Cancel Flight Following?

gsengle said:
Ok so why have forums. I'm quoting the aim. You go ahead and believe what you want. And you'll be understood, but the original poster asked for correct phraseology. You go read the aim.
Click to expand...

I've read it, many times. It does not support your position.
 
gsengle said:
It's clear what the service is called (aim 4-1-15), but if it makes you feel better... And yes you'll be understood...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
My feelings are not relevant. I've been reading both the AIM, as you suggested, and the P/CG, and your claims are not supported by what I've been reading.

It's only a difference of opinion; it's not the end of the world.



Sent from my HP desktop computer, using Firefox.
 
It's threads like these that make me not want to reply to someone's question, or reply to a thread.
 
I don't think Mr Gsengle is a pilot, but if he is he must have very limited experience. His goal here is most likely to troll.
To the point, I personally use "Bugsmasher N12345 is looking for advisories," but do hear a fair amount of "flight following" requests, and they are absolutely interchangeable in common usage by both pilots and controllers.
 
roncachamp said:
Flight Following and Traffic Advisories are the same thing.
Click to expand...
gsengle said:
93.71 has a different meaning than radar advisories and is precisely an example of a different specific use. 4-1-21 is the proper use of flight following term. As in overwater flight following specific to Cape Cod or parts of Great Lakes. That's my whole point, the generic term is VFR traffic advisories. 6-2-6 notes both, showing they are two different things. 10-1-4 is Gulf of Mexico flight following.
Click to expand...

Only one of those references shows a clear way that they can be interpreted as 2 different things, which is:

"In addition to normal VFR radar advisory services,
traffic permitting, Cape Approach Control provides
a radar overwater flight following service for aircraft
traversing the Cape Cod and adjacent Island area."

However, it specifically contrasts radar advisories with "overwater flight following". It uses the term "overwater" again later in 10-1-4. So while it clearly talks about a concept that is something other than Radar Advisories, it doesn't call it flight following - it calls it overwater flight following. Big distinction.


I think most telling (other than the actual definition of "RADAR FLIGHT FOLLOWING" which you for some reason dismiss), is 5-5-11-a-6 and 5-5-11-b-4, which is the pilot vs. controller side of the same instruction. How would you possibly interpret the controller context to mean something other than Radar Advisories?
 
Wow. New guy. Troll? Maybe. Probably. Likes to get is stirred up. Not a bad first day on POA gsengle. Who was the other troll that was never wrong?
 
gsengle said:
On a side note, with ADS-B in and out, you'll know about traffic far before you're advised. Me, I still stay on with ATC anyway because in an emergency the last thing I want to have to do is find the right frequency/agency...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Not before 2020. You will not see traffic not equipped with ADSB, which is still most of it, unless you happen to be in range of a tower. Still rather spotty.

The right frequency in an emergency is 121.5. Some radios will put you there if you hold the swap button for 2 sec.
 
There's the old joke of this exchange:

27K: Atlanta Center, Navion 5327K, Cancel VFR.
ZTL: Is this some new way of asking for an IFR clearance?
 
gsengle said:
93.71 has a different meaning than radar advisories and is precisely an example of a different specific use. 4-1-21 is the proper use of flight following term. As in overwater flight following specific to Cape Cod or parts of Great Lakes. That's my whole point, the generic term is VFR traffic advisories. 6-2-6 notes both, showing they are two different things. 10-1-4 is Gulf of Mexico flight following.

Ok I can search too. And all your citations just show that the words appear - never said they didn't. They just have a different meaning.

So no, professionalism and a attempt to use proper phraseology is not pedantry.

Aim 4-1-8 "In addition, the controller will provide traffic advisories on a workload permitting basis"

4-1-15 "VFR radar advisory service" read all about it.

4-2-3 contact procedures! "Miami Center, Baron Five Six Three Hotel, request V-F-R traffic advisories"

So before you get smug and call someone out, read a little more closely.

Flight following and VFR radar traffic advisories aren't the same thing... The correct term when you call up center/approach (even though the colloquial "flight following" will work) is traffic advisories.

What is your source for "proper phraseology"? The 7110.65 is directed to controllers, not pilots. The AIM is pretty much limited to numbers and phonetics. AC 90-42F is good for uncontrolled airports, but is irrelevant in this context. AIM 4-2-1(b) gives pilots carte blanche to say whatever they want to say. Give us an authoritative source, please.

Bob






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
Real FF hasn't really much existed in most of the US in decades.
 
You'll never gain a controllers trust and respect by using phrases like flight following...never.
 
I'm still waiting for him to cite an FAA pub that prescribes "proper phraseology" for pilots. AIM 4-2-1(b) seems pretty clear to me.

Bob
 
Wow had no idea Flight Following was the wrong term...so i should say something like:

Phoenix Approach, Skyhawk 6123D, (location), request radar advisories?
 
I've had controllers ask me if I wanted "flight following" on multiple occasions. They've never called it "advisories" in such a context.
 
CC268 said:
Wow had no idea Flight Following was the wrong term...so i should say something like:

Phoenix Approach, Skyhawk 6123D, (location), request radar advisories?
Click to expand...

Flight following is not the wrong term.
 
very simple and short this is how i always canceled just hit the push to talk... centurion 3dm squawking 1200 thanks for your help.. wait for them to acknowledge your done and they are happy and you did not tie up the radio with nonessential ****
 
CC268 said:
Wow had no idea Flight Following was the wrong term
Click to expand...

It's not the wrong term.

Copied from the FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary:

FLIGHT FOLLOWING−
(See TRAFFIC ADVISORIES.)

While term Flight Following may have had other meanings, now it is synonymous with VFR Traffic Advisories in today's environment regardless of what else it used to encompass.

...just as "Have a Gay Old Time" is COMPLETELY different today than it was on the Flintstones...which is the time that some of these statements about this debate are coming from.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day I'm going to ask for FF, enter the squawk and go on my merry way. At the end of this day I'm going to say, "Thanks for the service, I have the field in sight"

Never once have I had a controller jump down my throat for saying FF vs VFR advisories. Just say what you want and enjoy your flight. The end result is the same.
 
ARFlyer said:
At the end of the day I'm going to ask for FF, enter the squawk and go on my merry way. At the end of this day I'm going to say, "Thanks for the service, I have the field in sight"

Never once have I had a controller jump down my throat for saying FF vs VFR advisories. Just say what you want and enjoy your flight. The end result is the same.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying the argument. I had no idea what it was about.
 
roncachamp said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Sarcasm Steven.

While I've used flight following in its most basic form (VFR position reporting), absolutely nothing wrong with using "flight following" in replace of "traffic advisories" with ATC. Since there's more to basic radar services than just traffic advisories anyway, perhaps flight following is more appropriate. At any rate, no controller is going to care if a pilot uses either phrase. Hasn't a thing to do with professionalism either.
 
Last edited:
ARFlyer said:
At the end of the day I'm going to ask for FF, enter the squawk and go on my merry way. At the end of this day I'm going to say, "Thanks for the service, I have the field in sight"

Never once have I had a controller jump down my throat for saying FF vs VFR advisories. Just say what you want and enjoy your flight. The end result is the same.
Click to expand...

Yep. Just remember that it is not a reliable means to ensure SAR. While you have a good chance to have it activated if you go down while receiving it if everyone does their job, do not think that you are being "followed" if Radar service gets terminated either by you or ATC. It is not a substitute for a VFR flight plan. Call it flight following but don't get your head too wrapped around the word "following"
 
Yeah, I know. :) I just tell my student and treat it like extra insurance. It's nice to have but it doesn't give you everything!
 
Phraseology...

"[Callsign], Cancel [flight following/radar advisories]"

When cancelling IFR there's often an additional back and forth regarding the continuation of VFR radar advisories. To avoid that I use one of the following:

"[Callsign], Cancel IFR, Request frequency change", or
"[Callsign], Cancel IFR, Request radar advisories"
 
ARFlyer said:
At the end of the day I'm going to ask for FF, enter the squawk and go on my merry way. At the end of this day I'm going to say, "Thanks for the service, I have the field in sight"

Never once have I had a controller jump down my throat for saying FF vs VFR advisories. Just say what you want and enjoy your flight. The end result is the same.
Click to expand...

I concur (see it does happen on POA) I just say Archer off XXX airport enroute to Lima Bravo Bravo or Hotel November Delta or Podunk National request FF and ATC says standby, then says squawk 8888 and it's a done deal. No muss no fuss. Most of my flights end at a towered airport which takes care of the final phraseology "taxi to .... to park" or if a non-towered then its Center "destination" airport in sight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top