IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?

John Doe wrote:

That being said, I'm all for not bothering ATC unless I'm required to by FAA
regulations.

I used to feel the same way until I got my instrument ticket. Once I
started flying IFR flight plans, I started to file for any trip over an
hour or so long, regardless of weather. I liked having the extra eyes
looking for traffic (not to mention not having to worry about
circumnavigating some large cloud event).

Now, even if I don't file, I still call up for flight following unless
the trip is really short or I'm just going up to practice stalls or T&Gs.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"A common occurrence during compile time is a syntax error."
-- C: The Complete Reference, Herbert Schildt

On 10/27/2005 11:23 AM, Mark T. Dame wrote the following:

I used to feel the same way until I got my instrument ticket. Once I
started flying IFR flight plans, I started to file for any trip over an
hour or so long, regardless of weather. I liked having the extra eyes
looking for traffic (not to mention not having to worry about
circumnavigating some large cloud event).

Now, even if I don't file, I still call up for flight following unless
the trip is really short or I'm just going up to practice stalls or T&Gs.


Yes. In our neck of the woods (ZMP) I have never been refused flight following
nor been dropped when I was handed off to the Minneapolis TRACON. I am just
curious what the controllers prefer as it does not matter a great deal to me in
most cases. Hence the question.

paul kgyy wrote:
: I'm a pilot, not a controller, but around Chicago it's hard to get
: flight following. So if in doubt I always file IFR. It's normal
: flying into Chicago VFR that FF will be terminated at the point where
: you need it most, around the edge of the Class B.

: I don't think it matters what ATC prefers. You are the PIC. They are
: there to provide service and it's up to you to decide on the level of
: service you require for safe and efficient operation.

My (somewhat limited) experience flying around chicago (actually TRANSITIONING
through chicago is more accurate) is that IFR you'll take the long way around. VFR
they'll clear you "at or below Bravo." About 75% of the time I'll actually get FF
when I ask for it. About 10% of the time they'll tell me of traffic that I haven't
already seen. Given all the RF interference around downtown (lakeshore), and the
25% of the time I actually get properly terminated radar services, FF generally
seems like more trouble and workload than it's worth. Better to just concentrate on
looking for traffic.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

My (somewhat limited) experience flying around chicago (actually TRANSITIONING
through chicago is more accurate) is that IFR you'll take the long way around. VFR
they'll clear you "at or below Bravo."

....or above Bravo. Lots of traffic up there, though.

FF above the Bravo is good, approach wants to be talking to you, and they can't
tell you to go away.

Dave Butler wrote:
: My (somewhat limited) experience flying around chicago (actually TRANSITIONING
: through chicago is more accurate) is that IFR you'll take the long way around. VFR
: they'll clear you "at or below Bravo."

: ...or above Bravo. Lots of traffic up there, though.

: FF above the Bravo is good, approach wants to be talking to you, and they can't
: tell you to go away.

Heh... I generally fuel up just shy of Chicago, and I'm only going as far as
Milwaukee. Definately not worth the climb in a Cherokee for a 70 minute flight.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Hilton" wrote in message
nk.net...
Bob Gardner wrote:
From what little we "know" from news reports and supermarket tabloids, he
was disoriented.

NTSB: "The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during a
descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation.
Factors in the accident were haze, and the dark night "


Sounds alot like VFR pilot flying into IMC conditions.......

"Mitty" wrote in message
...
Departing cross country out of the Minneapolis area in severe clear, I
will usually ask for either flight following or will file. I depart from
KMIC, which is under the 4000 foot shelf of the MSP bravo airspace.

For example, Friday I am going from KMIC to KGPZ, which is a couple
hundred miles to the north.

I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:

Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel when
I have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)

Just advisories so you know who I am and what I am doing, but you don't
have to provide separation services?

Or do you not wish to hear at all? (Hopefully not, because I like being
in the system both for traffic info and in case of emergency.)


I prefer the "just advisories" route myself if you don't need the IFR
protection. Personally, I can think of at least many many examples when
co-altitude traffic targets have literally merged or come within a mile of
merging on my ARTCC scope in the last few months. In almost every case, I
was talking to at least one of them. Half of them, I was talking to both.
Some were VFR to VFR merges, a couple have been IFR to VFR merges with
safety/traffic alerts. In about a third of these events, at least one guy
never saw the other guy. There have also been a couple where I've said to
my collegues "Hey yall, look at these two! Holy Marion, I wonder if they
see each other." It's easier on me the controller if I am talking to both,
or else neither.

Regardless of the anti-controller spew you get on RAI from time to time,
it's still your tax dollars at work. We know who we work for. I really
can't think of a good reason not to use the system you are paying for if you
are flying cross country. It's there for you, you pay for it, why not use
it while you can still afford it? We're about two years off from user fees
followed by wholesale contracting out in my opinion. It probably won't long
surive the "all business is good; government is bad" crowd once they get
done "modernizing" and "rightsizing" and making an "industry-based
competitive service" of your national airspace system. Personally, I'd use
the NAS safety net while it still exists in its present form. It's safer
for *everyone* that way.

Chip, ZTL

On 10/27/2005 11:47 PM, Warren Jones wrote the following:

I prefer the "just advisories" route myself if you don't need the IFR
protection. Personally, I can think of at least many many examples when
co-altitude traffic targets have literally merged or come within a mile of
merging on my ARTCC scope in the last few months. In almost every case, I
was talking to at least one of them. Half of them, I was talking to both.
Some were VFR to VFR merges, a couple have been IFR to VFR merges with
safety/traffic alerts. In about a third of these events, at least one guy
never saw the other guy. There have also been a couple where I've said to
my collegues "Hey yall, look at these two! Holy Marion, I wonder if they
see each other." It's easier on me the controller if I am talking to both,
or else neither.


Thanks. I was guessing that was the case. I'll go with advisories on my CAVU
flight to GPZ this afternoon! Maybe stay IFR on longer trips where I might be
denied advisories. I had that problem in Kansas City a couple of months ago.
KC TRACON turned me down midafternoon on a nice day. Hard to see they could
have been that busy.

Regardless of the anti-controller spew you get on RAI from time to time,
it's still your tax dollars at work. We know who we work for.

Yes, I have never understood the anti-controller stuff. Here in flyover land
(ZMP) the Center guys and the TRACON guys are uniformly pleasant and helpful.
Goofy routings sometimes, of course, but not too often. And often amended to
more direct by the controller without my even asking.

I really
can't think of a good reason not to use the system you are paying for if you
are flying cross country. It's there for you, you pay for it, why not use
it while you can still afford it?

Agreed.

We're about two years off from user fees
followed by wholesale contracting out in my opinion.

I hope you're wrong on that one.

Mitty

"Mitty" wrote in message
...

Departing cross country out of the Minneapolis area in severe clear, I
will usually ask for either flight following or will file. I depart from
KMIC, which is under the 4000 foot shelf of the MSP bravo airspace.

For example, Friday I am going from KMIC to KGPZ, which is a couple
hundred miles to the north.

I am curious what TRACON and Center guys think:

Do you prefer to have me on a full IFR flight plan? (I always cancel when
I have the airport in sight if the destination is non-towered.)

Just advisories so you know who I am and what I am doing, but you don't
have to provide separation services?

Or do you not wish to hear at all? (Hopefully not, because I like being
in the system both for traffic info and in case of emergency.)


I'd hear controllers complain about having to work some guy and I'd tell
them, "You make it sound like you're a longshoreman or miner or construction
worker. You do a little talking, a little writing, and a little
button-pushing. Quit your bitchin' and do your job."

What does it matter what the controller prefers? To him it's still just a
little talking, a little writing, and a little button-pushing. If it's
flight following, the controller just has to advise you of other traffic,
and the other traffic of you if he happens to be talking to it. If you're
both IFR he may have to move one of you. But if he does, there's no
additional burden on him over providing flight following, it's still just a
little talking, a little writing, and a little button-pushing. His trip
isn't lengthened, he doesn't burn any more gas, there's no additional cost
to the controller.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

The NTSB report refers to a descent into the water caused by spatial
disorientation.

A simple Altitude Alert from a controller could have reminded him to look
at his altimiter and VSI and realize that he was pointed into the water
instead of into the Horizon, potentially yeilding different results.


Would an altitude alert end his disorientation? Why would the controller
issue an altitude alert? He was operating VFR, he wasn't required to hold
any particular altitude.



From what I hear on the radio, flight following is often a lot more than
just traffic alerts...


Like what? What do you hear on the radio?