VFR Climb

B767

Well-Known Member
I work at COS and the other day a Skywest plane requested a "VFR Climb" on departure. I have heard this two other times as well. The clearance is something like maintain VFR below 16,000 c/m FL200. What is the purpose of the VFR climb? I assume it just lets the pilots take a more direct route and not have to fly a published SID?
 
My initial response is that it is for performance limitations. VFR climb eliminates the IFR climb gradiant requirments.

Jim
 
I'm thinking this is correct. By requesting a "VFR climb" you are no longer subject to IFR climb rules (climb gradient, obstacle departure procedures, etc.)

If it were me doing it, I would probably request a "VFR departure" and then "an IFR pickup" after I got above obstacles, rather than use the terminology "VFR climb" but either way probably gets the job done.
 
I have used it before to depart and get around some slower IFR traffic ahead (caravans). The alternative would be more time spend on the ground waiting for separation.
 
I assume it just lets the pilots take a more direct route and not have to fly a published SID?

This is the reason I've used it most. For example, the published obstacle DP out of Santa Rosa, CA takes you way out to the southwest. If you're going to the east towards the Central Valley, you can save a ton of time with a VFR climb where you're responsible for terrain and traffic avoidance.
 
It is against the ops specs, according to a FAA Chief Counsel interp, for any part 121 operation and for any part 135 turbojet operation. It is considered the same as a VFR On Top Clearance, under the CFR, which, of course, is also not allowed for those operations. It is possible a carrier can get a specific waiver for this, but that would have to come from the Chief Counsels office, and would likely be for a specific airport only.
 
A few years ago I flew United climbing out of Jackson,Wyoming and listened in on ch 9 and they were doing a vfr climb. I don't know the specifics and Jackson is pretty sparse, but has pretty strict noise abatement along with the terrain so that could be part of it.
 
seagull said:
It is against the ops specs, according to a FAA Chief Counsel interp, for any part 121 operation and for any part 135 turbojet operation. It is considered the same as a VFR On Top Clearance, under the CFR, which, of course, is also not allowed for those operations. It is possible a carrier can get a specific waiver for this, but that would have to come from the Chief Counsels office, and would likely be for a specific airport only.

Both Colgan and Scenic are 121 and can dispatch as VFR flights, so they could both do a VFR climb.
 
All 121 operators can dispatch under VFR, or arrive under VFR under VERY specific circumstances. When Jerry Davis, former manager of AFS-400, wrote the New Standard Ops Specs, he had to include that language, but not so you could do a VFR climb. The reason the distances from the airport are so tight is that the ONLY reason that is valid for doing a VFR arrival or departure is that it is not otherwise possible to obtain an IFR clearance. There really is only ONE time that occurs, and that is when operating at a non-tower airport AND preceeding IFR traffic somehow got the system stuck. This usually occurs when an aircraft arrives and forgets to close their flight plan, but can also happen when someone has a wheels up time and ATC is not sure of their disposition.

I am not aware of any waivers UAL has, certainly didn't have any a few years back when this issue first surfaced. In fact, the only one I have heard of at all was Delta at SLC, and I am not sure that is even valid, as it sort of sounded like their POI did it, and, last I checked, the waiver had to come from FAA Hq in D.C.

One thing for certain, though, is that a lot of pilots do not understand this issue. Not sure why that is, but then, I was surprised how many pilots thought they could stomp on the rudders prior to the AA Airbus accident issues coming out.
 
Back
Top