I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
Moline approach?

"paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
> of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
> contact ATC.

Usually when I need to do this it's a flight where IFR conditions arise
unexpectedly. I then don't have time to file with FSS, wait for the plan to
be in the system and then call center. If I need to call FSS then I usually
land, regroup, file the usual way and restart the trip.

>On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
> rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
> on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
> Moline approach?

Yup, that has been my experience. I think is is not possible to predict when
center will have the time to accept your plan and when they will tell you to
file with FSS.

Howard

What Howard said.

I've done both and had ATC both ask me to file with FSS and simply take
my pop-up request.

Everything seems to 'depend'.

It I arrive at my destination VFR with a cloud deck below, asking the
destination approach for an IFR clearance to get there will invariably
be granted.

If halfway thru a trip I ask Center or a non-destination approach for a
clearance, they will often ask me to file with FSS. Just pick a handy
intersection 15 mins out in front and file from it to my destination.

Happens less now. I generally file IFR unless there is a specific
reason to file VFR beyond CAVU. Why give up the extra eyes for
traffic,extra traffic separation standards, airspace management (MOA,
prohibited, restricteed obstacle avoidance), and TFR avoidance services
unless there is a clear advantage to not filing. Reduced low level
winds is sometimes my excuse - slow plane means winds have a larger effect.

And I can't afford to pass up the practice -

paul kgyy wrote:
> I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
> of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
> contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
> rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
> on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
> Moline approach?
>

paul kgyy > wrote:
>I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
>of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
>contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
>rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
>on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
>Moline approach?

It absolutely depends on how busy ATC is. Around here (New York), if
they're not busy, you can call them up cold and and make your
request. They'll take the important info (destination, aircraft type,
etc) and give you a route. Sometimes they'll say they're too busy and
tell you to go talk to FSS like you're supposed to.

What I find works best is if things are iffy, is to get VFR flight
following first. Once they've already got you in the system, assigned
a code, radar identified, etc, if you later tell them you need to get
a clearance, they're more likely to handle you directly.

If push comes to shove, if you tell them you need a clearance NOW,
they'll get you one. But the idea is to never let things degenerate
to the point where you have to start playing trump cards.

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
. com...
> What Howard said.
>
> I've done both and had ATC both ask me to file with FSS and simply take
> my pop-up request.
>
> Everything seems to 'depend'.
>
> It I arrive at my destination VFR with a cloud deck below, asking the
> destination approach for an IFR clearance to get there will invariably
> be granted.

"Depends" probably depends on workload.

I've never had a problem in the vast mid-west, but have had problems trying
it nearer to Denver and their frantic pace.

> Happens less now. I generally file IFR unless there is a specific reason to file VFR beyond CAVU. Why give up the extra eyes for traffic,extra traffic separation standards, airspace management (MOA, prohibited, restricteed obstacle avoidance), and TFR avoidance services unless there is a clear advantage to not filing.

Time, range, and convetion. VFR you can usually go direct. IFR you get
routed around willy nilly so you use more gas and time, and require
reserves to an alternate plus forty five minutes after a non-direct
flight. Sometimes this makes a one leg flight into two legs, and the
VFR option is better (even from a safety POV).

Not always. Sometimes.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Agreed. It depends. From where I base near KRDU, I can get cleared
direct towards almost anywhere except DC/Phillie/NY. Routing is almost
never a reason for me. Even direct thru Charlotte will usually get
cleared then amended - but same for VFR.

Coming back for Annapolis MD (DC ADIZ)last week I filed airways all the
way home but not long after clearing the PXT (where all the MOAs were
hot, the Potomac controller asked for my direct home. I didn't
understand at first and didn't give it. She cleared me direct on her
own initiative. Turned out she picked the exact point from which I
could go direct while missing the hot MOAs south of Richmond. Nice
work! That was a first.

The alternate thing is interesting. In VMC, I just file IFR anyway.
When I get close I'll either amend if I want to go further or cancel and
go to FF. Nothing wrong with planning for IFR fuel and flying VFR fuel
once there. Kind of good conservative planning. I'll do that next week
flying to Tampa. With 4.5 hours, I can and have made Tampa without a
stop but never plan it. I will file and get a clearance and see how it
works this time.

But all this is *very* geo dependent. YMMV


Jose wrote:
>> Happens less now. I generally file IFR unless there is a specific
>> reason to file VFR beyond CAVU. Why give up the extra eyes for
>> traffic,extra traffic separation standards, airspace management (MOA,
>> prohibited, restricteed obstacle avoidance), and TFR avoidance
>> services unless there is a clear advantage to not filing.
>
> Time, range, and convetion. VFR you can usually go direct. IFR you get
> routed around willy nilly so you use more gas and time, and require
> reserves to an alternate plus forty five minutes after a non-direct
> flight. Sometimes this makes a one leg flight into two legs, and the
> VFR option is better (even from a safety POV).
>
> Not always. Sometimes.
>
> Jose

Roy has put his finger on it. Transitioning from flight following to hard
IFR takes the FSS out of the loop. I have never understood why pilots ignore
the benefits of flight following.

Bob Gardner

"paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
> of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
> contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
> rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
> on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
> Moline approach?
>

Why don't more people use flight following? It distracts them from being
able to enjoy their satellite radio, Bob.

I'm with you; I feel weird flying VFR more than fifteen miles without
talking with ATC for flight following. Being based under a Class B, I see
a lot of benefits to talking with ATC, including being practiced enough to
be able to work with busy approach controllers.

I've heard people asking for radar service from NY Tracon. The people that
make their request well tend to get service. The folks that don't seem to
know where they are and what they want generally aren't as fortunate. If
you practice ATC communication (by getting VFR flight following), you'll
be more comfortable when you need to fly IFR in the system.

-Jack



"Bob Gardner" > writes:

>Roy has put his finger on it. Transitioning from flight following to hard
>IFR takes the FSS out of the loop. I have never understood why pilots ignore
>the benefits of flight following.

>Bob Gardner

>"paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
>> of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
>> contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
>> rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
>> on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
>> Moline approach?
>>

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> > Happens less now. I generally file IFR unless there is a specific
reason to file VFR beyond CAVU. Why give up the extra eyes for
traffic,extra traffic separation standards, airspace management (MOA,
prohibited, restricteed obstacle avoidance), and TFR avoidance services
unless there is a clear advantage to not filing.
>
> Time, range, and convetion. VFR you can usually go direct. IFR you get
> routed around willy nilly so you use more gas and time, and require
> reserves to an alternate plus forty five minutes after a non-direct
> flight. Sometimes this makes a one leg flight into two legs, and the
> VFR option is better (even from a safety POV).

Again it depends a lot. I have never had problems when flying IFR in VMC
with the routing. I fly from fulton county in Atlanta, and when I fly south
IFR is much nicer because I'll get vectored to fly over ATL inside the class
B, instead to try to scoot under the class B and go around ATL, which takes
more time. I guess I could get a clearance to go inside the class B under
VFR, but I'll probably be vectored in the same way anyways. I usually go
direct if I file like that. Well, maybe if you don't have an IFR capable GPS
you may lose a lot of time following airways, so in that case VFR will be
better. Not worrying about the airspaces is the greatest thing of IFR.
About the alternate, you only need the fuel for the alternate in the case
the weather is below 1-2-3, in which case its a good idea to have enough
fuel to go to the alternate + 45 minutes anyways. If the weather is clear,
you only need 45 minutes extra fuel from your first landing point (unless
the airport doesn't have an IAP). Ok, this is 15 minutes more than VFR, but
I won't do only 30 minutes reserve anyways. I like to keep it at one hour
reserve in ANY flight.
So agree that there may be certain situations in which you don't want IFR,
but I think in most of the cases it is the best thing to do if you are going
somewhere other than sigthseeing or training (especially if you have an IFR
GPS)

> The alternate thing is interesting. In VMC, I just file IFR anyway. When I get close I'll either amend if I want to go further or cancel and go to FF. Nothing wrong with planning for IFR fuel and flying VFR fuel once there. Kind of good conservative planning. I'll do that next week flying to Tampa. With 4.5 hours, I can and have made Tampa without a stop but never plan it. I will file and get a clearance and see how it works this time.

Recently I was going from Florida to Cleveland with a stop just before
the mountains for fuel. While on the ground, a line of severe
thunderstorms passed by, and then I could go behind them. As there were
mountains and scattered embedded thunderstorms in the way, the IFR
routing would likely be wiggly, subject to revision, and would probably
not get me to Cleveland with an alternate and appropriate reserves. So
I'd need to stop again, and I would not be able to see the thunderheads
to avoid them.

But if I could slip out VFR, I could fly direct, avoid the nasty stuff
visually if it became an issue, and land with plenty of fuel at my
destination. I got flight following, advised them that I might nead a
clearance at some point, and did just that. Dodged a bit of weather
visually, climbed up to 12,000 feet while doing so, and approaching
Cleveland I got the ILS. Point two IMC in the logbook, one approach to
minimums, no convective surprises, plenty of outs, and no hassles.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> paul kgyy > wrote:
> >I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
> >of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
> >contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
> >rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
> >on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
> >Moline approach?
>
> It absolutely depends on how busy ATC is. Around here (New York), if
> they're not busy, you can call them up cold and and make your
> request. They'll take the important info (destination, aircraft type,
> etc) and give you a route. Sometimes they'll say they're too busy and
> tell you to go talk to FSS like you're supposed to.
>
> What I find works best is if things are iffy, is to get VFR flight
> following first. Once they've already got you in the system, assigned
> a code, radar identified, etc, if you later tell them you need to get
> a clearance, they're more likely to handle you directly.
>
> If push comes to shove, if you tell them you need a clearance NOW,
> they'll get you one. But the idea is to never let things degenerate
> to the point where you have to start playing trump cards.

Actually Roy, ATC'll get you one *if* they can. ATC usually can, especially
under the circumstances you describe. However, the pilot really doesn't
have a "trump" card when it comes to pop-up IFR. You need one on a busy
frequency, you might be SOL for a while as ATC is occupied with higher
priority stuff. My point is that you are in no legal position to demand IFR
if you are already airborne flying VFR.

I totally agree with you about getting F/F making a pop-up easier to get.
Under VFR Flight Following, you already have almost all of the ingredients
in play that ATC needs to handle you IFR. Converting F/F to IFR on a busy
frequency is usually no more workload on the controller other than issuing
you a clearance and a good IFR altitude. Because I already am providing you
radar service, I can give you a clearance with one transmission. Then, I
either send you over to Radio to file the full SAR stuff (souls on board
etc) or else get you to spit it all out on the taped frequency if I have
room/time on the bandwidth. If something happens to cause a need for SAR,
Center can pull the voice tape and access your information. In an
emergency, we can access the voice data in under five minutes.

I've never understood why more pilots on VFR cross countries don't use
Flight Following. Personally, I've never had to turn down VFR radar service
to any pilot no matter how busy I've been with IFR traffic (and I'm plenty
busy, often). Centers don't have to separate VFR's in Class E, which is
where most of our flight following happens. Thus, there's no reason for
ARTCC's not to provide the service, even when the freq is non-stop with
radio traffic. Almost every Center controller I know down here would rather
be talking to all parties when making traffic calls to known aircraft. The
unknown VFR guys represent a traffic wildcard and in my view increase the
workload when issuing traffic to known aircraft, rather than decreasing it.

Chip, ZTL

Jack wrote:

> Why don't more people use flight following? It distracts them from
being
> able to enjoy their satellite radio, Bob.

That is absolutely hilarious, as I did that once. However, ATC made
the decision easy for me since the next approach facility would not
accept my VFR handoff from the previous controller, nor would they
answer my VFR calls, yet their side of the frequency was quiet (at this
particular facility the ocntroller might work two frequencies, but he
transmits on both).

Oh well, I said to my intercom, I guess I will enjoy a few moments of
uninterrupted satellite radio. :-)

--
Peter

Chip Jones > wrote:
>I've never understood why more pilots on VFR cross countries don't use
>Flight Following.

By the same token, I've never understood why the FAA doesn't make it
easier to get flight following. You should be able to pre-file your
VFR flight plan with DUATS so ATC already has a strip on you at
initial call-up, just like with IFR. Then you wouldn't have to waste
so much time on the frequency with where you're going, aircraft type,
etc.

I've been told you can play tricks with DUAT, filing an IFR flight
plan and putting "VFR" in the remarks section, but you shouldn't have
to resort to subterfuge like that for what seems like such a simple
and logical thing.

"paul kgyy" wrote:
>I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the
middle
> of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
> contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
> rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this
> depend
> on how busy ATC is ...?

Yes.

It also depends on what segment of the trip you are flying. If I decide
I need an in flight clearance near the beginning of a long trip, I'll
call FSS. If I'm in or near the airspace of the ATC facility
controlling my destination's approaches, I'll get a pop-up, frequency
congestion permitting.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Chip Jones" wrote:

> I've never understood why more pilots on VFR cross countries don't use
> Flight Following. ...Almost every Center controller I know down here
> would rather
> be talking to all parties when making traffic calls to known aircraft.
> The
> unknown VFR guys represent a traffic wildcard and in my view increase
> the
> workload when issuing traffic to known aircraft, rather than
> decreasing it.

Well, I gotta admit that sometimes I don't use FF because I don't want
to be bothered. Like when it's a brilliant, clear day and I would
rather listen to music and watch the world go by than work the radio.

No offense, Chip; I enjoy working with ATC. But 90% of my flying is
IFR, and I like taking a break from "the system" once in a while.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

I get FF whenever I fly VFR, but there are times when that may be a
hassle. If you are engaged in conversation with your pax, it is easy to
miss an ATC transmission. I've heard ATC chide pilots "if you want
flight following, you better listen to the radio".





"Chip Jones" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> paul kgyy > wrote:
>> >I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the
>> >middle of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get
>> >clearance, then contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent
>> >references in rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly.
>> >Does this depend on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS,
>> >near Moline contact Moline approach?
>>
>> It absolutely depends on how busy ATC is. Around here (New York), if
>> they're not busy, you can call them up cold and and make your
>> request. They'll take the important info (destination, aircraft
>> type, etc) and give you a route. Sometimes they'll say they're too
>> busy and tell you to go talk to FSS like you're supposed to.
>>
>> What I find works best is if things are iffy, is to get VFR flight
>> following first. Once they've already got you in the system,
>> assigned a code, radar identified, etc, if you later tell them you
>> need to get a clearance, they're more likely to handle you directly.
>>
>> If push comes to shove, if you tell them you need a clearance NOW,
>> they'll get you one. But the idea is to never let things degenerate
>> to the point where you have to start playing trump cards.
>
> Actually Roy, ATC'll get you one *if* they can. ATC usually can,
> especially under the circumstances you describe. However, the pilot
> really doesn't have a "trump" card when it comes to pop-up IFR. You
> need one on a busy frequency, you might be SOL for a while as ATC is
> occupied with higher priority stuff. My point is that you are in no
> legal position to demand IFR if you are already airborne flying VFR.
>
> I totally agree with you about getting F/F making a pop-up easier to
> get. Under VFR Flight Following, you already have almost all of the
> ingredients in play that ATC needs to handle you IFR. Converting F/F
> to IFR on a busy frequency is usually no more workload on the
> controller other than issuing you a clearance and a good IFR altitude.
> Because I already am providing you radar service, I can give you a
> clearance with one transmission. Then, I either send you over to
> Radio to file the full SAR stuff (souls on board etc) or else get you
> to spit it all out on the taped frequency if I have room/time on the
> bandwidth. If something happens to cause a need for SAR, Center can
> pull the voice tape and access your information. In an emergency, we
> can access the voice data in under five minutes.
>
> I've never understood why more pilots on VFR cross countries don't use
> Flight Following. Personally, I've never had to turn down VFR radar
> service to any pilot no matter how busy I've been with IFR traffic
> (and I'm plenty busy, often). Centers don't have to separate VFR's in
> Class E, which is where most of our flight following happens. Thus,
> there's no reason for ARTCC's not to provide the service, even when
> the freq is non-stop with radio traffic. Almost every Center
> controller I know down here would rather be talking to all parties
> when making traffic calls to known aircraft. The unknown VFR guys
> represent a traffic wildcard and in my view increase the workload when
> issuing traffic to known aircraft, rather than decreasing it.
>
> Chip, ZTL
>
>

Lots of good answers, especially regarding how easy it is to get a pop-up if
you already have flight following. I'll just add one more item - fly a route
you could fly IFR with the equipment you've got. For example, while my
handheld GPS can take me direct anywhere VFR - I'm screwed if I need an IFR
pop-up and I'm not on an airway in my VOR only equiped plane (/U). So I
pretty much always follow airways - just on the off chance I need to
"convert" my flight following to an IFR clearance.

-Brenor

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> By the same token, I've never understood why the FAA doesn't make it
> easier to get flight following. You should be able to pre-file your
> VFR flight plan with DUATS so ATC already has a strip on you at
> initial call-up, just like with IFR. Then you wouldn't have to waste
> so much time on the frequency with where you're going, aircraft type,
> etc.
>
> I've been told you can play tricks with DUAT, filing an IFR flight
> plan and putting "VFR" in the remarks section, but you shouldn't have
> to resort to subterfuge like that for what seems like such a simple
> and logical thing.
>

Forget about the remarks, just use "VFR" as the requested altitude.

Just to add my $0.02: If I'm already getting FF and I suggest to the
controller that I want to go off frequency to talk to FSS to file IFR,
s/he always seems to say, "nah, we'll do it right here."

I always thought it was the reverse psychology in action. I've spent
too much time with sales people.

-- dave j
-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Forget about the remarks, just use "VFR" as the requested altitude.

That will guarantee you get flight following?

Antonio

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> That will guarantee you get flight following?
>

No, it will do what Ray wants, "pre-file your VFR flight plan with DUATS so
ATC already has a strip on you at initial call-up, just like with IFR."
Nothing can guarantee you get flight following.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> Forget about the remarks, just use "VFR" as the requested altitude.

Interesting tip, Steven.

I just tried this and the Cirrus interface software refused it,
demanding an integer for the altitude. However, DUATS accepted it when
I used the direct, interactve connection.

I plan to file this again for a real trip this weekend to see how the
TRACON reacts. I suspect it's something they rarely, if ever, see.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> I get FF whenever I fly VFR, but there are times when that may be a
> hassle. If you are engaged in conversation with your pax, it is easy to
> miss an ATC transmission. I've heard ATC chide pilots "if you want
> flight following, you better listen to the radio".

That is the reason I didn't use it on my return trip this Saturday. My
eight year-old was along and wanted to talk about stuff and I had to
keep him somewhat quiet on the way out using FF. So I just monitored
Center on the return trip, but never called them up. That is probably
the only downside though to FF and I use it often when I'm not flying IFR.


Matt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>By the same token, I've never understood why the FAA doesn't make it
>>easier to get flight following. You should be able to pre-file your
>>VFR flight plan with DUATS so ATC already has a strip on you at
>>initial call-up, just like with IFR. Then you wouldn't have to waste
>>so much time on the frequency with where you're going, aircraft type,
>>etc.
>>
>>I've been told you can play tricks with DUAT, filing an IFR flight
>>plan and putting "VFR" in the remarks section, but you shouldn't have
>>to resort to subterfuge like that for what seems like such a simple
>>and logical thing.
>>
>
>
> Forget about the remarks, just use "VFR" as the requested altitude.
>
>

Is this an "official" FAA procedure or just something that most
controllers understand as an indication that FF will be requested?


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Is this an "official" FAA procedure or just something that most
> controllers understand as an indication that FF will be requested?

I've never seen it published, but it is known to work. Oakland
actually encourages it for VFR class B transitions. It's how
ADIZ and FRZ flight plans get routed in the DC Area as well (although
you are not authorized to use that ploy to get ADIZ flight plans
for VFRs).

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>>Forget about the remarks, just use "VFR" as the requested altitude.
>
>
> Interesting tip, Steven.
>
> I just tried this and the Cirrus interface software refused it,
> demanding an integer for the altitude. However, DUATS accepted it when
> I used the direct, interactve connection.
>
> I plan to file this again for a real trip this weekend to see how the
> TRACON reacts. I suspect it's something they rarely, if ever, see.

I've had the clearance delivery guy here at RDU swear there couldn't possibly be
a strip for me if I'm VFR... followed by "oh, here it is...".

DGB

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Anto=F1io" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > That will guarantee you get flight following?
> >
>
> No, it will do what Ray wants, "pre-file your VFR flight plan with DUATS =
so
> ATC already has a strip on you at initial call-up, just like with IFR."
> Nothing can guarantee you get flight following.

I understood him as wanting a way to file in advance for flight
following.


Roy stated:

"By the same token, I've never understood why the FAA doesn't make it
easier to get flight following. You should be able to pre-file your
VFR flight plan with DUATS so ATC already has a strip on you at
initial call-up, just like with IFR. Then you wouldn't have to waste
so much time on the frequency with where you're going, aircraft type,
etc.

I've been told you can play tricks with DUAT, filing an IFR flight
plan and putting "VFR" in the remarks section, but you shouldn't have
to resort to subterfuge like that for what seems like such a simple
and logical thing. "

Your reply seemed to imply that he could obtain flight following by
putting "VFR" in the altitude box. I take it you were only saying that
this will generate a strip on him which, in turn, will make it easier
for him to request flight following?

Antonio

On Wed, 25 May 2005 10:54:28 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Antoñio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>> That will guarantee you get flight following?
>>
>
>No, it will do what Ray wants, "pre-file your VFR flight plan with DUATS so
>ATC already has a strip on you at initial call-up, just like with IFR."
>Nothing can guarantee you get flight following.
>

This is for IR pilots only, right? A non-IR pilot cannot file an IFR
flight plan, can they?

Antoñio wrote:

>
> I've been told you can play tricks with DUAT, filing an IFR flight
> plan and putting "VFR" in the remarks section, but you shouldn't have
> to resort to subterfuge like that for what seems like such a simple
> and logical thing. "
>
> Your reply seemed to imply that he could obtain flight following by
> putting "VFR" in the altitude box. I take it you were only saying that
> this will generate a strip on him which, in turn, will make it easier
> for him to request flight following?
>
It's not really subterfuge. The IFR box gets it automatically routed
to approach. This is because there's no indication that a VFR flight
plan ever needs to go to ATC...it would generate a lot of strips that
were never used if they did. It's the same whether the strip is filed
by DUAT or by the FSS briefer. If it goes to ATC it's because someone
ticked IFR in the first block.

S Herman wrote:

>
>
> This is for IR pilots only, right? A non-IR pilot cannot file an IFR
> flight plan, can they?

Nothing prevents that. The only rules are that you can not operate
under IFR (or conditions less than VFR). There's no prohibition on
what flight plans you file. You can file to fly B-747's at the flight
levels if you really want.

Roy,
You actually can get a squawk code for VFR flight following on the
ground sometimes. I have done it at BLM enroute to FRG. Called Bradley
on the ground and told them I was departing BLM to the north and wanted
to transition the Bravo....could they give me a code and pass me
thru..The Bradley controller took the info..called me back with radar
contact after I was airborne and then passed me thru the NY Bravo to
FRG no problems. I don't know if they will always do it..but what's the
harm in asking.

Roy,
You actually can get a squawk code for VFR flight following on the
ground sometimes. I have done it at BLM enroute to FRG. Called Bradley
on the ground and told them I was departing BLM to the north and wanted
to transition the Bravo....could they give me a code and pass me
thru..The Bradley controller took the info..called me back with radar
contact after I was airborne and then passed me thru the NY Bravo to
FRG no problems. I don't know if they will always do it..but what's the
harm in asking.

Roy,
You actually can get a squawk code for VFR flight following on the
ground sometimes. I have done it at BLM enroute to FRG. Called Bradley
on the ground and told them I was departing BLM to the north and wanted
to transition the Bravo....could they give me a code and pass me
thru..The Bradley controller took the info..called me back with radar
contact after I was airborne and then passed me thru the NY Bravo to
FRG no problems. I don't know if they will always do it..but what's the
harm in asking.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 14:23:46 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>S Herman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This is for IR pilots only, right? A non-IR pilot cannot file an IFR
>> flight plan, can they?
>
>Nothing prevents that. The only rules are that you can not operate
>under IFR (or conditions less than VFR). There's no prohibition on
>what flight plans you file. You can file to fly B-747's at the flight
>levels if you really want.

So a non-IR pilot can file IFR, but cannot then execute that flight
plan, even if VFR conditions exist at all points of the flight?

How do IR students practice approaches, etc. when they don't have the
CFII aboard? With a safety pilot?

S Herman wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 14:23:46 -0400, Ron Natalie >
> wrote:
>
>
>>S Herman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>This is for IR pilots only, right? A non-IR pilot cannot file an IFR
>>>flight plan, can they?
>>
>>Nothing prevents that. The only rules are that you can not operate
>>under IFR (or conditions less than VFR). There's no prohibition on
>>what flight plans you file. You can file to fly B-747's at the flight
>>levels if you really want.
>
>
> So a non-IR pilot can file IFR, but cannot then execute that flight
> plan, even if VFR conditions exist at all points of the flight?

Accepting a clearance without an instrument rating (and currency, and
appropriate equipment, and maybe some other things) is not allowed. That's
probably what you meant by "execute".

>
> How do IR students practice approaches, etc. when they don't have the
> CFII aboard? With a safety pilot?

They practice instrument procedures under VFR. Instrument rated pilots may
actually obtain an instrument clearance and do practice approaches under IFR,
but if the meteorological conditions allow, instrument practice is often done VFR.

S Herman > wrote:
> So a non-IR pilot can file IFR, but cannot then execute that flight
> plan, even if VFR conditions exist at all points of the flight?

That's correct. You have to be IFR rated to accept an IFR clearance
(i.e. to act as PIC under IFR). On the other hand, anybody can file
an IFR flight plan. You don't need to be PIC to be a data-entry
clerk.

> How do IR students practice approaches, etc. when they don't have the
> CFII aboard? With a safety pilot?

If the safety pilot is capable and willing to be be PIC under IFR,
they could do that. But, the answer you were probably looking for is
that you can just ask for a "practice" approach:

"New York Approach, Archer 25629 requests practice ILS 16 into White
Plains".

"Archer 25629, fly heading 180 to intercept the localizer, maintain
3000 until established, cleared ILS 16, maintain VFR at all times".

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> S Herman > wrote:
> > So a non-IR pilot can file IFR, but cannot then execute that flight
> > plan, even if VFR conditions exist at all points of the flight?
>
> That's correct. You have to be IFR rated to accept an IFR clearance
> (i.e. to act as PIC under IFR). On the other hand, anybody can file
> an IFR flight plan. You don't need to be PIC to be a data-entry
> clerk.
>
> > How do IR students practice approaches, etc. when they don't have the
> > CFII aboard? With a safety pilot?
>
> If the safety pilot is capable and willing to be be PIC under IFR,
> they could do that. But, the answer you were probably looking for is
> that you can just ask for a "practice" approach:

The safety pilot would have to be IFR rated.

S Herman wrote:

> On Wed, 25 May 2005 10:54:28 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Antoñio" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>>>That will guarantee you get flight following?
>>>
>>
>>No, it will do what Ray wants, "pre-file your VFR flight plan with DUATS so
>>ATC already has a strip on you at initial call-up, just like with IFR."
>>Nothing can guarantee you get flight following.
>>
>
>
> This is for IR pilots only, right? A non-IR pilot cannot file an IFR
> flight plan, can they?

You are probably OK filing the plan, but I think if you request and
receive a clearance ... you are illegal.


Matt

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> I plan to file this again for a real trip this weekend to see how the
> TRACON reacts. I suspect it's something they rarely, if ever, see.
>

It won't work everywhere, some ARTCCs inhibit the processing of VFR flight
plans like this to TRACONs they host. Chicago ARTCC is one, I don't know
how many others there are.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is this an "official" FAA procedure or just something that most
> controllers understand as an indication that FF will be requested?
>

Depends what you mean by "official", I suppose. I've never seen anything in
print about filing it through DUATS as I explained here, I just tried it one
day and it worked. The entry of VFR flight data into the NAS computer is
certainly "official", the procedure is described in the flight data
processing manual.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Is this an "official" FAA procedure or just something that most
>>controllers understand as an indication that FF will be requested?
>>
>
>
> Depends what you mean by "official", I suppose. I've never seen anything in
> print about filing it through DUATS as I explained here, I just tried it one
> day and it worked. The entry of VFR flight data into the NAS computer is
> certainly "official", the procedure is described in the flight data
> processing manual.
>
>

I meant official in the sense that it was documented somewhere such that
most knowledgeable controllers would know what it mean when they saw it,
or that the computers would handle it properly. Sounds like the answer
is basically, yes.

Matt

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I understood him as wanting a way to file in advance for flight following.
>

So did I. This procedure does that.


>
> Your reply seemed to imply that he could obtain flight following by
> putting "VFR"
> in the altitude box.
>

I don't think I implied that, I think I said that explicitly.


>
> I take it you were only saying that this will generate a strip on him
> which,
> in turn, will make it easier for him to request flight following?
>

Yes, that's exactly what he wanted.

"S Herman" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is for IR pilots only, right?
>

Nope.


>
> A non-IR pilot cannot file an IFR flight plan, can they?
>

Any pilot can file one, but only an IFR pilot can accept an IFR clearance.
Even though you're filing an IFR flight plan through DUATS with this
procedure the controller isn't going to issue an IFR clearance. An IFR
flight plan is filed only to direct it to ATC, putting "VFR" as the
requested altitude tells the controller you're just seeking traffic
advisories.

"S Herman" > wrote in message
...
>
> So a non-IR pilot can file IFR, but cannot then execute that flight
> plan, even if VFR conditions exist at all points of the flight?
>

Correct.


>
> How do IR students practice approaches, etc. when they don't have the
> CFII aboard? With a safety pilot?
>

Always with a safety pilot, usually under VFR.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Anto=F1io" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > I understood him as wanting a way to file in advance for flight followi=
ng.
> >
>
> So did I. This procedure does that.
>
>
> >
> > Your reply seemed to imply that he could obtain flight following by
> > putting "VFR"
> > in the altitude box.
> >
>
> I don't think I implied that, I think I said that explicitly.

You did not say it explicitly, as I recall. In fact, what you say is
still a bit contradictory since you cannot, in fact, get FF by filing
"VFR" in the altitude box. If I understand you correctly, this only
allows you to be put in the system which *subsequently* will allow you
to request FF easier.

> >
> > I take it you were only saying that this will generate a strip on him
> > which,
> > in turn, will make it easier for him to request flight following?
> >
>
> Yes, that's exactly what he wanted.

No, he wanted to be able to directly file FF...which is not offered by
ATC.
You offered him a way to be more prepared to file FF; not file it
directly.

But, if we understand each other, why are you so confused? ;-)

Stephen, I know you are sometimes concise to the point of esoteric
obscurity so I offer this as a suggestion in communication:

Answer a question that offers a yes or no answer with a "yes" or a
"no". *Then* proceed with the cryptic, rhetorical,
fill-in-the-blank-yourself embellishments. It gives the reader a point
of reference and makes it so much easier for the partially stoned. ;-)

Ok? ( check only one: __yes __no )

Antonio

In article om>, Michael wrote:
> Roy,
> You actually can get a squawk code for VFR flight following on the
> ground sometimes. I have done it at BLM enroute to FRG. Called Bradley
> on the ground and told them I was departing BLM to the north and wanted
> to transition the Bravo....could they give me a code and pass me
> thru..The Bradley controller took the info..called me back with radar
> contact after I was airborne and then passed me thru the NY Bravo to
> FRG no problems. I don't know if they will always do it..but what's the
> harm in asking.

I'm sure Roy knows this, flying out of HPN. You can call clearance
delivery for a VFR class be clearance or a VFR squawk code.

I was surprised leaving CDW when I asked on ground frequency and they
told me they _didn't_ do that there.

Morris

S Herman wrote:

>
> So a non-IR pilot can file IFR, but cannot then execute that flight
> plan, even if VFR conditions exist at all points of the flight?
>

If that plan involves operating under IFR.

> How do IR students practice approaches, etc. when they don't have the
> CFII aboard? With a safety pilot?

They either:

1. Let a PIC who is instrument qualified allow them to operate under
IFR.
2. They requiest the practice approach under VFR.

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> You did not say it explicitly, as I recall. In fact, what you say is still
> a bit
> contradictory since you cannot, in fact, get FF by filing "VFR" in the
> altitude box.
>

But you can, in fact, get flight following by filing "VFR" in the altitude
box.


>
> If I understand you correctly, this only allows you to be put in the
> system
> which *subsequently* will allow you to request FF easier.
>

Now you're catchin' on!


>
> No, he wanted to be able to directly file FF...which is not offered by
> ATC.
> You offered him a way to be more prepared to file FF; not file it
> directly.
>

Filing through DUATS is filing directly. It appears you have no experience
with DUATS.


>
> But, if we understand each other, why are you so confused? ;-)
>

I am not at all confused, I understand all there is to know about this
subject.


>
> Stephen, I know you are sometimes concise to the point of esoteric
> obscurity
> so I offer this as a suggestion in communication:
>
> Answer a question that offers a yes or no answer with a "yes" or a "no".
> *Then* proceed with the cryptic, rhetorical, fill-in-the-blank-yourself
> embellishments. It gives the reader a point of reference and makes it so
> much easier for the partially stoned. ;-)
>
> Ok? ( check only one: __yes __no )
>

What is your native language? How long have you been studying English?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Anto=F1io" <> wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > You did not say it explicitly, as I recall. In fact, what you say is st=
ill
> > a bit
> > contradictory since you cannot, in fact, get FF by filing "VFR" in the
> > altitude box.
> >
>
> But you can, in fact, get flight following by filing "VFR" in the altitude
> box.

Ah yes. I see that is your assertion below. I did not know this and see
now that you clarify your statements *below*. However, I did notice you
have no CFR14 or 7110 quote for us. How come?

> Filing through DUATS is filing directly. It appears you have no experien=
ce
> with DUATS.

You are correct...I don't use DUATs. They upset my stomach. Though I
did try AWAX once. It was very uncomfortable!

> > But, if we understand each other, why are you so confused? ;-)
> >
>
> I am not at all confused, I understand all there is to know about this
> subject.


Oh, I have no doubts that you think so. Perhaps one with such a perfect
knowledge might understand why us "lesser souls" would need
clarification (or proof) at times?

> What is your native language? How long have you been studying English?

I resent you calling me a "native"...and I understand English as I
understand passive-agressive, megalomania quite well, thank you. ;-)

BTW here's something you don't seem to know: This is symbol that means
"I'm kidding with you"...... ;-)


Antonio

In article >,
"Guillermo" > wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > S Herman > wrote:
> > > So a non-IR pilot can file IFR, but cannot then execute that flight
> > > plan, even if VFR conditions exist at all points of the flight?
> >
> > That's correct. You have to be IFR rated to accept an IFR clearance
> > (i.e. to act as PIC under IFR). On the other hand, anybody can file
> > an IFR flight plan. You don't need to be PIC to be a data-entry
> > clerk.
> >
> > > How do IR students practice approaches, etc. when they don't have the
> > > CFII aboard? With a safety pilot?
> >
> > If the safety pilot is capable and willing to be be PIC under IFR,
> > they could do that. But, the answer you were probably looking for is
> > that you can just ask for a "practice" approach:
>
> The safety pilot would have to be IFR rated.

Nope, just has to be rated for the type aircraft being operated and have
a current medical. Doesn't have to be IFR rated or current.

rg

Ron Garret wrote:

>>>
>>>If the safety pilot is capable and willing to be be PIC under IFR,
>>>they could do that. But, the answer you were probably looking for is
>>>that you can just ask for a "practice" approach:
>>
>>The safety pilot would have to be IFR rated.
>
>
> Nope, just has to be rated for the type aircraft being operated and have
> a current medical. Doesn't have to be IFR rated or current.

He does if he's ALSO going to PIC under IFR as the previous post says.
He needs to meet BOTH the requirements of Safety Pilot (category and
class ratings) and those of an IFR PIC.

Of all places CDW would be the place near the NY Bravo airspace that
this would be advisable. There have been more than a few close calls
and mid air collisions related to the closeness of the Morristown,
Lincoln Park and CDW patterns.

Would you consider flying VFR squawking 1200 near CDW safe?

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Guillermo" > wrote:
>
> > "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > S Herman > wrote:
> > > > So a non-IR pilot can file IFR, but cannot then execute that flight
> > > > plan, even if VFR conditions exist at all points of the flight?
> > >
> > > That's correct. You have to be IFR rated to accept an IFR clearance
> > > (i.e. to act as PIC under IFR). On the other hand, anybody can file
> > > an IFR flight plan. You don't need to be PIC to be a data-entry
> > > clerk.
> > >
> > > > How do IR students practice approaches, etc. when they don't have
the
> > > > CFII aboard? With a safety pilot?
> > >
> > > If the safety pilot is capable and willing to be be PIC under IFR,
> > > they could do that. But, the answer you were probably looking for is
> > > that you can just ask for a "practice" approach:
> >
> > The safety pilot would have to be IFR rated.
>
> Nope, just has to be rated for the type aircraft being operated and have
> a current medical. Doesn't have to be IFR rated or current.

To fly under Instrument Flight Rules you have to have an IFR rated pilot on
board, even if you ever enter IMC. I guess either the SP or the control
manipulator have to be IR? That person would be the PIC if flying under IFR.

: Why don't more people use flight following?

The biggest reason I've heard (and feel often enough) is that you're likely to
get "vectored" even if clear of controlled airspace. I've got a friend with a turbo
Arrow that flies along VFR without flight following right over the top of Class C and
Class B at 10500 or 11500. If you were to call up approach while doing, that, seems
like 9 times out of 10 they'll vector you 10-20 miles out of the way. Similarly if
you're skirting under an airspace... likely to get vectored further out.

It's unfortunate, since it discourages people who enjoy the freedom of VFR
from getting additional safety of traffic advisories and being "in the system."

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>>If the safety pilot is capable and willing to be be PIC under IFR,
> >>>they could do that. But, the answer you were probably looking for is
> >>>that you can just ask for a "practice" approach:
> >>
> >>The safety pilot would have to be IFR rated.
> >
> >
> > Nope, just has to be rated for the type aircraft being operated and have
> > a current medical. Doesn't have to be IFR rated or current.
>
> He does if he's ALSO going to PIC under IFR as the previous post says.
> He needs to meet BOTH the requirements of Safety Pilot (category and
> class ratings) and those of an IFR PIC.

Oops, that's right. I didn't pay attention to the context of the
comment. My bad.

rg

> wrote:
>: Why don't more people use flight following?
>

> The biggest reason I've heard (and feel often enough) is that
>you're likely to get "vectored" even if clear of controlled airspace.
>I've got a friend with a turbo Arrow that flies along VFR without
>flight following right over the top of Class C and Class B at 10500
>or 11500. If you were to call up approach while doing, that, seems
>like 9 times out of 10 they'll vector you 10-20 miles out of the way.
>Similarly if you're skirting under an airspace... likely to get
>vectored further out.

There's two sides to this.

One is that if you're VFR in Class E airspace, they really don't have
any authority to vector you (I'm sure somebody will come up with some
exception). Sometimes controllers do try to do so anyway, but if you
really don't want to comply, you can just say "cancel flight
following, request frequency change" and go on your fat, dumb, and
happy way.

The other is that if you're doing something like skirting the top of a
Class B by 500 feet and the controller suggests a heading or route to
you, it might just be in both of your best interests to go along with
it. You scratch his back and he'll scratch yours. There's a lot of
heavy metal climbing out the top of a Class B. I don't want to be the
hood ornament on a 747, nor do I want to discover what the wake
turbulence of one feels like.

Roy Smith wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>>: Why don't more people use flight following?
>>
>
>
>> The biggest reason I've heard (and feel often enough) is that
>>you're likely to get "vectored" even if clear of controlled airspace.
>>I've got a friend with a turbo Arrow that flies along VFR without
>>flight following right over the top of Class C and Class B at 10500
>>or 11500. If you were to call up approach while doing, that, seems
>>like 9 times out of 10 they'll vector you 10-20 miles out of the way.
>>Similarly if you're skirting under an airspace... likely to get
>>vectored further out.
>
>
> There's two sides to this.
>
> One is that if you're VFR in Class E airspace, they really don't have
> any authority to vector you (I'm sure somebody will come up with some
> exception). Sometimes controllers do try to do so anyway, but if you
> really don't want to comply, you can just say "cancel flight
> following, request frequency change" and go on your fat, dumb, and
> happy way.
>
> The other is that if you're doing something like skirting the top of a
> Class B by 500 feet and the controller suggests a heading or route to
> you, it might just be in both of your best interests to go along with
> it. You scratch his back and he'll scratch yours. There's a lot of
> heavy metal climbing out the top of a Class B. I don't want to be the
> hood ornament on a 747, nor do I want to discover what the wake
> turbulence of one feels like.

Yes. I've gone over the top of Chicago twice on the way to OSH. You know you
can't get an IFR routing anywhere near there, so I crossed the CBAS at 10500
VFR. I was happy to have advisories as the aluminum concentration was high. The
controller seemed to be glad I was talking and squawking, too. He did give me a
couple of zigzags, but that's better than going way out over Lake Michigan or 50
miles to the west.

Me: "Center .. Littleplane 1234 .. request"
Center: "1234 .. go ahead"
Me: "Got time to take an IFR plan for me?"
Center: "Sure .. go ahead"
(You're home free)
or
Center: "Sorry 1234 .. not right now .. you'll need to file with FSS"
Me: "Ok .. 1234 requests to leave the frequency to contact FSS"
Center: "Approved 1234 .. report when back on"
Me: "Center .. 1234 is back on and has an IFR plan in the hopper"





"paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
> of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
> contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
> rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
> on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
> Moline approach?
>

A VFR flight plan is a FSS thing so they can find the bodies if
you don't show up. Doesn't go to ATC.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> That will guarantee you get flight following?
>>
>
> No, it will do what Ray wants, "pre-file your VFR flight plan with DUATS
> so ATC already has a strip on you at initial call-up, just like with IFR."
> Nothing can guarantee you get flight following.
>

I've done more than my share of popping up over the years (ATC seems easier
to get along with west of the Mississippi) and I can't remember ever being
vectored in Class E airspace. Not that my memory is perfect, but it seems to
me that if it was a regular occurence I would remember it.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
...
>: Why don't more people use flight following?
>
> The biggest reason I've heard (and feel often enough) is that you're
> likely to
> get "vectored" even if clear of controlled airspace. I've got a friend
> with a turbo
> Arrow that flies along VFR without flight following right over the top of
> Class C and
> Class B at 10500 or 11500. If you were to call up approach while doing,
> that, seems
> like 9 times out of 10 they'll vector you 10-20 miles out of the way.
> Similarly if
> you're skirting under an airspace... likely to get vectored further out.
>
> It's unfortunate, since it discourages people who enjoy the freedom of VFR
> from getting additional safety of traffic advisories and being "in the
> system."
>
> -Cory
>
> --
>
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * Cory Papenfuss *
> * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
> ************************************************** ***********************
>

Agreed. Getting thru/around/over Class B is one reason that VFR makes
more sense than VFR when VMC but I want radar advisories when I'm doing
that. I normally ask "Maule 44Foxtrot requests radar advisories"
rather than "Flight Following". Don't know if that makes any difference
but If I decide to overfly or underfly a Class B, I'm not asking for
routing, I'm asking for traffic advisories. And while I'll welcome zigs
and zags, I'm probably going to follow my strategy and not accept route
or altitude deviations 'suggested' by ATC. The only hard stop is
"remain clear".

In practice, I'm typically IFR in VMC and not happy with my options.
When I cancel, it's pretty clear that I'm pursuing a different route and
rarely are others suggested.

Dave Butler wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>>> The biggest reason I've heard (and feel often enough) is that
>>> you're likely to get "vectored" even if clear of controlled airspace.
>>> I've got a friend with a turbo Arrow that flies along VFR without
>>> flight following right over the top of Class C and Class B at 10500
>>> or 11500. If you were to call up approach while doing, that, seems
>>> like 9 times out of 10 they'll vector you 10-20 miles out of the way.
>>> Similarly if you're skirting under an airspace... likely to get
>>> vectored further out.

>> There's two sides to this.
>> One is that if you're VFR in Class E airspace, they really don't have
>> any authority to vector you (I'm sure somebody will come up with some
>> exception). Sometimes controllers do try to do so anyway, but if you
>> really don't want to comply, you can just say "cancel flight
>> following, request frequency change" and go on your fat, dumb, and
>> happy way.
>>
>> The other is that if you're doing something like skirting the top of a
>> Class B by 500 feet and the controller suggests a heading or route to
>> you, it might just be in both of your best interests to go along with
>> it. You scratch his back and he'll scratch yours. There's a lot of
>> heavy metal climbing out the top of a Class B. I don't want to be the
>> hood ornament on a 747, nor do I want to discover what the wake
>> turbulence of one feels like.
>
>
> Yes. I've gone over the top of Chicago twice on the way to OSH. You know
> you can't get an IFR routing anywhere near there, so I crossed the CBAS
> at 10500 VFR. I was happy to have advisories as the aluminum
> concentration was high. The controller seemed to be glad I was talking
> and squawking, too. He did give me a couple of zigzags, but that's
> better than going way out over Lake Michigan or 50 miles to the west.

"Cleared present position direct...." has been my experience with popping
up. Of course, I was at an altitude where radar could see me. In my
experience, being on an airway offers no special advantage.

Bob Gardner

"Brenor Brophy" > wrote in message
...
> Lots of good answers, especially regarding how easy it is to get a pop-up
> if you already have flight following. I'll just add one more item - fly a
> route you could fly IFR with the equipment you've got. For example, while
> my handheld GPS can take me direct anywhere VFR - I'm screwed if I need an
> IFR pop-up and I'm not on an airway in my VOR only equiped plane (/U). So
> I pretty much always follow airways - just on the off chance I need to
> "convert" my flight following to an IFR clearance.
>
> -Brenor
>
>

Maule Driver > wrote:
> I normally ask "Maule 44Foxtrot requests radar advisories"
> rather than "Flight Following".

There is absolutely no difference between the two. They are just two
different names for exactly the same service.

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> A VFR flight plan is a FSS thing so they can find the bodies if
> you don't show up. Doesn't go to ATC.
>

Correct, but if you file an IFR fight plan through DUATS with "VFR" as the
requested altitude it WILL go to ATC.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Correct, but if you file an IFR fight plan through DUATS with "VFR" as the
> requested altitude it WILL go to ATC.

Here's what he said and what I reply to:

"pre-file your VFR flight plan with DUATS
so ATC already has a strip on you at initial call-up, just like with IFR."

If you file an IFR flight plan with a VFR altitude they'll assume you
want FF. I've done that by mistake and when I called for a clearance
they made a comment about FF.

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Here's what he said and what I reply to:
>
> "pre-file your VFR flight plan with DUATS
> so ATC already has a strip on you at initial call-up, just like with IFR."
>

Yeah, and here's what he said earlier in the thread and what I initially
replied to:

"I've been told you can play tricks with DUAT, filing an IFR flight plan and
putting 'VFR' in the remarks section, but you shouldn't have to resort to
subterfuge like that for what seems like such a simple and logical thing."


We're talking about filing an IFR flight plan through DUATS with "VFR" as
the requested altitude for the purpose of generating strips for flight
following, not about filing a VFR flight plan for search and rescue
purposes.


>
> If you file an IFR flight plan with a VFR altitude they'll assume you
> want FF.

Exactly.

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
.. .
....snip...
> I normally ask "Maule 44Foxtrot requests radar advisories"
> rather than "Flight Following". Don't know if that makes any difference
....snip...

IIRC, "flight following" is an informal way of saying "radar services"
(i.e., the two are synonymous).

ATC is pretty easy to get along with down in the SE US too. Lack of
congestion is the key I'm guessing.

The only Class E vectoring I can remember ever getting was related to
bypassing Class B & C. Specifically attempts to vector you even if high
or low enough to avoid the B/C.

The big 'depend' is individual facilities' practices with regard to
transitions thru their airspace. Charlotte used to routinely send you
around. Now they seemed to have worked out thru transitions.
Greensboro treats their Class C like sacred air and won't even let you
nip the corners when transitioning. Raleigh almost always accomodates
thru transitons. Heck, Washington DC used to be pretty flexible and
accomodating before 9/11 (Maule, give me 10 degrees left to miss Bill's
house). Stuff varies.

Bob Gardner wrote:
> I've done more than my share of popping up over the years (ATC seems easier
> to get along with west of the Mississippi) and I can't remember ever being
> vectored in Class E airspace. Not that my memory is perfect, but it seems to
> me that if it was a regular occurence I would remember it.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>: Why don't more people use flight following?
>>
>>The biggest reason I've heard (and feel often enough) is that you're
>>likely to
>>get "vectored" even if clear of controlled airspace. I've got a friend
>>with a turbo
>>Arrow that flies along VFR without flight following right over the top of
>>Class C and
>>Class B at 10500 or 11500. If you were to call up approach while doing,
>>that, seems
>>like 9 times out of 10 they'll vector you 10-20 miles out of the way.
>>Similarly if
>>you're skirting under an airspace... likely to get vectored further out.
>>
>>It's unfortunate, since it discourages people who enjoy the freedom of VFR
>>from getting additional safety of traffic advisories and being "in the
>>system."
>>
>>-Cory
>>
>>--
>>
>>************************************************** ***********************
>>* Cory Papenfuss *
>>* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
>>* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
>>************************************************** ***********************
>>
>
>
>

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1117123248.79333@sj-nntpcache-5...
>
> Yes. I've gone over the top of Chicago twice on the way to OSH. You know
> you can't get an IFR routing anywhere near there, so I crossed the CBAS at
> 10500 VFR. I was happy to have advisories as the aluminum concentration
> was high. The controller seemed to be glad I was talking and squawking,
> too. He did give me a couple of zigzags, but that's better than going way
> out over Lake Michigan or 50 miles to the west.

Another question then: I am planning to fly from PVD Providence RI to
Madison MSN on 24/25th July. The backend on the route was to be MKG
(Muskegon), BAE (Badger) and MSN. Is it likely then that I will not get
cleared IFR through to MSN and if wanted to follow that route would be best
to cancel IFR and go VFR weather permitting even getting a pop up clearance
at MSN to descend through cloud?

Chris wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> news:1117123248.79333@sj-nntpcache-5...
>
>>Yes. I've gone over the top of Chicago twice on the way to OSH. You know
>>you can't get an IFR routing anywhere near there, so I crossed the CBAS at
>>10500 VFR. I was happy to have advisories as the aluminum concentration
>>was high. The controller seemed to be glad I was talking and squawking,
>>too. He did give me a couple of zigzags, but that's better than going way
>>out over Lake Michigan or 50 miles to the west.
>
>
> Another question then: I am planning to fly from PVD Providence RI to
> Madison MSN on 24/25th July. The backend on the route was to be MKG
> (Muskegon), BAE (Badger) and MSN. Is it likely then that I will not get
> cleared IFR through to MSN and if wanted to follow that route would be best
> to cancel IFR and go VFR weather permitting even getting a pop up clearance
> at MSN to descend through cloud?

I think you're OK that far north of Chicago, but I'm from NC, I only go there at
OSH time, so someone from that part of the country can give you a better answer.

Dave

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message =
news:1117142284.900941@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Chris wrote:
>>=20
>> Another question then: I am planning to fly from PVD Providence RI to =

>> Madison MSN on 24/25th July. The backend on the route was to be MKG=20
>> (Muskegon), BAE (Badger) and MSN. Is it likely then that I will not =
get=20
>> cleared IFR through to MSN and if wanted to follow that route would =
be best=20
>> to cancel IFR and go VFR weather permitting even getting a pop up =
clearance=20
>> at MSN to descend through cloud?=20
>=20
> I think you're OK that far north of Chicago, but I'm from NC, I only =
go there at=20
> OSH time, so someone from that part of the country can give you a =
better answer.
>=20
> Dave

Yes, Chris will be OK flying MKG-BAE.
I routinely file direct FWA-OSH or direct FWA-BRAVE (east of Racine).
Both of those routes lie closer to Chicago's Class B than Chris' plan,
but ZAU never has a problem with them.
In fact, it seems like BRAVE may be one of the preferred hand-over =
points
for traffic arriving into Milwaukee Approach airspace.

> if you file an IFR fight plan through DUATS with "VFR" as the
> requested altitude it WILL go to ATC

Will it also go to FSS (to be used for SAR?)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Will it also go to FSS (to be used for SAR?)
>

No.

: One is that if you're VFR in Class E airspace, they really don't have
: any authority to vector you (I'm sure somebody will come up with some
: exception). Sometimes controllers do try to do so anyway, but if you
: really don't want to comply, you can just say "cancel flight
: following, request frequency change" and go on your fat, dumb, and
: happy way.

That's true, but it amounts to the same thing as not calling them for
advisories in the first place. Often, you may have deviated a fair bit before you
cancel.... perhaps *into* controlled airspace and then you'd be stuck.

: The other is that if you're doing something like skirting the top of a
: Class B by 500 feet and the controller suggests a heading or route to
: you, it might just be in both of your best interests to go along with
: it. You scratch his back and he'll scratch yours. There's a lot of
: heavy metal climbing out the top of a Class B. I don't want to be the
: hood ornament on a 747, nor do I want to discover what the wake
: turbulence of one feels like.

That would be fine, if it were a heading or route for actual traffic. More
often than not, it's a "friend-vector" that takes you completely to the side of the
airspace. I don't even have a moving-map GPS and I can watch the "circle-of-vectors"
form.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> > If the safety pilot is capable and willing to be be PIC under IFR,
>> > they could do that. But, the answer you were probably looking for is
>> > that you can just ask for a "practice" approach:
>>>
>>
>> The safety pilot would have to be IFR rated.
>>
>
> Nope, just has to be rated for the type aircraft being operated and have
> a current medical. Doesn't have to be IFR rated or current.
>

To operate under the conditions stated, with an IFR student on an IFR flight
plan, the safety pilot would have to be IFR rated.

> wrote in message
...
>
> The biggest reason I've heard (and feel often enough) is that you're
> likely to get "vectored" even if clear of controlled airspace.
>

I assume you mean clear of Class C or Class B airspace when you say "clear
of controlled airspace". To actually be clear of controlled airspace you'd
have to be in Class G airspace.


>
> I've got a friend with a turbo Arrow that flies along VFR without flight
> following right
> over the top of Class C and Class B at 10500 or 11500. If you were to
> call up
> approach while doing, that, seems like 9 times out of 10 they'll vector
> you 10-20
> miles out of the way. Similarly if you're skirting under an airspace...
> likely to get
> vectored further out.
>

ATC shouldn't vector him over or under Class B airspace, but it's proper to
do so if need be with Class C airspace. Class C services are provided in
Class C airspace proper and also within the Outer Area.

"Though not requiring regulatory action, Class C airspace areas have a
procedural Outer Area. Normally this area is 20 NM from the primary Class C
airspace airport. Its vertical limit extends from the lower limits of
radio/radar coverage up to the ceiling of the approach control's delegated
airspace, excluding the Class C airspace itself, and other airspace as
appropriate. (This outer area is not charted.)"

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0302.html#3-2-4

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> There's two sides to this.
>
> One is that if you're VFR in Class E airspace, they really don't have
> any authority to vector you (I'm sure somebody will come up with some
> exception).
>

The Outer Area associated with Class C airspace areas and TRSAs.

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> Another question then: I am planning to fly from PVD Providence RI to
> Madison MSN on 24/25th July. The backend on the route was to be MKG
> (Muskegon), BAE (Badger) and MSN. Is it likely then that I will not get
> cleared IFR through to MSN and if wanted to follow that route would be
> best to cancel IFR and go VFR weather permitting even getting a pop up
> clearance at MSN to descend through cloud?
>

There's no problem at all with that route. It takes you through Milwaukee
approach, not Chicago approach. MKG.V2.SUDDS is a standard arrival route so
you're going with the flow.

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> In fact, it seems like BRAVE may be one of the preferred hand-over
> points for traffic arriving into Milwaukee Approach airspace.
>

BRAVE is an arrival fix for Milwaukee approach.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Another question then: I am planning to fly from PVD Providence RI to
>> Madison MSN on 24/25th July. The backend on the route was to be MKG
>> (Muskegon), BAE (Badger) and MSN. Is it likely then that I will not get
>> cleared IFR through to MSN and if wanted to follow that route would be
>> best to cancel IFR and go VFR weather permitting even getting a pop up
>> clearance at MSN to descend through cloud?
>>
>
> There's no problem at all with that route. It takes you through Milwaukee
> approach, not Chicago approach. MKG.V2.SUDDS is a standard arrival route
> so you're going with the flow.

With the 24/25th being days people are going to OSH I was wondering whether
that would have any influence.

On Sat, 28 May 2005 08:30:41 +0100, "Chris" >
wrote:

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>> "Chris" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Another question then: I am planning to fly from PVD Providence RI to
>>> Madison MSN on 24/25th July. The backend on the route was to be MKG
>>> (Muskegon), BAE (Badger) and MSN. Is it likely then that I will not get
>>> cleared IFR through to MSN and if wanted to follow that route would be
>>> best to cancel IFR and go VFR weather permitting even getting a pop up
>>> clearance at MSN to descend through cloud?
>>>
>>
>> There's no problem at all with that route. It takes you through Milwaukee
>> approach, not Chicago approach. MKG.V2.SUDDS is a standard arrival route
>> so you're going with the flow.
>

There is with the "pop up" though if you want to use it to file for a
descent into OSH during the flyin. I think the limit last year was
150 miles out for a pop up.

Get a copy of the NOTAMs for the fly-in if that is where you are
headed. It's a whole different ball game starting 3 days prior to the
start of the fly-in.

I used to file and go in IFR, but I understand they have you join the
VFR traffic if the weather is good.

BTW, I cross the lake to the north of MSN and always get Minneapolis
who hands me off to Chicago with the approach at OSH being under
Chicago's control. OTOH I'm between Milwaukee and Green Bay when I
cross the shore line.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>With the 24/25th being days people are going to OSH I was wondering whether
>that would have any influence.
>

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 08:30:41 +0100, "Chris" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>
>>> "Chris" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Another question then: I am planning to fly from PVD Providence RI to
>>>> Madison MSN on 24/25th July. The backend on the route was to be MKG
>>>> (Muskegon), BAE (Badger) and MSN. Is it likely then that I will not get
>>>> cleared IFR through to MSN and if wanted to follow that route would be
>>>> best to cancel IFR and go VFR weather permitting even getting a pop up
>>>> clearance at MSN to descend through cloud?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's no problem at all with that route. It takes you through
>>> Milwaukee
>>> approach, not Chicago approach. MKG.V2.SUDDS is a standard arrival
>>> route
>>> so you're going with the flow.
>>
>
> There is with the "pop up" though if you want to use it to file for a
> descent into OSH during the flyin. I think the limit last year was
> 150 miles out for a pop up.
>
> Get a copy of the NOTAMs for the fly-in if that is where you are
> headed. It's a whole different ball game starting 3 days prior to the
> start of the fly-in.
>

I am not going to OSH, just making my way from IAG to MSN and was wanting to
make sure that the routing would not be affected by OSH bound traffic.

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> With the 24/25th being days people are going to OSH I was wondering
> whether that would have any influence.
>

Not in Milwaukee approach airspace. There'll be more traffic for ATC to
deal with, but not a lot more. The IFR routes to OSH don't go through
Milwaukee or Chicago approach, they go around them. The OSH bound traffic
that Milwaukee approach has to deal with originates in Chicago approach or
Milwaukee approach itself. EAA traffic has more impact on the MKG and MSN
TRACONs than Milwaukee.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is with the "pop up" though if you want to use it to file for a
> descent into OSH during the flyin. I think the limit last year was
> 150 miles out for a pop up.
>

He's not going to OSH.

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 28 May 2005 08:30:41 +0100, "Chris" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Chris" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Another question then: I am planning to fly from PVD Providence RI to
>>>>> Madison MSN on 24/25th July. The backend on the route was to be MKG
>>>>> (Muskegon), BAE (Badger) and MSN. Is it likely then that I will not
>>>>> get
>>>>> cleared IFR through to MSN and if wanted to follow that route would be
>>>>> best to cancel IFR and go VFR weather permitting even getting a pop up
>>>>> clearance at MSN to descend through cloud?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's no problem at all with that route. It takes you through
>>>> Milwaukee
>>>> approach, not Chicago approach. MKG.V2.SUDDS is a standard arrival
>>>> route
>>>> so you're going with the flow.
>>>
>>
>> There is with the "pop up" though if you want to use it to file for a
>> descent into OSH during the flyin. I think the limit last year was
>> 150 miles out for a pop up.
>>
>> Get a copy of the NOTAMs for the fly-in if that is where you are
>> headed. It's a whole different ball game starting 3 days prior to the
>> start of the fly-in.
>>
>
> I am not going to OSH, just making my way from IAG to MSN and was wanting
> to make sure that the routing would not be affected by OSH bound traffic.

Dumb me, got the notam

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ah yes. I see that is your assertion below. I did not know this and
> see now that you clarify your statements *below*.
>

Where is *below*?


>
> However, I did notice you have no CFR14 or 7110 quote for us. How come?
>

Because it isn't mentioned there.


>
> You are correct...I don't use DUATs.
>

I didn't think so.


>
> Oh, I have no doubts that you think so.
>

I don't think so, I know so.


>
> Perhaps one with such a perfect knowledge might understand why us
> "lesser souls" would need clarification (or proof) at times?
>

What do you feel needs clarifying? Why would you need proof?


>
> I resent you calling me a "native"...
>

Why? Have you no origin?

Jose wrote:

>> Happens less now. I generally file IFR unless there is a specific
>> reason to file VFR beyond CAVU. Why give up the extra eyes for
>> traffic,extra traffic separation standards, airspace management (MOA,
>> prohibited, restricteed obstacle avoidance), and TFR avoidance
>> services unless there is a clear advantage to not filing.
>
>
> Time, range, and convetion. VFR you can usually go direct. IFR you get
> routed around willy nilly so you use more gas and time, and require
> reserves to an alternate plus forty five minutes after a non-direct
> flight. Sometimes this makes a one leg flight into two legs, and the
> VFR option is better (even from a safety POV).

In my limited experience I've had the opposite experience flying into a
class B. I was once with a flight of several airplanes on a CAVU day,
they all filed IFR and i went VFR. I took off first and landed last at
the destination (all planes the same type, so no speed differences).
Once I got near the busy area, I had to wait outside the class B until
they had time for me, while my IFR peers went right in. Once into the
class B I got a lot more circuitous vectoring than my IFR peers. They
basically tried to keep me as far away as they could for as long as
possible because they were busy with IFR traffic.

> In my limited experience I've had the opposite experience flying into a class B.

Ok, but flying =into= a class B is different. The final portion being
IFR will help you. But getting to that place, IFR can lead to
roundabouts. This is especially true if you are going near or past a
class B that could otherwise be underflown. VFR you duck under, IFR you
get routed around.

At least that's my experience in the Northeast.

Jose

--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Maule Driver wrote:
> Happens less now. I generally file IFR unless there is a specific
> reason to file VFR beyond CAVU. Why give up the extra eyes for

I've started filing an IFR flight plan for any flight that isn't
100% CAVU. I don't always pick it up, but I try to always have it
on file in case I want to. If the weather's going down, my workload
will be high enough without adding "filing IFR" to it.

The only issue I've had was coming out of AUS the other day - I'd
filed IFR before I left Houston, and when I was ready to leave AUS,
I called up clearance on the ground. As soon as they heard my
tail number, they went into IFR clearance mode, read me the whole thing,
then I had to say, "Well, actually, I just want to go home VFR".

He seemed confused, but we eventually got it straightened out.

Tina Marie