PilotEdge Forums

Hello! A quick question...if you file a VFR flight plan with departure and arrival airports, will the clearance delivery/ground controller at the departure airport assume that you want flight following? Thanks,

Paul

The controller won't technically see the flight plan you're filing, so don't assume they know anything based on what you've filed. Tell the controller what you wan't, don't be shy.

If you tell the controller that you're "VFR to [destination name] at [altitude]," that doesn't comprise a request for flight following. You might get it by default, or you might not. But, if you say, "advisories to [destination name] at [altitude]" then that would be an explicit request.

Keith Smith wrote:But, if you say, "advisories to [destination name] at [altitude]" then that would be an explicit request.

I've always said "request VFR flight following direct [destination name]". Or "... [destination name] via [waypoint]". Have always been curious about the altitude part. Why is that important and what does it imply about what you should do or report in flight? Unless directed, there isn't an obligation to actually fly that altitude and weather may preclude it. Curious...

It gets put on the strip as a VFR altitude. It helps with handoffs to subsequent sectors as shelves are stacked in 3D. It also helps predict how you may or may not have an issue with departure and arrival corridors.

If either of those become significant factors, then ATC might say, "advise prior to any altitude changes" while you're enroute. Since there is a FAR which states you must comply with all ATC instructions, it does imply that you need to do that if they say it.

Of course if directed to report altitude changes, or maintain VFR at or below / above a certain altitude, the need for compliance is clear. But if the only communication is the initial request that includes an "expected cruise altitude" and no further ATC direction, then there would be no obligation to actually fly the expected altitude, correct?
Thanks for the insight into the purpose!

EDIT: Just clarifying that this discussion is about requesting service while on the ground from either GND or CLNC DEL. The initial request for radar services while in the air would always include current position and altitude.

bbuckley wrote:Of course if directed to report altitude changes, or maintain VFR at or below / above a certain altitude, the need for compliance is clear. But if the only communication is the initial request that includes an "expected cruise altitude" and no further ATC direction, then there would be no obligation to actually fly the expected altitude, correct?
Thanks for the insight into the purpose!

EDIT: Just clarifying that this discussion is about requesting service while on the ground from either GND or CLNC DEL. The initial request for radar services while in the air would always include current position and altitude.

Correct. Only FARs apply to VFR aircraft until receiving explicit ATC instructions.

Thanks JX.

bbuckley wrote: I've always said "request VFR flight following direct [destination name]". Or "... [destination name] via [waypoint]".

So if I wanted to fly a route where I will be navigating via VORs then when picking up traffic advisories I should use "via

• "? I have planned a flight where the first leg is perpendicular to the direct route and was wondering how best to advise the controller of my plan before they inquire mid flight why I am not proceeding on the direct course. Or am I overthinking traffic advisories?
  
  Colin

I am assuming you are referring to the initial call to clearance or ground requesting radar services and not the VFR flight plan. You don't need to give a detailed route, in fact too much info would probably be frowned on. The idea is to give the controller enough info on initial route and altitude so that they can plan handoff to appropriate sector. Something like "N123AB request VFR departure east and flight following to KXYZ at 4 thousand 5 hundred via Podunk VOR initially"

Once underway you can advise of any significant deviations from direct for the near term to the current controller. I do the same for significant deviations to remain VFR or for terrain clearance.

Maybe one of the controllers can add or correct me.
Bruce

Bruce,

Exactly right, during that initial call when I state the final destination but know my planned route will cause the controller to wonder if I really know where I am going. Barring a controller jump in here I might pop onto the network when it is not crowded and simply inquire of the controller what their druthers are (I like both your ideas of stating a destination with a via option to specify the VOR I plan to use and the other option of just stating my destination and a departure direction so the controller will know I plan to make a turn to course).

Colin