Flight Following through Delta

[still learning]

If I get Flight Following from Approach control at a class Delta airport, can I simply take the confirmation of receiving my flight following as "two way communications" and fly into/through the airspace? I just want to pass through and not land and I figure this information would be known as I stated it to get flight following. I wouldn't be conflicting with any traffic would I? After all I'm talking to approach for that airspace.

 

[Somedudeintn]

If I get Flight Following from Approach control at a class Delta airport, can I simply take the confirmation of receiving my flight following as "two way communications" and fly into/through the airspace? I just want to pass through and not land and I figure this information would be known as I stated it to get flight following. I wouldn't be conflicting with any traffic would I? After all I'm talking to approach for that airspace.

Yep, although I haven't dealt with approach control at a delta, only Charlie, that's alway how it's worked for me. As long as they don't instruct you to stay clear you are good.

 

[NJP_MAN]

Why are you cruising along at 2500 agl? Cruise higher and this will always be a non factor.

 

[LoxaBagels]

Here are the rules for Class D operations:

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-129-FAR.shtml

 

[Clark1961]

Why are you cruising along at 2500 agl? Cruise higher and this will always be a non factor.

Because you are going to the airport next to the Delta that you need clearance through....

 

[Shawn]

So in order to fly into C or D you must be in communication with the ACT facility that has jurisdictional control over that airspace. Although there is a 95% chance that if you are talking to an approach controller adjacent to that airspace they do indeed have jurisdictional control but you can not be 100% certain.

If it is your destination, then yes...no need to confirm as they should be handing you off to the approach that has control. Many will say that communication has been established if you are on FF therefore bust right through...but if I am wanting to transition an airspace that is not my destination I will confirm with ATC my intentions so they can coordinate the transition with tower if necessary.

 

[Velocity173]

If I get Flight Following from Approach control at a class Delta airport, can I simply take the confirmation of receiving my flight following as "two way communications" and fly into/through the airspace? I just want to pass through and not land and I figure this information would be known as I stated it to get flight following. I wouldn't be conflicting with any traffic would I? After all I'm talking to approach for that airspace.

Correct. Approach is required to get your transition through the D. If the tower has traffic and they wish to talk to you, they'll have approach switch you to them. Generally that's not necessary though. Tower can either issue the traffic or give an at or above transition approval to approach.

Personally I stay above the D or navigate about 2 miles around the airport to stay out of the pattern.

 

[Shawn]

Why are you cruising along at 2500 agl? Cruise higher and this will always be a non factor.

...or you are ducking under a Bravo shelf with an adjacent Delta.

 

[still learning]

Thank you all for the responses. I am just transitioning through it so I think I'll be fine with talking to that approach. And if tower wants to talk to me then approach will tell me to change frequencies. The approach control I'll be talking to is that airports approach.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

So in order to fly into C or D you must be in communication with the ACT facility that has jurisdictional control over that airspace. Although there is a 95% chance that if you are talking to an approach controller adjacent to that airspace they do indeed have jurisdictional control but you can not be 100% certain.

If it is your destination, then yes...no need to confirm as they should be handing you off to the approach that has control. Many will say that communication has been established if you are on FF therefore bust right through...but if I am wanting to transition an airspace that is not my destination I will confirm with ATC my intentions so they can coordinate the transition with tower if necessary.

Interesting. I fly frequently with LA ATC through KVNY airspace headed to KWHP. Once I wanted to just made sure I was cleared through KVNY Class D. LA Center seemed a bit insulted when I asked to confirm I didn't need to switch to KVNY Tower. They said, "That's the advantage of talking with us. We can handle this for you."

Whole subjecct is confusing. One lesson learned...no matter what, even if ATC vectors you into Bravo, you are responsible for hearing "cleared into Bravo" even if you are flying per their instructions. It's all too easy to just follow their instructions and forget that they didn't clear you. The controllers here in LA are starting to test pilots a bit on this (at least on the LAX Bravo routes), sometimes even asking you if they gave you clearance.

 

[Velocity173]

Interesting. I fly frequently with LA ATC through KVNY airspace headed to KWHP. Once I wanted to just made sure I was cleared through KVNY Class D. LA Center seemed a bit insulted when I asked to confirm I didn't need to switch to KVNY Tower. They said, "That's the advantage of talking with us. We can handle this for you."

Whole subjecct is confusing. One lesson learned...no matter what, even if ATC vectors you into Bravo, you are responsible for hearing "cleared into Bravo" even if you are flying per their instructions. It's all too easy to just follow their instructions and forget that they didn't clear you. The controllers here in LA are starting to test pilots a bit on this (at least on the LAX Bravo routes), sometimes even asking you if they gave you clearance.

They're required by order (7110.65) to coordinate your transition through towered airspace along your route. That's why they seemed a bit insulted.

 

[MAKG1]

There is nothing wrong with asking when in doubt. Even if the controller feels the need to correct you.

As for the B thing, I got tested Saturday. I got a traffic call whose avoidance recommendation was inside the SFO B. I asked for "confirmation" of clearance. Got it right away.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If I get Flight Following from Approach control at a class Delta airport, can I simply take the confirmation of receiving my flight following as "two way communications" and fly into/through the airspace? I just want to pass through and not land and I figure this information would be known as I stated it to get flight following. I wouldn't be conflicting with any traffic would I? After all I'm talking to approach for that airspace.

The answer to your Frequently Asked Question is in the ATC Handbook (FAA Order 7110.65V) about approach controller responsibilities (including the "note"):

==============================
2-1-16. SURFACE AREAS

a. Coordinate with the appropriate nonapproach control tower on an individual aircraft basis before issuing a clearance which would require flight within a surface area for which the tower has responsibility unless otherwise specified in a letter of agreement.

b. Coordinate with the appropriate control tower for transit authorization when you are providing radar traffic advisory service to an aircraft that will enter another facility's airspace.

NOTE-
The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility.​

(emphases added)​

c. Transfer communications to the appropriate facility, if required, prior to operation within a surface area for which the tower has responsibility.​

 

[NJP_MAN]

Because you are going to the airport next to the Delta that you need clearance through....

I'm more familiar with the controlling agency doing a hand off or cancelling in this situation.

 

[bflynn]

The answer to your Frequently Asked Question is in the ATC Handbook (FAA Order 7110.65V) about approach controller responsibilities (including the "note"):

==============================
2-1-16. SURFACE AREAS

b. Coordinate with the appropriate control tower for transit authorization when you are providing radar traffic advisory service to an aircraft that will enter another facility's airspace.

NOTE-
The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility.​

(emphases added)​

Yes, just always remember that it's the rule book for controllers. From a pilot's point of view, I would read that as "I should not be expected to obtain my own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility, but if I have doubt I'd better be asking because it's ultimately my butt in the sling".

 

[jordane93]

Correct. Approach is required to get your transition through the D. If the tower has traffic and they wish to talk to you, they'll have approach switch you to them. Generally that's not necessary though. Tower can either issue the traffic or give an at or above transition approval to approach.

Personally I stay above the D or navigate about 2 miles around the airport to stay out of the pattern.

Yes..

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yes, just always remember that it's the rule book for controllers. From a pilot's point of view, I would read that as "I should not be expected to obtain my own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility, but if I have doubt I'd better be asking because it's ultimately my butt in the sling".

Absolutely! If you ever have a doubt about what you are supposed to be doing, ATC-wise, ask and clarify. It's not only a rule, but it makes good sense. Personally, I haven't been in a situation in which I have had any doubt on this particular subject so I've simply stayed with TRACON and haven't asked if I need to call the Tower. That's when transiting - I have often prompted TRACON about a frequency change when approaching a Class D for landing*.

I think the reason for the policy is that there are letters of agreement (LOA) among ATC facilities that discuss who is responsible for what airspace, as well as what portion of what airspace. That's a lot of stuff that pilots don't have access to.

One illustrative backward example comes from the airspace west of Denver, Colorado when not using Flight Following. My student and I were doing a dual cross country and were heading south at 7500 msl, approaching the KBJC Class D. My student called the Tower for a transition at that altitude (the Class D goes up to 8,000 msl). The reply for Tower was to call Approach. I forget the altitude, but there's a LOA that places the lower levels of the KBJC Class D in the jurisdiction of Denver TRACON.

So, in that situation, weirdly enough, if you want to be technical about the phrase, "the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the airspace," if you establish two way communications with BJC's Tower and then entered the airspace, you'd be in violation.

Point is, we often don't know what "the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the airspace" is. So IMO the FAA Order, placing that coordination responsibility in TRACON's court just makes a lot of sense.

[* That's despite the next sub-paragraph in the Order - Denver TRACON and KAPA Tower used to play a game, or so it seemed, in which TRACON would delay the hand-off until the very last second, or later. Not too much Tower could do about it but I didn't want to be a pawn]

 

[Jaybird180]

The thing to remember in cases like this falls to good manners and home training, be courteous. The courteous thing would have you cover the necessary bases. Failing that, in the "W's" of communication you will relay, Where you are and What you Want to do.

 

[James331]

Why are you cruising along at 2500 agl? Cruise higher and this will always be a non factor.

Why are you cruising along over 2500AGL?

For work that's one thing, but for pleasure I rarely hit 2,000AGL, no fun it.

Just seeing little specs on the ground, it's cheaper to get a seat on a regional and look out the window if that's what you're into

 

[NJP_MAN]

Why are you cruising along over 2500AGL?

For work that's one thing, but for pleasure I rarely hit 2,000AGL, no fun it.

Just seeing little specs on the ground, it's cheaper to get a seat on a regional and look out the window if that's what you're into

Touche'. I don' fly for fun so I suppose that's why I'm over 2500 agl. Even in the 4 place piston I'm at 8 or 9 msl going places. Its not really fun for me it's more about utilizing the advantages of aircraft. But if I'm sightseeing I'm not really going on with flight following either.

 

[Velocity173]

Yes, just always remember that it's the rule book for controllers. From a pilot's point of view, I would read that as "I should not be expected to obtain my own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility, but if I have doubt I'd better be asking because it's ultimately my butt in the sling".

But your butt won't be in a sling if you transition without coordination.

This is how the whole situation will play out if the approach controller fails to get your coordination with tower while under FF. First, the controller has commited an operational deviation. In this case, an aircraft under their responsibility entered another controller's airspace without coordination. In the subject of question, it's not even a major OD because you're VFR entering airspace that doesn't even have separation for your unauthorized transition. It will most likely be handled over the landlne with the approach controller apologizing and the tower controller responding "no prob man." On your end, you'd never even know that the transition wasn't coordinated.

Only way you could get some sort of enforcement action is if the approach controller or tower controller wrote you up for a pilot deviation to be sent to the local FSDO. The tower controller won't write you up because it's an OD. Odds of them even reporting the OD on the approach controller would be slim. If the approach controller was somehow trying to cover their butt and write you up for a PD, won't fly either. The QA guy who submits the PDs to the FSDO would send it back. In that case the conversation between QA and the approach controller in question, would go something like this:

"I see here you wrote up N12345 on a PD for not contacting xyz tower while under your FF."
"Yep, he didn't contact XYZ tower for a transition."
"But you are responsible by order 7110.65 2-1-14b to affect that coordination so that they don't have to contact tower."
"Yeah but he didn't remind me to coordinate that transition for him."
"You're not serious...are you?"

Look at it this way. Ever do a GCA? That's another situation where you're not in communication with the tower while in the Class D. That's because it's the RFC's job to coordinate not only your penetration of the D but get your landing clearance as well. You definitely wouldn't ask the RFC to see if they coordinated your inbound and you shouldn't ask the approach controller if they coordinated your Class D transition while VFR either.

 

[rocketflyer84]

Controller you're with should coordinate for you, but if you're VFR don't be an ass.

By that I mean if you're intending to fly through a Delta let and you're on with approach tell the controller you're intending to route through that airspace to give them time to sort things out. Depending on the situation they may need to call up the tower and let them know. Remember if you're VFR the controller doesn't know how you're intending to get from A to B unless you tell them.

 

[rocketflyer84]

But your butt won't be in a sling if you transition without coordination.

This is how the whole situation will play out if the approach controller fails to get your coordination with tower while under FF. First, the controller has commited an operational deviation. In this case, an aircraft under their responsibility entered another controller's airspace without coordination. In the subject of question, it's not even a major OD because you're VFR entering airspace that doesn't even have separation for your unauthorized transition. It will most likely be handled over the landlne with the approach controller apologizing and the tower controller responding "no prob man." On your end, you'd never even know that the transition wasn't coordinated.

The FAA has gone on record disagreeing with this, stating that if the controller screws up the pilot is still at fault for not establishing two-way comms with the facility in charge of that airspace. Specifically some guy named Mike Granby asked the FAA hypothetically if talking to ATC constituted 'two way communications' if the facility you were talking to wasn't the one in charge of the airspace. The FAA responded:

"In your hypothetical, you inquired whether a pilot would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) if he enters the Class C airspace while in two-way communication with the Center and not the TRACON. You further inquired if the Center’s “failure to hand him off” would relieve the pilot of the responsibility to establish two-way communication with the TRACON prior to entering their Class C airspace.

The operator of the aircraft would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) in the hypothetical that you present. Under section 91.3, the pilot in command is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. 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.

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. However, the FAA does recognize that there could be circumstances that mitigate the violation depending on the actual contents of the two-way communication between the pilot and the Center."

So the answer seems to be that yes you could be busted technically in that the controller screwing up doesn't let you off the hook, but practically it's unlikely to happen for the reasons you describe.

More practically still as I said above, if you're VFR just don't be an ass. Tell the controller providing flight following what you intended to do and let them help you.

 

[JoeSelch]

But your butt won't be in a sling if you transition without coordination.

This is how the whole situation will play out if the approach controller fails to get your coordination with tower while under FF. First, the controller has commited an operational deviation. In this case, an aircraft under their responsibility entered another controller's airspace without coordination. In the subject of question, it's not even a major OD because you're VFR entering airspace that doesn't even have separation for your unauthorized transition. It will most likely be handled over the landlne with the approach controller apologizing and the tower controller responding "no prob man." On your end, you'd never even know that the transition wasn't coordinated.

Only way you could get some sort of enforcement action is if the approach controller or tower controller wrote you up for a pilot deviation to be sent to the local FSDO. The tower controller won't write you up because it's an OD. Odds of them even reporting the OD on the approach controller would be slim. If the approach controller was somehow trying to cover their butt and write you up for a PD, won't fly either. The QA guy who submits the PDs to the FSDO would send it back. In that case the conversation between QA and the approach controller in question, would go something like this:

"I see here you wrote up N12345 on a PD for not contacting xyz tower while under your FF."
"Yep, he didn't contact XYZ tower for a transition."
"But you are responsible by order 7110.65 2-1-14b to affect that coordination so that they don't have to contact tower."
"Yeah but he didn't remind me to coordinate that transition for him."
"You're not serious...are you?"

Look at it this way. Ever do a GCA? That's another situation where you're not in communication with the tower while in the Class D. That's because it's the RFC's job to coordinate not only your penetration of the D but get your landing clearance as well. You definitely wouldn't ask the RFC to see if they coordinated your inbound and you shouldn't ask the approach controller if they coordinated your Class D transition while VFR either.

Not addressed here is the case of the jerk controller who cuts you loose moments before you go barging into a delta...

Yeah, it happens. At least on a particular route through Detroit.

You can bet I'm confirming coordination (and typically just planning to stay inconveniently clear).

 

[rocketflyer84]

Not addressed here is the case of the jerk controller who cuts you loose moments before you go barging into a delta...

Yeah, it happens. At least on a particular route through Detroit.

You can bet I'm confirming coordination (and typically just planning to stay inconveniently clear).

Have definitely heard of a few people experiencing this, which is all the more reason to never assume that they've taken care of you.

 

[Velocity173]

The FAA has gone on record disagreeing with this, stating that if the controller screws up the pilot is still at fault for not establishing two-way comms with the facility in charge of that airspace. Specifically some guy named Mike Granby asked the FAA hypothetically if talking to ATC constituted 'two way communications' if the facility you were talking to wasn't the one in charge of the airspace. The FAA responded:

"In your hypothetical, you inquired whether a pilot would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) if he enters the Class C airspace while in two-way communication with the Center and not the TRACON. You further inquired if the Center’s “failure to hand him off” would relieve the pilot of the responsibility to establish two-way communication with the TRACON prior to entering their Class C airspace.

The operator of the aircraft would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) in the hypothetical that you present. Under section 91.3, the pilot in command is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. 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.

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. However, the FAA does recognize that there could be circumstances that mitigate the violation depending on the actual contents of the two-way communication between the pilot and the Center."

So the answer seems to be that yes you could be busted technically in that the controller screwing up doesn't let you off the hook, but practically it's unlikely to happen for the reasons you describe.

More practically still as I said above, if you're VFR just don't be an ass. Tell the controller providing flight following what you intended to do and let them help you.

Well Steven and I have brought this up already but once again, your example is not what the subject of discussion is about. Your example is referring to talking to the wrong controller for the airspace you're in. Yes, if you're talking to center and getting ready to penetrate a Class C during published hours, you are not talking to "the ATC facility providing air traffic services" for that airport. You should be in contact with the TRACON that served that particular airspace. Even says on the sectional to contact XYZ approach within 20 miles. You're not on the correct frequency and need to make center aware of that.

I'll bring up the GCA example again. You're getting ready to penetrate a Class D while on a GCA, are you in two way communications with the ATC facility for that airspace prior to entering IAW 91.129? Are you going to ask RFC if they've coordinated your arrival? A task that they're required to do.

 

[Luvrv8]

If I am flying in from the North Mugu Approach will always let me know in plenty of time if they have a clearance for me to transition through Oxnards Delta air space on my way to Camarillo.

 

[James331]

Touche'. I don' fly for fun so I suppose that's why I'm over 2500 agl. Even in the 4 place piston I'm at 8 or 9 msl going places. Its not really fun for me it's more about utilizing the advantages of aircraft. But if I'm sightseeing I'm not really going on with flight following either.

I rarely have met a pilot who said they don't fly for fun.


So you don't get anything out of following a river low level or anything like that?

 

[Shawn]

I rarely have met a pilot who said they don't fly for fun.

I have. They all work for Regionals!

 

[James331]

I have. They all work for Regionals!

Yes...them

 

[azure]

Why are you cruising along over 2500AGL?

For work that's one thing, but for pleasure I rarely hit 2,000AGL, no fun it.

Just seeing little specs on the ground, it's cheaper to get a seat on a regional and look out the window if that's what you're into

I can think of at least three reasons off the top of my head:

1. to increase my glide range in case the fan quits...

2. because it's bumpier closer to the ground...

3. to reduce drag...

In hilly country another reason would be to maintain terrain clearance without having to change altitude all the time.

There are probably other reasons one could think of.

I almost never cruise lower than 2000 AGL, even when flying for pleasure. I fly for pleasure and for personal transportation, but usually not for any work-related purpose.

 

[NJP_MAN]

I rarely have met a pilot who said they don't fly for fun.


So you don't get anything out of following a river low level or anything like that?

I don't know why but it lost some of its appeal. I think it's the FAA making us race to 1500. Now it's more about just wasting time and gas flying around trying to maximize the dollar to flight time ratio.

 

[James331]

I don't know why but it lost some of its appeal. I think it's the FAA making us race to 1500. Now it's more about just wasting time and gas flying around trying to maximize the dollar to flight time ratio.

I had a ball getting to 1500, didn't bother with my ATP till some of those rule changes were about to happen, at work we don't need ATPs, though all of our pilots have them.

If you dont mind me asking, what are you doing to build hours?

Maybe a change of scenery is needed, drop zones are fun and build some good stick and rudder as well as turbine hours, freelance CFIing is fun if you are a teacher type, glider ops are great.

Just seems like if you're not having fun flying, there are many other places to make more money with less work, less regulation and less responsibility.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The FAA has gone on record disagreeing with this, stating that if the controller screws up the pilot is still at fault for not establishing two-way comms with the facility in charge of that airspace. Specifically some guy named Mike Granby asked the FAA hypothetically if talking to ATC constituted 'two way communications' if the facility you were talking to wasn't the one in charge of the airspace. The FAA responded:

"In your hypothetical, you inquired whether a pilot would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) if he enters the Class C airspace while in two-way communication with the Center and not the TRACON. You further inquired if the Center’s “failure to hand him off” would relieve the pilot of the responsibility to establish two-way communication with the TRACON prior to entering their Class C airspace.

The operator of the aircraft would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) in the hypothetical that you present. Under section 91.3, the pilot in command is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. 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.

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. However, the FAA does recognize that there could be circumstances that mitigate the violation depending on the actual contents of the two-way communication between the pilot and the Center."

So the answer seems to be that yes you could be busted technically in that the controller screwing up doesn't let you off the hook, but practically it's unlikely to happen for the reasons you describe.

More practically still as I said above, if you're VFR just don't be an ass. Tell the controller providing flight following what you intended to do and let them help you.

Note that the Granby letter deals with a different situation than the ATC Handbook.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Just seeing little specs on the ground, it's cheaper to get a seat on a regional and look out the window if that's what you're into

If I wanted to see what was on the ground I'd drive.

 

[rocketflyer84]

Note that the Granby letter deals with a different situation than the ATC Handbook.

 

[roncachamp]

The FAA has gone on record disagreeing with this, stating that if the controller screws up the pilot is still at fault for not establishing two-way comms with the facility in charge of that airspace. Specifically some guy named Mike Granby asked the FAA hypothetically if talking to ATC constituted 'two way communications' if the facility you were talking to wasn't the one in charge of the airspace. The FAA responded:

"In your hypothetical, you inquired whether a pilot would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) if he enters the Class C airspace while in two-way communication with the Center and not the TRACON. You further inquired if the Center’s “failure to hand him off” would relieve the pilot of the responsibility to establish two-way communication with the TRACON prior to entering their Class C airspace.

The operator of the aircraft would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) in the hypothetical that you present. Under section 91.3, the pilot in command is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. 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.

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. However, the FAA does recognize that there could be circumstances that mitigate the violation depending on the actual contents of the two-way communication between the pilot and the Center."

So the answer seems to be that yes you could be busted technically in that the controller screwing up doesn't let you off the hook, but practically it's unlikely to happen for the reasons you describe.

More practically still as I said above, if you're VFR just don't be an ass. Tell the controller providing flight following what you intended to do and let them help you.

The Granby letter said nothing about transit of Class D airspace.

 

[roncachamp]

The FAA has gone on record disagreeing with this, stating that if the controller screws up the pilot is still at fault for not establishing two-way comms with the facility in charge of that airspace. Specifically some guy named Mike Granby asked the FAA hypothetically if talking to ATC constituted 'two way communications' if the facility you were talking to wasn't the one in charge of the airspace. The FAA responded:

"In your hypothetical, you inquired whether a pilot would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) if he enters the Class C airspace while in two-way communication with the Center and not the TRACON. You further inquired if the Center’s “failure to hand him off” would relieve the pilot of the responsibility to establish two-way communication with the TRACON prior to entering their Class C airspace.

The operator of the aircraft would be in violation of section 91.130(c)(1) in the hypothetical that you present. Under section 91.3, the pilot in command is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. 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.

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. However, the FAA does recognize that there could be circumstances that mitigate the violation depending on the actual contents of the two-way communication between the pilot and the Center."

So the answer seems to be that yes you could be busted technically in that the controller screwing up doesn't let you off the hook, but practically it's unlikely to happen for the reasons you describe.

More practically still as I said above, if you're VFR just don't be an ass. Tell the controller providing flight following what you intended to do and let them help you.

The Granby letter applies only to Class C airspace, an entirely different animal than a Class D surface area. A Class D surface area is generally about nine miles in diameter and the controlled airspace outside of it is usually assigned to a single Center or TRACON sector. It makes sense for the radar controller to coordinate the transition of Class D airspace and keep the aircraft on frequency rather than have the aircraft change frequencies to the tower for a few minutes then return, so 7110.65 covers that scenario. But the controlled airspace outside of Class C airspace belongs to the same facility responsible for the Class C airspace, the TRACON, and the Class C boundary is probably thirty miles or so from the ARTCC boundary. It just doesn't make sense for the ARTCC to coordinate an approximately 80 mile trip through TRACON airspace.

I've attached an image to help illustrate. The red line is the Green Bay TRACON boundary. The green line is the track of a VFR arrival to KGRB from the southwest. This aircraft contacts Green Bay approach when over Lake Poygan, northwest of Oshkosh. The controller identifies the aircraft, notes that it will transit the Appleton Class D airspace area, and calls Appleton tower to coordinate the transition.

The purple line is the track of a VFR aircraft bound for Michigan that picked up flight following with Minneapolis ARTCC west of Wausau. Normally, Center would hand off and transfer this aircraft to Green Bay approach before crossing the Green Bay approach boundary. But that didn't happen this time. The aircraft continues on it's way, still on ZMP Center frequency, and penetrates the Green Bay Class C airspace area without having made radio contact with the ATC facility providing air traffic services in that area.

 

[MAKG1]

Whether it "makes sense" or not, I'm always handed off to KNUQ Tower -- a Class D -- when I transition. I deduce from this that NorCal is not the appropriate ATC facility to transition this airspace. Similar things are true for every military airspace I've transitioned, whether it has its own RAPCON or not. Most of them are Class D (some even with RAPCON and special use airspace -- e.g., Travis AFB), but a few are Class C.

The rule is that there is no rule. You just have to "know."

Though I'm not privy to the sector maps, I do often get frequency changes from NorCal when outside but near KNUQ airspace, so I suspect that Class D is not in a single sector. There is definitely a RAPCON boundary right through the middle of Travis' (KSUU) Class D, corresponding to the two charted halves of the alert area.

 

[NJP_MAN]

If you dont mind me asking, what are you doing to build hours?

:

Most of the building is finished. I am flying Part 91 in a P180 which actually is on pace to get to 200-250 hrs yr and occasionally contract in a CE525. I flew the canyon for a while and I continue to safety pilot for a friend beating the sky up in a C150 as a safety pilot.