Proper VFR Flight Following Call

[Wrench978]

I’ll add my perspective to the mix. At my center, we use Micro-EARTS. To add a VFR flight plan to the FDIO, I have to hit the “VFR flight plan” key, type your callsign with a Z in front (ZN4254B- that is how we identify VFR flights locally) then the aircraft type and route of flight which is 2 3 letter IDs separated by a splat. So an example would be “VP ZN4254B BE35 BQN*SIG”. That would give us a code to issue to the pilot. I don’t care about what altitude you’re climbing to as much as other places do. If you look like you’re going to conflict with someone, I’ll ask. I can’t validate your Mode C (the reason for saying your current altitude) until you’re tagged up, which could take a minute or 2, so I would prefer not saying altitude until I ask (N4254B, radar contact 8 miles east of BQN, say altitude). If you gave me your altitude on initial call up, you will have likely climbed more than the 300 foot buffer we are allowed.

I understand that the way we do things in San Juan is different than in most of the US. So take all that with a grain of salt.

Also, you don’t have to spell airports for the controllers unless it’s far away. We get paid to know those things. Especially if it’s within the same facility.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Also, you don’t have to spell airports for the controllers unless it’s far away. We get paid to know those things. Especially if it’s within the same facility.

This seems to be hit or miss unless it's an airport within their control area.

It's in one of my videos but when I did the Hudson corridor in NYC, I was continuing up to BDL in Connecticut. When the first controller (Probably Newark) asked me, I said, "Bradley International." He asked me for the identifier.

Later, a second controller (probably La Guardia) asked me. I gave the identifier. "Oh, Bradley." was the response.

 

[Pinecone]

then the aircraft type

You would think they could automate the aircraft type for US aircraft from the N-number

 

[Half Fast]

You would think they could automate the aircraft type for US aircraft from the N-number

You’d think they could do lots of things, like having a VFR flight plan show up in their system, rather than just exist for S&R.

 

[Velocity173]

You’d think they could do lots of things, like having a VFR flight plan show up in their system, rather than just exist for S&R.

. I think there should be a feature in filing that forwards a VFR flight plan to ATC for all any aircraft that want FF.

But, the FAA still views VFR filing as nothing more than a SAR tool for AFSS. With FF being an optional service they’ll never reconfigure the current system.

 

[KE5BM]

Maybe there's an argument now with ADS-B to make that VFR Flight Plan connection. Unless it overwhelms the controllers, I see no down side to having VFR flight plans in the ATC system. I'd imagine more folks (speaking for myself) would take the extra effort to file a plan if flying VFR if I/we knew the controllers would see it and could use it. That could potentially narrow the 1200 users down to practice/training and sight-seeing.

 

[Half Fast]

I think there should be a feature in filing that forwards a VFR flight plan to ATC for all any aircraft that want FF.

Or, when a pilot calls for FF, his callup can be "Podunk Approach, Bugsmasher 123AB requesting VFR flight following per filed plan." ATC hits a button and presto, they have all the data without needing to tie up the radio to get it.

But, the FAA still views VFR filing as nothing more than a SAR tool for AFSS. With FF being an optional service they’ll never reconfigure the current system.

Agreed, and it's inefficient and dumb. The FAA insists on continuing to do things the way they've done it for 50+ years, while clamoring that they need more money and are understaffed.

 

[Half Fast]

Maybe there's an argument now with ADS-B to make that VFR Flight Plan connection. Unless it overwhelms the controllers, I see no down side to having VFR flight plans in the ATC system. I'd imagine more folks (speaking for myself) would take the extra effort to file a plan if flying VFR if I/we knew the controllers would see it and could use it. That could potentially narrow the 1200 users down to practice/training and sight-seeing.

Agreed, though FF would still be on an "as available" basis.

 

[Feh]

This is what he did. "...What I have been doing lately is "Boston Approach, Skyhawk 7747G VFR request." This is the other way. "...The gentlemen at Opposing Bases suggest (and they're controllers, after all) that we, as pilots would score some serious brownie points if we go about it this way: "Approach, VFR to type ." For example, "Boston Approach, 7747G is 4 miles north of Hyannis, VFR to Nashua - Alpha Sierra Hotel, we are type Skyhawk climbing for 3,500." However, the one time I tried this format as suggested by these controllers, Boston Approach had me go back and do it all over again. So, controllers...how can I make your job easier when I want FF?" That's a pretty big difference.

I guess it depends on the day and workload, if it’s extremely busy then first way is correct and less likely to get stepped on or “last aircraft calling say again”

 

[Florida Flyer]

Apparently Tampa workload seems to never allow FF

 

[Half Fast]

Apparently Tampa workload seems to never allow FF

I've been able to get it from Tampa, but their radio coverage, especially NE of Tampa, sucks.

 

[Florida Flyer]

I plan around it, they are a waste of time (tampa)

 

[Racerx]

I don't think this is how you're supposed to do it...

 

[midlifeflyer]

Apparently Tampa workload seems to never allow FF

First time I ever heard a flight following refusal was Miami Center.

 

[rangerz]

I'm generally a fan of the two-step process many have already outlined.

Wake up call - <Facility Name> - <Type> <Callsign> I usually don't bother with 'Request' on an initial contact figuring it's a bit redundant. Operating from home based, one of my motivations for a very simple 1st call is to get a full callsign readback as I'm departing inside of a 700' Class C surface exclusion (82J) and would really like the ability to climb into the Class C as soon as possible. Only once in the last 6 months did I get a request to remain clear on the initial call. So just "Pensacola Approach - Comanche 6057P" -- often this gets an immediate response with squawk code.

Once they call back, then my standard VFR FF request is - <callsign> <squawk code if received> <position>, <current altitude> <planned altitude> VFR to <destination> at , so "6057P, 2 miles NW of Roscoe Field 600 feet climbing to 2800 feet VFR to Dauphin Island". Pretty inevitably I'll get asked for type aircraft since few remember a Comanche is a PA24. I have a feeling if I led with PA24 instead I'd still get asked type aircraft so I don't think there's a shortcut there.

I'm also a fan of using the destination airport name unless it's obscure or outside the broader local area. I'm always impressed with controller recall on airport names and codes.

We do a lot of "beach" or coastal flying so I might add 'via the beach' if I'm not going direct. It's pretty common for ATC to just ask as well if they're concerned about conflicts - "are you going direct or via the coast?" Otherwise, Mobile, Gulfport, New Orleans, and Pensacola are pretty accommodating considering the large volume of military and civilian traffic they handle.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

I always used FF when going somewhere VFR, and never have done an initial "request" call, I just ask for it on the initial call.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I always used FF when going somewhere VFR, and never have done an initial "request" call, I just ask for it on the initial call.

I only did that for 30+ years

What changes the practice of some (it changed it for me) is that one time you make the full initial call of

"Bigtown Approach. Cessna 1234A over XYZ VOR. Request flight following to APT at 3,500"​

and several seconds later, hear back,

"Aircraft calling Bigtown Approach. Say again callsign and request"​

because they were just doing something else at the moment.

Not really a bid deal either way. Whatever works. Just don't force the controller to play 20 questions to get the information they need.

 

[The rogue]

I like to hear the "Type, Call sign, Location", (e.g. "Approach, Warrior 123PW, five south of Mount Pleasant".) Then I go back and ask for request and altitude. Issue the right kind of code, the Altimeter, and I'm done.

It works super smooth most of the time. I don't know if this is just personal preference, or if there's some sort of actual procedural efficiencies at work here.

--Matt

 

[bluerooster]

I guess I've been doing it wrong all these years. I started out by giving all the info on initial call up. After the first couple of times, I found that I had to repeat the entire list of information, every time. Now I keep the initial call up short and simple; "Atlanta Center, VFR request Cherokee 0u812." The reply I get is "0U812 squawk xxxx." Then my reply, "Cherokee 0U812 squawk xxxx, departing JZP enroute to PBF, climbing to (cruising altitude). Final reply, "N0U812, radar contact xyz alt. zz.zz, say altitude." "812, 3000 feet."
That's it. It works, very seldom, but once in a great while, I get "say equipment". I assume they mean aircraft type, I give them the ICAO P28A.

 

[Larry in TN]

Cherokee 0U812

Are you not flying N5150 anymore? I guess OU812 is newer?

 

[MRC01]

I keep it as terse as possible. For example when flying from Seattle to the San Juans: "Whidbey Approach, Skyhawk XXXXX, Bush Point, VFR to Orcas".

This follows the overall communications format from the AIM 4-2-3.a.1:
WHO you are talking to
WHO you are
WHERE you are
WHAT you want

The fact that you want flight following is implied, you don't need to waste time saying it. I don't give altitude in the initial call, and nobody has ever asked for it. They tell me my altitude a few seconds later.

PS: if it's super busy, I make it even shorter: "Whidbey Approach, Skyhawk XXXXX, with request"
PPS: "skyhawk" not "cessna", because if you say "cessna" your cruise speed could be anywhere from 75 to 500 knots.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Why do they care where you are on initial call? Or your current altitude?

Once they make radar contact they will give you what position they see. Some reply with “position checks”.
They also ask for altitude (“say altitude”) AFTER they’ve given you the correct barometer setting, so they can check altitude.

I never given them full info on initial call, I figure that they aren’t ready to copy.
So it’s “center, Mooney Nxxxx request”, then after they say baro and say go ahead, I reply “request FF to Kxxx, I spell it phonetically, final altitude 8000”
Then they reply with squawk number, and after short delay “radar contact, 5 miles north of …, say altitude”

I don’t say type “M20P” anymore because I figure they have that info since they’ve never asked for it.

 

[Tokirbymd]

. I think there should be a feature in filing that forwards a VFR flight plan to ATC for all any aircraft that want FF.

But, the FAA still views VFR filing as nothing more than a SAR tool for AFSS. With FF being an optional service they’ll never reconfigure the current system.

You can kind of do this. File IFR but on initial call up tell them you’re gonna be a v tag or vfr. They already have all of your information in their strip and just have to update you with a vfr altitude as I understand it.

 

[Velocity173]

You can kind of do this. File IFR but on initial call up tell them you’re gonna be a v tag or vfr. They already have all of your information in their strip and just have to update you with a vfr altitude as I understand it.

Yeah, we’ve talked about that before. Not what the system was designed for but it works.

 

[Brad W]

You can kind of do this. File IFR but on initial call up tell them you’re gonna be a v tag or vfr. They already have all of your information in their strip and just have to update you with a vfr altitude as I understand it.

back in the day's when we'd actually call FSS ...with a wired phone....to file a flight plan, there was a way to ask for this... I can't recall exactly what I'd ask for, but they would tag it in the system...so when calling for VFR flight following they'd already have a "strip" printed and ready to go for me...and it would track through the next sectors en route....maybe this "V tag" is what they were doing...but there were different words I used to ask for it. Wish I could remember what those words were....

 

[Larry in TN]

back in the day's when we'd actually call FSS ...with a wired phone....to file a flight plan, there was a way to ask for this... I can't recall exactly what I'd ask for, but they would tag it in the system...so when calling for VFR flight following they'd already have a "strip" printed and ready to go for me...and it would track through the next sectors en route....maybe this "V tag" is what they were doing...but there were different words I used to ask for it. Wish I could remember what those words were....

I think the method, to which you refer, is filing IFR with a VFR altitude, i.e. 9,500'. The IFR flight plan puts it into the ATC system and the VFR altitude shows that you're VFR. While that will usually work, it is not an approved procedure and the system was not designed to work that way and a non-instrument rated and current pilot should not be filing an IFR flight plan.

 

[MRC01]

I think the method, to which you refer, is filing IFR with a VFR altitude, i.e. 9,500'. The IFR flight plan puts it into the ATC system and the VFR altitude shows that you're VFR. While that will usually work, it is not an approved procedure and the system was not designed to work that way and a non-instrument rated and current pilot should not be filing an IFR flight plan.

If a VFR pilot is tempted to do this, why not instead simply file and activate a VFR flight plan?

 

[Larry in TN]

If a VFR pilot is tempted to do this, why not instead simply file and activate a VFR flight plan?

That will not put the flight plan into the ATC system, which is the purpose of the hack.

To be clear, I do not recommend the practice.

 

[MRC01]

That will not put the flight plan into the ATC system, which is the purpose of the hack.
...

What does that mean? I've flown VFR internationally and after takeoff when I call Flight Service to active the VFR flight plan, it is in the system, I get a squawk code, and the Canadians know I'm coming. Maybe that is just for international flight plans?

 

[Larry in TN]

What does that mean? I've flown VFR internationally and after takeoff when I call Flight Service to active the VFR flight plan, it is in the system, I get a squawk code, and the Canadians know I'm coming. Maybe that is just for international flight plans?

We are talking about the US ATC system where a VFR flight plan is not in the ATC system for flight following purposes.

 

[MRC01]

We are talking about the US ATC system where a VFR flight plan is not in the ATC system for flight following purposes.

Ah, yes. A domestic VFR flight plan serves only to active SAR if you don't arrive at your destination on time. An international VFR flight plan actually goes into the ATC system.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think the method, to which you refer, is filing IFR with a VFR altitude, i.e. 9,500'. The IFR flight plan puts it into the ATC system and the VFR altitude shows that you're VFR. While that will usually work, it is not an approved procedure and the system was not designed to work that way and a non-instrument rated and current pilot should not be filing an IFR flight plan.

It wasn't an altitude at all. It was just the letters VFR in the domestic flight plan altitude box. Whether the system will accept it or not these days is another issue.

Two somewhat interesting notes about the practice.

1. I have heard come controllers say they like it. Since most of the needed information is there, it makes their job easier. The issue was discussed on Opposing Bases some time back.​

​

2. In 2008, the Chief Counsel disapproved of the practice in an interpretation to a Jonathan Goodish. Didn't say it was violation but rather,​

"The filing of an IFR flight plan by a certificated pilot, who is listed as the pilot of the aircraft, yet does not hold an instrument rating, indicates a clear intent to violate the provisions of § 61.3(e). This intent is evidenced regardless of whether or not the pilot accepts a clearance resulting from the filing of that flight plan."​

I always read that to mean that if something gets screwed up and you get treated as IFR, don't try to claim it was an innocent mistake. But perhaps the even more interesting part is that the Goodish interpretation is no longer available on the Chief Counsel website.​

 

[Velocity173]

back in the day's when we'd actually call FSS ...with a wired phone....to file a flight plan, there was a way to ask for this... I can't recall exactly what I'd ask for, but they would tag it in the system...so when calling for VFR flight following they'd already have a "strip" printed and ready to go for me...and it would track through the next sectors en route....maybe this "V tag" is what they were doing...but there were different words I used to ask for it. Wish I could remember what those words were....

Back in the day you could even walk in for a face to face briefing.

Albany Flight Service Station Photos, 1979 – Air Traffic Control History

Alaska is “the last frontier” for FSS.

A Visit to Alaskan FSS in Nome: Small, But Very Busy Aviation Hub

The control room at Nome FSS. (Aug. 10, 2018) From Clint Lancaster, Alaskan Regional Vice President: “I had a good visit recently to Nome Flight Service Station (FSS) to see how our NATCA brothers and sisters […]

www.natca.org

 

[MRC01]

Back in the day you could even walk in for a face to face briefing. ... Alaska is “the last frontier” for FSS.

Indeed. On my Alaska trip in 2018 we did exactly that in Northway, met with "Trek" who gave us an in-person briefing for our continuing flight to Talkeetna, and also happened to be the fellow answering our radio calls as we approached Northway.

PS: I'll add that a pilot about an hour ahead of us gave PIREPs as he flew through Chickaloon pass, indicating that conditions were VFR, and the RCOs along the way relayed this to us promptly. It was a great experience and really helped improve safety in a remote land of big pointy rocks where those flying in small planes need to respect Mother Nature even more than down here in the 48.

 

[Tokirbymd]

It wasn't an altitude at all. It was just the letters VFR in the domestic flight plan altitude box. Whether the system will accept it or not these days is another issue.

Two somewhat interesting notes about the practice.

1. I have heard come controllers say they like it. Since most of the needed information is there, it makes their job easier. The issue was discussed on Opposing Bases some time back.​

​

2. In 2008, the Chief Counsel disapproved of the practice in an interpretation to a Jonathan Goodish. Didn't say it was violation but rather,​

"The filing of an IFR flight plan by a certificated pilot, who is listed as the pilot of the aircraft, yet does not hold an instrument rating, indicates a clear intent to violate the provisions of § 61.3(e). This intent is evidenced regardless of whether or not the pilot accepts a clearance resulting from the filing of that flight plan."​

I always read that to mean that if something gets screwed up and you get treated as IFR, don't try to claim it was an innocent mistake. But perhaps the even more interesting part is that the Goodish interpretation is no longer available on the Chief Counsel website.​

I guess I was suggesting this as a current IFR pilot, not as a VFR pilot looking to "game the system" or substitute for a SAR VFR plan. My suggestion was merely as a shortcut for ATC to have everything they need on you without reciting the VFR callup FF litergy.

 

[flyingron]

I've never said "request." ATC knows you're a cold call and hence you want something.

ME: Atlanta Center, Navion 5327K.
ZTL: Navion 5327K Atlanta Center, Go ahead.
ME: Navion 5327K, 30 miles north of CLT at 4,500. Flight following at 4,500 to Culpeper (Charlie Juliet Romeo).
ZTL: Navion 27K, stand by.
ZTL: Navion 27K squawk 0246
ME: 0246, Navion 27K.
ZTL: Navion 27K Radar Contact 20 miles west of Winston-Salem.

If the frequency isn't congested, I'll skip the first call if I think they're listening.

 

[Flying Keys]

Another situation that’ll nullify the complete initial call method, is if the controller has multiple freqs up. Especially multiple UHF freqs and working military traffic. You could be transmitting thinking you’re in the clear when on another freq a pilot is already transmitting and blocking you.

Had a guy (PA32) once call for FF going into Hilton Head (49J). It was during air show time (before / after) at the base and I was swamped with military traffic. Listening to the tapes, he called right when another military aircraft was transmitting on UHF. Never even heard the guy. Unfortunately the tapes were pulled because about 10 minutes later he crashed off the approach end to rwy 3 killing himself and his pax. Ironically he was on the board petitioning for a tower at Hilton Head to increase safety. Few years later they’d get their tower and now is KHXD.

Came here to say this. If my initial, cold call-up involves a life story like FF, I want to make sure I don’t have to repeat it and further clog the frequency, which could be the case either from me stepping on someone, or catching a controller who isn’t ready to take the info. This goes double if I’m trying to get a word in edgewise on a busy frequency.

Either way, nobody wants to hear my long-form callup twice. A simple “approach, Nxxxx” or adding “request” at the end seems to get everybody in the mood.

 

[Velocity173]

Came here to say this. If my initial, cold call-up involves a life story like FF, I want to make sure I don’t have to repeat it and further clog the frequency, which could be the case either from me stepping on someone, or catching a controller who isn’t ready to take the info. This goes double if I’m trying to get a word in edgewise on a busy frequency.

Either way, nobody wants to hear my long-form callup twice. A simple “approach, Nxxxx” or adding “request” at the end seems to get everybody in the mood.

Another situation that I experienced working approach, is a long call up just as I’m about to issue an IAP clearance. When it’s super busy that long call up blocks the IFR clearance. Transmissions on the ATC side can frequently get through but garbled and barely readable. Now you’ve got to reissue the clearance again. Sometimes seconds matter.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

There were two controllers in Nor-Cal for a while that had opposing views and they both worked the same frequency. Once would give you a lecture is your initial call had anything more than your callsign while the other would lecture if you didn't make your initial call with everything. When it comes down to it, it is a read the room thing. If you are having a hard time getting a call in they are so busy, "Tail Number VFR Request" is best. If you tune in and haven't heard a thing for 15-30 seconds. Call up with everything. Start with Approach and your Callsign real slow so they have a second to put their coffee down or wake up from their nap and grab a pen.

 

[Ben Loper]

Just call them up and say VFR request. They probably know what you want but you’ll probably get “say your request” then you can spill it.