I Never Ask for Flight Following

Arnold

Arnold

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,480
Location
Philadelphia Area
Display Name
Display name:
Arnold
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.

Once during my private training I used flight following to transition Bravo,
Click to expand...
If you were in class Bravo airspace you were not receiving "flight following." You were operating on a clearance assigned by ATC.

Departing ABC shortly after I got my Private, I called Ground and requested taxi for departure. Ground asked if I wanted radar advisories and I said yes. At the time, I didn't know that meant I wanted flight following
Click to expand...
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.

Traffic Advisories -Advisories issued to alert pilots to other known or observed air traffic which may be in such proximity to the position or intended route of flight of their aircraft to warrant their attention.
Click to expand...
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.
 
On the other hand, from the Aviation Instructor's Handbook:

Instructors can help new students feel comfortable with ATC by encouraging them to take advantage of services, such as flight following and Flight Watch.
Click to expand...

So Flight Following is a commonly accepted term for Traffic Advisories, and because it's in the P/C Glossary, it's perfectly acceptable to use it instead of Traffic Advisories when talking to ATC...

Instructors should cover what Flight Following is and make sure the student understands that Flight Following=Traffic Advisories.
 
I don't understand what the issue is... if both sides of the conversation understand each other (and they sure do, I use "advisories" and "following" interchangeably, as did both my instructors during training), what is the problem?

Is this something like getting upset that some people use "aks" instead of "ask"? or am I missing something significant? does anyone ever mistake a request for "flight following" for anything other than what it is, a request for advisories?
 
And this needed a rant?

FWIW, in the military ATC world it is indeed Flight Following....not 'traffic advisories'
 
I usually ask for traffic advisories when I'm going over class D or better airspace, but would rather go at it alone on the CTAF for the sparsely populated areas that im over for 99% of my flights here in MT. I ask for flight following on the ground or shortly after departure when I want to be squawking from take off to landing. Probably wrong phraseology but nobody has ever corrected me or complained. Plus, it's fun just to say "With You" after each hand off. :)
 
I've heard it said either way from various ATC folks. Has seemed interchangeable in my experience.
 
. Plus, it's fun just to say "With You" after each hand off. :)[/QUOTE]


You're BAD. :rofl::rofl:
 
I think I'll go do something vile like xerox a kleenex or drink an RC coke :devil:
 
Funny enough, Just this past Sunday, leaving EYW and about 15 mins out I hear a Navy aircraft call for.. *drumroll* VFR Flight Following, actually the controller said something along the lines of he wouldn't be able to provide FF due to radar coverage but the point was, even our esteemed armed bretheren seem to use the term without losing a feather.. figure.
 
VTC_WS6 said:
Funny enough, Just this past Sunday, leaving EYW and about 15 mins out I hear a Navy aircraft call for.. *drumroll* VFR Flight Following, actually the controller said something along the lines of he wouldn't be able to provide FF due to radar coverage but the point was, even our esteemed armed bretheren seem to use the term without losing a feather.. figure.
Click to expand...
That is what I was just saying.......Flight Following is considered 'advisory control' (as opposed to positive control)...but we don't ask for advisories, we ask for FF.
 
I've used both (being an annoying phraseology stickler). Controllers don't seem to care.

"Flight Following" takes less airtime than "VFR Traffic Advisories" and sounds less douchy. ;)

Maybe I'll go back to the "Advisories" for a while and see if the Controllers care again.
 
onwards said:
I don't understand what the issue is... if both sides of the conversation understand each other (and they sure do, I use "advisories" and "following" interchangeably, as did both my instructors during training), what is the problem?
Click to expand...

: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...
 
Arnold said:
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"...
Click to expand...

I think it's a mistake to assume that a P/CG entry that defines a term by cross-referencing it to another term means that the term is undefined. It just means that the two terms are synonymous. Dictionaries occasionally define words by referring to synonyms, but I don't think there are any words in the dictionary that are considered undefined by the editors of the dictionary.
 
I've used "flight following" and "radar advisories" when asking for the service from SEA approach and center and gotten the same service either way. They don't care.
 
I think next time, I'll just ask that they "...use that purty box to keep me from bumpin' into any other airplanes..."; how's that?
 
Now that we have the unprofessional sounding "line up and wait" phrase, I especially feel the need to use the phrase "VFR advisories" instead of the less nebulous-sounding phrase "flight following" to counter the perceived loss of obscurity in radio communications.

This is especially nice in connection with filing a IFR flight plan for a VFR flight as a VFR pilot (ie., the VFR/xx thing in the altitude block). Then you AUTOMATICALLY get "radar advisories". Or maybe flight following. Not sure :D
 
Last edited:
It's funny that someone is so concerned about using the exact phraseology, when "Flight Following" itself (or "traffic advisories", if you prefer) is such a fuzzy thing, in ATC land.

ATC is keeping an eye out for us...but not really. They are taking responsibility for keeping us clear of other traffic...but not officially. They are handing us off to the next controller...most of the time. Sometimes they just...forget.

It's a fuzzy place, sometimes, to be on FF. Protected...but not really.

Another example: When we are humming along in the middle of no where, we nevertheless always advise ATC when we are changing altitude whilst using Flight Following.

Half the time, ATC answers with "descent approved" (I really wasn't asking for permission, but okay), and the other half of the time they answer with a somewhat exasperated-sounding "Um, okay" -- as if to say "Why are you bothering me with this?"

Nevertheless, we use FF most of the time, if for no other reason than to get our money's worth out of these $77/hour dispatchers. I also like to think that if we suddenly disappeared from their radar screen, they *might* actually take notice and put a little grease pencil mark where we last appeared -- but we don't ever count on anything working as expected or planned when utilizing FF.
 
Jay Honeck said:
It's funny that someone is so concerned about using the exact phraseology, when "Flight Following" itself (or "traffic advisories", if you prefer) is such a fuzzy thing, in ATC land.

ATC is keeping an eye out for us...but not really. They are taking responsibility for keeping us clear of other traffic...but not officially. They are handing us off to the next controller...most of the time. Sometimes they just...forget.

It's a fuzzy place, sometimes, to be on FF. Protected...but not really.

Another example: When we are humming along in the middle of no where, we nevertheless always advise ATC when we are changing altitude whilst using Flight Following.

Half the time, ATC answers with "descent approved" (I really wasn't asking for permission, but okay), and the other half of the time they answer with a somewhat exasperated-sounding "Um, okay" -- as if to say "Why are you bothering me with this?"

Nevertheless, we use FF most of the time, if for no other reason than to get our money's worth out of these $77/hour dispatchers. I also like to think that if we suddenly disappeared from their radar screen, they *might* actually take notice and put a little grease pencil mark where we last appeared -- but we don't ever count on anything working as expected or planned when utilizing FF.
Click to expand...

What an excellent post... my second instructor, who had over 12,000+ hours commercial as ATP before deciding to go back to flying (and teaching on) small planes, and ended up as the chief pilot at my FBO, kinda had a similar attitude to impart. I found it fascinating then, and still do now.

The main reason I like to "ask" for ALT changes is basically to remind them I'm there. I have changed altitude in my longer (100nm+) trips for this reason alone. My very limited experience tracks with yours - about half the time they are between irritated and mildly surprised when I do it. But then you have the opposite; the one time I decided to just terminate services entirely and fly "on my own" for 50 miles in the middle-of-nowhere-Echo I got a VERY surprised "are you sure?!" back.

And FF or not... I *always* scan. Maybe as I gain more hours I'll stop because it will all be old hat? dunno... right now, the C17 surprisingly rising right up in front of me during my trip back from my solo XC in training, accompanied by a "TAIL, Travis Approach, advise changing heading" still looms pretty, ah, large.
 
Haha, I think I'm the one whose quotes are being referred to.

My Private ground school consisted of King videos which I purchased on my own and watched + highlighting/memorizing questions in the Gleim book... although the Gleim-work was limited as know the material and only memorized a few sections....

The one time I transitioned Bravo on an ATC clearance, I was coached by my CFI on what to say and what to expect before we got in the airplane and did it. We started at a Delta airport with were going to transition to an airport on the other side of the Terminal area chart. A direct route through Bravo would be the shortest so we tried for that and got it... I was instructed to use the phrase "Flight Following" and that's what I did. We got our squawk code, took off, controller reported radar contact, got a few vectors, and went our merry way though Bravo airspace and over the top of MSP International airport while airliners were taking off/landing.

It was fun. :D
 
Jay Honeck said:
ATC is keeping an eye out for us...but not really.
Click to expand...

Really.

They are taking responsibility for keeping us clear of other traffic...but not officially.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

It's a fuzzy place, sometimes, to be on FF. Protected...but not really.
Click to expand...

See above.

Another example: When we are humming along in the middle of no where, we nevertheless always advise ATC when we are changing altitude whilst using Flight Following.

Half the time, ATC answers with "descent approved" (I really wasn't asking for permission, but okay), and the other half of the time they answer with a somewhat exasperated-sounding "Um, okay" -- as if to say "Why are you bothering me with this?"
Click to expand...

Why mention it at all?
 
Another example: When we are humming along in the middle of no where, we nevertheless always advise ATC when we are changing altitude whilst using Flight Following.

Half the time, ATC answers with "descent approved" (I really wasn't asking for permission, but okay), and the other half of the time they answer with a somewhat exasperated-sounding "Um, okay" -- as if to say "Why are you bothering me with this?"
Click to expand...

Why mention it at all?
Click to expand...

In my experience, on several occasions ATC has (upon hearing my announcement of my intent to descend/ascend) "advised" (AKA: "ordered") me not to descend/ascend, due to conflicting traffic.

This is a good thing. It's also what I mean when I say they are protecting me, but not. As you know, it's nothing you can count on.
 
Why mention it at all?

I always mention it . Especially if my destination is an airport near (or under the shelf of) Bravo and I'm starting down early to convert altitude to groundspeed. I realize it's not required or expected, but I figure it's considerate for me to let ATC know what I'm doing so they can figure it into their planning for IFR traffic in the area. Frequently they ask me to modify my intentions, so it must be of some help for them to hear from me.
 
Jay Honeck said:
In my experience, on several occasions ATC has (upon hearing my announcement of my intent to descend/ascend) "advised" (AKA: "ordered") me not to descend/ascend, due to conflicting traffic.

This is a good thing. It's also what I mean when I say they are protecting me, but not. As you know, it's nothing you can count on.
Click to expand...

It's controller error. When you are humming along VFR in the middle of nowhere ATC has no authority to order you not to descend/ascend. The proper thing for them is to issue a traffic advisory.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is what I was just saying.......Flight Following is considered 'advisory control' (as opposed to positive control)...but we don't ask for advisories, we ask for FF.
Click to expand...

I do not ask for FF and get it anyway.

I contact Whidbey Approach with this
"NXX88S off Oak Harbor direct Bayview"

they will come back with
"88S squak 0445"

I tune the numbers and say nothing.

they will come back with
"88S radar contact 2 miles east of Oak Harbor at 1500'"

I say
"altitude and position correct"

They say
"88S is cleared thru the class C at 2000' direct BVS"

with BVS in sight I say
"BVS in sight, thanks for the help"

They come back with
"squak 1200 and have a nice flight"
 
When I'm getting FF/VFRTA :) I'll frequently be told to advise prior to any altitude changes. I've thus gotten in the habit of informing them before or as I change altitude, and I'll sometimes add "VFR", as otherwise they'll come back sometimes and say VFR altitude your discretion". Well, I knew that, and wasn't asking permission!
 
roncachamp said:
Jay Honeck said:
Another example: When we are humming along in the middle of no where, we nevertheless always advise ATC when we are changing altitude whilst using Flight Following.

Half the time, ATC answers with "descent approved" (I really wasn't asking for permission, but okay), and the other half of the time they answer with a somewhat exasperated-sounding "Um, okay" -- as if to say "Why are you bothering me with this?"
Click to expand...
Why mention it at all?
Click to expand...

How about AIM 4-1-15.B.2?

"Pilots should also inform the controller when changing VFR cruising altitude."
 
I also report leaving, since it's just a good habit to be in. I think it helps controllers who mostly handle IFR traffic and have mental pictures that primarily use altitude separation techniques over lateral ones.

Some controllers seem to prefer altitude separation, others seem to like lateral. Of course they all use both, but there's a definite "leaning" one way or the other from many controllers.

I will climb/decend without calling it if the frequency is too busy, but often if it's that busy you're probably going to be in someone's way anyway...

And of course there's the opposite... inside a Bravo or Charlie...

When *assigned* an altitude or heading, now I *must* report.

I also tend to *repeat* the assignment when handed off, because the number one controller mistake I see is the controller doing the handoff of a VFR aircraft seems to always forget to pass along the restriction they imposed, in the point-out to the next sector.

Check-in becomes, "Denver Approach, Skylane Seven Niner Mike, *ASSIGNED heading 280*, level Niner thousand Five hundred."

I don't know if this is a system limitation of the automated handoff system between TRACON sectors or if the previous controller simply didn't have time to do a verbal point-out to the next one, but it always seems to be appreciated and often gets an immediate "resume own navigation" from Controller #2. Or a "cancel altitude restriction, climb/descend at pilot's discretion".

The other trick I like to use is while they're focused on my target, that's the best time to start changing things.

If I just checked in like above, or they're talking to me for any reason, after they've got the conflict worked out (visual separation, a vector or altitude restriction) or in this example, after the "resume own navigation" ...that's when I'll try to start the descent right there -- if that looks reasonable to me.

The controller has just refreshed their "picture" of who I am and where I'm going and is about to go back to whatever else they were planning. They can get me handled completely and forget about me if my path keeps me clear of their IFRs.

They're probably going to reply with, "Skylane Seven Niner Mike, resume own navigation, Denver Altimeter two-niner niner-two."

So it's a good time to say, "Two niner niner two and we're leaving niner-thousand five hundred for seven-thousand five hundred. And we have India at Centennial. Seven Niner Mike."

If there's no traffic between you and the airport, the next transmission is likely, "Seven Niner Mike, Roger. Centennial 11 O'Clock and ten miles, contact the tower now 118.9."

The early "we have India" seems to indicate a general "this pilot knows what they're doing" feel to the controller. You're ahead of the game.

If they have to prompt you for stuff, they feel you're behind.

The pro crews they deal with, are usually ahead of their aircraft (or cheating by having two pilots aboard! Ha!), so I try to behave like what they're used to.

Seems to make everything go smoother. Keeps everyone in "the zone". Surprises aren't much appreciated in a controller's world. ;)
 
TMetzinger said:
On the other hand, from the Aviation Instructor's Handbook:



So Flight Following is a commonly accepted term for Traffic Advisories, and because it's in the P/C Glossary, it's perfectly acceptable to use it instead of Traffic Advisories when talking to ATC...

Instructors should cover what Flight Following is and make sure the student understands that Flight Following=Traffic Advisories.
Click to expand...

And it also seems some students need reminding that controlled airspace= you follow ATC instructions, not (just) ATC advises you of traffic. That's a pretty serious thing to misunderstand.
 
onwards said:
And FF or not... I *always* scan. Maybe as I gain more hours I'll stop because it will all be old hat? dunno...
Click to expand...

You've mistaken flight following for IFR separation, which it is entirely NOT. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark.

Flight Following is something that controllers do on a "workload permitting" basis. Flight following (or whatever you want call it) does not guarantee you traffic advisories, it does not automatically hand you to other controllers, doesn't prevent CFIT, doesn't give you course headings (well, they might on occasion), doesn't open or close flight plans, and will not send out a search party if you drop off the radar without a mayday. You're not IFR. Flight following isn't even baby-IFR.

You tell them where you are heading and they'll help you get cleared through Bravo, and otherwise they are just there to help, unless they are busy, in which case you are 100% on your own. You may not hear a peep on the radio and think that they are lounging. Not the case. Controllers frequently work several frequencies at once. If you feel sometimes like you've been forgotten, well, guess what -- you have. The person is busier than you think. Especially in congested areas. They could be on the land line or training someone new, or just having a bad day. Flight following is just a friendly, "Hey, can you just help me out a touch if you have a minute?" and nothing more. Traffic advisories aren't required and if you fly into another craft, it's entirely your fault. You're VFR. Flight following is fantastic, but keep your eyes open!
 
Wow, I need to fly a lot more with radio work. In the limited times I've talked to them (flight following, Class D towers) I have not been trained to advise re: altitude changes. Perhaps when I went to a class Charlie airport they talked about what I could / could not do RE: altitude - but no other times has this come up.
 
Jay Honeck said:
It's funny that someone is so concerned about using the exact phraseology, when "Flight Following" itself (or "traffic advisories", if you prefer) is such a fuzzy thing, in ATC land.

ATC is keeping an eye out for us...but not really. They are taking responsibility for keeping us clear of other traffic...but not officially. They are handing us off to the next controller...most of the time. Sometimes they just...forget.

It's a fuzzy place, sometimes, to be on FF. Protected...but not really.

Another example: When we are humming along in the middle of no where, we nevertheless always advise ATC when we are changing altitude whilst using Flight Following.

Half the time, ATC answers with "descent approved" (I really wasn't asking for permission, but okay), and the other half of the time they answer with a somewhat exasperated-sounding "Um, okay" -- as if to say "Why are you bothering me with this?"

Nevertheless, we use FF most of the time, if for no other reason than to get our money's worth out of these $77/hour dispatchers. I also like to think that if we suddenly disappeared from their radar screen, they *might* actually take notice and put a little grease pencil mark where we last appeared -- but we don't ever count on anything working as expected or planned when utilizing FF.
Click to expand...

I fly an VERY experimental..... experimental,:hairraise:... The main reason I use FF is for the exact thing Jay points out..... It is the 'grease pencil' perk.... If for some reason I am not back in the hangar one day when I should have been, a recall of the ATC tapes will hopefully show where they can send search and rescue too.:idea::idea:
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Wow, I need to fly a lot more with radio work. In the limited times I've talked to them (flight following, Class D towers) I have not been trained to advise re: altitude changes. Perhaps when I went to a class Charlie airport they talked about what I could / could not do RE: altitude - but no other times has this come up.
Click to expand...
Advising altitude changes isn't something you always want to do. It very much depends on your situation. It's one of those things where it can be good to do so sometimes and it can also be annoying to do so in other situations. You don't want to become someone who makes unnecessary radio calls.....that's just annoying to everybody involved.
 
rottydaddy said:
And it also seems some students need reminding that controlled airspace= you follow ATC instructions, not (just) ATC advises you of traffic. That's a pretty serious thing to misunderstand.
Click to expand...

Flight following is just advisories of traffic, no ATC instructions to follow.
 
sba55 said:
Advising altitude changes isn't something you always want to do. It very much depends on your situation. It's one of those things where it can be good to do so sometimes and it can also be annoying to do so in other situations. You don't want to become someone who makes unnecessary radio calls.....that's just annoying to everybody involved.
Click to expand...

And... Remember, 99% of the people who use FF are using mode C so ATC will see the altitude change anyway....:yesnod:
 
sba55 said:
This is especially nice in connection with filing a IFR flight plan for a VFR flight as a VFR pilot (ie., the VFR/xx thing in the altitude block). Then you AUTOMATICALLY get "radar advisories". Or maybe flight following. Not sure :D
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this technique? Can it be done as a pilot without an instrument rating? I fly out of a towered airport under/near a class C area and when departing from there on a XC I usually ask the ground controller for advisories to my destination. They enter all of that information in and get me a code prior to takeoff. This has the side benefit of putting me in the system and if my direct route takes me across a Bravo I always seem to get an immediate clearance through direct the destination at my intended cruising altitude.

I've heard of this IFR-flight-plan-for-VFR technique before, but since I am not yet instrument rated I'm not sure if it is legal. It would be nice if the information I normally give on frequency to the controller was filed and available for them in the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top