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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The alternate thing is interesting. In VMC, I just file IFR anyway. When I get close I'll either amend if I want to go further or cancel and go to FF. Nothing wrong with planning for IFR fuel and flying VFR fuel once there. Kind of good conservative planning. I'll do that next week flying to Tampa. With 4.5 hours, I can and have made Tampa without a stop but never plan it. I will file and get a clearance and see how it works this time.
Recently I was going from Florida to Cleveland with a stop just before the mountains for fuel. While on the ground, a line of severe thunderstorms passed by, and then I could go behind them. As there were mountains and scattered embedded thunderstorms in the way, the IFR routing would likely be wiggly, subject to revision, and would probably not get me to Cleveland with an alternate and appropriate reserves. So I'd need to stop again, and I would not be able to see the thunderheads to avoid them. But if I could slip out VFR, I could fly direct, avoid the nasty stuff visually if it became an issue, and land with plenty of fuel at my destination. I got flight following, advised them that I might nead a clearance at some point, and did just that. Dodged a bit of weather visually, climbed up to 12,000 feet while doing so, and approaching Cleveland I got the ILS. Point two IMC in the logbook, one approach to minimums, no convective surprises, plenty of outs, and no hassles. Jose -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... paul kgyy wrote: I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact Moline approach? It absolutely depends on how busy ATC is. Around here (New York), if they're not busy, you can call them up cold and and make your request. They'll take the important info (destination, aircraft type, etc) and give you a route. Sometimes they'll say they're too busy and tell you to go talk to FSS like you're supposed to. What I find works best is if things are iffy, is to get VFR flight following first. Once they've already got you in the system, assigned a code, radar identified, etc, if you later tell them you need to get a clearance, they're more likely to handle you directly. If push comes to shove, if you tell them you need a clearance NOW, they'll get you one. But the idea is to never let things degenerate to the point where you have to start playing trump cards. Actually Roy, ATC'll get you one *if* they can. ATC usually can, especially under the circumstances you describe. However, the pilot really doesn't have a "trump" card when it comes to pop-up IFR. You need one on a busy frequency, you might be SOL for a while as ATC is occupied with higher priority stuff. My point is that you are in no legal position to demand IFR if you are already airborne flying VFR. I totally agree with you about getting F/F making a pop-up easier to get. Under VFR Flight Following, you already have almost all of the ingredients in play that ATC needs to handle you IFR. Converting F/F to IFR on a busy frequency is usually no more workload on the controller other than issuing you a clearance and a good IFR altitude. Because I already am providing you radar service, I can give you a clearance with one transmission. Then, I either send you over to Radio to file the full SAR stuff (souls on board etc) or else get you to spit it all out on the taped frequency if I have room/time on the bandwidth. If something happens to cause a need for SAR, Center can pull the voice tape and access your information. In an emergency, we can access the voice data in under five minutes. I've never understood why more pilots on VFR cross countries don't use Flight Following. Personally, I've never had to turn down VFR radar service to any pilot no matter how busy I've been with IFR traffic (and I'm plenty busy, often). Centers don't have to separate VFR's in Class E, which is where most of our flight following happens. Thus, there's no reason for ARTCC's not to provide the service, even when the freq is non-stop with radio traffic. Almost every Center controller I know down here would rather be talking to all parties when making traffic calls to known aircraft. The unknown VFR guys represent a traffic wildcard and in my view increase the workload when issuing traffic to known aircraft, rather than decreasing it. Chip, ZTL |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Jack wrote:
Why don't more people use flight following? It distracts them from being able to enjoy their satellite radio, Bob. That is absolutely hilarious, as I did that once. However, ATC made the decision easy for me since the next approach facility would not accept my VFR handoff from the previous controller, nor would they answer my VFR calls, yet their side of the frequency was quiet (at this particular facility the ocntroller might work two frequencies, but he transmits on both). Oh well, I said to my intercom, I guess I will enjoy a few moments of uninterrupted satellite radio. :-) -- Peter |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Chip Jones wrote:
I've never understood why more pilots on VFR cross countries don't use Flight Following. By the same token, I've never understood why the FAA doesn't make it easier to get flight following. You should be able to pre-file your VFR flight plan with DUATS so ATC already has a strip on you at initial call-up, just like with IFR. Then you wouldn't have to waste so much time on the frequency with where you're going, aircraft type, etc. I've been told you can play tricks with DUAT, filing an IFR flight plan and putting "VFR" in the remarks section, but you shouldn't have to resort to subterfuge like that for what seems like such a simple and logical thing. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"paul kgyy" wrote: I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend on how busy ATC is ...? Yes. It also depends on what segment of the trip you are flying. If I decide I need an in flight clearance near the beginning of a long trip, I'll call FSS. If I'm in or near the airspace of the ATC facility controlling my destination's approaches, I'll get a pop-up, frequency congestion permitting. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote: I've never understood why more pilots on VFR cross countries don't use Flight Following. ...Almost every Center controller I know down here would rather be talking to all parties when making traffic calls to known aircraft. The unknown VFR guys represent a traffic wildcard and in my view increase the workload when issuing traffic to known aircraft, rather than decreasing it. Well, I gotta admit that sometimes I don't use FF because I don't want to be bothered. Like when it's a brilliant, clear day and I would rather listen to music and watch the world go by than work the radio. No offense, Chip; I enjoy working with ATC. But 90% of my flying is IFR, and I like taking a break from "the system" once in a while. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I get FF whenever I fly VFR, but there are times when that may be a
hassle. If you are engaged in conversation with your pax, it is easy to miss an ATC transmission. I've heard ATC chide pilots "if you want flight following, you better listen to the radio". "Chip Jones" wrote in ink.net: "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... paul kgyy wrote: I was taught that, if I needed to file an IFR flight plan in the middle of a trip, I should contact FSS first to file and get clearance, then contact ATC. On the other hand, I hear frequent references in rec.aviation to pilots who just contact ATC directly. Does this depend on how busy ATC is - i.e. near Chicago contact FSS, near Moline contact Moline approach? It absolutely depends on how busy ATC is. Around here (New York), if they're not busy, you can call them up cold and and make your request. They'll take the important info (destination, aircraft type, etc) and give you a route. Sometimes they'll say they're too busy and tell you to go talk to FSS like you're supposed to. What I find works best is if things are iffy, is to get VFR flight following first. Once they've already got you in the system, assigned a code, radar identified, etc, if you later tell them you need to get a clearance, they're more likely to handle you directly. If push comes to shove, if you tell them you need a clearance NOW, they'll get you one. But the idea is to never let things degenerate to the point where you have to start playing trump cards. Actually Roy, ATC'll get you one *if* they can. ATC usually can, especially under the circumstances you describe. However, the pilot really doesn't have a "trump" card when it comes to pop-up IFR. You need one on a busy frequency, you might be SOL for a while as ATC is occupied with higher priority stuff. My point is that you are in no legal position to demand IFR if you are already airborne flying VFR. I totally agree with you about getting F/F making a pop-up easier to get. Under VFR Flight Following, you already have almost all of the ingredients in play that ATC needs to handle you IFR. Converting F/F to IFR on a busy frequency is usually no more workload on the controller other than issuing you a clearance and a good IFR altitude. Because I already am providing you radar service, I can give you a clearance with one transmission. Then, I either send you over to Radio to file the full SAR stuff (souls on board etc) or else get you to spit it all out on the taped frequency if I have room/time on the bandwidth. If something happens to cause a need for SAR, Center can pull the voice tape and access your information. In an emergency, we can access the voice data in under five minutes. I've never understood why more pilots on VFR cross countries don't use Flight Following. Personally, I've never had to turn down VFR radar service to any pilot no matter how busy I've been with IFR traffic (and I'm plenty busy, often). Centers don't have to separate VFR's in Class E, which is where most of our flight following happens. Thus, there's no reason for ARTCC's not to provide the service, even when the freq is non-stop with radio traffic. Almost every Center controller I know down here would rather be talking to all parties when making traffic calls to known aircraft. The unknown VFR guys represent a traffic wildcard and in my view increase the workload when issuing traffic to known aircraft, rather than decreasing it. Chip, ZTL |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Lots of good answers, especially regarding how easy it is to get a pop-up if
you already have flight following. I'll just add one more item - fly a route you could fly IFR with the equipment you've got. For example, while my handheld GPS can take me direct anywhere VFR - I'm screwed if I need an IFR pop-up and I'm not on an airway in my VOR only equiped plane (/U). So I pretty much always follow airways - just on the off chance I need to "convert" my flight following to an IFR clearance. -Brenor |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... By the same token, I've never understood why the FAA doesn't make it easier to get flight following. You should be able to pre-file your VFR flight plan with DUATS so ATC already has a strip on you at initial call-up, just like with IFR. Then you wouldn't have to waste so much time on the frequency with where you're going, aircraft type, etc. I've been told you can play tricks with DUAT, filing an IFR flight plan and putting "VFR" in the remarks section, but you shouldn't have to resort to subterfuge like that for what seems like such a simple and logical thing. Forget about the remarks, just use "VFR" as the requested altitude. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Just to add my $0.02: If I'm already getting FF and I suggest to the controller that I want to go off frequency to talk to FSS to file IFR, s/he always seems to say, "nah, we'll do it right here." I always thought it was the reverse psychology in action. I've spent too much time with sales people. -- dave j -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
Procedure Turn | Bravo8500 | Instrument Flight Rules | 65 | April 22nd 04 03:27 AM |
Normal EGT - Very Low CHT | markjen | Owning | 7 | March 4th 04 01:54 PM |
Unusual Procedure at DFW | Toks Desalu | Piloting | 9 | December 17th 03 05:27 PM |
Instrument Approaches and procedure turns.... | Cecil E. Chapman | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | September 18th 03 10:40 PM |