VFR Flight Following?

GreatLakesFlying

GreatLakesFlying

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
226
Location
Chicago, IL
Display Name
Display name:
Leo
Quick question on phraseology. I fly out of 06C west of O'Hare Intl, and often I take advantage of the excellent radar coverage, to request flight following. My call to Chicago Approach is straightforward:

Chicago Approach, Piper 4-3-3-5-K, over Bartlet, requesting flight following.

ATC comes back, assigns squawk code, then comes back to verify radar contact and at that time they usually ask me where am I heading and how they can help. Very friendly, very nice service.

Sometimes I hear other pilots specifying "VFR" in their request for flight following, e.g.,

Chicago Approach, N-C-C-1-7-0-1, 1-0 miles west of OHare, VFR, requesting flight following.

My question is this: is the VFR specification necessary when requesting FF? I thought that explicit FF exists only in the context of VFR flying. If you are IFR, flight following is a given, right?

Thanks.
 
You don't specifically have to mention it. Why not though? If you were IFR the controller would know anyway. Most controllers will provide the service but tell you to maintain VFR anyway.
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
Quick question on phraseology. I fly out of 06C west of O'Hare Intl, and often I take advantage of the excellent radar coverage, to request flight following. My call to Chicago Approach is straightforward:

Chicago Approach, Piper 4-3-3-5-K, over Bartlet, requesting flight following.

ATC comes back, assigns squawk code, then comes back to verify radar contact and at that time they usually ask me where am I heading and how they can help. Very friendly, very nice service.

Sometimes I hear other pilots specifying "VFR" in their request for flight following, e.g.,

Chicago Approach, N-C-C-1-7-0-1, 1-0 miles west of OHare, VFR, requesting flight following.

My question is this: is the VFR specification necessary when requesting FF? I thought that explicit FF exists only in the context of VFR flying. If you are IFR, flight following is a given, right?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Throw VFR in there or don't. Shouldn't make any difference but you already know that. You didn't but you heard others do it. Ya both got it, controller didn't have no problem. On your question "If you are IFR, flight following is a given, right?" Yes, most definitely so. When you are IFR they are following you from takeoff to touch down. They have to to be able to separate you from other IFR traffic. When your VFR they're kinda following you so to speak. It's not really about 'following' you. What they are doing is giving you Traffic Advisories. If they get busy and don't want to do it anymore they can just terminate you and then they ain't 'following' you any more. Go to the Pilot/Controller Glossary and look up FLIGHT FOLLOWING. Then go to TRAFFIC ADVISORIES and find out what it really is. No reason not to keep calling it Flight Following, everyone does, pilots and controllers
 
Last edited:
You might be able to cut it short with "Nxxxx off of [departure airport] passing [altitude] request flight following to [destination] at [altitude]" Then they know where to look for you and where you are going without a lot of back and forth.
 
No need to say VFR, that’s just a given.
 
cgrab said:
You might be able to cut it short with "Nxxxx off of [departure airport] passing [altitude] request flight following to [destination] at [altitude]" Then they know where to look for you and where you are going without a lot of back and forth.
Click to expand...

Yup - tell 'em everything they'll need right off the bat. If they are very busy, just call up with "Chicago Approach, Piper 4-3-3-5-K" and wait for them to call you back. Otherwise follow the advise given by cgrab.
 
My question is this: is the VFR specification necessary when requesting FF? I thought that explicit FF exists only in the context of VFR flying. If you are IFR, flight following is a given, right?
Click to expand...

I agree with others who say it's superfluous to say you're VFR when first requesting FF.

On the other hand ... when I'm already on FF and get handed off to a new controller, I call up with callsign and altitude, and add "VFR to [destination]." It seems to head off a lot of follow-up questions.

GreatLakesFlying said:
Chicago Approach, Piper 4-3-3-5-K, over Bartlet, requesting flight following.
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention that callsign. One of my favorite rentals in the early '90s was an '84 Saratoga, N4337K. It's in Australia now as VH-SLR.

0C559494-9DFF-4E2A-9E3A-CA06A88660F8.jpeg
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
Quick question on phraseology. I fly out of 06C west of O'Hare Intl, and often I take advantage of the excellent radar coverage, to request flight following. My call to Chicago Approach is straightforward:

Chicago Approach, Piper 4-3-3-5-K, over Bartlet, requesting flight following.

ATC comes back, assigns squawk code, then comes back to verify radar contact and at that time they usually ask me where am I heading and how they can help. Very friendly, very nice service.

Sometimes I hear other pilots specifying "VFR" in their request for flight following, e.g.,

Chicago Approach, N-C-C-1-7-0-1, 1-0 miles west of OHare, VFR, requesting flight following.

My question is this: is the VFR specification necessary when requesting FF? I thought that explicit FF exists only in the context of VFR flying. If you are IFR, flight following is a given, right?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

AIM 4-2-1(b): "Since concise phraseology may not always be adequate, use whatever words are necessary to get your message across."

In other words, there is no such thing as "proper" or "approved" phraseology. Use plain English. Certain usages have become accepted over the years, but that does not mean that they are required. Controllers have a handbook that dictates exactly what they are allowed to say, and ATC quality control specialists screen audio tapes to make sure that no one colors outside the lines; pilots have no such guidance or oversight.

HOWEVER, with specific regard to Unicom, FCC (not FAA) regulations governing radio station licensing and operation DO tell pilots what Unicom is to be used for (and what it is not to be used for).

Bob Gardner
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
Quick question on phraseology. I fly out of 06C west of O'Hare Intl, and often I take advantage of the excellent radar coverage, to request flight following. My call to Chicago Approach is straightforward:

Chicago Approach, Piper 4-3-3-5-K, over Bartlet, requesting flight following.

ATC comes back, assigns squawk code, then comes back to verify radar contact and at that time they usually ask me where am I heading and how they can help. Very friendly, very nice service.

Sometimes I hear other pilots specifying "VFR" in their request for flight following, e.g.,

Chicago Approach, N-C-C-1-7-0-1, 1-0 miles west of OHare, VFR, requesting flight following.

My question is this: is the VFR specification necessary when requesting FF? I thought that explicit FF exists only in the context of VFR flying. If you are IFR, flight following is a given, right?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

VFR is implied

Would be like saying “requesting takeoff to go flying”
 
I think PoA cares more about whether you say "request" vs "VFR request".

But around here, controllers want to know type/equipment, cruise altitude and route of flight in addition to position and destination.
 
ATC already knows you are IFR, if you are on an IFR flight plan. Otherwise, they already know you are VFR when you call them up.

(also flight following is irrelevant under an IFR flight plan)
 
Flight following is a VFR request so it would just be redundant. It wouldn’t be wrong to say it though.
 
I say VFR Request and leave it at that when the frequency is busy, I got one of three things, nothing, standby VFR request or say request. If the frequency is not busy, I say it all.
 
cgrab said:
You might be able to cut it short with "Nxxxx off of [departure airport] passing [altitude] request flight following to [destination] at [altitude]" Then they know where to look for you and where you are going without a lot of back and forth.
Click to expand...
Depends on how busy they are; if you have to rush a break-in, better to wait until they respond to quick call sign.
 
I like to ask ATC if there are any known aircraft please advise...

....and when they terminate me I always reply, "last call".
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
I like to ask ATC if there any known aircraft please advise...

....and when they terminate me I always reply, "last call".
Click to expand...
Glad I’m not the only one. Of course, I’ve also been known to use ATITPPA too, so I guess I’m guilty on all charges.
 
My take...simply "...VFR request" is a legit call...that tells the controller that you are a new call and not an IFR that he should be looking for...and lily want FF. If you just said "...345, request"...controller then needs to figure out if you are a new call or someone he is working or expecting with a request with no contexts of what to expect priority wise.

Now, "...345, request Flight Following" (which is what I do) tell him right off the bat you are a new call up and exactly what you want and what to expect in just two simple words.

"VFR Flight following"...now that is redundant.
 
bobmrg said:
AIM 4-2-1(b): "Since concise phraseology may not always be adequate, use whatever words are necessary to get your message across."

In other words, there is no such thing as "proper" or "approved" phraseology. Use plain English. Certain usages have become accepted over the years, but that does not mean that they are required. Controllers have a handbook that dictates exactly what they are allowed to say, and ATC quality control specialists screen audio tapes to make sure that no one colors outside the lines; pilots have no such guidance or oversight.

...
Click to expand...

Every student pilot should hear that. So many folks get so wrapped up in the right way to ask for something/report something. You're talking to humans, just use english. They might tell you they want you to ask in a different way but it's not like you'll get in any trouble for that.
 
Pilawt said:
I agree with others who say it's superfluous to say you're VFR when first requesting FF.

On the other hand ... when I'm already on FF and get handed off to a new controller, I call up with callsign and altitude, and add "VFR to [destination]." It seems to head off a lot of follow-up questions.

View attachment 65354
Click to expand...

Why do you need to repeat the destination? Shouldn’t the next controller know that already?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Shawn said:
My take...simply "...VFR request" is a legit call...that tells the controller that you are a new call and not an IFR that he should be looking for...and lily want FF. If you just said "...345, request"...controller then needs to figure out if you are a new call or someone he is working or expecting with a request with no contexts of what to expect priority wise.

Now, "...345, request Flight Following" (which is what I do) tell him right off the bat you are a new call up and exactly what you want and what to expect in just two simple words.

"VFR Flight following"...now that is redundant.
Click to expand...

This. Starting the whole thing out with just “VFR request” is a good thing. Yes there are times when just spitting the whole thing out is ok. Here’s my usual spiel.

Me: Approach/Center, call sign, VFR Request
Them: Go ahead. Or unable. Or Squawk xxxx, go ahead.
Me: Call sign, position, present altitude and cruising altitude, VFR to destination

I never say the words Flight Following. Works like a charm. Never had problems.
 
Last edited:
CrimsonFlyer said:
Why do you need to repeat the destination? Shouldn’t the next controller know that already?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Next controller will know, doesn't hurt anything informing that controller though.

Y'all are overthinking (as usual) flight following. Just call up and tell the controller what you want. Plain old English is fine. As a former controller we use standard phraseology for a reason, but also can understand what you want if you're not using exact phraseology. It's not that big of a deal like some think.
 
Pilawt said:
Or should know. Sometimes the first guy enters it wrong.
Click to expand...

Yup! I usually say "... to Fort Worth Meacham, Foxtrot Tango Whiskey." Sometimes when getting close I hear "confirm DFW," and I'm like NOPE!

I'm pretty sure that when they see a ground track out of sync with the destination on the strip they ask about it.

And when I was really low time (I'm still low time :() I was all nervous like, I guess I have to go there, or sorry I must have asked wrong.
 
Thanks for the good feedback.

My concern is primarily about brevity. This is Chicago Approach, they are usually busy, and I am always amazed and grateful that a controller has room and time to accommodate me.

When I get near the edge of the mode-C veil here, the Approach controller will advise me that services are terminated and will provide a center frequency if I want to continue receiving traffic advisories.

Sometimes it's worth contacting Center, but not always. For example, when I fly 06C-KIKK via the shoreline, it's about 10 minutes from the edge of the mode-C veil to the vicinity of KIKK. By the time Center comes back to me, I am ready to squawk VFR and change to the CTAF.
 
I use just "<facility> <callsign> Request". My theory is: if they're busy, they'll appreciate picking the right time to service the request. If they're not, the extra time for the extra exchange over just blurting everything out isn't a big deal. And if they're so busy that they can't take it at all, I haven't wasted extra time telling them something they don't need to know.

Another thing I've noticed...controllers seem to be amazing at picking out voices and telling from context and tone of voice whether this is a new call or if you're already in the system. My initial call-up has a very different sound from just coming on frequency or making an additional request. Not sure I can describe what the difference is, but controllers seem to pick up on it quickly. Even when you can't see each other, there are audible but non-verbal cues that help.
 
Providence control, bugsmasher 1234 vfr request. Bugsmasher 1234 standby with vfr request, took her about 5 minutes to get back to me, but she was real busy, great service after that.
 
Years ago, a Bay Approach controller (OK, decades ago! ;)) told a room full of pilots that all he and his colleagues wanted to hear on an initial call-up (that wasn't a hand-off) was the facility call sign and the aircraft call sign. So that's what I've been doing ever since, with no complaints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top