A PE first: Composite Flight Plan

[Keith Smith]

Hats off to Chance Dixon for whippin' out the Composite Flight Plan...an elusive animal...the stuff of legends...seen only in dusty text books, written by people who are determined to make everyone's life 20x more complex than they need to be. Not in 9 years of controlling have I seen one online...or even heard of one being filed in real life. I can die a happy man.

*starts the slow clap*

[gavink42]

Holy crap! Nice!!!

[Ryan B]

I'm a controller and never heard of that! (yikes)

What is it exactly?

[Steven Winslow]

If you're an AOPA member you can read all about it here:

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/ii_9808.html

[Alex Stjepanovic]

I'm a controller and never heard of that! (yikes)

Don't they teach .65 anymore? Too many budget cuts, perhaps? *ducks*

[gavink42]

Quick answer (for anyone that can't get to the AOPA site): It's 2 flight plans in one... VFR and IFR. You fly part of your flight under each flight plan.

An example I was given for when it could be useful is a flight that's partially in an area with no radar coverage. If you fly that section IFR, you'll need to make position reports. But, if the weather is good for that portion, the VFR part of the plan will cover the non-radar area. Then you start the IFR portion beginning at a fix where radar coverage begins.

Seems like extra work to do that.

But then again, I've never actually had to make position reports in a /A aircraft (yet).

[Keith Smith]

Gavin,

I understand your post, but I'm just not seeing the value. Why not just remain on an IFR fight plan the whole way and use VFR-on-top if you want to have discretion over alitudes (above the minimum IFR altitude). Even then, I've done 150nm segments with a block altitude under IFR for various reasons.

I guess if you're a staunch VFR flight plan person, and you're sure you only want to fly a portion under IFR, and you feel you must have a VFR flight plan for search and rescue purposes, AND you only want to do it with a single filing of a flight plan...then this is pure gold. I think we've whittled the potential market down pretty far...which is why you never see them. At most, people will file an IFR flight plan to a certain point, and a VFR flight plan after that....but quite honestly, outside of training environments, I don't know anyone that utilizes VFR flight plans in cases where they're going to fly with radar coverage. Flight following pretty much does what you need in terms of S&R. If you go down, they'll be looking for you.

What I do is just file IFR the whole way, and then if the weather is great at the 50% mark, and there is an operational advantage to cancelling, I'll cancel...but truthfully, since you can get direct destination in many environments almost any time you like...why cancel? It's nice to be IFR because ATC will never drop you, whereas flight following can come and go.

This is just one of those things which is academically fascinating, and does help bring a few points home for students when they're learning the system, such as the fact that you can file to/from a fix or VOR, rather than an airport, but in terms of practical, real world use...I honestly just don't see it. I guarantee you'll spend more time trying to explain what you want to do with the controller than if you just went IFR the whole way.

[Ryan B]

I'm a controller and never heard of that! (yikes)

Don't they teach .65 anymore? Too many budget cuts, perhaps? *ducks*

I was never one to just read something and learn it for good. I'm sure they mentioned it at the Academy, but that was well over 5 years ago. I did look it up. Maybe a time saver maybe not. I can't think of a good practical reason for it.

[gavink42]

Keith,

Definitely not saying that I would ever file for such a thing! That was just the rationale that my instrument instructor used when he described the concept for me.

It's so much easier to file IFR for flights. Never really understood that until my instrument training.

But I'll admit to being spoiled by great radar coverage and not so heavy traffic loads. Never had to fly an unplanned hold or deal with position reports yet.

[Keith Smith]

Understood, Gavin, I saw that you said, "the answer I was given. It's an interesting discussion, though.

Btw, unplanned holds happen in areas with great radar coverage (ie, Socal). Just last night, in fact, Cyrus was given "cleared to Oceanside VOR, hold northwest on V23, expect further clearance at [whatever hour] 40, time now [same hour] 15."

Cyrus was...surprised Brett got the hint after I gently nudged him with "I'd appreciate a prompt cancellation when you can, I'm holding inbound IFR traffic for you." That did the trick, Brett cancelled, and Cyrus didn't have to fly the hold. One in one out strikes again.

Non-towered airport fly-ins on IFR flight plans can generate MUCH excitement in that regard. I really, really, really hope we have more with some including IMC, too. 3-4 people trying to get into the same field will be quite a thrill for everyone and will demonstrate the value in knowing the tools & tricks of flying efficiently in the NAS (ie, getting a VFR release on an IFR flight plan).