Things to put in the "remarks" section of the flight plan

Seems like these days the most common not-particularly-useful-to-ATC
remarks I see a

None

followed closely by:

PIC Joe Shmoe, 555-678-1212

1. Because Angel Flights get slightly higher priority in routing if
needed and



Lifeguard is given priority handling by ATC, Angel Flight is not.


****************
Officially, you are correct. Unofficially, Angel Flights are treated
with a special (and detectable) "consideration".



2. To give the controller information about the flight that might help
in an emergency.



How would knowing a VFR GPS was aboard help the controller in an
emergency?

*****************************

It seems to me that what kind of navigational equipment the pilot has
on board is "relevant to the flight", and I can think of scenarios
where knowing the pilot has a GPS might help in an emergency involving
failure of one or more instruments, or partial electrical failure. Let
me ask you, Steven, how could it HURT the controller to have this
information?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Officially, you are correct. Unofficially, Angel Flights are treated
with a special (and detectable) "consideration".


"Officially" is all that matters.



It seems to me that what kind of navigational equipment the pilot has
on board is "relevant to the flight", and I can think of scenarios
where knowing the pilot has a GPS might help in an emergency involving
failure of one or more instruments, or partial electrical failure.


But you can't articulate any? The question was, "How would knowing a VFR
GPS was aboard help the controller in an emergency?" Providing a few of
those scenarios would answer the question, but simply stating that you know
of a few scenarios does not.



Let me ask you, Steven, how could it HURT the controller to have this
information?


It wouldn't. It wouldn't HURT the controller to have the pilot's height and
weight information either but I bet you don't put that in remarks when you
file.

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...

How would knowing a VFR GPS was aboard help the controller in an
emergency?


Not sure about emergency, but it does tell the control that you have the
ability to reliably navigate direct to anywhere.

Wouldn't simply filing direct to anywhere tell the controller you have the
ability to reliably navigate direct to anywhere?



I have been given clearances to navaids that are well outside of reception
range, as well as direct to my destination field from 350nm away. If I
put the "GPS" note in there, the controller will often ask if I can
navigate direct, or if I would like direct, to wherever he needs to clear
me. If I don't put the "GPS" note in there, I rarely am asked if I can go
direct to a navaid outside of range, for example.


Have you filed direct to navaids that are well outside of reception range or
direct to your destination field from 350nm away without putting "VFR GPS"
in remarks and had your requested route denied? Did you file those same
routes with "VFR GPS" in remarks and been cleared as filed?



The GPS isn't necessarily relevant to the controller's ability to give the
direct clearances, but it tells him that I am likely able to go direct
without wandering around, and without being baby-sat with vectors along
the way.


Why would the controller believe you might be unable to navigate what you
filed without "VFR GPS" in remarks.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
Angel Flight is not given priority handling by ATC.

What is the purpose of the special call sign that Angel Flights use to
distinguish themselves?

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:



What is the purpose of the special call sign that Angel Flights use to
distinguish themselves?

It is a goodwill gesture on the part of the FAA.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

What is the purpose of the special call sign that Angel Flights use to
distinguish themselves?


According to Angel Flight West the call sign "indicates to ATC the '...need
for appropriate (but not priority) handling by ATC'."

According to an Air Traffic Bulletin issued six years ago use of the call
sign identifies the flight as a non-profit, charitable, community service
involving no priority handling, but minimal delay would be appreciated.

"Officially" is all that matters.

No, =un=officially is all that matters.

What matters is the effect the pilot gets from the remark. If there is
no official benefit to saying "angel flight" but controllers do in fact
("unofficially") give them priority, the pilot receives the benefit (as
does the patient).

Officials be damned.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .

No, =un=officially is all that matters.

What matters is the effect the pilot gets from the remark. If there is no
official benefit to saying "angel flight" but controllers do in fact
("unofficially") give them priority, the pilot receives the benefit (as
does the patient).

Officials be damned.


Controllers make mistakes. If a controller gives a flight priority handling
based on an Angel Flight call sign he is acting contrary to FAA Order
7110.65. As always, my comments are based on controllers knowing and
following procedures. Officially or unofficially, THAT is all that matters.

Controllers make mistakes. If a controller gives a flight priority handling
based on an Angel Flight call sign he is acting contrary to FAA Order
7110.65.

What if a controller gives priority when there is no other reason to -
for example (you can make a better one up) two planes approaching the
same waypoint at the same time. One is given vectors for delay. Would
giving the delay vectors to the non-angel flight aircraft be a viloation
of 7110.65?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.