One question that new and even veteran pilots bring up is why, when they file an IFR flight
plan, that their clearance is usually never "as filed" but includes a route change of some sort.
The pilot requested a special VFR clearance, but that was denied as the airport had an inbound IFR flight
to handle, according to the report.
AIM 5-4-25 kicks off with them: "Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight
plan, provided they are clear of clouds and have at least one mile flight visibility and can reasonably expect to continue to the destination airport in those conditions, may request ATC authorization for a contact approach."
The check ride is divided into an oral component to ascertain that applicants understand the theory of instrument flying and an actual flight to ensure the pilot possesses the practical skills required for safe IFR flight
for the remotely controlled drones of hobbyists seems infeasible for several reasons.
For a day flight in which the destination meets the requirements of 91.167, the flight need only comply with the 30-minute VFR fuel requirements even though it is on an IFR flight
plan and clearance.
They are the pile fastener pieces that secure the ANVIS battery pack and weight bag, the lip light battery pack, the dual visor assembly for IFR flight
training, and pile fastener to secure the blown air port on the helmet.
A Porter Airlines Inc flight was on an instrument flight rules (IFR) service to the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, southeast of the airport, the flight was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 08, meanwhile another Porter Airlines Inc flight was departing Runway 08 on an IFR flight
eastbound with a clearance to depart under visual flight rules.
According to the FAA, the pilot filed an IFR flight
plan before canceling it with ATC and departing VFR.
I am curious if Kramer had also considered the thought about canceling the IFR flight
plan and proceeding VFR after being switched to Tower in his proposed scenario?