filing IFR plan for VFR flight conditions

Regional Approach in Dallas does it without being asked.

Houston approach in Houston wont do it, even when asked.

Dave

Newps wrote:
"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

We have
found that virtually nobody wants center flight following, less than 5%

ask

for it, whether on the ground before departure or in the air.


If somebody calls asking for center flight following, do you still assume

they

dont' want it?


Nope, then we'll give you a center code and hand you off to the center. But
you have to ask for it. Simply telling me your destination, which happens
to be a long way away, won't do it.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

If you dont take their "recommended vector" they can terminate your
radar services arbitrarily under the "workload" clause.



How so? Declining a suggested vector doesn't affect their workload.



If you want flight following, you have to play ball.



When the controller does things contrary to established procedures it's
clear he's not a sharp troop. How useful is flight following from such
controllers?


It does (affect workload)if they have to vector 5 other people because
of you. I wouldnt be obligated to do any favors to someone who doesnt
offer any in return.

Dave.

"David Megginson" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com

Since
there's no point filing a flight plan that you cannot legally use,
that seems to settle the point.

Not necessarily. I certainly filed quite a number of IFR flight plans
during my instrument training and I certainly did use them legally even
though I was not PIC for the training flights.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

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

It does (affect workload)if they have to vector 5 other people because
of you.


Why would they have to vector 5 other people because of me?



I wouldnt be obligated to do any favors to someone who doesnt
offer any in return.


You'll have to explain the meaning of that.

Steve...

Do you by any chance fly VFR, in a busy terminal airspace, perhaps
during the "push"? You sure seem to have a hard time grasping some
pretty obvious and simple concepts that I am discussing... or you just
seem determined to ask "why" an awful lot. I'm sorry I am not being
detailed enough to suit your needs.

Dave

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...


It does (affect workload)if they have to vector 5 other people because
of you.



Why would they have to vector 5 other people because of me?



I wouldnt be obligated to do any favors to someone who doesnt
offer any in return.



You'll have to explain the meaning of that.

Chip Jones wrote:
"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...

[snipped]

You cannot act as PIC on an IFR flight plan or accept an IFR clearance

without

an instrument rating. There is no prohibition against -filing- an IFR

flight plan.

There was an extensive thread here (or in one of the r.a.* groups) about

how to

file a flight plan for a VFR flight and get your proposal strip into all

the

relevant controllers' hands by checking the "IFR" box on the flight plan

form,

then coding "VFR/altitude" in the altitude block. Google for it. I've

used it

and it works for me. I have an instrument rating, but it seems legal to me

even

if I didn't.


Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
flightplan. I say "isn't exactly" because while I am one of the proponents
of your method, I don't consider using this particular trick to get into the
system to be the same as "filing" an IFR flightplan. The ATC flightplan
that this method generates is clearly a VFR flightplan to the controller
because it says "VFR" in the requested altitude block. It does not generate
routings other than what is filed by the pilot because the IFR pref routings
are suppressed by the ATC computer.


OK, thanks, Chip. I accept your refinement.

What you say about IFR pref routings is interesting. Care to expand on that a
little? Are you saying that the ARTCC computer will come up with a new route for
an IFR based on preferred routings, but since this is a VFR plan, it skips that
rerouting step?

Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
flightplan.

Your co-worker, Don Brown, is hostile towards the procedure for just
this reason. He says that an IFR sqwawk code gets reserved for these
flight plans and sometimes center runs out.

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...


Chip Jones wrote:


Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
flightplan. I say "isn't exactly" because while I am one of the
proponents
of your method, I don't consider using this particular trick to get into
the
system to be the same as "filing" an IFR flightplan. The ATC flightplan
that this method generates is clearly a VFR flightplan to the controller
because it says "VFR" in the requested altitude block. It does not
generate
routings other than what is filed by the pilot because the IFR pref
routings
are suppressed by the ATC computer.


OK, thanks, Chip. I accept your refinement.

What you say about IFR pref routings is interesting. Care to expand on
that a
little? Are you saying that the ARTCC computer will come up with a new
route for
an IFR based on preferred routings, but since this is a VFR plan, it skips
that
rerouting step?

The ARTCC computers are all programmed locally, so the automation varies
slightly from Center to Center. However, one of the common routines of the
Host computer everywhere is to compare an IFR aircraft's filed route of
flight with ATC preferential IFR routes. It does this in New York, it does
this in Chicago, it does this in Atlanta.

These ATC IFR pref routes are more commonly referred to as "Red Routes" in
ATC parlance because back in the days before thermal strip printing (which
only prints in black), these IFR Pref routes would be printed in red on the
flight strip. Red ink on a flight progress strip indicates a planned action
or instruction. Black ink indicates an issued or exectuted action or
instruction. Since you filed one way, and the computer wants you to go a
different way, the Red Route would kick out at the appropriate sector or
facility and ATC would issue you a reroute. This would often be a STAR, but
not always.

The automation techs have drawn imaginary lines across ATC sectors. If the
line of your route of flight crosses one of these lines, and if you meet
other preconditions (like you are at or above a certain altitude, at or
below a certain altitude, flying into a particular destination, flying a
turbo jet, a turbo-prop, a prop, wearing an AOPA shirt, etc) then your
flightplan may trigger the local ATC computer's Red Route for your flight.
The computer actually stops processing your flightplan from that point
forward, and instead picks up the Red Route and goes from there. This makes
it *imperitive* for the controller holding that Red Route on you to either
issue you the reroute or else suppress the pref route by over riding it.

An example, take an IFR departure from LOU up in Louisville Kentucky, flying
down to PDK here in the Atlanta terminal area. Suppose that the pilot files
LOU direct PDK (I can hear Don Brown sighing right now). Indy Center will
process the flightplan to Atlanta Center as a direct flight. Indy Center
(ZID) does not had a Red Route on this airplane, so neither Louisville FSS
nor Louisville Departure will have one. Louisville sits under Indy Center
and is covered by the ZID host computer. The airplanes launches and flies
south, direct PDK. When the Atlanta Center (ZTL) computer gets the ATC
flightplan from ZID's computer, it generates a flight progress strip for
each of the sectors this aircraft will fly through. Before it does this, it
compares the filed route of flight (direct PDK) with any appropriate pref
routes. In this case, direct PDK is a no-no. At the first ZTL sector, a
Red Route is generated. Plus, the computer then stops processing the route
direct, and begins to kick out stips along the Red Route.

The Red Route will be *GQO BUNNI2*. The controller can then look at several
factors before he/she issues this route. If the aircraft is a jet, he will
issue the Red Route as printed because the aircraft has to cross GQO at
FL240 or below, and is likely at or above FL290 coming off of LOU. This is
a coordination issue with the Center NW arrival sector and there are
beaucoup jets heading into the Atlanta terminal area at any given time. If
this aircraft is a turboprop and is at or above FL240, likely there will be
no short cut and the full red route will be issued just like the computer
dictated, for the same reason as the jet example. If this aircraft is a
turboprop operating at or below FL230, then the controller has more options.
The controller may offer the aircraft a reroute of *DUMBB BUNNI2*, *BUNNI
BUNNI2" or maybe even take them over onto another STAR like *AWSON AWSON1*
which is closer to PDK when you hit terminal airspace. If the aircraft in
question is a prop at or below 12,000, then the controller may very well
suppress the red route all together (a process known as "splatting the
route") and work the airplane strait in to PDK. This GA pilot will never
know that the controller has gone out of his way to supress a pref route
because it won't ever be mentioned.

If this aircraft was VFR from LOU to PDK, no matter if it were a jet, a
turboprop or a prop, at any altitude below the Class A, the IFR Red Route
will never be generated. For VFR aircraft, the existence of "VFR" in the
altitude field supresses this pref routing routine. The computer processes
VFR ATC strips just like you filed, right on down the line of your route of
flight. This VFR aircraft flight data would shoot right down the line as
filed. That is, *unless* the local ATC facility is "too busy" or "too
important" to process VFR's receiving Flight Following via ATC automation.
The local automation gurus can customize the computer routines in each
ARTCC. In some cases, for those really, really busy places like Houston,
Pago Pago, Chicago, Podunk etc, they likely use modified routines that
procedurally supress VFR flightplan coordination. In other, less busy,
places, like New York, Southern California, Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, etc,
VFR ATC flightplans are processed just like IFR's, enhancing the chances of
you getting service and a VFR hand-off to the next facility. In none of
these places shoud an IFR Red Route be generated for a VFR aircraft.

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:
"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...


Chip Jones wrote:


Dave, in my opinion what you are describing isn't exactly an IFR
flightplan. I say "isn't exactly" because while I am one of the

proponents

of your method, I don't consider using this particular trick to get into

the

system to be the same as "filing" an IFR flightplan. The ATC flightplan
that this method generates is clearly a VFR flightplan to the controller
because it says "VFR" in the requested altitude block. It does not

generate

routings other than what is filed by the pilot because the IFR pref

routings

are suppressed by the ATC computer.


OK, thanks, Chip. I accept your refinement.

What you say about IFR pref routings is interesting. Care to expand on

that a

little? Are you saying that the ARTCC computer will come up with a new

route for

an IFR based on preferred routings, but since this is a VFR plan, it skips

that

rerouting step?


The ARTCC computers are all programmed locally, so the automation varies
slightly from Center to Center. However, one of the common routines of the
Host computer everywhere is to compare an IFR aircraft's filed route of
flight with ATC preferential IFR routes. It does this in New York, it does
this in Chicago, it does this in Atlanta.

These ATC IFR pref routes are more commonly referred to as "Red Routes" in
ATC parlance because back in the days before thermal strip printing (which
only prints in black), these IFR Pref routes would be printed in red on the
flight strip. Red ink on a flight progress strip indicates a planned action
or instruction. Black ink indicates an issued or exectuted action or
instruction. Since you filed one way, and the computer wants you to go a
different way, the Red Route would kick out at the appropriate sector or
facility and ATC would issue you a reroute. This would often be a STAR, but
not always.

The automation techs have drawn imaginary lines across ATC sectors. If the
line of your route of flight crosses one of these lines, and if you meet
other preconditions (like you are at or above a certain altitude, at or
below a certain altitude, flying into a particular destination, flying a
turbo jet, a turbo-prop, a prop, wearing an AOPA shirt, etc) then your
flightplan may trigger the local ATC computer's Red Route for your flight.
The computer actually stops processing your flightplan from that point
forward, and instead picks up the Red Route and goes from there. This makes
it *imperitive* for the controller holding that Red Route on you to either
issue you the reroute or else suppress the pref route by over riding it.

An example, take an IFR departure from LOU up in Louisville Kentucky, flying
down to PDK here in the Atlanta terminal area. Suppose that the pilot files
LOU direct PDK (I can hear Don Brown sighing right now). Indy Center will
process the flightplan to Atlanta Center as a direct flight. Indy Center
(ZID) does not had a Red Route on this airplane, so neither Louisville FSS
nor Louisville Departure will have one. Louisville sits under Indy Center
and is covered by the ZID host computer. The airplanes launches and flies
south, direct PDK. When the Atlanta Center (ZTL) computer gets the ATC
flightplan from ZID's computer, it generates a flight progress strip for
each of the sectors this aircraft will fly through. Before it does this, it
compares the filed route of flight (direct PDK) with any appropriate pref
routes. In this case, direct PDK is a no-no. At the first ZTL sector, a
Red Route is generated. Plus, the computer then stops processing the route
direct, and begins to kick out stips along the Red Route.

The Red Route will be *GQO BUNNI2*. The controller can then look at several
factors before he/she issues this route. If the aircraft is a jet, he will
issue the Red Route as printed because the aircraft has to cross GQO at
FL240 or below, and is likely at or above FL290 coming off of LOU. This is
a coordination issue with the Center NW arrival sector and there are
beaucoup jets heading into the Atlanta terminal area at any given time. If
this aircraft is a turboprop and is at or above FL240, likely there will be
no short cut and the full red route will be issued just like the computer
dictated, for the same reason as the jet example. If this aircraft is a
turboprop operating at or below FL230, then the controller has more options.
The controller may offer the aircraft a reroute of *DUMBB BUNNI2*, *BUNNI
BUNNI2" or maybe even take them over onto another STAR like *AWSON AWSON1*
which is closer to PDK when you hit terminal airspace. If the aircraft in
question is a prop at or below 12,000, then the controller may very well
suppress the red route all together (a process known as "splatting the
route") and work the airplane strait in to PDK. This GA pilot will never
know that the controller has gone out of his way to supress a pref route
because it won't ever be mentioned.

If this aircraft was VFR from LOU to PDK, no matter if it were a jet, a
turboprop or a prop, at any altitude below the Class A, the IFR Red Route
will never be generated. For VFR aircraft, the existence of "VFR" in the
altitude field supresses this pref routing routine. The computer processes
VFR ATC strips just like you filed, right on down the line of your route of
flight. This VFR aircraft flight data would shoot right down the line as
filed. That is, *unless* the local ATC facility is "too busy" or "too
important" to process VFR's receiving Flight Following via ATC automation.
The local automation gurus can customize the computer routines in each
ARTCC. In some cases, for those really, really busy places like Houston,
Pago Pago, Chicago, Podunk etc, they likely use modified routines that
procedurally supress VFR flightplan coordination. In other, less busy,
places, like New York, Southern California, Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, etc,
VFR ATC flightplans are processed just like IFR's, enhancing the chances of
you getting service and a VFR hand-off to the next facility. In none of
these places shoud an IFR Red Route be generated for a VFR aircraft.


Wow, Chip, thanks for the education. You've done it again. Sure appreciate your
insights.

Dave

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

Steve...

Do you by any chance fly VFR, in a busy terminal airspace, perhaps
during the "push"? You sure seem to have a hard time grasping some
pretty obvious and simple concepts that I am discussing... or you just
seem determined to ask "why" an awful lot. I'm sorry I am not being
detailed enough to suit your needs.


Dave, I think it's you that's having difficulty grasping the concept. A
previous poster wrote about flying "right over top of Class-C and Class-B"
airspace. He added, "if you talk to them, even if you're clear of their
airspace, they'll try to route you over hell and gone." In my response I
stated that was possibly an error on ATC's part over the top of Class C
airspace and definitely an error on their part over Class B airspace. It's
possibly an error over Class C airspace because Class C services are
provided to participating aircraft in the outer area just as they are in the
Class C airspace proper. Outside of Class B or Class C airspace, or the
outer area associated with Class C airspace, or a TRSA, ATC should not
assign headings, routes altitudes, etc, to VFR aircraft. To do so violates
FAA Order 7110.65, the document which prescribes air traffic control
procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control
services. If you've been following the thread, you know we've been
discussing operations outside of these types of airspace. So what is this
"busy terminal airspace" you're referring to?