MaxPoll: IFR Flights (Commercial Flt’s) are not authorized to request “Flight Following”, it’s a VFR Procedure only! VFR only Following Procedures are authorized and outlined IAW the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), the ATC Bible. IF ATC permits modify AIM procedure for airspace control to fit the platform.
In my world IFR Following for operations is an anathema when “Check In” does the trick. IFR Following inculcates misguidance into the procedure learning circle for purest enthusiasts. IF ACT should stop offing Following to all IFR AC and discard IFR Following from their present lexicon of commands and replace it with the “Out of Range” Response for the unread/malcontents which is included in the present ATC radio menu. What say you Members?
I think we should let pilots choose what they request for. Even though it may be wrong, a pilot can technically ask for a flight following in a commercial plane, they just might not receive the response they want.
However, the game could suggest to them to use another option, using my awesome feature request which can be found here.
A check-in is essentially what should be used for IFR aircraft, its the same thing as flight following essentially but just a differently worded command.
The beauty of IF is that it lets pilots fly to their hearts’ content. Whether its Expert or Training, pilots shall have the freedom to request any flight following they want, no matter what aircraft. I’m against this for now.
Sometimes, you get a double whammy. A pilot will check in and then request FF, when only the check in option should be used.
Yes, that is true. If there was a pro in this change, this would be it.
I am bad at understanding quotes that are written like this but I will say yes just because ;P
I totally agree. Seeing “requesting flight following” with a filed flight plan makes no sense. ATC already knows your route, and that’s why you (in real life) get clearance delivery before pushback.
@Maxmustang I’m gonna have to say no on this one buddy and for ONE reason only.
I’ve been told to request flight following from ATC if I want to continue following my meticulously planned flight including proper IFR procedures.
Once there’s a work around for that-perhaps:
“Join the arrival”
Could be the type of commands to help this along
My thoughts on this: During approach, I’m all for vectors only, but if everyone were to request vectors on departure, it could be confusing for the controller. Example: A pilot is flying to an airport the controller has never heard of.
Mistimes when someones requests vectors during departure I heard “Airport is outside of coverage area, please continue own navigation.”
Yes! As an IFATC Officer, when a pilot checks in, that’s a radar service provided. I’ll make sure he gets out safely. He doesn’t then need to request flight following! And then they request insane altitudes for the beginning of flight, etc…
Check in should really be used much more than it is.
@FBWFTW using check in would probably help you follow that meticulously planned flight plan more than flight following. As radar controllers we basically treat them the same. If you were in my airspace, check in does just the trick.
a Lot of people say flight following, even I used to say that until I learnt it was only for VFR,
in fact when I was in training server I used to request flight following and radar vectors
@FBWFTW… You hit the wrong nail on the head my old friend. There are plenty of work around employed by IF ATC. With no Airways or Centers they have an extremely difficult task, which they do with skill and sympathy for our rowdy lot of pilots. I don’t know who told you that you’d be able to follow your “ meticulously” filed plan but they lied to you. Until STARS or another preplanned Procedure is implemented you’ll always get a deviation, think vector to make up for the absence of en-route Control. .IF ATC has to marshal arrivals for example… Your Plan is closed upon contact… The only command that allows you to follow your plan is “Check In”.
Your command examples could work when IF matures to a point that the real Nation Airways ATC System is introduced.
‘Now, reconsider a vote for this asinine command.” Imagine KLAX attempting to flight follow your Hawaii vacation flight. Don’t work for me I’m a realist. Regards, Max
Which two answers shall I choose…🤔😲
@azeeuwnl MaxSez: I knew it, some older than dirt attention to detail widget and a 13 year old would catch this brain (expletive deleted), to late to fix it once posted, Say Sara Sara! Never said I was perfect, Da! Do good work, now give it 3 yes votes fellows… LOL.
Who lov’s ya baby, Max
(Info: @Vidal99977 @TaipeiGuru)
See neither of these quotes is consistent with what I’ve read on here or heard anecdotally:
“ask for flight following and be left to your flight plan”
With simply “checking in” I’ve had ridiculous out of the way commands come at me. Since I’ve asked around and been told “flight following” and flight following means: follow me and IF the need arises go ahead and vector or sequence me. But then again, I personally try to stay away from the ATC unless it’s someone I know of. They’ve begun using procedures with the last few big FNF’s into SFO/LAX-was good to see. Still needs more refinement
FF and Check in are essentially requesting the same thing…you are saying that you are going to follow your IFR flight plan. You can receive vectors by departure regardless of whether you announce check in or FF. Departure may give you vectors because the airpace is busy, or for some other reason such as conflicting traffic or terrain. You can also request vectors to your destination.
What’s this look like Max? It’s implemented and updated in the US if one has the brains to use it-you’ll notice I got vectored way the heck off course after checking in-I then asked for FF. Had a great chat with the controller just today about it-he wasn’t aware I was following procedure and wasn’t aware of the altitudes on route-said he’d make sure to look at the charts the next time round.
You have the same chance of receiving vectors whether you request FF or check in. Both the same command, so I see no difference. Just do not request both.