the airports you frequent as they are not the same as the MSA (minimum safe altitudes) shown on the approach charts.
On one occasion I was on frequency with an IFR aircraft making an approach to a towered airport. The pilot was “cleared for the approach.” While en route to the IAF he suddenly popped out of the clouds and caught sight of a portion of the airport. He immediately requested a visual, but because the Class D airspace was reporting 800 and five it was technically not VFR, thus requiring an instrument approach procedure. Had the pilot requested a “contact approach” it might have been approved.
Closing Thoughts
Negotiating is a more difficult proposition when there is heavy communications flow. Controllers often have well-defined plans for their targets and might not be interested in your creative genius unless it is apparent that they can benefit from your suggestion. With few exceptions, negotiation must be made with the facility that can grant the request. Sometimes when a request can’t be approved they will provide a reason, at other times they use that ubiquitous word “unable.” But it never hurts to ask and those on frequency might learn a bit more.
Ted Spitzmiller is the Editor of IFR Refresher and recently released his new book The History of Human Space Flight.
This article originally appeared in the March 2018 issue ofIFR Refreshermagazine.
For more great content like this, subscribe toIFR Refresher!
