Question about VFR flight following.

[roncachamp]

I've never seen this in the AIM, and the problem is the controller may think you're operating IFR rather than VFR, which could get you in a box. Therefore, I don't recommend doing this. Just tell Columbus Ground that you're VFR to MEI at whatever altitude and requesting a squawk and freq for VFR flight following and take it from there.

Not a chance. ATC has been forwarding flight data this way on VFR aircraft for decades. Whether the data was input by a pilot via DUAT or by a controller via FDIO, the strips look the same.

 

[roncachamp]

How do you define "recogonized technique"?

Recognized Technique

Just because it has worked with some controllers and the host computer accepts it doesn't mean the FAA folks who can impact your ticket recognize as proper.

What about it might seem improper to "the FAA folks who can impact your ticket"? ATC has been forwarding flight data via computer, IFR and VFR, for decades. The FAA encourages pilots to file flight plans via DUAT. Why would anyone at FAA consider the input of VFR flight data by pilots via DUATS to be improper?

 

[roncachamp]

I can guarentee that would confuse the heck out of the Chicago Approach controllers.

It may not work at all there. I was a ZAU controller from 1983 to 1992. During that period the transmission of flight data via computer on VFR aircraft was inhibited to all terminal facilities hosted by the ZAU flight data computer. Unless that policy has been changed Chicago approach won't get the strips.

 

[roncachamp]

It's not addressed in the AIM or any other pilot pub I've seen. I can't find it in the ATC Handbook, either (perhaps roncachamp can advise if it's buried somewhere in there). Thus, it's not a procedure I'll use, recommend, or teach myself.

Flight progress strips are covered in chapter 2, section 3. I find nothing that limits it to IFR aircraft, paragraph 8 states, "Indicate, for both VFR and IFR operations, the aircraft's radar transponder,..."

Flight Data Processing entries were covered in a separate manual, I havent seen a copy of one in many years, but the acceptable entries for the altitude field remain the same; an IFR altitude in hundreds of feet, a block altitude, OTP, and VFR.

 

[murphey]

On various FF trips I've had ATC tell me an MOA was hot (I already knew, checking the NOTAMs but that's ok) and ask for my routing, a not-so-subtle hint to stay out. Of course out west, there's less traffic in many areas so it's easier to get FF.

 

[murphey]

What I have been doing and seems to work really well when filing electronically is file an IFR flight plan (Check the box) with the route deatails with a VFR altitude and VFR ADVISORIES in the comment section.

This routes the flight plan to the ATC centers not just flight services.

This method pretty much insures handoffs between ATC sectors since they have the plan on file already and a quick IFR filing in the air if needed.

Good Luck

Just file a VFR flight plan. the OP already stated VFR only.

 

[roncachamp]

Just file a VFR flight plan. the OP already stated VFR only.

Just filing a VFR flight plan does nothing for flight following, which is what the OP asked about.

 

[MikePapa]

Not a chance. ATC has been forwarding flight data this way on VFR aircraft for decades. Whether the data was input by a pilot via DUAT or by a controller via FDIO, the strips look the same.

If the person filed an IFR flight plan, yet wanted to proceed VFR, would not the flight plan show up as IFR on the controller's tab list and he would have to manually change it to VFR after the target acquires?

 

[SkyHog]

Hmmm, using that technique of filing IFR for a VFR flight, will the flight be more likely to show up on FlightAware?

 

[poadeleted20]

If the system works as described, and the controller understands what you're trying to do, this will be OK. OTOH, it would be very easy for the controller to misperceive this as an IFR flight and handle it accordingly. I've even seen this happen when receiving VFR flight following without my having filed a flight plan ("22RL, Appproach, you're not IFR?"). If you're not instrument rated/current/equipped, that could cause a problem if you don't realize that it's happening, and having filed an IFR flight plan won't look good if there's an investigation. Choose wisely.

 

[poadeleted20]

Flight progress strips are covered in chapter 2, section 3. I find nothing that limits it to IFR aircraft, paragraph 8 states, "Indicate, for both VFR and IFR operations, the aircraft's radar transponder,..."

The issue is the altitude block, not the transponder block. There is nothing at all in the ATC Handbook about "VFR/xxxx" entries, no less saying a strip with that in it is a VFR flight even if filed IFR.

Flight Data Processing entries were covered in a separate manual, I havent seen a copy of one in many years, but the acceptable entries for the altitude field remain the same; an IFR altitude in hundreds of feet, a block altitude, OTP, and VFR.

But not "VFR/xxxx"?

 

[C. Kelley]

Wow I had no idea this would open up such an interesting conversation! Unfortunately I had to go to the ER last night due to intense head pressure, sore throat, and trouble swallowing. Apparently I have tonsillitis, surprise! I guess I won't be able to fly to Grandmother's birthday after all . Regardless, this is a very interesting discussion and it doesn't need to end just because my tonsils are infected and abnormally huge.


Yeah I was trying to avoid those MOA's because Columbus AFB and Meridian NAS are constantly performing training ops. After matching my sectionals up better I found that I would just barely be in the MOA.

Kinda hard to believe you have never flown a Victor airway during your hours before getting your ticket

I tracked VOR's a good bit but I never flew a victor airway during my training. I know its the same thing but it was just so I could say I had done it I guess.

 

[SkyHog]

You know, I just might try this next time I fly somewhere, see if it works.

 

[roncachamp]

If the person filed an IFR flight plan, yet wanted to proceed VFR, would not the flight plan show up as IFR on the controller's tab list and he would have to manually change it to VFR after the target acquires?

No.

If a pilot selects VFR when entering a flight plan via DUATS the data is sent to FSS. If he selects IFR the data is sent to ATC.

When a controller enters a flight plan via FDIO the only difference between IFR and VFR is in the altitude field; an IFR flight will have a specific IFR altitude entered, a VFR flight will have "VFR" entered.

The same is true of flight data received through DUATS, the only difference is in the altitude field.

If a pilot receiving flight following decides to pick up an IFR clearance, or a pilot cancels IFR but wishes to receive flight following, the only flight data entry required is to amend the altitude.

 

[EppyGA]

Wow I had no idea this would open up such an interesting conversation! Unfortunately I had to go to the ER last night due to intense head pressure, sore throat, and trouble swallowing. Apparently I have tonsillitis, surprise! I guess I won't be able to fly to Grandmother's birthday after all . Regardless, this is a very interesting discussion and it doesn't need to end just because my tonsils are infected and abnormally huge.


Yeah I was trying to avoid those MOA's because Columbus AFB and Meridian NAS are constantly performing training ops. After matching my sectionals up better I found that I would just barely be in the MOA.




I tracked VOR's a good bit but I never flew a victor airway during my training. I know its the same thing but it was just so I could say I had done it I guess.

Sorry to hear you had to visit the ER. Glad it wasn't too serious.

 

[MikePapa]

Kinda hard to believe you have never flown a Victor airway during your hours before getting your ticket.. Must be just me thinking wrong.

I can't remember ever doing so. There's not a lot of value for a VFR pilot to fly the airways, other than it makes filing a VFR flight plan simpler and it might make ATC's job of keeping track of you simpler if you're on flight following.

 

[gismo]

Hmmm, using that technique of filing IFR for a VFR flight, will the flight be more likely to show up on FlightAware?

I'll bet it does. A lot of times a VFR flight on a discrete code getting flight following shows up and from what Steven said about ATC entering a flight plan into the computer with the altitude set to "VFR" I suspect that this (ATC enterring a plan) is what makes those flight appear on FlightAware. Doing the IFR plan with "VFR" altitude yourself and getting a code would likely do the same thing.

 

[gismo]

No.

If a pilot selects VFR when entering a flight plan via DUATS the data is sent to FSS. If he selects IFR the data is sent to ATC.

When a controller enters a flight plan via FDIO the only difference between IFR and VFR is in the altitude field; an IFR flight will have a specific IFR altitude entered, a VFR flight will have "VFR" entered.

The same is true of flight data received through DUATS, the only difference is in the altitude field.

If a pilot receiving flight following decides to pick up an IFR clearance, or a pilot cancels IFR but wishes to receive flight following, the only flight data entry required is to amend the altitude.

Assuming for the moment that DUATS will accept "VFR" in the altitude field (probably works but I've never tried it) that seems like the way to go if you want to depart VFR and pick up the clearance enroute. I'll have to try that sometime. I have filed a "normal" IFR plan and then told the tower I'd be picking up my clearance once past the Class B to avoid their sometimes circuitous vectoring but that always requires some explaining before departing and later when picking up the clearance, this IFR w/alt="VFR" seems cleaner. It might also prevent the flight plan from timing out or getting cancelled by the tower before you pick it up later.

 

[gismo]

If the system works as described, and the controller understands what you're trying to do, this will be OK. OTOH, it would be very easy for the controller to misperceive this as an IFR flight and handle it accordingly. I've even seen this happen when receiving VFR flight following without my having filed a flight plan ("22RL, Appproach, you're not IFR?"). If you're not instrument rated/current/equipped, that could cause a problem if you don't realize that it's happening, and having filed an IFR flight plan won't look good if there's an investigation. Choose wisely.

I'd think the FAA would be hard pressed to win an argument that a pilot violation occurred if ATC mistakenly transformed a plan filed with "VFR" in the altitude field into an IFR flight unless the pilot foolishly flew into IMC in the ensuing confusion. And if Steven is right (chances are he is) about this being the way ATC handles flight following automation then I don't see how a pilot could get into trouble for doing the same thing himself. Either way (ATC enters or pilot files) there's always a chance for a controller to screw up and mistake a VFR flight for IFR but I fail to see the danger in that nor do I see the possibility of a controller's mistake being a reason to exclude filing this way. I could make the same argument against asking for advisories since that obviously (per your example) could lead to the same error.

I do agree however that it would be better if the concept were published in the AIM. I wonder why it's not?

 

[roncachamp]

It might also prevent the flight plan from timing out or getting cancelled by the tower before you pick it up later.

They're all treated the same, doesn't matter if the input was FSS, DUATS, or ATC.

 

[gismo]

What I have been doing and seems to work really well when filing electronically is file an IFR flight plan (Check the box) with the route deatails with a VFR altitude and VFR ADVISORIES in the comment section

By "VFR altitude" do you mean something like 4500 or 5500 vs 4000 or 5000, or did you mean you were putting the acronym "VFR" in the altitude field. Per Steven's post I'd say the latter is better and you can always put your intended altitude in the comments section. While the plus 500 altitudes are inappropriate for IFR flight plan filing, they are often assigned by ATC (at least in the terminal area) and 3000 MSL is a perfectly legal VFR altitude over most of the country yet indistinguishable from a proper IFR altitude.

 

[gismo]

Not a chance. ATC has been forwarding flight data this way on VFR aircraft for decades. Whether the data was input by a pilot via DUAT or by a controller via FDIO, the strips look the same.

I'd have to say there is indeed "a chance" since I've encountered the same ATC mistake as Ron (confusing a VFR/advisories situation with an IFR clearance) more than once. But unlike Ron I don't see this as a reason to avoid filing with "VFR" in the altitude field. I'll bet that the reason the SFAR procedure says to file exactly that way is because ATC was already set up to handle it accordingly (vs the easily implemented software change suggested by another poster).

 

[roncachamp]

By "VFR altitude" do you mean something like 4500 or 5500 vs 4000 or 5000, or did you mean you were putting the acronym "VFR" in the altitude field. Per Steven's post I'd say the latter is better and you can always put your intended altitude in the comments section. While the plus 500 altitudes are inappropriate for IFR flight plan filing, they are often assigned by ATC (at least in the terminal area) and 3000 MSL is a perfectly legal VFR altitude over most of the country yet indistinguishable from a proper IFR altitude.

An entry of a number by itself would be handled as an IFR. For VFR the altitude entry should be just "VFR" or VFR along with the desired VFR altitude in hundreds of feet; "VFR/45", "VFR/55".

 

[roncachamp]

I'd have to say there is indeed "a chance" since I've encountered the same ATC mistake as Ron (confusing a VFR/advisories situation with an IFR clearance) more than once.

I can't see an entry of just "VFR" in the altitude field causing any confusion as to whether the flight was IFR or VFR. Perhaps, as you suggested in your earlier message, the pilot wanted VFR at 4,500 MSL and entered "45" as the altitude. I can see that entry causing confusion.

 

[gismo]

They're all treated the same, doesn't matter if the input was FSS, DUATS, or ATC.

Yes, but there have been occasions where I departed a towered field VFR with an IFR plan on file I was planning to activate enroute only to find that the plan was removed by someone. In one case I'm pretty certain it was the tower that did it even though I told them I'd be picking it up later. Another time I suspected the plan simply timed out because it was just a bit less than two hours past ETD when I departed VFR and a bit more than two hours past ETD when I asked Center for the clearance. So I'm thinking that had I filed IFR with alt= VFR, and gotten a code from the tower for advisories those plans wouldn't have gone away.

Of course taking avisories seems to open one up to the same circuitous routing way around the Class B as the IFR clearance so it might not be such a great idea anyway.

 

[gismo]

I can't see an entry of just "VFR" in the altitude field causing any confusion as to whether the flight was IFR or VFR. Perhaps, as you suggested in your earlier message, the pilot wanted VFR at 4,500 MSL and entered "45" as the altitude. I can see that entry causing confusion.

In my case (and likely Ron's) there was no pilot filed plan at all, just a request for advisories that likely prompted a controller to enter an abbreviated plan. Then it seems either that controller mistakenly entered a "plain" altitude instead of "VFR(/xx)" or another controller further enroute misread the strip.

 

[gismo]

An entry of a number by itself would be handled as an IFR. For VFR the altitude entry should be just "VFR" or VFR along with the desired VFR altitude in hundreds of feet; "VFR/45", "VFR/55".

Ah, so you can put an altitude along with the "VFR" in the altitude field. Good to know, thanks.

 

[LT4247]

Hate it when that happens...

Unfortunately I had to go to the ER last night due to intense head pressure, sore throat, and trouble swallowing. Apparently I have tonsillitis, surprise! I guess I won't be able to fly....

 

[roncachamp]

In my case (and likely Ron's) there was no pilot filed plan at all, just a request for advisories that likely prompted a controller to enter an abbreviated plan. Then it seems either that controller mistakenly entered a "plain" altitude instead of "VFR(/xx)" or another controller further enroute misread the strip.

I believe the situation Cap'n Ron felt might confuse a controller was the pilot-filed IFR flight plan with VFR as the altitude.

 

[Palmpilot]

Assuming for the moment that DUATS will accept "VFR" in the altitude field (probably works but I've never tried it) that seems like the way to go if you want to depart VFR and pick up the clearance enroute.

I just tried it on DTC DUAT, and it accepted "VFR" in the altitude field without a problem.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'd think the FAA would be hard pressed to win an argument that a pilot violation occurred if ATC mistakenly transformed a plan filed with "VFR" in the altitude field into an IFR flight unless the pilot foolishly flew into IMC in the ensuing confusion.

I would think that you would only have a problem for accepting an IFR clearance, not for merely filing an IFR flight plan. The reg [61.3(e)] says you can't act as pilot in command under IFR, or in weather conditions less than VFR, unless you hold an instrument rating. My understanding is that in controlled airspace you are not operating under IFR until you accept an IFR clearance, which will start with the words "cleared to [destination]." If I heard those words and was not instrument rated and current, then I would reply "unable IFR" or something to that effect. Of course, the FAA is good at coming up with ways of violating pilots after the fact, so there are no guarantees. Note also that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, just a layman's opinion.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'd have to say there is indeed "a chance" since I've encountered the same ATC mistake as Ron (confusing a VFR/advisories situation with an IFR clearance) more than once.

I had the opposite situation once, where a controller didn't realize I was IFR, even though I was at an IFR altitude. (She then accepted my word that I was.) This was a situation where I had made a couple of changes of destination because I heard an airliner making several missed approaches at my originally filed fuel stop, and due to a humongous tailwind, ended up being able to fly to my final destination and still have a 1.5 hour reserve.

 

[timwinters]

Thanks, guys, (especially Steven) I learned something today! I fly a lot of xc flights and either use flight following or file instruments, depending on my mood. But I never knew I could set up FF this way. It sure would standardize my preflight planning and, as someone said earlier, would probably allow one to convert from FF to instruments pretty easily on the fly.

I'd bet it wouldn't stop RFD approach from regularly dropping you as you leave their airspace though (squawk VFR, good day) almost every time you fly through their sky.

 

[dbman5]

So, if I file "IFR" and it goes to ATC instead of FSS, is ATC going to send someone out to look for me after they cancel my FF and I don't close the flight plan after crashing?

I thought that was the main purpose of filing a VFR Flight Plan - which is why I would also give my correct route if it wasn't direct.

Yes, I know it takes hours to get a full fledged search going but something is better than nothing.

Perhaps the consideration in this thread is that nobody wants to file a VFR Flight Plan for the purpose of SAR - just find a convenient way to get FF.

 

[Doggtyred]

If the person filed an IFR flight plan, yet wanted to proceed VFR, would not the flight plan show up as IFR on the controller's tab list and he would have to manually change it to VFR after the target acquires?

In the Houston Terminal Area, if you request VFR flight following, they put all the same data on your popup "flight plan" entry that you would if you were a popup IFR. N number, altitude, all of that..

Then on the end of your N number they put an extra "V" to indicate VFR.

If its not clear to some posters,

If YOU, the pilot, file a VFR flight plan via duats, it goes to FSS. ATC never sees it.

If YOU, the pilot, file an "IFR" flight plan via duats, it goes to ATC instead. Not FSS. If in the comments of this IFR flight plan you state VFR Advisories only, its pretty clear what your intentions are. When activated, you do not HAVE an IFR flight plan. and you do not have a VFR flight plan at FSS either. You simply have your data pre-filed for them to assign a transponder code to and send you on your way, with whatever method ATC uses to identify you as a VFR advisory target.

ANYONE can file an IFR flight plan - a real one or a bogus one as described. You, Me, the dog catcher. You have to be legal/current to accept an actual IFR Clearance. But VFR advisories aren't that, even if you file it in the "IFR" system.

Filing an IFR flight plan in this manner for the purpose of VFR advisories doesn't screw anything up, per se, but some busy Tracon's dont like dealing with it in the manner described. Every place has its own little way of doing things.

 

[Doggtyred]

So, if I file "IFR" and it goes to ATC instead of FSS, is ATC going to send someone out to look for me after they cancel my FF and I don't close the flight plan after crashing?

When you cancel flight following, this "IFR" data block goes poof. You have NO protection as an overdue aircraft. You CAN file and activate and close a separate real VFR flight plan through FSS.

I thought that was the main purpose of filing a VFR Flight Plan - which is why I would also give my correct route if it wasn't direct.

Yes, I know it takes hours to get a full fledged search going but something is better than nothing.

Perhaps the consideration in this thread is that nobody wants to file a VFR Flight Plan for the purpose of SAR - just find a convenient way to get FF.

Convenient FF is it. Not having to answer a buncha questions when you pop up. Not really a factor if you are flying from a controlled field - the set it up while you are on the ground.

If you want the protections and responsibilities of a VFR flight plan you have to file and open/close that one separately from the "IFR" Vfr advisories "flight plan" we've described.

 

[TMetzinger]

I'd have to say there is indeed "a chance" since I've encountered the same ATC mistake as Ron (confusing a VFR/advisories situation with an IFR clearance) more than once. But unlike Ron I don't see this as a reason to avoid filing with "VFR" in the altitude field. I'll bet that the reason the SFAR procedure says to file exactly that way is because ATC was already set up to handle it accordingly (vs the easily implemented software change suggested by another poster).

In production computer systems, particularly in those owned or operated or managed by the Gov't, there is NO SUCH THING as an easily implemented software change. The change may be easy, the implementation won't be.

 

[roncachamp]

So, if I file "IFR" and it goes to ATC instead of FSS, is ATC going to send someone out to look for me after they cancel my FF and I don't close the flight plan after crashing?

Only if radar and radio contact are lost unexpectedly.

Filing "IFR" with VFR as the altitude is just to set up flight following. Doing that does not preclude you from filing a normal VFR flight plan.

 

[roncachamp]

If YOU, the pilot, file an "IFR" flight plan via duats, it goes to ATC instead. Not FSS. If in the comments of this IFR flight plan you state VFR Advisories only, its pretty clear what your intentions are. When activated, you do not HAVE an IFR flight plan. and you do not have a VFR flight plan at FSS either. You simply have your data pre-filed for them to assign a transponder code to and send you on your way, with whatever method ATC uses to identify you as a VFR advisory target.

What are you filing for altitude?

 

[MikePapa]

Then on the end of your N number they put an extra "V" to indicate VFR.

So it sounds as if different areas use different methods to distinguish IFR from VFR traffic on the scope.