filing IFR plan for VFR flight conditions

[Paul Safran]

I seem to have read or been told once that,
one can file an IFR flightplan with remark for
VFR flight conditions when not instrument rated,
or current, to get routing and practice within the system.
Comments?

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 7 May 2004 11:02:22 -0400, "Paul Safran"
> wrote:

>I seem to have read or been told once that,
>one can file an IFR flightplan with remark for
>VFR flight conditions when not instrument rated,
>or current, to get routing and practice within the system.
>Comments?

I'm not an expert, but believe an IR is required to file an IFR
flightplan. This makes sense as the controllers can't be expected to
know whether or not they will be vectoring you into IMC conditions,
and whether or not you can handle it.

What you can do is ask controllers for VFR practice approaches, this
will help with IFR radio comm in the terminal environment.

For IFR radio comm enroute, this is harder to duplicate, but VFR
flight following is reasonably close to IFR comms. What you won't get
is clearances and reroutes.

-Nathan

[Roy Smith]

"Paul Safran" > wrote:

> I seem to have read or been told once that,
> one can file an IFR flightplan with remark for
> VFR flight conditions when not instrument rated,
> or current, to get routing and practice within the system.
> Comments?

Absolutely not. You can certainly get flight following, and follow
airways, and fly under the hood (with a safety pilot) and ask for
practice approaches, but if the PIC isn't instrument rated and current,
you absolutely cannot file an IFR flight plan, or accept an IFR
clearance, or go into weather conditions which do not meet VFR
requirements.

[Dave Butler]

Roy Smith wrote:
> "Paul Safran" > wrote:
>
>
>>I seem to have read or been told once that,
>>one can file an IFR flightplan with remark for
>>VFR flight conditions when not instrument rated,
>>or current, to get routing and practice within the system.
>>Comments?
>
>
> Absolutely not. You can certainly get flight following, and follow
> airways, and fly under the hood (with a safety pilot) and ask for
> practice approaches, but if the PIC isn't instrument rated and current,
> you absolutely cannot file an IFR flight plan, or accept an IFR
> clearance, or go into weather conditions which do not meet VFR
> requirements.

You cannot act as PIC on an IFR flight plan or accept an IFR clearance without
an instrument rating. There is no prohibition against -filing- an IFR flight plan.

There was an extensive thread here (or in one of the r.a.* groups) about how to
file a flight plan for a VFR flight and get your proposal strip into all the
relevant controllers' hands by checking the "IFR" box on the flight plan form,
then coding "VFR/<altitude>" in the altitude block. Google for it. I've used it
and it works for me. I have an instrument rating, but it seems legal to me even
if I didn't.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[S Narayan]

Very simply, NO.

You can ask for practice approaches, but you will be operating under VFR.

"Paul Safran" > wrote in message
...
> I seem to have read or been told once that,
> one can file an IFR flightplan with remark for
> VFR flight conditions when not instrument rated,
> or current, to get routing and practice within the system.
> Comments?
>
>

[David Brooks]

"Paul Safran" > wrote in message
...
> I seem to have read or been told once that,
> one can file an IFR flightplan with remark for
> VFR flight conditions when not instrument rated,
> or current, to get routing and practice within the system.
> Comments?

Despite what others have said, here is a "yes, but it doesn't help much"
response from the Seattle FSDO. Newsgroupies from some other parts of the
country have said that their ATC contacts like the idea.

-- David Brooks
WOW!!!!! Great question. My answer will be quite involved, so please, read
the whole thing and don't take things out of context.

First, FAR 61.3(e) says, "No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds: (1) The appropriate
aircraft catagory, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that
person's certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being
flown; (2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate
aircraft catagory, class and type rating (if required) for the aircraft
being flown."

Since filing the flight plan technically is not acting as pilot in command,
we say FAR 61.3 does not specifically prohibit the filing of an IFR flight
plan by a non-instrument rated pilot. Consider, as an example, the airline
industry, where Aircraft Dispatchers file the flight plans. Few of those
Dispatchers hold instrument ratings (in fact most don't even hold pilot
certificates) and yet, they file the flight plans. The Captains accept the
clearances from ATC (this act is definitely considered acting as PIC).

So, there is no regulation which would prohibit a non-instrument rated pilot
from filing the flight plan. But non-instrument rated pilots who accept IFR
clearances from ATC will definitely be in for massive FAA penalties.

Having said that, our Air Traffic Division says your procedure of filing IFR
for VFR Flight Following services does little to reduce their workload and
plays no part in their decision to provide or not provide Flight Following
to VFR pilots. It literally takes the controller just a few seconds to input
the information. And they point out that there are significant disadvantages
to VFR pilots who file IFR for VFR Flight Following. Consider that once the
Flight Service Station sends the IFR flight plan to Air Traffic controllers,
they are finished with it and FSS will NOT track the airplane to destination
(because they assume the controllers will). This means that if Flight
Following services are cancelled for any reason, no one will look for the
airplane if it fails to reach destination.

Our Air Traffic Division suggests pilots file VFR flight plans (for all the
well know advantages) and then request Flight Following services at their
earliest convenience. This request could be made to the FSS if the pilot is
departing from a non-towered airport, or Ground Control when departing from
a tower controlled airport, or from Departure Control, or from Center.

But the sooner the request comes, the better for ATC.

One more thing, I want you to consider asking John Lynch for the answer to
your question. John Lynch is the FAA gentleman who was in charge of the
re-write of FAR Part 61 and 141 back in 1997. As such, he is the nation's
foremost authority on the interpretations of Part 61. He has placed all 500
pages of his interpretations on the Internet at a place he calls Frequently
Asked Questions. I checked there today and your question has not been asked.
But there is a place to ask unasked questions and I encourage you to do so.
That is the best way to get a truly official answer. I have attached a copy
of the May/June 2001 issue of AeroSafe which has a story on page 2 titled
"FAQ's" which tells you how to access Mr. Lynch's web site.

May you always find VFR and tailwinds.

_|_

___(_)___



Scott

[Hilton]

> May you always find VFR and tailwinds.

Quite frankly, I take exception to the first part of this statement. ;)

Hilton

[[email protected]]

David Brooks wrote:

> "Paul Safran" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I seem to have read or been told once that,
> > one can file an IFR flightplan with remark for
> > VFR flight conditions when not instrument rated,
> > or current, to get routing and practice within the system.
> > Comments?
>
> Despite what others have said, here is a "yes, but it doesn't help much"
> response from the Seattle FSDO. Newsgroupies from some other parts of the
> country have said that their ATC contacts like the idea.
>
> -- David Brooks
> WOW!!!!! Great question. My answer will be quite involved, so please, read
> the whole thing and don't take things out of context.
>
> First, FAR 61.3(e) says, "No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
> aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums
> prescribed for VFR flight unless that person holds: (1) The appropriate
> aircraft catagory, class, type (if required), and instrument rating on that
> person's certificate for any airplane, helicopter, or powered-lift being
> flown; (2) An airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate
> aircraft catagory, class and type rating (if required) for the aircraft
> being flown."
>
> Since filing the flight plan technically is not acting as pilot in command,
> we say FAR 61.3 does not specifically prohibit the filing of an IFR flight
> plan by a non-instrument rated pilot. Consider, as an example, the airline
> industry, where Aircraft Dispatchers file the flight plans. Few of those
> Dispatchers hold instrument ratings (in fact most don't even hold pilot
> certificates) and yet, they file the flight plans. The Captains accept the
> clearances from ATC (this act is definitely considered acting as PIC).
>
> So, there is no regulation which would prohibit a non-instrument rated pilot
> from filing the flight plan. But non-instrument rated pilots who accept IFR
> clearances from ATC will definitely be in for massive FAA penalties.
>
> Having said that, our Air Traffic Division says your procedure of filing IFR
> for VFR Flight Following services does little to reduce their workload and
> plays no part in their decision to provide or not provide Flight Following
> to VFR pilots. It literally takes the controller just a few seconds to input
> the information. And they point out that there are significant disadvantages
> to VFR pilots who file IFR for VFR Flight Following. Consider that once the
> Flight Service Station sends the IFR flight plan to Air Traffic controllers,
> they are finished with it and FSS will NOT track the airplane to destination
> (because they assume the controllers will). This means that if Flight
> Following services are cancelled for any reason, no one will look for the
> airplane if it fails to reach destination.
>
> Our Air Traffic Division suggests pilots file VFR flight plans (for all the
> well know advantages) and then request Flight Following services at their
> earliest convenience. This request could be made to the FSS if the pilot is
> departing from a non-towered airport, or Ground Control when departing from
> a tower controlled airport, or from Departure Control, or from Center.
>
> But the sooner the request comes, the better for ATC.
>
> One more thing, I want you to consider asking John Lynch for the answer to
> your question. John Lynch is the FAA gentleman who was in charge of the
> re-write of FAR Part 61 and 141 back in 1997. As such, he is the nation's
> foremost authority on the interpretations of Part 61. He has placed all 500
> pages of his interpretations on the Internet at a place he calls Frequently
> Asked Questions. I checked there today and your question has not been asked.
> But there is a place to ask unasked questions and I encourage you to do so.
> That is the best way to get a truly official answer. I have attached a copy
> of the May/June 2001 issue of AeroSafe which has a story on page 2 titled
> "FAQ's" which tells you how to access Mr. Lynch's web site.

It sure would have helped to supply the URL for Mr. Lynch's web site. This all
sounds like an urban legend to me.

The part about the airline dispatcher is meaningless, because that is a
certificated person operating under a requirement of Part 121. To compare that
to Part 91 operations is a very big stretch.

[David Brooks]

> wrote in message ...
<snippety>

> It sure would have helped to supply the URL for Mr. Lynch's web site.
This all
> sounds like an urban legend to me.

Latest is at http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc. The pdf
seems to have been

>
> The part about the airline dispatcher is meaningless, because that is a
> certificated person operating under a requirement of Part 121. To compare
that
> to Part 91 operations is a very big stretch.

He was just pointing out that not only pilots file plans as a general
illumination.

-- David Brooks

[David Brooks]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message ...
> <snippety>
>
> > It sure would have helped to supply the URL for Mr. Lynch's web site.
> This all
> > sounds like an urban legend to me.
>
> Latest is at http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc. The pdf
> seems to have been

I thought of following up with a correction to fill in the missing word, but
then I realized this was a nice example of self-referentiality, so I decided
not to follow up.

[John Clonts]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > wrote in message ...
> > <snippety>
> >
> > > It sure would have helped to supply the URL for Mr. Lynch's web site.
> > This all
> > > sounds like an urban legend to me.
> >
> > Latest is at http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc. The pdf
> > seems to have been
>
> I thought of following up with a correction to fill in the missing word,
but
> then I realized this was a nice example of self-referentiality, so I
decided
> not to follow up.
>
>

So instead, you decided to follow up to

[[email protected]]

David Brooks wrote:

>
> Despite what others have said, here is a "yes, but it doesn't help much"
> response from the Seattle FSDO. Newsgroupies from some other parts of the
> country have said that their ATC contacts like the idea.
>
> -

Following is the only reference I could find to the subject in the FAQs to which
you referred. I agree with the following language and it is quite different
than the BS you got from the Seattle FSDO. FSDOs are so often full of it.

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.57(d); If you’re intending to serve as the pilot in command
during the instrument proficiency check (and in most cases the flight instructor
is always considered to be the pilot in command on a flight where flight
training/checking is being provided) and you intend to file an IFR flight plan,
regardless whether the flight is in VMC or IMC, you must be instrument current
in accordance with § 61.57(c). As per § 61.57(c), “. . . no person may act as
pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than minimum prescribed
for VFR, unless . . .”

[Dave S]

I have tried to do such a thing down here in the Houston terminal
airspace to try and circumvent a common practice by the TRACON. It didnt
work for me.

What I did, which I garnered from usenet, was file an IFR plan under
DUATS with VFR in the altitude block, and VFR flight following in the
remarks section.

The rationale was based on the fact that when you are placed in the
system from a flight following standpoint, you have to submit nearly the
same info that you would to get an IFR plan (pop up or pre-filed). You
are assigned a data block just like any other IFR plan, the only diff is
that unless in Class B, separation isnt the controllers "fault".

Well.. it may work elsewhere, but it does NOT work in Houston. The
standard practice in Houston is NO HANDOFFS for VFR's at all. Cant even
get a "center" code, rather than a "local" code if you call up early on
clearance delivery. If its night, and slow, sometimes I can get Houston
to take the handoff coming back IN from the Center's territory but never
on the outbound leg.

Dave
PPSEL

Paul Safran wrote:
> I seem to have read or been told once that,
> one can file an IFR flightplan with remark for
> VFR flight conditions when not instrument rated,
> or current, to get routing and practice within the system.
> Comments?
>
>

[Dave S]

Nathan Young wrote:

> On Fri, 7 May 2004 11:02:22 -0400, "Paul Safran"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I seem to have read or been told once that,
>>one can file an IFR flightplan with remark for
>>VFR flight conditions when not instrument rated,
>>or current, to get routing and practice within the system.
>>Comments?
>
>
> I'm not an expert, but believe an IR is required to file an IFR
> flightplan. This makes sense as the controllers can't be expected to
> know whether or not they will be vectoring you into IMC conditions,
> and whether or not you can handle it.

Not quite correct. An Instrument rating is required to operate under an
IFR clearance. Anyone can "file" it. What this person COULD be trying to
do is prefile for radar services/flight following.

Filing a VFR plan goes to FSS. Filing an "IFR" plan goes to Center/ATC.
This isnt tooo unlike what is happening in the DC ADIZ, P49 and other
selected locations (Without referring to the specifics, here goes). You
can operate VFR out of there, but you have to have a discreet code and
are in continuous contact with ATC (essentially flight following). The
mechanism that this occurs is by inputting you into the "IFR" system
with a "VFR" tag or stipulation.

But I agree, its not ATC's job to keep you out of clouds.
>
> What you can do is ask controllers for VFR practice approaches, this
> will help with IFR radio comm in the terminal environment.
>
> For IFR radio comm enroute, this is harder to duplicate, but VFR
> flight following is reasonably close to IFR comms. What you won't get
> is clearances and reroutes.

Departing Love or some other busy fields (Besides Houston), your VFR
departure clearance is quite similar to the material you would get
during an IFR clearance. I agree about the reroutes, though.

Dave
>
> -Nathan

[David Megginson]

wrote:

> Following is the only reference I could find to the subject in the FAQs to which
> you referred. I agree with the following language and it is quite different
> than the BS you got from the Seattle FSDO. FSDOs are so often full of it.
>
> ANSWER: Ref. § 61.57(d); If you’re intending to serve as the pilot in command
> during the instrument proficiency check (and in most cases the flight instructor
> is always considered to be the pilot in command on a flight where flight
> training/checking is being provided) and you intend to file an IFR flight plan,
> regardless whether the flight is in VMC or IMC, you must be instrument current
> in accordance with § 61.57(c). As per § 61.57(c), “. . . no person may act as
> pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than minimum prescribed
> for VFR, unless . . .”

Sounds like pretty-much the same thing the Seattle FSDO said -- anyone can
file an IFR flight plan in the U.S., but only an instrument-rated, current
pilot may fly it (in IMC *or* VMC). Since there's no point filing a flight
plan that you cannot legally use, that seems to settle the point.


All the best,


David

[[email protected]]

David Megginson wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Following is the only reference I could find to the subject in the FAQs to which
> > you referred. I agree with the following language and it is quite different
> > than the BS you got from the Seattle FSDO. FSDOs are so often full of it.
> >
> > ANSWER: Ref. § 61.57(d); If you’re intending to serve as the pilot in command
> > during the instrument proficiency check (and in most cases the flight instructor
> > is always considered to be the pilot in command on a flight where flight
> > training/checking is being provided) and you intend to file an IFR flight plan,
> > regardless whether the flight is in VMC or IMC, you must be instrument current
> > in accordance with § 61.57(c). As per § 61.57(c), “. . . no person may act as
> > pilot in command under IFR or in weather conditions less than minimum prescribed
> > for VFR, unless . . .”
>
> Sounds like pretty-much the same thing the Seattle FSDO said -- anyone can
> file an IFR flight plan in the U.S., but only an instrument-rated, current
> pilot may fly it (in IMC *or* VMC). Since there's no point filing a flight
> plan that you cannot legally use, that seems to settle the point.

Upon re-reading the FSDO stuff, you're right. I misread it the first time.

[[email protected]]

David Brooks wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> <snippety>
>
> > It sure would have helped to supply the URL for Mr. Lynch's web site.
> This all
> > sounds like an urban legend to me.
>
> Latest is at http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/afs800/docs/pt61FAQ.doc. The pdf
> seems to have been
>
> >
> > The part about the airline dispatcher is meaningless, because that is a
> > certificated person operating under a requirement of Part 121. To compare
> that
> > to Part 91 operations is a very big stretch.
>
> He was just pointing out that not only pilots file plans as a general
> illumination.

And, all these years I haven't let my maid file flight plans for me. ;-)

[John Clonts]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
> I have tried to do such a thing down here in the Houston terminal
> airspace to try and circumvent a common practice by the TRACON. It didnt
> work for me.
>
> What I did, which I garnered from usenet, was file an IFR plan under
> DUATS with VFR in the altitude block, and VFR flight following in the
> remarks section.
>
> The rationale was based on the fact that when you are placed in the
> system from a flight following standpoint, you have to submit nearly the
> same info that you would to get an IFR plan (pop up or pre-filed). You
> are assigned a data block just like any other IFR plan, the only diff is
> that unless in Class B, separation isnt the controllers "fault".
>
> Well.. it may work elsewhere, but it does NOT work in Houston. The
> standard practice in Houston is NO HANDOFFS for VFR's at all. Cant even
> get a "center" code, rather than a "local" code if you call up early on
> clearance delivery. If its night, and slow, sometimes I can get Houston
> to take the handoff coming back IN from the Center's territory but never
> on the outbound leg.


Hello Dave,

Regarding VFR flights departing the Houston area...

Are you saying that Houston Center will generally not take a VFR handoff
from Houston Approach? Or are you saying Approach will not accept a VFR
handoff from a tower? Which airport exactly are you talking about, as an
example? DWH? SGR? ??

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Chip Jones]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
> I have tried to do such a thing down here in the Houston terminal
> airspace to try and circumvent a common practice by the TRACON. It didnt
> work for me.
>
> What I did, which I garnered from usenet, was file an IFR plan under
> DUATS with VFR in the altitude block, and VFR flight following in the
> remarks section.
>
> The rationale was based on the fact that when you are placed in the
> system from a flight following standpoint, you have to submit nearly the
> same info that you would to get an IFR plan (pop up or pre-filed). You
> are assigned a data block just like any other IFR plan, the only diff is
> that unless in Class B, separation isnt the controllers "fault".
>
> Well.. it may work elsewhere, but it does NOT work in Houston. The
> standard practice in Houston is NO HANDOFFS for VFR's at all. Cant even
> get a "center" code, rather than a "local" code if you call up early on
> clearance delivery. If its night, and slow, sometimes I can get Houston
> to take the handoff coming back IN from the Center's territory but never
> on the outbound leg.
>

VFR handoffs are procedurally suppressed in many parts of the country
because the local controllers have convinced themselves that they are too
busy and too important to bother themselves with trivial matters like VFR
flight following. Houston suffers from that corporate attitude, as do other
facilities. In most locations, like in Houston, this controller attitude is
pathetically laughable.

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
>
[snipped]
>
> You cannot act as PIC on an IFR flight plan or accept an IFR clearance
without
> an instrument rating. There is no prohibition against -filing- an IFR
flight plan.
>
> There was an extensive thread here (or in one of the r.a.* groups) about
how to
> file a flight plan for a VFR flight and get your proposal strip into all
the
> relevant controllers' hands by checking the "IFR" box on the flight plan
form,
> then coding "VFR/<altitude>" in the altitude block. Google for it. I've
used it
> and it works for me. I have an instrument rating, but it seems legal to me
even
> if I didn't.

Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
flightplan. I say "isn't exactly" because while I am one of the proponents
of your method, I don't consider using this particular trick to get into the
system to be the same as "filing" an IFR flightplan. The ATC flightplan
that this method generates is clearly a VFR flightplan to the controller
because it says "VFR" in the requested altitude block. It does not generate
routings other than what is filed by the pilot because the IFR pref routings
are suppressed by the ATC computer.


Chip, ZTL

[Dan Luke]

"Chip Jones" wrote:
> In most locations, like in Houston, this controller
> attitude is pathetically laughable.

Yes, it's bad in Houston; I never ask them for advisories anymore. Even
if they do take you, they may fail to call traffic.

But if you listen to their frequencies on a nice Friday afternoon, you
can almost understand their attitude. The miserable radio technique of
a lot of VFR pilots can really clog up the air. It's embarassing to
listen to, sometimes.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

I've recently had a discussion with my A&P/IA about this. He routinely hops
in his turbo arrow, and flies from Virginia to Key West VFR at 11000' without talking
to a soul. Right over top of Class-C and Class-B. What he says, (and I tend to agree
with him anymore), is if you talk to them, even if you're clear of their airspace,
they'll try to route you over hell and gone. Having flown under and over Chicago's
airspace, a number of times, you find this more often than not. Rather than
encouraging the additional safety of flight following, this really discourages working
with the approach controllers. Same thing talking with Milwaukee approach every time
I've gone up there. I'm coming lakeshore from the south, planning to go just outside
of their Class-C on my way in to Capitol, also just outside their Class-C. If I talk
to them, they'll route me 10 miles to the west, every time... even without traffic
conflict.

Of course, as you said, listening to some VFR pilots bumbling on the radio
like they're Smokey and the Bandit, it's no wonder why the controllers would rather
not talk to VFR pilots in general.

-Cory

Dan Luke > wrote:

: "Chip Jones" wrote:
:> In most locations, like in Houston, this controller
:> attitude is pathetically laughable.

: Yes, it's bad in Houston; I never ask them for advisories anymore. Even
: if they do take you, they may fail to call traffic.

: But if you listen to their frequencies on a nice Friday afternoon, you
: can almost understand their attitude. The miserable radio technique of
: a lot of VFR pilots can really clog up the air. It's embarassing to
: listen to, sometimes.
: --
: Dan
: C172RG at BFM



--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I've recently had a discussion with my A&P/IA about this. He
> routinely hops in his turbo arrow, and flies from Virginia to Key
> West VFR at 11000' without talking to a soul.
>

A violation of FAR 91.159(a).


>
> Right over top of Class-C and Class-B. What he says, (and I tend
> to agree with him anymore), is if you talk to them, even if you're clear
> of their airspace, they'll try to route you over hell and gone.
>

Possibly an error on ATC's part over the top of Class C airspace, definitely
an error on their part over Class B airspace.


>
> Having flown under and over Chicago's airspace, a number of
> times, you find this more often than not. Rather than encouraging
> the additional safety of flight following, this really discourages
> working with the approach controllers. Same thing talking with
> Milwaukee approach every time I've gone up there. I'm coming
> lakeshore from the south, planning to go just outside of their Class-C
> on my way in to Capitol, also just outside their Class-C. If I talk
> to them, they'll route me 10 miles to the west, every time... even
> without traffic conflict.
>

Class C services are provided to participating VFR traffic in the outer area
just as they are in the Class C proper, but without conflicting IFR traffic
they have no basis upon which to move you.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
: A violation of FAR 91.159(a).

I waffled on 11k or 12k... Flying direct it's west, flying via
Miami it's exactly due south of SW VA, but the point I was trying to make
was that it was over 10k. Even/Odd was assumed and irrelevent WRT
controllers routing VFR traffic not in their airspace.

: Class C services are provided to participating VFR traffic in the outer area
: just as they are in the Class C proper, but without conflicting IFR traffic
: they have no basis upon which to move you.

Almost... Even *with* conflicting IFR traffic if you are not in
their airspace, VFR traffic is under no obligation to accept being moved.
No obligation to even be in communication with them at all. If there's a
conlict, the controller's last resort is to move the IFR traffic and
rely on "see and avoid" in VMC.

-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Almost... Even *with* conflicting IFR traffic if you are not in
> their airspace, VFR traffic is under no obligation to accept being
> moved. No obligation to even be in communication with them at
> all. If there's a conlict, the controller's last resort is to move the
> IFR traffic and rely on "see and avoid" in VMC.
>

No, not "almost", what I wrote is exactly correct. The outer area
associated with Class C airspace is nonregulatory airspace surrounding
designated Class C airspace airports wherein ATC provides separation and
sequencing for all IFR and participating VFR aircraft. The outer area
extends outward 20 miles from the primary Class C airspace airport and
extends from the lower limits of radar/radio coverage up to the ceiling of
the approach control's delegated airspace, excluding the Class C airspace
proper. The same service is provided in the outer area as in the charted
Class C airspace, the only difference is participation is voluntary for VFR
aircraft in the outer area. If you elected to contact approach you
volunteered to participate. And, yes, ATC can move VFR traffic to provide
required separation from IFR traffic. If you're not in contact with ATC,
then you've obviously not volunteered to participate and no separation
mimima applies, so ATC will not move the IFR aircraft to resolve a conflict,
just issue a traffic advisory.

[Teacherjh]

>>
And, yes, ATC can move VFR traffic to provide
required separation from IFR traffic.
>>

But (in the outer area) that VFR traffic can decline to be moved, and thus
withdraw their voluteering for radar services.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> But (in the outer area) that VFR traffic can decline to be moved,
> and thus withdraw their voluteering for radar services.
>

Roger, radar service terminated, squawk VFR, have a nice day.

[Dave S]

I am saying that Houston APPROACH will not hand off outbound VFR's to
Center, and Approach will RARELY accept inboung VFR's as handoff's with
regards to flight following. It is particularly frustrating because
folks at Regional Approach (Dallas) work the handoff's both ways pretty
much 100% of the times I've been there. I personally would much rather
be talking to someone, or be in the system. I dont mind taking a vector
even though its "voluntary" if it helps me stay separated. And while I
dont rely on it, it's nice to have another set of eyes calling pertinent
traffic when able

The occasions that I have departed from towered fields in the HOU
terminal airspace, I have only recieved a local (tower or Tracon) code
with regards to VFR flight following. Never a center code, even when
they know you are heading out of bounds. The drill is "get terminated,
call up the center in a few miles"

I apologize for not being more clear in my initial post.

Dave

John Clonts wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>I have tried to do such a thing down here in the Houston terminal
>>airspace to try and circumvent a common practice by the TRACON. It didnt
>>work for me.
>>
>>What I did, which I garnered from usenet, was file an IFR plan under
>>DUATS with VFR in the altitude block, and VFR flight following in the
>>remarks section.
>>
>>The rationale was based on the fact that when you are placed in the
>>system from a flight following standpoint, you have to submit nearly the
>>same info that you would to get an IFR plan (pop up or pre-filed). You
>>are assigned a data block just like any other IFR plan, the only diff is
>>that unless in Class B, separation isnt the controllers "fault".
>>
>>Well.. it may work elsewhere, but it does NOT work in Houston. The
>>standard practice in Houston is NO HANDOFFS for VFR's at all. Cant even
>>get a "center" code, rather than a "local" code if you call up early on
>>clearance delivery. If its night, and slow, sometimes I can get Houston
>>to take the handoff coming back IN from the Center's territory but never
>>on the outbound leg.
>
>
>
> Hello Dave,
>
> Regarding VFR flights departing the Houston area...
>
> Are you saying that Houston Center will generally not take a VFR handoff
> from Houston Approach? Or are you saying Approach will not accept a VFR
> handoff from a tower? Which airport exactly are you talking about, as an
> example? DWH? SGR? ??
>
> Cheers,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ
>
>

[Dave S]

Hell.. its not just the VFR's who are messin up...

In a 2.4 hour jaunt today from the houston area, to north of Beaumont
and back, I heard a military fighter jock miss a turn-in call and I also
heard a corporate miss theirs as well. I heard two different people try
to use the same xponder code (yea, it was VFR). AND this was in the
middle of a push. Of course, the answer is more controllers... I'm not
holding my breath.

Dave

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Chip Jones" wrote:
>
>>In most locations, like in Houston, this controller
>>attitude is pathetically laughable.
>
>
> Yes, it's bad in Houston; I never ask them for advisories anymore. Even
> if they do take you, they may fail to call traffic.
>
> But if you listen to their frequencies on a nice Friday afternoon, you
> can almost understand their attitude. The miserable radio technique of
> a lot of VFR pilots can really clog up the air. It's embarassing to
> listen to, sometimes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> In a 2.4 hour jaunt today from the houston area, to north of Beaumont
> and back, I heard a military fighter jock miss a turn-in call and I also
> heard a corporate miss theirs as well. I heard two different people try
> to use the same xponder code (yea, it was VFR). AND this was in the
> middle of a push. Of course, the answer is more controllers... I'm not
> holding my breath.
>

Why is the answer more controllers?

[Dave S]

If you dont take their "recommended vector" they can terminate your
radar services arbitrarily under the "workload" clause.

If you want flight following, you have to play ball.

Dave

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I've recently had a discussion with my A&P/IA about this. He
>>routinely hops in his turbo arrow, and flies from Virginia to Key
>>West VFR at 11000' without talking to a soul.
>>
>
>
> A violation of FAR 91.159(a).
>
>
>
>>Right over top of Class-C and Class-B. What he says, (and I tend
>>to agree with him anymore), is if you talk to them, even if you're clear
>>of their airspace, they'll try to route you over hell and gone.
>>
>
>
> Possibly an error on ATC's part over the top of Class C airspace, definitely
> an error on their part over Class B airspace.
>
>
>
>>Having flown under and over Chicago's airspace, a number of
>>times, you find this more often than not. Rather than encouraging
>>the additional safety of flight following, this really discourages
>>working with the approach controllers. Same thing talking with
>>Milwaukee approach every time I've gone up there. I'm coming
>>lakeshore from the south, planning to go just outside of their Class-C
>>on my way in to Capitol, also just outside their Class-C. If I talk
>>to them, they'll route me 10 miles to the west, every time... even
>>without traffic conflict.
>>
>
>
> Class C services are provided to participating VFR traffic in the outer area
> just as they are in the Class C proper, but without conflicting IFR traffic
> they have no basis upon which to move you.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> If you dont take their "recommended vector" they can terminate your
> radar services arbitrarily under the "workload" clause.
>

How so? Declining a suggested vector doesn't affect their workload.


>
> If you want flight following, you have to play ball.
>

When the controller does things contrary to established procedures it's
clear he's not a sharp troop. How useful is flight following from such
controllers?

[Newps]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...


>
> The occasions that I have departed from towered fields in the HOU
> terminal airspace, I have only recieved a local (tower or Tracon) code
> with regards to VFR flight following. Never a center code, even when
> they know you are heading out of bounds. The drill is "get terminated,
> call up the center in a few miles"

We do this as standard procedure because that's what people want. We have
found that virtually nobody wants center flight following, less than 5% ask
for it, whether on the ground before departure or in the air.

[Teacherjh]

>>
We have
found that virtually nobody wants center flight following, less than 5% ask
for it, whether on the ground before departure or in the air.
<<

If somebody calls asking for center flight following, do you still assume they
dont' want it?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Newps]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> We have
> found that virtually nobody wants center flight following, less than 5%
ask
> for it, whether on the ground before departure or in the air.
> <<
>
> If somebody calls asking for center flight following, do you still assume
they
> dont' want it?

Nope, then we'll give you a center code and hand you off to the center. But
you have to ask for it. Simply telling me your destination, which happens
to be a long way away, won't do it.

[Bill Gamelson]

>>Nope, then we'll give you a center code and hand you off to the center.
But
>>you have to ask for it. Simply telling me your destination, which happens
>>to be a long way away, won't do it.

What if you saw someone pop up out of Columbia Missouri, heading East. They
call you up and inform you they want VFR flight following to Wichita KS.
What exactly would you say to him? ;-()

[Dan Luke]

"Dave S" wrote:
> In a 2.4 hour jaunt today from the houston area, to
> north of Beaumont and back, I heard a military fighter
> jock miss a turn-in call and I also heard a corporate
> miss theirs as well.

Well, that'll happen to the best of us! What really makes me cringe is
a pilot forcing a controller to play "20 Questions," as in this exchange
I heard passing New Orleans one day:

"New Orleans approach, Cessna [blocked]."
"Cessna calling New Orleans say again."
"Cessna 1234P."
"Cessna 1234P, say request."
"Uh, Cessna 1234P is with you and we would like flight following."
"Cessna 1234P, say your type aircraft, location, destination and cruise
altitude."
[long pause, with nearly audible sound of controller's foot tapping]
"Cessna 1234P is is coming from Reserve at 1,400."
"Cessna 1234P, say destination and cruise altitude."
"Uh, we're going to Picayune."
[etc., etc.]

New Orleans is the most easygoing of the Class Bs I frequent, and the
long-suffering controller handled this guy with saintly patience, but
this kind of thing is what makes VFR aircraft 2nd-class citizens in the
eyes of many controllers.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Newps]

"Bill Gamelson" > wrote in message
. com...
> >>Nope, then we'll give you a center code and hand you off to the center.
> But
> >>you have to ask for it. Simply telling me your destination, which
happens
> >>to be a long way away, won't do it.
>
> What if you saw someone pop up out of Columbia Missouri, heading East.
They
> call you up and inform you they want VFR flight following to Wichita KS.
> What exactly would you say to him? ;-()



Flight following are the magic words. I work at a class C, you will get a
transponder code when you depart VFR. But unless you specifically say you
want flight following you will be terminated at 20 miles.

[Bill Gamelson]

>>Flight following are the magic words. I work at a class C, you will get a
>>transponder code when you depart VFR. But unless you specifically say you
>>want flight following you will be terminated at 20 miles.

Yea, I know. Obviously you didn't catch that goof. A plane takes off out
of Columbia Missouri and heads 090 and then asks for flight following to
Wichita KS which is 270. I though you would catch it. I was embarrased
when the controller said "Well I'd be happy to...but..there's something I
can't quite understand....[10-15 second pause]...I'll tell you what, turn
heading 270 and that should get you to Wichita." I was so embarrased I know
I literally double-backed on his screen!

[[email protected]]

Dave S > wrote:
: If you dont take their "recommended vector" they can terminate your
: radar services arbitrarily under the "workload" clause.

: If you want flight following, you have to play ball.

Right... my original point refers to controllers who categorically vector
any VFR traffic that chooses to talk to them from their current position outside the
controlled airspace to a position even more outside of the controlled airspace. I
would think controllers would prefer anyone within the area to be in communication
with them and not penalize those VFR folk who chose to play by vectoring them around.
It's safer for everyone to be in communication and close to somebody else than to be
just as close without communication.

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Dave S]

Regional Approach in Dallas does it without being asked.

Houston approach in Houston wont do it, even when asked.

Dave

Newps wrote:
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>We have
>>found that virtually nobody wants center flight following, less than 5%
>
> ask
>
>>for it, whether on the ground before departure or in the air.
>><<
>>
>>If somebody calls asking for center flight following, do you still assume
>
> they
>
>>dont' want it?
>
>
> Nope, then we'll give you a center code and hand you off to the center. But
> you have to ask for it. Simply telling me your destination, which happens
> to be a long way away, won't do it.
>
>
>
>

[Dave S]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>If you dont take their "recommended vector" they can terminate your
>>radar services arbitrarily under the "workload" clause.
>>
>
>
> How so? Declining a suggested vector doesn't affect their workload.
>
>
>
>>If you want flight following, you have to play ball.
>>
>
>
> When the controller does things contrary to established procedures it's
> clear he's not a sharp troop. How useful is flight following from such
> controllers?
>
>
It does (affect workload)if they have to vector 5 other people because
of you. I wouldnt be obligated to do any favors to someone who doesnt
offer any in return.

Dave.

[John T]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com
>
> Since
> there's no point filing a flight plan that you cannot legally use,
> that seems to settle the point.

Not necessarily. I certainly filed quite a number of IFR flight plans
during my instrument training and I certainly did use them legally even
though I was not PIC for the training flights.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> It does (affect workload)if they have to vector 5 other people because
> of you.
>

Why would they have to vector 5 other people because of me?


>
> I wouldnt be obligated to do any favors to someone who doesnt
> offer any in return.
>

You'll have to explain the meaning of that.

[Dave S]

Steve...

Do you by any chance fly VFR, in a busy terminal airspace, perhaps
during the "push"? You sure seem to have a hard time grasping some
pretty obvious and simple concepts that I am discussing... or you just
seem determined to ask "why" an awful lot. I'm sorry I am not being
detailed enough to suit your needs.

Dave

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
>
>>It does (affect workload)if they have to vector 5 other people because
>>of you.
>>
>
>
> Why would they have to vector 5 other people because of me?
>
>
>
>>I wouldnt be obligated to do any favors to someone who doesnt
>>offer any in return.
>>
>
>
> You'll have to explain the meaning of that.
>
>

[Dave Butler]

Chip Jones wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> [snipped]
>
>>You cannot act as PIC on an IFR flight plan or accept an IFR clearance
>
> without
>
>>an instrument rating. There is no prohibition against -filing- an IFR
>
> flight plan.
>
>>There was an extensive thread here (or in one of the r.a.* groups) about
>
> how to
>
>>file a flight plan for a VFR flight and get your proposal strip into all
>
> the
>
>>relevant controllers' hands by checking the "IFR" box on the flight plan
>
> form,
>
>>then coding "VFR/<altitude>" in the altitude block. Google for it. I've
>
> used it
>
>>and it works for me. I have an instrument rating, but it seems legal to me
>
> even
>
>>if I didn't.
>
>
> Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
> flightplan. I say "isn't exactly" because while I am one of the proponents
> of your method, I don't consider using this particular trick to get into the
> system to be the same as "filing" an IFR flightplan. The ATC flightplan
> that this method generates is clearly a VFR flightplan to the controller
> because it says "VFR" in the requested altitude block. It does not generate
> routings other than what is filed by the pilot because the IFR pref routings
> are suppressed by the ATC computer.
>

OK, thanks, Chip. I accept your refinement.

What you say about IFR pref routings is interesting. Care to expand on that a
little? Are you saying that the ARTCC computer will come up with a new route for
an IFR based on preferred routings, but since this is a VFR plan, it skips that
rerouting step?

[Greg Esres]

<<Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
flightplan. >>

Your co-worker, Don Brown, is hostile towards the procedure for just
this reason. He says that an IFR sqwawk code gets reserved for these
flight plans and sometimes center runs out.

[Chip Jones]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Chip Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
> > flightplan. I say "isn't exactly" because while I am one of the
proponents
> > of your method, I don't consider using this particular trick to get into
the
> > system to be the same as "filing" an IFR flightplan. The ATC flightplan
> > that this method generates is clearly a VFR flightplan to the controller
> > because it says "VFR" in the requested altitude block. It does not
generate
> > routings other than what is filed by the pilot because the IFR pref
routings
> > are suppressed by the ATC computer.
> >
>
> OK, thanks, Chip. I accept your refinement.
>
> What you say about IFR pref routings is interesting. Care to expand on
that a
> little? Are you saying that the ARTCC computer will come up with a new
route for
> an IFR based on preferred routings, but since this is a VFR plan, it skips
that
> rerouting step?

The ARTCC computers are all programmed locally, so the automation varies
slightly from Center to Center. However, one of the common routines of the
Host computer everywhere is to compare an IFR aircraft's filed route of
flight with ATC preferential IFR routes. It does this in New York, it does
this in Chicago, it does this in Atlanta.

These ATC IFR pref routes are more commonly referred to as "Red Routes" in
ATC parlance because back in the days before thermal strip printing (which
only prints in black), these IFR Pref routes would be printed in red on the
flight strip. Red ink on a flight progress strip indicates a planned action
or instruction. Black ink indicates an issued or exectuted action or
instruction. Since you filed one way, and the computer wants you to go a
different way, the Red Route would kick out at the appropriate sector or
facility and ATC would issue you a reroute. This would often be a STAR, but
not always.

The automation techs have drawn imaginary lines across ATC sectors. If the
line of your route of flight crosses one of these lines, and if you meet
other preconditions (like you are at or above a certain altitude, at or
below a certain altitude, flying into a particular destination, flying a
turbo jet, a turbo-prop, a prop, wearing an AOPA shirt, etc) then your
flightplan may trigger the local ATC computer's Red Route for your flight.
The computer actually stops processing your flightplan from that point
forward, and instead picks up the Red Route and goes from there. This makes
it *imperitive* for the controller holding that Red Route on you to either
issue you the reroute or else suppress the pref route by over riding it.

An example, take an IFR departure from LOU up in Louisville Kentucky, flying
down to PDK here in the Atlanta terminal area. Suppose that the pilot files
LOU direct PDK (I can hear Don Brown sighing right now). Indy Center will
process the flightplan to Atlanta Center as a direct flight. Indy Center
(ZID) does not had a Red Route on this airplane, so neither Louisville FSS
nor Louisville Departure will have one. Louisville sits under Indy Center
and is covered by the ZID host computer. The airplanes launches and flies
south, direct PDK. When the Atlanta Center (ZTL) computer gets the ATC
flightplan from ZID's computer, it generates a flight progress strip for
each of the sectors this aircraft will fly through. Before it does this, it
compares the filed route of flight (direct PDK) with any appropriate pref
routes. In this case, direct PDK is a no-no. At the first ZTL sector, a
Red Route is generated. Plus, the computer then stops processing the route
direct, and begins to kick out stips along the Red Route.

The Red Route will be *GQO BUNNI2*. The controller can then look at several
factors before he/she issues this route. If the aircraft is a jet, he will
issue the Red Route as printed because the aircraft has to cross GQO at
FL240 or below, and is likely at or above FL290 coming off of LOU. This is
a coordination issue with the Center NW arrival sector and there are
beaucoup jets heading into the Atlanta terminal area at any given time. If
this aircraft is a turboprop and is at or above FL240, likely there will be
no short cut and the full red route will be issued just like the computer
dictated, for the same reason as the jet example. If this aircraft is a
turboprop operating at or below FL230, then the controller has more options.
The controller may offer the aircraft a reroute of *DUMBB BUNNI2*, *BUNNI
BUNNI2" or maybe even take them over onto another STAR like *AWSON AWSON1*
which is closer to PDK when you hit terminal airspace. If the aircraft in
question is a prop at or below 12,000, then the controller may very well
suppress the red route all together (a process known as "splatting the
route") and work the airplane strait in to PDK. This GA pilot will never
know that the controller has gone out of his way to supress a pref route
because it won't ever be mentioned.

If this aircraft was VFR from LOU to PDK, no matter if it were a jet, a
turboprop or a prop, at any altitude below the Class A, the IFR Red Route
will never be generated. For VFR aircraft, the existence of "VFR" in the
altitude field supresses this pref routing routine. The computer processes
VFR ATC strips just like you filed, right on down the line of your route of
flight. This VFR aircraft flight data would shoot right down the line as
filed. That is, *unless* the local ATC facility is "too busy" or "too
important" to process VFR's receiving Flight Following via ATC automation.
The local automation gurus can customize the computer routines in each
ARTCC. In some cases, for those really, really busy places like Houston,
Pago Pago, Chicago, Podunk etc, they likely use modified routines that
procedurally supress VFR flightplan coordination. In other, less busy,
places, like New York, Southern California, Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, etc,
VFR ATC flightplans are processed just like IFR's, enhancing the chances of
you getting service and a VFR hand-off to the next facility. In none of
these places shoud an IFR Red Route be generated for a VFR aircraft.

Chip, ZTL

[Dave Butler]

Chip Jones wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Chip Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
>>>flightplan. I say "isn't exactly" because while I am one of the
>>
> proponents
>
>>>of your method, I don't consider using this particular trick to get into
>>
> the
>
>>>system to be the same as "filing" an IFR flightplan. The ATC flightplan
>>>that this method generates is clearly a VFR flightplan to the controller
>>>because it says "VFR" in the requested altitude block. It does not
>>
> generate
>
>>>routings other than what is filed by the pilot because the IFR pref
>>
> routings
>
>>>are suppressed by the ATC computer.
>>>
>>
>>OK, thanks, Chip. I accept your refinement.
>>
>>What you say about IFR pref routings is interesting. Care to expand on
>
> that a
>
>>little? Are you saying that the ARTCC computer will come up with a new
>
> route for
>
>>an IFR based on preferred routings, but since this is a VFR plan, it skips
>
> that
>
>>rerouting step?
>
>
> The ARTCC computers are all programmed locally, so the automation varies
> slightly from Center to Center. However, one of the common routines of the
> Host computer everywhere is to compare an IFR aircraft's filed route of
> flight with ATC preferential IFR routes. It does this in New York, it does
> this in Chicago, it does this in Atlanta.
>
> These ATC IFR pref routes are more commonly referred to as "Red Routes" in
> ATC parlance because back in the days before thermal strip printing (which
> only prints in black), these IFR Pref routes would be printed in red on the
> flight strip. Red ink on a flight progress strip indicates a planned action
> or instruction. Black ink indicates an issued or exectuted action or
> instruction. Since you filed one way, and the computer wants you to go a
> different way, the Red Route would kick out at the appropriate sector or
> facility and ATC would issue you a reroute. This would often be a STAR, but
> not always.
>
> The automation techs have drawn imaginary lines across ATC sectors. If the
> line of your route of flight crosses one of these lines, and if you meet
> other preconditions (like you are at or above a certain altitude, at or
> below a certain altitude, flying into a particular destination, flying a
> turbo jet, a turbo-prop, a prop, wearing an AOPA shirt, etc) then your
> flightplan may trigger the local ATC computer's Red Route for your flight.
> The computer actually stops processing your flightplan from that point
> forward, and instead picks up the Red Route and goes from there. This makes
> it *imperitive* for the controller holding that Red Route on you to either
> issue you the reroute or else suppress the pref route by over riding it.
>
> An example, take an IFR departure from LOU up in Louisville Kentucky, flying
> down to PDK here in the Atlanta terminal area. Suppose that the pilot files
> LOU direct PDK (I can hear Don Brown sighing right now). Indy Center will
> process the flightplan to Atlanta Center as a direct flight. Indy Center
> (ZID) does not had a Red Route on this airplane, so neither Louisville FSS
> nor Louisville Departure will have one. Louisville sits under Indy Center
> and is covered by the ZID host computer. The airplanes launches and flies
> south, direct PDK. When the Atlanta Center (ZTL) computer gets the ATC
> flightplan from ZID's computer, it generates a flight progress strip for
> each of the sectors this aircraft will fly through. Before it does this, it
> compares the filed route of flight (direct PDK) with any appropriate pref
> routes. In this case, direct PDK is a no-no. At the first ZTL sector, a
> Red Route is generated. Plus, the computer then stops processing the route
> direct, and begins to kick out stips along the Red Route.
>
> The Red Route will be *GQO BUNNI2*. The controller can then look at several
> factors before he/she issues this route. If the aircraft is a jet, he will
> issue the Red Route as printed because the aircraft has to cross GQO at
> FL240 or below, and is likely at or above FL290 coming off of LOU. This is
> a coordination issue with the Center NW arrival sector and there are
> beaucoup jets heading into the Atlanta terminal area at any given time. If
> this aircraft is a turboprop and is at or above FL240, likely there will be
> no short cut and the full red route will be issued just like the computer
> dictated, for the same reason as the jet example. If this aircraft is a
> turboprop operating at or below FL230, then the controller has more options.
> The controller may offer the aircraft a reroute of *DUMBB BUNNI2*, *BUNNI
> BUNNI2" or maybe even take them over onto another STAR like *AWSON AWSON1*
> which is closer to PDK when you hit terminal airspace. If the aircraft in
> question is a prop at or below 12,000, then the controller may very well
> suppress the red route all together (a process known as "splatting the
> route") and work the airplane strait in to PDK. This GA pilot will never
> know that the controller has gone out of his way to supress a pref route
> because it won't ever be mentioned.
>
> If this aircraft was VFR from LOU to PDK, no matter if it were a jet, a
> turboprop or a prop, at any altitude below the Class A, the IFR Red Route
> will never be generated. For VFR aircraft, the existence of "VFR" in the
> altitude field supresses this pref routing routine. The computer processes
> VFR ATC strips just like you filed, right on down the line of your route of
> flight. This VFR aircraft flight data would shoot right down the line as
> filed. That is, *unless* the local ATC facility is "too busy" or "too
> important" to process VFR's receiving Flight Following via ATC automation.
> The local automation gurus can customize the computer routines in each
> ARTCC. In some cases, for those really, really busy places like Houston,
> Pago Pago, Chicago, Podunk etc, they likely use modified routines that
> procedurally supress VFR flightplan coordination. In other, less busy,
> places, like New York, Southern California, Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, etc,
> VFR ATC flightplans are processed just like IFR's, enhancing the chances of
> you getting service and a VFR hand-off to the next facility. In none of
> these places shoud an IFR Red Route be generated for a VFR aircraft.
>

Wow, Chip, thanks for the education. You've done it again. Sure appreciate your
insights.

Dave

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> Steve...
>
> Do you by any chance fly VFR, in a busy terminal airspace, perhaps
> during the "push"? You sure seem to have a hard time grasping some
> pretty obvious and simple concepts that I am discussing... or you just
> seem determined to ask "why" an awful lot. I'm sorry I am not being
> detailed enough to suit your needs.
>

Dave, I think it's you that's having difficulty grasping the concept. A
previous poster wrote about flying "right over top of Class-C and Class-B"
airspace. He added, "if you talk to them, even if you're clear of their
airspace, they'll try to route you over hell and gone." In my response I
stated that was possibly an error on ATC's part over the top of Class C
airspace and definitely an error on their part over Class B airspace. It's
possibly an error over Class C airspace because Class C services are
provided to participating aircraft in the outer area just as they are in the
Class C airspace proper. Outside of Class B or Class C airspace, or the
outer area associated with Class C airspace, or a TRSA, ATC should not
assign headings, routes altitudes, etc, to VFR aircraft. To do so violates
FAA Order 7110.65, the document which prescribes air traffic control
procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control
services. If you've been following the thread, you know we've been
discussing operations outside of these types of airspace. So what is this
"busy terminal airspace" you're referring to?

[Newps]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
> flightplan. >>
>
> Your co-worker, Don Brown, is hostile towards the procedure for just
> this reason. He says that an IFR sqwawk code gets reserved for these
> flight plans and sometimes center runs out.

Codes are codes. Centers use the same codes for VFR as for IFR. In the
TRACON we use separate VFR codes and IFR codes.

[Ron Natalie]

"Dave S" > wrote in message link.net...
> Filing a VFR plan goes to FSS. Filing an "IFR" plan goes to Center/ATC.
> This isnt tooo unlike what is happening in the DC ADIZ, P49 and other
> selected locations (Without referring to the specifics, here goes). You
> can operate VFR out of there, but you have to have a discreet code and
> are in continuous contact with ATC (essentially flight following).

You are in radio contact with ATC, but there is no guarantee of services provided.

[Dave S]

Read my other posts... some of which you've responded to.

Dave

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Steve...
>>
>>Do you by any chance fly VFR, in a busy terminal airspace, perhaps
>>during the "push"? You sure seem to have a hard time grasping some
>>pretty obvious and simple concepts that I am discussing... or you just
>>seem determined to ask "why" an awful lot. I'm sorry I am not being
>>detailed enough to suit your needs.
>>
>
>
> Dave, I think it's you that's having difficulty grasping the concept. A
> previous poster wrote about flying "right over top of Class-C and Class-B"
> airspace. He added, "if you talk to them, even if you're clear of their
> airspace, they'll try to route you over hell and gone." In my response I
> stated that was possibly an error on ATC's part over the top of Class C
> airspace and definitely an error on their part over Class B airspace. It's
> possibly an error over Class C airspace because Class C services are
> provided to participating aircraft in the outer area just as they are in the
> Class C airspace proper. Outside of Class B or Class C airspace, or the
> outer area associated with Class C airspace, or a TRSA, ATC should not
> assign headings, routes altitudes, etc, to VFR aircraft. To do so violates
> FAA Order 7110.65, the document which prescribes air traffic control
> procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control
> services. If you've been following the thread, you know we've been
> discussing operations outside of these types of airspace. So what is this
> "busy terminal airspace" you're referring to?
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> Read my other posts... some of which you've responded to.
>

Which indicates I've already read them. What would I gain by reading them
again?