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

: 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.

wrote in message
oups.com...

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


Nobody said it did. If you review the thread you'll see we were talking
about communicating with Milwaukee approach and entry to the Class C
airspace.



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???


I say you aren't very bright.

Hmmmm. And you work for an organization " federal government" that is 9
trillion dollars in debt.. Actions speak louder then words.....
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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


Nobody said it did. If you review the thread you'll see we were talking
about communicating with Milwaukee approach and entry to the Class C
airspace.



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???


I say you aren't very bright.

wrote in message
oups.com...
My next beef
is your attitude toward "participating" aircraft.

Huh? He didn't say don't call them because they have better things to do.

The discussion has been comparing two scenarios. A) VFR pilot flys near a
Class C and does not call up and, therefore, does not require services and
B) VFR pilot flys near a Class C and does call up and, therefore, does
require services.

Some of us had the belief that B) made it easier for the controller with the
theory that they had a little more positive control over us. Steven's point
is that A is the easier load.

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

wrote:
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.


You are right, you must hear "cleared into the class Bravo". You will
almost never hear the center give that clearance. There have been a few
instances where ATC led a pilot down the path andthe pilot went into the
class B without a clearance but didn't suffer any consequences.