Flight Following is Fantastic

[roncachamp]

I'm going to toss in an actual flight path for some real world context and see what y'all think.

Here are a couple more flight paths for some real world context. The red polygon in the attached image shows the lateral boundaries of Green Bay TRACON. Note that it is considerably larger than the Green Bay Class C airspace area.

The green line shows the flight path of a VFR arrival to KGRB at 3000 MSL. The aircraft establishes radio contact with approach when it is west of Oshkosh. About eleven miles north of Oshkosh is Outagamie County Airport near Appleton, the aircraft will go through the center of the Appleton Class D airspace area. When the aircraft is about ten miles southwest of KATW approach calls the tower and coordinates the transition of the Class D airspace, which the aircraft completes in about four minutes.

The purple line shows the flight path of a VFR thruflight of Green Bay approach control airspace at 3500 MSL. The aircraft is receiving flight following from Minneapolis Center as it approaches the western boundary of Green Bay approach airspace. Center completes a radar handoff to approach and transfers communications. Approach continues to provide flight following as well as Class C services while the aircraft is within twenty miles of KGRB. As it nears the Class C airspace area proper the aircraft is instructed to maintain VFR at or above 3,500 until further advised because Green Bay tower clears departing aircraft to 3,000 MSL. When the aircraft is no longer a potential conflict with KGRB departures the altitude restriction is cancelled. When the aircraft reaches the vicinity of the Lake Michigan shoreline approach completes a radar handoff to Minneapolis Center and transfers communications.

The significant differences in these two scenarios are the distances involved and services provided. It took the aircraft about four minutes to transit the Appleton Class D airspace. The services provided to VFR aircraft in Class D airspace are exactly the same as in Class E airspace; traffic advisories and safety alerts. It takes the aircraft about forty minutes to transit Green Bay approach airspace and the service varies; while within the Outer Area of Class C airspace, when it's within twenty miles of KGRB, the aircraft also receives separation from IFR aircraft. Also, the same approach controller works both sides of the Appleton Class D transition while the Green Bay approach transition involves three sectors within Green Bay approach and returns to a different sector of Minneapolis ARTCC.

It makes sense to coordinate the transition of Class D airspace; it's simple and brief. That's not the case with Class C airspace while in communications with an ARTCC. If you're still on a center frequency when you near a Class C boundary you are likely well within the airspace owned by a different ATC facility. You should conclude that somebody fooked up.

 

[roncachamp]

The letter is not about C vs. D, it's about asking if simply talking to someone on flight following constitutes the requirement for "two-way radio communication" with the controlling facility for an airspace prior to entering such airspace. The FAA says no it does not. There person you are talking to needs to be the controlling authority for traffic in that airspace.



JO 7110.65 is very clear that it does not override a pilot's responsibility under 14 CFR.

"Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order."

You can't keep pointing to so something in 7110.65 and claim that this relieves you of duties assigned to you as PIC under 14 CFR. 7110.65 itself says that logic doesn't fly. The FAA has further clarified that this logic doesn't work, especially as it relates to flight following:

"The receipt of traffic advisories from a Center or any other ATC facility does not relieve the pilot of the responsibilities of section 91.3."

and

Advisory services such as flight following are furnished to VFR traffic as a courtesy when workloads permit. By providing this courtesy, the Center does not obligate itself to advise pilots operating under VFR of their geographic position nor of their obligations under section 91.130(c)(1) or any other sections of 14 CFR .

And specifically as it relates to "two-way communication" and Class D:

"It is the responsibility of the pilot to ensure that ATC clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to entry into Class B, Class C or Class D airspace. The pilot retains this responsibility when receiving ATC radar advisories."

So when under VFR you must establish "two-way communication" with the facility responsible for the Class D to enter the Class D.

Yes, the person you're talking to may have a LOA with the Class D to say they are responsible for the airspace in question, but this is not guaranteed. You've said:



Please cite the regulation where it says the person you're talking to for flight following has authority over all Class D "nationwide." I have never seen anything to that effect.

There may be such an agreement in place, but one should never assume that's the case. One should never "assume" anything regarding permissions to be in a particular airspace. If the PIC is not 100% sure, they should ask.



This is bad advice.

The PIC is governed by CFR 14. CFR 14 says the PIC is responsible for ensuring airspace reqs have been met. If you bust something in CFR 14, 7110.65 isn't a defense. 7110.65 itself says that quite clearly right up front!

If the PIC intends to enter a Class D it's the PIC's responsibility to ensure such communications have been established. If the PIC isn't 100% sure that the person they're talking to is the controlling authority for the Class D in question, they should absolutely ask. Never ever "assume" when it comes to airspace reqs.

Also, purely from a practical standpoint a VFR pilot on flight following is on "altitude and course per the PICs discretion" unless otherwise discussed with the controller. The controller has no way of knowing if a VFR pilot intends to fly into/above/around an airspace unless you've discussed a specific route to your destination.

Again, per above being on flight following does not absolve the PIC of this responsibility. The FAA has been very clear on this fact. Trying to use a "but I was on flight following" defense is like trying to say you're iPad's GPS told you something. Both are considered supplementary services for a VFR pilot.



Right, and so far as regs are concerned 7110.65 says nothing in there overrides the FARs "regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order". For the PIC CFR 14 is the law. Please stop trying to use things said in 7110.65 to say it's OK for a PIC to do or not do something.



Ultimately we may just need to agree to disagree on some of these points although I would strongly encourage any PIC to never "assume" anything, especially as it relates to permission to be in an airspace.

In the worst case if something really bad does happen, saying "but I was on flight following so I assumed..." isn't likely to get you too far.

And, as this thread started, we can all agree that Flight Following and the controllers that provide it are indeed fantastic!

You insist that your position is correct despite all the evidence that it is not. I don't know if you're trolling or are just genuinely stupid but I think we've wasted enough time here.

 

[rocketflyer84]

You insist that your position is correct despite all the evidence that it is not. I don't know if you're trolling or are just genuinely stupid but I think we've wasted enough time here.

Respectfully, you've been asked several times to cite an official document or regulation that provides this blanket coverage to support your insistence that whenever you are talking to Flight Following that talking to this controller constitutes "two-way communication" with the controlling authority responsible for any Class D airspace nationwide. There may be an LOA there may not be. The final legal authority to make sure that the plane is allow to be where it is is 100% with the PIC. You keep insisting you have provided 'evidence' for such blanket coverage but haven't cited a single official document stating this fact (and again 7110.65 itself says it's not to be used to negate anything said in 14 CFR). You keep insisting this despite multiple citations of clear regulation and FAA interpretation stating the very premise that it's OK to assume such things on flight following is in fact invalid.

My pointing out that pilot's should most certainly not take your advice to just blissfully blast through Class D airspace on flight following without first confirming communication with the tower or other controlling authority (either directly or via proxy with the FF controller) is not 'trolling'. If someone is giving bad advice to student pilots, especially as it relates to airspace regulations, I'm going to point it out.

We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree, but to any student pilots I urge you never ever assume anything as it relates to permission to be in an airspace, Class D or otherwise. If you're not 100% sure ATC is there to help you. If unsure, just ask.

 

[JoeSelch]

(If he weren't so dogged in his insistence, I would swear rocketflyer is ctlsi reincarnated )

 

[Clark1961]

(If he weren't so dogged in his insistence, I would swear rocketflyer is ctlsi reincarnated )

There are a couple or three new posters with suspicious posting behavior...some folks can't change and can't stay away, I think...

 

[airdale]

I would swear rocketflyer is ctlsi reincarnated.

By Gawd, I think you've got it!

 

[Henning]

I love FF and ATC but I prefer to play it safe. A flight plan is cheap insurance to make sure someone will look for you if you go missing. All I expect out of a busy ATC is "N1234, radar contact lost. Squawk VFR, good day." Even if they're supposed to send SAR if I don't answer back, I guess I just don't have the faith

No, a 406 G/PLB or ELT does that. Using a VFR flight to get people to find you and your plane to survive as a pilot would be like recording your music on a wax cylinder in order to find you and your music in order to survive as a musician. VFR flight plan is a relic that if you rely on, you are relying on a 4 generation old obsolete system to save your life. That is not bright. Get yourself the device that when you push the button, the global SAR system will know your exact position in 6 minutes and get the process started. That is what smart people use today.

 

[Velocity173]

Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: INSTRUCTOR, WITH STUDENT, IN CESSNA 172 INADVERTENTLY ENTERED CLASS D AIRSPACE AFTER DSNDING AND DEVIATING FROM WX DURING DUAL XCOUNTRY WITH FLT FOLLOWING.

Narrative: WE WERE INBOUND TO JAX ON V267 (MY STUDENT AND MYSELF). WE HAD FLT FOLLOWING AND HAD BEEN HANDED OFF TO JAX APCH. WE WERE APPROX 20 NM FROM CRG VOR AND JAX APCH ASKED US IF WE WERE READY TO START A DSCNT. WE ADVISED YES, BUT WOULD HAVE TO DEVIATE TO THE W TO AVOID A CLOUD LAYER BELOW US. APCH GRANTED THE DEV AND ADVISED TO GO TO AT OR ABOVE 2000 FT. WE DSNDED TO 2000 FT NEAR THE ST JOHN'S RIVER. WE COULD TELL THAT WE COULD NOT MAINTAIN CLOUD CLRNCS AND DSNDED TO 1800 FT AND CALLED TO NOTIFY JAX APCH. THE CTLR APPROVED. A FEW MINS LATER WE REALIZED THAT WE WERE IN NAS JACKSONVILLE TWR'S AIRSPACE. WE CALLED UP JAX APCH AND ASKED FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE CLASS D AIRSPACE AND GOT NO RESPONSE. I HAD THE STUDENT TAKE A NE HEADING TO TAKE US OUT OF THE CLASS D AIRSPACE. A FEW MINS LATER JAX APCH CALLED (WE WERE NEAR THE LARGE ANTENNAS SW OF CRG) AND GAVE US A VECTOR TO JAX. NOTHING WAS MENTIONED BY JAX APCH ABOUT THE DEV INTO THE CLASS D AIRSPACE.

You know why JAX didn't mention anything? Because it's their job to get your coordination with NIP IAW 2-1-16 of the 7110.65. There's no requirement for them to tell the pilot that the coordination has been done either. Its a given. They just don't randomly coordinate for some VFR aircraft and then skip others. You couldn't possibly provide basic radar services with that type of policy.


Even if they didn't get the coordination with NIP, no way JAX is going to write up a pilot on a PD which in reality was a result himself not doing his job that violates the order he's required to follow. NIP isn't going to write JAX up on an Operation Deviation either. Key up the landline, apologize for the late coordination and move on.