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

"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

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

"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.

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.

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.

In article . com,
"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

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.

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

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.

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?