I Never Ask for Flight Following

If i interpreted the above post correct;

Don't file IFR if you're not rated. Even if you're going to be in VMC the whole way. They'll expect you to cruise at IFR altitudes and have knowledge of holds and airways that you probably do not have.

The closest thing you can do is pick up flight following ASAP.

You might get some extra special bonus points on your chances of getting a bravo clearance if you pick up FF through a less busy controller in another airspace well before you get there, and ask the controller to relay a bravo clearance request to the next controller when he hands you off. The (busier) controller will probably have an easier time working you in if he knows about you in advance, and you don't have to tie up the frequency with "uhhh.. direct to kxyz.. can we fly through your airspace?"
 
roncachamp said:
What's "advisory control"?
Click to expand...
The opposite of 'positive control'.....such as what you have when IFR or flying through class B or C airspace.

FWIW, it is military terminology, but the concept is essentially the same. We don't use the terms advisory, or positive control over the radio, but the difference between the two is understood.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The opposite of 'positive control'.....such as what you have when IFR or flying through class B or C airspace.
Click to expand...

"Positive Control" is the separation of all air traffic by ATC within designated airspace. That's provided in Class A and Class B airspace, but not in Class C, D, or E airspace, even for IFR aircraft. Logically, the opposite of "Positive Control" would be "Negative Control", no separation at all.
 
Fearless Tower said:
What if you are on FF and enter class C? You are not necessarily going to be just getting advisories.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're going to receive Class C services, which is more than just FF, and you're going to get them before you actually enter Class C airspace.

You also get more than FF if you enter a TRSA.
 
roncachamp said:
"Positive Control" is the separation of all air traffic by ATC within designated airspace. That's provided in Class A and Class B airspace, but not in Class C, D, or E airspace, even for IFR aircraft. Logically, the opposite of "Positive Control" would be "Negative Control", no separation at all.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not disagreeing with the FAA view, but that is not how we view it.....positive control means we can tell an aircraft to do something and they are expected to do it. In class C, a controller can direct an aircraft on FF to fly specified headings or altitudes and the aircraft is expected to comply, is it not?
 
roncachamp said:
Nope, you're going to receive Class C services, which is more than just FF, and you're going to get them before you actually enter Class C airspace.
Click to expand...
But you aren't requesting anything other than the original request for FF that you made outside the Class C.....when you enter the Class C, you start getting Class C servivces and they stop when you exit, and you then go back to FF.....but nothing is specifically said.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Well, I'm not disagreeing with the FAA view, but that is not how we view it.....positive control means we can tell an aircraft to do something and they are expected to do it. In class C, a controller can direct an aircraft on FF to fly specified headings or altitudes and the aircraft is expected to comply, is it not?
Click to expand...

Who are "we"? If you're going to use a different definition for standard terminology don't you think you should add an asterisk (Positive Control*) and that definition?
 
roncachamp said:
Who are "we"? If you're going to use a different definition for standard terminology don't you think you should add an asterisk (Positive Control*) and that definition?
Click to expand...

If you go back and read my ALL of my posts in this thread, this part of the discussion began when I mentioned that in the military (Navy in particular), we use the term 'FF' not 'traffic advisories'.
 
Fearless Tower said:
But you aren't requesting anything other than the original request for FF that you made outside the Class C.....when you enter the Class C, you start getting Class C servivces and they stop when you exit, and you then go back to FF.....but nothing is specifically said.
Click to expand...

Nope, controllers are required to "Apply Class C service procedures within the designated Class C airspace and the associated outer area." When you enter the associated outer area you start getting Class C services and they stop when you exit the associated outer area, and you then go back to FF. See JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control, chapter 7, section 8.
 
Fearless Tower said:
If you go back and read my ALL of my posts in this thread, this part of the discussion began when I mentioned that in the military (Navy in particular), we use the term 'FF' not 'traffic advisories'.
Click to expand...

FAA controllers and pilots use those terms interchangeably, but that has nothing to do with Positive Control.
 
roncachamp said:
Nope, controllers are required to "Apply Class C service procedures within the designated Class C airspace and the associated outer area." When you enter the associated outer area you start getting Class C services and they stop when you exit the associated outer area, and you then go back to FF. See JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control, chapter 7, section 8.
Click to expand...
That is correct....but nothing is specifically spoken by the controller to differentiate. There is no announcement by the controller that 'you are now entering Class C and are no longer on FF'. It is simply understood.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is correct....but nothing is specifically spoken by the controller to differentiate. There is no announcement by the controller that 'you are now entering Class C and are no longer on FF'. It is simply understood.
Click to expand...

Correct. Well, it should be understood...
 
dell30rb said:
You might get some extra special bonus points on your chances of getting a bravo clearance if you pick up FF through a less busy controller in another airspace well before you get there, and ask the controller to relay a bravo clearance request to the next controller when he hands you off. The (busier) controller will probably have an easier time working you in if he knows about you in advance, and you don't have to tie up the frequency with "uhhh.. direct to kxyz.. can we fly through your airspace?"
Click to expand...

Very true. When flying into Houston's Class Bravo, it is much easier to gain entry if you are already on FF starting with Corpus Christi (for example) Approach.
 
roncachamp said:
Nope, you're going to receive Class C services, which is more than just FF, and you're going to get them before you actually enter Class C airspace.

You also get more than FF if you enter a TRSA.
Click to expand...

This subtle-yet-critical change in service was a source of great trepidation, back when I was a new pilot who rarely ventured into controlled airspace. It's not like there are any bells or whistles announcing "Your ATC Service Just Changed from Advisory to Control!". You just have to *know* that -- when you cross that invisible line, while using FF -- you just went from supervisor to employee.

I think this is at least partially explains the fear some have with entering controlled airspace. It also somewhat explains the confusion over when and where we should FOLLOW the controller, ADVISE the controller of our intentions -- or whether we have to say anything at all.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is correct....but nothing is specifically spoken by the controller to differentiate. There is no announcement by the controller that 'you are now entering Class C and are no longer on FF'. It is simply understood.
Click to expand...

Well, for the Class C itself, that's correct. But you also get Class C services in the Outer Area, which is not depicted on charts...so, it's not quite as well understood.
 
Jay Honeck said:
This subtle-yet-critical change in service was a source of great trepidation, back when I was a new pilot who rarely ventured into controlled airspace. It's not like there are any bells or whistles announcing "Your ATC Service Just Changed from Advisory to Control!". You just have to *know* that -- when you cross that invisible line, while using FF -- you just went from supervisor to employee.

I think this is at least partially explains the fear some have with entering controlled airspace. It also somewhat explains the confusion over when and where we should FOLLOW the controller, ADVISE the controller of our intentions -- or whether we have to say anything at all.
Click to expand...

These issues are covered pretty well in the AIM, there's no reason for anyone to be confused about them.
 
roncachamp said:
Flight following is just advisories of traffic, no ATC instructions to follow.
Click to expand...

I know it's not technically caused by FF, but I've started out just wanting FF under the Bravo shelf outside of the Bravo, and then immediately been given the clearance to climb out through the outer rings un-requested.

Or maybe a "what's your final planned cruising altitude today?" followed by a clearance and an assigned climb-to altitude along with "Cleared to enter Class Bravo, climb-and-maintain..."

If I hadn't been using FF, I would not have gotten the Bravo clearance and just toodled on out from under the shelf and then climbed later on my own.

So... one can say that FF can, and often does (here anyway), lead to a clearance, especially around Bravo airspace when working with a TRACON.

They might just "suck you up into" their working picture, instead of leaving you uncontrolled down below it. Easier perhaps for some controllers than letting you wander around under the shelf?

You could refuse, of course... but if you're going to climb anyway... might as well.
 
dell30rb said:
If i interpreted the above post correct;

Don't file IFR if you're not rated. Even if you're going to be in VMC the whole way. They'll expect you to cruise at IFR altitudes and have knowledge of holds and airways that you probably do not have.

The closest thing you can do is pick up flight following ASAP.

You might get some extra special bonus points on your chances of getting a bravo clearance if you pick up FF through a less busy controller in another airspace well before you get there, and ask the controller to relay a bravo clearance request to the next controller when he hands you off. The (busier) controller will probably have an easier time working you in if he knows about you in advance, and you don't have to tie up the frequency with "uhhh.. direct to kxyz.. can we fly through your airspace?"
Click to expand...

Indeed, it was my understanding that you needed to be IFR rated to file an IFR flight plan. But the post I quoted above seemed to indicate that a VFR only pilot could file an IFR flight plan with "VFR" in the cruising altitude box and the result would be a flight plan in the system but recognized as VFR, not IFR, that would make it easier to get flight following with handoffs. So I was hoping for clarification from anyone who has heard of this technique because it sounds a bit sketchy as far as the regs are concerned.
 
spinfire said:
Indeed, it was my understanding that you needed to be IFR rated to file an IFR flight plan. But the post I quoted above seemed to indicate that a VFR only pilot could file an IFR flight plan with "VFR" in the cruising altitude box and the result would be a flight plan in the system but recognized as VFR, not IFR, that would make it easier to get flight following with handoffs. So I was hoping for clarification from anyone who has heard of this technique because it sounds a bit sketchy as far as the regs are concerned.
Click to expand...

A VFR pilot can do that, doing so violates no regulation. But understand that the result is not a VFR flight plan on file with FSS. The result is flight data sent to the ATC facility responsible for the point of origin. If you also want a normal VFR flight plan on file with FSS that will require another input.
 
roncachamp said:
A VFR pilot can do that, doing so violates no regulation. But understand that the result is not a VFR flight plan on file with FSS. The result is flight data sent to the ATC facility responsible for the point of origin. If you also want a normal VFR flight plan on file with FSS that will require another input.
Click to expand...

Really. I haven't heard anything about this before. Can you elaborate? Do you have to pick up a clearance before departing the airport? So you will be technically in the Ifr system, but with no expectation of adhering to minimum altitudes and holding etc??
 
dell30rb said:
Really. I haven't heard anything about this before. Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

Using DUATS or some other online flight plan filing service, select "IFR" as the type of flight plan and "VFR" as the requested altitude, and the other items as appropriate. That's all there is to it.

Do you have to pick up a clearance before departing the airport?
Click to expand...
Possibly. If you're departing a towered airport you'd need a takeoff clearance.

So you will be technically in the Ifr system, but with no expectation of adhering to minimum altitudes and holding etc??
Click to expand...
No, to be in the IFR system you need to be operating under the Instrument Flight Rules. ATC has been passing flight data on VFR aircraft this way for some forty years or so. With the advent of online flight plan filing pilots can now enter the data themselves. A controller receiving the output wouldn't know if a pilot or controller had entered it.
 
Last edited:
Why do I have a feeling if we all started doing that, it would be a quickly-plugged loophole?

Wouldn't a departing home base airport start to find it suspicious that only one VFR aircraft, same tail number every time, kept printing out such a flight strip before every departure whereas no other VFR aircraft do?
 
denverpilot said:
Why do I have a feeling if we all started doing that, it would be a quickly-plugged loophole?
Click to expand...

You're the only one that can answer that.

Wouldn't a departing home base airport start to find it suspicious that only one VFR aircraft, same tail number every time, kept printing out such a flight strip before every departure whereas no other VFR aircraft do?
Click to expand...
Suspicious of what? Having a better understanding of the system than others?
 
denverpilot said:
Why do I have a feeling if we all started doing that, it would be a quickly-plugged loophole?

Wouldn't a departing home base airport start to find it suspicious that only one VFR aircraft, same tail number every time, kept printing out such a flight strip before every departure whereas no other VFR aircraft do?
Click to expand...

All it really does is lessen the initial controller's workload. Instead of having to enter the destination, type of plane, etc. into a strip, you provide that information to them ahead of time, so when you call up, it's there for the controller to access and work with.
 
"Flight following" and "flight watch" are two terms that, to me, could be used to describe the same thing, so found their co-existence annoying when I first learned of their meanings.
 
dmccormack said:
Beware the nitpick.

I've never heard someone corrected in Bravo or other controlled airspace for requesting "flight following."

Ever. :no:
Click to expand...



You will do what you will do. I still find it appalling that a pilot can get their license without knowing what advisories are.
 
Arnold said:
You will do what you will do. I still find it appalling that a pilot can get their license without knowing what advisories are.
Click to expand...

Good thing then. You can't get your license.

You can, however, receive a certificate.
 
JeffDG said:
:yeahthat:

Phraseology isn't about saying exactly the same words, it's about conveying messages back and forth. Almost everyone understands "Flight Following", so asking for it sends a message that is readily received by ATC...well, except around Chicago...
Click to expand...

I don't really mind if people use the phrase 'flight following' and since the pilot controller glossary can be interpreted to endorse the phrase I am not suggesting that everyone change what they are saying, but I think you've got the horse before the cart on phraseology. Yes it is important that everyone understand what the word's convey but the way to achieve that is to use standardized phraseology and not using that phraseology is not acceptable.
 
Arnold said:
You will do what you will do. I still find it appalling that a pilot can get their license without knowing what advisories are.
Click to expand...

In a nitpick thread with a false premise (sorry, not trying to be rude, just calling it as I see it), you shouldn't refer to a pilot certificate as a license. :)
 
Arnold said:
Appropriately snarky - touche.
Click to expand...


Taken in good spirit!

Ahh, but life is not about the correct answer, but about the argument, correct councellor?

:wink2:
 
Jim Logajan said:
"Flight following" and "flight watch" are two terms that, to me, could be used to describe the same thing, so found their co-existence annoying when I first learned of their meanings.
Click to expand...

"Flight Watch" is exclusively for weather. I don't understand why there would be any confusion.

Bob Gardner
 
bobmrg said:
"Flight Watch" is exclusively for weather. I don't understand why there would be any confusion.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

Tough sentence to parse. I think he is saying that if he didn't know better he would think they were the same.
 
roncachamp said:
ATC has been passing flight data on VFR aircraft this way for some forty years or so. With the advent of online flight plan filing pilots can now enter the data themselves. A controller receiving the output wouldn't know if a pilot or controller had entered it.
Click to expand...
However, mightn't a controller finding this strip in the system during a pilot's initial callup wonder how the heck it got there?

I've used this filing technique several times now and while most of the time everyone seems to be on the same page, occasionally a controller has expressed surprise or confusion. As in, read me an IFR clearance which I then had to decline, or stammered and asked me if I was sure I didn't want a clearance. I hesitate now to file that way unless I'll be departing from a Class C field where I can clear up any misunderstandings with CD while still on the ground. It's just not worth the unnecessary distraction of having to explain myself while airborne.

I also once had a Lockmart briefer all but refuse to file that way for me, though eventually he went along after getting on tape that he wasn't convinced that it was legal and that the risk would be mine alone.
 
azure said:
However, mightn't a controller finding this strip in the system during a pilot's initial callup wonder how the heck it got there?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I'm pretty sure he'd understand somebody entered it in the system.

I've used this filing technique several times now and while most of the time everyone seems to be on the same page, occasionally a controller has expressed surprise or confusion. As in, read me an IFR clearance which I then had to decline, or stammered and asked me if I was sure I didn't want a clearance.
Click to expand...
When they read you the IFR clearance what did they issue for altitude?

I also once had a Lockmart briefer all but refuse to file that way for me, though eventually he went along after getting on tape that he wasn't convinced that it was legal and that the risk would be mine alone.
Click to expand...
Did he provide any insight into what law might be violated? Did he identify the potential hazard?
 
roncachamp said:
I doubt it. I'm pretty sure he'd understand somebody entered it in the system.
Click to expand...
Oh, obviously someone entered it. I meant, he might wonder who had done the entering.
When they read you the IFR clearance what did they issue for altitude?
Click to expand...
I don't recall. It was over a year ago, and since I had no intention of accepting the clearance, I wasn't paying too much attention to the details. I do recall that it was FNT Approach, I was departing 3DA and had filed VFR/30, FWIW.
Did he provide any insight into what law might be violated? Did he identify the potential hazard?
Click to expand...
As I recall, he suggested that I was trying to fool ATC into granting services that I might not otherwise receive when VFR. I think he wanted it on tape that he was only taking down a flight plan dictated by a pilot, and wasn't complicit in anything questionable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top