VFR Flight Plan or Flight Following?

R

rt4388

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
192
Display Name
Display name:
rt4388
Sorry in advance for how long this post is but.... this post is spurred by two events that happened to two separate friends within the last few weeks--both of which are student pilots. One event the pilot had flight following and the next event they had a flight plan open. I think these two scenarios show the pros and cons of flight plans and flight following. I'm curious what you all see as the pros and cons of plan/following and which one you all prefer--if not both. I'm also surprised that in event one (an aircraft that obviously deviated from its original destination and was squawking 7700) the pilot/school was never contacted by air traffic control to ensure a safe landing. Is this SOP for ATC or did someone just drop the ball on this?

Event 1:
A friend was doing his first solo XC flight and he had picked up flight following. On his way back, just outside of the Bravo, he had an alternator failure and lost comms and GPS. Although he was already cleared through the bravo, he decided to turn around, squawk 7700, and land at a non-towered airport that wasn't his original destination. What's surprising to me is that ATC never contacted the flight school, him, or anyone else to attempt to make sure he landed safely. Props to him for making some smart decisions on his first solo XC though.

Event 2:
A friend was doing her second XC flight with an instructor and she had a VFR flight plan open. On her way back, she forgot to get cleared through the Bravo--obviously, the instructor caught it and picked up the clearance prior to it becoming an issue, but I was surprised she didn't have flight following, which would have very likely have prevented busting if both would have forgotten.
 
Flight plans and flight following are two unrelated things, so I'm not sure you're asking the right question. It's not an either/or kind of thing.

I can't think of any good reason not to file a VFR flight plan when flying XC. I also can't really think of a good reason not to take advantage of flight following if I'm going to be where there's radar coverage. I'll admit that sometimes I've declined to use FF, especially if there are obnoxious people on the frequency.

In scenario #1, since your friend wasn't on a flight plan, I don't think there's any official mechanism for anyone to follow up on him. If they had him on radar and saw him make it to the pattern of the new destination, they may not have thought much of it.
 
Eric Gleason said:
Flight plans and flight following are two unrelated things, so I'm not sure you're asking the right question. It's not an either/or kind of thing.

I can't think of any good reason not to file a VFR flight plan when flying XC. I also can't really think of a good reason not to take advantage of flight following if I'm going to be where there's radar coverage. I'll admit that sometimes I've declined to use FF, especially if there are obnoxious people on the frequency.

In scenario #1, since your friend wasn't on a flight plan, I don't think there's any official mechanism for anyone to follow up on him. If they had him on radar and saw him make it to the pattern of the new destination, they may not have thought much of it.
Click to expand...

I guess I was always under the impression that if you deviated from your destination while on flight following, ATC would make an effort to confirm everything was OK. I get that flight following is primarily for traffic advisories (in a lot of ways airspace advisories as well) and a flight plan is primarily for search and rescue efforts, but I always thought following kind of took safety to the next level. I figured it could spur search and rescue or in my friends case a phone call in addition to the traffic advisories. I guess the best answer is just always pick up both to make sure you have all services available?
 
Yeah.... all I will say is it’s definitely odd the class B Tracon didn’t follow up. Especially after the 7700 code.
It’s so strange that I’m almost doubting the facts as presented.
 
Flight Following is great for traffic awareness and direct communication with somebody if you have an emergency. Be interesting to hear from themATC folks here as to what happens when they lose contact with an aircraft on flight following...maybe they called the airport and verified a safe landing, and your friend just knew nothing of it.

As far as filing VFR flight plans, that's mostly for search and rescue functions if you don't close the flight plan...and how soon that happens can depend on a number of factors. Some people I've known prefer to leave their itinerary with a spouse/friend/family member who will start making calls if the pilot hasn't contacted them by the prearranged time.

When I was flying VFR a lot, I didn't file for a few reasons...mostly because I tend to deviate from my planned flight path a lot, and they'd probably never find me based on my filed route.
 
Kritchlow said:
Yeah.... all I will say is it’s definitely odd the class B Tracon didn’t follow up. Especially after the 7700 code.
It’s so strange that I’m almost doubting the facts as presented.
Click to expand...
If he lost comms and GPS, more than likely the 7700 code didn't transmit.
 
Kritchlow said:
Even so, when tracon loses someone I would think there would be a follow up.
Click to expand...
When I was working at FBOs, we'd occasionally get calls from ATC to check on an airplane...they might have done that, heard he was safe, and went on with life.

But as you indicated, there's a big part of the story that's not there.
 
Couple of thoughts.

-What Bravo was this that your friend was allowed to solo in as a student pilot?

-As mentioned, when your friend lost the GPS and comms, the transponder is powered by the same gerbil wheel. ATC didn't see it.

-Also as mentioned, we routinely will track a target to the airport, call the FBO with the tail number and they say he's down safe. So there is that possibility.
 
rt4388 said:
I guess I was always under the impression that if you deviated from your destination while on flight following, ATC would make an effort to confirm everything was OK.
Click to expand...

Hopefully we'll get some input from the controllers out there, but to the best of my knowledge, any effort on the part of ATC to make a phone call to follow up in a situation like this is simply a controller being a good samaritan and not an official requirement. Remember that FF isn't a clearance to a destination, so picking a new destination may not look that odd from the controller's perspective.

@MauleSkinner made a good point about the squawk code likely not being seen by ATC.
 
Eric Gleason said:
Hopefully we'll get some input from the controllers out there, but to the best of my knowledge, any effort on the part of ATC to make a phone call to follow up in a situation like this is simply a controller being a good samaritan and not an official requirement. Remember that FF isn't a clearance to a destination, so picking a new destination may not look that odd from the controller's perspective.

@MauleSkinner made a good point about the squawk code likely not being seen by ATC.
Click to expand...
Radar Contact is an ATC guy... he basically backed up Skinner.

That said, I’m guessing it’s more than “Good Samaritan”.
I’m *guessing* there is some sort of responsibility for ATC to follow up. Perhaps I’m wrong on that, but i hope not.

ETA: one of the reasons I say that is we were allowed (part 135) to use ATC FF as a method of company FF. If ATC never followed up on a missing airplane, what good would that be??
 
Radar Contact said:
Couple of thoughts.

-What Bravo was this that your friend was allowed to solo in as a student pilot?

-As mentioned, when your friend lost the GPS and comms, the transponder is powered by the same gerbil wheel. ATC didn't see it.

-Also as mentioned, we routinely will track a target to the airport, call the FBO with the tail number and they say he's down safe. So there is that possibility.
Click to expand...

It was the Vegas bravo (yes he had the 61.95.a endorsement--I've been studying for my CFI initial too much lately apparently).

Yea, I think it's very likely that the transponder wasn't transmitting. I was pretty surprised he was even able to put a code in it given that the GPS and comms were gone. But even then, a lack of code or a 7700 all constitute an emergency IMO if I'm a controller.

And who knows? Maybe they did call the FBO at the small, local airport and see if he had made it on the ground safely. But no one at the airport mentioned it to him.
 
Kritchlow said:
Radar Contact is an ATC guy... he basically backed up Skinner.
Click to expand...

Ships passing in the night, he posted while I was writing. But he didn't say it was a requirement, just something that they routinely did. @Radar Contact , can you clarify that for us?

Kritchlow said:
ETA: one of the reasons I say that is we were allowed (part 135) to use ATC FF as a method of company FF. If ATC never followed up on a missing airplane, what good would that be??
Click to expand...

Part 135 is pretty vague about what constitutes the ability to locate an aircraft. Basically, it says that you're good as long as your office has the same info on file that you'd have for a VFR flight plan and have a procedure to notify the FAA if one of your flights is overdue. A statement in your procedures requiring each flight to file a flight plan and keep a copy at the office would suffice.

§ 135.79 Flight locating requirements.
(a) Each certificate holder must have procedures established for locating each flight, for which an FAA flight plan is not filed, that -

(1) Provide the certificate holder with at least the information required to be included in a VFR flight plan;

(2) Provide for timely notification of an FAA facility or search and rescue facility, if an aircraft is overdue or missing; and

(3) Provide the certificate holder with the location, date, and estimated time for reestablishing communications, if the flight will operate in an area where communications cannot be maintained.

(b) Flight locating information shall be retained at the certificate holder's principal place of business, or at other places designated by the certificate holder in the flight locating procedures, until the completion of the flight.

(c) Each certificate holder shall furnish the representative of the Administrator assigned to it with a copy of its flight locating procedures and any changes or additions, unless those procedures are included in a manual required under this part.​
 
Eric Gleason said:
Ships passing in the night, he posted while I was writing. But he didn't say it was a requirement, just something that they routinely did. @Radar Contact , can you clarify that for us?



Part 135 is pretty vague about what constitutes the ability to locate an aircraft. Basically, it says that you're good as long as your office has the same info on file that you'd have for a VFR flight plan and have a procedure to notify the FAA if one of your flights is overdue. A statement in your procedures requiring each flight to file a flight plan and keep a copy at the office would suffice.

§ 135.79 Flight locating requirements.
(a) Each certificate holder must have procedures established for locating each flight, for which an FAA flight plan is not filed, that -

(1) Provide the certificate holder with at least the information required to be included in a VFR flight plan;

(2) Provide for timely notification of an FAA facility or search and rescue facility, if an aircraft is overdue or missing; and

(3) Provide the certificate holder with the location, date, and estimated time for reestablishing communications, if the flight will operate in an area where communications cannot be maintained.

(b) Flight locating information shall be retained at the certificate holder's principal place of business, or at other places designated by the certificate holder in the flight locating procedures, until the completion of the flight.

(c) Each certificate holder shall furnish the representative of the Administrator assigned to it with a copy of its flight locating procedures and any changes or additions, unless those procedures are included in a manual required under this part.​
Click to expand...
Not sure about the regs you quoted, but we had op specs that let us use ATC FF.
 
Kritchlow said:
Not sure about the regs you quoted, but we had op specs that let us use ATC FF.
Click to expand...
Or if not op specs it was in our manual (FAA approved). Long time ago so can’t recall exactly.

Either way it’s pointless. We NEVER flew VFR.
 
rt4388 said:
Sorry in advance for how long this post is but.... this post is spurred by two events that happened to two separate friends within the last few weeks--both of which are student pilots. One event the pilot had flight following and the next event they had a flight plan open. I think these two scenarios show the pros and cons of flight plans and flight following. I'm curious what you all see as the pros and cons of plan/following and which one you all prefer--if not both. I'm also surprised that in event one (an aircraft that obviously deviated from its original destination and was squawking 7700) the pilot/school was never contacted by air traffic control to ensure a safe landing. Is this SOP for ATC or did someone just drop the ball on this?

Event 1:
A friend was doing his first solo XC flight and he had picked up flight following. On his way back, just outside of the Bravo, he had an alternator failure and lost comms and GPS. Although he was already cleared through the bravo, he decided to turn around, squawk 7700, and land at a non-towered airport that wasn't his original destination. What's surprising to me is that ATC never contacted the flight school, him, or anyone else to attempt to make sure he landed safely. Props to him for making some smart decisions on his first solo XC though.

Event 2:
A friend was doing her second XC flight with an instructor and she had a VFR flight plan open. On her way back, she forgot to get cleared through the Bravo--obviously, the instructor caught it and picked up the clearance prior to it becoming an issue, but I was surprised she didn't have flight following, which would have very likely have prevented busting if both would have forgotten.
Click to expand...
Event 1 - If it's true that no attempt was made to contact "anyone," the ball was probably dropped. There is really no such thing as 'flight following.' Look it up in the Pilot Controller Glossary. What you are getting is Traffic Advisories. It exists to 'assist' pilots in complying with their responsiblity to 'see and avoid' other aircraft. Yeah, we all call it Flight Following, pilots and controllers alike, so ok, there is such a thing. Like @Eric Gleason said above in post #2, Flight Plans and Flight Following are 2 unrelated things. Not completely unrelated though or maybe I should say that Flight Following can give you the same benefits as a Flight Plan, that being someone will come looking for you if you go down. Sometimes. Never forget that you may get an "unable account traffic" if you request it. You may be getting it and get a "Radar service terminated" anytime. This may be because of controller workload or it may be because you go out of Radar coverage. Here are the controllers rules on what to do if an aircraft 'disappears' on them while getting flightfollowingtrafficadvisories.

10−2−5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform
the RCC or ARTCC when any of the following exist:
NOTE−
USAF facilities are only required to notify the ARTCC.
a. An emergency is declared by either:
1. The pilot.
2. Facility personnel.
3. Officials responsible for the operation of the
aircraft.
b. There is unexpected loss of radar contact and
radio communications with any IFR or VFR aircraft.

Keep in mind that if you get terminated around say 5 or so miles out with a "Radar service terminated, squawk VFR, change to advisory frequency approved," it is not 'unexpected' that radar contact and radio communications are lost. So if you go down between there and the airport, no one may be missing you unless you filed a Flight Plan. Flight Plan OR Flight Following??? There ain't no OR about it. You can do both.
 
Last edited:
rt4388 said:
Sorry in advance for how long this post is but.... this post is spurred by two events that happened to two separate friends within the last few weeks--both of which are student pilots. One event the pilot had flight following and the next event they had a flight plan open. I think these two scenarios show the pros and cons of flight plans and flight following. I'm curious what you all see as the pros and cons of plan/following and which one you all prefer--if not both. I'm also surprised that in event one (an aircraft that obviously deviated from its original destination and was squawking 7700) the pilot/school was never contacted by air traffic control to ensure a safe landing. Is this SOP for ATC or did someone just drop the ball on this?

Event 1:
A friend was doing his first solo XC flight and he had picked up flight following. On his way back, just outside of the Bravo, he had an alternator failure and lost comms and GPS. Although he was already cleared through the bravo, he decided to turn around, squawk 7700, and land at a non-towered airport that wasn't his original destination. What's surprising to me is that ATC never contacted the flight school, him, or anyone else to attempt to make sure he landed safely. Props to him for making some smart decisions on his first solo XC though.

Event 2:
A friend was doing her second XC flight with an instructor and she had a VFR flight plan open. On her way back, she forgot to get cleared through the Bravo--obviously, the instructor caught it and picked up the clearance prior to it becoming an issue, but I was surprised she didn't have flight following, which would have very likely have prevented busting if both would have forgotten.
Click to expand...
Event 2 - If she was getting Flight Following it's likely they would have given the Bravo clearance before she flew into it. But getting Flight Following in no way relieves the pilot of the responsibility to get a clearance before flying into it. Why she wasn't on Flight Following there are two possibilities. She didn't request it or she did and they said no. That she had filed a Flight Plan has absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
Even 1. In my experience if an aircraft is squawking 7700 every effort is made to have a resolution. I suspect the transponder was not working.

Around here (SMX) if someone drops off the radar people start looking.

Even lost coms (7600) is treated as an emergency.
 
rt4388 said:
Sorry in advance for how long this post is but.... this post is spurred by two events that happened to two separate friends within the last few weeks--both of which are student pilots. One event the pilot had flight following and the next event they had a flight plan open. I think these two scenarios show the pros and cons of flight plans and flight following. I'm curious what you all see as the pros and cons of plan/following and which one you all prefer--if not both. I'm also surprised that in event one (an aircraft that obviously deviated from its original destination and was squawking 7700) the pilot/school was never contacted by air traffic control to ensure a safe landing. Is this SOP for ATC or did someone just drop the ball on this?

Event 1:
A friend was doing his first solo XC flight and he had picked up flight following. On his way back, just outside of the Bravo, he had an alternator failure and lost comms and GPS. Although he was already cleared through the bravo, he decided to turn around, squawk 7700, and land at a non-towered airport that wasn't his original destination. What's surprising to me is that ATC never contacted the flight school, him, or anyone else to attempt to make sure he landed safely. Props to him for making some smart decisions on his first solo XC though.

Event 2:
A friend was doing her second XC flight with an instructor and she had a VFR flight plan open. On her way back, she forgot to get cleared through the Bravo--obviously, the instructor caught it and picked up the clearance prior to it becoming an issue, but I was surprised she didn't have flight following, which would have very likely have prevented busting if both would have forgotten.
Click to expand...

Event 1 happened to me recently and I contacted ATC to inform them I had landed safely since I was talking to them and then suddenly just stoped( obviously I could not because of the radio failure.). I'll tell you what they told me-- when I called I informed them I was the pilot of N...... And that I had an electrical failure and the radios stopped working but that I managed to return safely. They said they appreciated me letting them know and they were concerned why I was not responding even after having several airplanes also attempt to contact me. I asked if I needed to fill out anything and was told "nope." Literally the entire conversation was maybe 2 or 3 minutes long. My sense was they were relieved I had not crashed but were probably also fine with if I had never called either( the person on the phone was extremely nice. I just mean this type of event may happen more often than we think so they don't get alarmed about it.)

Your friend did not use the correct squawk though-- the correct squawk is 7600. 7700 is used only in a mayday situation although, as was explained to me by atc when I called them, they can't see your squawk after the transponder goes out anyway so the whole 7600 thing seems a bit silly!
 
It is possible that the transponder was not working but ATC was getting a primary RADAR return and was able to see the plane turn around and return to the airport.
 
7700 or not, if I were on position I'd call it an unexpected loss of both radar and comms and would get SAR rolling (call ARTCC). Might even be a DEN reporting requirement as well.
 
Last edited:
rt4388 said:
...I was surprised she didn't have flight following, which would have very likely have prevented busting if both would have forgotten.
Click to expand...
It may be likely, but you can't count on always being warned before the bust. As I was overflying the Seattle class B airspace a couple of years ago, I was monitoring Seattle Approach, and I heard the controller tell a guy that he was in the bravo airspace without a clearance and instruct him to exit. The pilot responded that since he was on flight following, he understood the clearance to be implied. The controller set him straight on that score and gave him a phone number to call.

For AOPA members, there's further discussion of the subject here:

https://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=95683
 
luvflyin said:
...There is really no such thing as 'flight following.' Look it up in the Pilot Controller Glossary. What you are getting is Traffic Advisories....
Click to expand...
The Pilot/Controller Glossary implies that the two terms are synonymous:

"FLIGHT FOLLOWING−
(See TRAFFIC ADVISORIES.)"​
 
jspilot said:
...Your friend did not use the correct squawk though-- the correct squawk is 7600. 7700 is used only in a mayday situation although, as was explained to me by atc when I called them, they can't see your squawk after the transponder goes out anyway so the whole 7600 thing seems a bit silly!
Click to expand...

According to AIM 6-3-2a, 7700 should also be used in a pan-pan (urgency) situation. If the problem was being caused by an electrical failure, depending on the circumstances it could reasonably be considered either a distress or urgency condition.

As for the usefulness of 7600, total electrical failure is not the only possible cause of lost comm. Both of my lost comm incidents left the transponder fully functioning.
 
Palmpilot said:
The Pilot/Controller Glossary implies that the two terms are synonymous:

"FLIGHT FOLLOWING−
(See TRAFFIC ADVISORIES.)"​
Click to expand...
Yeah, pretty much so. Sending those looking to see what Flight Following is directly to Traffic Advisories does make the point though that it's not about 'being followed.' Even so the question 'Flight Plan or Flight Following' keeps coming up.
 
Flight following is dependent on load basis. if the controller is busy then (s)he might not have time for you. I have been on flight following and had other aircraft come close enough for me to alter heading and not a word from the controller.
 
Hi everyone.
Without going into the details of the OPs thread a couple of things should be pointed out:
1-Flight following is based on a ATC's load, you may Not get it, or you may be dropped at any time, and the arrival / landing at destination may not be monitored by the ATC.....
2-On a filed Flight plan you will get a complete follow through and very likely the ATC will accommodate / accept you.
3-It is a fallacy to think / assume that ATC / controller is the Only responsible party in giving you the clearance through controlled airspace on either filed Flight Plan and or Flight following. The pilot must verify and confirm that he / she is cleared before entering.
4-While 7700 can be used for situations other than Emergency the follow up at destination, and along the route, the preparations, equipment priority.. are completely different. If you have a com. failure it is best to use the 7600 and you will get the necessary help accordingly, no fire trucks.. waiting for you at destination.
 
FYI when you do squawk (assuming transponder working) 7700, 7600, and 7500 it sets off an alarm and your code will blossom on the radar scope.
 
bluesideup said:
2-On a filed Flight plan you will get a complete follow through and very likely the ATC will accommodate / accept you.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Are you suggesting that if you file a VFR flight plan you are more likely to get continuous flight following vs if you don't file a VFR flight plan?
 
Radar Contact said:
Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Are you suggesting that if you file a VFR flight plan you are more likely to get continuous flight following vs if you don't file a VFR flight plan?
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a little confusing. A VFR flight doesn't have anything to do with FF. That (FF) one has to be request directly from ATC.
 
Last edited:
Eric Gleason said:
Ships passing in the night, he posted while I was writing. But he didn't say it was a requirement, just something that they routinely did. @Radar Contact , can you clarify that for us?
Click to expand...

As posted from the 7110.65:
10−2−5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform
the RCC or ARTCC when any of the following exist:
...
b. There is unexpected loss of radar contact and
radio communications with any IFR or VFR aircraft.

Yes, it is required per our reg's. The example I used to verify the aircraft safely landed is one of the ways we can handle this kind of situation.

rt4388 said:
What's surprising to me is that ATC never contacted the flight school, him, or anyone else to attempt to make sure he landed safely.
Click to expand...

My only point is that ATC may have done the appropriate actions to ensure their safety without contacting him or the flight school.

Glad he was fine.
 
Palmpilot said:
According to AIM 6-3-2a, 7700 should also be used in a pan-pan (urgency) situation. If the problem was being caused by an electrical failure, depending on the circumstances it could reasonably be considered either a distress or urgency condition.

As for the usefulness of 7600, total electrical failure is not the only possible cause of lost comm. Both of my lost comm incidents left the transponder fully functioning.
Click to expand...

Huh... Learned something g new about 7700. I was taught only in mayday situations( I remember it because the two sevens at the start are luck and in an emergency you will need all the luck you can get.). Thanks for clarifying.

I could see 7600 being useful just not in a total electrical failure.
 
According to the Pilot/Controller Glossary, both mayday (distress) and pan-pan (urgency) are emergencies.
 
Hi.
If on FF the controller may discontinue at some point before you get to your destination and no one may be looking for you at your destination. If on a flight plan and you do not close it, the search process starts to confirm your arrival / safety.

Radar Contact said:
Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Are you suggesting that if you file a VFR flight plan you are more likely to get continuous flight following vs if you don't file a VFR flight plan?
Click to expand...
 
I thought someone actually follows you when you get FF to make sure you get there safe. no? hard to tell for sure cause I don't have a rear view mirror so I could be right.
 
eman1200 said:
I thought someone actually follows you when you get FF to make sure you get there safe. no? hard to tell for sure cause I don't have a rear view mirror so I could be right.
Click to expand...
Not always. Unfortunately you fly a Mooney, so there is a short supply of planes we can assign to follow you that can actually keep up.
 
Sounds like a 7600 event to me, not a 7700

Ether way, see and avoid, land somehwere ideally outside of the bravo, if for anything so you can fly back to mx with less hassle if you need to.
 
Am I the only one who questions how on earth an airplane on a VFR flight outside of B or C or D airspace with an alternator failure would be considered an emergency justifying squaking 7700. 7600, sure, if the transponder was working. After all, there are thousands of planes flying every day with no electrical system at all.

Kudos to the student for turning around and landing (and for maintaining situational awareness and being able to find the alternate without the magic magenta line)... and thirty lashes with a wet noodle for not realizing that an electrical failure means the transponder isn't going to be working anyway.

I am kind of surprised that flight following didn't pick it up, but maybe they did, if the primary echo showed them landing at the uncontrolled field... or maybe they made a phone call and confirmed they were down safe. Many years ago when I was a student I forgot to close a flight plane until several hours later... I called flight service in a panic and the guy who answered said, "don't worry, nobody's looking for you." I presume they called the tower where I landed or the FBO, confirmed I was down safe, and closed it.
 
Transponder may still be operating dependent on the battery, but not for long with everything else electrical draining it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top