Wow that's a bummer to hear. Almost makes you not want to even file a VFR Flight Plan if you have to deal with guys like that.
Oh I agree. I don't mind the practice of filing IFR with a VFR altitude. Most of my friends that do ATC are aware of the practice and don't care. Some are VFR pilots and do it themselves to pick up FF. The letter to me is a disconnect between FAA management and what the people "in the trenches" are doing. Personally, I think they need to amend the AFSS software so that a check block for "traffic advisories" triggers an automatic forward to ATC. Would simplify things and make for a far more efficient system.
Oh I don’t mind the flight plan, but I can file it electronically, close it electronically or even via SMS, and pretty much know I’m just setting a stopwatch in the Leidos computer so it’ll call AFRCC when I haven’t answered roll call in too long. That’s about all it is anymore. I don’t have a SPOT or any of their competitors yet, but want one. Simpler, and they still end up contacting AFRCC anyway... so the only benefit to using Leidos is that it’s paid for by public debt subsidized by other non-Aviation taxpayers. Or as some like to say, “free”.
Actually, it would just be a "send to ATC" flag, which is really how FSS uses the checkbox in practice and has done it that way for over three decades.
I've had issues with ForeFlight not letting me close the flight plan on my iPad, so I end up having to call them. Not sure why.
Was flying in Germany one day with a young copilot. He called Nuremberg Approach with about a 10 second initial call for FF. I was sitting there cringing because I knew the controller was either not going to copy his request, or he was stepping on other higher (IFR clearances) priorities. Sure enough, he comes back with "Army copter 12345, vas dat your idea of initial call up???"
I have come to find it depends on where you are in the this great country in how you handle the initial call up. I was always taught that when dealing with So Cal, Pt Mugu approach or LA Center, you had best not make the initial contact and request advisories at same time. And for VFR flight following, it was best practice to say , the normal information blah,blah, blah, request VFR flight following 'Time Permitting'. I can only recall one time being dumped back to VFR 1200 when So Cal went to pass me off the LA Center. Got the 'Radar services terminated. squawk 1200 and remain VFR. Down here in the South, Campbell Approach will take it all in first call up -MF
On the "initial callup" thing I think it depends a lot on how clean and professional one is in doing it. "New York, Cherokee 12345, 2 north of Deer Park 3500, VFR to Block Island, request advisories" Will usually work and get you what you want. "Ummm.... New York ummmm Approach.... November oneeee twooooo threeee four fiiiiive ummmmm yeah ummmm we're a ummm piper cherokee, ymm a pa-28. We are along the north shore... um... yeah, near ummmm deer park. We are ummm VFR to block island and ummm I think we yeah, we have a VFR flight plan but not sure if you see that... yeah, ummm requesting flight following and traffic advisories." Not so much. I've heard people come on with that and it's painful. You can almost see the controller breaking their pencil.
As was mentioned later in the thread, it was in the Goodish letter. While it does say that the filing indicates a "clear intent" to conduct operations under IFR, it also says, in the second-to-last paragraph, that it is not independently a triggering action for an operation to be considered to be conducted under IFR. https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...fr-by-non-ifr-cert-pilot-j-goodish-pdf.29091/ I've heard that this process causes confusion for some controllers, so I'm not planning on using it unless they put it in the controllers' manual and the AIM. The above attachment was posted in a previous discussion of this subject: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/file-ifr-when-not-rated.57248/#post-1107737
AIM specifically recommends AGAINST blurting out all the full info on initial contact: 4-2-3. Contact Procedures a. Initial Contact. 1. The terms initial contact or initial callup means the first radio call you make to a given facility or the first call to a different controller or FSS specialist within a facility. Use the following format: (a) Name of the facility being called; (b) Your full aircraft identification as filed in the flight plan or as discussed in paragraph 4-2-4, Aircraft Call Signs; (c) When operating on an airport surface, state your position. (d) The type of message to follow or your request if it is short; EXAMPLE- ... 3. "Miami Center, Baron Five Six Three Hotel, request V-F-R traffic advisories." During my SoCal TRACON tour...this is what they said they want on a cold call up: "SoCal...Skylane 12345, 5 miles south of Fullerton, Flight Folowing Request" ...THAT is it...THEN wait for their response for everything else and they can prioritize you accordingly. Who you are, where you are, what you want (short...see AIM above).
OAK must have discontinued the requirement, because I've never been told about it when asking for FF around here.
I haven't done it a year or so. When doing it I use radial/distance from VOR's. That's a common format that they can just plug in and hit <ENTER>. I just give it to them in the format per AIM 5-3-2 d. 1. I skip (f) and (g) but have given a new ETA to destination. It goes someting like 'Bumphuq Radio, N12345 VFR position Report. Go Ahead. N12345, BUM130 at 025, 1345, 6500, VFR. So far I haven't gotten into a 20 questions with them. The just say roger or thankyou or something.
paging @roncachamp What is required for a towered airport to arrange VFR flight following? Is LOA the correct term?
Thank you for providing support for my comments. OTOH, Mark’s comment is the first negative comment I’ve heard from a controller. It definitely makes the conversation shorter when requesting flight following.
ok, my excuse is I'm stuck at work today...WTF are you guys doing on here on TG morning hijacking this thread...? LOL
