Missing flight plans

In rec.aviation.owning B A R R Y wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:50:54 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:


How exactly Michelle will filing a VFR flight plan reduce the accident rate
in aircraft?

Not only will it not prevent a single accident, I don't see the value
of a VFR flight plan for other reasons in many cases.

If you're a religious user of flight following, as I am, you're
already on the horn with ATC, and uniquely identified on the radar
screen. In an emergency, you'd already be talking to a controller
and probably heard by other area aircraft, so emergency folks would
most likely know where to start looking long before a VFR flight plan
expired and FSS started a telephone search. I've been told that
making an initial distress call on the same frequency I'm already
using for FF is not only acceptable, but a good idea.

Except there are lots of desolate areas where there is no ATC unless
you are in the FLs, where a non-turbo, piston bug smasher like a C-172
or warrior is not likely to be.

Also if you lose comm with ATC on VFR following, ATC is not likely to
get excited about it.

My personal rule of thumb is if I'm going to be flying over an area
that I would not care to be stuck in for more than a few hours, file
a flight plan.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
t...
I think Michelle was saying that it was a lack of professionalism that led
to accidents, and not filing a flight plan was one of the marks of
unprofessional flying...


I think she tied professionalism to filing a VFR flight plan and that is
just silly.

In rec.aviation.owning B A R R Y wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:05:02 GMT, wrote:


Except there are lots of desolate areas where there is no ATC unless
you are in the FLs, where a non-turbo, piston bug smasher like a C-172
or warrior is not likely to be.

Hence my inclusion of "many cases", and my lack of absolute terms..

I'd file there, just like you. I typically fly around New England and
the Mid-Atlantic states, where radar and ATC comm coverage is very
good.

I'm in the southwest and fly a lot over mountains and desert where ATC
coverage is marginal at C-172 altitudes.

I also carry a survival bag with stuff for a couple of days.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark Hansen wrote:



Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
this case.

ATC is required to, that's why.

On 08/04/06 13:42, Newps wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:



Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
this case.

ATC is required to, that's why.

When you're on flight following (traffic advisories) and have stop
talking to ATC, they are required to begin a search and rescue operation?

Note that this discussion was about *not* having a flight plan open.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

B A R R Y wrote:
I've been told that
making an initial distress call on the same frequency I'm already
using for FF is not only acceptable, but a good idea.



Yep, turns out that most ATC freqs are as good or better than
121.5. I heard the cub go down in Lake Michigan last weekend.
His mayday was on Gary Tower and Gary was on the phone with
Chicago and they were vectoring a Gary departure over towards
the last spot they had him on radar. Better yet if they
already are watching you. I lost contact with PXT one day
while getting flight following (just got too far away and
couldn't hear them anymore, so I just set 1200 and broadcast
I was leaving in the blind.

By the time I got to my destination there were aircraft calling
on the CTAF there relaying inquiries from Approach as to whether
I'd made it there.

On the other hand, there was a case in CT (if I recall right)
where a pilot was on an IFR plan, was switched to CTAF and
told the controller that he'd probably be back after a missed.
The controller never received the cancellation and forgot
about the guy. Unfortunately, he crashed on approach and
nobody noticed until the next morning.

VFR plans are a nice backup, but I'd like to be dealing with
someone immediately.

"Michelle" wrote in

Let me answer your question with another question: why do you file all
the time (why only IFR) now and not then?

I can't answer for Wizard, but he seems to be doing the same thing I did
/ am doing.

If it's severe clear out and I have a one hour flight, either I go IFR or
not talk to a soul. Sure things can happen, but if I am enroute to a
destination, the person expecting me knows my arrival time and if I don't
arrive within a set time I tell them, they know to call FSS.

Reason for me going IFR is that I can't be willy nilly dropped from the
system, and I have company for the ride. With VFR flight following, it
is on a work load basis, and if I was upstairs for a couple of hours, I
want to be assured that I don't get dropped from the system. I don't
have to worry about airspace issues or cloud clearances.

Another reason for not using a VFR flight plan is that once I am on the
ground, I am done, no remembering to call flight services, no looking up
the local FSS to close my plan and so on and so on.

One time before getting my instrument rating, I diverted to another
airport which caused all sorts of confusion with FSS. I called in to
close my plan, and said I landed at a different airport. Next thing you
know, I get a phone call from my destination contact all in a quandry to
where am I inspite of me calling them to let them know I was in a
different city / state because flight service got things discombobled
some how. At least with the IFR plan, I divert to another controlled
airport, then my plan is cancelled without adding additional stress of
closing a plan.

As to your question, it just seems so "unprofessional" and I think
unprofessional conduct by pilots is a big part of the reason GA has
such a higher accident rate than cars, and private pilots have the
highest rates among their pilot brethren.

Here's where I respectfully disagree with you. Filing a VFR flight plan
does nothing for professionalism. I don't see any difference in me
jumping in my Sundowner for a one hour flight down to the coast then me
driving in my Dodge Ram one hour to another destination.

I am fortunate enough to own my own plane, and I expect each button to
turn, twist, pull or push. If I don't have faith in my own equipment,
then I shouldn't leave the ground.

The professionalism I do see in private pilots is getting a briefing,
doing all checklists, flying to point A to B and landing in the same
condition they left in. Filing a VFR flight plan does nothing to enhance
this. For that matter, filing an IFR flight plan does nothing for
professionalism. It's all the presentation.

One thing I find inexcuseable is not getting a preflight briefing. The
one and only time I did not get a briefing, I suffered the on air
embarrasment of being asked if I was aware of a balloon activity notam.
All I was doing was going to the practice area. I made myself a promise
from that date forward, I will never fly without getting a FSS briefing.
It sure is simple enough and I do it on the ride to the airport.

Ok, rambled enough, flame away *big smile*

Allen

Mark Hansen wrote:
On 08/04/06 13:42, Newps wrote:


Mark Hansen wrote:



Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
this case.


ATC is required to, that's why.


When you're on flight following (traffic advisories) and have stop
talking to ATC, they are required to begin a search and rescue operation?

Yes, if the loss of comm or radar was unexpected.

On 08/04/06 14:55, Newps wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:
On 08/04/06 13:42, Newps wrote:


Mark Hansen wrote:



Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
this case.


ATC is required to, that's why.


When you're on flight following (traffic advisories) and have stop
talking to ATC, they are required to begin a search and rescue operation?

Yes, if the loss of comm or radar was unexpected.

Can you provide a reference to the regulation that explains this? It is
not what I was taught - and I'm always willing to learn ;-)

Thanks,



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On 08/04/06 14:57, Mark Hansen wrote:
On 08/04/06 14:55, Newps wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:
On 08/04/06 13:42, Newps wrote:


Mark Hansen wrote:



Actually, ATC is not required to maintain communications with you,
and if you suddenly disappear, they may assume you just went off-
frequency and shut off your transponder (or had a power failure,
etc.). I don't see why they would begin a search and rescue in
this case.


ATC is required to, that's why.


When you're on flight following (traffic advisories) and have stop
talking to ATC, they are required to begin a search and rescue operation?

Yes, if the loss of comm or radar was unexpected.

Can you provide a reference to the regulation that explains this?

Just to clarify, what I mean is can you show the regulation which states
that ATC is required to begin search and rescue operations if they lose
radio contact with an airplane that was on flight following.

It is
not what I was taught - and I'm always willing to learn ;-)

Thanks,






--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA