"normal" procedure for pop-up filing

I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
Moline approach?

"paul kgyy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
contact ATC.

Usually when I need to do this it's a flight where IFR conditions arise
unexpectedly. I then don't have time to file with FSS, wait for the plan to
be in the system and then call center. If I need to call FSS then I usually
land, regroup, file the usual way and restart the trip.

On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
Moline approach?

Yup, that has been my experience. I think is is not possible to predict when
center will have the time to accept your plan and when they will tell you to
file with FSS.

Howard

paul kgyy wrote:
I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
Moline approach?

It absolutely depends on how busy ATC is. Around here (New York), if
they're not busy, you can call them up cold and and make your
request. They'll take the important info (destination, aircraft type,
etc) and give you a route. Sometimes they'll say they're too busy and
tell you to go talk to FSS like you're supposed to.

What I find works best is if things are iffy, is to get VFR flight
following first. Once they've already got you in the system, assigned
a code, radar identified, etc, if you later tell them you need to get
a clearance, they're more likely to handle you directly.

If push comes to shove, if you tell them you need a clearance NOW,
they'll get you one. But the idea is to never let things degenerate
to the point where you have to start playing trump cards.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
paul kgyy wrote:
I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle
of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then
contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in
rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend
on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact
Moline approach?

It absolutely depends on how busy ATC is. Around here (New York), if
they're not busy, you can call them up cold and and make your
request. They'll take the important info (destination, aircraft type,
etc) and give you a route. Sometimes they'll say they're too busy and
tell you to go talk to FSS like you're supposed to.

What I find works best is if things are iffy, is to get VFR flight
following first. Once they've already got you in the system, assigned
a code, radar identified, etc, if you later tell them you need to get
a clearance, they're more likely to handle you directly.

If push comes to shove, if you tell them you need a clearance NOW,
they'll get you one. But the idea is to never let things degenerate
to the point where you have to start playing trump cards.

Actually Roy, ATC'll get you one *if* they can. ATC usually can, especially
under the circumstances you describe. However, the pilot really doesn't
have a "trump" card when it comes to pop-up IFR. You need one on a busy
frequency, you might be SOL for a while as ATC is occupied with higher
priority stuff. My point is that you are in no legal position to demand IFR
if you are already airborne flying VFR.

I totally agree with you about getting F/F making a pop-up easier to get.
Under VFR Flight Following, you already have almost all of the ingredients
in play that ATC needs to handle you IFR. Converting F/F to IFR on a busy
frequency is usually no more workload on the controller other than issuing
you a clearance and a good IFR altitude. Because I already am providing you
radar service, I can give you a clearance with one transmission. Then, I
either send you over to Radio to file the full SAR stuff (souls on board
etc) or else get you to spit it all out on the taped frequency if I have
room/time on the bandwidth. If something happens to cause a need for SAR,
Center can pull the voice tape and access your information. In an
emergency, we can access the voice data in under five minutes.

I've never understood why more pilots on VFR cross countries don't use
Flight Following. Personally, I've never had to turn down VFR radar service
to any pilot no matter how busy I've been with IFR traffic (and I'm plenty
busy, often). Centers don't have to separate VFR's in Class E, which is
where most of our flight following happens. Thus, there's no reason for
ARTCC's not to provide the service, even when the freq is non-stop with
radio traffic. Almost every Center controller I know down here would rather
be talking to all parties when making traffic calls to known aircraft. The
unknown VFR guys represent a traffic wildcard and in my view increase the
workload when issuing traffic to known aircraft, rather than decreasing it.

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:
I've never understood why more pilots on VFR cross countries don't use
Flight Following.

By the same token, I've never understood why the FAA doesn't make it
easier to get flight following. You should be able to pre-file your
VFR flight plan with DUATS so ATC already has a strip on you at
initial call-up, just like with IFR. Then you wouldn't have to waste
so much time on the frequency with where you're going, aircraft type,
etc.

I've been told you can play tricks with DUAT, filing an IFR flight
plan and putting "VFR" in the remarks section, but you shouldn't have
to resort to subterfuge like that for what seems like such a simple
and logical thing.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

By the same token, I've never understood why the FAA doesn't make it
easier to get flight following. You should be able to pre-file your
VFR flight plan with DUATS so ATC already has a strip on you at
initial call-up, just like with IFR. Then you wouldn't have to waste
so much time on the frequency with where you're going, aircraft type,
etc.

I've been told you can play tricks with DUAT, filing an IFR flight
plan and putting "VFR" in the remarks section, but you shouldn't have
to resort to subterfuge like that for what seems like such a simple
and logical thing.


Forget about the remarks, just use "VFR" as the requested altitude.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Forget about the remarks, just use "VFR" as the requested altitude.

That will guarantee you get flight following?

Antonio

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Forget about the remarks, just use "VFR" as the requested altitude.

Interesting tip, Steven.

I just tried this and the Cirrus interface software refused it,
demanding an integer for the altitude. However, DUATS accepted it when
I used the direct, interactve connection.

I plan to file this again for a real trip this weekend to see how the
TRACON reacts. I suspect it's something they rarely, if ever, see.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

By the same token, I've never understood why the FAA doesn't make it
easier to get flight following. You should be able to pre-file your
VFR flight plan with DUATS so ATC already has a strip on you at
initial call-up, just like with IFR. Then you wouldn't have to waste
so much time on the frequency with where you're going, aircraft type,
etc.

I've been told you can play tricks with DUAT, filing an IFR flight
plan and putting "VFR" in the remarks section, but you shouldn't have
to resort to subterfuge like that for what seems like such a simple
and logical thing.



Forget about the remarks, just use "VFR" as the requested altitude.



Is this an "official" FAA procedure or just something that most
controllers understand as an indication that FF will be requested?


Matt

Roy,
You actually can get a squawk code for VFR flight following on the
ground sometimes. I have done it at BLM enroute to FRG. Called Bradley
on the ground and told them I was departing BLM to the north and wanted
to transition the Bravo....could they give me a code and pass me
thru..The Bradley controller took the info..called me back with radar
contact after I was airborne and then passed me thru the NY Bravo to
FRG no problems. I don't know if they will always do it..but what's the
harm in asking.