I Never Ask for Flight Following

azure said:
Oh, obviously someone entered it. I meant, he might wonder who had done the entering.
Click to expand...

Why might he do that? What would it matter who had entered it?

As I recall, he suggested that I was trying to fool ATC into granting services that I might not otherwise receive when VFR.
Click to expand...

Any idea what those services might be?
 
bobmrg said:
"Flight Watch" is exclusively for weather. I don't understand why there would be any confusion.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

I'm the first to admit to being slow to understand things, but what I meant by my post is that when I first encountered the phrases "flight following" and "flight watch" there was nothing inherent in the semantics of the words used in those phrases that distinguished them from each other. The words in the phrases do not leap out and say "use this phrase for calling up weather advisories and this phrase for calling up traffic advisories." In my humble opinion you could swap their meanings and not contradict their minimalist meanings.

Even "Enroute Flight Advisory Service" manages to avoid describing what kind of advisories are involved. (The words "traffic" and "weather" must cost extra.)

I do not have problems distinguishing them - once I realized I'd have to use simple rote memorization of the phrase meanings. It was just one more annoying thing I noted during training.
 
azure said:
Because it's human nature to wonder about things you weren't expecting to see?
Click to expand...

Sure, but the folks working a flight data position expect to see flight data.

It appears you're convinced this is something new. It isn't, ATC facilities have been using computer processed flight data on VFR aircraft for some forty years. The only thing that's relatively new is pilots now have the capability to supply the initial input directly.

Radar advisories when ATC's workload was higher than would normally permit, I believe.
Click to expand...
If the workload doesn't permit them they're not provided, the source of the info doesn't change anything.
 
roncachamp said:
Suspicious of what? Having a better understanding of the system than others?
Click to expand...

True. I'm just a little leery of some do-gooder at FAA deciding that as a VFR only rated pilot, I should never ever click that IFR checkbox, and deciding to make an issue of it, whether I put "VFR" in the cruising altitude or not.

This is a bureaucracy we're talking about here. One that has been known to do things as stupid as pulling Bob Hoover's medical for missing his parking spot by a couple of feet after an engine-out routine he could do with one hand tied behind his back.

Forgive me if I'm not exactly "trusting" that someone at FAA wouldn't use a database cross-reference to search VFR pilots filing with the IFR checkbox and not know that the Operations folk also look in the altitude field for alpha characters that spell "Vee Eff Arrr".

How did John and Martha end up at gunpoint on a ramp? Some idiot with partial knowledge of how the registry database is used in the real world who was trying to find and vanquish the evil drug smugglers.

(Granted, not an FAA employee in that example, but meant to show that databases aren't always being analyzed by the people you think they are, or who are even truly qualified to do so.)
 
denverpilot said:
True. I'm just a little leery of some do-gooder at FAA deciding that as a VFR only rated pilot, I should never ever click that IFR checkbox, and deciding to make an issue of it, whether I put "VFR" in the cruising altitude or not.
Click to expand...

How would he make an issue of it? What could he do? Even if you, as a VFR only rated pilot, were to click that IFR checkbox and enter an actual IFR altitude in the cruising altitude box, so what? There's no law against that.

This is a bureaucracy we're talking about here. One that has been known to do things as stupid as pulling Bob Hoover's medical for missing his parking spot by a couple of feet after an engine-out routine he could do with one hand tied behind his back.

Forgive me if I'm not exactly "trusting" that someone at FAA wouldn't use a database cross-reference to search VFR pilots filing with the IFR checkbox and not know that the Operations folk also look in the altitude field for alpha characters that spell "Vee Eff Arrr".

How did John and Martha end up at gunpoint on a ramp? Some idiot with partial knowledge of how the registry database is used in the real world who was trying to find and vanquish the evil drug smugglers.

(Granted, not an FAA employee in that example, but meant to show that databases aren't always being analyzed by the people you think they are, or who are even truly qualified to do so.)
Click to expand...
Aren't you taking quite a risk posting here? What if some bureaucrat doesn't like something you wrote and decides to take action?
 
roncachamp said:
It appears you're convinced this is something new.
Click to expand...
Not at all, but given that not a lot of pilots know that this is something they can do when filing (or ask FSS to do for them), I suspect there are controllers who go for years without seeing a VFR strip already in the system for an aircraft that just left the departure airport and is calling up for the first time.

If the workload doesn't permit them they're not provided, the source of the info doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...
And that's pretty much what I told the briefer. He was still dubious enough to let me know that he didn't think it was kosher.
 
denverpilot said:
Forgive me if I'm not exactly "trusting" that someone at FAA wouldn't use a database cross-reference to search VFR pilots filing with the IFR checkbox and not know that the Operations folk also look in the altitude field for alpha characters that spell "Vee Eff Arrr".
Click to expand...
I thought flight plans disappeared from the system without a trace after some short (a few hours or days at the most) time?

In any case, there's nothing illegal about filing an IFR flight plan. As far as I know the only thing that would violate any FAR would be to accept an IFR clearance as PIC if you're not instrument rated. (and current, with a valid medical, and in an aircraft equipped to legally navigate the filed route...)
 
Last edited:
azure said:
I thought flight plans disappeared from the system without a trace after some short (a few hours or days at the most) time?
Click to expand...

Database data truly getting deleted in the modern IT world? I doubt it. Maybe removed from operational view and archived, but rarely deleted. Especially in an RDBMS. No way to recover from a hardware failure if there's not continuous transaction logging.

Those logs may or may not be dumped at each snapshot though.

Multiply by however many databases a typical flight plan passes through to get to the controllers screen or be printed as a paper strip. (If paper's even being used anymore.) Example, the printer's out of toner but still tried to print anyway... you know there must be a "reprint" button. Thus, the data is stored.

Where, for how long, and who has access to it is the bane of every sysadmin everywhere these days, with PCI (credit card/financial), HIPAA (medical), and other auditor-driven requirements. (My employer must keep every single e-mail sent or received for the last seven years, starting soon, for example.)

azure said:
In any case, there's nothing illegal about filing an IFR flight plan. As far as I know the only thing that would violate any FAR would be to accept an IFR clearance as PIC if you're not instrument rated. (and current, with a valid medical, and in an aircraft equipped to legally navigate the filed route...)
Click to expand...

Great point, and that's the distinction I completely missed! I guess I'll give this wacky thing a try sometime.

I'm always up for mucking with data systems in ways not intended by their designers. It's how most bugs in software or business procedures are found these days.

Did ya know FireWire ports have direct access to system RAM, for example? Not useful information until you realize that the two most popular OS's on the planet both cache username and password data for "fast logins" and "fast user switching" in... system memory.

Unintended security breach. Plug in FireWire dongle, grab memorbruise a couple tricks to mark the memory location needed, and you don't even have to bypass the password encryption -- because instead of checking a hash (Unix) someone thought it was smart to cache the password in RAM in cleartext.

Oopsies. Hardware system design, fail. A old friend published a paper on it last week. Going to be a lot of FireWire ports disabled on machines in critically secure environments soon, I bet. ;)
 
Jim Logajan said:
Just curious, but what is your own preference as a controller with regard to VFR pilots announcing altitude changes while they are under flight following?
Click to expand...

I will ask those that don't have Mode C to advise of altitude changes. I will ask those that will be flying over but close to the ceiling of Class D airspace to advise before beginning a descent. I don't need to hear from anyone else.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
I will ask those that don't have Mode C to advise of altitude changes. I will ask those that will be flying over but close to the ceiling of Class D airspace to advise before beginning a descent. I don't need to hear from anyone else.
Click to expand...

Do you see much non-Mode C these days?
 
Great thread !

0076932b4b3aa6c79d76278f13e2.jpeg
 
denverpilot said:
Do you see much non-Mode C these days?
Click to expand...


Not "much" because most NORDOs aren't chatting with ATC.

If I'm planning to fly through Class B in the Chief (or a bird with a non-functioning mode C) I call one hour ahead and then establish radio contact before entering.

See CFRs for more...
 
dmccormack said:
If I'm planning to fly through Class B in the Chief (or a bird with a non-functioning mode C) I call one hour ahead and then establish radio contact before entering.
Click to expand...

A bird with just the Mode C non-functional doesn't need to call ahead.
 
roncachamp said:
A bird with just the Mode C non-functional doesn't need to call ahead.
Click to expand...

There's enough ambiguity in the AIM that calling ahead one hour made sense:

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, an operable radar beacon transponder with automatic altitude reporting equipment.
NOTE-
ATC may, upon notification, immediately authorize a deviation from the altitude reporting equipment requirement; however, a request for a deviation from the 4096 transponder equipment requirement must be submitted to the controlling ATC facility at least one hour before the proposed operation.
Click to expand...
 
Arnold said:
Another thread prompted this little rant.

I never ask for flight following I do ask for Traffic Advisories.

These quotes are not exact but are based on an example from another thread. I don't identify the OP because I don't think it is necessary and I don't mean to be picking on anyone, I do however think the issues need attention.

If you were in class Bravo airspace you were not receiving "flight following." You were operating on a clearance assigned by ATC.

And shame on your instructor/ground school for not teaching you proper phraseology.

The phrase "flight following" appears six times in the AIM:

4-1-21(d) Cape Cod and Islands Radar Overwater Flight Following.
5-1-8(c)(4) Which applies to IFR flights and is used in a completely different sense than the concept of VFR "flight following."
5-5-11(b)(4) Which applies to IFR flights conducting visual approaches and is used in a completely different sense than the concept of VFR "flight following."
6-2-7(f)(1)(a) Search and Rescue emergency and overdue aircraft. This is the only place (except for the pilot controller glossary - which I'll get to in a minute) where the FAA seems to acknowledge the use of "flight following" as an analog to "advisories"
10-2-1 Offshore Helicopter Operations
10-2-4 Emergency Medical Service Multiple Helicopter Operations.

The phrase in the Pilot Controller Glossary is undefined but does refer one to the Traffic Advisories entry.

Because the phrase "flight following" is undefined AND refers directly to a clearly defined phrase, I believe the proper phraseology is to use the defined term.

"Philadelphia approach, bugsmasher 234N 2 west of Wings enroute to New Garden at 2,500 feet request traffic advisories"

By the way, the phrase "radar advisories" stated in the OP's pseudo quote is not defined in the Pilot Controller Glossary, but is mentioned once in the AIM with regard to VFR aircraft. That mention is to remind pilots that pilots are responsible for getting clearances into class B,C,D, airspace even while receiving radar advisories.

Because traffic advisories can be given in both a radar environment and in a non-radar environment, the controller's use of the phrase "radar advisories" in the initial quote was proper since it clearly explained that radar would be used to provide the advisory service, rather than non-radar techniques such as position reporting.
Click to expand...

I'd love to hear a couple minutes of your radio usage.
 
BellyUpFish said:
Impossible.
Click to expand...

I've had F/Os complain to check airman that I'm difficult to fly with because I do everything by the book. It is only impossible if you think it is impossible.

Everything in the book is there for a reason and if you're flying the line and improvising (except in an emergency and even then it may be a bad idea) then you are not holding up your end of the employment bargain. Employer allows you to fly their multi-million dollar airplane and pays you, hopefully well, to do so and you agree to fly the way they tell you. It is a very simple bargain.

The list of stupid pilot tricks is endless. Overflying your destination because your head is down and locked in your laptop, talking about your lousy commute during sterile cockpit and not seeing what the airplane is doing, flying an unstable approach and running off the end of the runway killing a kid in a car on the street.

Those are just the ones that make headlines. I can't tell you how many times I've sat in a chief pilots office as a union rep talking a chief pilot down after a line pilot did something so obviously stupid that the company wants him fired.

IMHO if you are professional pilot and you think flying by the book is impossible then you are in the wrong profession, go get a job as a bush pilot, otherwise, strive to stay in the center of the performance envelope, read know and understand your books and accept the fact that you have signed on for a career that is not about you reinventing the wheel but is about you being just another wheel in a well oiled machine.

This whole fallacy that you can't do things by the book is just a crutch for lazy or incompetent airmen. I assure you there are plenty of pilots out there who can and do fly by the book, you just never hear about them.
 
Arnold said:
The list of stupid pilot tricks is endless. Overflying your destination because your head is down and locked in your laptop, talking about your lousy commute during sterile cockpit and not seeing what the airplane is doing, flying an unstable approach and running off the end of the runway killing a kid in a car on the street.

Those are just the ones that make headlines. I can't tell you how many times I've sat in a chief pilots office as a union rep talking a chief pilot down after a line pilot did something so obviously stupid that the company wants him fired.

.
Click to expand...

Now you have me very curious... You mean to tell me a line pilot does something obviously stupid and the airline company wants to fire him/her for that and the union rep meets with the chief pilot to beg not to fire them ?:dunno::dunno::dunno:....... The next time I am stuck in a shiny metal tube I will remember the ones up front flying me might be "less then competent" for that task...... Someone please remind me what the function of a union really is ?:confused::confused::confused:
 
N801BH said:
Now you have me very curious... You mean to tell me a line pilot does something obviously stupid and the airline company wants to fire him/her for that and the union rep meets with the chief pilot to beg not to fire them ?:dunno::dunno::dunno:....... The next time I am stuck in a shiny metal tube I will remember the ones up front flying me might be "less then competent" for that task...... Someone please remind me what the function of a union really is ?:confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...

That is not what I said, but first let's be clear, pilots are people, and they are not all smart, sane and sober. So yes, the person flying your shiny metal tube may be making mistakes, it happens.

I never said "less than competent" you did, so I don't know why you put it in quotes.

The purpose of the union is to represent the interests of its members. Absent unions there would not be:

an eight hour workday,
a forty hour work week,
overtime pay,
paid holidays,
paid vacations,
paid sick leave,

all benefits non union workers take for granted. Oh and that three day weekend you just enjoyed, that was brought to you by labor unions. You don't really think some corporate shill congress person wanted you to have that do you?

Pilots get called to the CP's office for all sorts of reasons, most of them not safety related. The union is there to make sure that the infraction that gets a laugh from the CP when his buddy does it does not result in termination when a pilot he doesn't like does it. Example - 5 min. late for work. No intent and no negligence, left home plenty early, first offense in 5 years of employment, just got caught in a lengthy unexpected traffic jam. When the CP's buddy does it he gets a gentle - hey if you'd been five more minutes later I would have had to put the ready reserve crew on it and take you off the trip, ha ha. The guy who's not the CP's buddy gets formal discipline action, even termination.

Years ago I represented a widebody CA who long before 9/11 refused to depart because of a bag / passenger mismatch. Yes, even before 9/11 international airlines were required to be sure the bags and pax matched. This company said it cost them $250K because the flight was canceled after the crew ran out of duty time and they had to accommodate all the pax overnight and pay for a charter to get them home. This CA kept his job because his union rep pointed out to management that the CA had done nothing wrong and that firing an employee for complying with regulations was not a very smart move. The CP didn't want to fire this guy, but the bean counters at the top wanted him gone. The union representation gave the CP additional cover as well. A good CP who wants to do the right thing will make the union the fall guy if he must. I didn't mind, that is what I was there for.

Much of the "union made us do it" excuses you hear are just managers taking cover. Taking cover from their bosses, from their boards, from their shareholders.

So save your snarky anti union propaganda for the spin zone where it belongs.
 
Arnold said .....
""That is not what I said, but first let's be clear, pilots are people, and they are not all smart, sane and sober. So yes, the person flying your shiny metal tube may be making mistakes, it happens. ""

So the unions will defend pilots who are " not smart, sane and sober ?:dunno::dunno::nonod::nonod::nono::nono:.......

Thanks for the clarification sir.:rolleyes2:
 
Arnold said:
I've had F/Os complain to check airman that I'm difficult to fly with because I do everything by the book. It is only impossible if you think it is impossible.

Everything in the book is there for a reason and if you're flying the line and improvising (except in an emergency and even then it may be a bad idea) then you are not holding up your end of the employment bargain. Employer allows you to fly their multi-million dollar airplane and pays you, hopefully well, to do so and you agree to fly the way they tell you. It is a very simple bargain.

The list of stupid pilot tricks is endless. Overflying your destination because your head is down and locked in your laptop, talking about your lousy commute during sterile cockpit and not seeing what the airplane is doing, flying an unstable approach and running off the end of the runway killing a kid in a car on the street.

Those are just the ones that make headlines. I can't tell you how many times I've sat in a chief pilots office as a union rep talking a chief pilot down after a line pilot did something so obviously stupid that the company wants him fired.

IMHO if you are professional pilot and you think flying by the book is impossible then you are in the wrong profession, go get a job as a bush pilot, otherwise, strive to stay in the center of the performance envelope, read know and understand your books and accept the fact that you have signed on for a career that is not about you reinventing the wheel but is about you being just another wheel in a well oiled machine.

This whole fallacy that you can't do things by the book is just a crutch for lazy or incompetent airmen. I assure you there are plenty of pilots out there who can and do fly by the book, you just never hear about them.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the rant.

I never said it was impossible to attempt to fly by the book.

It's impossible to be 100% by the book 100% of the time.

You, me, nor any other line pilot has done it. We are human.

BTW - ALPA is a joke. Self licking ice cream cone, however, it's definitely one click better than nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top