Flight following

So while tooling around last night in not the greatest visibility, and checking the engine monitor a LOT...I.e head in the cockpit more than normal...I came upon a C172 at 90 degress to my flight path. For the first time I realised just how fast things happen in An RV.

It was not THAT close but could have been.

Anyway, just wondered if anyone has used flight following when just tooling around the patch?...I.e will ATC generally keep an eye on your transponder if you tell them your not going anywhere in particular?

Thanks

Frank

I've had ATC facilities do this for me in the past, but I think it depends primarily on work load. It doesn't hurt to ask for it.

Flight Following

Being a person who flys allot here in the East Tennessee, there are a ton of people that do aerial photography around here and I hear them ask for flight following lots of times.

They are normally requesting it from TYS approach and they tell them they would like to request flight following while they are doing circles all around the area for photography.

So I don't see why not, if it works better, tell them you are doing aerial photography. Sometimes they are too busy and will tell you to check back later.

One note: Flight following does not guarantee you separation, it just helps!

That was my thought

One note: Flight following does not guarantee you separation, it just helps

Not to rely on it, just as anther set of eyes.

Thanks

Frank

Consider a Monroy ATD-300 or similar as a second set of eyes. I consider mine to be essential equipment and it's not expensive.

You can install it as a portable or panel mount.

Vern

Not Me

Never called ATC for flight following and I would hate to see that kind of FAA resource demanding practice become normal - read user fee justification. It doesn't work that well when you are working with ATC anyway especially when you are "tooling around the patch" they need to have a fairly precise idea of where you are going and where the other traffic is going. With the update rates on the RADAR displays the turning, climbing, diving, speeding, slowing, etc. of local "for fun" traffic the results are unreliable. You will have close encounters if you fly long enough in a local situation and flight following is not going to prevent that.

Bob Axsom

Bob Axsom said:

Never called ATC for flight following and I would hate to see that kind of FAA resource demanding practice become normal - read user fee justification. It doesn't work that well when you are working with ATC anyway especially when you are "tooling around the patch" they need to have a fairly precise idea of where you are going and where the other traffic is going. With the update rates on the RADAR displays the turning, climbing, diving, speeding, slowing, etc. of local "for fun" traffic the results are unreliable. You will have close encounters if you fly long enough in a local situation and flight following is not going to prevent that.

Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this would connect to user fees. VFR Flight Following is provided on a workload permitting basis. The controller is there for IFR traffic, if he/she is busy, they'll tell you. If not, they are just basically passing on alerts over the radio that pop up on their screen.

In busy areas like where I live, it can actually make the controller's life easier. If I ask for flight following for manuevers over a practice area, the controller sometimes asks for a favor in return - remain west of the highway or stay at or below 5,500'. My voluntary cooperation helps with the routing of other traffic.

But even if I'm wrong and this is the slippery slope to fees, I'd say go for it whenever you can't scan as dilligently for traffic (ex. lots of engine measurements, turns around a point for photos, etc.) After all, smashing into my blind spot isn't just going to ruin my day, it isn't going to help our insurance rates either.

-jjf

ADS-B

I'm going on record now and making a prediction -- the implementation and mandating of ADS-B will be the catalyst for user fees.

I believe FAA will eventually require fees to receive WX and traffic data. They will have data available about every single flight, including departure/destination points, time en-route, etc and this will all be uniquely tied to YOUR airplane (no squawking necessary, although I'm sure we'll be squaking for a while). If FAA wanted, they could bill for every hour of flight time.

User Fees

I have worked for the government for most of my life and I will guarantee you that someone is tracking how many VFR Traffic Advisory (Flight Following) flights that the FAA handles as well as how many flight plans they handle and type of aircraft involved with the flight plan. So here we are providing the stats that will be used against us to implement user fees! ...................... If it were just so simple as to not use these services then we would be OK not using VFR Traffic Advisories.

If we do not use them we then would eventually provide the hysterical public with another excuse when someone has a mid-air collision and Congress and the media with their (usually) incompetent coverage would point out that the small plane was not on a flight plan nor was it using VFR Traffic Advisories! It makes no difference if the small plane was doing everything correctly or not. The world has changed. The population has doubled since the late 1960's.

So I think the bottom line is that we will probably be D....d if we do and D....d if we don't use VFR Traffic Advisories.

My approach is to join both AOPA and EAA to have a voice. The NRA has done a good job of holding back the tide on guns (controversial subject). Hopefully AOPA and the EAA can continue to do the same for light aircraft. They are our only hope for no user fees IMO.

PS: Maybe someone could explain to me why the airlines want user fees. I cannot fathom why anyone would invite another tax .

Back to the orig question

Yes, you can request and get flight following for VFR flight even when just boring holes in the sky. The caveat being it is on a work load permitting basis and can be denied if ATC is to busy with higher priority traffic. From the AIM Ch 5 - The air traffic controller is responsible to give first priority to the separation of aircraft and to the issuance of radar safety alerts, second priority to other services that are required, but do not involve separation of aircraft and third priority to additional services to the extent possible.

Even in the Los Angeles basin it is possible to get advisories while in practice areas just doing manuevers. Best if you can give some geographical and vertical boundaries so they know where you plan on operating if you are not going from airport to airport.

Not a replacement for see and avoid but as stated by others, another set of eyes may help.

Why airlines want user fees

gvgoff99 said:

PS: Maybe someone could explain to me why the airlines want user fees. I cannot fathom why anyone would invite another tax .

Click to expand...

If the airlines were successful with user fees it would be to off set the removal of the current fuel tax that is used to fund the system. They are not going to pay more. They want to shift the burden to the little guy who doesn't have a strong of voice in Washington nor the high dollar lobbyist. Airlines pay about 4 cents per gallon of Jet A while GA pays 19 cents a gallon for Avgas; however, due to the much greater fuel burn of the airlines, they actually pay much more per flight and use of the system.

PCAS limitations

vlittle said:

Consider a Monroy ATD-300 or similar as a second set of eyes. I consider mine to be essential equipment and it's not expensive.

You can install it as a portable or panel mount.

Vern

Click to expand...

Ditto, but I'm using a Zaon XRX passive collision avoidance system. Works great for picking up other slower moving aircraft. But, it doesn't seem to "do the math" quickly enough to alert the pilot to fast jet aircraft. A pair of F/A-18's came up behind me this summer, banked hard turning away and were quite far away when the XRX finally registered aircraft at 6 o'clock. If somehow we had been on a collision course, the PCAS would have been worthless as an early warning device.

It was suggested installing an X-band automotive-type radar detector as an adjunct to the PCAS might be a good idea if often flying near very active MOA's, a prompt that the big kids are in the neighborhood. Anyone doing this? If so, how far away will a radar detector pick up?

Traffic Display

I have mentioned this a couple of times. I have a Garmin 430 and Garmin 330S transponder. This provides me with traffic display and audible when necessary. I live under the Class B in the Phoenix area. I could not imagine flying in a busy area with out it. When flying locally, I just put the traffic screen on the 430.

The system only works in areas that support TIS. I haven't found any major metro area (that I have been to) that didn't support it. I realize this system is supposed to go away but it has already saved on 3 occasions so I feel it was money well spent.

On Cross Country's I always use flight following. I feel this is important for traffic and in the event of an emergency. You've got someone on frequency to contact if "fit hits the shan." I also enjoy hearing the comments and often get questions about the plane. Lots of RVer's out there. It also keeps you sharp on the radio skills. Down side it cuts out the XM radio!!!!

On my flight to Oshkosh I used FF all the way to the Notam cut off point. I logged 27 frequency changes!!! Not too bad, but definitely felt better using the system.

Personally, the Lobby of the EAA, AOPA and a couple of other organizations will fight to the death to keep user fees from being enacted. Don't think this will ever happen.

ABSOLUTELY! I second the use of services for booting around the local area!

Here in Massachusetts, Cape Approach is VERY ACCOMODATING to the casual pilot!

I usually say something like, Cape Approach, Citabria 8DH, Plymouth Hah buh, Level tree tousand, booting around the patch.

They give me a number and we chat it up often!

I take friends and fellow teachers for scenics and when the eyes are on the ground/water, it is good to have them watching us.

Use them when you can!

CJ

Oh, and Mark...

A radar detector basically detects radar. If the signal is present and it is the matching band, it should perform as advertised.

...that is, so long as the signal is being transmitted into your direction.

CJ

N808VR said:

If the airlines were successful with user fees it would be to off set the removal of the current fuel tax that is used to fund the system. They are not going to pay more. They want to shift the burden to the little guy who doesn't have a strong of voice in Washington nor the high dollar lobbyist. Airlines pay about 4 cents per gallon of Jet A while GA pays 19 cents a gallon for Avgas; however, due to the much greater fuel burn of the airlines, they actually pay much more per flight and use of the system.

Click to expand...

False economy.....

Airlines don't pay squat!

Airline customers pay for any and all taxes. Like all corporate taxes it is simply an indirect tax on the consumer. I'm not saying this is right or wrong ... only that it is.

John

Zaon XRX

Ditto on the comment regarding Monroy, Zaon or other collision avoidance system. I've had my XRX for a couple of months and I love it.
Even if I do have flight following, I usually know about the traffic before they tell me. It's an awesome tool.

S_tones