Regs regarding "VFR flight following?" (also: "need to vent")

"Dick Meade" wrote in message
...

OK, so how does this work? Two years ago, enroute OSH for the fly-in, I
approach Madison with flight following. I'm given vectors, despite the
fact I'm at 11,500 feet.

Just how far up does their airspace extend?


The last I heard Madison approach airspace went up to 10,000, it's possible
it's been moved up to 13,000 to be consistent with Milwaukee approach which
it abuts. If you were at 11,500 and talking to Madison approach that would
seem to be the case.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Dick Meade" wrote in message
...

OK, so how does this work? Two years ago, enroute OSH for the fly-in, I
approach Madison with flight following. I'm given vectors, despite the
fact I'm at 11,500 feet.

Just how far up does their airspace extend?


The last I heard Madison approach airspace went up to 10,000, it's
possible it's been moved up to 13,000 to be consistent with Milwaukee
approach which it abuts. If you were at 11,500 and talking to Madison
approach that would seem to be the case.


You mean that they will handle IFR traffic up to that altitude not that
their controlled space goes up that high. The charted space for Madison is
up to 4900 (or something close, I'm not looking at the chart). If I pass
overhead of that or under or around, I will monitor but not bother them.
However, Madison controllers are extremely accomodating. I have never had
them vector me at all. The only time that even came close was a "...
transition approved. Cross directly over the airport to stay clear of
traffic."

Milwaukee, on the other hand, seem very territorial. They are difficult to
deal with for practice approaches at Kenosha and they aggressively protect
their airspace around MKE by vectoring VFR traffic well clear. Many years
ago, I was passing along the lakeshore under their airspace. I called up as
a courtesy, got a squawk, then a chewing out for flying so close to their
airspace, then vectors further out into Lake Michigan. I responded, "Lake
94P, squawking 1200, will remain clear of your airspace." I've never called
them again unless inbound to MKE. If their airspace is busier than the
protected areas are designed to support, I sympathize. If they want my
cooperation, they need to be nice about it

___________________
Travis.

: them again unless inbound to MKE. If their airspace is busier than the
: protected areas are designed to support, I sympathize. If they want my
: cooperation, they need to be nice about it

Exactly my sentiments.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
m...

You mean that they will handle IFR traffic up to that altitude not that
their controlled space goes up that high. The charted space for Madison is
up to 4900 (or something close, I'm not looking at the chart). If I pass
overhead of that or under or around, I will monitor but not bother them.
However, Madison controllers are extremely accomodating. I have never had
them vector me at all. The only time that even came close was a "...
transition approved. Cross directly over the airport to stay clear of
traffic."


I meant what I wrote. The controlled airspace delegated to Madison approach
control does not appear on any chart readily available to the flying public.
The charted Madison Class C airspace is just a fraction of their delegated
airspace. Madison will provide Class C services to all aircraft within the
Class C airspace and to all participating aircraft within the outer area.
The outer area extends up to the upper limit of the controlled airspace
delegated to them within a twenty mile radius of Truax Field. If you're
talking to Madison approach within that area you're a participating aircraft
and are subject to being vectored if need be to effect separation.



Milwaukee, on the other hand, seem very territorial. They are difficult to
deal with for practice approaches at Kenosha and they aggressively protect
their airspace around MKE by vectoring VFR traffic well clear. Many years
ago, I was passing along the lakeshore under their airspace. I called up
as a courtesy, got a squawk, then a chewing out for flying so close to
their airspace, then vectors further out into Lake Michigan. I responded,
"Lake 94P, squawking 1200, will remain clear of your airspace." I've never
called them again unless inbound to MKE. If their airspace is busier than
the protected areas are designed to support, I sympathize. If they want my
cooperation, they need to be nice about it


He was completely out of line to chew you out for flying close to the Class
C boundary. You can fly right up to the boundary without talking to them.
But what courtesy were you extending by calling them?

: He was completely out of line to chew you out for flying close to the Class
: C boundary. You can fly right up to the boundary without talking to them.
: But what courtesy were you extending by calling them?

A few I can think of offhand:
- Providing altitude verification of your Mode-C readout.
- Providing lateral intentions so they do not have to worry about rouge VFR targets.
- Providing altitude intentions.

In short by communicating, the pilot is providing the controller peace of mind that they are competent and do
not present a potential "airspace incursion" threat by bumbling into their airspace.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote in message
...

A few I can think of offhand:
- Providing altitude verification of your Mode-C readout.
- Providing lateral intentions so they do not have to worry about rouge
VFR targets.
- Providing altitude intentions.

In short by communicating, the pilot is providing the controller peace of
mind that
they are competent and do not present a potential "airspace incursion"
threat by
bumbling into their airspace.


Why would a controller assume you're competent merely by establishing
communications? Establishing communications precludes an airspace
incursion, of course, because establishing communications grants entry. But
establishing communications makes you a participating aircraft that must now
be provided services, including separation from any IFR aircraft he may be
talking to whereas before he just needed to advise that IFR traffic of your
target. In short, calling him will likely only increase his workload. I
don't see how increasing his workload can be considered extending him a
courtesy or providing him peace of mind.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...
In short, calling him will likely only increase his workload. I don't
see how increasing his workload can be considered extending him a courtesy
or providing him peace of mind.


That's good value out of this discussion. My belief was that, if they had
positive indication of my intent, that it would make life easier. Now I know
that I should keep my mouth shut.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

In article ,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

In short, calling him will likely only increase his workload.

verifying your Mode C altitude doesn't help descrease his workload?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

verifying your Mode C altitude doesn't help descrease his workload?


Probably not. Sure, if the Mode C altitude is verified he wouldn't have to
be called as traffic to participating aircraft that are clear of his
altitude. But to verify the Mode C he has to call and be identified, which
now makes him another participating aircraft for which services must be
provided. Having more participating aircraft tends to increase the
workload, not decrease it.

Ok. Now I am calling your bluff. One thing is totally wrong with your
comments. If I am on flight following/ VFR advisiories, whatever you
want to call it and I am flying from JAC to SLC, I am in communication
with ATC for over an hour. As I approach Class Bravo airspace around
Salt Lake City, if I don't hear those magic words " CLEARED INTO CLASS
BRAVO AIRSPACE" and I fly into the valley I can assure you I will hear
" CALL THE TOWER" upon landing. Being in communication with enroute
does NOT clear me into Bravo airspace or "grant" me entry. My next beef
is your attitude toward "participating" aircraft. If I fill my fuel
tanks with 100LL and pay all taxes that are included with each gallon I
can assure you I want all services that are available to me. For you to
whine about increased workload is not my problem. Your agency and
employer, "the federal government" has collected taxes from me from the
fuel I bought, it is up to your system to provide me with all services
included with said taxes. Now, I would love to see two fuel pumps at
all airports, one that collects taxes and then I would be a
"participating" aircraft. The second pump would be 100LL, or mogas that
charged no taxes and I would fly VRF and never deal with you
whiners.... What say you now???
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
...

A few I can think of offhand:
- Providing altitude verification of your Mode-C readout.
- Providing lateral intentions so they do not have to worry about rouge
VFR targets.
- Providing altitude intentions.

In short by communicating, the pilot is providing the controller peace of
mind that
they are competent and do not present a potential "airspace incursion"
threat by
bumbling into their airspace.


Why would a controller assume you're competent merely by establishing
communications? Establishing communications precludes an airspace
incursion, of course, because establishing communications grants entry. But
establishing communications makes you a participating aircraft that must now
be provided services, including separation from any IFR aircraft he may be
talking to whereas before he just needed to advise that IFR traffic of your
target. In short, calling him will likely only increase his workload. I
don't see how increasing his workload can be considered extending him a
courtesy or providing him peace of mind.