Can we talk about VFR flight following?

luvflyin said:
Something you might consider on those long over hostile terrain flights is making VFR Position Reports to FSS. It narrows the search area if they have the record that you made it at least that far. Just giving a PIREP will accomplish the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yea probably a good idea...I have a 406MHz PLB as well just in case (ACR Resqlink)
 
denverpilot said:
What you’re hearing is what’s known as a drone.

He’s reading what the computer says and spitting it out with no knowledge whatsoever of what you dealing with a Bravo or flying the aircraft in busy airspace is all about. He forgot about the conversation the instant you signed off with him.

It ain’t the old FSS, it’s all computer driven now. Might as well have you talking to one of those computerized menus for the entire conversation nowadays for most of it.

I wouldn’t worry about it, your story is pretty normal now. Perhaps sadly, but that’s water long under the LockMart/Leidos bridge.
Click to expand...

Wow that's a bummer to hear. Almost makes you not want to even file a VFR Flight Plan if you have to deal with guys like that.
 
flyingron said:
I'm aware of that, but it's at odds with ESTABLISHED practice by ATC and PILOTS. The moron so much as admits that it's not a violation but a sign that the pilot intends to break the rules later. Poppycock.

I'm going to have to start rattling cages.

As I stated, some facilities, notably the DC SFRA/FRZ REQUIRE you to file VFR flight plans as IFR plans. They weren't the first. OAK was doing it a decade earlier.

I still remember being in the first briefing for pilots authorized to fly in the FRZ (I was based at VKX on 9/11). Marty (I'm spazzing on his last name but he worked in ATC management at the time) was talking about all the extra effort it was going to take to get the plans from the Leesburg AFSS to the various DC approach controls (at the time, they had not all had been consolidated into PCT). I spoke to him at the end and asked why they wouldn't just put them in as IFR. He goes over to the head FSS guy and asks if they could put the plans in as IFR. The guy at the FSS says "Of course, we're going to put them in as IFR, how else would it work?"

The further up the FAA management you go, the less you understand how things work apparently.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. I don't mind the practice of filing IFR with a VFR altitude. Most of my friends that do ATC are aware of the practice and don't care. Some are VFR pilots and do it themselves to pick up FF. The letter to me is a disconnect between FAA management and what the people "in the trenches" are doing.

Personally, I think they need to amend the AFSS software so that a check block for "traffic advisories" triggers an automatic forward to ATC. Would simplify things and make for a far more efficient system.
 
CC268 said:
Wow that's a bummer to hear. Almost makes you not want to even file a VFR Flight Plan if you have to deal with guys like that.
Click to expand...

Oh I don’t mind the flight plan, but I can file it electronically, close it electronically or even via SMS, and pretty much know I’m just setting a stopwatch in the Leidos computer so it’ll call AFRCC when I haven’t answered roll call in too long. That’s about all it is anymore.

I don’t have a SPOT or any of their competitors yet, but want one. Simpler, and they still end up contacting AFRCC anyway... so the only benefit to using Leidos is that it’s paid for by public debt subsidized by other non-Aviation taxpayers. Or as some like to say, “free”.
 
Velocity173 said:
Personally, I think they need to amend the AFSS software so that a check block for "traffic advisories" triggers an automatic forward to ATC. Would simplify things and make for a far more efficient system.
Click to expand...
Actually, it would just be a "send to ATC" flag, which is really how FSS uses the checkbox in practice and has done it that way for over three decades.
 
denverpilot said:
Oh I don’t mind the flight plan, but I can file it electronically, close it electronically or even via SMS, and pretty much know I’m just setting a stopwatch in the Leidos computer so it’ll call AFRCC when I haven’t answered roll call in too long. That’s about all it is anymore.

I don’t have a SPOT or any of their competitors yet, but want one. Simpler, and they still end up contacting AFRCC anyway... so the only benefit to using Leidos is that it’s paid for by public debt subsidized by other non-Aviation taxpayers. Or as some like to say, “free”.
Click to expand...

I've had issues with ForeFlight not letting me close the flight plan on my iPad, so I end up having to call them. Not sure why.
 
CC268 said:
I agree I just don't see the need to tie up the frequency with some long winded transmission right off the bat. If you say VFR request or VFR traffic advisories they know exactly what you want anyways. It hurts my ears when I hear someone tie up freq with PHX Approach for a solid 10 seconds with their life story.
Click to expand...

Was flying in Germany one day with a young copilot. He called Nuremberg Approach with about a 10 second initial call for FF. I was sitting there cringing because I knew the controller was either not going to copy his request, or he was stepping on other higher (IFR clearances) priorities. Sure enough, he comes back with "Army copter 12345, vas dat your idea of initial call up???" :D
 
I have come to find it depends on where you are in the this great country in how you handle the initial call up. I was always taught that when dealing with So Cal, Pt Mugu approach or LA Center, you had best not make the initial contact and request advisories at same time. And for VFR flight following, it was best practice to say , the normal information blah,blah, blah, request VFR flight following 'Time Permitting'. I can only recall one time being dumped back to VFR 1200 when So Cal went to pass me off the LA Center. Got the 'Radar services terminated. squawk 1200 and remain VFR.

Down here in the South, Campbell Approach will take it all in first call up

-MF
 
On the "initial callup" thing I think it depends a lot on how clean and professional one is in doing it.

"New York, Cherokee 12345, 2 north of Deer Park 3500, VFR to Block Island, request advisories"

Will usually work and get you what you want.

"Ummm.... New York ummmm Approach.... November oneeee twooooo threeee four fiiiiive ummmmm yeah ummmm we're a ummm piper cherokee, ymm a pa-28. We are along the north shore... um... yeah, near ummmm deer park. We are ummm VFR to block island and ummm I think we yeah, we have a VFR flight plan but not sure if you see that... yeah, ummm requesting flight following and traffic advisories."

Not so much.

I've heard people come on with that and it's painful. You can almost see the controller breaking their pencil.
 
Clark1961 said:
No one has mentioned it so I will. If you want flight following and want it to be easy for the controller file an IFR flight plan using VFR for the altitude. On the legal side be IFR rated because supposedly the FFA can call filing the IFR flight plan as intent to fly IFR. I don’t put a lot of stock in the story but consider yourself warned.

Anyway when you call for flight following just mention that there should be a strip.
Click to expand...

As was mentioned later in the thread, it was in the Goodish letter. While it does say that the filing indicates a "clear intent" to conduct operations under IFR, it also says, in the second-to-last paragraph, that it is not independently a triggering action for an operation to be considered to be conducted under IFR.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...fr-by-non-ifr-cert-pilot-j-goodish-pdf.29091/

I've heard that this process causes confusion for some controllers, so I'm not planning on using it unless they put it in the controllers' manual and the AIM.

The above attachment was posted in a previous discussion of this subject:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/file-ifr-when-not-rated.57248/#post-1107737
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
I don't see where in the AIM to make a full call on initial call up for airborne, only request for FF while on the ground..
Click to expand...

AIM specifically recommends AGAINST blurting out all the full info on initial contact:

4-2-3. Contact Procedures

a. Initial Contact.

1. The terms initial contact or initial callup means the first radio call you make to a given facility or the first call to a different controller or FSS specialist within a facility. Use the following format:

(a) Name of the facility being called;

(b) Your full aircraft identification as filed in the flight plan or as discussed in paragraph 4-2-4, Aircraft Call Signs;

(c) When operating on an airport surface, state your position.

(d) The type of message to follow or your request if it is short;

EXAMPLE-
...
3. "Miami Center, Baron Five Six Three Hotel, request V-F-R traffic advisories."


Mooney Fan said:
I was always taught that when dealing with So Cal, Pt Mugu approach or LA Center, you had best not make the initial contact and request advisories at same time. And for VFR flight following, it was best practice to say , the normal information blah,blah, blah, request VFR flight following 'Time Permitting'.
Click to expand...

During my SoCal TRACON tour...this is what they said they want on a cold call up:

"SoCal...Skylane 12345, 5 miles south of Fullerton, Flight Folowing Request" ...THAT is it...THEN wait for their response for everything else and they can prioritize you accordingly.

Who you are, where you are, what you want (short...see AIM above).
 
From a controller opinion, it doesn't matter. It all gets sorted out.
 
flyingron said:
...As I stated, some facilities, notably the DC SFRA/FRZ REQUIRE you to file VFR flight plans as IFR plans. They weren't the first. OAK was doing it a decade earlier....
Click to expand...
OAK must have discontinued the requirement, because I've never been told about it when asking for FF around here.
 
denverpilot said:
Sorry to say this, but I’ve attempted that a couple of years ago in the mountains.

The AFSS folks are many states away in a soulless building with no idea what any of the standard reporting checkpoints in the mountains around here are anymore. You’d better plan on a very long back and forth with them, spelling common landmarks the old local FSS knew by heart. Or just giving them lat/long or radial/distance off of a navaid.

Better yet, buy a SPOT tracker and forget about it.

You could tell AFSS you were over the top of the Statue of Liberty and they’d ask you to spell it.
Click to expand...
I haven't done it a year or so. When doing it I use radial/distance from VOR's. That's a common format that they can just plug in and hit <ENTER>. I just give it to them in the format per AIM 5-3-2 d. 1. I skip (f) and (g) but have given a new ETA to destination. It goes someting like 'Bumphuq Radio, N12345 VFR position Report. Go Ahead. N12345, BUM130 at 025, 1345, 6500, VFR. So far I haven't gotten into a 20 questions with them. The just say roger or thankyou or something.
 
paging @roncachamp

What is required for a towered airport to arrange VFR flight following? Is LOA the correct term?
 
Palmpilot said:
As was mentioned later in the thread, it was in the Goodish letter. While it does say that the filing indicates a "clear intent" to conduct operations under IFR, it also says, in the second-to-last paragraph, that it is not independently a triggering action for an operation to be considered to be conducted under IFR.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...fr-by-non-ifr-cert-pilot-j-goodish-pdf.29091/

I've heard that this process causes confusion for some controllers, so I'm not planning on using it unless they put it in the controllers' manual and the AIM.
Click to expand...

Thank you for providing support for my comments.

OTOH, Mark’s comment is the first negative comment I’ve heard from a controller. It definitely makes the conversation shorter when requesting flight following.
 
Clark1961 said:
Thank you for providing support for my comments.

OTOH, Mark’s comment is the first negative comment I’ve heard from a controller. It definitely makes the conversation shorter when requesting flight following.
Click to expand...

Negative, about what. I forgot.
 
Clark1961 said:
Thank you for providing support for my comments.

OTOH, Mark’s comment is the first negative comment I’ve heard from a controller. It definitely makes the conversation shorter when requesting flight following.
Click to expand...

This. What'd I say negative?
 
ok, my excuse is I'm stuck at work today...WTF are you guys doing on here on TG morning hijacking this thread...? LOL :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top