When to contact Approach before Tower? (VFR)

[thito01]

He’s referring to not looking for a proposal off a non towered field. Aircraft calls up out of the blue and leaves off “VFR” the controller will think one of two things. They’ve either got a pop up looking to pick up an IFR or a VFR looking for FF. Adding the “VFR” will save the controller the time in not scanning their strip board and they’ll go straight to writing / typing.

The original 'suggested initial call-up" was:
aircraft "Orlando, N3333, landing Kissimmee, 15 West"
The "landing Kissimmee" when "15 West" is nothing like what an IFR aircraft would state on initial contact under any condition I can think of. "VFR" could be added, but it's superfluous.

 

[bflynn]

Actually, "VFR" is not needed. An IFR en-route contact would just be "Orlando, N3333, level 4000".

we were talking about initial callup, not enroute reporting. Yes, they sound different and you're correct VFR is not needed but it is a positive reminder that its not just a bad IFR enroute (ed or pop up request).

 

[Velocity173]

The original 'suggested initial call-up" was:
aircraft "Orlando, N3333, landing Kissimmee, 15 West"
The "landing Kissimmee" when "15 West" is nothing like what an IFR aircraft would state on initial contact under any condition I can think of. "VFR" could be added, but it's superfluous.

While I’d agree, your initial call will most likely result in the controller assuming the aircraft wants FF, the AIM states this:


Now, is it a big deal to NOT throw in “VFR” or “VFR request.” Nope. Any controller who says it is, is exaggerating. I worked thousands of VFRs on FF and maybe half would do an initial call with just callsign. Takes a split second to scan your board and see that you don’t have the aircraft on your pending IFR board.

Pilots get so worked up on proper phraseology when I assure you, the vast majority of controllers don’t care.

 

[Palmpilot]

I’d like to hear the verbiage on the ATIS of these facilities that “require” initial contact with approach first. Basic radar services and the initial contact with approach vs tower is not to be mandated but encouraged.

Sometimes the ATIS for a tower with two frequencies will say something like "arrivals contact tower on 119.8." They don't say "mandatory" or "required." Maybe it could work like that.

If a common practice is against the rules, pilots still need to know about it.

 

[Velocity173]

Sometimes the ATIS for a tower with two frequencies will say something like "arrivals contact tower on 119.8." They don't say "mandatory" or "required." Maybe it could work like that.

If a common practice is against the rules, pilots still need to know about it.

I can understand “all VFR arrivals MAY contact XYZ approach on (freq) for landing and traffic information.” That’s a big difference though in an optional (but urged) procedure vs being made to do something that ATC has no authority to enforce.

 

[Palmpilot]

I can understand “all VFR arrivals MAY contact XYZ approach on (freq) for landing and traffic information.” That’s a big difference though in an optional (but urged) procedure vs being made to do something that ATC has no authority to enforce.

From a pilot's point of view, 91.123(b) gives ATC that authority.

 

[Velocity173]

From a pilot's point of view, 91.123(b) gives ATC that authority.

Well no argument there. That regulation always applies to pilots whether or not ATC is in violation of policy or not.

 

[Palmpilot]

Well no argument there. That regulation always applies to pilots whether or not ATC is in violation of policy or not.

There used to be a (now-retired) controller on here who persistently argued against that conclusion!
His favorite question was "Do you believe the FAA wants pilots to follow instructions that it does not want controllers to give?"

I never found that argument convincing.

 

[Velocity173]

There used to be a (now-retired) controller on here who persistently argued against that conclusion!
His favorite question was "Do you believe the FAA wants pilots to follow instructions that it does not want controllers to give?"

I never found that argument convincing.

Ha! I miss Steven. I agreed with 90 % with what he contributed to POA. Unfortunately, pilots aren’t required to know ATC procedures and even if they knew right from wrong, absent an emergency, they still have to comply with ATC clearances / instructions.

 

[Palmpilot]

Ha! I miss Steven. I agreed with 90 % with what he contributed to POA....

Me too!