filing IFR plan for VFR flight conditions

"Chip Jones" wrote:
In most locations, like in Houston, this controller
attitude is pathetically laughable.

Yes, it's bad in Houston; I never ask them for advisories anymore. Even
if they do take you, they may fail to call traffic.

But if you listen to their frequencies on a nice Friday afternoon, you
can almost understand their attitude. The miserable radio technique of
a lot of VFR pilots can really clog up the air. It's embarassing to
listen to, sometimes.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

I've recently had a discussion with my A&P/IA about this. He routinely hops
in his turbo arrow, and flies from Virginia to Key West VFR at 11000' without talking
to a soul. Right over top of Class-C and Class-B. What he says, (and I tend to agree
with him anymore), is if you talk to them, even if you're clear of their airspace,
they'll try to route you over hell and gone. Having flown under and over Chicago's
airspace, a number of times, you find this more often than not. Rather than
encouraging the additional safety of flight following, this really discourages working
with the approach controllers. Same thing talking with Milwaukee approach every time
I've gone up there. I'm coming lakeshore from the south, planning to go just outside
of their Class-C on my way in to Capitol, also just outside their Class-C. If I talk
to them, they'll route me 10 miles to the west, every time... even without traffic
conflict.

Of course, as you said, listening to some VFR pilots bumbling on the radio
like they're Smokey and the Bandit, it's no wonder why the controllers would rather
not talk to VFR pilots in general.

-Cory

Dan Luke wrote:

: "Chip Jones" wrote:
: In most locations, like in Houston, this controller
: attitude is pathetically laughable.

: Yes, it's bad in Houston; I never ask them for advisories anymore. Even
: if they do take you, they may fail to call traffic.

: But if you listen to their frequencies on a nice Friday afternoon, you
: can almost understand their attitude. The miserable radio technique of
: a lot of VFR pilots can really clog up the air. It's embarassing to
: listen to, sometimes.
: --
: Dan
: C172RG at BFM



--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote in message
...

I've recently had a discussion with my A&P/IA about this. He
routinely hops in his turbo arrow, and flies from Virginia to Key
West VFR at 11000' without talking to a soul.


A violation of FAR 91.159(a).



Right over top of Class-C and Class-B. What he says, (and I tend
to agree with him anymore), is if you talk to them, even if you're clear
of their airspace, they'll try to route you over hell and gone.


Possibly an error on ATC's part over the top of Class C airspace, definitely
an error on their part over Class B airspace.



Having flown under and over Chicago's airspace, a number of
times, you find this more often than not. Rather than encouraging
the additional safety of flight following, this really discourages
working with the approach controllers. Same thing talking with
Milwaukee approach every time I've gone up there. I'm coming
lakeshore from the south, planning to go just outside of their Class-C
on my way in to Capitol, also just outside their Class-C. If I talk
to them, they'll route me 10 miles to the west, every time... even
without traffic conflict.


Class C services are provided to participating VFR traffic in the outer area
just as they are in the Class C proper, but without conflicting IFR traffic
they have no basis upon which to move you.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
: A violation of FAR 91.159(a).

I waffled on 11k or 12k... Flying direct it's west, flying via
Miami it's exactly due south of SW VA, but the point I was trying to make
was that it was over 10k. Even/Odd was assumed and irrelevent WRT
controllers routing VFR traffic not in their airspace.

: Class C services are provided to participating VFR traffic in the outer area
: just as they are in the Class C proper, but without conflicting IFR traffic
: they have no basis upon which to move you.

Almost... Even *with* conflicting IFR traffic if you are not in
their airspace, VFR traffic is under no obligation to accept being moved.
No obligation to even be in communication with them at all. If there's a
conlict, the controller's last resort is to move the IFR traffic and
rely on "see and avoid" in VMC.

-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote in message
...

Almost... Even *with* conflicting IFR traffic if you are not in
their airspace, VFR traffic is under no obligation to accept being
moved. No obligation to even be in communication with them at
all. If there's a conlict, the controller's last resort is to move the
IFR traffic and rely on "see and avoid" in VMC.


No, not "almost", what I wrote is exactly correct. The outer area
associated with Class C airspace is nonregulatory airspace surrounding
designated Class C airspace airports wherein ATC provides separation and
sequencing for all IFR and participating VFR aircraft. The outer area
extends outward 20 miles from the primary Class C airspace airport and
extends from the lower limits of radar/radio coverage up to the ceiling of
the approach control's delegated airspace, excluding the Class C airspace
proper. The same service is provided in the outer area as in the charted
Class C airspace, the only difference is participation is voluntary for VFR
aircraft in the outer area. If you elected to contact approach you
volunteered to participate. And, yes, ATC can move VFR traffic to provide
required separation from IFR traffic. If you're not in contact with ATC,
then you've obviously not volunteered to participate and no separation
mimima applies, so ATC will not move the IFR aircraft to resolve a conflict,
just issue a traffic advisory.

And, yes, ATC can move VFR traffic to provide
required separation from IFR traffic.


But (in the outer area) that VFR traffic can decline to be moved, and thus
withdraw their voluteering for radar services.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

But (in the outer area) that VFR traffic can decline to be moved,
and thus withdraw their voluteering for radar services.


Roger, radar service terminated, squawk VFR, have a nice day.

I am saying that Houston APPROACH will not hand off outbound VFR's to
Center, and Approach will RARELY accept inboung VFR's as handoff's with
regards to flight following. It is particularly frustrating because
folks at Regional Approach (Dallas) work the handoff's both ways pretty
much 100% of the times I've been there. I personally would much rather
be talking to someone, or be in the system. I dont mind taking a vector
even though its "voluntary" if it helps me stay separated. And while I
dont rely on it, it's nice to have another set of eyes calling pertinent
traffic when able

The occasions that I have departed from towered fields in the HOU
terminal airspace, I have only recieved a local (tower or Tracon) code
with regards to VFR flight following. Never a center code, even when
they know you are heading out of bounds. The drill is "get terminated,
call up the center in a few miles"

I apologize for not being more clear in my initial post.

Dave

John Clonts wrote:
"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...

I have tried to do such a thing down here in the Houston terminal
airspace to try and circumvent a common practice by the TRACON. It didnt
work for me.

What I did, which I garnered from usenet, was file an IFR plan under
DUATS with VFR in the altitude block, and VFR flight following in the
remarks section.

The rationale was based on the fact that when you are placed in the
system from a flight following standpoint, you have to submit nearly the
same info that you would to get an IFR plan (pop up or pre-filed). You
are assigned a data block just like any other IFR plan, the only diff is
that unless in Class B, separation isnt the controllers "fault".

Well.. it may work elsewhere, but it does NOT work in Houston. The
standard practice in Houston is NO HANDOFFS for VFR's at all. Cant even
get a "center" code, rather than a "local" code if you call up early on
clearance delivery. If its night, and slow, sometimes I can get Houston
to take the handoff coming back IN from the Center's territory but never
on the outbound leg.



Hello Dave,

Regarding VFR flights departing the Houston area...

Are you saying that Houston Center will generally not take a VFR handoff
from Houston Approach? Or are you saying Approach will not accept a VFR
handoff from a tower? Which airport exactly are you talking about, as an
example? DWH? SGR? ??

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Hell.. its not just the VFR's who are messin up...

In a 2.4 hour jaunt today from the houston area, to north of Beaumont
and back, I heard a military fighter jock miss a turn-in call and I also
heard a corporate miss theirs as well. I heard two different people try
to use the same xponder code (yea, it was VFR). AND this was in the
middle of a push. Of course, the answer is more controllers... I'm not
holding my breath.

Dave

Dan Luke wrote:

"Chip Jones" wrote:

In most locations, like in Houston, this controller
attitude is pathetically laughable.


Yes, it's bad in Houston; I never ask them for advisories anymore. Even
if they do take you, they may fail to call traffic.

But if you listen to their frequencies on a nice Friday afternoon, you
can almost understand their attitude. The miserable radio technique of
a lot of VFR pilots can really clog up the air. It's embarassing to
listen to, sometimes.

"Dave S" wrote in message
hlink.net...

In a 2.4 hour jaunt today from the houston area, to north of Beaumont
and back, I heard a military fighter jock miss a turn-in call and I also
heard a corporate miss theirs as well. I heard two different people try
to use the same xponder code (yea, it was VFR). AND this was in the
middle of a push. Of course, the answer is more controllers... I'm not
holding my breath.


Why is the answer more controllers?