Missing flight plans

[Paul kgyy]

Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was filed
with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
time).

In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.

[Robert M. Gary]

I thought DUATS VFR flight plans were never available to FSS, they have
to open them blind.
-Robert

Paul kgyy wrote:
> Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
> find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
> Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was filed
> with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
> time).
>
> In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.

[Michael Ware]

They can activate or cancel them but cannot amend them.
Mike

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I thought DUATS VFR flight plans were never available to FSS, they have
> to open them blind.
> -Robert
>
> Paul kgyy wrote:
> > Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
> > find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
> > Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was filed
> > with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
> > time).
> >
> > In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.
>

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:34:13 -0700, Paul kgyy wrote:

> Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
> find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
> Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was filed
> with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
> time).
>
> In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.

I had a flight plan magically open on me. I had filed three flight plans,
one for each leg of my trip, and had opened and closed two of them. I
couldn't raise FSS on my return leg (flight plan #3) and so was not able
to open it. Shortly after landing I got a call on my cell phone asking if
I had made it to my destination and to inform me I had failed to close my
flight plan from the return trip home.

None of us understood how that happened but the guy on the other end
wasn't too worried about it.

Greg

[Travis Marlatte]

You said that you couldn't raise FSS so I assume that you tried. FSS
probably heard your radio calls even though you never heard their response.
They may have opened your flight plan as a default - or maybe your initial
radio calls included the request.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK
"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:34:13 -0700, Paul kgyy wrote:
>
>> Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
>> find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
>> Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was filed
>> with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
>> time).
>>
>> In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.
>
> I had a flight plan magically open on me. I had filed three flight plans,
> one for each leg of my trip, and had opened and closed two of them. I
> couldn't raise FSS on my return leg (flight plan #3) and so was not able
> to open it. Shortly after landing I got a call on my cell phone asking if
> I had made it to my destination and to inform me I had failed to close my
> flight plan from the return trip home.
>
> None of us understood how that happened but the guy on the other end
> wasn't too worried about it.
>
> Greg
>
>

[Emily[_1_]]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
> find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
> Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was filed
> with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
> time).
>
> In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.

I remember filing a flight plan and hopping in the plane two hours
later. Ground let me sit there for fifteen minutes while they contacted
center, came back on, told me to get out and call FSS again. Repeated
the process once more before I gave up and left VFR and filed in the air
(yeah, for some reason I REALLY wanted to be IFR, can't remember why)

(this was Terre Haute as well, for those keeping track).

[BTIZ]

There is an online method to post problems at the Lockheed Martin Web site.

I posted a problem on Monday after getting advice from this forum and today
I had a response via email from the station manager, identifying the problem
and asking me to try it again.

Time to voice that complaint. http://www.afss.com/feedback/
It seems to be working for me.

BT

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
> find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
> Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was filed
> with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
> time).
>
> In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.
>

[Michael Ware]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Paul kgyy wrote:
> > Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
> > find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
> > Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was filed
> > with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
> > time).
> >
> > In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.
>
> I remember filing a flight plan and hopping in the plane two hours
> later. Ground let me sit there for fifteen minutes while they contacted
> center, came back on, told me to get out and call FSS again. Repeated
> the process once more before I gave up and left VFR and filed in the air
> (yeah, for some reason I REALLY wanted to be IFR, can't remember why)
>
> (this was Terre Haute as well, for those keeping track).
Never had any trouble with Terre Haute. Cleveland dropped the ball once.

[Wizard of Draws[_1_]]

On 8/2/06 7:03 PM, in article ,
"Greg Copeland" > wrote:
>
> I had a flight plan magically open on me. I had filed three flight plans,
> one for each leg of my trip, and had opened and closed two of them. I
> couldn't raise FSS on my return leg (flight plan #3) and so was not able
> to open it. Shortly after landing I got a call on my cell phone asking if
> I had made it to my destination and to inform me I had failed to close my
> flight plan from the return trip home.
>
> None of us understood how that happened but the guy on the other end
> wasn't too worried about it.
>
> Greg
>
>

Some time ago on a cross-country that took me near, not into, Chattanooga's
airspace, I notified them where I was as a courtesy. They gave me a code to
squawk. After I was well clear of their airspace, they told me to resume own
navigation. Fat, dumb and happy, I squawked 1200 and went on to land at my
home base. After I hanging out a bit, the airport manager came up to me and
chewed me out for not closing my flight plan. I guess Chattanooga opened one
for me.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Three weeks ago, on a Saturday morning we had a plan on file, opened
with Jonesboro Radio and went trucking off merrily across the
countryside. We arrived at our destination about 2.5 later and called to
cancel - the plan was never opened. Kind of scary...

Regards,

James A. (Jim) Carter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul kgyy ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 16:34
> Posted To: rec.aviation.piloting
> Conversation: Missing flight plans
> Subject: Missing flight plans
>
> Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
> find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
> Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was
filed
> with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
> time).
>
> In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.

[Michelle]

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in
message news:C0F6CE43.89355%jeffbREMOVETHIS@REMOVEALSOwiza rdofdraws.com...
>
> Some time ago on a cross-country that took me near, not into,
> Chattanooga's
> airspace, I notified them where I was as a courtesy. They gave me a code
> to
> squawk. After I was well clear of their airspace, they told me to resume
> own
> navigation. Fat, dumb and happy, I squawked 1200 and went on to land at my
> home base. After I hanging out a bit, the airport manager came up to me
> and
> chewed me out for not closing my flight plan. I guess Chattanooga opened
> one
> for me.

You were on a cross-country without a flight plan?

Michelle S.

[Denny]

> You were on a cross-country without a flight plan?

He was ?
Oh mi gawd, doesn't he know that will cause your engine to stall and
then you die !!!!

denny

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:35:09 +0000, Travis Marlatte wrote:

> You said that you couldn't raise FSS so I assume that you tried. FSS
> probably heard your radio calls even though you never heard their response.
> They may have opened your flight plan as a default - or maybe your initial
> radio calls included the request.

That's what the guy on the other end of the phone said. That seems pretty
odd to me.


Greg

[Kyler Laird]

"Denny" > writes:

>> You were on a cross-country without a flight plan?

>He was ?
>Oh mi gawd, doesn't he know that will cause your engine to stall and
>then you die !!!!

And after you die there will be an even *longer* delay before anyone
comes looking for your wreckage (assuming that you didn't have Following
and your ELT didn't function properly and no one was expecting to hear
from you).

Please, people, think of the aging GA fleet. If people go flying around
without flight plans we're going to lose a lot of parts that are
valuable to those of us flying old planes.

--kyler

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
> find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
> Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was filed
> with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
> time).
>
> In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.

DUAT should be able to trace back through their logs and find out what happened.
It will help if you have the transaction number from when you filed.

A couple of ways I've had flight plans lost:
- filed with FSS, and the N-number had some digits transposed.
- filed with DUAT, and I miscalculated the zulu departure time.

Dave

[xyzzy]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Paul kgyy wrote:
> > Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
> > find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
> > Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was filed
> > with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
> > time).
> >
> > In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.
>
> DUAT should be able to trace back through their logs and find out what happened.
> It will help if you have the transaction number from when you filed.
>
> A couple of ways I've had flight plans lost:
> - filed with FSS, and the N-number had some digits transposed.
> - filed with DUAT, and I miscalculated the zulu departure time.

I've filed withi DUAT planning to use a specific club plane. then I
get to the airport and that one has a squawk so I take a different
plane. I've had good luck when that happens calling up ATC and telling
them that I'd like to open a flight plan that was filed with tail
number x but I need change the tail number to y and open it. I've done
this with VFR palns. So there is some flexibility there. Of course in
that case I knew what the "wrong" tail number was, if I had made a typo
they probably would never have found it.

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:12:44 -0700, xyzzy wrote:
[snip]
> Of course in
> that case I knew what the "wrong" tail number was, if I had made a typo
> they probably would never have found it.

If you file with a contact, can't they look it up that way too?

Greg

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:12:44 -0700, xyzzy wrote:

> I've had good luck when that happens calling up ATC and telling them that
> I'd like to open a flight plan that was filed with tail number x but I
> need change the tail number to y and open it.

I've had last-minute plane switches too, and it never occurred to me to do
as you've done.

Thanks for mentioning it.

- Andrew

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> Please, people, think of the aging GA fleet. If people go flying around
> without flight plans we're going to lose a lot of parts that are
> valuable to those of us flying old planes.
>
> --kyler

Hey Kyler... this will hit home. We just finished the annual on our Aztec.
There is a fellow based at the airport where we had the work done that has
trashed 3... yes THREE Aztec's in less than 6 months. Runway overrun taking
out the gear and nose, groundlooped the second Aztec in a
crosswind/crossrunway/into the ditch maneuver taking out the gear, then hit
a deer with the third but after it was fixed lit the left engine on fire.

Talk about being hard on the used parts inventory!

Jim

[Mark Hansen]

On 08/03/06 09:51, Jim Burns wrote:
> "Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Please, people, think of the aging GA fleet. If people go flying around
>> without flight plans we're going to lose a lot of parts that are
>> valuable to those of us flying old planes.
>>
>> --kyler
>
> Hey Kyler... this will hit home. We just finished the annual on our Aztec.
> There is a fellow based at the airport where we had the work done that has
> trashed 3... yes THREE Aztec's in less than 6 months. Runway overrun taking
> out the gear and nose, groundlooped the second Aztec in a
> crosswind/crossrunway/into the ditch maneuver taking out the gear, then hit
> a deer with the third but after it was fixed lit the left engine on fire.
>
> Talk about being hard on the used parts inventory!
>
> Jim
>
>

I wonder what that does to his insurance rates.


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

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

My understanding is he filed a claim on the first airplane but not on #2 or
#3. I actually have the same agent as he does. I saw the agent at OSH and
inquired about our insurance which is due this month (it went down 6%). I
didn't have the guts to ask about the other pilot's situation.
Jim

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Carter wrote:
> Three weeks ago, on a Saturday morning we had a plan on file, opened
> with Jonesboro Radio and went trucking off merrily across the
> countryside. We arrived at our destination about 2.5 later and called to
> cancel - the plan was never opened. Kind of scary...

VFR or IFR?

[Wizard of Draws[_1_]]

On 8/3/06 3:57 AM, in article ,
"Michelle" > wrote:

>
> "Wizard of Draws" > wrote in
> message news:C0F6CE43.89355%jeffbREMOVETHIS@REMOVEALSOwiza rdofdraws.com...
>>
>> Some time ago on a cross-country that took me near, not into,
>> Chattanooga's
>> airspace, I notified them where I was as a courtesy. They gave me a code
>> to
>> squawk. After I was well clear of their airspace, they told me to resume
>> own
>> navigation. Fat, dumb and happy, I squawked 1200 and went on to land at my
>> home base. After I hanging out a bit, the airport manager came up to me
>> and
>> chewed me out for not closing my flight plan. I guess Chattanooga opened
>> one
>> for me.
>
> You were on a cross-country without a flight plan?
>
> Michelle S.
>
>
Yes I was, although I'll admit I file IFR for every flight nowadays.
Why do you ask?
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[BTIZ]

The following is a response from the AFSS Manager in regards to my filing a
problem report online. Thanx to those that gave me the link to file the
report. I filed it on Monday, and it is resolved today, 4 days. File the
trouble report, it does work, in this instance. BT

"I would like to thank you again for your input and apologize for any
inconvenience. Your inquiry caused us to investigate the system and we did,
in fact, find a problem in a piece of equipment that should have been
putting a recording on the line that stated all briefers were busy and
please stay on the line. Instead what we had was silence that would make
pilots think they were disconnected but they really were not."

"We have corrected this error and would not have found it in a timely manner
without the effort you made in bringing it to our attention. Thank you and
if you experience any other problems please do not hesitate to call me."
Manager AFSS

BT

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Twice in 2 days I've filed VFR flight plans only to have FSS unable to
> find them when I called on radio after takeoff. One was filed through
> Duats at 9PM for noon next day (and left at noon). The other was filed
> with a briefer at Terre Haute at 10PM for 8AM next day (and left on
> time).
>
> In both cases I had to re-file over the radio.
>

[Kyler Laird]

"Jim Burns" > writes:

>Hey Kyler... this will hit home. We just finished the annual on our Aztec.
>There is a fellow based at the airport where we had the work done that has
>trashed 3... yes THREE Aztec's in less than 6 months. Runway overrun taking
>out the gear and nose, groundlooped the second Aztec in a
>crosswind/crossrunway/into the ditch maneuver taking out the gear, then hit
>a deer with the third but after it was fixed lit the left engine on fire.

How'd he fire up the engine? Was it carburated?

>Talk about being hard on the used parts inventory!

It sounds like he's *supplying* the used parts inventory. I assume
the planes were salvaged.

I'm still grousing about the liquidation of Earle Aircraft. For years
I've depended on them for parts and I recently learned that they had an
auction where complete fuselages (with glass) and wings were going for
$50 to be scrapped. Ug.

--kyler

[Michelle]

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in
message news:C0F80936.89C12%jeffbREMOVETHIS@REMOVEALSOwiza rdofdraws.com...
> On 8/3/06 3:57 AM, in article ,
> "Michelle" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Wizard of Draws" > wrote in
>> message
>> news:C0F6CE43.89355%jeffbREMOVETHIS@REMOVEALSOwiza rdofdraws.com...
>>>
>>> Some time ago on a cross-country that took me near, not into,
>>> Chattanooga's
>>> airspace, I notified them where I was as a courtesy. They gave me a code
>>> to
>>> squawk. After I was well clear of their airspace, they told me to resume
>>> own
>>> navigation. Fat, dumb and happy, I squawked 1200 and went on to land at
>>> my
>>> home base. After I hanging out a bit, the airport manager came up to me
>>> and
>>> chewed me out for not closing my flight plan. I guess Chattanooga opened
>>> one
>>> for me.
>>
>> You were on a cross-country without a flight plan?
>>
>> Michelle S.
>>
>>
> Yes I was, although I'll admit I file IFR for every flight nowadays.
> Why do you ask?

Let me answer your question with another question: why do you file all the
time (why only IFR) now and not then?

As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has such a
higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest rates
among their pilot brethren.

Michelle

[Michelle]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:LcyAg.4797$Gv.3277@fed1read09...
> The following is a response from the AFSS Manager in regards to my filing
> a problem report online. Thanx to those that gave me the link to file the
> report. I filed it on Monday, and it is resolved today, 4 days. File the
> trouble report, it does work, in this instance. BT
>
> "I would like to thank you again for your input and apologize for any
> inconvenience. Your inquiry caused us to investigate the system and we
> did, in fact, find a problem in a piece of equipment that should have been
> putting a recording on the line that stated all briefers were busy and
> please stay on the line. Instead what we had was silence that would make
> pilots think they were disconnected but they really were not."
>
> "We have corrected this error and would not have found it in a timely
> manner without the effort you made in bringing it to our attention. Thank
> you and if you experience any other problems please do not hesitate to
> call me." Manager AFSS
>
I love a happy ending :>)


Michelle

[Peter R.]

Michelle > wrote:

> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has such a
> higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest rates
> among their pilot brethren.

Just to clarify, in your opinion, not filing a VFR flight plan is
"unprofessional?"


--
Peter

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

I really don't know how he lit up the left engine. There isn't much damage
to anything ahead of the accessory case, but everything between the firewall
and the rear case is burned to a crisp. Could have been a backfire though
the throttle body into the air cleaner I guess.

I was never able to buy anything from Earle but I've talked with them since
the auction, they still have several things for sale, including the E nose
STC, forms, and light & tail spring kits to complete several noses.
$10,000. Not a bad deal if you have the time, talent, and ability to layup
fiberglass and the need for at least 2 noses. I think Diamond-Aire is
getting about $6000 per nose for them now. They've also got the E tail with
the coffin door available, but that sounds like toooo much work!

Thank God that ole Grover Matthews is still going strong. But prices are
through the roof. Be careful with your nose gear, they're going for over
$6k and mains going for $3k.

Jim


"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Burns" > writes:
>
> >Hey Kyler... this will hit home. We just finished the annual on our
Aztec.
> >There is a fellow based at the airport where we had the work done that
has
> >trashed 3... yes THREE Aztec's in less than 6 months. Runway overrun
taking
> >out the gear and nose, groundlooped the second Aztec in a
> >crosswind/crossrunway/into the ditch maneuver taking out the gear, then
hit
> >a deer with the third but after it was fixed lit the left engine on fire.
>
> How'd he fire up the engine? Was it carburated?
>
> >Talk about being hard on the used parts inventory!
>
> It sounds like he's *supplying* the used parts inventory. I assume
> the planes were salvaged.
>
> I'm still grousing about the liquidation of Earle Aircraft. For years
> I've depended on them for parts and I recently learned that they had an
> auction where complete fuselages (with glass) and wings were going for
> $50 to be scrapped. Ug.
>
> --kyler

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Michelle" > wrote in message
...
> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has such a
> higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest rates
> among their pilot brethren.
>
>

How exactly Michelle will filing a VFR flight plan reduce the accident rate
in aircraft? As since you mentioned it, do you file a drive plane when you
drive a car?

[Lakeview Bill]

I think Michelle was saying that it was a lack of professionalism that led
to accidents, and not filing a flight plan was one of the marks of
unprofessional flying...



"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Michelle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
> > unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has such
a
> > higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest
rates
> > among their pilot brethren.
> >
> >
>
> How exactly Michelle will filing a VFR flight plan reduce the accident
rate
> in aircraft? As since you mentioned it, do you file a drive plane when you
> drive a car?
>
>

[Mark Hansen]

On 08/04/06 10:41, B A R R Y wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:50:54 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>How exactly Michelle will filing a VFR flight plan reduce the accident rate
>>in aircraft?
>
> Not only will it not prevent a single accident, I don't see the value
> of a VFR flight plan for other reasons in many cases.
>
> If you're a religious user of flight following, as I am, you're
> already on the horn with ATC, and uniquely identified on the radar
> screen. In an emergency, you'd already be talking to a controller
> and probably heard by other area aircraft, so emergency folks would
> most likely know where to start looking long before a VFR flight plan
> expired and FSS started a telephone search. I've been told that
> making an initial distress call on the same frequency I'm already
> using for FF is not only acceptable, but a good idea.
>

Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
this case.

Of course, you may be able to get a message off before you crash
(assuming you don't really have a power/com failure) but this is no
substitute for a VFR flight plan IMHO.


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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:50:54 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> >
> >How exactly Michelle will filing a VFR flight plan reduce the accident rate
> >in aircraft?

> Not only will it not prevent a single accident, I don't see the value
> of a VFR flight plan for other reasons in many cases.

> If you're a religious user of flight following, as I am, you're
> already on the horn with ATC, and uniquely identified on the radar
> screen. In an emergency, you'd already be talking to a controller
> and probably heard by other area aircraft, so emergency folks would
> most likely know where to start looking long before a VFR flight plan
> expired and FSS started a telephone search. I've been told that
> making an initial distress call on the same frequency I'm already
> using for FF is not only acceptable, but a good idea.

Except there are lots of desolate areas where there is no ATC unless
you are in the FLs, where a non-turbo, piston bug smasher like a C-172
or warrior is not likely to be.

Also if you lose comm with ATC on VFR following, ATC is not likely to
get excited about it.

My personal rule of thumb is if I'm going to be flying over an area
that I would not care to be stuck in for more than a few hours, file
a flight plan.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
t...
>I think Michelle was saying that it was a lack of professionalism that led
> to accidents, and not filing a flight plan was one of the marks of
> unprofessional flying...
>

I think she tied professionalism to filing a VFR flight plan and that is
just silly.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:05:02 GMT, wrote:

> >
> >Except there are lots of desolate areas where there is no ATC unless
> >you are in the FLs, where a non-turbo, piston bug smasher like a C-172
> >or warrior is not likely to be.

> Hence my inclusion of "many cases", and my lack of absolute terms..

> I'd file there, just like you. I typically fly around New England and
> the Mid-Atlantic states, where radar and ATC comm coverage is very
> good.

I'm in the southwest and fly a lot over mountains and desert where ATC
coverage is marginal at C-172 altitudes.

I also carry a survival bag with stuff for a couple of days.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:05:02 GMT, wrote:
> I also carry a survival bag with stuff for a couple of days.

So, what caliber do you prefer in your survival bag?

[Newps]

Mark Hansen wrote:

>>
>
> Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
> and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
> frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
> etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
> this case.

ATC is required to, that's why.

[Mark Hansen]

On 08/04/06 13:42, Newps wrote:
>
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
>> and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
>> frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
>> etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
>> this case.
>
> ATC is required to, that's why.

When you're on flight following (traffic advisories) and have stop
talking to ATC, they are required to begin a search and rescue operation?

Note that this discussion was about *not* having a flight plan open.


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

[Ron Natalie]

B A R R Y wrote:
> I've been told that
> making an initial distress call on the same frequency I'm already
> using for FF is not only acceptable, but a good idea.
>


Yep, turns out that most ATC freqs are as good or better than
121.5. I heard the cub go down in Lake Michigan last weekend.
His mayday was on Gary Tower and Gary was on the phone with
Chicago and they were vectoring a Gary departure over towards
the last spot they had him on radar. Better yet if they
already are watching you. I lost contact with PXT one day
while getting flight following (just got too far away and
couldn't hear them anymore, so I just set 1200 and broadcast
I was leaving in the blind.

By the time I got to my destination there were aircraft calling
on the CTAF there relaying inquiries from Approach as to whether
I'd made it there.

On the other hand, there was a case in CT (if I recall right)
where a pilot was on an IFR plan, was switched to CTAF and
told the controller that he'd probably be back after a missed.
The controller never received the cancellation and forgot
about the guy. Unfortunately, he crashed on approach and
nobody noticed until the next morning.

VFR plans are a nice backup, but I'd like to be dealing with
someone immediately.

>

[Ron Natalie]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:05:02 GMT, wrote:
>> I also carry a survival bag with stuff for a couple of days.
>
> So, what caliber do you prefer in your survival bag?
one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days'
concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics,
morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills;
one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred
dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing
gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon
stockings.

[Michael Ware]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jim Carter wrote:
> > Three weeks ago, on a Saturday morning we had a plan on file, opened
> > with Jonesboro Radio and went trucking off merrily across the
> > countryside. We arrived at our destination about 2.5 later and called to
> > cancel - the plan was never opened. Kind of scary...
>
> VFR or IFR?

Ummm....

[A Lieberma]

"Michelle" > wrote in

> Let me answer your question with another question: why do you file all
> the time (why only IFR) now and not then?

I can't answer for Wizard, but he seems to be doing the same thing I did
/ am doing.

If it's severe clear out and I have a one hour flight, either I go IFR or
not talk to a soul. Sure things can happen, but if I am enroute to a
destination, the person expecting me knows my arrival time and if I don't
arrive within a set time I tell them, they know to call FSS.

Reason for me going IFR is that I can't be willy nilly dropped from the
system, and I have company for the ride. With VFR flight following, it
is on a work load basis, and if I was upstairs for a couple of hours, I
want to be assured that I don't get dropped from the system. I don't
have to worry about airspace issues or cloud clearances.

Another reason for not using a VFR flight plan is that once I am on the
ground, I am done, no remembering to call flight services, no looking up
the local FSS to close my plan and so on and so on.

One time before getting my instrument rating, I diverted to another
airport which caused all sorts of confusion with FSS. I called in to
close my plan, and said I landed at a different airport. Next thing you
know, I get a phone call from my destination contact all in a quandry to
where am I inspite of me calling them to let them know I was in a
different city / state because flight service got things discombobled
some how. At least with the IFR plan, I divert to another controlled
airport, then my plan is cancelled without adding additional stress of
closing a plan.

> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has
> such a higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the
> highest rates among their pilot brethren.

Here's where I respectfully disagree with you. Filing a VFR flight plan
does nothing for professionalism. I don't see any difference in me
jumping in my Sundowner for a one hour flight down to the coast then me
driving in my Dodge Ram one hour to another destination.

I am fortunate enough to own my own plane, and I expect each button to
turn, twist, pull or push. If I don't have faith in my own equipment,
then I shouldn't leave the ground.

The professionalism I do see in private pilots is getting a briefing,
doing all checklists, flying to point A to B and landing in the same
condition they left in. Filing a VFR flight plan does nothing to enhance
this. For that matter, filing an IFR flight plan does nothing for
professionalism. It's all the presentation.

One thing I find inexcuseable is not getting a preflight briefing. The
one and only time I did not get a briefing, I suffered the on air
embarrasment of being asked if I was aware of a balloon activity notam.
All I was doing was going to the practice area. I made myself a promise
from that date forward, I will never fly without getting a FSS briefing.
It sure is simple enough and I do it on the ride to the airport.

Ok, rambled enough, flame away *big smile*

Allen

[Newps]

Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 08/04/06 13:42, Newps wrote:
>
>>
>> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
>>> and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
>>> frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
>>> etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
>>> this case.
>>
>>
>> ATC is required to, that's why.
>
>
> When you're on flight following (traffic advisories) and have stop
> talking to ATC, they are required to begin a search and rescue operation?

Yes, if the loss of comm or radar was unexpected.

[Mark Hansen]

On 08/04/06 14:55, Newps wrote:
>
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>> On 08/04/06 13:42, Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
>>>> and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
>>>> frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
>>>> etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
>>>> this case.
>>>
>>>
>>> ATC is required to, that's why.
>>
>>
>> When you're on flight following (traffic advisories) and have stop
>> talking to ATC, they are required to begin a search and rescue operation?
>
> Yes, if the loss of comm or radar was unexpected.

Can you provide a reference to the regulation that explains this? It is
not what I was taught - and I'm always willing to learn ;-)

Thanks,



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

[Mark Hansen]

On 08/04/06 14:57, Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 08/04/06 14:55, Newps wrote:
>>
>> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>> On 08/04/06 13:42, Newps wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
>>>>> and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
>>>>> frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
>>>>> etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
>>>>> this case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ATC is required to, that's why.
>>>
>>>
>>> When you're on flight following (traffic advisories) and have stop
>>> talking to ATC, they are required to begin a search and rescue operation?
>>
>> Yes, if the loss of comm or radar was unexpected.
>
> Can you provide a reference to the regulation that explains this?

Just to clarify, what I mean is can you show the regulation which states
that ATC is required to begin search and rescue operations if they lose
radio contact with an airplane that was on flight following.

> It is
> not what I was taught - and I'm always willing to learn ;-)
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>



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

[Margy Natalie]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:48:10 GMT, A Lieberma >
> wrote:
>
>>With VFR flight following, it
>>is on a work load basis, and if I was upstairs for a couple of hours, I
>>want to be assured that I don't get dropped from the system.
>
>
> Just on this one point, have you ever been denied VFR flight
> following?
>
> The controllers I've met have told me that they LIKE it when we're
> talking to them.
>
> Thanks!
I've been denied flight following on a number of occasions. I do keep an
appropriate ATC frequency in the radio most of the time even if I am not
getting flight following. I also keep 121.5 on comm 2 at all times. I
was quite impressed with the the response we heard when the cub called
MayDay over the lake on the way back from OSH. The controllers had him
on the scope in seconds and assured him they had him. The response from
ATC rescued the passenger although it was too late for the pilot, rest
his soul.

Margy

[A Lieberma]

B A R R Y > wrote in

> Just on this one point, have you ever been denied VFR flight
> following?
>
> The controllers I've met have told me that they LIKE it when we're
> talking to them.

Never by approach controllers, but on centers, yes. The very flight I
diverted, I had flight following, and the airport I was going to, the
weather forecast was a bust from 4500 broken forecast to 800 solid overcast
which obviously made me divert to another airport VFR. So center was busy
with IFR traffic while I was dumb and happy VFR over the top enroute.

It was suppose to break up before I got there, and instead of breaking up,
it worsen, so here I was stuck VFR over the top.

I picked up an approach controller closer to my destination and requested
assistance on finding a VFR airport which they were gracious enough to do.

Allen

[Newps]

Mark Hansen wrote:

>>
>> Yes, if the loss of comm or radar was unexpected.
>
>
> Can you provide a reference to the regulation that explains this? It is
> not what I was taught - and I'm always willing to learn ;-)

It's not an FAR. As a controller I'm not bound by those. It's in the
7110.65 That's the rules for controllers.

[Newps]

Mark Hansen wrote:


>
>
> Just to clarify, what I mean is can you show the regulation which states
> that ATC is required to begin search and rescue operations if they lose
> radio contact with an airplane that was on flight following.

Absolutely. Knock yourself out.


http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/index.htm

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Michelle" > wrote:

> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has such a
> higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest rates
> among their pilot brethren.

A flight plan on file will reduce accidents? Please explain.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jim Logajan]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Michelle" > wrote:
>
>> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
>> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has
>> such a higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the
>> highest rates among their pilot brethren.
>
> A flight plan on file will reduce accidents? Please explain.
>

Perhaps it's an issue colloquially known as "mindset?" Not saying that's
the argument being attempted, but I could see the idea being somewhat
plausible.

[Wizard of Draws[_1_]]

On 8/4/06 10:14 AM, in article ,
"Michelle" > wrote:

>> Yes I was, although I'll admit I file IFR for every flight nowadays.
>> Why do you ask?
>
> Let me answer your question with another question: why do you file all the
> time (why only IFR) now and not then?
>
> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has such a
> higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest rates
> among their pilot brethren.
>
> Michelle
>
>
That day was CAVU and I wanted the option of going where I pleased.
Additionally, I wasn't instrument rated at the time. But now, since I spent
all that money on the rating, I want to get my money's worth. I'm looking
for clouds now. In fact, I want to fly through them as much as possible and
get annoyed when it's CAVU and I'm flying. Plus, I need as much practice
working within the system as possible to stay safe.

I'm not sure how a flight plan would have prevented an accident. Can you
explain your reasoning behind that conclusion?

How does filing a flight plan equate to professionalism?
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Emily[_1_]]

Wizard of Draws wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'm not sure how a flight plan would have prevented an accident. Can you
> explain your reasoning behind that conclusion?

I'm not sure about preventing an accident, but since I rarely have
anyone that knows or cares where I am, I like to let flight service know
what my plans are.

Of course, now I just file IFR...but before that, I usually did file
VFR. I didn't want to crash/land somewhere and have no one miss me
until I starved or froze to death.

[Mark Hansen]

On 08/04/06 16:33, Newps wrote:
>
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Just to clarify, what I mean is can you show the regulation which states
>> that ATC is required to begin search and rescue operations if they lose
>> radio contact with an airplane that was on flight following.
>
> Absolutely. Knock yourself out.
>
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/index.htm

So, you're answer is "no". Got it. Thanks,



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

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Mark Hansen wrote:
> So, you're answer is "no". Got it. Thanks,

Actually, had you invested 5 minutes, you would have found:

"10-2-5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform the RCC or ARTCC and
alert the appropriate DF facility when:
[...]
b. There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with
any IFR or VFR aircraft.
[..]"

http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5

Anno.

[Newps]

Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 08/04/06 16:33, Newps wrote:
>
>>
>> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to clarify, what I mean is can you show the regulation which states
>>> that ATC is required to begin search and rescue operations if they lose
>>> radio contact with an airplane that was on flight following.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely. Knock yourself out.
>>
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/index.htm
>
>
> So, you're answer is "no". Got it. Thanks,

Exactly.

[Mark Hansen]

On 08/05/06 08:45, Anno v. Heimburg wrote:
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>> So, you're answer is "no". Got it. Thanks,
>
> Actually, had you invested 5 minutes, you would have found:
>
> "10-2-5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
> Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform the RCC or ARTCC and
> alert the appropriate DF facility when:
> [...]
> b. There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with
> any IFR or VFR aircraft.
> [..]"

That says "loss of radar *AND* radio". My question was with a loss of
radio contact only.

>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5
>
> Anno.
>
>



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

[Michelle]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Michelle" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
>> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has such
>> a higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest
>> rates among their pilot brethren.
>>
>>
>
> How exactly Michelle will filing a VFR flight plan reduce the accident
> rate in aircraft? As since you mentioned it, do you file a drive plane
> when you drive a car?

Do you always put not only words but entire paragraphs in peoples mouths?

In any case, let's hear it from the real pros (the people that get paid to
fly): How often do you conduct a flight without a flight plan?

How many of you take off without a pretty through pre-flight of the
aircraft.

Here's the point: I never said, or even intimated that not filing a flight
plan caused a crash; the point is the attitude and approach that proc take
that the amateurs do not.

Michelle S.

[Michelle]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:50:54 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>How exactly Michelle will filing a VFR flight plan reduce the accident
>>rate
>>in aircraft?
>
> Not only will it not prevent a single accident,

Please point out where I said it would prevent an accident.

> I don't see the value
> of a VFR flight plan for other reasons in many cases.

Such as? Please!

Michelle

[Michelle]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Michelle > wrote:
>
>> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
>> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has such
>> a
>> higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest rates
>> among their pilot brethren.
>
> Just to clarify, in your opinion, not filing a VFR flight plan is
> "unprofessional?"

"Yes", I think so...amongst other behavioral patterns.

Michelle

[Mark Hansen]

On 08/05/06 08:45, Anno v. Heimburg wrote:
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>> So, you're answer is "no". Got it. Thanks,
>

I thought I responded to this yesterday, but I didn't see it so I'm
trying again...

> Actually, had you invested 5 minutes, you would have found:
>
> "10-2-5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
> Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform the RCC or ARTCC and
> alert the appropriate DF facility when:
> [...]
> b. There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with
> any IFR or VFR aircraft.
> [..]"
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5
>
> Anno.


The assertion I was questioning was with regard to loss of communications
only, not communications *and* radar. Your quote above seems to cover loss
of both communications *and* radar.

What am I missing?

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

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Mark Hansen wrote:

> I thought I responded to this yesterday, but I didn't see it so I'm
> trying again...

FWIW, I see both of them.

> The assertion I was questioning was with regard to loss of communications
> only, not communications *and* radar. Your quote above seems to cover loss
> of both communications *and* radar.

Your post that started this subthread went like this:
| Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you, and
| if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-frequency and
| shut off your transponder (or had a power failure, etc.). I don't see why
| they would begin a search and rescue in this case.

.... which, as I read it, actually did imply a loss of both radar and com
contact ("you just went off-frequency *and* shut off your transponder",
emphasis added). You seem to have changed your point from "suddenly
disappering" to "loss of only com", and I seem to have missed that
transition.

Actually, it would make no sense to assume an emergency if only comm contact
is lost. They still have you on the radar, so you didn't crash, and you
simply might have gone off-frequeny or, at worst, gone NORDO.

[Emily[_1_]]

Michelle wrote:
>
>
> In any case, let's hear it from the real pros (the people that get paid to
> fly): How often do you conduct a flight without a flight plan?

The people who get paid to fly generally are required to fly IFR, so of
course they file flight plans. That argument makes no sense.

[Mark Hansen]

On 08/06/06 11:18, Anno v. Heimburg wrote:
> Mark Hansen wrote:
>
>> I thought I responded to this yesterday, but I didn't see it so I'm
>> trying again...
>
> FWIW, I see both of them.
>
>> The assertion I was questioning was with regard to loss of communications
>> only, not communications *and* radar. Your quote above seems to cover loss
>> of both communications *and* radar.
>
> Your post that started this subthread went like this:
> | Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you, and
> | if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-frequency and
> | shut off your transponder (or had a power failure, etc.). I don't see why
> | they would begin a search and rescue in this case.
>
> ... which, as I read it, actually did imply a loss of both radar and com
> contact ("you just went off-frequency *and* shut off your transponder",
> emphasis added). You seem to have changed your point from "suddenly
> disappering" to "loss of only com", and I seem to have missed that
> transition.

I was responding to Newps' assertion:

> Yes, if the loss of comm or radar was unexpected.

Look back up the thread... It was about 5 or 6 posts up.


>
> Actually, it would make no sense to assume an emergency if only comm contact
> is lost.

That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry it wasn't clear.


> They still have you on the radar, so you didn't crash, and you
> simply might have gone off-frequeny or, at worst, gone NORDO.
>



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

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emily ]
> Posted At: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:49 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.piloting
> Conversation: Missing flight plans
> Subject: Re: Missing flight plans
>
> Jim Carter wrote:
> > Three weeks ago, on a Saturday morning we had a plan on file, opened
> > with Jonesboro Radio and went trucking off merrily across the
> > countryside. We arrived at our destination about 2.5 later and
called to
> > cancel - the plan was never opened. Kind of scary...
>
> VFR or IFR?

VFR - Unless something has changed, isn't an IFR plan is automagically
opened when you are turned over to departure or upon your first airborne
check-in with ATC?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 08/04/06 16:33, Newps wrote:
>>
>> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to clarify, what I mean is can you show the regulation which states
>>> that ATC is required to begin search and rescue operations if they lose
>>> radio contact with an airplane that was on flight following.
>>
>> Absolutely. Knock yourself out.
>>
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/index.htm
>
> So, you're answer is "no". Got it. Thanks,
>
>



I think B will be of interest.



10-2-5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform the RCC or ARTCC and
alert the appropriate DF facility when:

NOTE-
1. USAF facilities are only required to notify the ARTCC.

2. The requirement to alert DF facilities may be deleted if radar contact
will be maintained throughout the duration of the emergency.

a. An emergency is declared by either:

1. The pilot.

2. Facility personnel.

3. Officials responsible for the operation of the aircraft.

b. There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with
any IFR or VFR aircraft.

c. Reports indicate it has made a forced landing, is about to do so, or its
operating efficiency is so impaired that a forced landing will be necessary.

d. Reports indicate the crew has abandoned the aircraft or is about to do
so.

e. An emergency radar beacon response is received.

NOTE-
EN ROUTE. During Stage A operation, Code 7700 causes EMRG to blink in field
E of the data block.

f. Intercept or escort aircraft services are required.

g. The need for ground rescue appears likely.

h. An Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) signal is heard or reported.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Providing Assistance, Para 10-1-3.
FAAO 7110.65, Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) Signals, Para 10-2-10.

[Mark Hansen]

On 08/07/06 06:13, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 08/04/06 16:33, Newps wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, what I mean is can you show the regulation which states
>>>> that ATC is required to begin search and rescue operations if they lose
>>>> radio contact with an airplane that was on flight following.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. Knock yourself out.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/index.htm
>>
>> So, you're answer is "no". Got it. Thanks,
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I think B will be of interest.

But the assertion I was questioning was with regard to the loss of radio
communications only. Not coms *and* radar. Paragraph 'B' you quote (below)
is for the loss of *both* comms *and* radar contact.

>
>
>
> 10-2-5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
>
> Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform the RCC or ARTCC and
> alert the appropriate DF facility when:
>
> NOTE-
> 1. USAF facilities are only required to notify the ARTCC.
>
> 2. The requirement to alert DF facilities may be deleted if radar contact
> will be maintained throughout the duration of the emergency.
>
> a. An emergency is declared by either:
>
> 1. The pilot.
>
> 2. Facility personnel.
>
> 3. Officials responsible for the operation of the aircraft.
>
> b. There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with
> any IFR or VFR aircraft.
>
> c. Reports indicate it has made a forced landing, is about to do so, or its
> operating efficiency is so impaired that a forced landing will be necessary.
>
> d. Reports indicate the crew has abandoned the aircraft or is about to do
> so.
>
> e. An emergency radar beacon response is received.
>
> NOTE-
> EN ROUTE. During Stage A operation, Code 7700 causes EMRG to blink in field
> E of the data block.
>
> f. Intercept or escort aircraft services are required.
>
> g. The need for ground rescue appears likely.
>
> h. An Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) signal is heard or reported.
>
> REFERENCE-
> FAAO 7110.65, Providing Assistance, Para 10-1-3.
> FAAO 7110.65, Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) Signals, Para 10-2-10.
>
>



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

[Kyler Laird]

Mark Hansen > writes:

>Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
>and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
>frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
>etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
>this case.

And yet they do. What's up with that?

--kyler

[Emily[_1_]]

Kyler Laird wrote:
> Mark Hansen > writes:
>
>> Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
>> and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
>> frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
>> etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
>> this case.
>
> And yet they do.

Not always.

[Anno v. Heimburg]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> [...]
> 10-2-5. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
> [...]
> b. There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with
> any IFR or VFR aircraft.
> [...]

I think I'm having a déjà-vu. Check Msg-Id
> and Mark's answer to it.

But I'm glad I'm not the only one who got lost in the course of this
conversation.

Anno.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Michelle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Michelle > wrote:
>>
>>> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
>>> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has such
>>> a
>>> higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest
>>> rates
>>> among their pilot brethren.
>>
>> Just to clarify, in your opinion, not filing a VFR flight plan is
>> "unprofessional?"
>
> "Yes", I think so...amongst other behavioral patterns.
>
> Michelle
>

I was about to answer your question that you asked above Michelle but you
did it yourself.

Your statement was.. No VFR Flight Plan=Unprofessional=Higher accident rate

Please explain now how the failure to file a VFR flight plan causes
accidents.

[The Visitor]

>> "Peter R." > wrote in message
>>Just to clarify, in your opinion, not filing a VFR flight plan is
>>"unprofessional?"



>Michelle wrote:
>"Yes", I think so...amongst other behavioral patterns.

Me too. But I wouldn't have been gutsy enough to say so.It's usually one
area person slacks of in after he has started to slack of on other
areas, but can justify it somehow. The pilot often thinks a spouse or
other person will know exactly what to do if they are overdue. And
somehow magically know when they are overdue.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>>> "Peter R." > wrote in message Just to clarify, in your
>>> opinion, not filing a VFR flight plan is
>>>"unprofessional?"
>
>
>
>>Michelle wrote:
>>"Yes", I think so...amongst other behavioral patterns.
>
> Me too. But I wouldn't have been gutsy enough to say so.It's usually one
> area person slacks of in after he has started to slack of on other areas,
> but can justify it somehow. The pilot often thinks a spouse or other
> person will know exactly what to do if they are overdue. And somehow
> magically know when they are overdue.
>

And do you have some data to back this up?

[Michelle Settle]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Michelle" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Peter R." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Michelle > wrote:
>>>
>>>> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
>>>> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has
>>>> such a
>>>> higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest
>>>> rates
>>>> among their pilot brethren.
>>>
>>> Just to clarify, in your opinion, not filing a VFR flight plan is
>>> "unprofessional?"
>>
>> "Yes", I think so...amongst other behavioral patterns.
>>
>> Michelle
>>
>
> I was about to answer your question that you asked above Michelle but you
> did it yourself.
>
> Your statement was.. No VFR Flight Plan=Unprofessional=Higher accident
> rate
>
> Please explain now how the failure to file a VFR flight plan causes
> accidents.

Please explain where I made the statement you attribute to me.

Do you have the slightest grasp of what "professionalism" connotes?

Michelle

[Michelle Settle]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>>> "Peter R." > wrote in message Just to clarify, in your
>>> opinion, not filing a VFR flight plan is
>>>"unprofessional?"
>
>
>
>>Michelle wrote:
>>"Yes", I think so...amongst other behavioral patterns.
>
> Me too. But I wouldn't have been gutsy enough to say so.It's usually one
> area person slacks of in after he has started to slack of on other areas,
> but can justify it somehow. The pilot often thinks a spouse or other
> person will know exactly what to do if they are overdue. And somehow
> magically know when they are overdue.

Not even the notification aspects, but the entire approach (no pun intended)
to flying in general.

Have a look at the GA accident stats contrasting pro's and amateurs. Then
realize that flying like a pro is much more than getting paid for flying.

Oh, well; the gene pool continues to get skimmed.

Michelle

[The Visitor]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> And do you have some data to back this up?
>
>
As much as you do to refute it.


It is based on my personal observations. And the people I refer to
really don't know much of what they are screwing up.

I see people worried because someone is thought to be over-due and they
know he doesn't have a flight plan. (grow up, don't leave that kind of
burden hanging around for your wife or friends, leaving them wondering
and unsure.)

You wanted to lure Michelle into the argument that, no flight plan
causes accidents, but that is a joke.

What is in-escapable is the correlation between the two.

And the correlation between flight planning and fewer accidents.

Why?

Complete flight planning is one of the earmarks of a conscientious
pilot. And conscientious pilots are generally going to be safer in their
flying and more likely to keep honing or truly maintaining their skills,
rather than thinking idle flying makes them a good pilot. That's just
how it is.

I have met many an ego, err I mean "eagle" who is very weak at flight
planning. Could barely even file a flight plan as it has been 10 plus
years. Weather, nope. So they use the weather channel or phone the
destination. I see some of them land hot, porpoise and smoke the brakes.
They know how to get flight following and talking to atc makes them
think they are good pilots. I see them cut others off, and it is okay to
them because they have been doing it for years. But they really do enjoy
the ride.

They mean well and in their mind they are working hard at it, so feel
they must be good at it. It is easy to give yourself good marks.
Especially when you are in an environment where there is no real
yardstick beside you.

Sure it is possible to be an excellent pilot and choose to not to file a
flight plan or itinerary. But that is pretty irresponsible, so I
withdraw the use of the word excellent.

There is never 'one' cockroach.

[Michelle Settle]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "The Visitor" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "Peter R." > wrote in message Just to clarify, in
>>>> your opinion, not filing a VFR flight plan is
>>>>"unprofessional?"
>>
>>
>>
>>>Michelle wrote:
>>>"Yes", I think so...amongst other behavioral patterns.
>>
>> Me too. But I wouldn't have been gutsy enough to say so.It's usually one
>> area person slacks of in after he has started to slack of on other areas,
>> but can justify it somehow. The pilot often thinks a spouse or other
>> person will know exactly what to do if they are overdue. And somehow
>> magically know when they are overdue.
>>
>
> And do you have some data to back this up?

Aside from he's using the same misbegotten context you are (i.e., the
professional approach versus the amateur).

Small wonder lower level GA flying is so much more dangerous that other
forms of transport.

[Michelle Settle]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> And do you have some data to back this up?
> As much as you do to refute it.
>
>
> It is based on my personal observations. And the people I refer to really
> don't know much of what they are screwing up.
>
> I see people worried because someone is thought to be over-due and they
> know he doesn't have a flight plan. (grow up, don't leave that kind of
> burden hanging around for your wife or friends, leaving them wondering and
> unsure.)
>
> You wanted to lure Michelle into the argument that, no flight plan causes
> accidents, but that is a joke.
>
> What is in-escapable is the correlation between the two.
>
> And the correlation between flight planning and fewer accidents.
>
> Why?

FINALLY SOMEONE GET'S IT WITHOUT HAVING THEIR HAND HELD!!

>
> Complete flight planning is one of the earmarks of a conscientious pilot.
> And conscientious pilots are generally going to be safer in their flying
> and more likely to keep honing or truly maintaining their skills, rather
> than thinking idle flying makes them a good pilot. That's just how it is.
>
> I have met many an ego, err I mean "eagle" who is very weak at flight
> planning. Could barely even file a flight plan as it has been 10 plus
> years. Weather, nope. So they use the weather channel or phone the
> destination. I see some of them land hot, porpoise and smoke the brakes.
> They know how to get flight following and talking to atc makes them think
> they are good pilots. I see them cut others off, and it is okay to them
> because they have been doing it for years. But they really do enjoy the
> ride.
>
> They mean well and in their mind they are working hard at it, so feel they
> must be good at it. It is easy to give yourself good marks. Especially
> when you are in an environment where there is no real yardstick beside
> you.
>
> Sure it is possible to be an excellent pilot and choose to not to file a
> flight plan or itinerary. But that is pretty irresponsible, so I withdraw
> the use of the word excellent.
>
> There is never 'one' cockroach.

FINALLY!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Michelle Settle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michelle" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Peter R." > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Michelle > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
>>>>> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has
>>>>> such a
>>>>> higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest
>>>>> rates
>>>>> among their pilot brethren.
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, in your opinion, not filing a VFR flight plan is
>>>> "unprofessional?"
>>>
>>> "Yes", I think so...amongst other behavioral patterns.
>>>
>>> Michelle
>>>
>>
>> I was about to answer your question that you asked above Michelle but you
>> did it yourself.
>>
>> Your statement was.. No VFR Flight Plan=Unprofessional=Higher accident
>> rate
>>
>> Please explain now how the failure to file a VFR flight plan causes
>> accidents.
>
> Please explain where I made the statement you attribute to me.
>
> Do you have the slightest grasp of what "professionalism" connotes?
>
> Michelle
>


I doubt the underlining will work but here you go.

>>>>> As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
-------------------------

>>>>> unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has
------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>> such a
--------------
>>>>> higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the highest
--------------------------------------------------
>>>>> rates
>>>>> among their pilot brethren.
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, in your opinion, not filing a VFR flight plan is
>>>> "unprofessional?"
>>>
>>> "Yes", I think so...amongst other behavioral patterns.
------------------

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> And do you have some data to back this up?
> As much as you do to refute it.
>
>
> It is based on my personal observations. And the people I refer to really
> don't know much of what they are screwing up.
>
> I see people worried because someone is thought to be over-due and they
> know he doesn't have a flight plan. (grow up, don't leave that kind of
> burden hanging around for your wife or friends, leaving them wondering and
> unsure.)
>
> You wanted to lure Michelle into the argument that, no flight plan causes
> accidents, but that is a joke.
>
> What is in-escapable is the correlation between the two.
>
> And the correlation between flight planning and fewer accidents.
>
> Why?
>
> Complete flight planning is one of the earmarks of a conscientious pilot.
> And conscientious pilots are generally going to be safer in their flying
> and more likely to keep honing or truly maintaining their skills, rather
> than thinking idle flying makes them a good pilot. That's just how it is.
>
> I have met many an ego, err I mean "eagle" who is very weak at flight
> planning. Could barely even file a flight plan as it has been 10 plus
> years. Weather, nope. So they use the weather channel or phone the
> destination. I see some of them land hot, porpoise and smoke the brakes.
> They know how to get flight following and talking to atc makes them think
> they are good pilots. I see them cut others off, and it is okay to them
> because they have been doing it for years. But they really do enjoy the
> ride.
>
> They mean well and in their mind they are working hard at it, so feel they
> must be good at it. It is easy to give yourself good marks. Especially
> when you are in an environment where there is no real yardstick beside
> you.
>
> Sure it is possible to be an excellent pilot and choose to not to file a
> flight plan or itinerary. But that is pretty irresponsible, so I withdraw
> the use of the word excellent.
>
> There is never 'one' cockroach.
>


Filing a flight plan and planning a flight are two different things. A VFR
flight plan is little more than a 'Come find the body request'. While you
make an excellent argument for that I have better ways of letting my wife
know I'm late than having the FSS call her and ask her if I'm home. In fact,
I've had them call when I had changed a flight plan and I can guarantee that
that scared the little women more than any other thing to do with my flying
ever has.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Michelle Settle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "The Visitor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> "Peter R." > wrote in message Just to clarify, in
>>>>> your opinion, not filing a VFR flight plan is
>>>>>"unprofessional?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michelle wrote:
>>>>"Yes", I think so...amongst other behavioral patterns.
>>>
>>> Me too. But I wouldn't have been gutsy enough to say so.It's usually one
>>> area person slacks of in after he has started to slack of on other
>>> areas, but can justify it somehow. The pilot often thinks a spouse or
>>> other person will know exactly what to do if they are overdue. And
>>> somehow magically know when they are overdue.
>>>
>>
>> And do you have some data to back this up?
>
> Aside from he's using the same misbegotten context you are (i.e., the
> professional approach versus the amateur).
>
> Small wonder lower level GA flying is so much more dangerous that other
> forms of transport.
>

You and The Visitor are the ones making the claim. There is plenty of data
out there if you think you can prove that VFR flight plans in any way keep
planes from crashing let's here it.

[The Visitor]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
VFR flight plans in any way keep
> planes from crashing let's here it.


Neither her nor I have claimed that.

[The Visitor]

Ah, the self justification.

Sorry to hear that.