Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")

[[email protected]]

I had an interesting experience the other day. To some degree I was testing
the theory that a local Class-C facility would invariably vector VFR aircraft outside
the lateral boundaries of their airspace. I've seen this at a few different airports
where I transition through with flight following, but underneath (or overtop) the
vertical limits.

Basically, about 15 miles east I called up approach at 2500' westbound. I was
going to fly underneath the class-C which extends 5-miles from the airport SFC to
5000', and 10-miles out from 3400-5000'. My on-course track would put me about 6
miles from the airport. Sure enough, they issued vectors and told me to stay outside
10 miles from the airport. I replied that I would stay outside the Class-C. They
*again* issued me vectors and said to stay outside 10 miles. I reponded, "NXXXX would
like to terminate radar services." I never received the "radar service terminated,
squawk 1200," so I inquired as to whether or not they acknowledged my request to
terminate. The controller replied, "I want you to stay with ME until west of the
airport, continue on present heading." To which, I replied, "NXXXX outside the
Charlie, 2500, on-course, as I was planning."

I thought this particularly aggressive and unnecessary, so I was going to try
to find the official regs as far as flight following goes. I'm convinced that's the
reason why a lot of VFR pilots never want to talk to ATC unless absolutely necessary.
I pretty much use flight following on any cross-country when I'm not IFR, but it
aggravates me when they vector VFR traffic when outside (especially above/below) their
airspace anyway.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> I had an interesting experience the other day. To some degree I was testing
> the theory that a local Class-C facility would invariably vector VFR aircraft outside
> the lateral boundaries of their airspace. I've seen this at a few different airports
> where I transition through with flight following, but underneath (or overtop) the
> vertical limits.

> Basically, about 15 miles east I called up approach at 2500' westbound. I was
> going to fly underneath the class-C which extends 5-miles from the airport SFC to
> 5000', and 10-miles out from 3400-5000'. My on-course track would put me about 6
> miles from the airport. Sure enough, they issued vectors and told me to stay outside
> 10 miles from the airport. I replied that I would stay outside the Class-C. They
> *again* issued me vectors and said to stay outside 10 miles. I reponded, "NXXXX would
> like to terminate radar services." I never received the "radar service terminated,
> squawk 1200," so I inquired as to whether or not they acknowledged my request to
> terminate. The controller replied, "I want you to stay with ME until west of the
> airport, continue on present heading." To which, I replied, "NXXXX outside the
> Charlie, 2500, on-course, as I was planning."

> I thought this particularly aggressive and unnecessary, so I was going to try
> to find the official regs as far as flight following goes. I'm convinced that's the
> reason why a lot of VFR pilots never want to talk to ATC unless absolutely necessary.
> I pretty much use flight following on any cross-country when I'm not IFR, but it
> aggravates me when they vector VFR traffic when outside (especially above/below) their
> airspace anyway.

> -Cory


> --

> ************************************************** ***********************
> * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
> * Electrical Engineering *
> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
> ************************************************** ***********************

I think it is a case of your milage may vary with a given facility.

I fly through class C on flight following a lot and have never had
anything like that happen.

I do plan to usually either cross midfield (in which case I get a remain
at or above that amounts to about 1000' above pattern) or parallel to
the active offset enough to be out of the approach/departure area.

The closest to a vector I've ever got was to move a bit to the North
to avoid wake turbulance from a heavy on approach.

Now there is this one busy class D area where clueless yahoos that
don't seem to understand how much jet traffic there is get vectored
on a regular basis. But listening to the pilot/controller exchange
makes it obvious that the pilot is flying in rectal-cranial inversion
mode and the area seems to attract a lot of them so the controllers
have developed a hair trigger.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[A Lieberma]

wrote in
:

> I had an interesting experience the other day. To some degree I
> was testing
> the theory that a local Class-C facility would invariably vector VFR
> aircraft outside the lateral boundaries of their airspace. I've seen
> this at a few different airports where I transition through with
> flight following, but underneath (or overtop) the vertical limits.

I have never had this in Charlie airspace in my five years of flying.

> I thought this particularly aggressive and unnecessary, so I was
> going to try
> to find the official regs as far as flight following goes. I'm
> convinced that's the reason why a lot of VFR pilots never want to talk
> to ATC unless absolutely necessary. I pretty much use flight
> following on any cross-country when I'm not IFR, but it aggravates me
> when they vector VFR traffic when outside (especially above/below)
> their airspace anyway.

My question is where were you in relationship to the airport? Were you
under an approach or departure path? Where you near an initial approach
fix for IFR traffic?

Seems to me, that you may have been a traffic conflict for the approach
phase of the airport near these fixes (if you were indeed near one) that
ATC had the need to on to you / vector you around the Charlie airspace.

Naturally,, every airport is different, but my experience with Charlie
airspace has been quite different then yours.

Allen

[[email protected]]

: I have never had this in Charlie airspace in my five years of flying.

It's not at all of them, just a few here and there. They do tend to be fairly
consistent on it though.

: My question is where were you in relationship to the airport? Were you
: under an approach or departure path? Where you near an initial approach
: fix for IFR traffic?

: Seems to me, that you may have been a traffic conflict for the approach
: phase of the airport near these fixes (if you were indeed near one) that
: ATC had the need to on to you / vector you around the Charlie airspace.

As Doc Brown in "Back to the Future" said, "You're just not thinking
4th-dimensionally." Told them I would stay clear the Charlie... no need to get
vectored around it IMO.

: Naturally,, every airport is different, but my experience with Charlie
: airspace has been quite different then yours.

Maybe so, but I've flown underneath the Bravo in Chicago at least a dozen
times. Now *THEY* have something to worry about, but don't make an issue of it.
They'll even provide radar services for you VFR if you don't sound like an idiot on
the radio and can communicate quickly and suscinctly enough. The guys working a
podunk Charlie shouldn't get themselves worked up over traffic 2 miles and 1000' under
their airspace limits. (In their defense though, I know that there are a lot of
bumpkin' pilots around here that might have troubles flying within that tolerance).

My thoughts are if there is a traffic conflict, than the FAA needs to expand
the boundaries of the Charlie to cover it.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Paul kgyy]

I've had this happen over Milwaukee. Granted, it's a busy class C, but
the like to vector me 10 miles out over Lake Michigan, which I do NOT
like.

[Maule Driver]

My experience has been mixed. At RDU where they work a lot of traffic
(for a Class C) I've found them to be flexible, accommodating, and
realistic. Home base is 10miles north and I'm often trying to direct-to
in or out of my base. Often as not, I'm sent directly over RDU with
departures and arrivals operating underneath. Other vectors I'm given
seem to always reflect the direction, density and altitudes of arrivals
and departures. No bull**** but I only get what I want if they can do
it and if I ask for it.

GSO where there is less traffic is a different matter. I'm almost
always sent around. Even when landing there, I've had them ignore my
radio calls until they were ready, causing more than 1 circling
maneuver to get my Class C acknowledgment. It's bull**** but that's the
way they do it. Less traffic, less experienced controllers perhaps.

If I'm flying underneath the ring, I generally squawk 1200. I know they
aren't sending traffic down there and I mainly need to watch out for
others 'below' the radar. They call me out to others so that helps too.

Interestingly, when passing GSO in 1200 mode, I've had a couple of a/c
that were clearly operating into or out of GSO come very close to me. I
can't remember that happening at RDU. Go figure.

wrote:
> I had an interesting experience the other day. To some degree I was testing
> the theory that a local Class-C facility would invariably vector VFR aircraft outside
> the lateral boundaries of their airspace. I've seen this at a few different airports
> where I transition through with flight following, but underneath (or overtop) the
> vertical limits.
>
> Basically, about 15 miles east I called up approach at 2500' westbound. I was
> going to fly underneath the class-C which extends 5-miles from the airport SFC to
> 5000', and 10-miles out from 3400-5000'. My on-course track would put me about 6
> miles from the airport. Sure enough, they issued vectors and told me to stay outside
> 10 miles from the airport. I replied that I would stay outside the Class-C. They
> *again* issued me vectors and said to stay outside 10 miles. I reponded, "NXXXX would
> like to terminate radar services." I never received the "radar service terminated,
> squawk 1200," so I inquired as to whether or not they acknowledged my request to
> terminate. The controller replied, "I want you to stay with ME until west of the
> airport, continue on present heading." To which, I replied, "NXXXX outside the
> Charlie, 2500, on-course, as I was planning."
>
> I thought this particularly aggressive and unnecessary, so I was going to try
> to find the official regs as far as flight following goes. I'm convinced that's the
> reason why a lot of VFR pilots never want to talk to ATC unless absolutely necessary.
> I pretty much use flight following on any cross-country when I'm not IFR, but it
> aggravates me when they vector VFR traffic when outside (especially above/below) their
> airspace anyway.
>
> -Cory
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I had an interesting experience the other day. To some degree I was
> testing
> the theory that a local Class-C facility would invariably vector VFR
> aircraft outside
> the lateral boundaries of their airspace. I've seen this at a few
> different airports
> where I transition through with flight following, but underneath (or
> overtop) the
> vertical limits.
>
> Basically, about 15 miles east I called up approach at 2500' westbound. I
> was
> going to fly underneath the class-C which extends 5-miles from the airport
> SFC to
> 5000', and 10-miles out from 3400-5000'. My on-course track would put me
> about 6
> miles from the airport. Sure enough, they issued vectors and told me to
> stay outside
> 10 miles from the airport. I replied that I would stay outside the
> Class-C. They
> *again* issued me vectors and said to stay outside 10 miles. I reponded,
> "NXXXX would
> like to terminate radar services." I never received the "radar service
> terminated,
> squawk 1200," so I inquired as to whether or not they acknowledged my
> request to
> terminate. The controller replied, "I want you to stay with ME until west
> of the
> airport, continue on present heading." To which, I replied, "NXXXX
> outside the
> Charlie, 2500, on-course, as I was planning."
>
> I thought this particularly aggressive and unnecessary, so I was going to
> try
> to find the official regs as far as flight following goes. I'm convinced
> that's the
> reason why a lot of VFR pilots never want to talk to ATC unless absolutely
> necessary.
> I pretty much use flight following on any cross-country when I'm not IFR,
> but it
> aggravates me when they vector VFR traffic when outside (especially
> above/below) their
> airspace anyway.
>

Class C services are provided within the Class C airspace itself and also
within the outer area associated with it. If you're not happy with the
service while in the outer area you are free to terminate them at any time
and proceed on your merry way, as long as you remain outside Class C
airspace.

[[email protected]]

Paul kgyy > wrote:

: I've had this happen over Milwaukee. Granted, it's a busy class C, but
: the like to vector me 10 miles out over Lake Michigan, which I do NOT
: like.

Funny you mention MKE... that's one of the Charlies that *always* does it
to me. I generally fly into Capitol (02C) just to the northeast of Waukesha coming
from Chicago. Again, I'm generally flying 1000' under their Charlie, about 2-3
miles from the inner SFC veil. *IF* I talk to them, they try to vector me to the
west to get outside the lateral boundaries. If they tried to run me over the lake,
it would be a definite "unable."

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

: Class C services are provided within the Class C airspace itself and also
: within the outer area associated with it. If you're not happy with the
: service while in the outer area you are free to terminate them at any time
: and proceed on your merry way, as long as you remain outside Class C
: airspace.

That's the most interesting thing about my experience. I was halfway
expecting them to vector me, and if I figured it was inappropriate I was going to
terminate. He *didn't* acknowledge my request to terminate, in fact he essentially
denied my request by telling me he wanted me to stay with him. Had I changed to
1200 and ignored his radio calls, would I be violating anything? That's sorta why
I'm looking for the regs on "VFR flight following."

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> That's the most interesting thing about my experience. I was
> halfway
> expecting them to vector me, and if I figured it was inappropriate I was
> going to
> terminate. He *didn't* acknowledge my request to terminate, in fact he
> essentially
> denied my request by telling me he wanted me to stay with him. Had I
> changed to
> 1200 and ignored his radio calls, would I be violating anything? That's
> sorta why
> I'm looking for the regs on "VFR flight following."
>

No violation. Don't "request" termination, tell the controller you're
terminating services.

[Newps]

A Lieberma wrote:

>
>
> My question is where were you in relationship to the airport? Were you
> under an approach or departure path? Where you near an initial approach
> fix for IFR traffic?

Irrelavant. He was below the class C which puts him well away from
traffic at those points.

[Newps]

wrote:

He *didn't* acknowledge my request to terminate, in fact he essentially
> denied my request by telling me he wanted me to stay with him. Had I changed to
> 1200 and ignored his radio calls, would I be violating anything?

No.

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> I had an interesting experience the other day. To some degree I was testing
> the theory that a local Class-C facility would invariably vector VFR aircraft outside
> the lateral boundaries of their airspace. I've seen this at a few different airports
> where I transition through with flight following, but underneath (or overtop) the
> vertical limits.

I'm not actually sure that teh controllers know the specific boundaries
of the airspace. When you get vectored around its usually because they
have arrivals/departures, not because of the airspace.

-Robert

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/27/06 09:54, wrote:
> : Class C services are provided within the Class C airspace itself and also
> : within the outer area associated with it. If you're not happy with the
> : service while in the outer area you are free to terminate them at any time
> : and proceed on your merry way, as long as you remain outside Class C
> : airspace.
>
> That's the most interesting thing about my experience. I was halfway
> expecting them to vector me, and if I figured it was inappropriate I was going to
> terminate. He *didn't* acknowledge my request to terminate, in fact he essentially
> denied my request by telling me he wanted me to stay with him. Had I changed to
> 1200 and ignored his radio calls, would I be violating anything? That's sorta why
> I'm looking for the regs on "VFR flight following."

Actually, the controller "requested" that you stay with him. As you were not
within his C airspace, you were under no obligation, and could have just said
no.

>
> -Cory
>
>



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

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

wrote:
> I had an interesting experience the other day. To some degree I was testing
> the theory that a local Class-C facility would invariably vector VFR aircraft outside
> the lateral boundaries of their airspace. I've seen this at a few different airports
> where I transition through with flight following, but underneath (or overtop) the
> vertical limits.

If you really meant to ask "where are the regs?" I don't think you'll
find anything specifically about flight following in the regulations.
Look for "VFR advisories" in the AIM. That's the official name for what
we informally call flight-following.

I think Steven said it best (paraphrasing): don't ask, just tell them
you're terminating radar services.

Dave

[[email protected]]

Dave Butler > wrote:
: If you really meant to ask "where are the regs?" I don't think you'll
: find anything specifically about flight following in the regulations.
: Look for "VFR advisories" in the AIM. That's the official name for what
: we informally call flight-following.

: I think Steven said it best (paraphrasing): don't ask, just tell them
: you're terminating radar services.

: Dave

Pretty much what I was doing (I thought). I think that that point he realized
that I was *trying* to be a nice guy by talking to him and acknowledging altitude,
etc, but yet I wasn't willing to accept vectors.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

: I'm not actually sure that teh controllers know the specific boundaries
: of the airspace. When you get vectored around its usually because they
: have arrivals/departures, not because of the airspace.

I sure hope that's not the case. Normal (IFR) arrivals/departures should stay
within the boundaries of the controlled airspace... that's why they're there.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Pretty much what I was doing (I thought). I think that that point he
> realized
> that I was *trying* to be a nice guy by talking to him and acknowledging
> altitude,
> etc, but yet I wasn't willing to accept vectors.
>

Class C services include separation between IFR and VFR aircraft, they are
provided to all aircraft within Class C airspace, and to all participating
aircraft within the outer area. When you contacted approach you became a
participating aircraft. If vectors are deemed necessary to provide
separation you will receive vectors. If you're not willing to accept them
don't be a participating aircraft.

[[email protected]]

: Class C services include separation between IFR and VFR aircraft, they are
: provided to all aircraft within Class C airspace, and to all participating
: aircraft within the outer area. When you contacted approach you became a
: participating aircraft. If vectors are deemed necessary to provide
: separation you will receive vectors. If you're not willing to accept them
: don't be a participating aircraft.

Ah... there's the rub though. I was not, nor did I plan to actually enter the
Class C. I am certainly not advocating disregarding ATC requests when in the
controlled airspace. I'm arguing against the seemingly mandatory re-routing of VFR
traffic completely around the lateral boundaries of a Class C should the VFR traffic
want to cooperate with ATC by communicating with them.

I suspect you have it pretty much summarized though. Sad that the only
"solution" to this is just squawk 1200 and buzz through fat, dumb, and happy.

-Cory



--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>: Class C services include separation between IFR and VFR aircraft, they
>are
> : provided to all aircraft within Class C airspace, and to all
> participating
> : aircraft within the outer area. When you contacted approach you became
> a
> : participating aircraft. If vectors are deemed necessary to provide
> : separation you will receive vectors. If you're not willing to accept
> them
> : don't be a participating aircraft.
>
> Ah... there's the rub though. I was not, nor did I plan to
> actually enter the
> Class C. I am certainly not advocating disregarding ATC requests when in
> the
> controlled airspace. I'm arguing against the seemingly mandatory
> re-routing of VFR
> traffic completely around the lateral boundaries of a Class C should the
> VFR traffic
> want to cooperate with ATC by communicating with them.
>
> I suspect you have it pretty much summarized though. Sad that the
> only
> "solution" to this is just squawk 1200 and buzz through fat, dumb, and
> happy.
>

I don't think you understand. Class C services are provided to all
aircraft within the Class C airspace itself, and to all participating
aircraft in the outer area associated with it. The outer area is not marked
on the chart, it is normally the area within a twenty mile radius of the
Class C primary 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 charted area.

[Dick Meade]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> I don't think you understand. Class C services are provided to all
> aircraft within the Class C airspace itself, and to all participating
> aircraft in the outer area associated with it. The outer area is not
> marked on the chart, it is normally the area within a twenty mile radius
> of the Class C primary 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 charted area.

OK, so how does this work? Two years ago, enroute OSH for the fly-in, I
approach Madison with flight following. I'm given vectors, despite the fact
I'm at 11,500 feet.

Just how far up does their airspace extend?

I'm glad this came up. I've wondered about that (off and on) ever since it
happened.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Dick Meade" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, so how does this work? Two years ago, enroute OSH for the fly-in, I
> approach Madison with flight following. I'm given vectors, despite the
> fact I'm at 11,500 feet.
>
> Just how far up does their airspace extend?
>

The last I heard Madison approach airspace went up to 10,000, it's possible
it's been moved up to 13,000 to be consistent with Milwaukee approach which
it abuts. If you were at 11,500 and talking to Madison approach that would
seem to be the case.

[[email protected]]

: I don't think you understand. Class C services are provided to all
: aircraft within the Class C airspace itself, and to all participating
: aircraft in the outer area associated with it. The outer area is not marked
: on the chart, it is normally the area within a twenty mile radius of the
: Class C primary 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 charted area.

All right... so I'll admit that I was "participating" by calling them up and
accepting a squawk code. I was chosing NOT to participate when I requested
termination of radar services.... but he did not acknowledge that request. I would
have simply gone 1200, but in the back of my mind, I remember reading, "Transponders
should be set to 1200, unless ATC tells otherwise." I guess most pilots do what
they're told by ATC, and in most cases should do exactly that.

I remember once coming back from Florida over Charlotte, SC in a friend's
PA-24-250. We'd been slow-baking at 10,500 for about 3 hours without O2, so we were
probably both a bit hypoxic. We were going to go right over the top (top is at
10.5)... they "refused," saying we could go to 12500 if we wanted. Unable, so we were
vectored 20 miles out of our way. No I know the "correct" way to hand this would be
to terminate radar services.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[A Lieberma]

Newps > wrote in
:

> Irrelavant. He was below the class C which puts him well away from
> traffic at those points.

Not quite sure I agree with this.

Looking back on his post, he was OUTSIDE class C flying straight and level.
He didn't give his altitude, but if he was 2000 feet or higher, he could
have easily been in an approach fix altitude that is located outside
charlie airspace.

Case in point around my area. Wouldn't be a good idea to fly around the
JAN VOR that is located outside KJAN charlie airspace with is an initial
approach fix at 2000 feet for incoming IFR traffic.

I'd sure want to be squawking and talking in that area! Could make for a
very bad day for the arrival and enroute traffic if one wasn't talking.

Allen

[Jay Honeck]

> Funny you mention MKE... that's one of the Charlies that *always* does it
> to me. I generally fly into Capitol (02C) just to the northeast of Waukesha coming
> from Chicago. Again, I'm generally flying 1000' under their Charlie, about 2-3
> miles from the inner SFC veil. *IF* I talk to them, they try to vector me to the
> west to get outside the lateral boundaries. If they tried to run me over the lake,
> it would be a definite "unable."

We fly in that area a lot. Coming from the Southwest, MKE will usually
not take a hand-off from Rockford Approach, which is always
aggravating.

If they DO take the hand-off (or if you're able to catch them on your
own, they usually won't vector you around if you stay to the south of
their airspace. If you head to the north (to Timmerman or Waukesha, for
example), they will vector you around as needed, but not excessively,
IMHO.

If you fly past them along the lake shore, however, they WILL try to
send you way out over the lake. I always tell them "unable", and with
one exception they have always let me stay in tight to shore. The one
exception resulted in being vectored all the way around Class C to the
west, which really sucked.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I remember once coming back from Florida over Charlotte, SC in a friend's
> PA-24-250. We'd been slow-baking at 10,500 for about 3 hours without O2, so we were
> probably both a bit hypoxic. We were going to go right over the top (top is at
> 10.5)... they "refused," saying we could go to 12500 if we wanted. Unable, so we were
> vectored 20 miles out of our way. No I know the "correct" way to hand this would be
> to terminate radar services.

You were over the *top* of their airspace, and they vectored you 20
miles out of the way?

I'd have told them to pound salt. Politely, of course...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/27/06 13:49, Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Funny you mention MKE... that's one of the Charlies that *always* does it
>> to me. I generally fly into Capitol (02C) just to the northeast of Waukesha coming
>> from Chicago. Again, I'm generally flying 1000' under their Charlie, about 2-3
>> miles from the inner SFC veil. *IF* I talk to them, they try to vector me to the
>> west to get outside the lateral boundaries. If they tried to run me over the lake,
>> it would be a definite "unable."
>
> We fly in that area a lot. Coming from the Southwest, MKE will usually
> not take a hand-off from Rockford Approach, which is always
> aggravating.
>
> If they DO take the hand-off (or if you're able to catch them on your
> own, they usually won't vector you around if you stay to the south of
> their airspace. If you head to the north (to Timmerman or Waukesha, for
> example), they will vector you around as needed, but not excessively,
> IMHO.
>
> If you fly past them along the lake shore, however, they WILL try to
> send you way out over the lake. I always tell them "unable", and with
> one exception they have always let me stay in tight to shore. The one
> exception resulted in being vectored all the way around Class C to the
> west, which really sucked.

So was that a punishment for being unable to fly out over the lake?
.... I hope not ;-\

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



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

[Mark Hansen]

On 10/27/06 13:59, Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I remember once coming back from Florida over Charlotte, SC in a friend's
>> PA-24-250. We'd been slow-baking at 10,500 for about 3 hours without O2, so we were
>> probably both a bit hypoxic. We were going to go right over the top (top is at
>> 10.5)... they "refused," saying we could go to 12500 if we wanted. Unable, so we were
>> vectored 20 miles out of our way. No I know the "correct" way to hand this would be
>> to terminate radar services.
>
> You were over the *top* of their airspace, and they vectored you 20
> miles out of the way?

The way I read it, they weren't over the top, they were at the top. If they
flew over the top, they wouldn't have been at a legal VFR altitude.

>
> I'd have told them to pound salt. Politely, of course...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>



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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> I remember once coming back from Florida over Charlotte, SC in a
> friend's PA-24-250. We'd been slow-baking at 10,500 for about 3 hours
> without O2, so we were probably both a bit hypoxic. We were going to go
> right over the top (top is at 10.5)... they "refused," saying we could go
> to
> 12500 if we wanted. Unable, so we were vectored 20 miles out of our way.
> No I know the "correct" way to hand this would be to terminate radar
> services.
>

The top of Charlotte approach control airspace is 10,500 MSL? That's odd,
these things tend to be at IFR altitudes. In that situation 11,000 over
Charlotte approach airspace would be virtually unusable.

[Ben Jackson]

On 2006-10-27, > wrote:
> I had an interesting experience the other day. To some degree
> I was testing the theory that a local Class-C facility would invariably
> vector VFR aircraft outside

I've always wondered what the rules were. I've had PDX give me altitude
restrictions when I'm talking to them above their airspace. One day on
the way to Mt St Helens I recall being outside the lateral AND vertical
bounds of their airspace when I got an "at or below" for some crossing
traffic.

Since that's not as annoying as a vector I've never had cause to challenge
them. And they've been nice to me while inside their airspace, too.

> *again* issued me vectors and said to stay outside 10 miles. I
> reponded, "NXXXX would like to terminate radar services." I never
> received the "radar service terminated, squawk 1200," so I inquired
> as to whether or not they acknowledged my request to terminate. The
> controller replied, "I want you to stay with ME until west of the

Yeah, I'm not surprised that their overriding goal is to keep an eye
on you. I wonder what was going on during that pause.

> to find the official regs as far as flight following goes.

When I looked all I found was "obey ATC instructions". That's sort of
ambiguous when you are in a situation where you're not required to talk
to ATC at all, but happen to be...

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've always wondered what the rules were. I've had PDX give me altitude
> restrictions when I'm talking to them above their airspace. One day on
> the way to Mt St Helens I recall being outside the lateral AND vertical
> bounds of their airspace when I got an "at or below" for some crossing
> traffic.
>
> Since that's not as annoying as a vector I've never had cause to challenge
> them. And they've been nice to me while inside their airspace, too.
>

What do you consider to be "their airspace"?


>
> When I looked all I found was "obey ATC instructions". That's sort of
> ambiguous when you are in a situation where you're not required to talk
> to ATC at all, but happen to be...
>

Doesn't anyone read the AIM anymore?

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0302.html#3-2-4

[[email protected]]

: We fly in that area a lot. Coming from the Southwest, MKE will usually
: not take a hand-off from Rockford Approach, which is always
: aggravating.

I'm usually coming from the south-southeast (Waukegan, Kenosha) and just nicking their airspace. Haven't gone
yet where I talked to them from under their Charlie and *didn't* get vectored to the west.

: If they DO take the hand-off (or if you're able to catch them on your
: own, they usually won't vector you around if you stay to the south of
: their airspace. If you head to the north (to Timmerman or Waukesha, for
: example), they will vector you around as needed, but not excessively,
: IMHO.

I actually did a "downtown sightseeing" tour for the first time when I was up there about two weeks ago. They
were very accomodating.

: If you fly past them along the lake shore, however, they WILL try to
: send you way out over the lake. I always tell them "unable", and with
: one exception they have always let me stay in tight to shore. The one
: exception resulted in being vectored all the way around Class C to the
: west, which really sucked.
: --

I don't remember the sectional exactly, but I imagine the SFC part of their Charlie goes to the lake, doesn't
it? You're kinda screwed there, but it's good to hear that they usually allow it.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

: > 12500 if we wanted. Unable, so we were vectored 20 miles out of our way.
: > No I know the "correct" way to hand this would be to terminate radar
: > services.
: >

: The top of Charlotte approach control airspace is 10,500 MSL? That's odd,
: these things tend to be at IFR altitudes. In that situation 11,000 over
: Charlotte approach airspace would be virtually unusable.

The top was 10,000. We were at 10,500 (almost due north, so VOR-VOR was sometimes even, sometimes odd...at
that point it was slightly west). At even 10,001 feet, we wouldn't have had to call them at all, but since we did we
got a 20 mile detour as a result.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

: You were over the *top* of their airspace, and they vectored you 20
: miles out of the way?

: I'd have told them to pound salt. Politely, of course...

Yep... at this point in time I wouldn't accept it either. At the time however, I was a green pilot flying a
friend's airplane, (with the friend right-seat) so I didn't know any better.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Ben Jackson]

On 2006-10-27, Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> "Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I've always wondered what the rules were. I've had PDX give me altitude
>> restrictions when I'm talking to them above their airspace. One day on
>> the way to Mt St Helens I recall being outside the lateral AND vertical
>> bounds of their airspace when I got an "at or below" for some crossing
>> traffic.
>
> What do you consider to be "their airspace"?

I may have been in their "outer area". It's funny this should come up,
because I recall that a question about the class C outer area is the only
one I missed on the private written.

>> When I looked all I found was "obey ATC instructions".
>
> Doesn't anyone read the AIM anymore?
>
> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0302.html#3-2-4

Are you referring to:

Pilot participation is voluntary within the outer area and can
be discontinued, within the outer area, at the pilot's request.
Class C services will be provided in the outer area unless the
pilot requests termination of the service.

But I'm referring to FAR 91.123(b):

Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft
contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic
control is exercised.

So the question remains: If ATC issues me an instruction when I'm
speaking to them voluntarily (so 91.123(a) does not apply becuase
I'm not operating under a clearance), am I stuck with that instruction?

The closest I can find is in 708 7-8-5(b) re Altitude Assignments:
<http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0708.html>

Aircraft assigned altitudes which are contrary to 14 CFR Section
91.159 shall be advised to resume altitudes appropriate for the
direction of flight when the altitude is no longer needed for
separation, when leaving the outer area, or when terminating
Class C service.

I suppose that means that I *do* have to obey ATC, but they have to drop
the altitude restriction if I cancel. So from that I infer that if you
get a vector you don't like while in the outer area, a "cancel flight
following" should result in "resume own nav".

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

[[email protected]]

I have had good luck with Flight Following but am pretty touchy on
being given vectors just to ease the controllers duties. I most always
cancel flight following, dial in 1200 and remind them there has NEVER
been a controller killed in a midair, it is always the pilots in
command. After all,, they work for us, not the other way around.

Ben
KJAC.
Ben Jackson wrote:
> On 2006-10-27, > wrote:
> > I had an interesting experience the other day. To some degree
> > I was testing the theory that a local Class-C facility would invariably
> > vector VFR aircraft outside
>
> I've always wondered what the rules were. I've had PDX give me altitude
> restrictions when I'm talking to them above their airspace. One day on
> the way to Mt St Helens I recall being outside the lateral AND vertical
> bounds of their airspace when I got an "at or below" for some crossing
> traffic.
>
> Since that's not as annoying as a vector I've never had cause to challenge
> them. And they've been nice to me while inside their airspace, too.
>
> > *again* issued me vectors and said to stay outside 10 miles. I
> > reponded, "NXXXX would like to terminate radar services." I never
> > received the "radar service terminated, squawk 1200," so I inquired
> > as to whether or not they acknowledged my request to terminate. The
> > controller replied, "I want you to stay with ME until west of the
>
> Yeah, I'm not surprised that their overriding goal is to keep an eye
> on you. I wonder what was going on during that pause.
>
> > to find the official regs as far as flight following goes.
>
> When I looked all I found was "obey ATC instructions". That's sort of
> ambiguous when you are in a situation where you're not required to talk
> to ATC at all, but happen to be...
>
> --
> Ben Jackson AD7GD
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[[email protected]]

: >
: > When I looked all I found was "obey ATC instructions". That's sort of
: > ambiguous when you are in a situation where you're not required to talk
: > to ATC at all, but happen to be...
: >

: Doesn't anyone read the AIM anymore?

: http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0302.html#3-2-4

Since I didn't (nor had no intention to) enter the Charlie, all I see that is relevant is:

d. Air Traffic Services. When two-way radio communications and radar contact are established, all participating VFR
aircraft are:

1. Sequenced to the primary airport.

2. Provided Class C services within the Class C airspace and the outer area.

3. Provided basic radar services beyond the outer area on a workload permitting basis. This can be terminated by the
controller if workload dictates.

Once I stated, "I would like to terminate radar services," part d.2. is no longer relevant since I am no longer
participating.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Roy Smith]

In article m>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I remember once coming back from Florida over Charlotte, SC in a friend's
> > PA-24-250. We'd been slow-baking at 10,500 for about 3 hours without O2,
> > so we were
> > probably both a bit hypoxic. We were going to go right over the top (top
> > is at
> > 10.5)... they "refused," saying we could go to 12500 if we wanted. Unable,
> > so we were
> > vectored 20 miles out of our way. No I know the "correct" way to hand this
> > would be
> > to terminate radar services.
>
> You were over the *top* of their airspace, and they vectored you 20
> miles out of the way?
>
> I'd have told them to pound salt. Politely, of course...

500 above the top of a Class B is a pretty busy place. All those jets tend
to enter and exit the CBAS through the top. Depending on the arrival and
departure routes in use at the time, you may find yourself in the middle of
a very dense line of heavy metal.

Are you within your legal rights to blow off ATC's vector, squawk 1200, and
continue on your merry way fat, dumb, and happy? Sure you are. But legal
isn't always smart.

[Jay Honeck]

> The top was 10,000. We were at 10,500 (almost due north, so VOR-VOR was sometimes even, sometimes odd...at
> that point it was slightly west). At even 10,001 feet, we wouldn't have had to call them at all, but since we did we
> got a 20 mile detour as a result.

That's just absurd. You must've found a controller that was ****ed
about not being allowed to wear flip-flops to work...

<ducking!>

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

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Dick Meade" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> OK, so how does this work? Two years ago, enroute OSH for the fly-in, I
>> approach Madison with flight following. I'm given vectors, despite the
>> fact I'm at 11,500 feet.
>>
>> Just how far up does their airspace extend?
>>
>
> The last I heard Madison approach airspace went up to 10,000, it's
> possible it's been moved up to 13,000 to be consistent with Milwaukee
> approach which it abuts. If you were at 11,500 and talking to Madison
> approach that would seem to be the case.
>

You mean that they will handle IFR traffic up to that altitude not that
their controlled space goes up that high. The charted space for Madison is
up to 4900 (or something close, I'm not looking at the chart). If I pass
overhead of that or under or around, I will monitor but not bother them.
However, Madison controllers are extremely accomodating. I have never had
them vector me at all. The only time that even came close was a "...
transition approved. Cross directly over the airport to stay clear of
traffic."

Milwaukee, on the other hand, seem very territorial. They are difficult to
deal with for practice approaches at Kenosha and they aggressively protect
their airspace around MKE by vectoring VFR traffic well clear. Many years
ago, I was passing along the lakeshore under their airspace. I called up as
a courtesy, got a squawk, then a chewing out for flying so close to their
airspace, then vectors further out into Lake Michigan. I responded, "Lake
94P, squawking 1200, will remain clear of your airspace." I've never called
them again unless inbound to MKE. If their airspace is busier than the
protected areas are designed to support, I sympathize. If they want my
cooperation, they need to be nice about it

___________________
Travis.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> The top was 10,000. We were at 10,500 (almost due north, so VOR-VOR was
> sometimes even, sometimes odd...at
> that point it was slightly west). At even 10,001 feet, we wouldn't have
> had to call them at all, but since we did we
> got a 20 mile detour as a result.
>

I would have reminded them that I was operating VFR in Class E airspace and
thus they had no responsibility for separation and no authority to initiate
vectors or assign an altitude.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I may have been in their "outer area". It's funny this should come up,
> because I recall that a question about the class C outer area is the only
> one I missed on the private written.
>

The charted Class C airspace would be just a fraction of the controlled
airspace delegated to Portland approach.


>
> Are you referring to:
>
> Pilot participation is voluntary within the outer area and can
> be discontinued, within the outer area, at the pilot's request.
> Class C services will be provided in the outer area unless the
> pilot requests termination of the service.
>
> But I'm referring to FAR 91.123(b):
>
> Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft
> contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic
> control is exercised.
>

You're assuming that the regulation was intended to include instructions
that ATC is not authorized to issue. I think that unlikely.


>
> So the question remains: If ATC issues me an instruction when I'm
> speaking to them voluntarily (so 91.123(a) does not apply becuase
> I'm not operating under a clearance), am I stuck with that instruction?
>

No.


>
> The closest I can find is in 708 7-8-5(b) re Altitude Assignments:
> <http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0708.html>
>
> Aircraft assigned altitudes which are contrary to 14 CFR Section
> 91.159 shall be advised to resume altitudes appropriate for the
> direction of flight when the altitude is no longer needed for
> separation, when leaving the outer area, or when terminating
> Class C service.
>
> I suppose that means that I *do* have to obey ATC, but they have to drop
> the altitude restriction if I cancel. So from that I infer that if you
> get a vector you don't like while in the outer area, a "cancel flight
> following" should result in "resume own nav".
>

Bingo.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I have had good luck with Flight Following but am pretty touchy on
> being given vectors just to ease the controllers duties. I most always
> cancel flight following, dial in 1200 and remind them there has NEVER
> been a controller killed in a midair, it is always the pilots in
> command. After all,, they work for us, not the other way around.
>

"Vectors just to ease the controllers duties"? What do you mean by that?
If you're in an area where ATC must provide separation vectoring is a valid
tool to achieve it. If you're not in an area where ATC must provide
separation then there's no reason for ATC to vector you.

[[email protected]]

: them again unless inbound to MKE. If their airspace is busier than the
: protected areas are designed to support, I sympathize. If they want my
: cooperation, they need to be nice about it

Exactly my sentiments.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Since I didn't (nor had no intention to) enter the Charlie, all I
> see that is relevant is:
>
> d. Air Traffic Services. When two-way radio communications and radar
> contact are established, all participating VFR
> aircraft are:
>
> 1. Sequenced to the primary airport.
>
> 2. Provided Class C services within the Class C airspace and the outer
> area.
>
> 3. Provided basic radar services beyond the outer area on a workload
> permitting basis. This can be terminated by the
> controller if workload dictates.
>
> Once I stated, "I would like to terminate radar services," part
> d.2. is no longer relevant since I am no longer
> participating.
>

Exactly. Reading the relevant parts of the AIM would preclude wondering
what the rules are when given altitude restrictions while talking to
approach control above the Class C airspace.

[[email protected]]

: > I have had good luck with Flight Following but am pretty touchy on
: > being given vectors just to ease the controllers duties. I most always
: > cancel flight following, dial in 1200 and remind them there has NEVER
: > been a controller killed in a midair, it is always the pilots in
: > command. After all,, they work for us, not the other way around.
: >

: "Vectors just to ease the controllers duties"? What do you mean by that?
: If you're in an area where ATC must provide separation vectoring is a valid
: tool to achieve it. If you're not in an area where ATC must provide
: separation then there's no reason for ATC to vector you.

... and yet they routinely do it if you happen to talk to them.


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> 500 above the top of a Class B is a pretty busy place. All those jets
> tend to enter and exit the CBAS through the top. Depending on the
> arrival and departure routes in use at the time, you may find yourself in
> the middle of a very dense line of heavy metal.
>
> Are you within your legal rights to blow off ATC's vector, squawk 1200,
> and continue on your merry way fat, dumb, and happy? Sure you are.
> But legal isn't always smart.
>

Is the controller acting within his legal authority when he initiates
vectoring of a VFR aircraft 500' above the top of a Class B?

[Jay Honeck]

> : "Vectors just to ease the controllers duties"? What do you mean by that?
> : If you're in an area where ATC must provide separation vectoring is a valid
> : tool to achieve it. If you're not in an area where ATC must provide
> : separation then there's no reason for ATC to vector you.
>
> ... and yet they routinely do it if you happen to talk to them.

True, but in fairness (and in my experience) it is usually due to
traffic. Which, after all, is the only reason I am talking to them in
the first place.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
m...
>
> You mean that they will handle IFR traffic up to that altitude not that
> their controlled space goes up that high. The charted space for Madison is
> up to 4900 (or something close, I'm not looking at the chart). If I pass
> overhead of that or under or around, I will monitor but not bother them.
> However, Madison controllers are extremely accomodating. I have never had
> them vector me at all. The only time that even came close was a "...
> transition approved. Cross directly over the airport to stay clear of
> traffic."
>

I meant what I wrote. The controlled airspace delegated to Madison approach
control does not appear on any chart readily available to the flying public.
The charted Madison Class C airspace is just a fraction of their delegated
airspace. Madison will provide Class C services to all aircraft within the
Class C airspace and to all participating aircraft within the outer area.
The outer area extends up to the upper limit of the controlled airspace
delegated to them within a twenty mile radius of Truax Field. If you're
talking to Madison approach within that area you're a participating aircraft
and are subject to being vectored if need be to effect separation.


>
> Milwaukee, on the other hand, seem very territorial. They are difficult to
> deal with for practice approaches at Kenosha and they aggressively protect
> their airspace around MKE by vectoring VFR traffic well clear. Many years
> ago, I was passing along the lakeshore under their airspace. I called up
> as a courtesy, got a squawk, then a chewing out for flying so close to
> their airspace, then vectors further out into Lake Michigan. I responded,
> "Lake 94P, squawking 1200, will remain clear of your airspace." I've never
> called them again unless inbound to MKE. If their airspace is busier than
> the protected areas are designed to support, I sympathize. If they want my
> cooperation, they need to be nice about it
>

He was completely out of line to chew you out for flying close to the Class
C boundary. You can fly right up to the boundary without talking to them.
But what courtesy were you extending by calling them?

[[email protected]]

: > Once I stated, "I would like to terminate radar services," part
: > d.2. is no longer relevant since I am no longer
: > participating.
: >

: Exactly. Reading the relevant parts of the AIM would preclude wondering
: what the rules are when given altitude restrictions while talking to
: approach control above the Class C airspace.

My own issue was in the termination part. When I told them I wanted to terminate radar services, the request
was ignored. When I inquired again whether he'd heard my request, he "denied" it by saying he was going to "keep me
with him until west of the airport."

That's why I was trying to find some sort of rules defining this situation. I guess as the pilot outside the
Charlie, I should have simply said, "Terminating radar services, squaking 1200, will remain clear the Charlie." I
didn't quite think of that at the time however.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

: He was completely out of line to chew you out for flying close to the Class
: C boundary. You can fly right up to the boundary without talking to them.
: But what courtesy were you extending by calling them?

A few I can think of offhand:
- Providing altitude verification of your Mode-C readout.
- Providing lateral intentions so they do not have to worry about rouge VFR targets.
- Providing altitude intentions.

In short by communicating, the pilot is providing the controller peace of mind that they are competent and do
not present a potential "airspace incursion" threat by bumbling into their airspace.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> My own issue was in the termination part. When I told them I wanted to
> terminate
> radar services, the request was ignored. When I inquired again whether
> he'd
> heard my request, he "denied" it by saying he was going to "keep me
> with him until west of the airport."
>
> That's why I was trying to find some sort of rules defining this
> situation. I guess
> as the pilot outside the Charlie, I should have simply said, "Terminating
> radar
> services, squaking 1200, will remain clear the Charlie." I didn't quite
> think of that
> at the time however.
>

Bingo.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> ... and yet they routinely do it if you happen to talk to them.
>

Just say no. But make sure you're NOT in an area where ATC must provide
separation when you do.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> True, but in fairness (and in my experience) it is usually due to
> traffic. Which, after all, is the only reason I am talking to them in
> the first place.
>

Traffic does not justify a controller acting contrary to FAAO 7110.65.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
>
> A few I can think of offhand:
> - Providing altitude verification of your Mode-C readout.
> - Providing lateral intentions so they do not have to worry about rouge
> VFR targets.
> - Providing altitude intentions.
>
> In short by communicating, the pilot is providing the controller peace of
> mind that
> they are competent and do not present a potential "airspace incursion"
> threat by
> bumbling into their airspace.
>

Why would a controller assume you're competent merely by establishing
communications? Establishing communications precludes an airspace
incursion, of course, because establishing communications grants entry. But
establishing communications makes you a participating aircraft that must now
be provided services, including separation from any IFR aircraft he may be
talking to whereas before he just needed to advise that IFR traffic of your
target. In short, calling him will likely only increase his workload. I
don't see how increasing his workload can be considered extending him a
courtesy or providing him peace of mind.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
> In short, calling him will likely only increase his workload. I don't
> see how increasing his workload can be considered extending him a courtesy
> or providing him peace of mind.
>

That's good value out of this discussion. My belief was that, if they had
positive indication of my intent, that it would make life easier. Now I know
that I should keep my mouth shut.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> In short, calling him will likely only increase his workload.

verifying your Mode C altitude doesn't help descrease his workload?

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

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> I meant what I wrote.

I'm sure you did. The point is that Madison may "control" airspace outside
of the publicly charted terminal area but I can fly through it without be
"controlled."

Since the discussion was about the obligations of a VFR pilot to follow ATC
instructions, I don't see how pointing out that Madison is responsible for
that airspace adds any clarity. It's no different that all of the
surrounding airspace that Chicago or Minneapolis Center "controls."

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> verifying your Mode C altitude doesn't help descrease his workload?
>

Probably not. Sure, if the Mode C altitude is verified he wouldn't have to
be called as traffic to participating aircraft that are clear of his
altitude. But to verify the Mode C he has to call and be identified, which
now makes him another participating aircraft for which services must be
provided. Having more participating aircraft tends to increase the
workload, not decrease it.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm sure you did. The point is that Madison may "control" airspace outside
> of the publicly charted terminal area but I can fly through it without be
> "controlled."
>

Yes, you can do that by not calling Madison approach while operating VFR in
the outer area associated with the Madison Class C airspace. But if you do
call them in that situation you will be "controlled". That is the point.


>
> Since the discussion was about the obligations of a VFR pilot to follow
> ATC instructions, I don't see how pointing out that Madison is responsible
> for that airspace adds any clarity. It's no different that all of the
> surrounding airspace that Chicago or Minneapolis Center "controls."
>

It is significantly different than all of the surrounding airspace that
Chicago or Minneapolis Center "controls." Centers provide only traffic
advisories to VFR aircraft, within the outer area associated with Class C
airspace approach control facilities such as Madison provide separation
between IFR and participating VFR aircraft.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> It is significantly different than all of the surrounding airspace that
> Chicago or Minneapolis Center "controls." Centers provide only traffic
> advisories to VFR aircraft, within the outer area associated with Class C
> airspace approach control facilities such as Madison provide separation
> between IFR and participating VFR aircraft.


Interesting. That would seem to be a significant difference that is not well
understood. So Madison Approach has a much higher level of responsibility
with a VFR pilot participating within their extended airspace than a Center
does providing advisories. While my participation is voluntary in both
cases. Also, if I don't like what they are asking me to do, I can decline
and squawk VFR in both cases.

Doesn't seem fair.
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[zatatime]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:21:09 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>That's why I was trying to find some sort of rules defining this situation. I guess as the pilot outside the
>Charlie, I should have simply said, "Terminating radar services, squaking 1200, will remain clear the Charlie." I
>didn't quite think of that at the time however.


First, let me say this is a great thread.

What I'm stuck on is the fact that you were already a participating
aircraft. Once participating ATC instructions need to be adhered to
(outlined in previous posts). What I can't get past is, once
participating can we just stop participating, or was our choice to
participate initially some sort of agreement to abide by the rules of
ATC as a participating aircraft until outside their area, or mutual
agreement to terminate services.

As you initially stated, it would be great to find something we can
read about this that would clarify.

z

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>
> First, let me say this is a great thread.
>
> What I'm stuck on is the fact that you were already a participating
> aircraft. Once participating ATC instructions need to be adhered to
> (outlined in previous posts). What I can't get past is, once
> participating can we just stop participating, or was our choice to
> participate initially some sort of agreement to abide by the rules of
> ATC as a participating aircraft until outside their area, or mutual
> agreement to terminate services.
>
> As you initially stated, it would be great to find something we can
> read about this that would clarify.
>

Of course you can choose to stop participating. Why would you think
anything else? It would be no different than canceling IFR when the system
became more trouble than it was worth and continuing flight under VFR.

[Newps]

Travis Marlatte wrote:

>
> Interesting. That would seem to be a significant difference that is not well
> understood. So Madison Approach has a much higher level of responsibility
> with a VFR pilot participating within their extended airspace than a Center
> does providing advisories.


No, the services and responsibilities are the same in the airspace you
describe.

[[email protected]]

Ok. Now I am calling your bluff. One thing is totally wrong with your
comments. If I am on flight following/ VFR advisiories, whatever you
want to call it and I am flying from JAC to SLC, I am in communication
with ATC for over an hour. As I approach Class Bravo airspace around
Salt Lake City, if I don't hear those magic words " CLEARED INTO CLASS
BRAVO AIRSPACE" and I fly into the valley I can assure you I will hear
" CALL THE TOWER" upon landing. Being in communication with enroute
does NOT clear me into Bravo airspace or "grant" me entry. My next beef
is your attitude toward "participating" aircraft. If I fill my fuel
tanks with 100LL and pay all taxes that are included with each gallon I
can assure you I want all services that are available to me. For you to
whine about increased workload is not my problem. Your agency and
employer, "the federal government" has collected taxes from me from the
fuel I bought, it is up to your system to provide me with all services
included with said taxes. Now, I would love to see two fuel pumps at
all airports, one that collects taxes and then I would be a
"participating" aircraft. The second pump would be 100LL, or mogas that
charged no taxes and I would fly VRF and never deal with you
whiners.... What say you now???
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A few I can think of offhand:
> > - Providing altitude verification of your Mode-C readout.
> > - Providing lateral intentions so they do not have to worry about rouge
> > VFR targets.
> > - Providing altitude intentions.
> >
> > In short by communicating, the pilot is providing the controller peace of
> > mind that
> > they are competent and do not present a potential "airspace incursion"
> > threat by
> > bumbling into their airspace.
> >
>
> Why would a controller assume you're competent merely by establishing
> communications? Establishing communications precludes an airspace
> incursion, of course, because establishing communications grants entry. But
> establishing communications makes you a participating aircraft that must now
> be provided services, including separation from any IFR aircraft he may be
> talking to whereas before he just needed to advise that IFR traffic of your
> target. In short, calling him will likely only increase his workload. I
> don't see how increasing his workload can be considered extending him a
> courtesy or providing him peace of mind.

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> That's just absurd. You must've found a controller that was ****ed
> about not being allowed to wear flip-flops to work...

hey - the guy was professionally dressed, so he must have been
acting professionally, right?

<also ducking>

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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ok. Now I am calling your bluff. One thing is totally wrong with your
> comments. If I am on flight following/ VFR advisiories, whatever you
> want to call it and I am flying from JAC to SLC, I am in communication
> with ATC for over an hour. As I approach Class Bravo airspace around
> Salt Lake City, if I don't hear those magic words " CLEARED INTO CLASS
> BRAVO AIRSPACE" and I fly into the valley I can assure you I will hear
> " CALL THE TOWER" upon landing. Being in communication with enroute
> does NOT clear me into Bravo airspace or "grant" me entry
>

Nobody said it did. If you review the thread you'll see we were talking
about communicating with Milwaukee approach and entry to the Class C
airspace.


>
> My next beef
> is your attitude toward "participating" aircraft. If I fill my fuel
> tanks with 100LL and pay all taxes that are included with each gallon I
> can assure you I want all services that are available to me. For you to
> whine about increased workload is not my problem. Your agency and
> employer, "the federal government" has collected taxes from me from the
> fuel I bought, it is up to your system to provide me with all services
> included with said taxes. Now, I would love to see two fuel pumps at
> all airports, one that collects taxes and then I would be a
> "participating" aircraft. The second pump would be 100LL, or mogas that
> charged no taxes and I would fly VRF and never deal with you
> whiners.... What say you now???
>

I say you aren't very bright.

[Travis Marlatte]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> My next beef
> is your attitude toward "participating" aircraft.

Huh? He didn't say don't call them because they have better things to do.

The discussion has been comparing two scenarios. A) VFR pilot flys near a
Class C and does not call up and, therefore, does not require services and
B) VFR pilot flys near a Class C and does call up and, therefore, does
require services.

Some of us had the belief that B) made it easier for the controller with the
theory that they had a little more positive control over us. Steven's point
is that A is the easier load.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[[email protected]]

Hmmmm. And you work for an organization " federal government" that is 9
trillion dollars in debt.. Actions speak louder then words.....
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Ok. Now I am calling your bluff. One thing is totally wrong with your
> > comments. If I am on flight following/ VFR advisiories, whatever you
> > want to call it and I am flying from JAC to SLC, I am in communication
> > with ATC for over an hour. As I approach Class Bravo airspace around
> > Salt Lake City, if I don't hear those magic words " CLEARED INTO CLASS
> > BRAVO AIRSPACE" and I fly into the valley I can assure you I will hear
> > " CALL THE TOWER" upon landing. Being in communication with enroute
> > does NOT clear me into Bravo airspace or "grant" me entry
> >
>
> Nobody said it did. If you review the thread you'll see we were talking
> about communicating with Milwaukee approach and entry to the Class C
> airspace.
>
>
> >
> > My next beef
> > is your attitude toward "participating" aircraft. If I fill my fuel
> > tanks with 100LL and pay all taxes that are included with each gallon I
> > can assure you I want all services that are available to me. For you to
> > whine about increased workload is not my problem. Your agency and
> > employer, "the federal government" has collected taxes from me from the
> > fuel I bought, it is up to your system to provide me with all services
> > included with said taxes. Now, I would love to see two fuel pumps at
> > all airports, one that collects taxes and then I would be a
> > "participating" aircraft. The second pump would be 100LL, or mogas that
> > charged no taxes and I would fly VRF and never deal with you
> > whiners.... What say you now???
> >
>
> I say you aren't very bright.

[xyzzy]

Maule Driver wrote:
> My experience has been mixed. At RDU where they work a lot of traffic
> (for a Class C) I've found them to be flexible, accommodating, and
> realistic.
>
> GSO where there is less traffic is a different matter. I'm almost
> always sent around. Even when landing there, I've had them ignore my
> radio calls until they were ready, causing more than 1 circling
> maneuver to get my Class C acknowledgment. It's bull**** but that's the
> way they do it. Less traffic, less experienced controllers perhaps.
>

Yes on both. I also fly in that area (out of TTA) and my experience
mirrors yours. It seems like a rule of thumb that the farther east you
go in NC, the better the controllers are to deal with -- Seymor Johnson
is better than FAY is better than RDU is better than GSO and CLT is the
worst....

I have no idea why GSO acts so much busier than it is. Maybe they
train new controllers there.

Or maybe they are less flexible because the FSDO is on the field?

[Newps]

wrote:
If I am on flight following/ VFR advisiories, whatever you
> want to call it and I am flying from JAC to SLC, I am in communication
> with ATC for over an hour. As I approach Class Bravo airspace around
> Salt Lake City, if I don't hear those magic words " CLEARED INTO CLASS
> BRAVO AIRSPACE" and I fly into the valley I can assure you I will hear
> " CALL THE TOWER" upon landing. Being in communication with enroute
> does NOT clear me into Bravo airspace or "grant" me entry.


You are right, you must hear "cleared into the class Bravo". You will
almost never hear the center give that clearance. There have been a few
instances where ATC led a pilot down the path andthe pilot went into the
class B without a clearance but didn't suffer any consequences.

[Dave[_5_]]

> Yes on both. I also fly in that area (out of TTA) and my experience
> mirrors yours. It seems like a rule of thumb that the farther east you
> go in NC, the better the controllers are to deal with -- Seymor Johnson
> is better than FAY is better than RDU is better than GSO and CLT is the
> worst....
>
> I have no idea why GSO acts so much busier than it is. Maybe they
> train new controllers there.
>
> Or maybe they are less flexible because the FSDO is on the field?

Try going further west. I was based at AVL for over a year, and found
the controllers
pretty friendly and accomodating. Be that as it may, I am well aware of
the "attitude"
that many of these facilities have (probably reflects the sort of
management that the
controllers have to live with). Bottom line is that I would rather not
talk to ATC if I have
a choice in the matter. I will route myself over, around or under their
airspace and never
say a word - and I will always choose an uncontrolled airport in
preference to one with a tower if said facilities will serve my needs.

Dave J

[xyzzy]

Newps wrote:
> wrote:
> If I am on flight following/ VFR advisiories, whatever you
> > want to call it and I am flying from JAC to SLC, I am in communication
> > with ATC for over an hour. As I approach Class Bravo airspace around
> > Salt Lake City, if I don't hear those magic words " CLEARED INTO CLASS
> > BRAVO AIRSPACE" and I fly into the valley I can assure you I will hear
> > " CALL THE TOWER" upon landing. Being in communication with enroute
> > does NOT clear me into Bravo airspace or "grant" me entry.
>
>
> You are right, you must hear "cleared into the class Bravo". You will
> almost never hear the center give that clearance. There have been a few
> instances where ATC led a pilot down the path andthe pilot went into the
> class B without a clearance but didn't suffer any consequences.

Yup, I've even had a controller yell at me for asking her to confirm I
was cleared into Class Bravo after she vectored me into it. She said
"you have a squawk code, you're talking to me, you don't need anything
more!" To make it more interesting, this was flying into IAD, in the DC
ADIZ, where a pilot definitely wants to confirm clearance! I figured
she deals with VFR traffic so seldom, she forgot the requirement to be
cleared into Class Bravo.

[Roy Smith]

"xyzzy" > wrote:
> Yup, I've even had a controller yell at me for asking her to confirm I
> was cleared into Class Bravo after she vectored me into it. She said
> "you have a squawk code, you're talking to me, you don't need anything
> more!"

She was wrong. Ask for her phone number and have a calm, rational, chat
with her (or her supervisor) on the phone after you land. ****ing contests
on the frequency never lead to anything good. Quote her the AIM, Chapter
3, section 2, paragraph 3-2-1-d, which say:

"VFR Requirements. It is the responsibility of the pilot to insure that ATC
clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to entry into
Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace. The pilot retains this
responsibility when receiving ATC radar advisories. (See 14 CFR Part 91.)"

[xyzzy]

Roy Smith wrote:
> "xyzzy" > wrote:
> > Yup, I've even had a controller yell at me for asking her to confirm I
> > was cleared into Class Bravo after she vectored me into it. She said
> > "you have a squawk code, you're talking to me, you don't need anything
> > more!"
>
> She was wrong. Ask for her phone number and have a calm, rational, chat
> with her (or her supervisor) on the phone after you land. ****ing contests
> on the frequency never lead to anything good. Quote her the AIM, Chapter
> 3, section 2, paragraph 3-2-1-d, which say:

I agree she was wrong and I wasn't about to get into a ****ing match
over it. Nor did I ask for her phone number. I was busy enough as it
was, the frequency was crowded, and I took her response to be
confirmation of my clearance, which is what I needed.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> She was wrong. Ask for her phone number and have a calm, rational, chat
> with her (or her supervisor) on the phone after you land. ****ing
> contests
> on the frequency never lead to anything good. Quote her the AIM, Chapter
> 3, section 2, paragraph 3-2-1-d, which say:
>
> "VFR Requirements. It is the responsibility of the pilot to insure that
> ATC clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior
> to entry into Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace. The pilot retains
> this responsibility when receiving ATC radar advisories. (See 14 CFR
> Part 91.)"
>

Might be better to quote FAAO 7110.65:


7-9-2. VFR AIRCRAFT IN CLASS B AIRSPACE

a. VFR aircraft must obtain an ATC clearance to operate in Class B airspace.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Operational Requests, Para 2-1-18.
FAAO 7110.65, Airspace Classes, Para 2-4-22.

PHRASEOLOGY-
CLEARED THROUGH/TO ENTER/OUT OF BRAVO AIRSPACE,

and as appropriate,

VIA (route). MAINTAIN (altitude) WHILE IN BRAVO AIRSPACE.

or

CLEARED AS REQUESTED.

(Additional instructions, as necessary.)

REMAIN OUTSIDE BRAVO AIRSPACE. (When necessary, reason and/or additional
instructions.)

NOTE-
1. Assignment of radar headings, routes, or altitudes is based on the
provision that a pilot operating in accordance with VFR is expected to
advise ATC if compliance will cause violation of any part of the CFR.

2. Separation and sequencing for VFR aircraft is dependent upon radar.
Efforts should be made to segregate VFR traffic from IFR traffic flows when
a radar outage occurs.

b. Approve/deny requests from VFR aircraft to operate in Class B airspace
based on workload, operational limitations and traffic conditions.

c. Inform the pilot when to expect further clearance when VFR aircraft are
held either inside or outside Class B airspace.

d. Inform VFR aircraft when leaving Class B airspace.

PHRASEOLOGY-
LEAVING (name) BRAVO AIRSPACE,

and as appropriate,

RESUME OWN NAVIGATION, REMAIN THIS FREQUENCY FOR TRAFFIC ADVISORIES, RADAR
SERVICE TERMINATED, SQUAWK ONE TWO ZERO ZERO.

[Maule Driver]

I used to find CLT difficult. Over the past 2-3 years the attitude
seems to have lifted and things are better (e.g. letting IFR/VFR
transitions thru their B).

However, I don't think CLT can be compared to Class Cs.

xyzzy wrote:
> Maule Driver wrote:
>
>>My experience has been mixed. At RDU where they work a lot of traffic
>>(for a Class C) I've found them to be flexible, accommodating, and
>>realistic.
>>
>>GSO where there is less traffic is a different matter. I'm almost
>>always sent around. Even when landing there, I've had them ignore my
>>radio calls until they were ready, causing more than 1 circling
>>maneuver to get my Class C acknowledgment. It's bull**** but that's the
>>way they do it. Less traffic, less experienced controllers perhaps.
>>
>
>
> Yes on both. I also fly in that area (out of TTA) and my experience
> mirrors yours. It seems like a rule of thumb that the farther east you
> go in NC, the better the controllers are to deal with -- Seymor Johnson
> is better than FAY is better than RDU is better than GSO and CLT is the
> worst....
>
> I have no idea why GSO acts so much busier than it is. Maybe they
> train new controllers there.
>
> Or maybe they are less flexible because the FSDO is on the field?
>

[Maule Driver]

Dave wrote:
> Try going further west. I was based at AVL for over a year, and found
> the controllers
> pretty friendly and accomodating. Be that as it may, I am well aware of
> the "attitude"
> that many of these facilities have (probably reflects the sort of
> management that the
> controllers have to live with). Bottom line is that I would rather not
> talk to ATC if I have
> a choice in the matter. I will route myself over, around or under their
> airspace and never
> say a word - and I will always choose an uncontrolled airport in
> preference to one with a tower if said facilities will serve my needs.
>
I agree that management must be the issue. It's not individual controllers
it's the facility.

OTOH, I prefer using the system as much as I can, especially flying IFR.
IFR for VMC cross countries is easier and arguably safer. We have a
great system and using it is a great priviledge for this pilot.

I use big airports and small and find great service at both. I like big
airport security for my tied down aircraft. The best places of all are
often big city 'relievers' like Peter O in Tampa - Nice! It's all about
the money.

Of course, places like Peach State AP have cheap gas, good food, great
people, and great aircraft. Hard to beat places like that but it's not
near anything else of interest.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

xyzzy wrote:
>
> I agree she was wrong and I wasn't about to get into a ****ing match
> over it. Nor did I ask for her phone number. I was busy enough as it
> was, the frequency was crowded, and I took her response to be
> confirmation of my clearance, which is what I needed.

I probably would have done the same, as it's all on tape.

[Newps]

Maule Driver wrote:


>>
> I agree that management must be the issue. It's not individual controllers
> it's the facility.

It is the facility but it's not the manager. Facilities develop a way
of doing things. A facilities manager can be changed like you change
your underwear and often are. Here at BIL I have been here nearly 14
years and we've had 8 or 9 managers. They have nearly zero affect on
how traffic is handled. In order for a facility to change the
controllers need to change at a pretty rapid clip. That just doesn't
happen.

[[email protected]]

Ok. I have two questions for Steve, the guy who claims to be a
controller,

1- Is this correct??????

2- are you really a controller???


Ben

>She was wrong. Ask for her phone number and have a calm, rational,
chat
>with her (or her supervisor) on the phone after you land. ****ing contests
>on the frequency never lead to anything good. Quote her the AIM, Chapter
>3, section 2, paragraph 3-2-1-d, which say:

>"VFR Requirements. It is the responsibility of the pilot to insure that ATC
>clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to entry into
>Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace. The pilot retains this
>responsibility when receiving ATC radar advisories. (See 14 CFR Part 91.)"

Roy Smith wrote:
> "xyzzy" > wrote:
> > Yup, I've even had a controller yell at me for asking her to confirm I
> > was cleared into Class Bravo after she vectored me into it. She said
> > "you have a squawk code, you're talking to me, you don't need anything
> > more!"
>
> She was wrong. Ask for her phone number and have a calm, rational, chat
> with her (or her supervisor) on the phone after you land. ****ing contests
> on the frequency never lead to anything good. Quote her the AIM, Chapter
> 3, section 2, paragraph 3-2-1-d, which say:
>
> "VFR Requirements. It is the responsibility of the pilot to insure that ATC
> clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to entry into
> Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace. The pilot retains this
> responsibility when receiving ATC radar advisories. (See 14 CFR Part 91.)"

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:51:54 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:

> I think Steven said it best (paraphrasing): don't ask, just tell them
> you're terminating radar services.

Yes, but...

I was on flight following on Friday, and said I was going lower (as I was
approaching my destination). The controller suggested I delay my descent
for arrivals. I could have descended anyway, but what's the point of VFR
advisories if one ignores the advice?

- Andrew

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:51:54 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:
>
>
>>I think Steven said it best (paraphrasing): don't ask, just tell them
>>you're terminating radar services.
>
>
> Yes, but...
>
> I was on flight following on Friday, and said I was going lower (as I was
> approaching my destination). The controller suggested I delay my descent
> for arrivals. I could have descended anyway, but what's the point of VFR
> advisories if one ignores the advice?

I didn't say you shouldn't ever accept advice from controllers. I was
responding to a situation postulated by the OP.

DGB

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was on flight following on Friday, and said I was going lower (as I was
> approaching my destination). The controller suggested I delay my descent
> for arrivals. I could have descended anyway, but what's the point of VFR
> advisories if one ignores the advice?
>

To help spot traffic.