IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?

[Mitty]

Departing cross country out of the Minneapolis area in severe clear, I will
usually ask for either flight following or will file. I depart from KMIC, which
is under the 4000 foot shelf of the MSP bravo airspace.

For example, Friday I am going from KMIC to KGPZ, which is a couple hundred
miles to the north.

I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:

Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel when I
have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)

Just advisories so you know who I am and what I am doing, but you don't have to
provide separation services?

Or do you not wish to hear at all? (Hopefully not, because I like being in the
system both for traffic info and in case of emergency.)

TIA

[Robert M. Gary]

In some areas of California, IFR is the only way to go because Flight
Following is not very reliable. When getting Flight Following you can
(and often do) get dropped with a simple (squawk VFR, services
terminated). I've had ATC try this twice with me while IFR, but I was
able to refuse because I was IFR. At the mid altitudes, about 60% of
the time L.A. center is not accepting flight following hand offs.

-Robert

[Peter R.]

Mitty > wrote:

> Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel when I
> have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)

I was told by some of the smaller ATC facilities (there are three TRSAs
just beyond of my class C airport) that they prefer I file IFR. The reason
they gave is that total IFR flights through their airspace are counted and
used when justifying the expense of keeping an ATC facility open.

FWIW.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[John Doe]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> Departing cross country out of the Minneapolis area in severe clear, I
> will usually ask for either flight following or will file. I depart from
> KMIC, which is under the 4000 foot shelf of the MSP bravo airspace.
>
> For example, Friday I am going from KMIC to KGPZ, which is a couple
> hundred miles to the north.
>
> I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:
>
> Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel when
> I have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)
>
> Just advisories so you know who I am and what I am doing, but you don't
> have to provide separation services?
>
> Or do you not wish to hear at all? (Hopefully not, because I like being
> in the system both for traffic info and in case of emergency.)
>
> TIA

I am not, nor do I ever wish to be associated with ATC, but I would imagine
that providing any service is more work for them that not. Considering I
constantly hear how "overworked" or "overloaded" they are, I would assume
that they would prefer you not ask for any more service than you actually
need given their apparent work load.

After all, it's not their ass flying around up there, no matter what
happens, they can walk out the door and go home at the end of the day.

That being said, I'm all for not bothering ATC unless I'm required to by FAA
regulations.

[Bob Gardner]

Not the best attitude, in my opinion. As others have noted, ATC expansion
and paychecks depend on traffic counts, so by not using them you hit them in
the pocketbook. And you deprive yourself of a safety net that you pay for
every April.

JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use flight following...but the
outcome of his flight might have been drastically different had he done so.

Bob Gardner
"John Doe" > wrote in message
news:uau7f.6486$vS1.2601@dukeread03...
>
> "Mitty" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Departing cross country out of the Minneapolis area in severe clear, I
>> will usually ask for either flight following or will file. I depart from
>> KMIC, which is under the 4000 foot shelf of the MSP bravo airspace.
>>
>> For example, Friday I am going from KMIC to KGPZ, which is a couple
>> hundred miles to the north.
>>
>> I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:
>>
>> Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel
>> when I have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)
>>
>> Just advisories so you know who I am and what I am doing, but you don't
>> have to provide separation services?
>>
>> Or do you not wish to hear at all? (Hopefully not, because I like being
>> in the system both for traffic info and in case of emergency.)
>>
>> TIA
>
> I am not, nor do I ever wish to be associated with ATC, but I would
> imagine that providing any service is more work for them that not.
> Considering I constantly hear how "overworked" or "overloaded" they are, I
> would assume that they would prefer you not ask for any more service than
> you actually need given their apparent work load.
>
> After all, it's not their ass flying around up there, no matter what
> happens, they can walk out the door and go home at the end of the day.
>
> That being said, I'm all for not bothering ATC unless I'm required to by
> FAA regulations.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>
> JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use flight following...but the
> outcome of his flight might have been drastically different had he done
> so.
>

How would have flight following made a difference? He didn't run into an
unseen airplane.

[Lynne]

Well, if there was an asshole like you controlling that evening, the
outcome would have been no different. You probably would have called
him "stupid"
and a "bad pilot" on the way down.

But, if the controller was a normal individual, not a know it all, he
perhaps could have made a suggestion. IE: Do you have an autopilot? Can
you turn it on? Etc.

Lynne

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> How would have flight following made a difference? He didn't run into an
> unseen airplane.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Lynne" > said:
>But, if the controller was a normal individual, not a know it all, he
>perhaps could have made a suggestion. IE: Do you have an autopilot? Can
>you turn it on? Etc.

By the time anybody but him would have realized he was in a death spiral,
it would have been too late.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Will debug C homework for lap dances.
-- Mike Looney

[Bob Gardner]

If nothing else, the protracted search for the wreckage would have been
shortened or eliminated. Others have made points I will not repear. Just
being in touch with ATC is a plus.

Bob Gardner

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use flight following...but the
>> outcome of his flight might have been drastically different had he done
>> so.
>>
>
> How would have flight following made a difference? He didn't run into an
> unseen airplane.
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>To clarify: I am asking the ATC guys a question. I am not interested in
>readings from the FAR/AIM, other pilots' personal practices, OT advice, or
>reading posts from people who are flaming each other. Thanks in advance.

Too bad. This is usenet - you don't always get what you want.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Not that I'm annoyed at this particular bit of recto-plasmic sputum which
has crawled up from the depths of product mis-management to haunt me. Not
at all. -- Simon Burr

[Mitty]

As of right now, 6 posts, none of which respond to the OP.

To clarify: I am asking the ATC guys a question. I am not interested in
readings from the FAR/AIM, other pilots' personal practices, OT advice, or
reading posts from people who are flaming each other. Thanks in advance.

On 10/25/2005 10:39 AM, Mitty wrote the following:
> Departing cross country out of the Minneapolis area in severe clear, I
> will usually ask for either flight following or will file. I depart from
> KMIC, which is under the 4000 foot shelf of the MSP bravo airspace.
>
> For example, Friday I am going from KMIC to KGPZ, which is a couple
> hundred miles to the north.
>
> I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:
>
> Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel
> when I have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)
>
> Just advisories so you know who I am and what I am doing, but you don't
> have to provide separation services?
>
> Or do you not wish to hear at all? (Hopefully not, because I like being
> in the system both for traffic info and in case of emergency.)
>
> TIA

[Joe Johnson]

Not a specific reply, but just compare Bob Gardner's cogent, reasoned posts
with Lynne's tirade. There's the best and worst of usenet in one short
thread...

[Dave Butler]

Mitty wrote:
> As of right now, 6 posts, none of which respond to the OP.

>> I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:

Why don't you call them up and ask them? The phone numbers are in the AFD... or
call your local friendly LOCKMART FSS and they can probably suggest some phone
numbers.

Prediction: you won't get anything more useful than what you've gotten here.

You really need to assess what services you need, not what services ATC wants to
provide... but I suppose you don't want to hear that.

Dave

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Not the best attitude, in my opinion. As others have noted, ATC expansion
> and paychecks depend on traffic counts, so by not using them you hit them in
> the pocketbook. And you deprive yourself of a safety net that you pay for
> every April.
>
> JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use flight following...but the
> outcome of his flight might have been drastically different had he done so.

How so? Could the controller fly his airplane remotely? :-)

Matt

[John Doe]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> As of right now, 6 posts, none of which respond to the OP.
>
> To clarify: I am asking the ATC guys a question. I am not interested in
> readings from the FAR/AIM, other pilots' personal practices, OT advice, or
> reading posts from people who are flaming each other. Thanks in advance.

Oh well excuse me Mr Picky.

I've got a grand idea for you then pal. How about you pick up the freak'n
phone and just call them instead of posting a shout to the world in a plea
for advice.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lynne" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Well, if there was an asshole like you controlling that evening, the
> outcome would have been no different. You probably would have called
> him "stupid"
> and a "bad pilot" on the way down.
>
> But, if the controller was a normal individual, not a know it all, he
> perhaps could have made a suggestion. IE: Do you have an autopilot? Can
> you turn it on? Etc.
>

You're an extraordinarily poor judge of character.

[Mitty]

Yes. About 14 posts so far and not a single one to answer the question. The
problem with the worst is not that it is obnoxious, it is that it drives off the
best.

On 10/25/2005 3:27 PM, Joe Johnson wrote the following:
> Not a specific reply, but just compare Bob Gardner's cogent, reasoned posts
> with Lynne's tirade. There's the best and worst of usenet in one short
> thread...
>
>

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

Perhaps calm him and ask if he activated the AP? It's amazing what
brain/sensory overload can do to rational thinking.
--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

ps: Folks: How about putting your 'include message source at the bottom of
your reply so we don't have to scroll thru it to get a the reply. TIA.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> Not the best attitude, in my opinion. As others have noted, ATC expansion
>> and paychecks depend on traffic counts, so by not using them you hit them
>> in the pocketbook. And you deprive yourself of a safety net that you pay
>> for every April.
>>
>> JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use flight following...but the
>> outcome of his flight might have been drastically different had he done
>> so.
>
> How so? Could the controller fly his airplane remotely? :-)
>
> Matt

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

No. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Folks we need t/b civil to each other. I was embarrassed recently when I
showed a friend how useful the info is on R.A.I. "Opps, never mind, he has
a problem w/ him." Oh, ya, They get a little off track sometimes." Well,
let me show the weather resources we have."

--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.
"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> As of right now, 6 posts, none of which respond to the OP.
>
> To clarify: I am asking the ATC guys a question. I am not interested in
> readings from the FAR/AIM, other pilots' personal practices, OT advice, or
> reading posts from people who are flaming each other. Thanks in advance.
>
> On 10/25/2005 10:39 AM, Mitty wrote the following:
>> Departing cross country out of the Minneapolis area in severe clear, I
>> will usually ask for either flight following or will file. I depart from
>> KMIC, which is under the 4000 foot shelf of the MSP bravo airspace.
>>
>> For example, Friday I am going from KMIC to KGPZ, which is a couple
>> hundred miles to the north.
>>
>> I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:
>>
>> Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel
>> when I have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)
>>
>> Just advisories so you know who I am and what I am doing, but you don't
>> have to provide separation services?
>>
>> Or do you not wish to hear at all? (Hopefully not, because I like being
>> in the system both for traffic info and in case of emergency.)
>>
>> TIA

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

Amen.

ON topic: I wonder if my wanting to fly VFR w/o FF (i.e. no use of
services) is an attempt at getting use to user fee world (coming in my
opinion) If I don't use it, I MAY not have to pay for it.

{|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.
CP-ASEL

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> Yes. About 14 posts so far and not a single one to answer the question.
> The problem with the worst is not that it is obnoxious, it is that it
> drives off the best.
>
> On 10/25/2005 3:27 PM, Joe Johnson wrote the following:
>> Not a specific reply, but just compare Bob Gardner's cogent, reasoned
>> posts
>> with Lynne's tirade. There's the best and worst of usenet in one short
>> thread...
>>

[Peter R.]

John Doe > wrote:

> "Mitty" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As of right now, 6 posts, none of which respond to the OP.
>>
>> To clarify: I am asking the ATC guys a question. I am not interested in
>> readings from the FAR/AIM, other pilots' personal practices, OT advice, or
>> reading posts from people who are flaming each other. Thanks in advance.
>
> Oh well excuse me Mr Picky.
>
> I've got a grand idea for you then pal. How about you pick up the freak'n
> phone and just call them instead of posting a shout to the world in a plea
> for advice.

Damn, my news server didn't have Mitty's original post.

Hey, Mitty: Up yours, chief. You post to a public newsgroup, you are
going to get all kinds of replies. You no likey? Then stay away from
Usenet.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." > wrote:

> ON topic: I wonder if my wanting to fly VFR w/o FF (i.e. no use of
> services) is an attempt at getting use to user fee world (coming in my
> opinion) If I don't use it, I MAY not have to pay for it.

Not sure how your post is any more on topic to this thread, Victor.

YOU didn't answer Mitty's question either and given the strict rules he is
attempting to apply to this thread, your experience doesn't qualify anyhow.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Bob Gardner]

From what little we "know" from news reports and supermarket tabloids, he
was disoriented. There have been a number of cases in which a controller has
talked pilots/nonpilot passengers into gaining/regaining control of an
airplane that is in trouble. Neither you nor I know what the controller for
the sector he was in at the fatal moment would or could have done had he
been talking to ATC, but we know for sure that he was in a situation that he
could not handle on his own.

Bob Gardner

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> Not the best attitude, in my opinion. As others have noted, ATC expansion
>> and paychecks depend on traffic counts, so by not using them you hit them
>> in the pocketbook. And you deprive yourself of a safety net that you pay
>> for every April.
>>
>> JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use flight following...but the
>> outcome of his flight might have been drastically different had he done
>> so.
>
> How so? Could the controller fly his airplane remotely? :-)
>
> Matt

[Bob Gardner]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> Not the best attitude, in my opinion. As others have noted, ATC expansion
>> and paychecks depend on traffic counts, so by not using them you hit them
>> in the pocketbook. And you deprive yourself of a safety net that you pay
>> for every April.
>>
>> JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use flight following...but the
>> outcome of his flight might have been drastically different had he done
>> so.
>
> How so? Could the controller fly his airplane remotely? :-)
>
> Matt

[Bob Gardner]

From what little we "know" from news reports and supermarket tabloids, he
was disoriented. There have been a number of cases in which a controller has
talked pilots/nonpilot passengers into gaining/regaining control of an
airplane that is in trouble. Neither you nor I know what the controller for
the sector he was in at the fatal moment would or could have done had he
been talking to ATC, but we know for sure that he was in a situation that he
could not handle on his own.

Bob Gardner


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> Not the best attitude, in my opinion. As others have noted, ATC expansion
>> and paychecks depend on traffic counts, so by not using them you hit them
>> in the pocketbook. And you deprive yourself of a safety net that you pay
>> for every April.
>>
>> JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use flight following...but the
>> outcome of his flight might have been drastically different had he done
>> so.
>
> How so? Could the controller fly his airplane remotely? :-)
>
> Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Victor J. Osborne, Jr. wrote:

> Perhaps calm him and ask if he activated the AP? It's amazing what
> brain/sensory overload can do to rational thinking.

Yes, it appears to cause you to top post rather than bottom post with
the rest of the civilized usenet. Civilized means prior to M$ and IE
exploder.


Matt

[Hilton]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> From what little we "know" from news reports and supermarket tabloids, he
> was disoriented.

NTSB: "The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a
descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.
Factors in the accident were haze, and the dark night "

Hilton

[Bob Gardner]

Tortuous reasoning. I may have to recline with a cold compress on my
forehead.

Bob Gardner

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." > wrote in message
...
> No. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
>
> Folks we need t/b civil to each other. I was embarrassed recently when I
> showed a friend how useful the info is on R.A.I. "Opps, never mind, he
> has a problem w/ him." Oh, ya, They get a little off track sometimes."
> Well, let me show the weather resources we have."
>
> --
>
> Thx, {|;-)
>
> Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.
> "Mitty" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As of right now, 6 posts, none of which respond to the OP.
>>
>> To clarify: I am asking the ATC guys a question. I am not interested in
>> readings from the FAR/AIM, other pilots' personal practices, OT advice,
>> or reading posts from people who are flaming each other. Thanks in
>> advance.
>>
>> On 10/25/2005 10:39 AM, Mitty wrote the following:
>>> Departing cross country out of the Minneapolis area in severe clear, I
>>> will usually ask for either flight following or will file. I depart from
>>> KMIC, which is under the 4000 foot shelf of the MSP bravo airspace.
>>>
>>> For example, Friday I am going from KMIC to KGPZ, which is a couple
>>> hundred miles to the north.
>>>
>>> I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:
>>>
>>> Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel
>>> when I have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)
>>>
>>> Just advisories so you know who I am and what I am doing, but you don't
>>> have to provide separation services?
>>>
>>> Or do you not wish to hear at all? (Hopefully not, because I like being
>>> in the system both for traffic info and in case of emergency.)
>>>
>>> TIA
>
>

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
t:

>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use flight following...but
>> the outcome of his flight might have been drastically different had
>> he done so.
>>
>
> How would have flight following made a difference? He didn't run into
> an unseen airplane.
>
>

The NTSB report refers to a descent into the water caused by spatial
disorientation.

A simple Altitude Alert from a controller could have reminded him to look
at his altimiter and VSI and realize that he was pointed into the water
instead of into the Horizon, potentially yeilding different results.

Even if he didn't look, but just pulled or powered up, it could have been a
life saver.

From what I hear on the radio, flight following is often a lot more than
just traffic alerts...

[paul kgyy]

I'm a pilot, not a controller, but around Chicago it's hard to get
flight following. So if in doubt I always file IFR. It's normal
flying into Chicago VFR that FF will be terminated at the point where
you need it most, around the edge of the Class B.

I don't think it matters what ATC prefers. You are the PIC. They are
there to provide service and it's up to you to decide on the level of
service you require for safe and efficient operation.

[Mark T. Dame]

John Doe wrote:
>
> That being said, I'm all for not bothering ATC unless I'm required to by FAA
> regulations.

I used to feel the same way until I got my instrument ticket. Once I
started flying IFR flight plans, I started to file for any trip over an
hour or so long, regardless of weather. I liked having the extra eyes
looking for traffic (not to mention not having to worry about
circumnavigating some large cloud event).

Now, even if I don't file, I still call up for flight following unless
the trip is really short or I'm just going up to practice stalls or T&Gs.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"A common occurrence during compile time is a syntax error."
-- C: The Complete Reference, Herbert Schildt

[Mitty]

On 10/27/2005 11:23 AM, Mark T. Dame wrote the following:
>
> I used to feel the same way until I got my instrument ticket. Once I
> started flying IFR flight plans, I started to file for any trip over an
> hour or so long, regardless of weather. I liked having the extra eyes
> looking for traffic (not to mention not having to worry about
> circumnavigating some large cloud event).
>
> Now, even if I don't file, I still call up for flight following unless
> the trip is really short or I'm just going up to practice stalls or T&Gs.
>

Yes. In our neck of the woods (ZMP) I have never been refused flight following
nor been dropped when I was handed off to the Minneapolis TRACON. I am just
curious what the controllers prefer as it does not matter a great deal to me in
most cases. Hence the question.

[[email protected]]

paul kgyy > wrote:
: I'm a pilot, not a controller, but around Chicago it's hard to get
: flight following. So if in doubt I always file IFR. It's normal
: flying into Chicago VFR that FF will be terminated at the point where
: you need it most, around the edge of the Class B.

: I don't think it matters what ATC prefers. You are the PIC. They are
: there to provide service and it's up to you to decide on the level of
: service you require for safe and efficient operation.

My (somewhat limited) experience flying around chicago (actually TRANSITIONING
through chicago is more accurate) is that IFR you'll take the long way around. VFR
they'll clear you "at or below Bravo." About 75% of the time I'll actually get FF
when I ask for it. About 10% of the time they'll tell me of traffic that I haven't
already seen. Given all the RF interference around downtown (lakeshore), and the
25% of the time I actually get properly terminated radar services, FF generally
seems like more trouble and workload than it's worth. Better to just concentrate on
looking for traffic.

-Cory

--

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

[Dave Butler]

wrote:

> My (somewhat limited) experience flying around chicago (actually TRANSITIONING
> through chicago is more accurate) is that IFR you'll take the long way around. VFR
> they'll clear you "at or below Bravo."

....or above Bravo. Lots of traffic up there, though.

FF above the Bravo is good, approach wants to be talking to you, and they can't
tell you to go away.

[[email protected]]

Dave Butler > wrote:
: > My (somewhat limited) experience flying around chicago (actually TRANSITIONING
: > through chicago is more accurate) is that IFR you'll take the long way around. VFR
: > they'll clear you "at or below Bravo."

: ...or above Bravo. Lots of traffic up there, though.

: FF above the Bravo is good, approach wants to be talking to you, and they can't
: tell you to go away.

Heh... I generally fuel up just shy of Chicago, and I'm only going as far as
Milwaukee. Definately not worth the climb in a Cherokee for a 70 minute flight.

-Cory

--

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

[John Doe]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> From what little we "know" from news reports and supermarket tabloids, he
>> was disoriented.
>
> NTSB: "The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a
> descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.
> Factors in the accident were haze, and the dark night "
>

Sounds alot like VFR pilot flying into IMC conditions.......

[Warren Jones]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> Departing cross country out of the Minneapolis area in severe clear, I
> will usually ask for either flight following or will file. I depart from
> KMIC, which is under the 4000 foot shelf of the MSP bravo airspace.
>
> For example, Friday I am going from KMIC to KGPZ, which is a couple
> hundred miles to the north.
>
> I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:
>
> Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel when
> I have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)
>
> Just advisories so you know who I am and what I am doing, but you don't
> have to provide separation services?
>
> Or do you not wish to hear at all? (Hopefully not, because I like being
> in the system both for traffic info and in case of emergency.)
>

I prefer the "just advisories" route myself if you don't need the IFR
protection. Personally, I can think of at least many many examples when
co-altitude traffic targets have literally merged or come within a mile of
merging on my ARTCC scope in the last few months. In almost every case, I
was talking to at least one of them. Half of them, I was talking to both.
Some were VFR to VFR merges, a couple have been IFR to VFR merges with
safety/traffic alerts. In about a third of these events, at least one guy
never saw the other guy. There have also been a couple where I've said to
my collegues "Hey yall, look at these two! Holy Marion, I wonder if they
see each other." It's easier on me the controller if I am talking to both,
or else neither.

Regardless of the anti-controller spew you get on RAI from time to time,
it's still your tax dollars at work. We know who we work for. I really
can't think of a good reason not to use the system you are paying for if you
are flying cross country. It's there for you, you pay for it, why not use
it while you can still afford it? We're about two years off from user fees
followed by wholesale contracting out in my opinion. It probably won't long
surive the "all business is good; government is bad" crowd once they get
done "modernizing" and "rightsizing" and making an "industry-based
competitive service" of your national airspace system. Personally, I'd use
the NAS safety net while it still exists in its present form. It's safer
for *everyone* that way.

Chip, ZTL

[Mitty]

On 10/27/2005 11:47 PM, Warren Jones wrote the following:
>
> I prefer the "just advisories" route myself if you don't need the IFR
> protection. Personally, I can think of at least many many examples when
> co-altitude traffic targets have literally merged or come within a mile of
> merging on my ARTCC scope in the last few months. In almost every case, I
> was talking to at least one of them. Half of them, I was talking to both.
> Some were VFR to VFR merges, a couple have been IFR to VFR merges with
> safety/traffic alerts. In about a third of these events, at least one guy
> never saw the other guy. There have also been a couple where I've said to
> my collegues "Hey yall, look at these two! Holy Marion, I wonder if they
> see each other." It's easier on me the controller if I am talking to both,
> or else neither.
>

Thanks. I was guessing that was the case. I'll go with advisories on my CAVU
flight to GPZ this afternoon! Maybe stay IFR on longer trips where I might be
denied advisories. I had that problem in Kansas City a couple of months ago.
KC TRACON turned me down midafternoon on a nice day. Hard to see they could
have been that busy.

> Regardless of the anti-controller spew you get on RAI from time to time,
> it's still your tax dollars at work. We know who we work for.

Yes, I have never understood the anti-controller stuff. Here in flyover land
(ZMP) the Center guys and the TRACON guys are uniformly pleasant and helpful.
Goofy routings sometimes, of course, but not too often. And often amended to
more direct by the controller without my even asking.

I really
> can't think of a good reason not to use the system you are paying for if you
> are flying cross country. It's there for you, you pay for it, why not use
> it while you can still afford it?

Agreed.

We're about two years off from user fees
> followed by wholesale contracting out in my opinion.

I hope you're wrong on that one.

Mitty

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
>
> Departing cross country out of the Minneapolis area in severe clear, I
> will usually ask for either flight following or will file. I depart from
> KMIC, which is under the 4000 foot shelf of the MSP bravo airspace.
>
> For example, Friday I am going from KMIC to KGPZ, which is a couple
> hundred miles to the north.
>
> I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:
>
> Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel when
> I have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)
>
> Just advisories so you know who I am and what I am doing, but you don't
> have to provide separation services?
>
> Or do you not wish to hear at all? (Hopefully not, because I like being
> in the system both for traffic info and in case of emergency.)
>

I'd hear controllers complain about having to work some guy and I'd tell
them, "You make it sound like you're a longshoreman or miner or construction
worker. You do a little talking, a little writing, and a little
button-pushing. Quit your bitchin' and do your job."

What does it matter what the controller prefers? To him it's still just a
little talking, a little writing, and a little button-pushing. If it's
flight following, the controller just has to advise you of other traffic,
and the other traffic of you if he happens to be talking to it. If you're
both IFR he may have to move one of you. But if he does, there's no
additional burden on him over providing flight following, it's still just a
little talking, a little writing, and a little button-pushing. His trip
isn't lengthened, he doesn't burn any more gas, there's no additional cost
to the controller.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The NTSB report refers to a descent into the water caused by spatial
> disorientation.
>
> A simple Altitude Alert from a controller could have reminded him to look
> at his altimiter and VSI and realize that he was pointed into the water
> instead of into the Horizon, potentially yeilding different results.
>

Would an altitude alert end his disorientation? Why would the controller
issue an altitude alert? He was operating VFR, he wasn't required to hold
any particular altitude.


>
> From what I hear on the radio, flight following is often a lot more than
> just traffic alerts...
>

Like what? What do you hear on the radio?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1130445527.239974@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> ...or above Bravo. Lots of traffic up there, though.
>
> FF above the Bravo is good, approach wants to be talking to you, and they
> can't tell you to go away.
>

Why does approach want to be talking to you above Bravo?

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> The NTSB report refers to a descent into the water caused by spatial
>> disorientation.
>>
>> A simple Altitude Alert from a controller could have reminded him to
>> look at his altimiter and VSI and realize that he was pointed into
>> the water instead of into the Horizon, potentially yeilding different
>> results.
>>
>
> Would an altitude alert end his disorientation? Why would the
> controller issue an altitude alert? He was operating VFR, he wasn't
> required to hold any particular altitude.

It might have. It largely depends on the exact nature of his disorientation
- which neither of us know for sure.

>> From what I hear on the radio, flight following is often a lot more
>> than just traffic alerts...
>>
>
> Like what? What do you hear on the radio?

Everything from weather and turbulence reports to personal greetings and
brief personal conversations - even sports score announcements! Many
controllers seem friendly and are happy to assist pilots in any way they
can.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> It might have. It largely depends on the exact nature of his
> disorientation
> - which neither of us know for sure.
>

Why would the controller issue the altitude alert?


>
> Everything from weather and turbulence reports to personal greetings and
> brief personal conversations - even sports score announcements! Many
> controllers seem friendly and are happy to assist pilots in any way they
> can.
>

But that's unrelated to flight following, that comes from just being on the
frequency.

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> nk.net:
>
>
>>"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>The NTSB report refers to a descent into the water caused by spatial
>>>disorientation.
>>>
>>>A simple Altitude Alert from a controller could have reminded him to
>>>look at his altimiter and VSI and realize that he was pointed into
>>>the water instead of into the Horizon, potentially yeilding different
>>>results.
>>>
>>
>>Would an altitude alert end his disorientation? Why would the
>>controller issue an altitude alert? He was operating VFR, he wasn't
>>required to hold any particular altitude.
>
>
> It might have. It largely depends on the exact nature of his disorientation
> - which neither of us know for sure.
>
>
>>>From what I hear on the radio, flight following is often a lot more
>>>than just traffic alerts...
>>>
>>
>>Like what? What do you hear on the radio?
>
>
> Everything from weather and turbulence reports to personal greetings and
> brief personal conversations - even sports score announcements! Many
> controllers seem friendly and are happy to assist pilots in any way they
> can.

I think Steven's point though is that they can't fly the airplane for
the pilot, which was essentially the original suggestion.

Matt

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> It might have. It largely depends on the exact nature of his
>> disorientation
>> - which neither of us know for sure.
>>
>
> Why would the controller issue the altitude alert?

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I believe a controller will
issue an alert if a pilot is descending faster than 1700 fpm. I also
suspect that in the Boston area, a pilot might be instructed to advise
prior to altitude changes, creating a query if he had not. I agree that
an official Altitude Alert such as those you might get for being 200'
below an assigned altitude on an IFR route would not apply here. But I
have been asked to confirm airport in sight when descending VFR with
flight following and even this could have woken JFK Jr. up...

It might not have made a difference. Or it might have.

>> Everything from weather and turbulence reports to personal greetings
>> and brief personal conversations - even sports score announcements!
>> Many controllers seem friendly and are happy to assist pilots in any
>> way they can.
>>
>
> But that's unrelated to flight following, that comes from just being
> on the frequency.

I'm not sure I get your point here. Do most pilots follow frequencies
as they traverse sectors so that they can listen for other people's
pireps and traffic alerts? I always found it easier to just ask for
advisories.

[Newps]

Judah wrote:

>
>
> I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I believe a controller will
> issue an alert if a pilot is descending faster than 1700 fpm.

Not while you are VFR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I believe a controller will
> issue an alert if a pilot is descending faster than 1700 fpm.
>

Rate of descent has nothing to do with it. The controller is required to
issue an alert if he is aware the aircraft is at an altitude which, in the
controller's judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain or
obstructions. Since Kennedy was over water it seems unlikely terrain or
obstructions were a factor.


>
> I also suspect that in the Boston area, a pilot might be instructed to
> advise
> prior to altitude changes, creating a query if he had not. I agree that
> an official Altitude Alert such as those you might get for being 200'
> below an assigned altitude on an IFR route would not apply here. But I
> have been asked to confirm airport in sight when descending VFR with
> flight following and even this could have woken JFK Jr. up...
>

And if he'd been asleep a wakeup call may have saved him, but I don't think
a low altitude alert would have relieved him of vertigo.


>
> I'm not sure I get your point here. Do most pilots follow frequencies
> as they traverse sectors so that they can listen for other people's
> pireps and traffic alerts? I always found it easier to just ask for
> advisories.
>

The point is those things are unrelated to flight following.

[Robert Chambers]

JFK JR stacked the deck against himself in so many aspects that he
pretty much doomed himself and his pax before they broke ground.

The what/if scenario's are plentiful

What if:

He delayed his departure for the next morning?
He offered some poor starving CFI to go with him for a price?
He put the wing leveler back on his a/p when he started his descent?
He followed the coastline and flew to HYA and waited for the morning?
He followed the coastline to HYA and took a ferry?
He hadn't just had a cast off, was tired? was perhaps taking painkillers?
How many martini's did he have at lunch?

Accidents are chains of bad judgements, usually no one link in the chain
is going to cause it but when you get so many mistakes and bad judgement
in the chain then you pretty much leave yourself no options.

It was a shame, I don't think he was a bad guy, and if I had $100 for
every time someone asked me as a pilot "what happened with JFK Jr?" I
could have had my commercial ticket now and paid for.

Robert


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I believe a controller will
>>issue an alert if a pilot is descending faster than 1700 fpm.
>>
>
>
> Rate of descent has nothing to do with it. The controller is required to
> issue an alert if he is aware the aircraft is at an altitude which, in the
> controller's judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain or
> obstructions. Since Kennedy was over water it seems unlikely terrain or
> obstructions were a factor.
>
>
>
>>I also suspect that in the Boston area, a pilot might be instructed to
>>advise
>>prior to altitude changes, creating a query if he had not. I agree that
>>an official Altitude Alert such as those you might get for being 200'
>>below an assigned altitude on an IFR route would not apply here. But I
>>have been asked to confirm airport in sight when descending VFR with
>>flight following and even this could have woken JFK Jr. up...
>>
>
>
> And if he'd been asleep a wakeup call may have saved him, but I don't think
> a low altitude alert would have relieved him of vertigo.
>
>
>
>>I'm not sure I get your point here. Do most pilots follow frequencies
>>as they traverse sectors so that they can listen for other people's
>>pireps and traffic alerts? I always found it easier to just ask for
>>advisories.
>>
>
>
> The point is those things are unrelated to flight following.
>
>

[Jose]

> He delayed his departure for the next morning?
> He offered some poor starving CFI to go with him for a price?
> He put the wing leveler back on his a/p when he started his descent?
> He followed the coastline and flew to HYA and waited for the morning?
> He followed the coastline to HYA and took a ferry?
> He hadn't just had a cast off, was tired? was perhaps taking painkillers?
> How many martini's did he have at lunch?

It would have adversely impacted his ego.

Ego gets people killed.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

Newps > wrote in news:j7-dnWQG7ogqsPneRVn-
:

>
>
> Judah wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I believe a controller will
>> issue an alert if a pilot is descending faster than 1700 fpm.
>
> Not while you are VFR.

Hmmm. I remember a specific instance during my VFR training that an
instructor warned me to be careful about coming down too fast because it
would cause an alerts with ATC... For some reason, since I know you to be a
controller, I have more faith in your response. :)

That's what I love about this business... There are so many people who
claim to be experts who take information about a situation, generalize it,
and turn it into definitive truth for all situations.

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up.

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

> The point is those things are unrelated to flight following.

The original point was that had he had flight following, he might have
survived. You are assuming that the OP meant that a controller would have
alerted him. I interpret it that had he been listening to the frequency, he
might have been more aware of his surroundings and situation and taken
appropriate action.

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

> And if he'd been asleep a wakeup call may have saved him, but I don't
> think a low altitude alert would have relieved him of vertigo.

BTW: How do yo know he had vertigo? Prove it.

[Jose]

> I remember a specific instance during my VFR training that an
> instructor warned me to be careful about coming down too fast because it
> would cause an alerts with ATC...

Class B?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> I think Steven's point though is that they can't fly the airplane for
> the pilot, which was essentially the original suggestion.

While I agree with the point that you are making here on Steve's behalf, I
don't think the original suggestion was that ATC can fly the plane for the
pilot, nor that your point is indeed Steve's.

Bob's original comment was, "JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use
flight following...but the outcome of his flight might have been
drastically different had he done so."

Steve then asked, "How would have flight following made a difference? He
didn't run into an unseen airplane." The implication being that the only
benefit of flight following is traffic alerts. When I brought up very
specific examples of benefits that one can get while getting flight
following, he dismissed it as unrelated to the flight following and
suggests that simply listening on the frequency is all that is necessary.

The original point - a suggestion that one can improve his/her safety by
using flight following - is completely lost in Steve's trial-lawyer
tactics. The fact remains, however, that even Steve concedes that simply
listening to the proper frequency can improve situational awareness, and as
such the original point is actually supported by Steve's own arguments.

I'm just trying to have a friendly conversation. If I wanted my words to be
picked apart like the Talmud, I would have become a lawyer or a Rabbi. :)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> The original point was that had he had flight following, he might have
> survived. You are assuming that the OP meant that a controller would have
> alerted him. I interpret it that had he been listening to the frequency,
> he
> might have been more aware of his surroundings and situation and taken
> appropriate action.
>

So flight following can prevent spatial disorientation?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> BTW: How do yo know he had vertigo? Prove it.
>

There is no proof, that was the conclusion of the NTSB.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Class B?
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Class B?
>

A rapid descent at low altitude can generate an MSAW alarm but VFR aircraft
are generally assigned a code from a block that is MSAW inhibited.

[Jose]

Steven Mc Nicoll quoted me...

> "Jose" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>>
>>> Class B?
>>>
>>> Jose
>>> --
>>> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
>>> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

But =your= comment did not make it through the system.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Butler]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> news:1130445527.239974@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
>>...or above Bravo. Lots of traffic up there, though.
>>
>>FF above the Bravo is good, approach wants to be talking to you, and they
>>can't tell you to go away.
>>
>
>
> Why does approach want to be talking to you above Bravo?

My remark was based on personal experience. They didn't explicitly say "we want
to talk to you", but I inferred that from the tone of the conversation. Maybe it
was Center and not Approach, I'm not sure any more. Who owns the airspace above
the Chicago bravo?

Anyway, guessing at their motivation, I thought it was because there was a lot
of aluminum up there and they'd rather be talking to my moving speed bump and
know my intentions rather than guessing.

What's your opinion?

Dave

[Newps]

Judah wrote:
> Newps > wrote in news:j7-dnWQG7ogqsPneRVn-
> :
>
>
>>
>>Judah wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I believe a controller will
>>>issue an alert if a pilot is descending faster than 1700 fpm.
>>
>>Not while you are VFR.
>
>
> Hmmm. I remember a specific instance during my VFR training that an
> instructor warned me to be careful about coming down too fast because it
> would cause an alerts with ATC... For some reason, since I know you to be a
> controller, I have more faith in your response. :)

When you are VFR the computer will not give low altitude alerts.

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
>
>>The point is those things are unrelated to flight following.
>
>
> The original point was that had he had flight following, he might have
> survived. You are assuming that the OP meant that a controller would have
> alerted him. I interpret it that had he been listening to the frequency, he
> might have been more aware of his surroundings and situation and taken
> appropriate action.

I don't think this is true at all. If anything, listening to the
frequency would have detracted from his concentration on flying the
airplane, a task that in retrospect he wasn't capable of performing in
the prevailing conditions. I don't think adding to his mental workload
would have contributed to better flying.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>I think Steven's point though is that they can't fly the airplane for
>>the pilot, which was essentially the original suggestion.
>
>
> While I agree with the point that you are making here on Steve's behalf, I
> don't think the original suggestion was that ATC can fly the plane for the
> pilot, nor that your point is indeed Steve's.
>
> Bob's original comment was, "JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use
> flight following...but the outcome of his flight might have been
> drastically different had he done so."

He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the outcome
be different would have required someone else to be flying the airplane.
Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my point.


> Steve then asked, "How would have flight following made a difference? He
> didn't run into an unseen airplane." The implication being that the only
> benefit of flight following is traffic alerts. When I brought up very
> specific examples of benefits that one can get while getting flight
> following, he dismissed it as unrelated to the flight following and
> suggests that simply listening on the frequency is all that is necessary.

I'll let Steven answer for himself on this one. :-)


> The original point - a suggestion that one can improve his/her safety by
> using flight following - is completely lost in Steve's trial-lawyer
> tactics. The fact remains, however, that even Steve concedes that simply
> listening to the proper frequency can improve situational awareness, and as
> such the original point is actually supported by Steve's own arguments.

I disagree. The original point that flight following would have changed
the outcome in this case is completely fallacious. Steven has his own
unique way of pointing that out, but his point is correct whether you
agree with his tactic or not.


> I'm just trying to have a friendly conversation. If I wanted my words to be
> picked apart like the Talmud, I would have become a lawyer or a Rabbi. :)

If you didn't want your words to be picked apart, you shouldn't have
posted in a newsgroup. :-)

Matt

[Judah]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

<snip>
> He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
> flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the
> outcome be different would have required someone else to be flying the
> airplane.
> Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my
> point.

I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact, all
reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a controlled
flight directly into the water. If that's the case, either he was suicidal
or he was disoriented.

<snip>

>> The original point - a suggestion that one can improve his/her safety
>> by using flight following - is completely lost in Steve's
>> trial-lawyer tactics. The fact remains, however, that even Steve
>> concedes that simply listening to the proper frequency can improve
>> situational awareness, and as such the original point is actually
>> supported by Steve's own arguments.
>
> I disagree. The original point that flight following would have
> changed the outcome in this case is completely fallacious. Steven has
> his own unique way of pointing that out, but his point is correct
> whether you agree with his tactic or not.

Actually, there is no evidence whether his point is correct or not,
regardless of whether you agree with it or whether I disagree with it.
Your agreement is no more evidenciary than my disagreement...

>> I'm just trying to have a friendly conversation. If I wanted my
>> words
>> to be picked apart like the Talmud, I would have become a lawyer or
>> >> a Rabbi. :)
>
> If you didn't want your words to be picked apart, you shouldn't have
> posted in a newsgroup. :-)
>

Oy Vey! Why didn't I see that one coming? :)

[Peter R.]

Judah > wrote:

> I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact, all
> reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a controlled
> flight directly into the water. If that's the case, either he was suicidal
> or he was disoriented.

The NTSB report reads in part:

"The airplane's rate of descent eventually exceeded 4,700 fpm"

I wouldn't call that maintaining "controlled flight."

source:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&key=1


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Judah]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Judah wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>> ink.net:
>>
>>
>>>The point is those things are unrelated to flight following.
>>
>>
>> The original point was that had he had flight following, he might
>> have survived. You are assuming that the OP meant that a controller
>> would have alerted him. I interpret it that had he been listening to
>> the frequency, he might have been more aware of his surroundings and
>> situation and taken appropriate action.
>
> I don't think this is true at all. If anything, listening to the
> frequency would have detracted from his concentration on flying the
> airplane, a task that in retrospect he wasn't capable of performing
in
> the prevailing conditions. I don't think adding to his mental
> workload would have contributed to better flying.
>
>
> Matt
>

Perhaps if he were listening to the frequency, he would have been given
the correct altimeter setting in a handoff and realized that he was
about to descend into the water.

Or perhaps the controller could have advised him that the weather at
the
airport was below Night VFR minimums and he would have diverted safely
to another airport that was safe.

Or perhaps his wife sitting next to him would have stopped bitching at
him for being late for their wedding plans long enough to let him
listen
to the frequency and fly the plane.

Or perhaps talk on the frequency would have woken him up from his
"zoning out" because he was tired and on medication.

Or perhaps he was suicidal and the whole thing would was done on
purpose.

Who knows what the conditions were or what situations might have
improved it. Your guess is as good as mine. But that's kinda the point,
isn't it...

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> The original point was that had he had flight following, he might
>> have survived. You are assuming that the OP meant that a controller
>> would have alerted him. I interpret it that had he been listening to
>> the frequency, he
>> might have been more aware of his surroundings and situation and
>> taken appropriate action.
>>
>
> So flight following can prevent spatial disorientation?
>
>

No, but it can prevent you from having your altimeter set incorrectly so
that you fly into the water when you think you are 500' above it...

[Robert Chambers]

He was only 500' above the water for 7 seconds. There was nothing
controlled about the descent or the flight once he got into a death spiral.

Judah wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
>
>>"Judah" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>>>The original point was that had he had flight following, he might
>>>have survived. You are assuming that the OP meant that a controller
>>>would have alerted him. I interpret it that had he been listening to
>>>the frequency, he
>>>might have been more aware of his surroundings and situation and
>>>taken appropriate action.
>>>
>>
>>So flight following can prevent spatial disorientation?
>>
>>
>
>
> No, but it can prevent you from having your altimeter set incorrectly so
> that you fly into the water when you think you are 500' above it...

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
> <snip>
>
>>He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
>>flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the
>>outcome be different would have required someone else to be flying the
>>airplane.
>> Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my
>> point.
>
>
> I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact, all
> reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a controlled
> flight directly into the water. If that's the case, either he was suicidal
> or he was disoriented.

That is an interesting definition of "control" that you are using. If
the goal was to fly straight and level and you instead flew into the
water, then that is loss of control in my book. Anytime you aren't
making the airplane do what it should be doing, you are not in control.

Matt

[Judah]

"Peter R." > wrote in
:

> Judah > wrote:
>
>> I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact,
>> all reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a
>> controlled flight directly into the water. If that's the case,
either
>> he was suicidal or he was disoriented.
>
> The NTSB report reads in part:
>
> "The airplane's rate of descent eventually exceeded 4,700 fpm"
>
> I wouldn't call that maintaining "controlled flight."
>
> source:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&key=1
>
>

He was absolutely controlling the aircraft. The controls did not fail,
nor did he release the controls - if anything, creating a 4,700 fpm
descent requires either significant pressure or considerable trim
adjustment.

He nosed the plane down directly into the water.

He thought he was maintaining level flight. He ignored his training and
his instruments in an effort to make his seat feel right. While it's
not clear exactly what his mental state was at the time of the
accident, it is perfectly plausable to believe that his mental state
might have been improved if he were in communication with an ATC
facility, FSS or other aviation-related entity that would have brought
his attention back to his piloting instead of on whatever else his mind
was on.

[Judah]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Judah wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
>>>flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the
>>>outcome be different would have required someone else to be flying
>>>the airplane.
>>> Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my
>>> point.
>>
>>
>> I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact,
>> all reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a
>> controlled flight directly into the water. If that's the case,
either
>> he was suicidal or he was disoriented.
>
> That is an interesting definition of "control" that you are using.
If
> the goal was to fly straight and level and you instead flew into the
> water, then that is loss of control in my book. Anytime you aren't
> making the airplane do what it should be doing, you are not in
> control.
>
> Matt

The controls functioned properly. They performed as the pilot
controlled them. The fact that the pilot was controlling them in a
manner that was inconsistent with what you perceive to be his goals
does not imply that he did not have control of the aircraft.

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Judah wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Whiting > wrote in
:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
>>>>flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the
>>>>outcome be different would have required someone else to be flying
>>>>the airplane.
>>>> Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my
>>>> point.
>>>
>>>
>>>I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact,
>>>all reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a
>>>controlled flight directly into the water. If that's the case,
>
> either
>
>>>he was suicidal or he was disoriented.
>>
>>That is an interesting definition of "control" that you are using.
>
> If
>
>>the goal was to fly straight and level and you instead flew into the
>>water, then that is loss of control in my book. Anytime you aren't
>>making the airplane do what it should be doing, you are not in
>>control.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> The controls functioned properly. They performed as the pilot
> controlled them. The fact that the pilot was controlling them in a
> manner that was inconsistent with what you perceive to be his goals
> does not imply that he did not have control of the aircraft.

This is the most bizarre definition of being in control that I've ever
heard of. If someone wets their pants and didn't intend to, you say
they lost control of their bladder. The fact that their bladder did
just what it is supposed to do when the "valve" muscle relaxes is
completely irrelevant.

I never said that the controls didn't function correctly. That would be
a control system failure. The fact is that the pilot didn't have
control of his airplane. Having your hands on the controls and
manipulating the controls doesn't mean you are in control. A student
making his first landing attempt in an airplane is handling the controls
and the airplane is doing just what the student tells it to do, but,
except in very rare instances, no first time landing by a student is in
control to any great extent.


Matt

[Jose]

> The controls functioned properly. They performed as the pilot
> controlled them.

The same can be said of a car that is skidding off the side of the road.
The steering wheel didn't fail, and the wheels are still obeying the
laws of physics.

But the car =is= out of control.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter R.]

Judah > wrote:

> He was absolutely controlling the aircraft. The controls did not fail,
> nor did he release the controls - if anything, creating a 4,700 fpm
> descent requires either significant pressure or considerable trim
> adjustment.

Sorry, I disagree.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Roger]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:26:29 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>"Peter R." > wrote in
:
>
>> Judah > wrote:
>>
>>> I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact,
>>> all reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a
>>> controlled flight directly into the water. If that's the case,
>either
>>> he was suicidal or he was disoriented.
>>
>> The NTSB report reads in part:
>>
>> "The airplane's rate of descent eventually exceeded 4,700 fpm"
>>
>> I wouldn't call that maintaining "controlled flight."
>>
>> source:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&key=1
>>
>>
>
>He was absolutely controlling the aircraft. The controls did not fail,
>nor did he release the controls - if anything, creating a 4,700 fpm
>descent requires either significant pressure or considerable trim
>adjustment.
>
>He nosed the plane down directly into the water.

Doubtful. More likely he was in a "grave yard spiral". Here it's
semantics. Yah, he sorta, was kinda, in control, but really wasn't as
exceeding Vne is considered out of control if you don't bring it back.

Considering the aircraft he was probably beyond the point of being
able to bring it back to level flight without doing severe structural
damage.

>
>He thought he was maintaining level flight. He ignored his training and
>his instruments in an effort to make his seat feel right. While it's
>not clear exactly what his mental state was at the time of the
>accident, it is perfectly plausable to believe that his mental state
>might have been improved if he were in communication with an ATC
>facility, FSS or other aviation-related entity that would have brought
>his attention back to his piloting instead of on whatever else his mind
>was on.

Look at the time from the start of the deviation until impact. It's
typical of some one turning off an autopilot, looking out the window
to find the ground looking back to discover they've started a spiral,
correcting, doing the same thing again in the other direction, and not
being able to ignore what their body was telling them and believe the
instruments. He had nearly 100 hours hood time. With that many hours
it's something he should have recognized immediately.

It's highly unlikely any controller would have recognized what was
happening until he was in the spiral and by then it was probably too
late. Had he been IFR it would have set off the alarms with the first
100 foot deviation.

However other than we can be fairly certain he took the grave yard
spiral to the water, any thing beyond that is pure and useless
speculation.

When you get into a situation like that only the pilot can save
himself and passengers. When in way over his head the pooch has
already been screwed.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> While I agree with the point that you are making here on Steve's behalf, I
> don't think the original suggestion was that ATC can fly the plane for the
> pilot, nor that your point is indeed Steve's.
>
> Bob's original comment was, "JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to
> use flight following...but the outcome of his flight might have been
> drastically different had he done so."
>
> Steve then asked, "How would have flight following made a difference? He
> didn't run into an unseen airplane." The implication being that the only
> benefit of flight following is traffic alerts. When I brought up very
> specific examples of benefits that one can get while getting flight
> following, he dismissed it as unrelated to the flight following and
> suggests that simply listening on the frequency is all that is necessary.
>

Please explain how a weather or turbulence report or personal greetings or a
brief personal conversation or even a sports score announcement may have
saved JFK Jr.


>
> The original point - a suggestion that one can improve his/her safety by
> using flight following - is completely lost in Steve's trial-lawyer
> tactics. The fact remains, however, that even Steve concedes that simply
> listening to the proper frequency can improve situational awareness, and
> as such the original point is actually supported by Steve's own arguments.
>

Steve didn't concede that simply listening to the proper frequency can
improve situational awareness, Steve said that everything from weather and
turbulence reports to personal greetings and brief personal conversations or
even sports score announcements can be had by just being on the frequency.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1130780252.792010@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> My remark was based on personal experience. They didn't explicitly say "we
> want to talk to you", but I inferred that from the tone of the
> conversation. Maybe it was Center and not Approach, I'm not sure any more.
> Who owns the airspace above the Chicago bravo?
>

Chicago approach owns up to 13,000, Chicago center owns the airspace above
that.


>
> Anyway, guessing at their motivation, I thought it was because there was a
> lot of aluminum up there and they'd rather be talking to my moving speed
> bump and know my intentions rather than guessing.
>
> What's your opinion?
>

If they're talking to you they have to issue you as traffic to all other
conflicting traffic as well as advise you of that conflicting traffic. If
they're not talking to you they just have to advise the other traffic of
you. Not talking to you lessens the workload.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact, all
> reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a controlled
> flight directly into the water. If that's the case, either he was suicidal
> or he was disoriented.
>

The NTSB report cites "failure to maintain control of the airplane during a
descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation"
as the probable cause of this accident. Every account I've seen agreed with
that, what are these conflicting reports you refer to?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Perhaps if he were listening to the frequency, he would have been given
> the correct altimeter setting in a handoff and realized that he was
> about to descend into the water.
>

On what basis do you assume he had the wrong altimeter setting?


>
> Or perhaps the controller could have advised him that the weather at
> the airport was below Night VFR minimums and he would have diverted safely
> to another airport that was safe.
>

The weather was well above VFR minimums.


>
> Or perhaps his wife sitting next to him would have stopped bitching at
> him for being late for their wedding plans long enough to let him
> listen to the frequency and fly the plane.
>
> Or perhaps talk on the frequency would have woken him up from his
> "zoning out" because he was tired and on medication.
>

Why would the chatter on the frequency wake him if his wife's bitching could
not?


>
> Or perhaps he was suicidal and the whole thing would was done on
> purpose.
>

Do you have the evidence that he was suicidal?


>
> Who knows what the conditions were or what situations might have
> improved it. Your guess is as good as mine. But that's kinda the point,
> isn't it...
>

Actually, your guesses aren't very good at all. While other's guesses are
based on logic and probability yours are based on your own whims.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> No, but it can prevent you from having your altimeter set incorrectly so
> that you fly into the water when you think you are 500' above it...
>

So can listening to an ATIS or ASOS/AWOS broadcast. Flight following would
not have prevented this accident.

Are you saying that JFK Jr's altimeter was improperly set? If so, what is
your evidence?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> He was absolutely controlling the aircraft. The controls did not fail,
> nor did he release the controls - if anything, creating a 4,700 fpm
> descent requires either significant pressure or considerable trim
> adjustment.
>
> He nosed the plane down directly into the water.
>

You're saying it was a murder-suicide? What is your evidence of that?


>
> He thought he was maintaining level flight. He ignored his training and
> his instruments in an effort to make his seat feel right. While it's
> not clear exactly what his mental state was at the time of the
> accident, it is perfectly plausable to believe that his mental state
> might have been improved if he were in communication with an ATC
> facility, FSS or other aviation-related entity that would have brought
> his attention back to his piloting instead of on whatever else his mind
> was on.
>

Now you're saying he was out of control. Make up your mind.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The controls functioned properly. They performed as the pilot
> controlled them. The fact that the pilot was controlling them in a
> manner that was inconsistent with what you perceive to be his goals
> does not imply that he did not have control of the aircraft.
>

If you believe he was in controlled flight at the time he hit the water you
also have to believe this was not an accident but a murder-suicide instead.
What is your evidence of that?

[Jose]

> On what basis do you assume he had the wrong altimeter setting?

Giving an altimeter setting is sometimes a way to tactfully say "check
your altitude". It does not imply that the pilot actually has the wrong
setting. There is plausible deniability.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Giving an altimeter setting is sometimes a way to tactfully say "check
> your altitude".

Yes, if ATC observes the pilot at the wrong altitude. But he wasn't
receiving any ATC services.


>
> It does not imply that the pilot actually has the wrong setting. There is
> plausible deniability.
>

Judah assumed he was at the wrong altitude.

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> No, but it can prevent you from having your altimeter set incorrectly
>> so that you fly into the water when you think you are 500' above
>> it...
>>
>
> So can listening to an ATIS or ASOS/AWOS broadcast. Flight following
> would not have prevented this accident.
>
> Are you saying that JFK Jr's altimeter was improperly set? If so,
> what is your evidence?

No. I am saying is none of us know for certain what happened that night.
There are many theories, but incomplete evidence. There is no way to
definitively prove the root cause of the accident. Your theory of him
getting into a graveyard spiral, while popular and seemingly plausible,
also has holes. As was described earlier in this thread - he had over 100
hours of hood time, and should have been capable of recognizing that
something was wrong and turning on his autopilot...

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in news:H1Baf.9040$Lv.1764
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

>> The controls functioned properly. They performed as the pilot
>> controlled them.
>
> The same can be said of a car that is skidding off the side of the road.
> The steering wheel didn't fail, and the wheels are still obeying the
> laws of physics.
>
> But the car =is= out of control.
>
> Jose

That's not accurate. If the car is not travelling in the direction is
pointing it it is out of control. There is no evidence that the plane was
flying in a direction other than which it was pointed.

A better analogy would be a driver who drove his car into a guardrail
because he was "hypnotized" by the lights from the oncoming traffic. The
car did not lose control, the driver simply did not drive safely.

A plane being out of control implies a problem with the plane. A pilot
flying incorrectly implies a problem with the pilot. I believe the JFK Jr.
case is a case of the latter, not the former.

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> The controls functioned properly. They performed as the pilot
>> controlled them. The fact that the pilot was controlling them in a
>> manner that was inconsistent with what you perceive to be his goals
>> does not imply that he did not have control of the aircraft.
>>
>
> If you believe he was in controlled flight at the time he hit the
> water you also have to believe this was not an accident but a
> murder-suicide instead. What is your evidence of that?
>
>

Pilot error <> Loss of aircraft control.

[Judah]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:JvAaf.2391$lb.178682
@news1.epix.net:

> Judah wrote:
>
> This is the most bizarre definition of being in control that I've ever
> heard of. If someone wets their pants and didn't intend to, you say
> they lost control of their bladder. The fact that their bladder did
> just what it is supposed to do when the "valve" muscle relaxes is
> completely irrelevant.
>
> I never said that the controls didn't function correctly. That would be
> a control system failure. The fact is that the pilot didn't have
> control of his airplane. Having your hands on the controls and
> manipulating the controls doesn't mean you are in control. A student
> making his first landing attempt in an airplane is handling the controls
> and the airplane is doing just what the student tells it to do, but,
> except in very rare instances, no first time landing by a student is in
> control to any great extent.
>
>
> Matt

Your comments are self-contradictory. Either the student is in control of
the airplane or he isn't. There is no "great extent". If the plane is in a
stall or spiral, and flying in a different direction than it is being
pointed, then certainly the plane is out of control. If the control
surfaces are not functioning properly, then certainly the plane is out of
control. But if a first time student is piloting a plane, and the plane
performs the actions that the pilot directs it, the plane is in control. If
the pilot is inexperienced, and as a result cannot properly hold a heading
or altitude, it doesn't mean the plane is out of control, it just means
that the pilot is a poor pilot.

[Peter R.]

Judah > wrote:

> As was described earlier in this thread - he had over 100
> hours of hood time, and should have been capable of recognizing that
> something was wrong and turning on his autopilot...

Where are you getting this "100 hours of hood time" fact? The NTSB
accident reports estimates that JFK only had 310 hours. Additionally, the
NTSB report mentions that he has 13.3 hours of time with a CFII during his
instrument training and 16.9 hours of simulator time.

Your "over 100 hours of hood time" is not at all believable, much less
supported by the facts reported in the accident report.

Here, it appears to me that the facts of the accident report may not be as
fresh on your mind as they once were:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&key=1

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> No. I am saying is none of us know for certain what happened that night.
> There are many theories, but incomplete evidence. There is no way to
> definitively prove the root cause of the accident. Your theory of him
> getting into a graveyard spiral, while popular and seemingly plausible,
> also has holes.
>

I posited no such theory.


>
> As was described earlier in this thread - he had over 100
> hours of hood time, and should have been capable of recognizing that
> something was wrong and turning on his autopilot...
>

A loss of control due to spatial disorientation best fits the evidence.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> A plane being out of control implies a problem with the plane. A pilot
> flying incorrectly implies a problem with the pilot. I believe the JFK Jr.
> case is a case of the latter, not the former.
>

You are mistaken.

You are mistaken

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Pilot error <> Loss of aircraft control.
>

Do you have any aviation experience?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> He had nearly 100 hours hood time.
>

What is your source for that? The NTSB report says, "Within 100 days before
the accident, the pilot had completed about 50 percent of a formal
instrument training course." I see nothing about his total instrument time.


>
> Had he been IFR it would have set off the alarms with the first
> 100 foot deviation.
>

There is no alarm for an altitude deviation and being off an assigned
altitude by just 100 feet isn't considered a deviation.

[Jose]

> That's not accurate. If the car is not travelling in the direction is
> pointing it it is out of control.

That's not accurate. A car driven by a skillful race driver can skid
quite a bit while remaining totally in control. "In control", in the
sense that most people with whom I have acquaintance, means that the
driver has a good sense of what the vehicle is capable of and the
vehicle is doing what the driver wants it to do. "Out of control" means
that the driver is unable, perhaps by virtue of his lack of skill, to
make the vehicle do this. An aerobatics pilot has the plane completely
under his (or her) control doing the same maneuvers that a student pilot
would be totally out of control with.

But it doesn't really matter what words you want to apply to the situation.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in
:

> But it doesn't really matter what words you want to apply to the
> situation.


Yeah - this whole thread has death spiraled into a bickering over
semantics... :)