IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?

Amen.

ON topic: I wonder if my wanting to fly VFR w/o FF (i.e. no use of
services) is an attempt at getting use to user fee world (coming in my
opinion) If I don't use it, I MAY not have to pay for it.

{|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.
CP-ASEL

"Mitty" wrote in message
...
Yes. About 14 posts so far and not a single one to answer the question.
The problem with the worst is not that it is obnoxious, it is that it
drives off the best.

On 10/25/2005 3:27 PM, Joe Johnson wrote the following:
Not a specific reply, but just compare Bob Gardner's cogent, reasoned
posts
with Lynne's tirade. There's the best and worst of usenet in one short
thread...

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote:

ON topic: I wonder if my wanting to fly VFR w/o FF (i.e. no use of
services) is an attempt at getting use to user fee world (coming in my
opinion) If I don't use it, I MAY not have to pay for it.

Not sure how your post is any more on topic to this thread, Victor.

YOU didn't answer Mitty's question either and given the strict rules he is
attempting to apply to this thread, your experience doesn't qualify anyhow.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I'm a pilot, not a controller, but around Chicago it's hard to get
flight following. So if in doubt I always file IFR. It's normal
flying into Chicago VFR that FF will be terminated at the point where
you need it most, around the edge of the Class B.

I don't think it matters what ATC prefers. You are the PIC. They are
there to provide service and it's up to you to decide on the level of
service you require for safe and efficient operation.

paul kgyy wrote:
: I'm a pilot, not a controller, but around Chicago it's hard to get
: flight following. So if in doubt I always file IFR. It's normal
: flying into Chicago VFR that FF will be terminated at the point where
: you need it most, around the edge of the Class B.

: I don't think it matters what ATC prefers. You are the PIC. They are
: there to provide service and it's up to you to decide on the level of
: service you require for safe and efficient operation.

My (somewhat limited) experience flying around chicago (actually TRANSITIONING
through chicago is more accurate) is that IFR you'll take the long way around. VFR
they'll clear you "at or below Bravo." About 75% of the time I'll actually get FF
when I ask for it. About 10% of the time they'll tell me of traffic that I haven't
already seen. Given all the RF interference around downtown (lakeshore), and the
25% of the time I actually get properly terminated radar services, FF generally
seems like more trouble and workload than it's worth. Better to just concentrate on
looking for traffic.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

My (somewhat limited) experience flying around chicago (actually TRANSITIONING
through chicago is more accurate) is that IFR you'll take the long way around. VFR
they'll clear you "at or below Bravo."

....or above Bravo. Lots of traffic up there, though.

FF above the Bravo is good, approach wants to be talking to you, and they can't
tell you to go away.

Dave Butler wrote:
: My (somewhat limited) experience flying around chicago (actually TRANSITIONING
: through chicago is more accurate) is that IFR you'll take the long way around. VFR
: they'll clear you "at or below Bravo."

: ...or above Bravo. Lots of traffic up there, though.

: FF above the Bravo is good, approach wants to be talking to you, and they can't
: tell you to go away.

Heh... I generally fuel up just shy of Chicago, and I'm only going as far as
Milwaukee. Definately not worth the climb in a Cherokee for a 70 minute flight.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1130445527.239974@sj-nntpcache-3...

...or above Bravo. Lots of traffic up there, though.

FF above the Bravo is good, approach wants to be talking to you, and they
can't tell you to go away.


Why does approach want to be talking to you above Bravo?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1130445527.239974@sj-nntpcache-3...

...or above Bravo. Lots of traffic up there, though.

FF above the Bravo is good, approach wants to be talking to you, and they
can't tell you to go away.



Why does approach want to be talking to you above Bravo?

My remark was based on personal experience. They didn't explicitly say "we want
to talk to you", but I inferred that from the tone of the conversation. Maybe it
was Center and not Approach, I'm not sure any more. Who owns the airspace above
the Chicago bravo?

Anyway, guessing at their motivation, I thought it was because there was a lot
of aluminum up there and they'd rather be talking to my moving speed bump and
know my intentions rather than guessing.

What's your opinion?

Dave

"Mitty" wrote in message
...
Departing cross country out of the Minneapolis area in severe clear, I
will usually ask for either flight following or will file. I depart from
KMIC, which is under the 4000 foot shelf of the MSP bravo airspace.

For example, Friday I am going from KMIC to KGPZ, which is a couple
hundred miles to the north.

I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:

Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel when
I have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)

Just advisories so you know who I am and what I am doing, but you don't
have to provide separation services?

Or do you not wish to hear at all? (Hopefully not, because I like being
in the system both for traffic info and in case of emergency.)


I prefer the "just advisories" route myself if you don't need the IFR
protection. Personally, I can think of at least many many examples when
co-altitude traffic targets have literally merged or come within a mile of
merging on my ARTCC scope in the last few months. In almost every case, I
was talking to at least one of them. Half of them, I was talking to both.
Some were VFR to VFR merges, a couple have been IFR to VFR merges with
safety/traffic alerts. In about a third of these events, at least one guy
never saw the other guy. There have also been a couple where I've said to
my collegues "Hey yall, look at these two! Holy Marion, I wonder if they
see each other." It's easier on me the controller if I am talking to both,
or else neither.

Regardless of the anti-controller spew you get on RAI from time to time,
it's still your tax dollars at work. We know who we work for. I really
can't think of a good reason not to use the system you are paying for if you
are flying cross country. It's there for you, you pay for it, why not use
it while you can still afford it? We're about two years off from user fees
followed by wholesale contracting out in my opinion. It probably won't long
surive the "all business is good; government is bad" crowd once they get
done "modernizing" and "rightsizing" and making an "industry-based
competitive service" of your national airspace system. Personally, I'd use
the NAS safety net while it still exists in its present form. It's safer
for *everyone* that way.

Chip, ZTL

On 10/27/2005 11:47 PM, Warren Jones wrote the following:

I prefer the "just advisories" route myself if you don't need the IFR
protection. Personally, I can think of at least many many examples when
co-altitude traffic targets have literally merged or come within a mile of
merging on my ARTCC scope in the last few months. In almost every case, I
was talking to at least one of them. Half of them, I was talking to both.
Some were VFR to VFR merges, a couple have been IFR to VFR merges with
safety/traffic alerts. In about a third of these events, at least one guy
never saw the other guy. There have also been a couple where I've said to
my collegues "Hey yall, look at these two! Holy Marion, I wonder if they
see each other." It's easier on me the controller if I am talking to both,
or else neither.


Thanks. I was guessing that was the case. I'll go with advisories on my CAVU
flight to GPZ this afternoon! Maybe stay IFR on longer trips where I might be
denied advisories. I had that problem in Kansas City a couple of months ago.
KC TRACON turned me down midafternoon on a nice day. Hard to see they could
have been that busy.

Regardless of the anti-controller spew you get on RAI from time to time,
it's still your tax dollars at work. We know who we work for.

Yes, I have never understood the anti-controller stuff. Here in flyover land
(ZMP) the Center guys and the TRACON guys are uniformly pleasant and helpful.
Goofy routings sometimes, of course, but not too often. And often amended to
more direct by the controller without my even asking.

I really
can't think of a good reason not to use the system you are paying for if you
are flying cross country. It's there for you, you pay for it, why not use
it while you can still afford it?

Agreed.

We're about two years off from user fees
followed by wholesale contracting out in my opinion.

I hope you're wrong on that one.

Mitty