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
...

My own issue was in the termination part. When I told them I wanted to
terminate
radar services, the request was ignored. When I inquired again whether
he'd
heard my request, he "denied" it by saying he was going to "keep me
with him until west of the airport."

That's why I was trying to find some sort of rules defining this
situation. I guess
as the pilot outside the Charlie, I should have simply said, "Terminating
radar
services, squaking 1200, will remain clear the Charlie." I didn't quite
think of that
at the time however.


Bingo.

wrote in message
...

... and yet they routinely do it if you happen to talk to them.


Just say no. But make sure you're NOT in an area where ATC must provide
separation when you do.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...

True, but in fairness (and in my experience) it is usually due to
traffic. Which, after all, is the only reason I am talking to them in
the first place.


Traffic does not justify a controller acting contrary to FAAO 7110.65.

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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I meant what I wrote.

I'm sure you did. The point is that Madison may "control" airspace outside
of the publicly charted terminal area but I can fly through it without be
"controlled."

Since the discussion was about the obligations of a VFR pilot to follow ATC
instructions, I don't see how pointing out that Madison is responsible for
that airspace adds any clarity. It's no different that all of the
surrounding airspace that Chicago or Minneapolis Center "controls."

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

"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.

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
...

I'm sure you did. The point is that Madison may "control" airspace outside
of the publicly charted terminal area but I can fly through it without be
"controlled."


Yes, you can do that by not calling Madison approach while operating VFR in
the outer area associated with the Madison Class C airspace. But if you do
call them in that situation you will be "controlled". That is the point.



Since the discussion was about the obligations of a VFR pilot to follow
ATC instructions, I don't see how pointing out that Madison is responsible
for that airspace adds any clarity. It's no different that all of the
surrounding airspace that Chicago or Minneapolis Center "controls."


It is significantly different than all of the surrounding airspace that
Chicago or Minneapolis Center "controls." Centers provide only traffic
advisories to VFR aircraft, within the outer area associated with Class C
airspace approach control facilities such as Madison provide separation
between IFR and participating VFR aircraft.