Proper VFR Flight Following Call

I’ll add my perspective to the mix. At my center, we use Micro-EARTS. To add a VFR flight plan to the FDIO, I have to hit the “VFR flight plan” key, type your callsign with a Z in front (ZN4254B- that is how we identify VFR flights locally) then the aircraft type and route of flight which is 2 3 letter IDs separated by a splat. So an example would be “VP ZN4254B BE35 BQN*SIG”. That would give us a code to issue to the pilot. I don’t care about what altitude you’re climbing to as much as other places do. If you look like you’re going to conflict with someone, I’ll ask. I can’t validate your Mode C (the reason for saying your current altitude) until you’re tagged up, which could take a minute or 2, so I would prefer not saying altitude until I ask (N4254B, radar contact 8 miles east of BQN, say altitude). If you gave me your altitude on initial call up, you will have likely climbed more than the 300 foot buffer we are allowed.

I understand that the way we do things in San Juan is different than in most of the US. So take all that with a grain of salt.

Also, you don’t have to spell airports for the controllers unless it’s far away. We get paid to know those things. Especially if it’s within the same facility.
 
Wrench978 said:
Also, you don’t have to spell airports for the controllers unless it’s far away. We get paid to know those things. Especially if it’s within the same facility.
Click to expand...
This seems to be hit or miss unless it's an airport within their control area.

It's in one of my videos but when I did the Hudson corridor in NYC, I was continuing up to BDL in Connecticut. When the first controller (Probably Newark) asked me, I said, "Bradley International." He asked me for the identifier.

Later, a second controller (probably La Guardia) asked me. I gave the identifier. "Oh, Bradley." was the response.
 
Half Fast said:
You’d think they could do lots of things, like having a VFR flight plan show up in their system, rather than just exist for S&R.
Click to expand...
. I think there should be a feature in filing that forwards a VFR flight plan to ATC for all any aircraft that want FF.

But, the FAA still views VFR filing as nothing more than a SAR tool for AFSS. With FF being an optional service they’ll never reconfigure the current system.
 
Maybe there's an argument now with ADS-B to make that VFR Flight Plan connection. Unless it overwhelms the controllers, I see no down side to having VFR flight plans in the ATC system. I'd imagine more folks (speaking for myself) would take the extra effort to file a plan if flying VFR if I/we knew the controllers would see it and could use it. That could potentially narrow the 1200 users down to practice/training and sight-seeing.
 
Velocity173 said:
I think there should be a feature in filing that forwards a VFR flight plan to ATC for all any aircraft that want FF.
Click to expand...

Or, when a pilot calls for FF, his callup can be "Podunk Approach, Bugsmasher 123AB requesting VFR flight following per filed plan." ATC hits a button and presto, they have all the data without needing to tie up the radio to get it.

Velocity173 said:
But, the FAA still views VFR filing as nothing more than a SAR tool for AFSS. With FF being an optional service they’ll never reconfigure the current system.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and it's inefficient and dumb. The FAA insists on continuing to do things the way they've done it for 50+ years, while clamoring that they need more money and are understaffed.
 
KE5BM said:
Maybe there's an argument now with ADS-B to make that VFR Flight Plan connection. Unless it overwhelms the controllers, I see no down side to having VFR flight plans in the ATC system. I'd imagine more folks (speaking for myself) would take the extra effort to file a plan if flying VFR if I/we knew the controllers would see it and could use it. That could potentially narrow the 1200 users down to practice/training and sight-seeing.
Click to expand...

Agreed, though FF would still be on an "as available" basis.
 
luvflyin said:
This is what he did. "...What I have been doing lately is "Boston Approach, Skyhawk 7747G VFR request." This is the other way. "...The gentlemen at Opposing Bases suggest (and they're controllers, after all) that we, as pilots would score some serious brownie points if we go about it this way: "Approach, VFR to type ." For example, "Boston Approach, 7747G is 4 miles north of Hyannis, VFR to Nashua - Alpha Sierra Hotel, we are type Skyhawk climbing for 3,500." However, the one time I tried this format as suggested by these controllers, Boston Approach had me go back and do it all over again. So, controllers...how can I make your job easier when I want FF?" That's a pretty big difference.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on the day and workload, if it’s extremely busy then first way is correct and less likely to get stepped on or “last aircraft calling say again”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top