FF services for /X aircraft?

N659HB

N659HB

En-Route
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
2,511
Location
Lather, rinse repeat!
Display Name
Display name:
Pops
Can one request flight following in an aircraft with a radio, but no transponder?

I know it's possible to enter controlled airspace if the details are worked out ahead of time. Just curious if FF services are available as well.
 
I believe it's possible. You will have to be making position reports.
 
I received flight following from Charlotte in a champ.

I didn't have to make any position reports, they had me on radar
 
Depends on controller workload even more than with a transponder. Expect to be given turns for radar identification ("Aeronca 123, turn left 30 degrees for radar identification" "Aeronca 123, radar contact, resume own navigation"), and to be dropped more swiftly if the next sector is busy.
 
MachFly said:
I believe it's possible. You will have to be making position reports.
Click to expand...

Possible but ATC tends not to give FF if they don't have anything (skin paint or x-pndr) on RADAR. Most of my experience is with Denver Center so maybe other folks have other outcomes. In the hills we get into both RADAR and radio coverage problems and ATC generally drops us if they don't expect to re-acquire in a short time period.
 
N659HB said:
Can one request flight following in an aircraft with a radio, but no transponder?
Click to expand...

You can request anything. To provide flight following to non-transponder aircraft requires an adequate primary radar target. Airport Surveillance Radar tends to provide pretty good primary targets. Air Route Surveillance Radar generally does not, and some of these sites are just beacon interrogators, no primary radar at all.

I know it's possible to enter controlled airspace if the details are worked out ahead of time. Just curious if FF services are available as well.
Click to expand...

By "controlled airspace" you mean airspace that requires transponders. Yes, you can obtain a waiver of the transponder requirement but that doesn't guarantee entry. Waiving the transponder does not waive any requirements placed on ATC. For example, Class C airspace requires separation between IFR and VFR aircraft and sequencing of all aircraft to the primary airport. If your primary return and activity level at the time you call the controller are such that those services can be provided then you should be good to go. If they're not you'll likely be told to remain outside Class C airspace.
 
roncachamp said:
You can request anything. To provide flight following to non-transponder aircraft requires an adequate primary radar target. Airport Surveillance Radar tends to provide pretty good primary targets. Air Route Surveillance Radar generally does not, and some of these sites are just beacon interrogators, no primary radar at all.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, is it harder to spot an aircraft on your radar that has a wooden prop, rather than a metal one?
 
MachFly said:
Just out of curiosity, is it harder to spot an aircraft on your radar that has a wooden prop, rather than a metal one?
Click to expand...

If it has a wooden prop, it's likely fabric covered, which I would expect to be the bigger issue with radar.
 
MachFly said:
Then why do you have mandatory reporting points on IFR charts in areas that are not covered by radar?
Click to expand...

They're needed in order to provide separation between aircraft operating under IFR.
 
MachFly said:
Then why do you have mandatory reporting points on IFR charts in areas that are not covered by radar?
Click to expand...

Because those areas aren't covered by radar. FF with a primary target isn't non radar therefore position reports aren't necessary. Initial ID could be a position report but also could be a turn (over 30 degrees) like Ron said.

Also, personally never seen any real difference in a wooden prop, fabric covered, composite aircraft, compared to metal. Generally the aircraft's size is the biggest factor in target strength especially on a PAR. A C-5 or a flight shows up as a large target, a single C-150, not so much. Also depends on type radar. I used old ASR-8 I imagine an ASR-11 has a better target distinction.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
They're needed in order to provide separation between aircraft operating under IFR.
Click to expand...

Velocity173 said:
Because those areas aren't covered by radar. FF with a primary target isn't non radar therefore position reports aren't necessary. Initial ID could be a position report but also could be a turn (over 30 degrees) like Ron said.
Click to expand...

I think you guys misunderstood what I was trying to say. Since position reporting is clearly used to separate traffic, example being mandatory reporting points for IFR traffic, then you can technically get FF without a transponder or a primary target. The question is whether or not the controller will want to go through the trouble.
 
Velocity173 said:
Also, personally never seen any real difference in a wooden prop, fabric covered, composite aircraft, compared to metal. Generally the aircraft's size is the biggest factor in target strength especially on a PAR. A C-5 or a flight shows up as a large target, a single C-150, not so much. Also depends on type radar. I used old ASR-8 I imagine an ASR-11 has a better target distinction.
Click to expand...

You mean you couldn't see the 150 on radar at all or it was a significantly smaller dot than a C-5?

What about prop vs jet (given the aircraft are of the same size)?
 
MachFly said:
You mean you couldn't see the 150 on radar at all or it was a significantly smaller dot than a C-5?

What about prop vs jet (given the aircraft are of the same size)?
Click to expand...

You can see a C-150 it's just smaller. Like I said though, it depends on the radar type. I used a few different types of radar but mostly the old ASR-8. Primary target size would vary on the ASR-8 slightly depending on aircraft. On a PAR even a small aircraft like a C-150 will show up pretty large though. I've seen a weather balloon on it once. For large aircraft you back the gain off a bit to get the smallest workable target possible. For fighters in formation occasionally it's hard to do that.

I also used a portable digital type radar call Marine Air Traffic Control Approach Landing System (MATCALS). That simply took all targets and digitized them into one size. You could actually adjust the size of all your targets depending on controller preference.

Maybe Steven can give input on the ASR-11. I'm not sure if the primary targets all look the same or not on that particular radar.
 
MachFly said:
I think you guys misunderstood what I was trying to say. Since position reporting is clearly used to separate traffic, example being mandatory reporting points for IFR traffic, then you can technically get FF without a transponder or a primary target. The question is whether or not the controller will want to go through the trouble.
Click to expand...

I think it's you that does not understand. Remember, flight following = radar traffic advisories. The controller issues advisories of observed radar targets that are in proximity to the aircraft receiving flight following. In areas that are not covered by radar there are no radar targets to observe.
 
MachFly said:
I think you guys misunderstood what I was trying to say. Since position reporting is clearly used to separate traffic, example being mandatory reporting points for IFR traffic, then you can technically get FF without a transponder or a primary target. The question is whether or not the controller will want to go through the trouble.
Click to expand...

Because IFR =/= flight following.
 
Velocity173 said:
You can see a C-150 it's just smaller. Like I said though, it depends on the radar type. I used a few different types of radar but mostly the old ASR-8. Primary target size would vary on the ASR-8 slightly depending on aircraft. On a PAR even a small aircraft like a C-150 will show up pretty large though. I've seen a weather balloon on it once. For large aircraft you back the gain off a bit to get the smallest workable target possible. For fighters in formation occasionally it's hard to do that.

I also used a portable digital type radar call Marine Air Traffic Control Approach Landing System (MATCALS). That simply took all targets and digitized them into one size. You could actually adjust the size of all your targets depending on controller preference.

Maybe Steven can give input on the ASR-11. I'm not sure if the primary targets all look the same or not on that particular radar.
Click to expand...

Got it.
 
roncachamp said:
I think it's you that does not understand. Remember, flight following = radar traffic advisories. The controller issues advisories of observed radar targets that are in proximity to the aircraft receiving flight following. In areas that are not covered by radar there are no radar targets to observe.
Click to expand...

Remember how the system worked in the 50th. You'd have the aircraft reporting their position to a guy on the ground who would plot that on a map. Then the actual controller would give advisories based on what the guy plotted on the map.

You can do the same today but because most people will be visible on radar and have a transponder you don't need the middle man.

Picture this scenario. You as the controller, are giving VFR FF to an aircraft who has a primary target and a transponder. Then another aircraft calls you on frequency and reports his position within 1nm of he first aircraft. Even if you don't have a primary target for the 2nd aircraft you will still do something to avoid a mid-air.

So for flight following you need two things, ability to talk to the aircraft and know their location. It doesn't matter how you know their location, radar makes things easier but it doesn't have to be a radar. If you know their location you can give them advisories.

Now I realize that you wouldn't want to give someone FF without a primary target, but that's a different story.


Skylane81E said:
Because IFR =/= flight following.
Click to expand...

When it comes to collision avoidance it's the same concept.
 
roncachamp said:
By "controlled airspace" you mean airspace that requires transponders. Yes, you can obtain a waiver of the transponder requirement but that doesn't guarantee entry. Waiving the transponder does not waive any requirements placed on ATC. For example, Class C airspace requires separation between IFR and VFR aircraft and sequencing of all aircraft to the primary airport. If your primary return and activity level at the time you call the controller are such that those services can be provided then you should be good to go. If they're not you'll likely be told to remain outside Class C airspace.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was thinking of Class C airspace.
 
MachFly said:
Remember how the system worked in the 50th. You'd have the aircraft reporting their position to a guy on the ground who would plot that on a map. Then the actual controller would give advisories based on what the guy plotted on the map.
Click to expand...

That's not how it worked in the fifties. Back then you'd report your position to a guy on the ground who would relay that info to an air traffic controller. The controller would update his flight progress strips and if needed for separation relay control instructions through the guy on the ground to the aircraft.

You can do the same today but because most people will be visible on radar and have a transponder you don't need the middle man.
Click to expand...

We generally do not need the middle man today because now direct pilot/controller communications is the norm. Radar and transponders have nothing to do with that.

Picture this scenario. You as the controller, are giving VFR FF to an aircraft who has a primary target and a transponder. Then another aircraft calls you on frequency and reports his position within 1nm of he first aircraft. Even if you don't have a primary target for the 2nd aircraft you will still do something to avoid a mid-air.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'd ask the pilot receiving FF if he copied the aircraft that just called.

So for flight following you need two things, ability to talk to the aircraft and know their location. It doesn't matter how you know their location, radar makes things easier but it doesn't have to be a radar. If you know their location you can give them advisories.
Click to expand...

Flight following requires direct pilot/controller communications and surveillance in real time. Today that surveillance is provided by radar.

Now I realize that you wouldn't want to give someone FF without a primary target, but that's a different story.
Click to expand...

Actually, flight following is often provided without a primary target.
 
I think most of us assumed the OP's request for FF was actually a request for Basic Radar Services and not old school FF. In either situation, no, you don't need a transponder. Just need a traffic condition that allows it and a controller who has time for it.
 
Velocity173 said:
I think most of us assumed the OP's request for FF was actually a request for Basic Radar Services and not old school FF. In either situation, no, you don't need a transponder. Just need a traffic condition that allows it and a controller who has time for it.
Click to expand...

What's old school FF?
 
roncachamp said:
What's old school FF?
Click to expand...

The discription given of what they did in the 50s. Making position reports and a facility tracking the aircraft based only on those reports.
 
Velocity173 said:
The discription given of what they did in the 50s. Making position reports and a facility tracking the aircraft based only on those reports.
Click to expand...

That's still done in areas without radar coverage but it's not called flight following.
 
MachFly said:
Interesting, would you happen to know what it's called?
Click to expand...

Instrument Flight Rules

Flight Following requires radar coverage, because if you aren't on radar, there's nothing for them to...wait for it....follow.

No radar = no flight following. FF is a VFR operation.
No radar with reporting points = IFR in non-radar area.
 
EdFred said:
Instrument Flight Rules

Flight Following requires radar coverage, because if you aren't on radar, there's nothing for them to...wait for it....follow.

No radar = no flight following. FF is a VFR operation.
No radar with reporting points = IFR in non-radar area.
Click to expand...

:mad2:

Just for the sake of arguing they an follow your position reports and let you know if someone else is reporting in your area.
 
roncachamp said:
That's still done in areas without radar coverage but it's not called flight following.
Click to expand...

Well anytime I'm operating VFR and making position reports with ATC for the sake of tracking the flight, we called it flight following.
 
roncachamp said:
Where do you do this?
Click to expand...

SVN & OZR. We had an SOP requirement to flight follow with ATC and report every 30 mins. At SVN tower would keep a strip in us and we would do test flights/training in the local area. We would also flight follow with Hub Radio at OZR and report arrival/dept at each LZ. Also anytime we flew on the range they can't pick us up on radar flying nap of the earth so they have repeater sites so we could flight follow over the radio.
 
Velocity173 said:
SVN & OZR. We had an SOP requirement to flight follow with ATC and report every 30 mins. At SVN tower would keep a strip in us and we would do test flights/training in the local area. We would also flight follow with Hub Radio at OZR and report arrival/dept at each LZ. Also anytime we flew on the range they can't pick us up on radar flying nap of the earth so they have repeater sites so we could flight follow over the radio.
Click to expand...

What was the purpose of this "flight following"? Why was it called that?
 
roncachamp said:
What was the purpose of this "flight following"? Why was it called that?
Click to expand...

SAR. If I was to take an aircraft out to a restricted area and plow into the ground in the middle of nowhere, the range controllers will be looking for us 30 mins after last communication. Same with tower when we would utilize flight following outside the Class D on test hops. Without those controls in place in the SOP, no one would come looking until 30 mins after our ETA on our DD175 at the base. That could be hours.

We used a similar process in theater for CSAR.

Why they called it that? I suppose the operation of ATC following the progress of our flight is the closest thing to the definition of flight following.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
SAR. If I was to take an aircraft out to a restricted area and plow into the ground in the middle of nowhere, the range controllers will be looking for us 30 mins after last communication. Same with tower when we would utilize flight following outside the Class D on test hops. Without those controls in place in the SOP, no one would come looking until 30 mins after our ETA on our DD175 at the base. That could be hours.
Click to expand...

Why was it called flight following?
 
roncachamp said:
Why was it called flight following?
Click to expand...

Probably because they were following the progress of our flight and would issue traffic advisories based on our position reports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top