VFR Pilots on Flight Following, for the Love of God...

The worst ATC worrier I've known was my first CFII. He worried about getting busted to the point of paranoia. If he knew our altimeter was reading 50 feet low, he would have me hold altitude indicating 50 feet higher than assigned. Once, when we were training on an IFR clearance below a Bravo shelf, and the issue was our Mode C, he had me hold an altitude about 300 feet BELOW assigned altitude so that ATC wouldn't try to pin an altitude bust on him. It never occurred to him to simply report "N9539H is indicating 3000" if the controller called us on what our hardware was reporting.

That said, he was highly critical of me the time I announced a diversion because of a fuel gauge issue, saying that the FAA was going to bust me for taking off again without having the problem looked at, diagnosed, and fixed (even though it was a temporary glitch, likely caused by a stuck sender). And he was almost right about that - the ASI who called me did put me under the microscope, though in the end nothing came of it.

Sometimes if you think they're out to get you... you're right, even if you ARE paranoid. ;)
 
PaulS said:
You guys are way to to sensitive. " Oh did that controller sound angry?". Who gives a ****.
Click to expand...

So true! And I was a controller in another life, tower and approach control. Fly the plane, that controller isn't up there flying.
 
PaulS said:
You guys are way to to sensitive. " Oh did that controller sound angry?". Who gives a ****.
Click to expand...
And people wonder why some pilots are so reluctant to declare an emergency...
 
PaulS said:
You guys are way too sensitive. " Oh did that controller sound angry?". Who gives a ****.
Click to expand...
I'm a controller and if I sense an angry "coworker" when I'm flying, I poke the bear! hahaha, I won't ruin their day but I'll make it worse. We make too much money to sit around and be rude to pilots.....
 
Gmonnig said:
I'm a controller and if I sense an angry "coworker" when I'm flying, I poke the bear! hahaha, I won't ruin their day but I'll make it worse. We make too much money to sit around and be rude to pilots.....
Click to expand...
Sometimes it’s understandable but still funny. I had a Ft. Worth controller get a little snappy with me for not answering a radio call. I wanted to say something like sorry dude but you were pushing the wrong button or there was a glitch on your end because I’ve been listening and didn’t hear a call. I understood that he was a little frustrated because he was busy and it appeared I was ignoring him but the problem was entirely on his end.

And then there’s the recent example at APA. Controller was polite but also impatient with me for not calling. I was calling but got stepped on three times in a row. Kudos to the controller for remaining polite.
 
Lindberg said:
But there is such an altitude as 8,504. There is an ambiguous and unambiguous way to say it.
Click to expand...
It's only ambiguous if you think there are pilots stating altitudes to the nearest foot. In 27 years I have yet to hear anyone do that. And even if pilots were doing it, a four foot error is of no significance.
 
But somehow a pilot reading back an IFR Clearance wouldn't be annoying?

A guy at the Blackjack table last week was giving me crap about not splitting 6's when the dealer was showing a 4.
I told him to mind his own business; my hand doesn't affect his outcome as much as he might believe it does.
 
Palmpilot said:
It's only ambiguous if you think there are pilots stating altitudes to the nearest foot. In 27 years I have yet to hear anyone do that. And even if pilots were doing it, a four foot error is of no significance.
Click to expand...
Nobody said OMG planes will fall out of the sky if you use one phraseology over the other. Just that one is better, which you called a myth.

But between, "leaving 8500 for 6500," and, "8,500 descending 6,500," many consider the latter is "better." Especially when you realize comms aren't always 5x5.
 
Lindberg said:
But between, "leaving 8500 for 6500," and, "8,500 descending 6,500," many consider the latter is "better."
Click to expand...

I agree. When using numbers anyone will hear that 'for' as a number for at least a split second until they understand what is actually being said. Is that ever gonna be a big deal? Probably not. But why not just state it in an unambiguous way in the first place? I don't get the point of arguing so strongly for 'for'.
 
Lindberg said:
Nobody said OMG planes will fall out of the sky if you use one phraseology over the other. Just that one is better, which you called a myth.

But between, "leaving 8500 for 6500," and, "8,500 descending 6,500," many consider the latter is "better." Especially when you realize comms aren't always 5x5.
Click to expand...

"Many" can do what they want. I'll adopt the practice when they put it in the AIM.
 
BrianNC said:
I agree. When using numbers anyone will hear that 'for' as a number for at least a split second until they understand what is actually being said. Is that ever gonna be a big deal? Probably not. But why not just state it in an unambiguous way in the first place?
Click to expand...
Because it's not unambiguous. The purported solution also lends itself to misinterpretation, because, for example, "descending five thousand" sounds like you're reducing your altitude by 5,000 feet. Is this ever going to be a big deal? Proably not, but as you point out, neither is the alleged split second misinterpretation of "for."

One point that's often overlooked is that the alleged solution is just replacing one non-standard phrase with another. Neither "leaving seven thousand for five thousand" nor "seven thousand descending five thousand" are recommended in the AIM, which recommends saying that you're descending or climbing "to" the target altitude.

So if folks are so convinced that this is a good idea, why not lobby the FAA to put it in the AIM? If they succeed, I'll start doing it. Until then, as far as I can see, it's a solution in search of a problem.

I don't get the point of arguing so strongly for 'for'.
Click to expand...

I don't get the point of arguing so strongly that it causes problems.
 
Palmpilot said:
Because it's not unambiguous. The purported solution also lends itself to misinterpretation, because, for example, "descending five thousand" sounds like you're reducing your altitude by 5,000 feet.
Click to expand...

No it's doesn't, because we don't tell a controller how many feet we are reducing our altitude. "8000 descending 5000" is always understood that you're going to that altitude, not descending that many feet. And unambiguous.
 
azure said:
The worst ATC worrier I've known was my first CFII. He worried about getting busted to the point of paranoia. If he knew our altimeter was reading 50 feet low, he would have me hold altitude indicating 50 feet higher than assigned. Once, when we were training on an IFR clearance below a Bravo shelf, and the issue was our Mode C, he had me hold an altitude about 300 feet BELOW assigned altitude so that ATC wouldn't try to pin an altitude bust on him. It never occurred to him to simply report "N9539H is indicating 3000" if the controller called us on what our hardware was reporting.

That said, he was highly critical of me the time I announced a diversion because of a fuel gauge issue, saying that the FAA was going to bust me for taking off again without having the problem looked at, diagnosed, and fixed (even though it was a temporary glitch, likely caused by a stuck sender). And he was almost right about that - the ASI who called me did put me under the microscope, though in the end nothing came of it.

Sometimes if you think they're out to get you... you're right, even if you ARE paranoid. ;)
Click to expand...
Your CFI May be a bit paranoid, but one should always keep those issues off the radio. “Possible small maintenance issue” as an example. Keep it generic and leave the door open to continue if you wish.
 
Palmpilot said:
It's only ambiguous if you think there are pilots stating altitudes to the nearest foot. In 27 years I have yet to hear anyone do that. And even if pilots were doing it, a four foot error is of no significance.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see an altimeter that can discern 4 feet. Perhaps they’re out there, but it would be news to me.
 
MadseasoN said:
But somehow a pilot reading back an IFR Clearance wouldn't be annoying?

A guy at the Blackjack table last week was giving me crap about not splitting 6's when the dealer was showing a 4.
I told him to mind his own business; my hand doesn't affect his outcome as much as he might believe it does.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t affect it whatsoever.
 
BrianNC said:
No it's doesn't, because we don't tell a controller how many feet we are reducing our altitude. "8000 descending 5000" is always understood that you're going to that altitude, not descending that many feet. And unambiguous.
Click to expand...
Nor do we report altitudes to the foot, nor flight levels as "four five thousand." The same reasoning applies either way.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Exactly. FF is bottom priority for ATC workload. I’ve found in a lot of places that you can’t expect ATC to give you traffic advisories.

Personally, if I want traffic advisories or ATC coordination, I’ll file IFR.
Click to expand...

I have the luxury of flying a lot in an area of Indiana that has coverage by a tower with radar, and staff that are usually thrilled to have something to do. Once this fall, I was the only guy on thier radio for an hour in mid-afternoon.
 
Kritchlow said:
I have yet to see an altimeter that can discern 4 feet. Perhaps they’re out there, but it would be news to me.
Click to expand...

It's called a Radar Altimeter...
web074garmingi205.jpg
 
So I apparently hit the trifecta this weekend. Flying VFR on flight following from Massachusetts to Eastern PA around the NY Bravo I was passed off between at least 5 different controllers. I was asked the same destination question and some wanted route, others final destination. Understandably, they also wanted me to advise before a change in altitude. As it happened on the same flight, it was interesting to see how depending on the controller they wanted a different answer to the same question.
 
Kritchlow said:
Your CFI May be a bit paranoid, but one should always keep those issues off the radio. “Possible small maintenance issue” as an example. Keep it generic and leave the door open to continue if you wish.
Click to expand...

Had to do that recently. Diverted to "check on something". No further questions.
 
mscard88 said:
I can't imagine a controller not wanting to know about altitude changes during VFR FF, which is at the pilot's discretion, but nice to know from a controller standpoint. When I controlled I certainly did.
Click to expand...

I can't figure out what they want. My rule is that if i'm near a C or B airspace and in denser traffic I will let the controller know of altitude changes. If i'm out in the boonies i'll just do as I please.

I've had controllers give me an "altitude your discretion" with an attitude that says "I don't give a crap, why are you telling me this" and i've also had them specifically request that I notify of altitude changes.
 
I fly around RDU a lot. A few times they get my route and divert me to a heading that keeps me out of their airspace. Then the controller called me and said resume course when I got to a point that would keep me out. Now I just skirt their airspace and listen to the tower. I hear them calling out my position to other pilots. I get the benefit without the hassle.
 
For me, the main reason to get FF when flying XC is to make sure I'm listening to the right control frequency for the area I'm flying through. Easiest way to do so. Otherwise I have to remember how to find that frequency on the 430 or find the approach/departure frequency for larger airports I'm flying near, and those aren't always right for the area I'm flying through.

I've had FF call out plenty of traffic to me, especially around NY/NJ area when flying south. Had a controller call it a VFR free for all after I had to divert to miss two other planes not listening. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top