Question about VFR flight following.

azure said:
I had no problems whatever with this technique except that the briefer with whom I filed tried to tell me that the way to do this was to file VFR. I said no, I want ATC to have my flight plan in their system in order to not have to bother with frequency changes to activate the plan with FSS.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're confused - What you did does NOT substitute for changing frequencies and activating a flight plan with FSS. (The opposite is also true, activating a plan with FSS does not put the plan into ATC's hands.)

What you did gave you easy VFR flight following for the whole trip, but if you had gone down somewhere, nobody would have come looking for you unless ATC happened to notice and not be too busy to care.

One question: does the first controller have a special role in arranging advisories for your entire route or does he/she only work the handoff with the next facility (e.g. Detroit Approach coordinates with Toledo), and then ditto down the line (Toledo with Mansfield, etc.)?
Click to expand...

The first controller wouldn't have had to do anything special in your case I don't think, because you had already filed a flight plan with FSS that was passed along to all the appropriate ATC facilities.

Another way to do this same thing is to request "flight following to destination" or ask ATC for a "NAS VFR flight plan". Either way, they'll enter you into the computer in such a manner that the same thing happens. In that case, the first controller is entering you into the computer much the way FSS did for you in the flight you describe.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Sounds like you're confused - What you did does NOT substitute for changing frequencies and activating a flight plan with FSS. (The opposite is also true, activating a plan with FSS does not put the plan into ATC's hands.)

What you did gave you easy VFR flight following for the whole trip, but if you had gone down somewhere, nobody would have come looking for you unless ATC happened to notice and not be too busy to care.
Click to expand...
It could very well be that I'm confused! :wink2: But not on the SAR issue. I do know (as it was discussed earlier in this thread) that this kind of flight plan is not a FSS flight plan and is worthless for SAR purposes. The reason I did it was to be legal for Canadian overflight (for all of 90 seconds, true, but that's all it takes to get in serious hot water with CBP) and not to have to call up FSS to activate the mandatory flight plan. It wasn't critical on this flight as I would have had plenty of time to ask for a frequency change, but I wanted to try out the technique Ray described for myself as on other flights I've more than once had to scramble to get a FP activated for overflight purposes AND get the mandatory squawk code from ATC.

I'm usually only interested in a FSS flight plan for SAR when I'm unsure that I'll be high enough for radar coverage, like in northern MI where in places ZMP can't see you below about 7000 feet. Frankly, given that they don't start looking for you until you're overdue by some time (30 minutes? 60? not sure), which could be hours after you go down depending on how long your flight is and when during your flight it happens, I'd rather be a target that disappears off someone's radar display, than for my only hope of rescue to be a SAR team that has only my general route of flight to tell them where to start looking.

The first controller wouldn't have had to do anything special in your case I don't think, because you had already filed a flight plan with FSS that was passed along to all the appropriate ATC facilities.
Click to expand...
Okay, that makes sense.

Another way to do this same thing is to request "flight following to destination" or ask ATC for a "NAS VFR flight plan". Either way, they'll enter you into the computer in such a manner that the same thing happens. In that case, the first controller is entering you into the computer much the way FSS did for you in the flight you describe.
Click to expand...
When you say "request flight following to destination" do you mean from ATC (I always do that anyway), or somehow specify this in the flight plan (e.g. the remarks)? Also I've never heard of a NAS VFR flight plan. What exactly is that? (NAS == National Airspace System?)
 
Last edited:
azure said:
The reason I did it was to be legal for Canadian overflight (for all of 90 seconds, true, but that's all it takes to get in serious hot water with CBP) and not to have to call up FSS to activate the mandatory flight plan.
Click to expand...

Ah, OK, I get it. :yes:

When you say "request flight following to destination" do you mean from ATC (I always do that anyway), or somehow specify this in the flight plan (e.g. the remarks)?
Click to expand...

Yup... But using those exact words. "Madison Clearance, Skylane 271Golf VFR to Gaston's Three Mike Zero, request flight following to destination." This may not work as well when you're already airborne. Clearance Delivery (or Ground at a D) is a good thing. :yes:

Also I've never heard of a NAS VFR flight plan. What exactly is that? (NAS == National Airspace System?)
Click to expand...

Bingo. Tower chief at MSN suggested we ask for "NAS VFR" exactly how I've previously asked for "flight following to destination." They'll enter it into the computer and it works just like your flight worked.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yup... But using those exact words. "Madison Clearance, Skylane 271Golf VFR to Gaston's Three Mike Zero, request flight following to destination." This may not work as well when you're already airborne. Clearance Delivery (or Ground at a D) is a good thing. :yes:
Click to expand...
Got it! It's good to know the standard phraseology for that request. I've tried to do that it before, usually saying "request flight following all the way through" or some other awkward wording. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. As you say, when you just show up already airborne, they often don't have time to work you in. That would probably have worked for me at Columbus as it's a C, but my home field is untowered and they've even decommissioned the GCO. The only other way I can think of to get into the system VFR from the ground is to ring DTW Approach over the landline, and I'm not sure whether that's an acceptable use of the number.

Bingo. Tower chief at MSN suggested we ask for "NAS VFR" exactly how I've previously asked for "flight following to destination." They'll enter it into the computer and it works just like your flight worked.
Click to expand...
Okay, that's another good thing to know, thanks. Do you ask for that from Clearance or ATC once airborne?
 
azure said:
Got it! It's good to know the standard phraseology for that request.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I'd call it standard phraseology since it's not in the P/CG (heck, "flight following" isn't even in there, it's supposed to be "traffic advisories") but it does seem to work. :yes:

Okay, that's another good thing to know, thanks. Do you ask for that from Clearance or ATC once airborne?
Click to expand...

Clearance. They're generally bored enough that they're happy to enter a plan into the computer for you. :D
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't know that I'd call it standard phraseology since it's not in the P/CG (heck, "flight following" isn't even in there, it's supposed to be "traffic advisories") but it does seem to work.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is an entry for FLIGHT FOLLOWING in the P/CG, it says "See TRAFFIC ADVISORIES".
 
I thought I'd resurrect this old thread to share my experience flying to 3W2 today. I filed both ways using Ray's suggested method, IFR with VFR in the altitude box. It was slightly nontrivial as I was flying to PTK first for fuel, and filing KPTK direct KVLL direct YQG (Windsor VOR) direct 3W2 for the outbound flight, but 3W2 direct KVLL returning (gambling on a Bravo clearance in the evening, with going via YQG as my Plan B. The briefer didn't miss a beat, he understood what I was doing and assured me that the two flight plans would go through to the ATC system.

It's a good thing I was starting from PTK since, with a 140 kt ground speed thanks to a good tailwind, by the time Detroit Approach had time to search their system and find that my flight plan was NOT in it, I was over KDET and approaching Canadian airspace. The DTW controller said that he was too busy to just file a new plan for me but approved a frequency change so I could work it out with Flight Service. FSS said that they suspected that an IFR flight plan with VFR altitudes caused the mixup, but bumped the departure time to force a resend, and all was well.

While on the ground at 3W2 I made sure to ask FSS to double check that my return flight plan didn't get lost in the aether as well. Cell reception was poor so I missed much of the briefer's description of what she was about to do, but it sounded like she needed to call ZOB Center to confirm reception of the flight plan. Does that make sense? Are the ARTCCs the initial recipients of IFR plans filed with FSS? I also seemed to catch something about if necessary she would put in an IFR altitude. The connection was bad enough that I didn't question her further, reasoning that if ATC offers me an IFR clearance I can always refuse and explain my intentions, so no harm no foul... as long as the flight plan gets through.

As it turned out all went smoothly on the return flight, and I was not offered an IFR clearance, and they even cleared me through the DTW Bravo. Wonderful! But still, the mixup on the way down was a bit disconcerting. Now I know that once in a while flight plans filed by any means, FSS, DUAT, etc. get "lost". Maybe what happened was just a glitch. So I would like to ask Ray or whoever else uses this method, if they've had a greater than expected number of "glitches" when using it, or Steven (roncachamp) :), is this truly a reliable way to file or is it, as the FSS folks indicated, confusing enough as to likely be not transmitted to ATC? If so, it's really no better than filing VFR and opening in the air with FSS, if I'll likely have to call them to refile anyway.
 
Last edited:
The only lost flight plan I've had was before I used this method it was a true IFR return flight from Sporty's I69-PHN and the return portion was lost.

My guess was the Cinci center nailed the return leg when I cancelled in the air on the outbound leg. Cinci would not take a filing in the air so I had to wait until Dayton's airspace to file so I could return over Ontario.

Since then I always file electronically, two years, and have not had a lost flight plan. (fingers crossed) The only down side to electronic filing is the wait from sending to Duats until the plan is actually filed. Last Thursday in Columnbus I wound up filing again via phone with FSS because I wanted to depart early to avoid the incoming weather.
 
Okay, thanks Ray --- that's reassuring. My sample size so far is only 4 which is mighty small, and the one lost plan might well have been just a glitch.

One more question, really a filing question not specifically IFR or VFR -- when filing via DUATS for a Canadian overflight, do you have to file an ICAO plan or is Domestic good enough?

Okay, two questions: how long is the delay before a plan filed via DUATS gets to ATC? FSS told me that when phone filed, it's transmitted one hour before ETD, or immediately if filed closer than one hour to ETD. I assumed it would be the same for DUATS, but apparently not.
 
Hi all! I'm new here and stumbled across this while trying to solve an argument in my facility about VFR flight plans.

Anyhow, I'm a GA pilot with instrument rating and a military radar controller. I just thought I'd chime in with some observations I made last night. I logged on to DUATS and tried inputting 2 flight plans. The first was a VFR flight plan, and the second an IFR flight plan with VFR altitude. The VFR flight plan didn't register at all with the NAS computer and thus confirmed my end of the argument which we were having. The IFR flight plan went through immediately, in fact the strip popped out before I had the chance to walk from the computer area to the control floor. I had put in a departure time of 20 minutes from "now".

Hope this answers some of your questions, and if you have any more for me just ask and I'll try to answer. :D
 
Bravo_Charlie said:
Hi all! I'm new here and stumbled across this while trying to solve an argument in my facility about VFR flight plans.

Anyhow, I'm a GA pilot with instrument rating and a military radar controller. I just thought I'd chime in with some observations I made last night. I logged on to DUATS and tried inputting 2 flight plans. The first was a VFR flight plan, and the second an IFR flight plan with VFR altitude. The VFR flight plan didn't register at all with the NAS computer and thus confirmed my end of the argument which we were having. The IFR flight plan went through immediately, in fact the strip popped out before I had the chance to walk from the computer area to the control floor. I had put in a departure time of 20 minutes from "now".

Hope this answers some of your questions, and if you have any more for me just ask and I'll try to answer. :D
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info, BC, and welcome to PoA!
 
Thanks, and how do you guys get those fancy maps in your signatures?
 
azure said:
One more question, really a filing question not specifically IFR or VFR -- when filing via DUATS for a Canadian overflight, do you have to file an ICAO plan or is Domestic good enough?
Click to expand...

When I asked FSS about the already sent flight plan they said it would be filed 2 hours before departure. But it could be just one that seems right based on when I receive the flightaware email about a plan being filed.

Looking back at the emails one was sent two hours before and one 30 minutes.

I think, corrections if this is inaccurate please, that the plan is held for two hours after ETD giving a approximate four hour window in which it can be picked up.
 
RMCN172RG said:
I think, corrections if this is inaccurate please, that the plan is held for two hours after ETD giving a approximate four hour window in which it can be picked up.
Click to expand...
That's what I was taught during primary training, too, but I think it was for VFR flight plans. I actually asked a Lockmart briefer the same question about IFR plans last month when I was delayed about 90 minutes getting off to Columbus, but he didn't know so I refiled just in case.

Now does anyone know the answer to the question you quoted? :smile:

One more question, really a filing question not specifically IFR or VFR -- when filing via DUATS for a Canadian overflight, do you have to file an ICAO plan or is Domestic good enough?
Click to expand...
 
RMCN172RG said:
I think, corrections if this is inaccurate please, that the plan is held for two hours after ETD giving a approximate four hour window in which it can be picked up.
Click to expand...

The flight data processing computer sends flight plans to the printer 30 minutes before the proposed departure time. The flight plan drop interval is normally two hours from the proposed departure time.
 
This is because, as I've said before, the proper format is VFR/55, not just 55. The host computer accepts it just fine...

Bravo_Charlie said:
Hi all! I'm new here and stumbled across this while trying to solve an argument in my facility about VFR flight plans.

Anyhow, I'm a GA pilot with instrument rating and a military radar controller. I just thought I'd chime in with some observations I made last night. I logged on to DUATS and tried inputting 2 flight plans. The first was a VFR flight plan, and the second an IFR flight plan with VFR altitude. The VFR flight plan didn't register at all with the NAS computer and thus confirmed my end of the argument which we were having. The IFR flight plan went through immediately, in fact the strip popped out before I had the chance to walk from the computer area to the control floor. I had put in a departure time of 20 minutes from "now".

Hope this answers some of your questions, and if you have any more for me just ask and I'll try to answer. :D
Click to expand...
 
sba55 said:
This is because, as I've said before, the proper format is VFR/55, not just 55. The host computer accepts it just fine...
Click to expand...
That's true. It seems "VFR" alone is accepted as well.

I didn't understand FSS to be saying that the system rejected my FP. I assumed that it was dropped by human intervention, by someone probably at Cleveland Center who thought the "VFR" in the altitude box was a mistake.
 
sba55 said:
This is because, as I've said before, the proper format is VFR/55, not just 55. The host computer accepts it just fine...
Click to expand...

OK maybe I didn't word my post in the right way, but if you re-read it carefully you'll see that the flightplan I input with VFR checked, didn't go anywhere... the one with IFR checked and then I put VFR in the altitude did go through. I wasn't trying to argue what you said in previous posts, in fact I don't know that I read your post before, so my bad there.

I'm trying to fight a battle at work where an old-school controller is saying that the "VFR flight plan" function in STARS doesn't collect all the required information per the FAR 91.153 if I remember the reference correctly (i.e. a/c color, # ppl onboard, fuel, etc.). I'm trying to argue that that the STARS function is for providing flight following/ automated handoff capability, not necessarily SAR benefits, etc. and therefor we don't really need all that info and in fact even if the VFR flight plan was filed by the pilot or by FSS, we couldn't pull a strip on it anyway.

I wonder why DUATS doesn't give the option for a VFR w/ flight following option? Clog the NAS ya think?
 
Last edited:
Bravo_Charlie said:
I wonder why DUATS doesn't give the option for a VFR w/ flight following option?
Click to expand...
Probably because creating IFR flight plans in the ATC system for non-IFR flights (other than the DC SFRA exception) is not an FAA-approved or -recommended procedure.
 
Ron Levy said:
Probably because creating IFR flight plans in the ATC system for non-IFR flights (other than the DC SFRA exception) is not an FAA-approved or -recommended procedure.
Click to expand...

You are right but it really should. Any given airplane is paying in taxes just as much when flying VFR as it is when it is flying IFR.
 
Ron Levy said:
Probably because creating IFR flight plans in the ATC system for non-IFR flights (other than the DC SFRA exception) is not an FAA-approved or -recommended procedure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what I'm saying is there should be a way to file a purely VFR flight plan that'd actually output to ATC. I would much rather have my Flight Data controller hand me a strip when a VFR a/c requests flight following, than have to collect the data myself, and input it through the scope.
 
Bravo_Charlie said:
Yeah, but what I'm saying is there should be a way to file a purely VFR flight plan that'd actually output to ATC. I would much rather have my Flight Data controller hand me a strip when a VFR a/c requests flight following, than have to collect the data myself, and input it through the scope.
Click to expand...
You guys have a suggestion box somewhere in the TRACON? It would mean a lot more coming from a controller via ATC channels than from pilots.
 
Ron Levy said:
You guys have a suggestion box somewhere in the TRACON? It would mean a lot more coming from a controller via ATC channels than from pilots.
Click to expand...

Yeah not so much in mine, I'm in a military RAPCON. They're far less concerned with GA than those fancy fighter pilots :mad2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top