File IFR for VFR flight with flight following

[kullery]

During an "Operation Raincheck" tour of the Cleveland Center facility, the controllers encouraged filing an IFR flight plan for a VFR flight. This makes it easier for them to establish flight following because a strip is already generated in their system. They indicated that during peak workload, this could help in being provided flight following (since this is provided when workload permits). The flight plan is filed as an IFR type of flight plan with an appropriate VFR altitude (i.e. "VFR/55" in block 7). A remark should also be included such as "VFR flight following". I have used this practice on a number of RW flights and it simplifies comms when establishing flight following. I simply let them know when requesting flight following that there should be a VFR strip for me in the system.

The merits and legality of this practice (especially when the pilot has no instrument rating) have been debated at length on a number of message boards (AOPA, etc.) and I don't intend to reopen those discussions here. Suffice it to say that it is a practice that does exist.

Is this practice workable on PE? Is it any easier for the PE controllers to establish VFR flight following if this information is available in the system? Is this a practice that PE would encourage, discourage or not care about?

Thanks to all PE staff for the excellent service!!!

Ken

[Keith Smith]

I've been thinking the same thing. It's something we'll discuss internally. There are system issues with this, though, because the altitude field is purely numeric right now.

Establishing flight following is not too difficult to begin with (both real world and even more so on PE), so I'm not sure it's operationally needed, but for those that want to engage in that practice, it's something we should at least discuss internally.

Thanks for bringing it up.

[kullery]

Thanks Keith...

It's no big deal for me but I thought it could possibly be a benefit for PE controllers (as it is for RW controllers). It seems like I hear alot of requests for "Say type", "Say equipment", etc.

Interesting that your PE system issue (altitude field is purely numeric) is exactly the same issue that I have in RW filing with Foreflight or the DUATS app on my i-phone. The only way I can file this is via DUATS on-line. This issue comes up for people filing VFR in, out or through the DC ADIZ because the security procedures require an IFR flight plan for all VFR flights and block 7 needs to be completed as "VFR/x5". So when "East Coast Pilotedge" opens up ( ) you will need to deal with this!!!!

[Keith Smith]

Another solution is for pilots to provide that info when they request flight following, "N3AB is a Skyhawk, slant Golf, request advisories to Santa Monica at 4,500."

It's ok if it's not given until prompted, though...that's part o' the job.

And yes, I agree it's something we'd need to fix if we're going to support the DC SFRA.

[Alex Stjepanovic]

...They indicated that during peak workload, this could help in being provided flight following (since this is provided when workload permits)...

Another solution is for pilots to provide that info when they request flight following, "N3AB is a Skyhawk, slant Golf, request advisories to Santa Monica at 4,500."

It's ok if it's not given until prompted, though...that's part o' the job.

To paraphrase a quote from a real world ZLA SOP for a number of sectors in and around BUR/GMN/PMD/DAG/POM: "If you are too busy to enter the flight plan data, you are probably too busy to provide the service.".



It probably has to do with the way that the facilities were initially set up, and pretty much stayed that way, the fact that they in nature aren't "top-down", the way ICAO ones are, and that for the most part, US airspace is free for all, without a need for a clearance, but I've never been able to figure it out, why in such an active ATC system as US', VFR flight plans are for alerting service only. Surely it would be easier to just keep it all in the system, and when needed, the controller can just "activate" it. The idea of having them completely inaccessible to ATC, then having to put that information in all over again, then have both controllers and pilots bitch about how it takes too much to pick up flight following, seems ludicrous!