Flying through Canadian airspace

[M]

I'll take a few flights between Rochester, NY and the Detroit area this
summer. Going through the Canadian airspace just seems so much
shorter. I can go IFR.

My questions is:

* I don't need to deal with customs at all, as long as I don't stop at
Canada, right?
* Do I need to use the ICAO flight plan for the IFR, or is the FAA
domestic flight plan sufficient for these flights?
* Since I'll use Canadian ATC service during the overflight, will I
get a bill from NavCanada when I get home?
* Is it easier to do this IFR or VFR? I assume doing this IFR would
make the Canadian overflight easier, but I'm very open to suggestions.

Thanks!

[[email protected]]

M wrote:
> I'll take a few flights between Rochester, NY and the Detroit area this
> summer. Going through the Canadian airspace just seems so much
> shorter. I can go IFR.

I did this a couple of years ago.

> * I don't need to deal with customs at all, as long as I don't stop at
> Canada, right?

No customs.

> * Do I need to use the ICAO flight plan for the IFR, or is the FAA
> domestic flight plan sufficient for these flights?

Domestic flight plan worked for me (through FSS, didn't try duats).

> * Since I'll use Canadian ATC service during the overflight, will I
> get a bill from NavCanada when I get home?

Don't know this one, as I was flying a friend's plane and NavCanada
changed how they do user fees since then, I think.

> * Is it easier to do this IFR or VFR? I assume doing this IFR would
> make the Canadian overflight easier, but I'm very open to suggestions.

IFR made it transparent. Don't know about VFR, you'd need to go
through the rigamarole of a DVFR flight plan on the way back into the
US or something?

[[email protected]]

Great view of Niagara Falls, I should add. Bring your camera.
(although we were routed around the Detroit area to the North, so you
may not fly right over it)

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "M" > said:
>I'll take a few flights between Rochester, NY and the Detroit area this
>summer. Going through the Canadian airspace just seems so much
>shorter. I can go IFR.

I'm a member of the Rochester Flying Club and I fly into or over Canada
quite frequently.

>My questions is:
>
>* I don't need to deal with customs at all, as long as I don't stop at
>Canada, right?

Correct.

>* Do I need to use the ICAO flight plan for the IFR, or is the FAA
>domestic flight plan sufficient for these flights?

The standard FAA flight plan works for over flights or even for flights
into Canada.

>* Since I'll use Canadian ATC service during the overflight, will I
>get a bill from NavCanada when I get home?

Yes, it's still around $15 (Canadian), and it's good for a whole quarter -
so if you fly back before the quarter is over, you won't get another bill.

>* Is it easier to do this IFR or VFR? I assume doing this IFR would
>make the Canadian overflight easier, but I'm very open to suggestions.

IFR is easier. If it's VFR, you MUST be on a flight plan and you MUST be
talking to ATC and on an assigned squawk code while crossing the border.
If you're going to file and talk to ATC, you might as well do it IFR.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
But seriously, I've got root, so it's his problem.
-- Nick Manka

[Mike Schumann]

About 5 years ago I flew from Detroit to Rochester VFR over Canada. I filed
a VFR flight plan and used flight following the entire way. At that time
there was no charge for Canadian ATC if you didn't land in Canada. Things
may have changed since then.

One thing that was interesting is that north of Lake Erie, ATC was provided
by Cleveland Center eventhough I was over Canda. near Niagra Falls I was
passed off to Toronto Center, and then back to the US when I got back into
the US.

Mike Schumann

"M" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'll take a few flights between Rochester, NY and the Detroit area this
> summer. Going through the Canadian airspace just seems so much
> shorter. I can go IFR.
>
> My questions is:
>
> * I don't need to deal with customs at all, as long as I don't stop at
> Canada, right?
> * Do I need to use the ICAO flight plan for the IFR, or is the FAA
> domestic flight plan sufficient for these flights?
> * Since I'll use Canadian ATC service during the overflight, will I
> get a bill from NavCanada when I get home?
> * Is it easier to do this IFR or VFR? I assume doing this IFR would
> make the Canadian overflight easier, but I'm very open to suggestions.
>
> Thanks!
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Great view of Niagara Falls, I should add. Bring your camera.
> (although we were routed around the Detroit area to the North, so you
> may not fly right over it)

What good is a flight over Niagara Falls, if you can't fly over it?

(We're planning on flying that way this summer, VFR.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[James Robinson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> Great view of Niagara Falls, I should add. Bring your camera.
>> (although we were routed around the Detroit area to the North, so you
>> may not fly right over it)
>
> What good is a flight over Niagara Falls, if you can't fly over it?
>
> (We're planning on flying that way this summer, VFR.)

It appears that ATC might be flexible when traffic is light. I flew out of
Buffalo on United on the first flight out in the morning, and the pilot did
a 360 over the falls before continuing to Chicago.

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Great view of Niagara Falls, I should add. Bring your camera.
>>(although we were routed around the Detroit area to the North, so you
>>may not fly right over it)
>
>
> What good is a flight over Niagara Falls, if you can't fly over it?
>
> (We're planning on flying that way this summer, VFR.)

There's some stuff in the Airport/Facilities book about frequencies, directions
and altitudes to use when flying over the falls.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Dave Butler > said:
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Great view of Niagara Falls, I should add. Bring your camera.
>>>(although we were routed around the Detroit area to the North, so you
>>>may not fly right over it)
>> What good is a flight over Niagara Falls, if you can't fly over it?
>>
>> (We're planning on flying that way this summer, VFR.)
>
>There's some stuff in the Airport/Facilities book about frequencies, directions
>and altitudes to use when flying over the falls.

That's true, and that's good for VFR traffic. But I've seen airliners at
higher altitudes, presumably on an IFR clearance, doing a lap or two above
the falls at a much higher altitude.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Recursion: n., see Recursion.

[Morgans]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote

> That's true, and that's good for VFR traffic. But I've seen airliners at
> higher altitudes, presumably on an IFR clearance, doing a lap or two above
> the falls at a much higher altitude.

Wow, and double WoW! Never before, have I heard of an airliner taking the
time to do some sightseeing!

I wonder how much that cost the company? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[john smith]

> >* Since I'll use Canadian ATC service during the overflight, will I
> >get a bill from NavCanada when I get home?

> Yes, it's still around $15 (Canadian), and it's good for a whole quarter -
> so if you fly back before the quarter is over, you won't get another bill.

When did this go into effect?
I have never been charged for previous overflights.
If I landed at a Canadian airfield, I was charged, and rightly so.
It is my understanding that there is a bilateral agreement not to charge
for overflights.

[Mark Hansen]

On 05/22/06 13:22, Morgans wrote:
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote
>
>> That's true, and that's good for VFR traffic. But I've seen airliners at
>> higher altitudes, presumably on an IFR clearance, doing a lap or two above
>> the falls at a much higher altitude.
>
> Wow, and double WoW! Never before, have I heard of an airliner taking the
> time to do some sightseeing!
>
> I wonder how much that cost the company? <g>

I think it was in Rod Machado's book: The instrument pilot's survival
manual, where he wrote about an exchange between ATC and an airliner.
ATC asked the flight for a turn in the holding pattern. The airline
captain complained that each turn cost the airline $500. The controller
said: Okay then, give me $1000 worth of turns ;-)



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[john smith]

> (We're planning on flying that way this summer, VFR.)

Let me know when you are coming my way.

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> About 5 years ago I flew from Detroit to Rochester VFR over Canada. I filed
> a VFR flight plan and used flight following the entire way. At that time
> there was no charge for Canadian ATC if you didn't land in Canada. Things
> may have changed since then.
>
> One thing that was interesting is that north of Lake Erie, ATC was provided
> by Cleveland Center eventhough I was over Canda. near Niagra Falls I was
> passed off to Toronto Center, and then back to the US when I got back into
> the US.

I flew from Elmira to Detroit several years ago and also overflew Canada
for part of the trip. I never talked to a Canadian ATC facility, which
I thought was surprising.


Matt

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, john smith > said:
>> >* Since I'll use Canadian ATC service during the overflight, will I
>> >get a bill from NavCanada when I get home?
>
>> Yes, it's still around $15 (Canadian), and it's good for a whole quarter -
>> so if you fly back before the quarter is over, you won't get another bill.
>
>When did this go into effect?
>I have never been charged for previous overflights.

You're right. I thought they'd removed the exemption for overflights, but
I just checked the current fee schedule
http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionFiles/Services/ChargesAndAdmin/guidetocharges/Customer_Guide_New_en.pdf
and it still says that flights from one part of the US to another are
still exempt.

Since I land in Canada several times a year, I guess I never got a chance
to notice that they didn't charge if I somehow avoided landing there for a
quarter.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Mommy, what does "Formatting Drive C:" mean?

[John Clear]

In article >,
Morgans > wrote:
>
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote
>
>> That's true, and that's good for VFR traffic. But I've seen airliners at
>> higher altitudes, presumably on an IFR clearance, doing a lap or two above
>> the falls at a much higher altitude.
>
>Wow, and double WoW! Never before, have I heard of an airliner taking the
>time to do some sightseeing!

I haven't seen them do laps, but very often departures out of
SFO (San Francisco) and OAK (Oakland) fly the Bay Tour before proceeding
on course. They fly over the bay and out the gate at around 3000ft.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Brien K. Meehan]

M wrote:
> * Since I'll use Canadian ATC service during the overflight, will I
> get a bill from NavCanada when I get home?

I often fly IFR over, and occasionally to, Ontario, and I've never
received a bill. Maybe it's just me.

> * Is it easier to do this IFR or VFR? I assume doing this IFR would
> make the Canadian overflight easier, but I'm very open to suggestions.

I've been under the impression that Toronto Center would rather not
provide VFR radar service. If only for that, I think IFR is easier.

[Jay Honeck]

>> (We're planning on flying that way this summer, VFR.)
>
> Let me know when you are coming my way.

Roger that. Just remember, our habit is to plan three separate vacations,
in three different directions -- and then, on the morning of our departure,
pick one based on the best weather forecast.

We like to tell people that GA gives them a 33.3% chance of seeing us on any
assigned date...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Denny]

We like to tell people that GA gives them a 33.3% chance of seeing us
on any
assigned date...

Forewarned is forearmed :)

denny

[Denny]

I'm going to Cleveland today... Since the the lake is warmer than in
winter (still not survival temperature, but I do fly a twin so the
risks are less) I'm going to go HYX direct Windsor VOR (YQG), direct
Sandusky VOR (SKY), direct Burke Lake Front (BKL) - going past the East
side of the Detroit B and out over the lake... My son wants to fly the
outbound trip and he is not up to handling an IFR flight so I'll try
filing a VFR plan this time over Canada to see if it is different from
doing it IFR and report my findings to the group...
On safety - I have hard and fast rules about not going past gliding
distance to the shore when the water is below survival temperature...
This YQG-SKY-BKL route keeps me within gliding distance of the various
islands or the shoreline - Pelee, Kelly, North, Put-in-bay, etc...

BTW, I was on the phone to FSS yesterday about todays weather... Dunno
if it has changed into private hands or if the federal employees there
can feel change breathing down their necks, but I gotta tell ya the
briefer was so accomodating and over friendly I wondered if they
thought I was somebody in a position of power...

denny

[Allen]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > BTW, I was on the phone to FSS yesterday about todays weather... Dunno
> if it has changed into private hands or if the federal employees there
> can feel change breathing down their necks, but I gotta tell ya the
> briefer was so accomodating and over friendly I wondered if they
> thought I was somebody in a position of power...
>
> denny

Didn't the "Welcome to the Lockheed Martin ........ phone greeting tip you
off? It went private months ago.

Allen

[Denny]

Didn't the "Welcome to the Lockheed Martin ........ phone greeting tip
you
off? It went private months ago.
************************************************** *************************************

Ahhh haaa, I thought something was different, like the government was
getting a sense of humor or something... I live in my own little world
and externals don't intrude much... Actually, the instant that Lansing
center picks up with a click I automatically hit #1, and don't hear the
greeting... The other thing is that the past few years I have been on
a kick of avoiding Big Brother as much as possible... Only filing IFR
when forced to... Otherwise, just getting my own weather and going off
on my own without talking to ATC.. This trip I will save a half hour
of fuel each way and get the scenic ride across the Lake by filing a
flight plan instead of going West of Detroit to avoid Canada., so it's
worth the effort of asking big brother for permission...

Anyway, just filed for the trip VFR... Briefer seemed happy,
presumeably the radar operator at center will be happy because there
will be a squawk next to my blip, so HSA will happy, the military will
be happy, and presumeably the NSA is happy with my phone calling
patterns... A win-win all around...

denny

[Allen]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Didn't the "Welcome to the Lockheed Martin ........ phone greeting tip
> you
> off? It went private months ago.
> ************************************************** *************************************
>
> Ahhh haaa, I thought something was different, like the government was
> getting a sense of humor or something... I live in my own little world
> and externals don't intrude much... Actually, the instant that Lansing
> center picks up with a click I automatically hit #1, and don't hear the
> greeting... The other thing is that the past few years I have been on
> a kick of avoiding Big Brother as much as possible... Only filing IFR
> when forced to... Otherwise, just getting my own weather and going off
> on my own without talking to ATC.. This trip I will save a half hour
> of fuel each way and get the scenic ride across the Lake by filing a
> flight plan instead of going West of Detroit to avoid Canada., so it's
> worth the effort of asking big brother for permission...
>
> Anyway, just filed for the trip VFR... Briefer seemed happy,
> presumeably the radar operator at center will be happy because there
> will be a squawk next to my blip, so HSA will happy, the military will
> be happy, and presumeably the NSA is happy with my phone calling
> patterns... A win-win all around...
>
> denny

I am with you. I live in an area where there are frequent TFR's. I use
DUATs for the initial check and then call FSS if I need to file. (I still
don't trust filing with DUATs, had too many flight plans lost.)

Allen

[Dave Butler]

Allen wrote:
> ...call FSS if I need to file. (I still
> don't trust filing with DUATs, had too many flight plans lost.)

My experience is _exactly_ the opposite.

[Jon Woellhaf]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1148484464.58605@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Allen wrote:
>> ...call FSS if I need to file. (I still don't trust filing with DUATs,
>> had too many flight plans lost.)
>
> My experience is _exactly_ the opposite.

You've had too many flight plans not lost?

[Allen]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1148484464.58605@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Allen wrote:
>> ...call FSS if I need to file. (I still don't trust filing with DUATs,
>> had too many flight plans lost.)
>
> My experience is _exactly_ the opposite.

My distrust comes from using the system early on. It appears I need to try
it again. Thanks for the reply!

Allen

[Randy Aldous]

>Wow, and double WoW! Never before, have I heard of an airliner taking the
>time to do some sightseeing!


Years ago, I was coming back to Minnesota from the L.A. area in
California, flying on Northwest. The pilot came on the PA and said that
since it was such a clear morning, they got permission to divert
slightly so we could see the Grand Canyon. We didn't do any 360's, but
they did slow down and bank right and left so everyone could get a
look. This was also the same flight that the pilot would keep us up to
date with the Vikings (football) score....
Don't know if that would occur now days or not....

Randy

[Denny]

Well, we did the flight from Saginaw to Cleveland and back... As
promised I did file VFR and I will never, never, never, pinch me, n e
v e r, do that again... What a ghastly experience... And this is
from a fella who has been flying the ATC system for over 40 years - but
hasn't filed a VFR flight plan within that time frame (that I can
remember)..
Anyway, Out on the ramp I phoned and got the Lansing FSS... Rattled off
the usual flight plan info... Waited for the usual CRAFT response and
then gotcha #1 rose up... (I should have known right then!) She didn't
read back the plan!!!
"OK, it's filed... Hayuv a nice day.", she chirped...
Slight pause on my part (the deer in the headlights look, my son, DL,
later dryly mentioned) as I was well into the role of mentor and
smoothly showing my son how it is done by a pro <I thought> ....
"Uhhh, I didn't get a squawk."
"Oh, I can't give you a squawk, ATC will assign that when you open your
flight plan."

Well, OK I can live with that, and I know where I'm going, I hope she
remembered... So we saddled up and turned lose those thumpin 150 HP
engines on Fat Albert... Airborne I coach DL through the mechanics of
contacting the nearest ATC and asking for the flight plan to be
opened... Gotcha #2 grins at us... Saginaw approach says they "don't"
open VFR flight plans... (Note, they didn't say can't, just don't - can
you spell 'controllers union versus the privatized FSS'?)
"You will have to talk to FSS.", click and silence...

Well, OK Martha Jane, I DO know how to talk to FSS... So we dial up FSS
and after a few calls get the nice lady... "Oh, your flight plan is
opened."...
So, back to Mr. Wonderful at Saginaw Approach...
<highly condensed>
"57 Pop is back with you and the VFR flight plan to Cleveland is
opened."
"OK, I can give you flight following<heh, heh, heh> Squawk
'snookered', maintain 3500, blah, blah, blah...".... <picture me with
sour expression>
So, a few miles later we get told, "Leaving my airspace, radar services
terminated, squawk VFR.. You may be able to contact Flint." click...
silence...
Wearily I call Flint Approach... "Who are you, where are you, how high
are you (by now I wish)... And while he didn't say, why are you
bothering me, the attitude was there... The instant you say VFR flight
plan, the temperature in the voice drops 10 degrees...

The Coupe De Grass came on the return leg North <lots of grubby details
condensed> After Cleveland Approach pinged me to FSS and they ponged me
back, Cleveland finally, grudgingly, gave me a squawk,then waited until
I just touched Canadian Airspace and with a gloat in the voice says:
<drum roll you all know what's coming>
"Leaving my airspace, return to VFR, have a nice day.", click!
At that point I became annoyed and bluntly told ATC, "Wait a minute
Jack... I am in international airspace and you don't just dump me."
"Well, you can try contacting Detroit." Knowing full well that I am out
of range for Detroit

So, we spent the next 15+ miles calling Detroit... When I finally
reached them it was the three stooges who-what-why-go away routine all
over...

This morning I called the Great Lakes FSDO and spoke to an OPS
specialist... At first she gave me the party line... "tsk, tsk, I
don't know how that could happen, after all a VFR flight plan and
flight following are different programs."
After a bit she warmed up and finally told me, "Well Lockheed Martin
took over FSS and everything is changing and we don't know what ATC is
doing or why."

So, there you have it folks... File VFR and you become a scab walking
into the middle of a sit down strike... Beats me... I have been
banging around airports for over 60 years and flying the ATC system for
over 40 years, and I don't have a clue what to do...

denny

[Dave Butler]

Denny wrote:
> Well, we did the flight from Saginaw to Cleveland and back... As
> promised I did file VFR and I will never, never, never, pinch me, n e
> v e r, do that again... What a ghastly experience... And this is
> from a fella who has been flying the ATC system for over 40 years - but
> hasn't filed a VFR flight plan within that time frame (that I can
> remember)..

<snip>

Thanks, Denny amusing story, and I feel your pain. I too seldom fly VFR, and
almost never file/activate a VFR flight plan. When I do, I am usually reminded
of why I don't do it more often.

I think your expectations are too high. ATC neither knows nor cares whether you
have filed a VFR flight plan. VFR flight plans never leave the domain of FSS.
They just sit there and wait for you to forget to close/cancel them, then SAR is
launched. That's really all they're good for.

Anyway, thanks again for a good read.

Dave

[Bob Moore]

Denny wrote

> So, there you have it folks... File VFR and you become a scab walking
> into the middle of a sit down strike... Beats me... I have been
> banging around airports for over 60 years and flying the ATC system for
> over 40 years, and I don't have a clue what to do...

NOPE! Denny, you just don't understand what a VFR flight plan is for,
nor the common method for filing and opening one. They are filed
direct with a FSS over the telephone and opened by calling a FSS, either
direct or via the nearest VOR station. ATC doesn't get involved at all.
Yes, there are other ways of doing this, but why not do it the in the
expected manner.

Flight following (RADAR advisories) is an ATC function only and does not
depend on having a VFR flight plan filed nor opened.

Sounds as if you need to spend some time in the AIM.

Bob Moore

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Denny" > said:
>"OK, it's filed... Hayuv a nice day.", she chirped...
>Slight pause on my part (the deer in the headlights look, my son, DL,
>later dryly mentioned) as I was well into the role of mentor and
>smoothly showing my son how it is done by a pro <I thought> ....
>"Uhhh, I didn't get a squawk."
>"Oh, I can't give you a squawk, ATC will assign that when you open your
>flight plan."

Most of this story seems to indicate that you expect a VFR flight plan to
work exactly the same as an IFR flight plan. It never has, and post 9/11
it's been even worse for cross border operations.

Even before 9/11, you *always* have had to open and close the VFR flight
plan with FSS, and request flight following from ATC. They're separate
functions. ROC Approach always insisted that you have a flight plan on
file before they'd give you flight following, and when I'd mention that
here people accused me of lying or being mistaken. Without the VFR flight
plan, they'd refuse to hand you off but turn you lose and maybe give you a
frequency to contact for the next facility. Even with the flight plan,
you'd sometimes get turned loose. When NavCanada was just taking over in
Canada, Toronto would refuse to take VFR hand-offs from Buffalo or
Rochester, and you'd either have to dive beneath their airspace or go
around.

When I went to places in Canada outside of Toronto, it was nice because
Canadian towers open and close VFR flight plans. But I never quite got
the hang of getting flight following from Ottawa - they'd always just turn
me lose and then I'd try to raise Wheeler Sack as I got closer to the
border. I've been told that the secret is to file a "Controlled VFR"
flight plan, but I've never tried it because I got my IFR rating before I
got a chance.

Post 9/11, you still have to be on a flight plan of some sort to cross the
border, and now you have to be talking to ATC as well. So I just find it
a ton easier to file IFR rather than deal with all "will he hand me off,
or won't he, only his bartender knows for sure" crap.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." - spaf (1992)

[Denny]

I speak AIM fluently...
There is a turf war between the controllers union and the privatized
FSS.. All the AIM manuals in the world will not get ATC to
cooperate..

The solution is simple, file IFR and ATC is under the microscope and
cannot simply drop a flight in international airspace to get even with
Lockheed Martin...

denny

[Jay Somerset]

Boy, Denny, you really need to brush up on what a VFR Flight Plan is, and
isn't. There is NO CONNECTION between a VFR Plan and Flight Following.

Perhaps it's also time for you to do a BFR -- if your grasp on procedures is
that shaky, your flying skills are also probably not up to scratch.


On 25 May 2006 05:20:30 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:

> Well, we did the flight from Saginaw to Cleveland and back... As
> promised I did file VFR and I will never, never, never, pinch me, n e
> v e r, do that again... What a ghastly experience... And this is
> from a fella who has been flying the ATC system for over 40 years - but
> hasn't filed a VFR flight plan within that time frame (that I can
> remember)..
> Anyway, Out on the ramp I phoned and got the Lansing FSS... Rattled off
> the usual flight plan info... Waited for the usual CRAFT response and
> then gotcha #1 rose up... (I should have known right then!) She didn't
> read back the plan!!!
> "OK, it's filed... Hayuv a nice day.", she chirped...
> Slight pause on my part (the deer in the headlights look, my son, DL,
> later dryly mentioned) as I was well into the role of mentor and
> smoothly showing my son how it is done by a pro <I thought> ....
> "Uhhh, I didn't get a squawk."
> "Oh, I can't give you a squawk, ATC will assign that when you open your
> flight plan."
>
> Well, OK I can live with that, and I know where I'm going, I hope she
> remembered... So we saddled up and turned lose those thumpin 150 HP
> engines on Fat Albert... Airborne I coach DL through the mechanics of
> contacting the nearest ATC and asking for the flight plan to be
> opened... Gotcha #2 grins at us... Saginaw approach says they "don't"
> open VFR flight plans... (Note, they didn't say can't, just don't - can
> you spell 'controllers union versus the privatized FSS'?)
> "You will have to talk to FSS.", click and silence...
>
> Well, OK Martha Jane, I DO know how to talk to FSS... So we dial up FSS
> and after a few calls get the nice lady... "Oh, your flight plan is
> opened."...
> So, back to Mr. Wonderful at Saginaw Approach...
> <highly condensed>
> "57 Pop is back with you and the VFR flight plan to Cleveland is
> opened."
> "OK, I can give you flight following<heh, heh, heh> Squawk
> 'snookered', maintain 3500, blah, blah, blah...".... <picture me with
> sour expression>
> So, a few miles later we get told, "Leaving my airspace, radar services
> terminated, squawk VFR.. You may be able to contact Flint." click...
> silence...
> Wearily I call Flint Approach... "Who are you, where are you, how high
> are you (by now I wish)... And while he didn't say, why are you
> bothering me, the attitude was there... The instant you say VFR flight
> plan, the temperature in the voice drops 10 degrees...
>
> The Coupe De Grass came on the return leg North <lots of grubby details
> condensed> After Cleveland Approach pinged me to FSS and they ponged me
> back, Cleveland finally, grudgingly, gave me a squawk,then waited until
> I just touched Canadian Airspace and with a gloat in the voice says:
> <drum roll you all know what's coming>
> "Leaving my airspace, return to VFR, have a nice day.", click!
> At that point I became annoyed and bluntly told ATC, "Wait a minute
> Jack... I am in international airspace and you don't just dump me."
> "Well, you can try contacting Detroit." Knowing full well that I am out
> of range for Detroit
>
> So, we spent the next 15+ miles calling Detroit... When I finally
> reached them it was the three stooges who-what-why-go away routine all
> over...
>
> This morning I called the Great Lakes FSDO and spoke to an OPS
> specialist... At first she gave me the party line... "tsk, tsk, I
> don't know how that could happen, after all a VFR flight plan and
> flight following are different programs."
> After a bit she warmed up and finally told me, "Well Lockheed Martin
> took over FSS and everything is changing and we don't know what ATC is
> doing or why."
>
> So, there you have it folks... File VFR and you become a scab walking
> into the middle of a sit down strike... Beats me... I have been
> banging around airports for over 60 years and flying the ATC system for
> over 40 years, and I don't have a clue what to do...
>
> denny

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Denny" > said:
>I speak AIM fluently...
>There is a turf war between the controllers union and the privatized
>FSS.. All the AIM manuals in the world will not get ATC to
>cooperate..

Except what you are describing is the way VFR flight plans have worked for
at least 10 years before FSS was privatized.

Boy, those ATC guys are amazing if they could have predicted that FSS
would be privatized 10 years before it happened!

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Mentally update my CV, paying special attention to the bits
about how to say "Was Fired For Being A Prat" in a positive light.
-- Eric the Read's bad day

[Morgans]

"Jay Somerset >" > wrote
>
> Perhaps it's also time for you to do a BFR -- if your grasp on procedures
> is
> that shaky, your flying skills are also probably not up to scratch.

Having a bad day, Jay?

That is quite a leap, accusing him of having poor flying skills, because he
was doing something (flying across the border) that he does not do
frequently. A giant leap.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Somerset]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 18:21:46 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
> "Jay Somerset >" > wrote
> >
> > Perhaps it's also time for you to do a BFR -- if your grasp on procedures
> > is
> > that shaky, your flying skills are also probably not up to scratch.
>
> Having a bad day, Jay?
>
> That is quite a leap, accusing him of having poor flying skills, because he
> was doing something (flying across the border) that he does not do
> frequently. A giant leap.


Not much of a leap at all. If one is significanty deficient on one area,
the probablility of being similarily deficient in a closely related area is
quite high.

[Roger]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 13:51:01 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, "Denny" > said:
>>"OK, it's filed... Hayuv a nice day.", she chirped...
>>Slight pause on my part (the deer in the headlights look, my son, DL,
>>later dryly mentioned) as I was well into the role of mentor and
>>smoothly showing my son how it is done by a pro <I thought> ....
>>"Uhhh, I didn't get a squawk."
>>"Oh, I can't give you a squawk, ATC will assign that when you open your
>>flight plan."
>
>Most of this story seems to indicate that you expect a VFR flight plan to
>work exactly the same as an IFR flight plan. It never has, and post 9/11
>it's been even worse for cross border operations.

Oh, but they used to and not all that long ago, at least in my
experience. Now maybe it was just the areas in which I've been flying.

I'd file VFR say from 3BS to Muncie. I'd contact MBS approach,
sometimes they'd activate the flight plane for me and some times I'd
have to call FSS. On landing I'd tell the tower I'd like to close the
flight plan. Some times they would and some times they'd tell me to
call FSS. I think it just depended on how busy they were. They'd
hand me off to the next sector (Lansing) and so on. It was not
uncommon to end up talking to center as well. The handoffs were
exactly like the ones I receive IFR. The only difference was I only
needed to notify them when changing altitude and direction instead of
having them tell me when to do so.. However I usually put it in the
form of "Eight Thirty Three Romeo needs to start down for Muncie, or
would like to turn heading such and such. More often than not I'd
hear the word "approved".

No, there were no clearances and not as many instructions, nor did I
have to except a bunch of instructions at the outer marker. <:-))
In particular I didn't have to expect odd routing around busy
airspace. But until recently I found very little difference in
talking to ATC whether IFR or VFR.

Actually I did receive directions one time. I was talking to Ft Wayne
app coming from the north and headed for Muncie. The weather was
crappy and I was no more than a couple thousand AGL. I was also
headed directly toward the center of the airport. They finally cam on
when I could see the airport ahead and said, "We really need to have
you turn heading 090 for traffic avoidance. I replied I'd be glad to
and would they please let me know when I could turn back to 180. Just
a minute of two later they came back on with " Eight Thirty Three
Romeo, Turn to heading 180 approved." It may not have been standard,
but it worked..

Now if VFR it's often difficult to squeeze in edgewise to receive an
acknowledgement and I don't get handed off to any one. However I find
if I put myself at altitudes through busy airspace but outside their
actual air space I get noticed and they usually get helpful. Just put
your self about a 1000 feet above the top of a control zone or near a
climb corridor that is not specifically in their airspace. Traveling
near 200 MPH and close enough to get noticed seems to work. OTOH with
a could deck that keeps me low it's a whole different world.

I give them my altitude and heading which will put me a thousand feet
above the class D or C and I may hear "stay out of the control zone"
to which I reply "I'll be passing directly over the airport 1000 feet
above the control zone. That usually results in a repeat of the "stay
out of the class C", probably with the hope I'll change course.

If they get cranky and tell me that's busy airspace I just reply,
"that's why I asked for flight following".

OTOH I could file IFR, Then they can route me around and way out in to
boonies for traffic avoidance. Been there and done that. On the one
occasion I'd have canceled IFR and just stayed up on top, but we were
headed for OSH and I'd have been too close to air file to get back in
the system.

However I agree with Denny. At least for me VFR is treated quite
differently than it used to be.


>
>Even before 9/11, you *always* have had to open and close the VFR flight
>plan with FSS, and request flight following from ATC. They're separate

Some times yes and some times no, but not always. Maybe they were just
being nice, but I found different areas to operate differently. Some
times quite differently.

>functions. ROC Approach always insisted that you have a flight plan on
>file before they'd give you flight following, and when I'd mention that

A number of those flights to MIE were not on flight plans yet I had
flight following all the way complete with hand offs.

>here people accused me of lying or being mistaken. Without the VFR flight
>plan, they'd refuse to hand you off but turn you lose and maybe give you a
>frequency to contact for the next facility. Even with the flight plan,

That does happen, flight plan or no flight plan.
I had to leave the Deb at Muncie for a week and a friend flew the old
Cherokee 180 down. He was actually 2000 feet above me. I was handed
off between approaches and even centers. He was turned loose and had
to call up the next approach.

He started out about 15 minutes ahead of me so I head most of his
conversations and call ups. I'd get handed off and he'd get turned
loose. I have no idea why.

I flew down to Lansing IL recently and it was difficult to find any
approach that would talk to me.

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

>you'd sometimes get turned loose. When NavCanada was just taking over in
>Canada, Toronto would refuse to take VFR hand-offs from Buffalo or
>Rochester, and you'd either have to dive beneath their airspace or go
>around.
>
>When I went to places in Canada outside of Toronto, it was nice because
>Canadian towers open and close VFR flight plans. But I never quite got
>the hang of getting flight following from Ottawa - they'd always just turn
>me lose and then I'd try to raise Wheeler Sack as I got closer to the
>border. I've been told that the secret is to file a "Controlled VFR"
>flight plan, but I've never tried it because I got my IFR rating before I
>got a chance.
>
>Post 9/11, you still have to be on a flight plan of some sort to cross the
>border, and now you have to be talking to ATC as well. So I just find it
>a ton easier to file IFR rather than deal with all "will he hand me off,
>or won't he, only his bartender knows for sure" crap.

[Roger]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 19:58:54 -0400, Jay Somerset
>> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 May 2006 18:21:46 -0400, "Morgans" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jay Somerset >" > wrote
>> >
>> > Perhaps it's also time for you to do a BFR -- if your grasp on procedures
>> > is
>> > that shaky, your flying skills are also probably not up to scratch.
>>
>> Having a bad day, Jay?
>>
>> That is quite a leap, accusing him of having poor flying skills, because he
>> was doing something (flying across the border) that he does not do
>> frequently. A giant leap.
>
>
>Not much of a leap at all. If one is significanty deficient on one area,
>the probablility of being similarily deficient in a closely related area is
>quite high.

The change was in the system,not in the pilot.
Over the years I had come to expect receive similar treatment from the
system whether VFR or IFR. Only on more recent flights have I seen a
major difference.

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> The change was in the system,not in the pilot.
> Over the years I had come to expect receive similar treatment from the
> system whether VFR or IFR. Only on more recent flights have I seen a
> major difference.

From which system? Canada or US? And over how many years?

Granted, my first flight into Canada was "only" 15 years ago. But even
then, the US system did not generally involve ATC being willing to deal with
VFR flight plans. Doing so required them to negotiate with the FSS directly
(as opposed to dealing with an IFR flight plan that was already transmitted
to their computers), and was an additional work item they never wanted to
deal with.

The only time I was able to get ATC to close a VFR flight plan for me was
when the US Customs agent that was supposed to meet me had overslept and I
was left sitting in my airplane for 30 minutes until the guy finally showed
up and let me and my passengers out of the airplane. I was unable to reach
the FSS on their local RCO frequency while sitting on the ground (guess it
wasn't that local) and ATC thankfully was willing to talk to the FSS and
have them close my VFR flight plan, as well as phone Customs to try to
figure out why my scheduled Customs agent wasn't present.

Canada on the other hand has always been willing to deal with VFR and IFR
flight plans in the same way. As far as I know, they *are* handled the same
way for them, without the FSS-disconnect that exists in the US for VFR
flight plans. Canada ATC has always closed my inbound flight plan for me,
and opened my outbound flight plan for me. I have even filed a VFR flight
plan through the Canada ATC once when I had a mechanical issue and I was
stuck out on the airport ramp when the plane was finally ready to go. I
could've walked back into the terminal and phoned, but they let me file on
the ground control frequency through them.

As an aside (not related to your comment about "over the years", obviously),
I have not made an international flight since before 9/11/2001, so I don't
have first-hand information about how the new flight plan requirements work.
But I haven't read anything to suggest they are a LOT different from the way
they used to be, and haven't seen anything to suggest that US ATC is now
handling VFR flight plans in the same way that they handle IFR flight plans.
Someone flying internationally and expecting US ATC to open and close their
VFR flight plans just hasn't done their homework.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> Even before 9/11, you *always* have had to open and close the VFR flight
> plan with FSS, and request flight following from ATC. They're separate
> functions.

One semi-interesting observation: This isn't true in the Washington
ADIZ. There, a VFR ADIZ flight plan IS opened by ATC, after first
filing with flight service.

Funny that some things actually work better under the ADIZ.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> One semi-interesting observation: This isn't true in the Washington
> ADIZ. There, a VFR ADIZ flight plan IS opened by ATC, after first
> filing with flight service.

That's because the ADIZ flight plan isn't a VFR flight plan.

> Funny that some things actually work better under the ADIZ.

Not really. The most you can say is that things aren't as bad under the
ADIZ as they could be.

Pete

[John]

Denny wrote:
> I speak AIM fluently...
> There is a turf war between the controllers union and the privatized
> FSS.. All the AIM manuals in the world will not get ATC to
> cooperate..

If you are surprised that you don't get a transponer squawk code when
you file a *VFR* flight plan, I'm afraid that you are not as familiar
with the AIM as you may think. Except for a few certain exceptions
(ADIZ, Weirdness in ROC, etc), there has never been much connection
between a VFR flight plan and air traffic control. The ATC guys do NOT
get your *VFR* flight plan, and this has been the case long before
Lockheed got the AFSS contract.

Traffic Advisories (aka "Flight Following") is merely a service that ATC
may provide upon request to VFR aircraft, whether you have a flight plan
or not. They may hand you off to other facilities if they can, but keep
in mind the VFR aircraft may be flying too low for a hand off in any
given area.

I believe if you file a Defense VFR (or DVFR) flight plan than ATC will
get the flight plan. Not sure if this would work for the Washington
ADIZ, but apparently they want all flight plans filed there directly
with Leesburg AFSS anyway.

[John]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, john smith > said:
>
>>>>* Since I'll use Canadian ATC service during the overflight, will I
>>>>get a bill from NavCanada when I get home?
>>
>>>Yes, it's still around $15 (Canadian), and it's good for a whole quarter -
>>>so if you fly back before the quarter is over, you won't get another bill.
>>
>>When did this go into effect?
>>I have never been charged for previous overflights.
>
>
> You're right. I thought they'd removed the exemption for overflights, but
> I just checked the current fee schedule
> http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionFiles/Services/ChargesAndAdmin/guidetocharges/Customer_Guide_New_en.pdf
> and it still says that flights from one part of the US to another are
> still exempt.
>
> Since I land in Canada several times a year, I guess I never got a chance
> to notice that they didn't charge if I somehow avoided landing there for a
> quarter.

I believe that is reciprocal because USA ATC does not charge Canadian
pilots for similar services.

[Denny]

Being a stubborn cuss I decided to test the system again as I had to
make two more round trips from Michigan through Canada and across Lake
Erie over the holiday weekend... This series of flights I simply
waited until I was about ten miles from Canadian airspace and called
Center and advised I wanted flight following through Canadian Airspace
and across the lake... He promptly assigned a squawk and that was
that... The first round trip I filed a VFR flight plan but did not
activate it... The second round I didn't even bother with that...



denny

[andrew m. boardman]

Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>Post 9/11, you still have to be on a flight plan of some sort to cross the
>border, and now you have to be talking to ATC as well.

Where does that latter requirement come from? It's news to me, and
Toronto Terminal isn't usually interested in talking to VFR arrivals.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (andrew m. boardman) said:
>Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>>Post 9/11, you still have to be on a flight plan of some sort to cross the
>>border, and now you have to be talking to ATC as well.
>
>Where does that latter requirement come from? It's news to me, and
>Toronto Terminal isn't usually interested in talking to VFR arrivals.

FDC NOTAM 2/5319
"PART 2 OF 8 .. SPECIAL NOTICE .. OPERATIONS TO/FROM LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE
U.S. PART II. U.S., MEXICAN OR CANADIAN REGISTERED AIRCRAFT CONDUCTING
IFR/VFR OPERATIONS TO/FROM LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF
THE U.S. NO PERSON MAY OPERATE AN AIRCRAFT UNDER VFR OR IFR TO OR FROM THE
TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BELOW: A. PART 91 VFR
OPERATIONS ARE AUTHORIZED FOR AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF
GROSS WEIGHT OF 95,000 POUNDS OR LESS, BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF THE U.S.,
CANADA, AND MEXICO, PROVIDED ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET: 1. THE
AIRCRAFT IS REGISTERED IN THE U.S., CANADA OR MEXICO. 2. THE FLIGHT CREW
AND ONLY KNOWN PASSENGERS ARE ON BOARD. 3. THE PILOT FILES AND ACTIVATES A
FLIGHT PLAN. 4. THE PILOT IS IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE GOVERNING ATC
FACILITY AT THE TIME OF THE BOUNDARY CROSSING. 5. THE AIRCRAFT IS
SQUAWKING AN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ASSIGNED DISCRETE BEACON CODE. 6. THE
PILOT COMPLIES WITH ALL U.S. CUSTOMS NOTIFICATIONS AND COMPLIES WITH
REQUIREMENTS TO LAND AT AIRPORTS IN THE U.S., CANADA OR MEXICO DESIGNATED
AS PORTS OF ENTRY. END PART 2 OF 8"

I draw your attention to part 4 and 5.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The thing I've noticed, particularly about Usenet, that while as a
welcome break from work it is refreshing and interesting, when you've
got bugger all else to do it kinda loses its appeal. -- C Speed

[andrew m. boardman]

Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>In a previous article, (andrew m. boardman) said:
>>Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>>>Post 9/11, you still have to be on a flight plan of some sort to cross the
>>>border, and now you have to be talking to ATC as well.
>>
>>Where does that latter requirement come from? It's news to me, and
>>Toronto Terminal isn't usually interested in talking to VFR arrivals.
>
>FDC NOTAM 2/5319
>[...]

Oops. Thanks for the reminder. I'd like to think I knew about that the
last time it was relevant to me and have simply forgotten since. (A
couple of years ago I started dealing with this sort of thing strictly
IFR. Somewhat lazy, perhaps, but it removes many hassles. Especially
with the DC ADIZ, which can be an utter disaster VFR.)

Mind you, Toronto Terminal still didn't want to deal with me VFR (making
KIAG-CYTZ hops a couple of years ago), but the important thing for
2/5319 is talking to US ATC, which was never an issue.

[I previously posted another instantiation of this, but had a weird
newsreader glitch and it seems to have vanished. My apologies if it
turns up twice.]

[Jay Somerset]

On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:19:32 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

> In a previous article, (andrew m. boardman) said:
> >Paul Tomblin > wrote:
> >>Post 9/11, you still have to be on a flight plan of some sort to cross the
> >>border, and now you have to be talking to ATC as well.
> >
> >Where does that latter requirement come from? It's news to me, and
> >Toronto Terminal isn't usually interested in talking to VFR arrivals.
>
> FDC NOTAM 2/5319
> "PART 2 OF 8 .. SPECIAL NOTICE .. OPERATIONS TO/FROM LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE
> U.S. PART II. U.S., MEXICAN OR CANADIAN REGISTERED AIRCRAFT CONDUCTING
> IFR/VFR OPERATIONS TO/FROM LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF
> THE U.S. NO PERSON MAY OPERATE AN AIRCRAFT UNDER VFR OR IFR TO OR FROM THE
> TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BELOW: A. PART 91 VFR
> OPERATIONS ARE AUTHORIZED FOR AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF
> GROSS WEIGHT OF 95,000 POUNDS OR LESS, BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF THE U.S.,
> CANADA, AND MEXICO, PROVIDED ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET: 1. THE
> AIRCRAFT IS REGISTERED IN THE U.S., CANADA OR MEXICO. 2. THE FLIGHT CREW
> AND ONLY KNOWN PASSENGERS ARE ON BOARD. 3. THE PILOT FILES AND ACTIVATES A
> FLIGHT PLAN. 4. THE PILOT IS IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE GOVERNING ATC
> FACILITY AT THE TIME OF THE BOUNDARY CROSSING. 5. THE AIRCRAFT IS
> SQUAWKING AN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ASSIGNED DISCRETE BEACON CODE. 6. THE
> PILOT COMPLIES WITH ALL U.S. CUSTOMS NOTIFICATIONS AND COMPLIES WITH
> REQUIREMENTS TO LAND AT AIRPORTS IN THE U.S., CANADA OR MEXICO DESIGNATED
> AS PORTS OF ENTRY. END PART 2 OF 8"
>
> I draw your attention to part 4 and 5.

But you seem to forget that the whole section refers to flights TO/FROM
foreign LOCATIONS. Passing through Canadian airspace when both origin and
destination are in the US is not covered by this whole section.