Does ATC see VFR flight plans?

[RussT]

Hey again ya'll

Often I've filed and opened a flight plan only to repeat everything again when I am request flight following by clearance or departure repeating destination, route, make/model, equipment suffix, cruising altitude and heading. It's really frustrating.

What would the phraseology to request that they look at what I filed? Something like.... 'Cirrus XXXXX flight following as filed destination KXXX'?

The reason is I want to leave some remarks to practice instrument approaches at my destination and I want the controllers to read my remarks section on the plan.

 

[EdFred]

NO. ATC doesn't see them. They only see IFR plans. There was supposedly a trick to get a VFR plan in the IFR system by doing something funky in the altitude block, but I've heard "experts" on both sides say yes it works, and no it doesn't work.

Basically, tell CD/TRACON what you want, and screw the VFR flight plan if getting FF anyway.

 

[RussT]

NO. ATC doesn't see them. They only see IFR plans. There was supposedly a trick to get a VFR plan in the IFR system by doing something funky in the altitude block, but I've heard "experts" on both sides say yes it works, and no it doesn't work.

Basically, tell CD/TRACON what you want, and screw the VFR flight plan if getting FF anyway.

Cool so two questions 1) Will search and rescue will be dispatched if you do not arrive at your destination or loose contact with ATC having only Flight Following?
and also 2) I wonder (out of curiosity only) would the NTSB report "no flight plan was filed" if they investigated an off field landing having flight following only?

 

[Mike I]

Cool so two questions 1) Will search and rescue will be dispatched if you do not arrive at your destination or loose contact with ATC having only Flight Following?

Nope. They'll likely say "Radar contact lost, squawk 1200".

and also 2) I wonder (out of curiosity only) would the NTSB report "no flight plan was filed" if they investigated an off field landing having flight following only?

Correct. Flight following is not a flight plan.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I'd add they can see the limited VFR "plans" they themselves have entered into the FDP system, as part of VFR RADAR traffic information service (VFR flight following. ) Which is why after a handoff to a different facility you don't have to repeat all your information again. But the typical VFR plan filed with FSS either manually or through a service such as DUATS remain in one computer system without ever being transmitted to an ATC facility.

 

[alaskaflyer]

This is rehashing old discussions, and there will probably be an active or retired controller along shortly to either correct our ideas or at the very least our terminology...but it's been my experience that while using advisory services with ATC if I were to lose contact with them - either lost radar or communications - the likelihood of that event either being reported directly to SAR agencies, or to flight service, is roughly equivalent to my chances of being selected for the next mission to the international space station. That is, short of leaving some clue that I'm actually in trouble like a mayday call or an obvious unplanned radar track. Instead it is "call three times then advise in the blind 'radar service terminated squawk VFR'."

TRACONs and ARTCCs don't even have the responsibility of assuring the safe arrival of IFR flights to the runway environment.

So as with many things the answer to all this isn't necessarily "which one should I do?" Perhaps "both" may be your best answer.

 

[roncachamp]

Hey again ya'll

Often I've filed and opened a flight plan only to repeat everything again when I am request flight following by clearance or departure repeating destination, route, make/model, equipment suffix, cruising altitude and heading. It's really frustrating.

What would the phraseology to request that they look at what I filed? Something like.... 'Cirrus XXXXX flight following as filed destination KXXX'?

The reason is I want to leave some remarks to practice instrument approaches at my destination and I want the controllers to read my remarks section on the plan.

No, ATC does not see VFR flight plans, they are strictly a tool of FSS. ATC has no access to them at all.

What you could do is file an IFR flight plan with "VFR" as the requested altitude. That will be sent to ATC just like a normal IFR flight plan, nothing will go to FSS. Do this online yourself, trying it via phone with FSS will likely result in confusion.

 

[roncachamp]

Cool so two questions 1) Will search and rescue will be dispatched if you do not arrive at your destination or loose contact with ATC having only Flight Following?

ATC must initiate a search whenever an unexpected loss of radar and radio communications occurs.

 

[poadeleted20]

1) Will search and rescue will be dispatched if you do not arrive at your destination or loose contact with ATC having only Flight Following?

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how attentive the controller is, and, of course, whether you're still receiving radar service. If you're still getting service and the controller sees your block dropping off the scope, it is supposed to trigger a response, but hasn't always in the past. OTOH, once the controller says "radar service terminated, frequency change approved," you are no longer in the controller's thoughts.

2) I wonder (out of curiosity only) would the NTSB report "no flight plan was filed" if they investigated an off field landing having flight following only?

They would if there was no flight plan filed. It's a square in which they have to put a checkmark in every report they write. Sometimes it's significant, sometimes it isn't -- the reader has to figure that out for him/herself.

 

[roncachamp]

TRACONs and ARTCCs don't even have the responsibility of assuring the safe arrival of IFR flights to the runway environment.

Of course not, how could they? They do have the responsibility to begin a search if you do not cancel IFR.

 

[poadeleted20]

Of course not, how could they? They do have the responsibility to begin a search if you do not cancel IFR.

...a responsibility which was reemphasized after an accident a few years ago, in the Chicago area IIRC. IFR flight dropped off the scope, controller either missed it or assumed the pilot was canceling and landing VFR, and no alert was generated. Airplane crashed, and IIRC the pilot died without SAR being initiated and the FAA got sued successfully. If someone has the facts better than that, please post it.

 

[Velocity173]

Cool so two questions 1) Will search and rescue will be dispatched if you do not arrive at your destination or loose contact with ATC having only Flight Following?
and also 2) I wonder (out of curiosity only) would the NTSB report "no flight plan was filed" if they investigated an off field landing having flight following only?

No, search and rescue is a FSS function not ATC. If you didn't file than no search and rescue. Now, if you're getting FF from approach and you obviously go down then they will call the appropriate authorities to do SAR. I had a C-150 lose an engine while I was working approach once. I get a good position, tell the Sup and he calls the police. We had a SAR H-46 helo as well that handled civilian crashes too. Now if you drop of radar and it appears it was because you're outside of coverage, then they'll most likely do a radar service termination in the blind and file your strip away.

The only time I filed was during training. After that I just used FF from approach and 90 % of the time I got it. My Dad is retired FSS so he always believes in filing. Yeah back in the day it was important. Now with the ease of using radar services and the fact pretty much everyone has cellphones, I don't do it. If I lived up in Alaska I might though.

 

[Velocity173]

Crap! Ron and Steve were on this one like a fat kid on a cupcake.

 

[alaskaflyer]

ATC must initiate a search whenever an unexpected loss of radar and radio communications occurs.

Meh. I don't doubt the policy nor your familiarity with it but I'm cynical about its actual application to VFR flights in the field, as it were. At least for typical spam cans following with an ARTCC out in the boonies.

For my own edification I'd like to know the JO number so I can read it.

 

[RussT]

Found this... http://www.aopa.org/aopalive/?watch=tydmZrMzrf8TvbOoZ7ZRTVQwr2p0xNSv

 

[Velocity173]

Meh. I don't doubt the policy nor your familiarity with it but I'm cynical about its actual application to VFR flights in the field, as it were. At least for typical spam cans following with an ARTCC out in the boonies.

For my own edification I'd like to know the JO number so I can read it.

It's in Chap 10 of the .65. Falls under emergencies.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's in Chap 10 of the .65. Falls under emergencies.

I know it's in the book, but I'm not convinced it always happens. However, after that accident I mentioned, adherence to the book may be more likely to happen.

 

[flyingron]

NO. ATC doesn't see them. They only see IFR plans.

Actually, they don't even see ENTIRE IFR plans. Just the parts that the computers have decided they need to have. They don't have your aircraft color, alternate, etc...

 

[flyingron]

Any unexpected loss of an aircraft IFR or VFR is supposed to trigger a search. As Ron pointed out, you can't even rely on it for IFR. There have been incidents where controllers have set an aircraft on approach and forgot to see if they ever cancelled and unfortunately they had crashed and not noticed to the next day.

I always tell some non-FAA person what my travel plans are so they can start hunting if I don't appear.

 

[azure]

NO. ATC doesn't see them. They only see IFR plans. There was supposedly a trick to get a VFR plan in the IFR system by doing something funky in the altitude block, but I've heard "experts" on both sides say yes it works, and no it doesn't work.

Basically, tell CD/TRACON what you want, and screw the VFR flight plan if getting FF anyway.

Good to see you back, Ed!

The "trick" wasn't to get a VFR flight plan in the IFR system, it was as Steve described. I can vouch for the fact that it works. I can also vouch for the fact that it can lead to confusion on the initial callup to ATC, but nothing that can't be resolved with minimal communication skills. It may be that the confusion only happens when the plan is filed through FSS as Steve says; it's been long enough since it happened to me that I don't remember any longer whether I filed directly online or through FSS. What might happen is that you might be read an IFR clearance or asked if you want one. If you want to stay VFR, that's easy to do.

The only wrinkle in this is that, according to a source I consider reliable, at least one FAA lawyer believes that it is illegal to do this (i.e., check the IFR box when filing a flight plan) unless you are instrument rated, even if you do not accept an IFR clearance. This probably says more about the mentality of that particular lawyer than any real point of law, but it's worth mentioning.

 

[Velocity173]

If you're IFR or getting FF VFR and you drop off the scope or suddenly lose comms with ATC, THEY WILL TAKE STEPS TO FIND YOU. What Ron brings up is a very rare case. You have thousands of operations going on over the U. S. everyday. Once in a blue moon the situation that Ron describes happens. I'll be the first to say that the quality of ATC isn't what it used to be but it's 10 times better than what you get in most parts of the world. Having worked ATC in SE Asia, I tell you, you do not want to be flying in that area or most other areas for that matter. They have little knowledge of ATC and have huge gaps in radar coverage. I won't even go into the language barrier.

So to the poster I'll tell you this. You have people that file a flight plan thinking that's the safe thing to do. If you crash during that flight and are seriously injured, FSS won't be initiating anything until 30 mins after your proposed ETA. On the other hand you could never have filed at all and get radar service from approach. If you crash he'll have a pinpoint location on you and in some cases (mine) have the capability to launch military SAR in minutes. I think our ATC system is pretty darn efficient.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you're IFR or getting FF VFR and you drop off the scope or suddenly lose comms with ATC, THEY WILL TAKE STEPS TO FIND YOU. What Ron brings up is a very rare case.

Generally agreed, but it does happen from time to time even if the odds are very much in your favor. Nevertheless, a VFR flight plan does increase the odds that you will be missed if you don't make it, even if there is not a lot of crack through which to slip.

 

[MassPilot]

I believe one takeaway from this thread is that it is pretty important to declare an emergency if something happens and you may not be making it to an airport. If your not already in contact with ATC, at least squawk 7700 before you get too low and possibly out of radar coverage. That will set off an alarm with ATC and call attention to your radar track on their scope.

Of course aviate and navigate are the priorities, but anyone that ends up in the middle of the woods, injured and without cell service, will probably wish they communicated.

 

[roncachamp]

Meh. I don't doubt the policy nor your familiarity with it but I'm cynical about its actual application to VFR flights in the field, as it were. At least for typical spam cans following with an ARTCC out in the boonies.

For my own edification I'd like to know the JO number so I can read it.

Order JO 7110.65U Air Traffic Control paragraph 10-2-5.b.

 

[roncachamp]

If you're IFR or getting FF VFR and you drop off the scope or suddenly lose comms with ATC, THEY WILL TAKE STEPS TO FIND YOU. What Ron brings up is a very rare case. You have thousands of operations going on over the U. S. everyday. Once in a blue moon the situation that Ron describes happens. I'll be the first to say that the quality of ATC isn't what it used to be but it's 10 times better than what you get in most parts of the world. Having worked ATC in SE Asia, I tell you, you do not want to be flying in that area or most other areas for that matter. They have little knowledge of ATC and have huge gaps in radar coverage. I won't even go into the language barrier.

The book says "unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications". It doesn't come into play if the target drops off the scope in a known area of poor radar coverage.

 

[flyingron]

The only wrinkle in this is that, according to a source I consider reliable, at least one FAA lawyer believes that it is illegal to do this (i.e., check the IFR box when filing a flight plan) unless you are instrument rated, even if you do not accept an IFR clearance. This probably says more about the mentality of that particular lawyer than any real point of law, but it's worth mentioning.

One FAA lawyer would have to find a regulation that says that doing so is illegal.
One FAA lawyer should figure out why you are required to do this is the DC SFRA and the Oakland TRACON in order to get VFR Service.

 

[roncachamp]

The only wrinkle in this is that, according to a source I consider reliable, at least one FAA lawyer believes that it is illegal to do this (i.e., check the IFR box when filing a flight plan) unless you are instrument rated, even if you do not accept an IFR clearance. This probably says more about the mentality of that particular lawyer than any real point of law, but it's worth mentioning.

I'd wager that one FAA lawyer didn't cite the regulation he believed was being violated.

ATC has been using the Flight Data Processing system to transfer information on VFR aircraft receiving flight following since the system was created over thirty years ago. I don't recall how long pilots have had access to that system for the filing of flight plans but it's gotta be well over a decade, perhaps closer to two. If the FAA did not want pilots entering "VFR" as the requested altitude that input would have been inhibited. It wasn't.

 

[GeierFlyer]

When I fly from my home field near New York to a destination in the Washington SFRA, I file an IFR flight plan and give the altitude as "VFR". The DUATS system accepts this without problems. I once had a tower controller at my home field confused, but that was it.

I noticed that the en-route controllers make clear in their transmissions that for such flights, I am not under IFR, only receiving flight following.

 

[azure]

I'd wager that one FAA lawyer didn't cite the regulation he believed was being violated.

He did not. This was told to me by an aviation attorney who knows the FAA lawyer, and I even asked him if the FAA lawyer cited the reg that this supposedly violated. I gather that he mumbled something about "lying to the government", as in representing yourself to ATC as being legally IFR qualified when you're not. The way we left it was that the aviation attorney would ask the FAA lawyer to cite chapter and verse the next time they talked. I haven't heard anything further about it.

If the FAA did not want pilots entering "VFR" as the requested altitude that input would have been inhibited. It wasn't.

I'm not so sure I buy that one though. The FAA lawyer might argue that they don't prevent it because of situations like the DC SFRA where it's absolutely needed, but would still try to nail someone who tried to use that mechanism in a different context.

 

[poadeleted20]

The discussion on getting busted comes down to what you and the controller actually say. If the controller uses the word "cleared," and you say "roger," then you just accepted an IFR clearance (unless it was part of a VFR class B airspace clearance). If the controller never issues a "clearance" then you haven't broken the rules. The issue for the pilot is making sure the controller doesn't do that, and if the controller does, immediately making "clear" that you are operating VFR, not IFR.

That said, I've lost track of the number of times the controller loses track of whether I'm VFR or IFR (errors both ways), and given that, it's not likely the controller is going to write you up unless the system perceives a loss of separation, forcing the controller to do paperwork.

 

[azure]

The discussion on getting busted comes down to what you and the controller actually say. If the controller uses the word "cleared," and you say "roger," then you just accepted an IFR clearance (unless it was part of a VFR class B airspace clearance).

I can't begin to count the times I've been cleared for practice approaches at KFNT and even elsewhere, all VFR. I can't believe the controller was issuing me an IFR clearance. To my understanding, "cleared" means they are giving you separation, whether it's under IFR or VFR. Isn't it true that VFR traffic is separated from IFR traffic in Class C airspace as well? I think Steven has said that this is sometimes true in Class D and E as well, for the purpose of practice approaches, but I could be misremembering that.

 

[roncachamp]

He did not. This was told to me by an aviation attorney who knows the FAA lawyer, and I even asked him if the FAA lawyer cited the reg that this supposedly violated. I gather that he mumbled something about "lying to the government", as in representing yourself to ATC as being legally IFR qualified when you're not. The way we left it was that the aviation attorney would ask the FAA lawyer to cite chapter and verse the next time they talked. I haven't heard anything further about it.

You're not representing yourself to ATC as being legally IFR qualified when you enter "VFR" as the requested altitude.

I'm not so sure I buy that one though. The FAA lawyer might argue that they don't prevent it because of situations like the DC SFRA where it's absolutely needed, but would still try to nail someone who tried to use that mechanism in a different context.

That argument might have some merit if the capability to enter "VFR" as the requested altitude had been added at the time the DC SFRA was established. But that capability was always part of the system, long before the DC SFRA was created.

 

[roncachamp]

I can't begin to count the times I've been cleared for practice approaches at KFNT and even elsewhere, all VFR. I can't believe the controller was issuing me an IFR clearance. To my understanding, "cleared" means they are giving you separation, whether it's under IFR or VFR. Isn't it true that VFR traffic is separated from IFR traffic in Class C airspace as well? I think Steven has said that this is sometimes true in Class D and E as well, for the purpose of practice approaches, but I could be misremembering that.

See AIM paragraph 4-3-21. PRACTICE APPROACHES and Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control paragraph 4−8−11. PRACTICE APPROACHES.

 

[RotorAndWing]

One FAA lawyer would have to find a regulation that says that doing so is illegal.
One FAA lawyer should figure out why you are required to do this is the DC SFRA and the Oakland TRACON in order to get VFR Service.

He did not. This was told to me by an aviation attorney who knows the FAA lawyer, and I even asked him if the FAA lawyer cited the reg that this supposedly violated.

I'd wager that one FAA lawyer didn't cite the regulation he believed was being violated.

Maybe this guy?

 

[Velocity173]

I can't begin to count the times I've been cleared for practice approaches at KFNT and even elsewhere, all VFR. I can't believe the controller was issuing me an IFR clearance. To my understanding, "cleared" means they are giving you separation, whether it's under IFR or VFR. Isn't it true that VFR traffic is separated from IFR traffic in Class C airspace as well? I think Steven has said that this is sometimes true in Class D and E as well, for the purpose of practice approaches, but I could be misremembering that.

I think Ron is referring to "Cleared to". If the controller clears you to an airport and assigns an IFR altitude then they've mistaken you for IFR. Practice approach is different. You could be VFR going into the primary airport (FAA 7210.3) and they'll still tell you to maintain VFR throughout the approach but are giving you IFR separation. Outlying airports don't apply unless it's under some LOA. None of that allows you to go IMC. In that case they'll say something like " maintain VFR throughout the approach, no separation services provided."

Now an abbreviated IFR (pop-up) clearance is different. If the aircraft is equipped and the pilot rated you'll get a local IFR clearance. I did a bunch of instrument approaches (even IMC) in the Army and I'd say only half of them I actually filed an IFR flight plan for.

 

[azure]

I think Ron is referring to "Cleared to". If the controller clears you to an airport and assigns an IFR altitude then they've mistaken you for IFR. Practice approach is different. You could be VFR going into the primary airport (FAA 7210.3) and they'll still tell you to maintain VFR throughout the approach but are giving you IFR separation. Outlying airports don't apply unless it's under some LOA. None of that allows you to go IMC. In that case they'll say something like " maintain VFR throughout the approach, no separation services provided."

Yes, that's consistent with what I thought, and is essentially what the AIM says, as in the reference that Steven posted. Thanks guys. And yes, I was at first going to ask Ron if he meant "cleared" as in a clearance limit, but then reread the paragraph and thought it sounded more general than that. I'm sure he didn't mean it that way, but I thought it needed to be questioned to avoid confusing someone else.

Now an abbreviated IFR (pop-up) clearance is different. If the aircraft is equipped and the pilot rated you'll get a local IFR clearance. I did a bunch of instrument approaches (even IMC) in the Army and I'd say only half of them I actually filed an IFR flight plan for.

A couple of years ago I was shooting approaches at KYIP with my first CFII when it started snowing so hard the vis dropped to something like 2 miles (KYIP is Class D). We asked for another approach and Tower came back with "the field is IFR, say intentions". I think he was expecting me to request an SVFR clearance and land, but the ceilings were still well up there so after discussing it with my CFII, I asked for a pop-up and we returned home IFR.

All that to say, yes, I'm aware that it's different, and also that it's a good tool to keep in mind.

 

[poadeleted20]

Seems to me that when I'm doing practice approaches under VFR, they say "ILS 32 practice approach approved" rather than "cleared ILS 32 approach.". Perhaps one of the controllers here can confirm that's what 7110.65 calls for.

 

[Velocity173]

Seems to me that when I'm doing practice approaches under VFR, they say "ILS 32 practice approach approved" rather than "cleared ILS 32 approach.". Perhaps one of the controllers here can confirm that's what 7110.65 calls for.

I'm sure Steven will give his input but I never gave a clearance for an approach to a VFR aircraft. I gave them their position from FAF and practice approach approved. This was an outlying field though where no separation was implied. I've talked to current controller friends though and they clear them. I've been cleared myself many times while VFR but the controller specified to maintain VFR throughout the approach. I guess the real question is if your cleared for an approach does that necessarily mean they have to be IFR? IMO no.
I think it really depends on airspace, SOPs and if it's a primary airport or some outlying airport.

 

[roncachamp]

Seems to me that when I'm doing practice approaches under VFR, they say "ILS 32 practice approach approved" rather than "cleared ILS 32 approach.". Perhaps one of the controllers here can confirm that's what 7110.65 calls for.

Where procedures require application of IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches, aircraft are cleared for the approach with a restriction to maintain VFR. Where IFR separation is not applied to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches, the prescribed phraseology is:

“(Aircraft identification) MAINTAIN VFR, PRACTICE APPROACH APPROVED, NO SEPARATION SERVICES PROVIDED.”

 

[Velocity173]

Where procedures require application of IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches aircraft are cleared for the approach with a restriction to maintain VFR. Where IFR separation is not applied to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches the prescribed phraseology is:

“(Aircraft identification) MAINTAIN VFR, PRACTICE APPROACH APPROVED, NO SEPARATION SERVICES PROVIDED.”

Yes that ^
:wink2: