Things to put in the "remarks" section of the flight plan

[C. J. Clegg]

When filing a flight plan (VFR or IFR), and you are carrying some
non-aviation-type backup means of communications such as an FRS/GMRS
radio or an amateur VHF radio, is it worth it to put in the "Remarks"
something like "Amateur 146.52 MHz, GMRS Channel 1"?

I'm sure that if you go down, the CAP or whoever comes looking for
your sorry butt would be interested in knowing if they should try to
call you on something other than 121.5.

Any thoughts?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C. J. Clegg" > wrote in message
...
>
> When filing a flight plan (VFR or IFR), and you are carrying some
> non-aviation-type backup means of communications such as an FRS/GMRS
> radio or an amateur VHF radio, is it worth it to put in the "Remarks"
> something like "Amateur 146.52 MHz, GMRS Channel 1"?
>
> I'm sure that if you go down, the CAP or whoever comes looking for
> your sorry butt would be interested in knowing if they should try to
> call you on something other than 121.5.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

You can enter anything you feel is pertinent to the flight.

[nooneimportant]

"C. J. Clegg" > wrote in message
...
>
> When filing a flight plan (VFR or IFR), and you are carrying some
> non-aviation-type backup means of communications such as an FRS/GMRS
> radio or an amateur VHF radio, is it worth it to put in the "Remarks"
> something like "Amateur 146.52 MHz, GMRS Channel 1"?
>
> I'm sure that if you go down, the CAP or whoever comes looking for
> your sorry butt would be interested in knowing if they should try to
> call you on something other than 121.5.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

When filing IFR for my instrument rating I would put down that my instructor
and I would be requesting full approaches at each airport. Sure enough...
we would get assighed the full approach as soon as we got there, instead of
the usual vectors to final or visual.

[Clay]

I have my students put down either "Student pilot or Training flight".
Most controllers are more than happy to work with you.

[[email protected]]

I put in the remarks section when applicable:

1. This is an "Angel Flight" positioning flight. (a leg NOT carrying
the patient).

2. VFR GPS on board.

[Newps]

wrote:

> I put in the remarks section when applicable:
>
> 1. This is an "Angel Flight" positioning flight. (a leg NOT carrying
> the patient).

What would be the point of this?

[Ben Jackson]

On 2005-06-14, C J Clegg > wrote:
>
> something like "Amateur 146.52 MHz, GMRS Channel 1"?

My understanding is that you get a lot more room for "remarks" than the
conrollers see. So if you want to alert SAR that you have a life raft
(and it is therefore worth looking for you when you crash in freezing
water) go for it. But if your message is "VFR gps" (ie please cheat and
give me direct) or "I want X, Y, Z approaches" you have to keep it short
and near the front.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I put in the remarks section when applicable:
>
> 1. This is an "Angel Flight" positioning flight. (a leg NOT carrying
> the patient).
>
> 2. VFR GPS on board.
>

For what purpose?

[Robert M. Gary]

I've often had controllers issue me "direct to foobar instersection"
even though I filed /A after putting VFR GPS on board. I've also had
controllers ask me if I have a GPS while IFR. The FAA won't allow me to
file /G because my GPS is not IFR (I know Steven has some disagreements
with this) so its the next best thing for me.

-Robert

[Ron Natalie]

Ben Jackson wrote:
> On 2005-06-14, C J Clegg > wrote:
>
>>something like "Amateur 146.52 MHz, GMRS Channel 1"?
>
>
> My understanding is that you get a lot more room for "remarks" than the
> conrollers see. So if you want to alert SAR that you have a life raft
> (and it is therefore worth looking for you when you crash in freezing
> water) go for it. But if your message is "VFR gps" (ie please cheat and
> give me direct) or "I want X, Y, Z approaches" you have to keep it short
> and near the front.
>

The controller only sees the first 24 characters.

My favorite is still "Brian donor on board."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The FAA won't allow me to file /G because my GPS is not IFR (I know Steven
> has some disagreements with this) so its the next best thing for me.
>

Who? Me? I have no disagreement with that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> The controller only sees the first 24 characters.
>

The amount of characters displayed on a flight progress strip depends on
whether it's a terminal or enroute strip. In each case the full remark is
available via a flight plan readout.


>
> My favorite is still "Brian donor on board."
>

How did Brian feel about that?

[Morgans]

> > My favorite is still "Brian donor on board."
> >
>
> How did Brian feel about that?

<chuckle>
--
Jim in NC

[Chris Ehlbeck]

I was taught the same thing about "VFR GPS on board". The reasoning was
that if things started going bad it was a tool they knew you had without
having to ask.
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > I put in the remarks section when applicable:
> >
> > 1. This is an "Angel Flight" positioning flight. (a leg NOT carrying
> > the patient).
> >
> > 2. VFR GPS on board.
> >
>
> For what purpose?
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chris Ehlbeck" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was taught the same thing about "VFR GPS on board". The reasoning was
> that if things started going bad it was a tool they knew you had without
> having to ask.
>

What do you expect them to do with that tool?

[Tony]

How about a cell phone number? Of course, on international flights,
"Notify Customs." About 2300 PIC hours ago I had put in "New IFR
Rating".

[[email protected]]

The point is that Angel Flights (whether carrying the patient, going to
pick one up, or returning from dropping one off) are still treated with
a slightly higher priority and given more direct routing.

[[email protected]]

1. This is an "Angel Flight" positioning flight. (a leg NOT carrying
> the patient).


> 2. VFR GPS on board.



For what purpose?
**********************************
1. Because Angel Flights get slightly higher priority in routing if
needed and
2. To give the controller information about the flight that might help
in an emergency.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The point is that Angel Flights (whether carrying the patient, going to
> pick one up, or returning from dropping one off) are still treated with
> a slightly higher priority and given more direct routing.
>

Angel Flight is not given priority handling by ATC. Angel Flight is
properly identified by use of the Angel Flight call sign when carrying a
patient or going to pick one up, but not when returning from dropping one
off.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 1. Because Angel Flights get slightly higher priority in routing if
> needed and
>

Lifeguard is given priority handling by ATC, Angel Flight is not.


>
> 2. To give the controller information about the flight that might help
> in an emergency.
>

How would knowing a VFR GPS was aboard help the controller in an emergency?

[Will Rogers]

Seems like these days the most common not-particularly-useful-to-ATC
remarks I see are:

None

followed closely by:

PIC Joe Shmoe, 555-678-1212

[[email protected]]

> 1. Because Angel Flights get slightly higher priority in routing if
> needed and



Lifeguard is given priority handling by ATC, Angel Flight is not.


****************
Officially, you are correct. Unofficially, Angel Flights are treated
with a special (and detectable) "consideration".



> 2. To give the controller information about the flight that might help
> in an emergency.



How would knowing a VFR GPS was aboard help the controller in an
emergency?

*****************************

It seems to me that what kind of navigational equipment the pilot has
on board is "relevant to the flight", and I can think of scenarios
where knowing the pilot has a GPS might help in an emergency involving
failure of one or more instruments, or partial electrical failure. Let
me ask you, Steven, how could it HURT the controller to have this
information?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Officially, you are correct. Unofficially, Angel Flights are treated
> with a special (and detectable) "consideration".
>

"Officially" is all that matters.


>
> It seems to me that what kind of navigational equipment the pilot has
> on board is "relevant to the flight", and I can think of scenarios
> where knowing the pilot has a GPS might help in an emergency involving
> failure of one or more instruments, or partial electrical failure.
>

But you can't articulate any? The question was, "How would knowing a VFR
GPS was aboard help the controller in an emergency?" Providing a few of
those scenarios would answer the question, but simply stating that you know
of a few scenarios does not.


>
> Let me ask you, Steven, how could it HURT the controller to have this
> information?
>

It wouldn't. It wouldn't HURT the controller to have the pilot's height and
weight information either but I bet you don't put that in remarks when you
file.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> How would knowing a VFR GPS was aboard help the controller in an
>> emergency?
>>
>
> Not sure about emergency, but it does tell the control that you have the
> ability to reliably navigate direct to anywhere.

Wouldn't simply filing direct to anywhere tell the controller you have the
ability to reliably navigate direct to anywhere?


>
> I have been given clearances to navaids that are well outside of reception
> range, as well as direct to my destination field from 350nm away. If I
> put the "GPS" note in there, the controller will often ask if I can
> navigate direct, or if I would like direct, to wherever he needs to clear
> me. If I don't put the "GPS" note in there, I rarely am asked if I can go
> direct to a navaid outside of range, for example.
>

Have you filed direct to navaids that are well outside of reception range or
direct to your destination field from 350nm away without putting "VFR GPS"
in remarks and had your requested route denied? Did you file those same
routes with "VFR GPS" in remarks and been cleared as filed?


>
> The GPS isn't necessarily relevant to the controller's ability to give the
> direct clearances, but it tells him that I am likely able to go direct
> without wandering around, and without being baby-sat with vectors along
> the way.
>

Why would the controller believe you might be unable to navigate what you
filed without "VFR GPS" in remarks.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Angel Flight is not given priority handling by ATC.

What is the purpose of the special call sign that Angel Flights use to
distinguish themselves?

--Gary

[Newps]

Gary Drescher wrote:


>
> What is the purpose of the special call sign that Angel Flights use to
> distinguish themselves?

It is a goodwill gesture on the part of the FAA.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> What is the purpose of the special call sign that Angel Flights use to
> distinguish themselves?
>

According to Angel Flight West the call sign "indicates to ATC the '...need
for appropriate (but not priority) handling by ATC'."

According to an Air Traffic Bulletin issued six years ago use of the call
sign identifies the flight as a non-profit, charitable, community service
involving no priority handling, but minimal delay would be appreciated.

[Jose]

> "Officially" is all that matters.

No, =un=officially is all that matters.

What matters is the effect the pilot gets from the remark. If there is
no official benefit to saying "angel flight" but controllers do in fact
("unofficially") give them priority, the pilot receives the benefit (as
does the patient).

Officials be damned.

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> No, =un=officially is all that matters.
>
> What matters is the effect the pilot gets from the remark. If there is no
> official benefit to saying "angel flight" but controllers do in fact
> ("unofficially") give them priority, the pilot receives the benefit (as
> does the patient).
>
> Officials be damned.
>

Controllers make mistakes. If a controller gives a flight priority handling
based on an Angel Flight call sign he is acting contrary to FAA Order
7110.65. As always, my comments are based on controllers knowing and
following procedures. Officially or unofficially, THAT is all that matters.

[Jose]

> Controllers make mistakes. If a controller gives a flight priority handling
> based on an Angel Flight call sign he is acting contrary to FAA Order
> 7110.65.

What if a controller gives priority when there is no other reason to -
for example (you can make a better one up) two planes approaching the
same waypoint at the same time. One is given vectors for delay. Would
giving the delay vectors to the non-angel flight aircraft be a viloation
of 7110.65?

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.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What is the purpose of the special call sign that Angel Flights use to
>> distinguish themselves?
>
> According to Angel Flight West the call sign "indicates to ATC the
> '...need for appropriate (but not priority) handling by ATC'."
>
> According to an Air Traffic Bulletin issued six years ago use of the call
> sign identifies the flight as a non-profit, charitable, community service
> involving no priority handling, but minimal delay would be appreciated.

Oh, ok. Is 'priority' a technical term for ATC? In ordinary language,
minimizing delays (to a greater extent than for ordinary flights) would be a
form of priority (though perhaps not as high as the priority afforded to
some other flights).

--Gary

[Dan Luke]

"Will Rogers" wrote:
> Seems like these days the most common not-particularly-useful-to-ATC
> remarks I see are:
>
> None
>
> followed closely by:
>
> PIC Joe Shmoe, 555-678-1212

DUAT will put the pilot's name in the remarks if you don't tell it not to.

I have often had evidence that controllers are ignoring the remarks. A
common example is being asked my on-course heading by Departure when I filed
it in "remarks."
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> What if a controller gives priority when there is no other reason to - for
> example (you can make a better one up) two planes approaching the same
> waypoint at the same time. One is given vectors for delay. Would giving
> the delay vectors to the non-angel flight aircraft be a viloation of
> 7110.65?
>

No, as Angel Flight is not mentioned in FAA Order 7110.65.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, ok. Is 'priority' a technical term for ATC?
>

Yes.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0201.html#2-1-4


>
> In ordinary language, minimizing delays (to a greater extent than for
> ordinary flights) would be a form of priority (though perhaps not as high
> as the priority afforded to some other flights).
>

If two aircraft are a dead ass tie and one of them is an Angel Flight,
everything else being equal, I'd put the Angel Flight ahead of the other
one.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Oh, ok. Is 'priority' a technical term for ATC?
>
> Yes.
>
> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0201.html#2-1-4

Thanks, good to know.

[Ron Natalie]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Will Rogers" wrote:
>
>>Seems like these days the most common not-particularly-useful-to-ATC
>>remarks I see are:
>>
>>None
>>
>>followed closely by:
>>
>>PIC Joe Shmoe, 555-678-1212
>
>
> DUAT will put the pilot's name in the remarks if you don't tell it not to.

Huh? It will always put the ACCOUNT HOLDERS name in the PIC block no
matter what you enter. Does it really enter stuff serrupticiously
in the remarks field?

[Jose]

> No, as Angel Flight is not mentioned in FAA Order 7110.65.

Then on what basis to you make the following statement? And on that
same basis, how do you answer my subsequent question relating to
otherwise equal consideration?

> If a controller gives a flight priority handling
> based on an Angel Flight call sign he is acting contrary to FAA Order
> 7110.65.

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.

[Dan Luke]

"Ron Natalie" wrote:
> Huh? It will always put the ACCOUNT HOLDERS name in the PIC block no
> matter what you enter. Does it really enter stuff serrupticiously
> in the remarks field?

Yep, if you don't tell it not to when you're setting up the defaults for your
account.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Newps]

Gary Drescher wrote:

>
> Oh, ok. Is 'priority' a technical term for ATC? In ordinary language,
> minimizing delays (to a greater extent than for ordinary flights) would be a
> form of priority (though perhaps not as high as the priority afforded to
> some other flights).

Angel Flight means nothing to ATC, most controllers don't even know what
it is. And why would you put it in the remarks and not just use the
three letter ID allocated to Angel Flight(NGF)?

[Gary Drescher]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>>
>> Oh, ok. Is 'priority' a technical term for ATC? In ordinary language,
>> minimizing delays (to a greater extent than for ordinary flights) would
>> be a form of priority (though perhaps not as high as the priority
>> afforded to some other flights).
>
> Angel Flight means nothing to ATC, most controllers don't even know what
> it is. And why would you put it in the remarks and not just use the three
> letter ID allocated to Angel Flight(NGF)?

Uh, I wouldn't. That's why I was asking specifically about the use of the
Angel Flight call sign (which is obviously supposed to mean something to
ATC--they don't think it's a type of airplane, do they?).

--Gary

[Newps]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Gary Drescher wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, ok. Is 'priority' a technical term for ATC? In ordinary language,
>>>minimizing delays (to a greater extent than for ordinary flights) would
>>>be a form of priority (though perhaps not as high as the priority
>>>afforded to some other flights).
>>
>>Angel Flight means nothing to ATC, most controllers don't even know what
>>it is. And why would you put it in the remarks and not just use the three
>>letter ID allocated to Angel Flight(NGF)?
>
>
> Uh, I wouldn't. That's why I was asking specifically about the use of the
> Angel Flight call sign (which is obviously supposed to mean something to
> ATC--they don't think it's a type of airplane, do they?).
>

ATC would most likely ignore the remark Angel Flight. If you used the
three letter ID ATC would still ignore it other than having to look up
just what in the hell "NGF" stands for. There's a gazillion three
letter ID's that the FAA has authorized, some sound similar to angel
flight. ATC will see it as just another name.

[Gary Drescher]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> If you used the three letter ID ATC would still ignore it other than
> having to look up just what in the hell "NGF" stands for. There's a
> gazillion three letter ID's that the FAA has authorized, some sound
> similar to angel flight. ATC will see it as just another name.

We're told to say "Angel Flight 123", not "November Golf Foxtrot 123". Is
that not what ATC expects to hear?

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Then on what basis to you make the following statement?
>

Same basis as usual, simple logic.

FAA Order 7110.65 requires controllers to provide services on a "first come,
first served" basis, as circumstances permit, except for a few exceptions
where certain operators are given priority over others. Angel Flight is NOT
one of those exceptions. So if a controller gives a flight priority
handling based on an Angel Flight call sign he is acting contrary to FAA
Order
7110.65.


>
> And on that
> same basis, how do you answer my subsequent question relating to otherwise
> equal consideration?
>

If two otherwise equal aircraft are a dead ass tie, that is, same speed,
same time over a fix, similar distances to go to their destinations, no
other aircraft to be concerned about, etc., etc., etc., then at least one of
them must be turned or it's altitude changed to ensure separation. If
neither of them is afforded operational priority by FAAO 7110.65 the
decision of which to move is completely arbitrary. It could be decided by a
coin toss. If one of the aircraft in that situation is an Angel Flight, I'd
move the other one and leave the coin in my pocket.

That's not the same as affording an aircraft, such as a Lifeguard,
operational priority over other aircraft. We don't use the "first come,
first served" rule with a Lifeguard or other aircraft that are afforded
operational priority. For example, if another aircraft is naturally ahead
of a Lifeguard for an IAP but it's approach would delay the Lifeguard, the
other aircraft is moved and the Lifeguard goes first.

[Dave Butler]

Newps wrote:

> Angel Flight means nothing to ATC, most controllers don't even know what
> it is. And why would you put it in the remarks and not just use the
> three letter ID allocated to Angel Flight(NGF)?

Angel Flight Mid Atlantic instructs its pilots to use the Angel Flight call sign
and file a flight plan (N1701D becomes NGF01D and the call sign is "Angel Flight
Zero One Delta) and to put the actual registration number into the remarks as
follows:

N1701D ANGEL FLIGHT MID ATLANTIC

I don't have any idea what, if anything, it means to ATC. I do it.

I think I may have been given some consideration in choice of altitudes for
example, because of the AF call sign. Can't prove it, though.

Dave

[Jose]

Thanks Steven, that explains it to me.

Getting ahead in a dead ass tie is worth something, maybe worth
something in the remarks section. Are there many dead ass ties in your
sector?

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thanks Steven, that explains it to me.
>
> Getting ahead in a dead ass tie is worth something, maybe worth something
> in the remarks section.

Angel Flight is properly designated by filing and use of the Angel Flight
call sign.


>
> Are there many dead ass ties in your sector?
>

Hell no, there aren't that many airplanes in my sector.

[Marty Shapiro]

Dave Butler > wrote in news:1119016948.514089@sj-nntpcache-3:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> Angel Flight means nothing to ATC, most controllers don't even know
>> what it is. And why would you put it in the remarks and not just use
>> the three letter ID allocated to Angel Flight(NGF)?
>
> Angel Flight Mid Atlantic instructs its pilots to use the Angel Flight
> call sign and file a flight plan (N1701D becomes NGF01D and the call
> sign is "Angel Flight Zero One Delta) and to put the actual
> registration number into the remarks as follows:
>
> N1701D ANGEL FLIGHT MID ATLANTIC
>
> I don't have any idea what, if anything, it means to ATC. I do it.
>
> I think I may have been given some consideration in choice of
> altitudes for example, because of the AF call sign. Can't prove it,
> though.
>
> Dave
>

Many times I've received flight following with the Angel Flight call
sign while everyone else was being told "unable".

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Newps]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If you used the three letter ID ATC would still ignore it other than
>>having to look up just what in the hell "NGF" stands for. There's a
>>gazillion three letter ID's that the FAA has authorized, some sound
>>similar to angel flight. ATC will see it as just another name.
>
>
> We're told to say "Angel Flight 123", not "November Golf Foxtrot 123". Is
> that not what ATC expects to hear?

Yes.