Flight Following question

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

So far, every time I come out of ROG and request flight following to <it
doesn't matter where>, I get a discrete squawk that allows departure to
hand me off to Memphis Center, or Dallas, or Kansas City. Coming out of
LIT however I've never been given anything except a local code and then
about 15 miles out the familiar "radar advisories terminated, squawk
VFR, have a nice day".

I specifically tested this twice on Friday, making sure that when I
called up clearance delivery and then ground that I made it very plain
that I was requesting flight following. Both times, again they dumped me
from the system between 15 and 20 miles out. The second time, I forced
the issue and stated that I was requesting flight following for the
enroute segment if able. I was then given a Memphis enroute code and
handed off within about 10 miles.

My question for the group is: is there a special terminology that should
be used when requesting full-enroute flight following? Or, why do some
controllers provide that service automatically and others seemingly only
under duress? (I don't think it is a controller issue, however it might
be a facility policy issue).

[A Lieberma]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in
news:000801c71c01$25c5bf10$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100:

> So far, every time I come out of ROG and request flight following to
> <it doesn't matter where>, I get a discrete squawk that allows
> departure to hand me off to Memphis Center, or Dallas, or Kansas City.
> Coming out of LIT however I've never been given anything except a
> local code and then about 15 miles out the familiar "radar advisories
> terminated, squawk VFR, have a nice day".

VFR flight following is on a workload permitted basis.

If approach doesn't give you a hand off, just call center servicing the
area and pick up flight following through them.

If you know you have been given a local code, you may want to contact LIT
approach and ask if VFR flight following is available outside their
airspace.

They can answer accordingly or advise you what frequency to contact for
continuation of VFR flight following.

Allen

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote:

> My question for the group is: is there a special terminology that should
> be used when requesting full-enroute flight following?
>
This exact situation happens routinely here in the Phoenix area. If I request flight following, even when I
state a destination outside Phoenix tracon's airspace, they will normally just give me a local squawk code
and terminate services when outside their airspace. I've found that the magic words that seem to work
are, "... request flight following with a center hand-off", sometimes with an "if able" or "time permitting"
thrown in for good measure. The controller will then get a center squawk code from Albuquerque center,
and hand me off.

My impression is that it's just a workload thing. Flight following is on a workload permitting basis, and they
can minimize their effort by just getting a local squawk with no coordination, and no hand-off. It is mildly
annoying, I must agree. If I tell them my VFR destination which is clearly in center's airspace, it would
seem that they could make the effort to coordinate it.

Mike

[Stan Prevost]

Flight Following questionJim, as others have indicated, it can be variable.
I have had most luck with "Request flight following to destination" or
"Request to be put into the system for flight following to destination". Or
you can just file an ATC flight plan for VFR flight following. That
automatically puts you into the system.

Stan

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
news:000801c71c01$25c5bf10$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
So far, every time I come out of ROG and request flight following to <it
doesn't matter where>, I get a discrete squawk that allows departure to hand
me off to Memphis Center, or Dallas, or Kansas City. Coming out of LIT
however I've never been given anything except a local code and then about 15
miles out the familiar "radar advisories terminated, squawk VFR, have a nice
day".
I specifically tested this twice on Friday, making sure that when I called
up clearance delivery and then ground that I made it very plain that I was
requesting flight following. Both times, again they dumped me from the
system between 15 and 20 miles out. The second time, I forced the issue and
stated that I was requesting flight following for the enroute segment if
able. I was then given a Memphis enroute code and handed off within about 10
miles.
My question for the group is: is there a special terminology that should be
used when requesting full-enroute flight following? Or, why do some
controllers provide that service automatically and others seemingly only
under duress? (I don't think it is a controller issue, however it might be a
facility policy issue).

[A Lieberma]

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in
:
> Or you can just file an ATC flight plan
> for VFR flight following. That automatically puts you into the
> system.

Filing VFR flight plan DOES NOT put you in the system. It's only for
search and rescue, nothing more.

You don't activate the flight plan with ATC, but with FSS on a VFR flight
plan.

Allen

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: A Lieberma ]
> Posted At: Saturday, December 09, 2006 8:48 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Flight Following question
> Subject: Re: Flight Following question
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in
> news:000801c71c01$25c5bf10$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100:
>
> > So far, every time I come out of ROG and request flight following to
> > <it doesn't matter where>, I get a discrete squawk that allows
> > departure to hand me off to Memphis Center, or Dallas, or Kansas
City.
> > Coming out of LIT however I've never been given anything except a
> > local code and then about 15 miles out the familiar "radar
advisories
> > terminated, squawk VFR, have a nice day".
>
> VFR flight following is on a workload permitted basis.
>

Yep, I'm aware of that which is why I expected maybe that was the issue.
Last Friday however, when I decided to "test" that theory I got handed
off to Memphis and the sector controller seemed very chatty - with
almost nothing else going on.

Little Rock (Adams Field) has instituted a non-IFR pre-taxi clearance
delivery frequency. First you pick up ATIS, then call non-IFR clearance,
then finally you get to talk to ground control for a VFR departure. It's
almost like they are trying to justify some positions rather than
improve safety or efficiency on the ground.

I would think that encouraging flight following would help their
numbers, but since they tend to work as an isolated little unit with VFR
traffic very few of the guys I fly with use them for that purpose. That
can't help their numbers.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Adams ]
> Posted At: Saturday, December 09, 2006 9:24 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Flight Following question
> Subject: Re: Flight Following question
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote:
>
> > My question for the group is: is there a special terminology that
should
> > be used when requesting full-enroute flight following?
> >
....
> are, "... request flight following with a center hand-off",

I'll try that next time I'm down there. Good idea.

[A Lieberma]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in news:000401c71c0e$aadf0190
$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100:

> Little Rock (Adams Field) has instituted a non-IFR pre-taxi clearance
> delivery frequency. First you pick up ATIS, then call non-IFR
clearance,
> then finally you get to talk to ground control for a VFR departure.
It's
> almost like they are trying to justify some positions rather than
> improve safety or efficiency on the ground.

Is there a NOTAM on that somewhere for a non IFR pretaxi clearance
frequency? Just checked DUATS, and they only have the following
frequencies:

UNICOM 122.950
JONESBORO FSS (JBR) 1-800-WX-BRIEF NOTAM FILE LIT
APCH/P DEP/P CLASS C 119.5(222-041)
APCH/P DEP/P CLASS C IC 135.4(042-221)
ATIS 125.65(501-324-2618)
CD/P PTC 118.95
EMERG 121.5
GND/P 121.9
IC 135.4
LCL/P 118.7

What you describe above *almost* sounds normal for me as I would do the
following for departing Little Rock based on my DUATS briefing:

Get ATIS 125.65
Contact Clearance and Delivery for my VFR intentions (or IFR) 118.95
Contact ground for taxiing 121.9
Contact Tower 118.7 for departure
Contact departure frequency 119.5 or 135.4

Allen

[John T]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
news:000801c71c01$25c5bf10$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100
>
> My question for the group is: is there a special terminology that
> should be used when requesting full-enroute flight following? Or, why
> do some controllers provide that service automatically and others
> seemingly only under duress? (I don't think it is a controller issue,
> however it might be a facility policy issue).

Besides the obvious workload issue, I have read about different ATC
facilities unable to handoff VFR traffic. Luckily, I haven't had that
happen, but I don't think you'll find a "magic phrase" to make it work
seamlessly in your situation (based on the history you mentioned).

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Milen Lazarov]

On 2006-12-10, A Lieberma > wrote:
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in
> :
>> Or you can just file an ATC flight plan
>> for VFR flight following. That automatically puts you into the
>> system.
>
> Filing VFR flight plan DOES NOT put you in the system. It's only for
> search and rescue, nothing more.
>
> You don't activate the flight plan with ATC, but with FSS on a VFR flight
> plan.
>
> Allen

He did not say to file a VFR flight plan, he said an ATC flight plan for VFR
flight following - you check the IFR box, put VFR or VFR/altitude in the
altitude box.

-Milen

[John T]

"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18
>
>> Or you can just file an ATC flight plan
>> for VFR flight following. That automatically puts you into the
>> system.
>
> Filing VFR flight plan DOES NOT put you in the system. It's only for
> search and rescue, nothing more.
>
> You don't activate the flight plan with ATC, but with FSS on a VFR
> flight plan.

You're both right. :)

A traditional VFR flight plan is as you describe, but it is also possible to
file a flight plan for VFR flight in the ATC system. In fact, this is
exactly what happens for every VFR flight in the Washington DC ADIZ.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: A Lieberma ]
> Posted At: Saturday, December 09, 2006 10:16 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Flight Following question
> Subject: Re: Flight Following question
>
....
> Is there a NOTAM on that somewhere for a non IFR pretaxi clearance
> frequency? Just checked DUATS, and they only have the following
> frequencies:
>

Nope, it's on the ATIS announcement.

> UNICOM 122.950
> JONESBORO FSS (JBR) 1-800-WX-BRIEF NOTAM FILE LIT
> APCH/P DEP/P CLASS C 119.5(222-041)
> APCH/P DEP/P CLASS C IC 135.4(042-221)
> ATIS 125.65(501-324-2618)
> CD/P PTC 118.95
> EMERG 121.5
> GND/P 121.9
> IC 135.4
> LCL/P 118.7
>
> What you describe above *almost* sounds normal for me as I would do
the
> following for departing Little Rock based on my DUATS briefing:
>
> Get ATIS 125.65
> Contact Clearance and Delivery for my VFR intentions (or IFR) 118.95
> Contact ground for taxiing 121.9
> Contact Tower 118.7 for departure
> Contact departure frequency 119.5 or 135.4
>
> Allen

I'm typically used to calling CD only for special VFR or IFR clearances.
I found it unusual for a VFR CD requirement, especially when the same
voice seems to answer both CD and GND.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milen Lazarov ]
> Posted At: Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:23 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Flight Following question
> Subject: Re: Flight Following question
>
....
> He did not say to file a VFR flight plan, he said an ATC flight plan
for
> VFR
> flight following - you check the IFR box, put VFR or VFR/altitude in
the
> altitude box.
>
> -Milen

Do you have any quick references for that Milen? I've never heard of an
IFR flight plan with "VFR" in the enroute altitude box. Or are you
referring to filing VFR-on-top? If so, that's a lot different than just
requesting flight following for VFR flights.

[A Lieberma]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in news:000601c71c5c$d669dee0$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100:

> Do you have any quick references for that Milen? I've never heard of an
> IFR flight plan with "VFR" in the enroute altitude box. Or are you
> referring to filing VFR-on-top? If so, that's a lot different than just
> requesting flight following for VFR flights.

Hey Jim,

Did a little research myself and found the following

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:YgJac3c882IJ:www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8400/media/volume3/3_006_01.pdf+%22atc+flight+plan%22+vfr&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=13

See 1155 A. Flight planning.

Sounds to me that what he is doing is fudging the system by filing an IFR flight plan
and annotating it with VFR references in the remarks.

I know when you select the IFR box, it does generate a flight strip to ATC, and that
would be an IFR filing naturally.

Selecting VFR does not generate a flight strip to ATC, nor is a filing with ATC to obtain an
ATC clearance.

To my knowledge, you don't get clearances on VFR operations EXCEPT for class B entry, take offs and landings.

Canada on the other hand does use ATC flight plan for VFR operations. See

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:LAyc7zOAfjUJ:www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/carac/NPAs/CASO/Archives/feb03/RTF/2003032.rtf+%22atc+flight+plan%22+vfr&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Allen

[[email protected]]

Stan Prevost > wrote:
: Flight Following questionJim, as others have indicated, it can be variable.
: I have had most luck with "Request flight following to destination" or
: "Request to be put into the system for flight following to destination". Or
: you can just file an ATC flight plan for VFR flight following. That
: automatically puts you into the system.

I've got a VFR friend who always files (but doesn't open) an IFR flight plan for longer cross-countries. That way, the
flight is in the system for the whole route, so it's (at least alegedly) easier for the controller to find. Not sure how much
truth there is to that, but it does make some sense.

-Cory


--

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

[Stan Prevost]

As Milen says, check IFR (it is not an IFR flight plan, that is just a
routing flag for ATC vs FSS), put VFR or VFR/120 for 12,000 feet or whatever
your filed altitude is. I also add VFR Flight Following in Remarks to
clarify my intent for some controllers who are not very familiar with the
practice. I recommend only doing this through DUAT/S, as most FSS personnel
are unfamiliar with it.

Stan


"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
news:000601c71c5c$d669dee0$4b01a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Milen Lazarov ]
>> Posted At: Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:23 PM
>> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
>> Conversation: Flight Following question
>> Subject: Re: Flight Following question
>>
> ...
>> He did not say to file a VFR flight plan, he said an ATC flight plan
> for
>> VFR
>> flight following - you check the IFR box, put VFR or VFR/altitude in
> the
>> altitude box.
>>
>> -Milen
>
> Do you have any quick references for that Milen? I've never heard of an
> IFR flight plan with "VFR" in the enroute altitude box. Or are you
> referring to filing VFR-on-top? If so, that's a lot different than just
> requesting flight following for VFR flights.
>

[A Lieberma]

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in
:

> As Milen says, check IFR (it is not an IFR flight plan,

Call it what you want, but the form on top says FAA Flight plan.

1.Type is either VFR or IFR.

If you select IFR, you are filing a IFR flight plan. No grey zone about
it, all you are doing is fudging the system to get a plan routed to ATC.

VFR flight plans are not routed to ATC period.

Allen

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:

> So far, every time I come out of ROG and request flight following to <it
> doesn’t matter where>, I get a discrete squawk that allows departure to
> hand me off to Memphis Center, or Dallas, or Kansas City. Coming out of
> LIT however I’ve never been given anything except a local code and then
> about 15 miles out the familiar “radar advisories terminated, squawk
> VFR, have a nice day”.
>
> I specifically tested this twice on Friday, making sure that when I
> called up clearance delivery and then ground that I made it very plain
> that I was requesting flight following. Both times, again they dumped me
> from the system between 15 and 20 miles out. The second time, I forced
> the issue and stated that I was requesting flight following for the
> enroute segment if able. I was then given a Memphis enroute code and
> handed off within about 10 miles.

That happens based on the experience of the tower, same thing happens
here. Fully 99% of the aircraft do not want FF past my airspace.
Therefore everybody gets terminated. For the odd duck that wants it he
has to request it in plain language and we will give him the service.
Just state to ground control that you want FF with the center.

[Newps]

A Lieberma wrote:

> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Or you can just file an ATC flight plan
>>for VFR flight following. That automatically puts you into the
>>system.
>
>
> Filing VFR flight plan DOES NOT put you in the system. It's only for
> search and rescue, nothing more.
>
> You don't activate the flight plan with ATC, but with FSS on a VFR flight
> plan.

What he meant was to file an IFR flight plan except to put VFR as the
altitude. That would generate a strip just like an IFR aircraft but
when you put that transponder code in the data block on the radar scope
shows you as a VFR aircraft.

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:


>
> I'm typically used to calling CD only for special VFR or IFR clearances.
> I found it unusual for a VFR CD requirement, especially when the same
> voice seems to answer both CD and GND.

If it's the same guy it doesn't matter what frequncy you use.

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:


>
>
> Do you have any quick references for that Milen? I've never heard of an
> IFR flight plan with "VFR" in the enroute altitude box. Or are you
> referring to filing VFR-on-top? If so, that's a lot different than just
> requesting flight following for VFR flights.

OTP is similar but different. OTP is also an altitude you can file but
you'll get an IFR clearance.

[Newps]

A Lieberma wrote:


>
> Sounds to me that what he is doing is fudging the system by filing an IFR flight plan
> and annotating it with VFR references in the remarks.


No, he puts "VFR" into the altitude box, not in the remarks.



>
> I know when you select the IFR box, it does generate a flight strip to ATC, and that
> would be an IFR filing naturally.
>
> Selecting VFR does not generate a flight strip to ATC,


Putting VFR in the altitude box does generate a strip to ATC, 30 minutes
prior to the P time.

[Newps]

wrote:


>
> I've got a VFR friend who always files (but doesn't open) an IFR flight plan for longer cross-countries. That way, the
> flight is in the system for the whole route, so it's (at least alegedly) easier for the controller to find. Not sure how much
> truth there is to that, but it does make some sense.

Doesn't do a damn thing. When an aircraft takes off VFR with an IFR on
file the ground controller throws away the IFR strip. He was the only
guy with that strip. No facility would ever generate that strip unless
he actually takes off IFR or he calls to activate the IFR flight plan,
then every succeeding facility would generate one. Two hours after the
P time an unopened IFR flight plan is automatically erased from the system.

[Newps]

Stan Prevost wrote:

> As Milen says, check IFR (it is not an IFR flight plan, that is just a
> routing flag for ATC vs FSS), put VFR or VFR/120 for 12,000 feet or whatever
> your filed altitude is.


Use a VFR altitude. Such as VFR/125, VFR/075, etc.

[Newps]

A Lieberma wrote:

> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>As Milen says, check IFR (it is not an IFR flight plan,
>
>
> Call it what you want, but the form on top says FAA Flight plan.
>
> 1.Type is either VFR or IFR.
>
> If you select IFR, you are filing a IFR flight plan. No grey zone about
> it, all you are doing is fudging the system to get a plan routed to ATC.
>
> VFR flight plans are not routed to ATC period.

You're wrong. Do it as he says and I get a strip printed for me. That
is the exact procedure I use when I enter a flight plan into the system
for a pilot. There's no IFR/VFR box to check so the altitude
information is the only way the computer knows if you are IFR or getting
VFR flight following.

[A Lieberma]

Newps > wrote in
:

> Putting VFR in the altitude box does generate a strip to ATC, 30
> minutes prior to the P time.

But he is SELECTING in box 1.type IFR. I was always told that if you
select VFR in box 1, no strip is generated to ATC, thus an IFR filing.

Altutude is box 7 on the FAA flight plan.

Allen

[Mitty]

On 12/9/2006 8:16 PM, Jim Carter wrote the following:
>
> My question for the group is: is there a special terminology that should
> be used when requesting full-enroute flight following? Or, why do some
> controllers provide that service automatically and others seemingly only
> under duress? (I don’t think it is a controller issue, however it might
> be a facility policy issue).
>

Normally here in Minneapolis I say something like "... requesting traffic
advisories to KXXX, six thousand, five hundred." And I get a through code in
the 4xxx block.

To do this, I think my local ground control guy (KMIC) has to telephone the KMSP
TRACON for the code. Maybe the call goes to a desk rather than to a
possibly-busy controller where there could be a workload issue?

One time out of Ames, IA talking to the Des Moines TRACON I got a local code
(0xxx). When I was leveled out I asked the TRACON controller "Can you give me a
code that will get me to Minneapolis?" Got a "stand by" and in a couple of
minutes he called back and gave me the code. At the appropriate time he then
handed me off to Center, no problem.

[A Lieberma]

Newps > wrote in
:

> You're wrong. Do it as he says and I get a strip printed for me.
> That is the exact procedure I use when I enter a flight plan into the
> system for a pilot. There's no IFR/VFR box to check so the altitude
> information is the only way the computer knows if you are IFR or
> getting VFR flight following.

Please see the FAA flight plan form the pilot completes. See box 1. type.

It's either VFR ir IFR.

If I check IFR on 1.type of the FAA flight plan, I get a center control
number that is filed into the ATC system via DUATS.

I DO NOT get a center control number when I FILE VFR. I get a remark the
plan is forwarded to the servicing FSS.

Maybe FSS forwards something to you when I file through FSS, but when I
file via DUATS, it's a very distinct difference on the electronic response.

There may not be any IFR / VFR box on your end, but there sure is on the
pilot's end filing the plan.

I also notice that the website Flight Aware NEVER picks up my VFR flight
plan filings, where as when I file IFR, it shows scheduled one hour before,
so I know there is some meat to my theory in that VFR selection on the FAA
flight plan does not get passed on to the ATC system.

Allen

[Newps]

A Lieberma wrote:
> Newps > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Putting VFR in the altitude box does generate a strip to ATC, 30
>>minutes prior to the P time.
>
>
> But he is SELECTING in box 1.type IFR.

Irrelavant for ATC. The altitude box takes precedence.


I was always told that if you
> select VFR in box 1, no strip is generated to ATC, thus an IFR filing.

That's true. It's a routing question. We are a regional cargo hub for
UPS and DHL. We have lots of small aircraft running cargo. Twin
Cessnas, Barons, Beech 99's and 1900's, Metroliners, etc. They all have
prefiled IFR flight plans that spit out the same time every day. They
always go VFR when they can, which is about 90% of the time. For those
who's ops specs require flight following we simply change the altitude
on their IFR strip to a VFR one. Change 120 to VFR/125. The altitude
box holds 7 characters. When he tags up on the radar there is now a V
on the tag indicating he is VFR.


>
> Altutude is box 7 on the FAA flight plan.

Same as on the FAA computer controllers use.

[Newps]

Mitty wrote:


>
> To do this, I think my local ground control guy (KMIC) has to telephone
> the KMSP TRACON for the code. Maybe the call goes to a desk rather than
> to a possibly-busy controller where there could be a workload issue?

It depends. Does MIC have a DBRITE? If so then they more than likely
will have something set up with MSP so MIC can get their own codes so a
call doesn't have to be made.



>
> One time out of Ames, IA talking to the Des Moines TRACON I got a local
> code (0xxx). When I was leveled out I asked the TRACON controller "Can
> you give me a code that will get me to Minneapolis?" Got a "stand by"
> and in a couple of minutes he called back and gave me the code. At the
> appropriate time he then handed me off to Center, no problem.

He didn't call MSP, he simply input a VFR flight plan into the FDIO
which spit out a center code.

[Newps]

A Lieberma wrote:

> Newps > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>You're wrong. Do it as he says and I get a strip printed for me.
>>That is the exact procedure I use when I enter a flight plan into the
>>system for a pilot. There's no IFR/VFR box to check so the altitude
>>information is the only way the computer knows if you are IFR or
>>getting VFR flight following.
>
>
> Please see the FAA flight plan form the pilot completes. See box 1. type.
>
> It's either VFR ir IFR.
>
> If I check IFR on 1.type of the FAA flight plan, I get a center control
> number that is filed into the ATC system via DUATS.

Irrelavant what you receive. Checking IFR doesn't make you IFR.
"Cleared to...." makes you IFR.


>
> I DO NOT get a center control number when I FILE VFR. I get a remark the
> plan is forwarded to the servicing FSS.


Right.



>
> Maybe FSS forwards something to you when I file through FSS, but when I
> file via DUATS, it's a very distinct difference on the electronic response.


FSS doesn't forward VFR flightplans.




>
> There may not be any IFR / VFR box on your end, but there sure is on the
> pilot's end filing the plan.


I understand that. It's a routing issue. Perhaps DUAT doesn't allow
you to file VFR/125 as your altitude on your IFR flightplan. That is a
limitation written into the computer program, not anything from FAA.



>
> I also notice that the website Flight Aware NEVER picks up my VFR flight
> plan filings, where as when I file IFR, it shows scheduled one hour before,
> so I know there is some meat to my theory in that VFR selection on the FAA
> flight plan does not get passed on to the ATC system.


If you can file a plan as I stated above and see if it shows up in the
proposed list.

[Mitty]

On 12/10/2006 11:45 AM, Newps wrote the following:
>
>
> Mitty wrote:
>
>
>>
>> To do this, I think my local ground control guy (KMIC) has to
>> telephone the KMSP TRACON for the code. Maybe the call goes to a desk
>> rather than to a possibly-busy controller where there could be a
>> workload issue?
>
> It depends. Does MIC have a DBRITE? If so then they more than likely
> will have something set up with MSP so MIC can get their own codes so a
> call doesn't have to be made.
>
>
Yes, they have a DBRITE. Once in a while I get a code instantly, but usually
(90%) I get "code on request" and they come back with it in a couple of minutes.
For an IFR departure, I always get "clearance on request." and a short wait.
I have assumed that was to get the code as the tower should have the IFR flight
strip already, right?

>
>>
>> One time out of Ames, IA talking to the Des Moines TRACON I got a
>> local code (0xxx). When I was leveled out I asked the TRACON
>> controller "Can you give me a code that will get me to Minneapolis?"
>> Got a "stand by" and in a couple of minutes he called back and gave me
>> the code. At the appropriate time he then handed me off to Center, no
>> problem.
>
> He didn't call MSP, he simply input a VFR flight plan into the FDIO
> which spit out a center code.

I didn't think he called MSP for the code but I didn't know how he got it. I
assumed there was some kind of "give me the next available code" button at his
position.

[A Lieberma]

Newps > wrote in
:

> I understand that. It's a routing issue. Perhaps DUAT doesn't allow
> you to file VFR/125 as your altitude on your IFR flightplan. That is
> a limitation written into the computer program, not anything from FAA.

You are pretty much reiterating what I am trying to say.....

You don't receive VFR flight plans when WE FILE THEM. You only receive
IFR flight plans. (your words above as well!)

Now, with that in mind, the system is "fudged" to receive a VFR flight
plan, by us (pilots) selecting IFR to generate a strip.

No matter what happens on your end, it's FILED as an IFR flight plan.

And yes, until I accept the clearance, it's nothing more then a strip of
paper on your end, and when you see VFR altitude on your end, you revise
that filing to a VFR flight, and I call in to activate the flight plan.

Notice I am saying activate, and not accept a clearance as I fully
understand you don't "clear to" VFR flight plans.

It may be a matter of semantics, but in order for you to receive a strip,
an IFR flight plan has to be filed, thus the deliniation of type in box 1
for routing purposes.

What you do with it on the other end (ATC) is a totally different issue.

I just see this as fudging the system to force a way of flight following,
which in my opinion IS NOT a bad thing, just another way of working the
system.

Of course the pilot would need to know what he is doing would be accepted
as a workload permitted basis and not expect it to work every time.

Allen

[Milen Lazarov]

On 2006-12-10, Jim Carter > wrote:
>
>
>
> Do you have any quick references for that Milen? I've never heard of an
> IFR flight plan with "VFR" in the enroute altitude box. Or are you
> referring to filing VFR-on-top? If so, that's a lot different than just
> requesting flight following for VFR flights.

No, I'm not referring to VFR-on-top, that would be OTP or OTP/altitude in
the altitude box.

A quick copy/paste from DUATS: (go to file domestic, click on Cruising altitude)

You may also use one of the following additional formats:

* OTP (for an IFR flight operating VFR on top)
* OTP followed by a slash and a 2 or 3 digit number (i.e., OTP/120)
* ABV followed by a slash and a 2 or 3 digit number (i.e., ABV/120)
* VFR (for a VFR flight, no specified altitude)
* VFR followed by a slash and a 2 or 3 digit number (i.e., VFR/125)
* A block altitude may be entered using a low limit 2 or 3 digit number
followed by a B, followed by a high limit 2 or 3 digit number. The low limit
must be lower than the high limit. For example, enter 120B160 for 12,000
through 16,000 feet.

-Milen

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newps ]
> Posted At: Sunday, December 10, 2006 10:02 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Flight Following question
> Subject: Re: Flight Following question
>
>
>
> Jim Carter wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I'm typically used to calling CD only for special VFR or IFR
clearances.
> > I found it unusual for a VFR CD requirement, especially when the
same
> > voice seems to answer both CD and GND.
>
> If it's the same guy it doesn't matter what frequncy you use.

I'd agree with you if I hadn't been admonished for not using CD first. I
switched to CD and the voice sounded familiar so I even asked: "didn't I
just talk to you over on GND?"

The answer: "yes, but we needed to get you on this tape". Now whether
that is true or not, it doesn't seem to me to be in the best interest of
everyone involved. It seems to me to be essentially doubling the number
of radio calls that GND / CD have to handle -- i.e. inflating their
numbers.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newps ]
> Posted At: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:59 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Flight Following question
> Subject: Re: Flight Following question
>
>
>
....
> What he meant was to file an IFR flight plan except to put VFR as the
> altitude. That would generate a strip just like an IFR aircraft but
> when you put that transponder code in the data block on the radar
scope
> shows you as a VFR aircraft.

That's pretty cool. So if I understand correctly now, I can file an IFR
flight plan, but specify the enroute altitude as VFR/065 (6500') and
that will generate a strip. Can I then call CD and pick up an IFR
clearance to VFR enroute with flight following?

Since I'm still an analog guy in a digital world and like to talk to the
FSS guys on the phone (makes 'em feel needed don't ya know), I've been
filing with them. Do you think they will understand how to take this
type of flight plan?

[Newps]

Mitty wrote:

>>
> Yes, they have a DBRITE. Once in a while I get a code instantly, but
> usually (90%) I get "code on request" and they come back with it in a
> couple of minutes. For an IFR departure, I always get "clearance on
> request." and a short wait. I have assumed that was to get the code as
> the tower should have the IFR flight strip already, right?

No, not always. Sounds like the have to call MSP to get their codes and
clearances.
>

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:


> The answer: "yes, but we needed to get you on this tape".


There's one tape. There's a number of different channels but only one
tape. He was bull****ting you.





Now whether
> that is true or not, it doesn't seem to me to be in the best interest of
> everyone involved. It seems to me to be essentially doubling the number
> of radio calls that GND / CD have to handle -- i.e. inflating their
> numbers.

What happens on CD/GC has no affect whatsoever on their traffic count.

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:


>
> That's pretty cool. So if I understand correctly now, I can file an IFR
> flight plan, but specify the enroute altitude as VFR/065 (6500') and
> that will generate a strip. Can I then call CD and pick up an IFR
> clearance to VFR enroute with flight following?


Just file a regular IFR and pick it up how you normally do. When you
get to the point you want to be VFR tell the controller you want to
cancel and receive FF.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newps ]
> Posted At: Sunday, December 10, 2006 6:37 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Flight Following question
> Subject: Re: Flight Following question
>
....
> Just file a regular IFR and pick it up how you normally do. When you
> get to the point you want to be VFR tell the controller you want to
> cancel and receive FF.

Duh!! That makes perfect sense; I don't know why I was following the VFR
altitude for IFR plan thread. Of course that prompts another question:
if its that easy to get FF then why bother with the IFR / VFR finagle to
start with? Why not just do as you suggest and file IFR with the
intention of cancelling over to FF after departure?

It can't be that we've got non-instrument rated pilots filing IFR plans
can it?

[Newps]

Jim Carter wrote:
Of course that prompts another question:
> if its that easy to get FF then why bother with the IFR / VFR finagle to
> start with? Why not just do as you suggest and file IFR with the
> intention of cancelling over to FF after departure?



You have to be an instrument pilot to start out IFR.



>
> It can't be that we've got non-instrument rated pilots filing IFR plans
> can it?

It's OK to file, not OK to accept an IFR flight plan.

[Stan Prevost]

Oops! You are correct, of course.

Stan


"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>> As Milen says, check IFR (it is not an IFR flight plan, that is just a
>> routing flag for ATC vs FSS), put VFR or VFR/120 for 12,000 feet or
>> whatever your filed altitude is.
>
>
> Use a VFR altitude. Such as VFR/125, VFR/075, etc.
>
>
>
>

[Stan Prevost]

"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
>
> It's either VFR ir IFR.
>

It is a plan for a flight to be conducted under VFR, using ATC services to
VFR aircraft. There will be no IFR clearance involved. The IFR box only
serves to route the plan to ATC rather than FSS.

But if you are worried that it is an IFR flight plan, so what? There is no
rule against filing an IFR flight plan, only acting as PIC under IFR.

[Stan Prevost]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jim Carter wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That's pretty cool. So if I understand correctly now, I can file an IFR
>> flight plan, but specify the enroute altitude as VFR/065 (6500') and
>> that will generate a strip. Can I then call CD and pick up an IFR
>> clearance to VFR enroute with flight following?
>
>
> Just file a regular IFR and pick it up how you normally do. When you get
> to the point you want to be VFR tell the controller you want to cancel and
> receive FF.

When I make my initial call to the departure facility, they usually just ask
me to confirm that I want VFR flight following, and then just say something
like "maintain VFR at all times, proceed on course, climb to requested VFR
altitude". They have all the other information already. At most, I have to
tell them that I want VFR flight following to destination, and that there
should be a proposal strip on me. Never any IFR clearance involved.

[Newps]

Stan Prevost wrote:


>
>
> When I make my initial call to the departure facility, they usually just ask
> me to confirm that I want VFR flight following, and then just say something
> like "maintain VFR at all times, proceed on course, climb to requested VFR
> altitude".



That's a little overboard. A simple "maintain VFR" is all that's needed.

[Ron Lee]

I just ask for FF to my destination. No IFR or VFR flight plan is
used.

Ron Lee

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> I've got a VFR friend who always files (but doesn't open) an IFR flight plan for longer cross-countries. That way, the
> flight is in the system for the whole route, so it's (at least alegedly) easier for the controller to find. Not sure how much
> truth there is to that, but it does make some sense.
>

If it's never opened it will remain a proposed flight plan at the
departure point until it times out two hours after the proposed
departure time. Controllers along the route will not have it.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

John T wrote:
>
> Besides the obvious workload issue, I have read about different ATC
> facilities unable to handoff VFR traffic. Luckily, I haven't had that
> happen, but I don't think you'll find a "magic phrase" to make it work
> seamlessly in your situation (based on the history you mentioned).
>

Automatic transmission of VFR flight plans to terminal facilities
hosted Chicago Center is inhibited.

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

A Lieberma wrote:
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Or you can just file an ATC flight plan
>>for VFR flight following. That automatically puts you into the
>>system.
>
>
> Filing VFR flight plan DOES NOT put you in the system. It's only for
> search and rescue, nothing more.
>
> You don't activate the flight plan with ATC, but with FSS on a VFR flight
> plan.

Stan said "ATC flight plan", so I think he means a flight plan that
*does* go to ATC. Check IFR on the flight planning form, then in the
altitude block put "VFR045" (for 4500 ft, for example).

DB

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

A Lieberma wrote:

> Call it what you want, but the form on top says FAA Flight plan.
>
> 1.Type is either VFR or IFR.
>
> If you select IFR, you are filing a IFR flight plan. No grey zone about
> it, all you are doing is fudging the system to get a plan routed to ATC.

Suppose what you say is true. So what?

That box on the form should read: "Send flight plan to ATC? YES/NO".

>
> VFR flight plans are not routed to ATC period.
>

But that's not the kind of flight plan under discussion.

[John Clonts]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > I've got a VFR friend who always files (but doesn't open) an IFR flight plan for longer cross-countries. That way, the
> > flight is in the system for the whole route, so it's (at least alegedly) easier for the controller to find. Not sure how much
> > truth there is to that, but it does make some sense.
> >
>
> If it's never opened it will remain a proposed flight plan at the
> departure point until it times out two hours after the proposed
> departure time. Controllers along the route will not have it.

But if the VFR friend requested FF, it would be "opened" and the
controllers would have the strip all along the route, right?

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/10/06 18:45, Jim Carter wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Newps ]
>> Posted At: Sunday, December 10, 2006 6:37 PM
>> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
>> Conversation: Flight Following question
>> Subject: Re: Flight Following question
>>
> ...
>> Just file a regular IFR and pick it up how you normally do. When you
>> get to the point you want to be VFR tell the controller you want to
>> cancel and receive FF.
>
> Duh!! That makes perfect sense; I don't know why I was following the VFR
> altitude for IFR plan thread. Of course that prompts another question:
> if its that easy to get FF then why bother with the IFR / VFR finagle to
> start with? Why not just do as you suggest and file IFR with the
> intention of cancelling over to FF after departure?
>
> It can't be that we've got non-instrument rated pilots filing IFR plans
> can it?
>

Consider also that departing IFR may mean delays and departure routes contrary
to what you may be able to get if you depart VFR.




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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

John Clonts wrote:
>
> But if the VFR friend requested FF, it would be "opened" and the
> controllers would have the strip all along the route, right?
>

Right.

[[email protected]]

: John Clonts wrote:
: >
: > But if the VFR friend requested FF, it would be "opened" and the
: > controllers would have the strip all along the route, right?
: >

: Right.

Ooops... that's what I meant to say in my post, but apparently didn't. He
*files* IFR and although doesn't accept an IFR clearance, he does request flight
following after takeoff. So, in that instance the strip *is* in the the system
throughout, making it easier/more likely for FF handoffs?

-Cory

--

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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> Ooops... that's what I meant to say in my post, but apparently didn't. He
> *files* IFR and although doesn't accept an IFR clearance, he does request flight
> following after takeoff. So, in that instance the strip *is* in the the system
> throughout, making it easier/more likely for FF handoffs?
>

Yes. You can file an IFR flight plan with a requested altitude of
"VFR" or "VFR/(planned VFR cruise altitude)". Once a departure message
is entered the strips will process just like an IFR flight and will
enable automated handoffs. Be advised that this won't work in al areas
because some facilities inhibit the processing of flight plans with
"VFR" as the altitude.

[BillJ]

Jim Carter wrote:
> So far, every time I come out of ROG and request flight following to <it
> doesn’t matter where>, I get a discrete squawk that allows departure to
> hand me off to Memphis Center, or Dallas, or Kansas City. Coming out of
> LIT however I’ve never been given anything except a local code and then
> about 15 miles out the familiar “radar advisories terminated, squawk
> VFR, have a nice day”.
>
> I specifically tested this twice on Friday, making sure that when I
> called up clearance delivery and then ground that I made it very plain
> that I was requesting flight following. Both times, again they dumped me
> from the system between 15 and 20 miles out. The second time, I forced
> the issue and stated that I was requesting flight following for the
> enroute segment if able. I was then given a Memphis enroute code and
> handed off within about 10 miles.
>
> My question for the group is: is there a special terminology that should
> be used when requesting full-enroute flight following? Or, why do some
> controllers provide that service automatically and others seemingly only
> under duress? (I don’t think it is a controller issue, however it might
> be a facility policy issue).
>
I use a non-demanding request such as ...wonder if you could put me in
the computer for flight following to XYZ.

That almost always gets it all the way, or least an explanation why they
can't.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hansen ]
> Posted At: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:22 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Flight Following question
> Subject: Re: Flight Following question
>
....
> Consider also that departing IFR may mean delays and departure routes
> contrary
> to what you may be able to get if you depart VFR.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
> Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
> Sacramento, CA

Very true Mark. In the case of KLIT however, the IFR departures seem to
get the routes they want and the VFR departures all get R or L turn to
270, maintain 2000' or lower until further advised. Seeing you're from
SAC I suspect things are quite a bit different on that side of the hill.

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/11/06 17:20, Jim Carter wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Hansen ]
>> Posted At: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:22 AM
>> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
>> Conversation: Flight Following question
>> Subject: Re: Flight Following question
>>
> ...
>> Consider also that departing IFR may mean delays and departure routes
>> contrary
>> to what you may be able to get if you depart VFR.
>>
>>
>
>
> Very true Mark. In the case of KLIT however, the IFR departures seem to
> get the routes they want and the VFR departures all get R or L turn to
> 270, maintain 2000' or lower until further advised. Seeing you're from
> SAC I suspect things are quite a bit different on that side of the hill.
>

I dunno, really ;-) My only IFR departures so far have been training or
local practice flights, most of which head straight for the local VOR
station before going on course anyway.

However, I was speaking in generalities. I'm sure there are some airports
where this won't be an issue, but I thought it was worth consideration
while planning what type of departure is appropriate for the flight.

Best,



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

[LWG]

Okay, here's my question. When I get FF on a long trip, often I get handed
off from centers, approaches, etc. to my destination. I have been put "in
the system" along the way. How do controllers do that so the handoff
happens? Does the original entry into the system generate P strips along
the route like an IFR flight? If so, how do they do it so that the flight
is not IFR? Do they "force" the VFR aspect like this thread has been
discussing? Is the handoff automatic, or does it get coordinated by land
line, or both?

> But if the VFR friend requested FF, it would be "opened" and the
> controllers would have the strip all along the route, right?
>

[Newps]

LWG wrote:
> Okay, here's my question. When I get FF on a long trip, often I get handed
> off from centers, approaches, etc. to my destination. I have been put "in
> the system" along the way.

By the very first controller.



How do controllers do that so the handoff
> happens?

Very similar to IFR aircraft. I put in N number, Destination, Type and
Altitude. In that order and hit enter. Out spits a center code.


Does the original entry into the system generate P strips along
> the route like an IFR flight?

Yes.



If so, how do they do it so that the flight
> is not IFR?

The process I listed above is VFR only. The other way is to use the
other computer and enter a flight plan and use VFR/075 as an altitude.
Either one results in a VFR tag.





Do they "force" the VFR aspect like this thread has been
> discussing?


They both result in a VFR tag and strips.





Is the handoff automatic,


It is automated. Each facility can make the handoff automatic with some
massaging of the software. Normally the controller will have to take a
positive action to effect the handoff. He'll use his electronic cursor,
slew out and enter on the aircraft and hit enter.



or does it get coordinated by land
> line, or both?

It can always be manually handed off via the landline.


>
>
>>But if the VFR friend requested FF, it would be "opened" and the
>>controllers would have the strip all along the route, right?

Yep.

[KP[_1_]]

"LWG" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, here's my question. When I get FF on a long trip, often I get
> handed off from centers, approaches, etc. to my destination. I have been
> put "in the system" along the way. How do controllers do that so the
> handoff happens? Does the original entry into the system generate P
> strips along the route like an IFR flight? If so, how do they do it so
> that the flight is not IFR? Do they "force" the VFR aspect like this
> thread has been discussing? Is the handoff automatic, or does it get
> coordinated by land line, or both?
>
>> But if the VFR friend requested FF, it would be "opened" and the
>> controllers would have the strip all along the route, right?

Years ago, when radar was steam powered and the tower's light guns burned
whale oil, there were two semi-separate "flightplan" systems: ARTS which
generated the datablocks on the radar indicator and FDEP (later called FDIO)
which generated the paper flight progress strips.

Separate because there were two different keyboards to enter data and two
different formats for entering that data. Each controller had an ARTS
keyboard at his position but in terminal facilities there were usually only
one or two FDEP keyboards. These were located at the Flight Data or
Clearance Delivery positions away from working sector controllers.

Semi-separate because while the FDEP not only generated the paper strip it
also generated a datablock with a center transponder code and sent
everything to every facility along the aircraft's proposed route, the ARTS
did not. ARTS datablocks used local codes and remained solely within the
facility generating them. They were also much easier to create requiring
less info and fewer keystrokes.

So now the stage is set for a couple scenarios:

Scenario 1. Mister VFR aircraft files a VFR flightplan into the IFR system
which generates the strip and center code datablock in the originating and
subsequent facilities' airspace. He then calls CD, gets the center code,
tags up on departure, is handed off to each facility along his route, and
receives FF all during his flight. Everybody's happy unless or until:

-One or more of the facilities has inhibited the processing of VFR flight
data
-One controller is too busy to provide FF, terminates radar service and
drops the datablock which removes it from the FDEP and therefore all the
remaining facilities along the route
-The next controller is too busy to accept the handoff and the track gets
dropped (see above)
-For some reason the aircraft doesn't immediately tag up so on initial
contact the controller thinks it's a pop-up and enters the data into the
ARTS. This either generates a series of computer input error messages for
"dupe ID" (bad) or a local datablock on a local code (not too bad).
Depending on how the controller decides to sort all this out the aircraft
may stay in the system or it may get dropped

Scenario 2a. Mister VFR airplane pops up on freq and requests FF (either
initially or because he got dropped somewhere along the route). The
controller enters the simple data in ARTS format into his readily available
ARTS keyboard, issues the local transponder code, gets an ARTS generated
datablock (which is all he needs to keep track of the airplane), and
workload permitting, provides FF within his airspace. Easy.

Scenario 2b. Mister VFR aircraft calls and in addition to the ARTS entries,
the controller gets on the intercom to CD/FD to have that controller enter
the more detailed info into the FDEP or if CD/FD's not staffed, gets up,
goes to the FDEP keyboard, enters the info into the FDEP, waits for the
center computer to generate the strip and datablock with the center code,
issues the new code to the aircraft, waits for the new datablock to tag up,
then provides FF within his airspace. A PITA.

In Scenario 2a when the aircraft nears the limit of his airspace the
controller terminates radar, drops the local datablock, and he's done.

In Scenario 2b, the controller can start the automated handoff to center,
wait for center to accept or refuse, transfer communications if accepted or
terminate radar if refused, and then he's done.

That's how it worked in the past.

Maybe in the last few years or so the FAA has actually integrated the
systems, streamlined the procedures, and hired a whole bunch of controllers
who really like to do a bunch of extra work for VFR aircraft.

Sure they have.

[Doug[_1_]]

"Oh boy, I WANT to be an air traffic controller"
"You're HIRED!"
"Now, control traffic"
"But that would be a lotta wooorrrkkkk......"

[Newps]

KP wrote:

> That's how it worked in the past.
>
> Maybe in the last few years or so the FAA has actually integrated the
> systems,


The system is basically the same. ARTS and the FDEP computers now talk
to each other. I can use the ARTS exclusively if I want. Type in
TC345<Enter> and I get a local code for Twin Cessna N12345. Type in all
the info and I get a center code.

[Christopher C. Stacy]

Newps > writes:
> What he meant was to file an IFR flight plan except to put VFR as the
> altitude. That would generate a strip just like an IFR aircraft but
> when you put that transponder code in the data block on the radar
> scope shows you as a VFR aircraft.

I don't remember exactly what I did, but I have succesfully done this
trick (back in the 1980s). I also recall something about putting a
"Z" somewhere, but that might have been for something else like a
composite flight plan. (I need to go re-read some of these things.)
I know this stuff was actually documented somewhere, because I figured
it out by myself and have done it, getting the ATC responses that have
been described here. I used to fly from Boston into the NY area or
into DCA a lot back in those days, and I would normally get flight
following all the way.

The airports I fly out of are under the BOS (uh, I almost said "TCA"!)
class B airspace, and I would ask (pre-taxi, which was CD if they had it)
for "flight following to <airport>" to make sure they knew I was hoping
for service all the way. This was also with normal VFR flight plans.
If they had some idea where you were going (or that you were going
anywhere at all, probably) they would tend to hand you off to the next
facility rather than abandoning you.

Speaking of DCA, I was also asked ("do you know" / "are you able")
to do the River Visual approach while VFR, in reference to someone
else's question about being assigned that kind of approach clearance
while not IFR. (And since I had the chart and was familiar, I did.)

This was all very long ago and I haven't been flying much in years,
but I can confirm that these things all used to work just fine, so they
probably work fine now. (Except for the "DCA" part, god damnit.)
I haven't flown any trips in many years; just local goofing around.