VFR flight plans

[JOhnH]

If I file a VFR flight plan, will ATC have that available? I often get flight following without filing a flight plan and they always ask my route since I rarely fly direct.

 

[mantakos]

A VFR flight plan lives its life inside the FSS computers, it doesn't make an appearance in front of a controller.

An IFR flight plan does go to ATC. Some people like to file IFR flight plans for flights on which they intend to fly VFR, because they believe that by providing the basic flight plan info to the controllers it makes it easier for ATC to pick them up for flight following.

Personally, I'm sort of a "by the book" guy, and feel that if the FAA wanted us to do this, they would have mentioned it somewhere. But others disagree.
-harry

 

[JOhnH]

Thats what I thought. Thanks.

 

[dmccormack]

A VFR flight plan lives its life inside the FSS computers, it doesn't make an appearance in front of a controller.

An IFR flight plan does go to ATC. Some people like to file IFR flight plans for flights on which they intend to fly VFR, because they believe that by providing the basic flight plan info to the controllers it makes it easier for ATC to pick them up for flight following.

Personally, I'm sort of a "by the book" guy, and feel that if the FAA wanted us to do this, they would have mentioned it somewhere. But others disagree.
-harry

I will file and begin VFR, sometimes opening en route, sometimes flying the whole route IFR while VMC.

I've used a VFR flight plan once -- while a student.

Here in the radared east, Traffic Advisories/Flight Following is easier, and achieves the same end.

 

[nddons]

I will file and begin VFR, sometimes opening en route, sometimes flying the whole route IFR while VMC.

I've used a VFR flight plan once -- while a student.

Here in the radared east, Traffic Advisories/Flight Following is easier, and achieves the same end.

Well, except for the "workload permitting" limitation of VFR flight following, right? I've been left hanging one too many times with VFR FF, and that is a prime reason why I'm working on my IR. (And yes, I know, in VMC the pilot is still responsible to see and avoid traffic, whether VFR or IFR.)

 

[azure]

A VFR flight plan lives its life inside the FSS computers, it doesn't make an appearance in front of a controller.

An IFR flight plan does go to ATC. Some people like to file IFR flight plans for flights on which they intend to fly VFR, because they believe that by providing the basic flight plan info to the controllers it makes it easier for ATC to pick them up for flight following.

Personally, I'm sort of a "by the book" guy, and feel that if the FAA wanted us to do this, they would have mentioned it somewhere. But others disagree.
-harry

Although I don't particularly care what the FAA wants us to do (aside from what they've spelled out in the FARs), I do care about what ATC expects and especially about not getting asked 20 questions when all I want is flight following to destination. So while I've tried the method you mention, I've had mixed results with it. It seems to depend entirely on the facility. Flying out of KCMH, it worked like a charm and both Clearance and Departure seemed to know exactly what I wanted to do. But departing an untowered field under Flint's Class C, more often than not I get offered an IFR clearance (despite putting VFR in the altitude block) and usually get no better than Class C services with an unceremonious "squawk VFR, frequency change approved" when leaving their airspace. And that's AFTER refusing the clearance, sometimes more than once.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I hate to be the instigator here but what the hey.

What responsibility does ATC have for a VFR aircraft receiving advisory services if you disappear from their scope without a word?

 

[sba55]

I hate to be the instigator here but what the hey.

What responsibility does ATC have for a VFR aircraft receiving advisory services if you disappear from their scope without a word?

At the same time, how likely is it that you'll disappear without a word or 7700 and without raising any suspicion? Realistically, only CFIT could product this outcome without immediate knowledge that something happened. Sure, then the search would maybe start a little sooner, but I certainly don't care since I'm 99.9% dead. Electrical failure, etc., all don't matter if you can't communicate with ATC anyways (and I suspect most carry a hand held).

I guess you could have a total electrical failure, be far from civilization, have forgotten your handheld, without enough fuel to make it back to an airport, and drop off FF without ATC doing something about it. That seems very far-fetched.

-Felix

 

[roncachamp]

Although I don't particularly care what the FAA wants us to do (aside from what they've spelled out in the FARs), I do care about what ATC expects and especially about not getting asked 20 questions when all I want is flight following to destination. So while I've tried the method you mention, I've had mixed results with it. It seems to depend entirely on the facility. Flying out of KCMH, it worked like a charm and both Clearance and Departure seemed to know exactly what I wanted to do. But departing an untowered field under Flint's Class C, more often than not I get offered an IFR clearance (despite putting VFR in the altitude block) and usually get no better than Class C services with an unceremonious "squawk VFR, frequency change approved" when leaving their airspace. And that's AFTER refusing the clearance, sometimes more than once.

How do they issue that IFR clearance? What do they use for an initial altitude and expected altitude?

 

[Dr. O]

Liz A.
Absolutely correct, and especially when dealing with Detroit...

I always get lake advisories when flying across Lake Erie, Windsor to Cleveland, which I do frequently... This serves two purposes...
First, is to have an ATC controller to talk to - who shows me on his strips - if I lose an engine, whatever, especially at night...
The second is to be in compliance with the rules for being in contact with ATC for crossing international airspace...

The routine is that while I am still only halfway across the lake, and usually still 5 miles inside of Canadian airspace I get the brusk, "squawk VFR, frequency change approved" that you experience... The first time I called ATC on the telephone later and discussed this breach of international agreements with them - they could not care less - and they told me I was free to call Cleveland and re-establish communication... The times I did this I got an attitude from the Cleveland controllers of, "why are you bothering me?" So I don't bother any more... Lake Crossing Services under the new ATC system are not what they used to be...

When the weather is crappy/IMC, then I file IFR and I get service from portal to portal... And the reality is that other than for search and rescue AFTER I go down, filing a VFR flight plan and asking for flight following and talking to ATC across the lake is of no real help... I am out there over the water and it is just me and my airplane making the trip... The radio link is an illusion of safety that does not really exist...

denny-o

 

[Ted]

Well, except for the "workload permitting" limitation of VFR flight following, right? I've been left hanging one too many times with VFR FF, and that is a prime reason why I'm working on my IR. (And yes, I know, in VMC the pilot is still responsible to see and avoid traffic, whether VFR or IFR.)

Keep in mind that when going IFR you are not guaranteed a rapid departure or arrival. I've only been turned down for VFR FF once. I have, however, filed IFR on very nice days and gotten all kinds of delays and stupid routings, especially around the PHL area.

In the eastern half of the country I'll agree with Dan and go for VFR FF. I've used a VFR flight plan all of once.

 

[roncachamp]

I hate to be the instigator here but what the hey.

What responsibility does ATC have for a VFR aircraft receiving advisory services if you disappear from their scope without a word?

If radar and radio contact are lost in an area where both would be expected ATC is responsible for initiating a search for that aircraft.


Order JO 7110.65T Air Traffic Control


10-2-5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform
the RCC or ARTCC and alert the appropriate DF
facility when:

NOTE-
1. USAF facilities are only required to notify the ARTCC.
2. The requirement to alert DF facilities may be deleted if
radar contact will be maintained throughout the duration
of the emergency.

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.

c. Reports indicate it has made a forced landing, is
about to do so, or its operating efficiency is so
impaired that a forced landing will be necessary.

d. Reports indicate the crew has abandoned the
aircraft or is about to do so.

e. An emergency radar beacon response is
received.

NOTE-
EN ROUTE. During Stage A operation, Code 7700 causes
EMRG to blink in field E of the data block.

f. Intercept or escort aircraft services are required.

g. The need for ground rescue appears likely.

h. An Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT)
signal is heard or reported.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 10-1-3, Providing Assistance.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para10-2-10, Emergency Locator Transmitter
(ELT) Signals.

 

[nddons]

Keep in mind that when going IFR you are not guaranteed a rapid departure or arrival. I've only been turned down for VFR FF once. I have, however, filed IFR on very nice days and gotten all kinds of delays and stupid routings, especially around the PHL area.

In the eastern half of the country I'll agree with Dan and go for VFR FF. I've used a VFR flight plan all of once.

Good point.

 

[dmccormack]

Well, except for the "workload permitting" limitation of VFR flight following, right? I've been left hanging one too many times with VFR FF, and that is a prime reason why I'm working on my IR. (And yes, I know, in VMC the pilot is still responsible to see and avoid traffic, whether VFR or IFR.)

Never been turned down VFR FF, and that includes students stumbling requests.

 

[poadeleted20]

Never been turned down VFR FF, and that includes students stumbling requests.

I have heard folks making stumbling requests get turned down when others are getting accepted. And I've heard the controllers turn everyone down on quite a few occasions in the NY/PHL/DC corridor when they're up to their eyeballs with a big arrival wave or departure push.

 

[dmccormack]

I have heard folks making stumbling requests get turned down when others are getting accepted. And I've heard the controllers turn everyone down on quite a few occasions in the NY/PHL/DC corridor when they're up to their eyeballs with a big arrival wave or departure push.

I'm flying mostly along the edges of the NY-PHL-DCA corridor. When I want to enter or transit that region, I file.

 

[Ted]

I usually file and then cancel when I get around Dover and hear "Descend and maintain 5,000." I know what's coming, and I don't like it. Much better to just hit direct and go over top at 7500.

 

[dmccormack]

I usually file and then cancel when I get around Dover and hear "Descend and maintain 5,000." I know what's coming, and I don't like it. Much better to just hit direct and go over top at 7500.

NY area is similar. I learned by lesson when I was given "Descend and maintain 3000" while just east of Allentown.

That was a long, bumpy slog...

 

[gismo]

I hate to be the instigator here but what the hey.

What responsibility does ATC have for a VFR aircraft receiving advisory services if you disappear from their scope without a word?

AFaIK it's entirely based on the individual controller's conscience. That said, many aircraft receiving flight following "discontinue" the service by changing frequencies without telling ATC every day so I suspect that in most cases a controller would just dump the strip and keep working the rest of his aircraft assuming the target didn't also drop off the radar.

 

[azure]

How do they issue that IFR clearance? What do they use for an initial altitude and expected altitude?

IIRC the last clearance I was offered was "Cleared to Troy-Oakland via radar vectors, fly heading 180, maintain 3000". No expected altitude was included in the clearance.

For clarity, I was of course already airborne, and had been given a squawk when I first called up.

 

[Ted]

NY area is similar. I learned by lesson when I was given "Descend and maintain 3000" while just east of Allentown.

That was a long, bumpy slog...

Yep, BTDT. Learned my lesson, now if it's VFR I cancel and if it's IFR I argue with them until they give me something better.

 

[azure]

The routine is that while I am still only halfway across the lake, and usually still 5 miles inside of Canadian airspace I get the brusk, "squawk VFR, frequency change approved" that you experience...

Uh-oh, this does not bode well. I have never ever had this experience overflying Canada and I have made several trips to 3W2 as well as my trip to/from KCMH last year. In fact on my CMH trip I assumed that the reason I had such good service was the "Canadian overflight" I put in the remarks block. It sounds like they are willing to just cut you loose and put you at risk taking the rap for being in Canadian airspace without a discrete code and ongoing communication with ATC. Sounds like I may not be going to 3W2 again before I finish my IR.

When the weather is crappy/IMC, then I file IFR and I get service from portal to portal... And the reality is that other than for search and rescue AFTER I go down, filing a VFR flight plan and asking for flight following and talking to ATC across the lake is of no real help... I am out there over the water and it is just me and my airplane making the trip... The radio link is an illusion of safety that does not really exist...

denny-o

Over the lake that's true, since your expected survival in that cold water is less than the time it would take them to mobilize a SAR effort. Over land, though, I consider radar services to be better insurance in case I should drop off the screen, as compared with a VFR flight plan, where they may have no more than departure and origin and an ETA to work with.

 

[flyersfan31]

I have heard folks making stumbling requests get turned down when others are getting accepted. And I've heard the controllers turn everyone down on quite a few occasions in the NY/PHL/DC corridor when they're up to their eyeballs with a big arrival wave or departure push.

Turned down, or completely ignored. Either way, yup, happens a lot in these here parts.

Frankly, with some of the stumbling, bumbling call-ups I've heard, I'd reject them if I were a controller too.

 

[dmccormack]

Turned down, or completely ignored. Either way, yup, happens a lot in these here parts.

Frankly, with some of the stumbling, bumbling call-ups I've heard, I'd reject them if I were a controller too.

I've hear PIT approach spoon feed absolutely clueless ones (no "Student pilot") and provide a squawk code.

Clarksburg, same thing.

Harrisburg approach seems to be the most short tempered of all the regional approaches -- and HAR APP is a TRSA.

 

[flyersfan31]

Harrisburg approach seems to be the most short tempered of all the regional approaches -- and HAR APP is a TRSA.

I've heard that about them too. Haven't had to deal with them except on IFR flight plans.

 

[kkoran]

Liz A.
Absolutely correct, and especially when dealing with Detroit...

I always get lake advisories when flying across Lake Erie, Windsor to Cleveland, which I do frequently... This serves two purposes...
First, is to have an ATC controller to talk to - who shows me on his strips - if I lose an engine, whatever, especially at night...
The second is to be in compliance with the rules for being in contact with ATC for crossing international airspace...

What international airspace? It's either Canadian or U.S. airspace.

The routine is that while I am still only halfway across the lake, and usually still 5 miles inside of Canadian airspace I get the brusk, "squawk VFR, frequency change approved" that you experience... The first time I called ATC on the telephone later and discussed this breach of international agreements with them - they could not care less - and they told me I was free to call Cleveland and re-establish communication... The times I did this I got an attitude from the Cleveland controllers of, "why are you bothering me?" So I don't bother any more... Lake Crossing Services under the new ATC system are not what they used to be...

What agreements are you referring to?

When the weather is crappy/IMC, then I file IFR and I get service from portal to portal... And the reality is that other than for search and rescue AFTER I go down, filing a VFR flight plan and asking for flight following and talking to ATC across the lake is of no real help... I am out there over the water and it is just me and my airplane making the trip... The radio link is an illusion of safety that does not really exist...

denny-o