You are NOT bothering ATC. Students read this.

[roncachamp]

Who said anything about how "deep into Chicago Approach airspace" they worked me.

You did.

I just said that as you get close to the city, Chicago approach drops you.

No, you said as you get close to the city Chicago center drops you.

I never once said that Center works me into Approach airspace.

Yes you did, twice; you said, "Chicago center will drop you when you get close to the city and tell you to call Chicago approach", and "Every time I have flown to Chicago, Chicago Center has dropped me near the city." Every point near the city is within Chicago approach airspace.

Frankly, I neither know nor care where the boundary is.

Clearly. It's also clear you don't know where the city is.

All I know when they drop you its close to the city.

No, that's what you believe. Can you identify where you've been when you were dropped? Any of the common means will do; lat/long, fix/radial/distance, nearest road intersection.

You can insult me with no reason all you want. I can't stop you.

Nobody has insulted you.

But Chicago Center works you from outside of Grissom approach (and if you think Chicago Approach works that airspace, then I can't help you.) all the way up to close to the city of Chicago, and then they drop you. The last time, they told my I could try Chicago Approach and gave me a frequency. It doesn't take any real expertise to recognize the difference between Center and Approach. So, please refrain from calling me a liar and/or idiot when there is no basis to do so.

I didn't call you a liar or an idiot, I just pointed the disparity between reality and what you believe. I know where the airspace boundaries are, I know where the city limits are, and I know how Centers and approach control facilities operate. That's why your description is hard to believe.

 

[roncachamp]

Oh, I see where you are coming from. After misrepresenting what I said earlier, now you want to stand on your accusation that I am either lying or an idiot because you disagree with what is "close to the city" of Chicago. Ok.

What is "close to the city" of Chicago in your mind? Why use the city as a reference point at all?

 

[Velocity173]

Chicago style pizza is my favorite

I don't know if I'd like the sauce on top of the cheese like that...seriously.

 

[PPC1052]

No, you said as you get close to the city Chicago center drops you.

True. And that is what I meant. I corrected it, thank you.

 

[B17Rex]

It sure seems like ****ing contests are getting more and more prevalent lately. Some people just love to troll for arguments. Pretty sad. I am all for a hands off moderated approach to forum boards, but some of these asinine he said/she said arguments are ruining some really good threads.

Just agree to disagree people, go on with life.

Back on thread topic, Bryan thank you for the write up of your tour. Training in San Diego where we are surrounded by Class B makes it much easier to get used to talking with ATC, but I can understand how intimidating it could be for someone who did the majority of their training at a non-towered airport.

I think EVERYONE can agree, FF is a worthwhile tool to use no matter what, and everyone should learn how to use it and interact with ATC.

-Brian

 

[PPC1052]

The only time I've flown into the Chicago area was under IFR plan so I wouldn't know about that. But if for some reason you get dropped from FF, it isn't the end of the world.

True. My only point was that you don't always have a choice about calling up sooner to establish flight following because one controller may drop you, leaving you with not a whole lot of time to re-establish with the next controller. It's not always as simple as, "you should have contacted ATC sooner."

 

[FreqFlyrJr]

As a student pilot, this was great to read. The whole ATC system is a bit daunting to me at the moment, but I'll definitely be getting in a good habit of giving them a call when I start doing my X-Country flights. Thanks!

 

[MarkZ]

As a student pilot, this was great to read. The whole ATC system is a bit daunting to me at the moment, but I'll definitely be getting in a good habit of giving them a call when I start doing my X-Country flights. Thanks!

Don't feel intimidated. Just make sure you let the controllers know at the beginning you are a student...they'll bring out the kid gloves for you.

 

[ChrisK]

I had no idea what ff was when I did my first xc. My instructor just made sure I knew when to call approach. When I was transitioned on the go, I kept advisories because I didn't know the difference, until I was dropped back off at my uncontrolled field. Heck - I probably learned about flight following the first time from this forum before reading the AIM.

 

[garyb]

I new I had it good when I was getting my primary training. My instructor was a center controller. It was great having a controller sitting next to me giving me a perspective that I couldn't have gotten any other way. He took me into the center several times and sat me down, gave me a headset and I watched and listened to him working traffic. I was in a club that was started by controllers who would quite often recognize the tail number. It didn't give special privileges, but it made it non intimidating.

 

[Shawn]

As a student pilot, this was great to read. The whole ATC system is a bit daunting to me at the moment, but I'll definitely be getting in a good habit of giving them a call when I start doing my X-Country flights. Thanks!

Other than the Delta airport I trained at, my CFI did little radio work with me on FF but one of the best radio techniques he did teach me starting out was to use the term "Student Pilot" or "New Pilot" and "Unfamiliar" when on the radio with ATC or tower. They will slow down and help you make sure you understand.

Even today now being completely comfortable on the radio I still use the term "unfamiliar" when going into an unknown airport or when asking for clarification and help.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I was fortunate enough to do primary training out of a class C airport, so all my practice flights were done with traffic advisories and all my XC flights had flight following.

You don't HAVE to always use it, but I feel that you'd have to be dumb not to.

I can't count the number of times I've even had traffic called out by a controller and I still can't spot it. Imagine the traffic you miss if you're not getting radar services. I prefer to utilize any means possible to see and avoid other traffic.

To that end, the traffic on a 10" Dynon panel sure is a nice feature...

Sure you get a snippy controller every now and then but I never take it personally, I figure he/she is having a bad day or some other pilot made him/her mad

 

[iWantWings]

Thanks for a really useful post.

I'm looking at the photos along with your description of the ATC's work and I find it hard to imagine "playing chess" for 8 or more hours in a work day, especially knowing if I were to screw up, it wouldn't just be a matter of "checkmate". ATC - not an easy job I figure.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Thanks for a really useful post.

I'm looking at the photos along with your description of the ATC's work and I find it hard to imagine "playing chess" for 8 or more hours in a work day, especially knowing if I were to screw up, it wouldn't just be a matter of "checkmate". ATC - not an easy job I figure.

I wouldn't do it. I am too easily distracted.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I'm fairly certain the controllers get frequent breaks. They'd have to, especially the ones with high workloads.

 

[Velocity173]

I'm fairly certain the controllers get frequent breaks. They'd have to, especially the ones with high workloads.

Not only breaks every couple of hours but they usually aren't working the same position for 8-10 hrs either. Might go from approach to flight data. Go from flight data up to the tower to work some ground. Might even sign on as supervisor and sit around for a few hours. They find ways to occupy their time.

The cool thing that I always liked about ATC is there's no paper work involved. Other than signing on position and writing on a strip, it's all hands on. Unless someone really wants to sit behind a desk in an admin type position, you can stay "in the trenches" for an entire career.

 

[Clark1961]

I'm fairly certain the controllers get frequent breaks. They'd have to, especially the ones with high workloads.

some center controllers on the other hand...

the poor guys in Kansas City Center who get stuck with all the student traffic out of Vance...the afternoon I listened to them while "enjoying" a headwind across southwestern Kansas was entertaining to say the least...controller to student AF pilot: "I'll give you one practice approach at Garden City and that is it, you'll be on your own for anything else!" that was after the AF guy requested multiple approaches several times. Of course I just heard one side of the conversation but the controller replies quickly went down hill.

 

[skippy101]

On the original post. It was stated that having a flight plan provides them more info.. I thought VFR flight plans are kept at the FSS. Of course IFR are fwded to ARTTC Can the orginal poster comment on what they actually said about VFR flight plans?

Thanks.

 

[N801BH]

On the original post. It was stated that having a flight plan provides them more info.. I thought VFR flight plans are kept at the FSS. Of course IFR are fwded to ARTTC Can the orginal poster comment on what they actually said about VFR flight plans?

Thanks.

We have a couple of great controllers that will chime in on what data they have access to.

 

[wrbix]

On the original post. It was stated that having a flight plan provides them more info.. I thought VFR flight plans are kept at the FSS. Of course IFR are fwded to ARTTC Can the orginal poster comment on what they actually said about VFR flight plans?

Thanks.

.....and this raises the issue again of filing an "IFR" Flight Plan with VFR altitude chosen and "VFR traffic advisories" in the comment box.
Previous discussions (here?) led me to believe that this gets your info into ARTCC more efficiently than the usual call up requesting Flight Following, but not all controllers seemed, in previous discussions, to know of/ accept this practice; so I've not tried it. Anyone here have? Any comments from Controllers?

 

[Clark1961]

.....and this raises the issue again of filing an "IFR" Flight Plan with VFR altitude chosen and "VFR traffic advisories" in the comment box.
Previous discussions (here?) led me to believe that this gets your info into ARTCC more efficiently than the usual call up requesting Flight Following, but not all controllers seemed, in previous discussions, to know of/ accept this practice; so I've not tried it. Anyone here have? Any comments from Controllers?

You're close on the description of a method that works for getting a "VFR" flight plan to show up with ATC.

Select the IFR flight plan option then in the altitude box enter VFR or VFR/X50 where X50 is the desired altitude. As I understand it, controllers may not see the comments...

I've used the method of putting VFR in the altitude box on an IFR flight plan with DUATS and the controller had the strip when I called them.

What you don't want to do is file an IFR flightplan w/o the VFR entry in the altitude box unless you're rated, current, and equipped for IFR. Supposedly the FAA considers filing the IFR plan as intent to operate IFR. Note that you can request any altitude you want on an IFR flight plan so the "VFR" needs to be entered in the altitude box so the controller knows that you are VFR.

 

[MarkZ]

There are times a VFR flight plan makes it to the ARTCC computer and thus is available for ATC. Having said that, don't expect the controller to have that information handy. If you choose to file a VFR flight plan, ATC cannot open, close, or modify your flight plan. You'll still have to contact flight service to do all those things.

 

[wrbix]

You're close on the description of a method that works for getting a "VFR" flight plan to show up with ATC.

Select the IFR flight plan option then in the altitude box enter VFR or VFR/X50 where X50 is the desired altitude. As I understand it, controllers may not see the comments...

I've used the method of putting VFR in the altitude box on an IFR flight plan with DUATS and the controller had the strip when I called them.

What you don't want to do is file an IFR flightplan w/o the VFR entry in the altitude box unless you're rated, current, and equipped for IFR. Supposedly the FAA considers filing the IFR plan as intent to operate IFR. Note that you can request any altitude you want on an IFR flight plan so the "VFR" needs to be entered in the altitude box so the controller knows that you are VFR.

Ah, thanks. Is this a generally accepted and performed practice then? Got the impression (where?) that some controllers don't seem aware of it. Anyone quote anything from the FAA directing them in this regard? Certainly do not want to be given a number to call as a result.

 

[Clark1961]

Ah, thanks. Is this a generally accepted and performed practice then? Got the impression (where?) that some controllers don't seem aware of it. Anyone quote anything from the FAA directing them in this regard? Certainly do not want to be given a number to call as a result.

don't know if it's generally accepted...it works fine w/Denver approach...most other places I just go IFR if I want to talk to the voices in my ears

 

[Velocity173]

Ah, thanks. Is this a generally accepted and performed practice then? Got the impression (where?) that some controllers don't seem aware of it. Anyone quote anything from the FAA directing them in this regard? Certainly do not want to be given a number to call as a result.

Covered earlier.

 

[wrbix]

Covered earlier.

Ah......so guess not! Thanks!

Back to the old tried and true call up with request. One would think that a more efficient system could be devised to get the info for FF into the system.

 

[roncachamp]

Ah, thanks. Is this a generally accepted and performed practice then?

Yes, ATC has been using the Flight Data Processing computer to transfer data on VFR aircraft for as long as there has been Flight Data Processing by computer.

Anyone quote anything from the FAA directing them in this regard?

The Flight Data Processing manual, commonly called the "N4" manual, is pretty rare these days. I no longer have the one I was issued.

 

[Clark1961]

Ah......so guess not! Thanks!

Back to the old tried and true call up with request. One would think that a more efficient system could be devised to get the info for FF into the system.

I suggest reading it again carefully...the letter does not address entering "VFR" in the altitude block.

 

[Palmpilot]

On re-reading that interpretation letter, I have to say that it's about as clear as mud.

 

[wrbix]

I suggest reading it again carefully...the letter does not address entering "VFR" in the altitude block.

No, but it does address filing an "IFR" flight plan (ie ck IFR in Box 1) with intent to fly VFR as non-IR pilot, which is the way (as I understand it) to get the flight plan to go to ATC rather than FSS - as a way of getting the info for Flight Following to them. This letter rather specifically makes that a no/no IMHO.

 

[Velocity173]

No, but it does address filing an "IFR" flight plan (ie ck IFR in Box 1) with intent to fly VFR as non-IR pilot, which is the way (as I understand it) to get the flight plan to go to ATC rather than FSS - as a way of getting the info for Flight Following to them. This letter rather specifically makes that a no/no IMHO.

I'd agree that that is what the CC was trying to convey as well.

The first paragraph the CC used "VFR cruising altitude." Also she used "VFR in the remarks." Sounds to me like the question asked by Goodish was whether they could put in block 7 (cruising altitude) a VFR altitude AND indicate in the remarks, "VFR" to further alert the controller that the operation would be conducted under VFR.

Further, in the 3rd to last paragraph, the CC writes of a "more appropriate procedure." That procedure is by filing VFR and putting "VFR flight following" in the remarks of the flight plan. A complete waste of time but that's what she suggests. At any rate, it seems to me she doesn't like the process of using an IFR flight plan to alert controllers that the pilot intends to operate VFR FF.

 

[wrbix]

I'd agree that that is what the CC was trying to convey as well.

The first paragraph the CC used "VFR cruising altitude." Also she used "VFR in the remarks." Sounds to me like the question asked by Goodish was whether they could put in block 7 (cruising altitude) a VFR altitude AND indicate in the remarks, "VFR" to further alert the controller that the operation would be conducted under VFR.

Further, in the 3rd to last paragraph, the CC writes of a "more appropriate procedure." That procedure is by filing VFR and putting "VFR flight following" in the remarks of the flight plan. A complete waste of time but that's what she suggests. At any rate, it seems to me she doesn't like the process of using an IFR flight plan to alert controllers that the pilot intends to operate VFR FF.

...and on the issue of "waste of time" - I'd agree. Still will not get the info to ATC from FSS, which is where VFR flight plans go when filed.

 

[roncachamp]

No, but it does address filing an "IFR" flight plan (ie ck IFR in Box 1) with intent to fly VFR as non-IR pilot, which is the way (as I understand it) to get the flight plan to go to ATC rather than FSS - as a way of getting the info for Flight Following to them. This letter rather specifically makes that a no/no IMHO.

No, it's just an opinion.

 

[wrbix]

No, it's just an opinion.

Yeah....but.....the Opinion on the Assistant Chief Council of Regulation for the FAA seems to carry with it "some portfolio". Don't think I'll be filing this way anytime soon unless further clarification/change of "opinion" from on high becomes apparent and widely circulated to ARTCC.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yeah....but.....the Opinion on the Assistant Chief Council of Regulation for the FAA seems to carry with it "some portfolio". Don't think I'll be filing this way anytime soon unless further clarification/change of "opinion" from on high becomes apparent and widely circulated to ARTCC.

If I wanted to use this procedure, I think I would be more concerned about whether the CC opinion had actually been enforced. So far, I haven't heard of that happening.

 

[Clark1961]

Yeah....but.....the Opinion on the Assistant Chief Council of Regulation for the FAA seems to carry with it "some portfolio". Don't think I'll be filing this way anytime soon unless further clarification/change of "opinion" from on high becomes apparent and widely circulated to ARTCC.

to each their own...

I'm tempted to ask about experience dealing with bureaucrats in general but it's likely to be taken the wrong way so I'll refrain. I'll just repeat that the opinion in the letter and the suggested method are two entirely different things.

 

[roncachamp]

Yeah....but.....the Opinion on the Assistant Chief Council of Regulation for the FAA seems to carry with it "some portfolio". Don't think I'll be filing this way anytime soon unless further clarification/change of "opinion" from on high becomes apparent and widely circulated to ARTCC.

I don't think so. It's clearly the opinion of someone that does not understand the subject matter.

 

[warthog1984]

I don't think so. It's clearly the opinion of someone that does not understand the subject matter.

And this is different from the rest of the FAA, how?

 

[wrbix]

to each their own...

I'm tempted to ask about experience dealing with bureaucrats in general but it's likely to be taken the wrong way so I'll refrain. I'll just repeat that the opinion in the letter and the suggested method are two entirely different things.

Understand that. If someday someone can assure me that ATC in general is accepting of and used to the suggested method, then I'll be quite happy to use it - clearly is a sensible and efficient method. Still at the point in my flying life that fear of Deviation looms large.

 

[Velocity173]

Understand that. If someday someone can assure me that ATC in general is accepting of and used to the suggested method, then I'll be quite happy to use it - clearly is a sensible and efficient method. Still at the point in my flying life that fear of Deviation looms large.

I'd say that ATC in general is accepting of it. Haven't heard from a current or former controller on POA that's not accepting of it.