If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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 ____________________ |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
FAA letter on flight into known icing | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 78 | December 22nd 03 07:44 PM |
Sim time loggable? | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 6th 03 07:47 AM |
IFR flight plan filing question | Tune2828 | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | July 23rd 03 03:33 AM |