"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my
instructors
ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
someone too foolish to fly with.


As I think I pointed out, flight following is not always available in this
area due to low altitudes and poor radar and radio coverage. Seattle
Approach is often too busy to handle flight following. Flight following is
no substitute for "see and avoid" anyway. We have too many things like
seaplanes and helicopters conducting operations everywhere around here to
rely on flight following. A great many airplanes have neither radios nor
transponders. The TFRs have made things worse. There are a number of pilots
around here who attempt to avoid airspace trouble by turning their
transponders off and refusing to talk to anyone. Some of them will fly in
IMC.

I have been listening to an ongoing debate about flight following among
instructors for some time. Some of these instructors think that flight
following actually hinders teaching pilots to see and avoid and they don't
think that students should be introduced to it until the second cross
country. These instructors don't seem particularly irrational to me. Most of
them are old flight instructors who also think that places like Tacoma Tower
rely too much on radar and not enough on looking out at the traffic. I don't
agree with their viewpoint necessarily but I can understand it quite well.
They do have a point.