Flight Following and RHS

[VVS Laxman]

21/4/05 Flight following to be introduced

...It is interesting to note that someone in Airservices has managed to solve these two problems and has supported the important NAS initiative. For the first time we will be using the TAAATS radar system in the way in which it was designed.

There is, however, one serious problem. With the proven US flight following system, the air traffic controller allocates a discrete transponder code to any VFR aircraft receiving flight following. This is important as it ensures that there is a clear understanding of which aircraft is receiving flight following and who is responsible for what.

For some strange reason - possibly ignorance - Airservices is going it alone with a unique "invented" flight following system. Aircraft will not be allocated a discrete transponder code but will simply remain on the VFR code of 1200. This means that the correct terminology which is used in the USA in relation to termination of flight following - that is, "(Aircraft callsign) radar service terminated, squawk 1200, frequency change approved" - will not be used here.

With the US flight following system, the very fact that you are told to move on to the general VFR code of 1200 makes it quite clear that the flight following service, and air traffic controller responsibility, has been removed.

The reason this FAA/US terminology is so important is that it makes it quite clear to all involved that once the service is terminated, the air traffic controller is no longer responsible for providing a service to that VFR aircraft.

Dick; a pat on the back and a slap in the face... Nice work; you are of course mostly wrong...

If ATC provide the service with a RADTAG, a valid TAAATS tool you may or maynot be changed code. But you may be... If your code was changed off 1200, on termination you'll be placed back on code 1200...

If you get the service via a FDR (Flight Data Record), a flight plan in TAAATS (this will be transparent to you th pilot), this will include code management to get the record and your radar paint to "couple" or become one...

The service commences when the ATC says "Identified" the service ends when the ATC says "Radar Service Terminated"... If you heard that statement; forgeting code management; surely it is clear that the service has ended, is it not?

We don't need to add 'frequency change approved', as their is no need to change frequency as of last November... Unless it's concurrent with a frequency boundary; then we will say, verbatim the USA phraseology, see section 4 on page 3...

As a point of interest, where did you get that very bad gen? Nothing like jumping on a half baked rumour to stir the pot hey?

Good luck to you 'claiming' the FF introduction...

[DYNAMIC STALL]

Question

If you have many 1200 in (say) Victor One, how do you 'follow' if you don't assign a code???

Barry

[SM4 Pirate]

If you have many 1200 in (say) Victor One, how do you 'follow' if you don't assign a code???

Barry, In the event that a controller agreed to Flight Follow you (provide a Radar Information Service) in Victor one, (although that is not the type of thing it's designed for) the radar system called TAAATS has a function or tool called RADTAG (RADAR TAG) a label would be attached to the A1200 label which appears on the screen; we manipulate the RADTAG to put in a level a callsign and other info of 8 letters called label data.

So as a concept, you say request Flight Following; I say squawk ident and go ahead details. You squawk and give me details; I attach a RADTAG to the "ident squawking" paint provided it corresponds with the 'details' you give me. Identify you and give you the service.

The system will not deattach the RADTAG unless you disapear from radar coverage. If you did dissapear I would be obliged to terminate your RIS or Flight Following. 'Cause you can't get a radar service when you're not painting.

For Enroute type following it will be relatively important for pilots to put in plans, as RADTAG will deattach in areas of 'dodgy' radar coverage so plans will make it easier for the controllers.

So the crap that DS has written is simply that, because he doesn't understand modern equipment; which the USA could hardly claim having (at least not widespread). Surely there are more important things.

[En-Rooter]

aahhhhh, Dick, Dick, Dick,

When will you ever stop jumping to conclusions about what the ATC is going to do??

To all pilots who will be requesting a flight following service, spend about 10 minutes on the net submitting a plan and avoid delays from the ATC. If you submit a plan TAAATS WILL allocate you a code. (fancy that Dick!)

The delays come from the ATC's higher priority duties, separating traffic, passing IFR traffic and issuing the necessary alerts and advisories.

As an aside Dick, can you explain to me why everything that the US does is better than AUS? Better still please immigrate to the US and annoy those poor bastards.

You represent nobody but people that can afford to own a high performance turbine aircraft who are too much of a tightarse to pay for a service.

Regards,

Rooter.

[apache]

Dick,

Please don't EVER again suggest that we adopt the US way of radio communications. Their R/T professionalism leaves a lot to be desired.

[Uncommon Sense]

A question from one who has not yet done any FF training with TAAATS (not even sure of there is going to be any?):

I you are handling several FF aircraft, and even if they are issued discrete SSR using the RADTAG function, what HMI indication do you have if the aircraft dissappears from radar coverage? Actually that is a rhetorical question because I knwo the answer - none! Except if the TAGLIST window is open there will be a lost of the tracks with allocated SSR codes.

My point being, with Flight Following how does one manage their SAR responsibilities?

Ask yourself this: What is the difference in HMI presentation between an aircraft losing a radar return due to a gap in the radar coverage and flying in to the ground? (in the RADTAG environment).

The FDR environment has some back up in this scenario - RADTAGS do not, even though they are a lot quicker when the pilot has not filed a plan.

[Dick Smith]

VVS Laxman, thanks for the posting. In fact, I was referring to the educational material which makes no reference to a specific code being allocated in any way. My suggestion is that you arrange to have the educational material corrected to make it clear that under some circumstances a specific code will be allocated.

However, more important is the fact that it looks as if under the Australian system the air traffic controller will still remain responsible for the VFR aircraft after the service is terminated. This is because of your comment:

We don’t need to add ‘frequency change approved’ as there is no need to change frequency as of last November …

This surely means that if the aircraft has communicated to the controller and remains on the frequency, the controller has a duty of care to prevent it from running into someone. That is why the American system (with many years of experience of threatened and actual litigation) makes it clear that there is no longer a responsibility for the air traffic controller to provide information to the VFR aircraft after the words “frequency change approved” are used.

Are you suggesting that the air traffic controller responsibility remains?

I should also mention another difference with the US system. You state:

If you get the service via an FDR (Flight Data Record), a flight plan in TAAATS (this will be transparent to you the pilot), this will include code management to get the record and your radar paint to “couple” or become one …

I should point out that flight following in the USA does not include a provision for flight planning for VFR aircraft. Their philosophy is simple – if you want such a service you file IFR. The US flight following system for VFR aircraft does not entail an input to the flight data processing system with a flight plan. Flight following does not extend sector to sector via the FDP system as it does with IFR in the USA.

[SM4 Pirate]

This surely means that if the aircraft has communicated to the controller and remains on the frequency, the controller has a duty of care to prevent it from running into someone.

Oh Dick trying to draw a long bow again. The phrase "Radar Service Terminated" is very sufficient in describing that the service has ended; it has been the same phrase for the last 9 years with RIS; why would it suddenly be a problem now? Are you trying to throw in a red herring?

Flight following does not extend sector to sector via the FDP system as it does with IFR in the USA.

Does that make it better? The same phrase "Request handoff for flight following" is used in the USA; this is a request for controllers workload permitting will coordinate to another ATC, In the USA there is no option other than using "the phone" for this transfer of information; why not use an advance system such as TAAATS to help transfer information to another ATC.

UCS RADTAG aint perfect; far from it; but you can use it at certain times perfectly validly. Remember some ATC use it for VFR in class C. FDR is much better as you say, despite what DS thinks; loss of ident (effectively nill lost function) is but one limitation of RADTAGs. That said, if you can use them sucessfully, why not, especially if there's a need to type in the FDR manually or provide no RIS?

[Uncommon Sense]

SM4,

Yes I agree - RADTAG is a good function. I use it in C as well because it is quick when I need it for low level transits etc.

However, I just know that I will see a lot of aircraft using this service at the same time (as a pilot why wouldn't you!?) and the chance of one of them 'falling off the end of the world' is a very real scenario in my neck of the woods - unless there is some safety net - the only one I can think off is something equivalent to a paper strip / pad (that should give Dick a heart attack!). The left over strip sitting there in the old days has often been a back up that has saved butts - literally.

The compliance with submitting details in to the system is very low around my area. What is more amazing is the attitude from a few pilots who have to wait for a clearance - "whats the delay?", "uh, I just have to submit your flight plan! You know, like you should normally do?!". Never mind the other traffic!

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind doing it, because when I am am flying I like the flexibility of being able to give my details over the air for an unplanned transit through CTA (dodging WX or whatever) - it is a good service - but a little notice would be good, and a little courtesy would be even better.

The problem is probably education - if you think you are going to need a clearance 100nm up the track, then submit your details then, not 5nm before the step - any sector can enter a plan workload permitting. A bit of notice is the key.

[Spodman]

"...arrange to have the educational material corrected to make it clear that under some circumstances a specific code will be allocated." Not sure why it should be specifically mentioned that nothing has changed Dick, you got it wrong:
AIP ENR 8.1.2 refers.

"...remain responsible for the VFR aircraft after the service is terminated..." Under the principle of 'duty of care' we are anyway, at least until a reasonable person would have forgotten about him. Nothing has changed Dick, you got it wrong.

"...flight following in the USA does not include a provision for flight planning for VFR aircraft..." This one has me stumped a bit. I have corresponded with some VFR pilots in the US who regularly use FF, and they all claim the chance of recieving FF are increased by whacking in a plan. My reading of AIM & AIH seems to indicate that VFR flight plans only go to the FSS network, AIM 5.1.4 refers. So, if US VFR pilots are confused, then GOSH-DARN, Australian VFR pilots should be confused also, to get the same peachy result our goober cousins enjoy. Dick, you may have a point, but I'm not convinced. Regardless of what the Septics do, we are still coping with the box of crap called TAARTS you bought. We need more info to get a reliable tag on a radar track than the they do, and the most efficient method is by FPL. Finally though, like the Septics, a flight plan is NOT REQUIRED, so stop whinging.

All you RADTAGophobes out there, if you are worried about not noticing a dissappearing RADTAG please select your LST button. You will get the usual green freckle + ACID for a lost RADTAG, whether 1200 or discrete. Unfortunately the only way to get rid of it is to then de-select LST... Blue ACID in TAGLIST really does stand out, whats another window open???

[VVS Laxman]

VVS Laxman, thanks for the posting. In fact, I was referring to the educational material which makes no reference to a specific code being allocated in any way. My suggestion is that you arrange to have the educational material corrected to make it clear that under some circumstances a specific code will be allocated.

We aren’t changing code management practices, you’re joking right? An analogy, because you love them: Pretend we are the RTA, we are introducing traffic lights into a small country town. Because we don’t describe what to do at a round-a-bout or at a stop sign, in the education material distributed about traffic lights, the entire training package about traffic lights is no longer valid? Go back and read AIP ENR 8; it describes how to navigate through the difficult area of code management… Which all of a sudden is a problem? I can only conclude that if using a transponder is difficult then flying a plane must be very challenging indeed, perhaps we should all stay on the ground until we’ve mastered that tricky little device called a transponder… really Dick, get over it.

This surely means that if the aircraft has communicated to the controller and remains on the frequency, the controller has a duty of care to prevent it from running into someone.

No, if you have said Radar Service Terminated, it is clear that the service has ended; as has been occurring with RIS for many, many years.

An example of why ‘frequency changed approved’ won’t always stack-up: You are working Desert Group Sectors providing a Flight Following service to a VFR at FL155 on PKL frequency 126.0, it’s early morning and you are the only ATC in the building with the appropriate ratings for the group, which happens often. You have been requested by the sequencing sectors for Sydney to space 3 jets otherwise not involved with the FF service. In order to manage that workload you need to cancel the FF service. Stating “... terminated, Frequency Change Approved” would put a level of confusion in the cockpit of the VFR. The area frequency most appropriate to that aircrafts area of operation is the frequency it currently is on, in this case 126.0; remember in Australia we have ‘Area Frequencies’, unlike the USA…

I’m very happy with the phrase “Radar Service Terminated” as being enough to ensure that everyone knows it means service finished.

Are you suggesting that the air traffic controller responsibility remains?

Not at all; you are implying it… Scare tactics a classic sceptic tactic, or as the Pirate suggests a “red-herring”. I’m am suggesting that unless you have heard the phrase “radar service terminated” the service is ongoing, after you have heard that phrase, it’s over you’re back on your own flying VFR without a Radar Information Service (or Flight Following).

Flight following does not extend sector to sector via the FDP system as it does with IFR in the USA.

From the information I have, you are wrong; imagine my surprise. Just because pilots don’t always plan to receive Flight Following in the USA, although most do, the ATCs make up ‘system plans’ in the absence of a flight plan. It will be the same here… What’s the issue again?

As a technique and as per the ‘Tip” section in the pilot training, you’re more likely to get a service if you have flight planned as the ATC won’t need to put a plan in for you, it will be sitting there awaiting activation.

Dick, Would it be too hard to admit that you lack expertise in this area and apologise? I guess so.

[Dick Smith]

Uncommon Sense, one of the problems I see with submitting a flight plan in the air in Australia is the ridiculous set up that I understand exists with TAAATS where a full flight plan form appears, taking up a large part of the TAAATS screen. This was the case when it was last demonstrated to me, and I suggested that a program change be made so very basic details could be taken when necessary.

Under the FAA system in the USA, it is possible for the ATC to put in basic details without a large flight plan form appearing on the screen. If I remember correctly, when you ask for flight following the US controller simply comes back with the request for the aircraft type and the destination. This is keyed in simply and quickly in a small “block” on the screen – almost as the pilot is communicating the information.

The FAA has told me a number of times that the reason they do not accept VFR flight plans for the ATC system is that the cost would be too high. The last time I checked it cost about $150 for each VFR flight plan accepted into the system through the briefing office in Australia. Then again, Aussie ATCs wouldn’t care about this.

Spodman, the issue in relation to transponder codes is simple. In the USA you cannot get flight following unless a specific code has been allocated to you. In Australia, we have decided (I think because of no real planning or leadership) to go to a dual system – i.e. in some cases you will be kept on a VFR code and at other times you will be given a specific code. I can assure you that one day there will be a serious incident and someone will decide that it is better to follow the proven system where a specific code is issued so it is quite clear to the air traffic controller, and the pilot, where the responsibility lies.

We have never offered a proper flight following service to VFR aircraft, so why not copy something which is proven and change it in time if we can make it better – rather than invent our own system and then find out the safety problems which may exist.

VVS Laxman, you state that it is quite clear that the flight following and responsibility has been changed when the wording “frequency change approved” has been said, yet in the post immediately above, Spodman states that AIP ENR 8.1.2 states “…remain responsible for the VFR aircraft after the service is terminated …”

This clearly shows that the whole thing is ripe for misunderstanding and therefore serious safety incidents. As I’ve said previously, we are obviously designing a Nomad rather than copying a 747.

VVS Laxman, you are actually letting down your colleagues. With the US system it is totally clear where the responsibility lies. In the Australian system, as you have pointed out, because it is mandatory to be on the ATC frequency it makes it quite clear that at all times VFR aircraft can receive an advisory service from ATC. That is, if their radar paint is close to another aircraft, the pilot should be called by ATC and warned.

That is the specific reason in the USA that they do not show ATC frequency boundaries on charts and use the words “frequency change approved.” It is not by accident that they add the extra words, it is with clear intention. That is, to protect air traffic controllers from being held accountable for an accident when it would not be fair.

It is not that most VFR aircraft request and receive flight following in the USA. The latest estimate from AOPA is that about 10% of VFR aircraft request a flight following service.

When I flew across the USA a few years ago, from Monterey to Republic Field in New York (specifically video taping and monitoring the ATC system), I heard only two requests for flight following in the entire flight over three days – one was rejected, the other accepted. In the East Coast area around Long Island it is almost impossible to obtain flight following as air traffic control is so busy with IFR traffic.

In the USA it is clear that the “workload permitting” part of flight following also includes the workload of keying in the required data. If the controller is too busy, the service is not given as the US NAS system is designed around giving a service to IFR aircraft. That is how it should be.

[VVS Laxman]

The last time I checked it cost about $150 for each VFR flight plan accepted into the system through the briefing office in Australia.

Did you make that up, it’s a little hard to believe, even for you.

“…remain responsible for the VFR aircraft after the service is terminated …”

I think that Spodman was quoting you, not AIP 8.1.2… Read it, please…

This clearly shows that the whole thing is ripe for misunderstanding and therefore serious safety incidents.

Only in your opinion, because you don’t read the documentation you react to half truths and rumours…

With the US system it is totally clear where the responsibility lies.

So far you are the only one who is unclear, there could be something in that?

That is, if their radar paint is close to another aircraft, the pilot should be called by ATC and warned.

VFR known to the system would be entitled to that service yes, however, the code management issues and termination phraseology to which you refer, does not influence the known status or not of a VFR aircraft. From MATS Known Traffic: With respect to ATC clearances and traffic information, means aircraft whose altitude, position, and intentions are known to ATC. After the statement “Radar Services terminated”, it is clear to all that service is no longer provided and the aircraft becomes unknown to the ATS system, as intentions could immediately change

If the controller is too busy, the service is not given as the US NAS system is designed around giving a service to IFR aircraft. That is how it should be.

This is how we are implementing it here too; and finally

That is the specific reason in the USA that they do not show ATC frequency boundaries on charts

Is this the real reason, or a reason which you think is the real reason?

[SM4 Pirate]

“frequency change approved.”

The penny drops. What Dick wants is back to NAS 2b; remove area frequencies. Get the VFRs off "ATC frequencies"; because they cause us nothing but trouble; this facilitates the removal of DTI as 90+% of the time it's VMC so what's the point in alerted see and avoid, when all said and done simple 'see and avoid' is all that is needed. Lets all ROFL at the project savings in ATCs, again.

So as a VFR call for flight following, and you'll get it, as long as you call the right frequency, how would you know what that was, no area frequencies anymore. Providing of course the controller has spare 'capacity', of course we do because we aren't controlling anywhere near the volumes of traffic as they do around long island. here we go again, everyone happy yet. Just Dick unhappy, well we might be doing somehting positive afterall.

Why Dick, is it you concerned for the wellfare of ATCs and their legal obligations, yet Civil Air, that leftist anti-industry body that it is has no concerns whatsoever? Maybe this is about creating jobs for the boys, maybe Civil Air is pushing this give VFRs a free service message? What's that leftist fundamentalist agenda again?

Why drive a 2005 Holden Monaro (Australian inovation with technology from American and Japan); when you could get behind the wheel of a 1946 Buick 56S, Man it's a classic, with all American technology.

[Roger Standby]

The simple rule of thumb is to submit a plan. If you don't, then my response, unless my airspace is dead, will be "contact flightwatch on xxx.xx to submit a plan and call me when you're done". Radtags were not designed for this type of day to day operation. They provide no alerts and if it is busy and I don't pick up things aren't quite kosher, and something goes wrong, I'll be hung out to dry.

Sorry Spodman, I have enough trouble seeing 2/3 of my airspace due to excessive open windows (although the rules say I have to have 100% visible) without having to have another window open for someone who can't be bothered to submit a plan.

We are told it is a workload permitting service. The irony is that if we don't take on the VFR and something goes wrong, we'll be hung out to dry anyway.

R_S.

[SM4 Pirate]

The irony is that if we don't take on the VFR and something goes wrong, we'll be hung out to dry anyway.

Such is life; but we know what risks are associated with our job. Remember though RIS is a 'nice to do' not a 'must do' in terms of priorities, although it's not optional (sic!); you'll be 'hung out to dry' more if you are doing RIS (flight following) and stuff up something more worthy of your attention such as separation or coord.

[Uncommon Sense]

Dick,

Not often I seem to agree with you - however, on your point:

Uncommon Sense, one of the problems I see with submitting a flight plan in the air in Australia is the ridiculous set up that I understand exists with TAAATS where a full flight plan form appears, taking up a large part of the TAAATS screen. This was the case when it was last demonstrated to me, and I suggested that a program change be made so very basic details could be taken when necessary.

.. you are probably right. Bear in mind this was identified by the controllers very early when TAAATS was first commissioned in Cairns in 1998. In 2005 it appears to still be a low priority.

(I actually believe we are closer to a new system all together before this will be changed. TAAATS is no longer cutting edge - it is getting pretty old hat and cumbersome, as any old computer system quickly does with the passing of time - but I digress!)

The quicker system that you speak of in the FAA is a lot quicker for a different reason - it is essentially a RADTAG system, but it is augmemted with ...... (drum roll) PAPER STRIPS! Now, I know you dislike paper strips, Dick. I remember a sound byte where you ridiculed the use of them as some ancient technology still being used in backwards Australia. Well, we don;t have them now (except in Control Towers) - and the US still use them to a great extent. Why is that do you think?

Well for one thing - they are quicker. Especially for the flight following scenario you speak of, particularly when contained wholly within one sector.

And more importantly (and this is something that appears to be lost on those outside the ATC operational environment - yourself included Dick I am afraid), they are tactile. University studies done in France on ATC interactions and the use of paper strips / strip holders revealed skill sets and techniques that just can not be replicated by electronic means. Strips were ridiculed by those who did not understand they were actually better than having the latest whiz bang computer based system.

$150 to submit a flight plan? Well it depends solely on creative accounting doesn't it Dick? You know, statistics, lies and statistics and all that?

Example: How much does an IFR arrival cost you in to say Sydney? (I am talking Navcharges), say around $350 for your jet?.

How much does your departure cost? Well it costs $0.00 according to your bill. Do you think that is the real cost? Or just the way the charging system is worked? Of course it costs something. And I am sure submitting your flight plan has a cost to - but not $150. That money has a lot managers to pay for!

Its a pity you don't like Air Traffic Controllers and their association, because I am sure they see a lot of the frustrating problems you do - they just don;t get the attention of the media or the politicians.

Frankly Dick, the biggest problem everyone will have with Flight Following is a simple one - there will not be any controllers to provide it! No doubt later this year you will hear, and possibly contribute to the debate (judging by your tacit approval of the bindook website) a whole lot of spin put out by the Governments media advisors that Air Traffic Controllers are threatening Industrial Action and want more money, blah, blah, blah. Of course it will be spin, and largely bull$hit - because what the controllers and their association are really protesting about is adequate staffing levels which have been pared back to the ridiculous state of having permanent overtime and no leave available, and further reductions in operatinal staffing while the admin and management ranks bloat out beyoned belief.

Given those circumstances Dick, if you were a controller, and you were comtrolling a busy traffic sequence, tired from working overtime and frustrated at your employers attitude, and you were asked to provide an optional flight following service for an aircraft whose pilot could not even bother putting in a flight plan (and said that to you on the air - I kid you not.. it happens!), what choice would you make?

Perhaps as the person paying the income to Airservices as a pilot you should be questioning their allocation of recources rather than joining the spin doctors and taking it out on the controllers association when they choose to make their feelings public?

[karrank]

"ridiculous set up that I understand exists with TAAATS where a full flight plan form appears, taking up a large part of the TAAATS screen"

Correct Dick. So why exactly did you buy this clunker??? Do you have a plan here, or just more whining? To drive an enroute console I need the following windows open: JURISDICTION, ANNOUNCED, HANDOVER OUT & PREACTIVE strips, ATIS, QUEUE & MAESTRO. TRAFFIC, FORCED, MET, NOTAM, HANDOVER & a host of others open when the machine is doing things to me. They all take up too much room, but at least I decide when the flight plan window opens. Not for you. Maybe that wasn't a sh1t hot idea of yours to EXCLUDE ATC from the development of TAAARTS???

"The penny drops. What Dick wants is back to NAS 2b"

Yes I would say so Mr Pirate. The twister, bitter, cannot accept he is now completely irrelevant to the future development of airspace & procedure change. Expect more carping critisism regarding any change (except in the USA) that moves away from the shining imaginary utopia contained in the but otherwise carefully preserved Airspace 2000 implementation plan that lives under his pillow.

"submit a plan. If you don't, then my response, unless my airspace is dead, will be "contact flightwatch on xxx.xx to submit a plan and call me when you're done"."

Your call Rog. Remember question 18 though, the service is not 'optional', its 'workload permitting'. I remember training one experienced controller who had a jet pop up with no plan out of a regional airport. We weren't busy & he was obviously terrified at the concept of putting a plan in. I more or less forced him to, and afterwards said "Is that all I have to do?" in a disbelieving tone. There is not that much effort involved getting a LPL going in radar coverage as far as your sector boundary.

As you can perhaps gather from my remarks above I believe RHS is a waste of skin, but I have a respect for pilots in general and will do my best to provide whatever services I can. Workload permitting that is.

PS. I can't find xxx.xx on my scanner, do I need to upgrade?

[Uncommon Sense]

Karrank,

Dick isn't finshed - he will never be finished.

You can read that as a compliment but it is not.

It is just an observation made from years of watching his star rise and fall, rise and fall ... and he pushes on persistently.

Don't make the mistake of writing off Dick.

[Sunfish]

What an Interesting Thread

What an interesting and informative thread, I'm looking forward to this service and hopefully will learn how to use it propelry and with minimal irritation for ATC.

Rule 1: Always file flight plan.

Rule 2: See rule one.

By the way, with the greatest of respect, I suspect that the $150 flight plan figure is calculated by dividing the fixed and variable, plus direct and indirect costs of the operation by the number of VFR plans submitted.

This is erroneous because the indirect and fixed costs will still remain if zero VFR flight plans are filed. The correct way to calculate such a figure is to divide the direct plus variable costs attributable to the filing of VFR flight plans by the total number of plans.

In other words, great chunks of ATC costs will NOT disappear if VFR people like me don't submit plans.