Maintain VFR

J

JOhnH

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
14,214
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
Right Seater
I am sure this is a stupid question, but when you are flying under VFR Flight Following and the controller says "maintain VFR", is that in effect permission to vary altitude at pilots discretion to avoid clouds?
 
Not necessarily... It's reminding you that you need to maintain VFR. So if you need to change altitude to remain VFR, you should coordinate that with ATC and do so.

I usually say something like "Potomac, N123XY will need a descent/turn for clouds".
 
I hear it from my class-D controllers whenever the clgs are beginning to drop and starting to get close to VFR minimums. Must be their way of reminding folks to be careful.
 
I take it to mean ATC is saying that it is the pilot's responsibility to maintain VMC regardless of the fact they are talking to ATC.
 
JOhnH said:
I am sure this is a stupid question, but when you are flying under VFR Flight Following and the controller says "maintain VFR", is that in effect permission to vary altitude at pilots discretion to avoid clouds?
Click to expand...

First of all unless you are inside class B or C, altitude is always at your discretion and you are expected to maintain VFR cloud separation whether or not the controller giving you advisories has told you to "maintain VFR". Inside class B or C ATC can assign an altitude and in that case you're expected to let them know if you need to deviate but it's still your responsibility to stay out of the clouds. And sometimes ATC will assign you an altitude or heading outside Class B/C even though they aren't authorized to do so. In that case you should go ahead and change course and/or altitude as necessary to maintain VFR cloud clearance but you should also let ATC know about the changes ASAP because they might actually have had a good reason to restrict your flight.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I take it to mean ATC is saying that it is the pilot's responsibility to maintain VMC regardless of the fact they are talking to ATC.
Click to expand...
That's the way I've always interpreted it. Then the last time I was shooting approaches with my CFII (we were VFR), I received this instruction:

"N miles from HEBUB, fly heading 240, maintain VFR until established, cleared VOR 18 approach".

I cracked to my instructor that I guess we can go IMC as soon as we're established, but I assumed that the controller had just misspoken. But no, next time around, he said the exact same thing: maintain VFR until established.

So what is this all about? Neither of us could figure it out.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I take it to mean ATC is saying that it is the pilot's responsibility to maintain VMC regardless of the fact they are talking to ATC.
Click to expand...
Exactly. So if you're in B-space, don't wait until the cloud is 100 feet in front of your nose to say something. And yes, it's one of those things controllers are required to say regardless of actual weather.
 
JOhnH said:
I am sure this is a stupid question, but when you are flying under VFR Flight Following and the controller says "maintain VFR", is that in effect permission to vary altitude at pilots discretion to avoid clouds?
Click to expand...

It's a reminder to comply with VFR visibility and distance from cloud criteria in FAR 91.155.
 
gismo said:
And sometimes ATC will assign you an altitude or heading outside Class B/C even though they aren't authorized to do so. In that case you should go ahead and change course and/or altitude as necessary to maintain VFR cloud clearance but you should also let ATC know about the changes ASAP because they might actually have had a good reason to restrict your flight.
Click to expand...

So what might be a good reason for ATC to issue an unauthorized restriction?
 
roncachamp said:
It's a reminder to comply with VFR visibility and distance from cloud criteria in FAR 91.155.
Click to expand...

And, by extension, a reminder that whatever that phrase accompanies is not an IFR clearance. That's how I've always interpreted it.

Related question: I don't need to explicitly acknowledge it, right? I've never been told off by a controller for missing that piece of the readback, but if I'm secretly annoying them, I'd like to know.
 
azure said:
That's the way I've always interpreted it. Then the last time I was shooting approaches with my CFII (we were VFR), I received this instruction:

"N miles from HEBUB, fly heading 240, maintain VFR until established, cleared VOR 18 approach".

I cracked to my instructor that I guess we can go IMC as soon as we're established, but I assumed that the controller had just misspoken. But no, next time around, he said the exact same thing: maintain VFR until established.

So what is this all about? Neither of us could figure it out.
Click to expand...

Phraseology error. The controller was saying "maintain VFR until established" where he'd normally say "maintain [altitude] until established" to an IFR aircraft.
 
chucky said:
Related question: I don't need to explicitly acknowledge it, right? I've never been told off by a controller for missing that piece of the readback, but if I'm secretly annoying them, I'd like to know.
Click to expand...

You don't need to read it back. Under the conditions of the OP there was no reason for ATC to issue it.
 
I frequently hear that on trips when IFR; they say that to VFR aircraft. Since I fly IFR most of the time, I appreciate the reminder when VFR and flight following. On more than one occasion, I just started thinking in IFR terms and the reminder was helpful.

Best,

Dave
 
roncachamp said:
So what might be a good reason for ATC to issue an unauthorized restriction?
Click to expand...
I guess "good reason" is in the mind of the controller. IME all too often it seems the real reason is "for the convenience of ATC" e.g. when such a restriction reduces the controllers workload. But I suspect that there are times when the alternative is no advisories at all and greater potential for undetected/unreported conflicts. In that case I think most pilots would agree that there was a "good reason".

I suppose it would be better if the controller made it a "suggestion" rather than an "instruction" e.g. "To avoid oncoming traffic (or the wake of a 747 climbing out), I suggest you fly heading 240", but that's probably not gonna happen with a busy controller.

What's your answer?
 
gismo said:
I suppose it would be better if the controller made it a "suggestion" rather than an "instruction" e.g. "To avoid oncoming traffic (or the wake of a 747 climbing out), I suggest you fly heading 240", but that's probably not gonna happen with a busy controller.
Click to expand...

I've had headings and altitudes "suggested" by controllers while on VFR flight following all the time, eg. "N1234A, suggest fly heading 240 for traffic 12 o'clock, opposite direction in 2 miles, same altitude."

When it comes to the Northeast US, my experience has been that most TRACONs will assign heading and altitude for some reason (usually opposite direction traffic) when they really have no authority to do so. Other times, they don't even care when I advise a change of altitude VFR, but I don't mind giving a courtesy "heads up." I don't mind complying with the assigned instruction either, it has saved me and my passengers on more than one occasion.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
I guess "good reason" is in the mind of the controller. IME all too often it seems the real reason is "for the convenience of ATC" e.g. when such a restriction reduces the controllers workload.
Click to expand...

But flight following is provided on a workload permitting basis. The proper phraseology for reducing the controller's workload is "radar service terminated, squawk VFR".

But I suspect that there are times when the alternative is no advisories at all and greater potential for undetected/unreported conflicts. In that case I think most pilots would agree that there was a "good reason".

I suppose it would be better if the controller made it a "suggestion" rather than an "instruction" e.g. "To avoid oncoming traffic (or the wake of a 747 climbing out), I suggest you fly heading 240", but that's probably not gonna happen with a busy controller.

What's your answer?
Click to expand...
A good controller, busy or not, does not issue unauthorized restrictions. The situation you describe calls for a Safety Alert:

"Traffic alert, Waco 1234A, twelve o'clock, one mile, advise you turn right heading 070."

See AIM para 4−1−16. Safety Alert and JO 7110.65T Air Traffic Control para 2-1-6. Safety Alert.
 
azure said:
"N miles from HEBUB, fly heading 240, maintain VFR until established, cleared VOR 18 approach".

So what is this all about? Neither of us could figure it out.
Click to expand...

I understand this to mean if flying 240 takes you into the clouds you can't go there based on the ATC instruction for the practive approach. You have to fly somewhere else so you can maintain VFR.
 
In the NE corridor I've been VFR and getting flight following with the words "advise prior to any altitude changes" outside of B/C/D spaces. And since I'm in a place (E) where ATC exists, I'm required to comply with any instructions they give me.

Of course, I always remain the ultimate authority and would have no problem deviating first and explaining second if there was a situation that required it. Better to be proactive and communicative and avoid the situation, though.
 
roncachamp said:
If that's true you have had very little experience with the ATC system.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason I like these boards is because of the professionalism displayed by most of the people that post here. Why do a few people have to get snotty over a simple difference of opinion? Is it because of the anonymity? If so, that is cowardice.
 
JOhnH said:
Part of the reason I like these boards is because of the professionalism displayed by most of the people that post here. Why do a few people have to get snotty over a simple difference of opinion? Is it because of the anonymity? If so, that is cowardice.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should ask that of someone that posts anonymously.
 
JOhnH said:
when you are flying under VFR Flight Following and the controller says "maintain VFR", is that in effect permission to vary altitude at pilots discretion to avoid clouds?
Click to expand...
No, it is not 'permission', it is a command. It is to avoid any liability of the controller that any heading or altitude would cause you to violate any VFR regs.
 
nosehair said:
No, it is not 'permission', it is a command. It is to avoid any liability of the controller that any heading or altitude would cause you to violate any VFR regs.
Click to expand...
Now that answer makes a mountain of sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top