My CFI says that VFR cruising altitude is based on the planes heading

DFH65 said:
Fly under 3000' AGL problem solved.
Click to expand...

That just increases the problem. Everyone is flying whatever direction and there is no rule to follow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
WannFly said:
That just increases the problem. Everyone is flying whatever direction and there is no rule to follow
Click to expand...

I think there’s an upside. Since everyone can be flying at a random altitude, there’s less chance that any two will be at the same altitude - kinda like the advantages of “free flight”.

Below 3,000’ agl I usually avoid the “500’” altitudes and “1,000’” altitudes, since I know lots of pilots slavishly stick with those even below 3,000’.
 
WannFly said:
That just increases the problem. Everyone is flying whatever direction and there is no rule to follow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
But if you stay away from highways, you avoid most of the amateurs below 1000 AGL.
 
Ryanb said:
Possibly, but here is what I'm implying.

Take for example a flight that from A to B gives a course of 015deg, if you go direct. Instead, you fly from fix to fix. The first waypoint from the origin airport places the aircraft on 050 and then after that, the next leg is 355deg. Although some of route puts the aircraft on an Even/Odd course, they could still file for an Odd altitude since the straight line distance is 015. The leg flown from Origin to XYZ VOR on 050, would not require that aircraft to fly at an Odd altitude and then change to an Even altitude once they pass XYZ and then fly to the next fix on a 355deg.

Catch my drift?
Click to expand...

What you file and what you fly, VFR, can be very different things. All your filed altitude for a VFR flight Plan is going to be used for is a way to know how big the search area is from your last known reported position. A ring will be drawn on a map using your aircraft’s glide ratio, and a second ring will be drawn showing your fuel range based upon what fuel you said you have on board, and how long you flew before loss of contact. Two “higher probability” places to search. That’s it really.

IFR, different ball game.

Dave Theisen said:
It's just a matter of time until the reg reads, "If the magenta line is........ :)
Click to expand...

I hate that you mentioned that because with ADS-B and direct routing I almost believe that’s going to be true. Sigh.

In the end, the report today in our current rules between two VFR aircraft smacking each other, is always going to read: “Pilots failed to see and avoid.” The paragraph under that might be kind to the dead and say, “Both aircraft were seen on radar to have been on a collision course on the airway centerline prior to loss of both aircraft on radar.”

And that’s probably something worth mentioning. If you’re going on a long XC, just get Flight Following if you can. Always better to have more eyeballs watching than just yours.

Even if separation is not guaranteed, you’ve got one more helping hand to break the accident chain than you had before making a simple radio call and setting a squawk in the box.

Only real downside is you’ll have to listen up on a frequency for a couple of hours and it might interrupt you playing Super Mario on the BrYnon. :)

Everybody who’s been flying for a while VFR over large distances has that memory of a center controller saying there’s traffic they’re not talking to and a recommendation of a turn or an altitude change to avoid the traffic. Traffic you never saw.

I had an interesting one once. VOR was on an airport not charted for parachute activity. But there was a jump school there. Putting along on Flight Following (okay VFR Radar Services since Flight Following technically doesn’t exist anymore, and @Shepherd says I should use the right terms as a CFI — GRIN...) and the controller says my flight path is going to put me over an airport with jumping at about the same time as the jump plane is going to want to drop meat bombs... and he was also talking to the jump plane. Jump plane says he can hold the jump, controller says nah, and I say “I’ll just slide a little south on a heading of about XXX.” Controller says that’ll work and thanks.

No big deal if you participate in the system. Everybody can choose the best course of action that results in the safe outcome of the flight. You know, that PIC stuff! :) Yay, us!
 
Thanks for all the input everyone! Next time I see my CFI, I'll pick his brain a bit more about this, and if he sticks to his guns, then I'll see about getting the opinion from the person that owns and runs the club.
 
Jeff Szlauko said:
Thanks for all the input everyone! Next time I see my CFI, I'll pick his brain a bit more about this, and if he sticks to his guns, then I'll see about getting the opinion from the person that owns and runs the club.
Click to expand...

Why bother. The POA experts have already gotcha straight. Right? :D
 
After reading through this thread, I definitely see the value of going IFR and just going what the nice ATC person says to do...
 
Vince R said:
After reading through this thread, I definitely see the value of going IFR and just going what the nice ATC person says to do...
Click to expand...

That’ll work 99.9% of the time and 0.01% of the time will get you killed. Maybe higher. :)

Everybody raise your hands who has had a controller vector them toward terrain and then forget about them until they said something...

Me: Raises hand.
 
Jeff Szlauko said:
Thanks for all the input everyone! Next time I see my CFI, I'll pick his brain a bit more about this, and if he sticks to his guns, then I'll see about getting the opinion from the person that owns and runs the club.
Click to expand...

Start by asking him if he thinks the mag heading is the same for every plane on the same route?
So some would pick 7500 and some 8500 for the same route?
That doesn't make a lot of sense does it..

There is a reason that is it based on course, not heading and once you understand that it will never get confused again. Might as well teach him something.
 
denverpilot said:
That’ll work 99.9% of the time and 0.01% of the time will get you killed. Maybe higher. :)

Everybody raise your hands who has had a controller vector them toward terrain and then forget about them until they said something...

Me: Raises hand.
Click to expand...

Well, let’s hope there aren’t too many pilots on an IFR flight plan operating in VFR conditions that would intentionally fly into terrain because of an ATC error...
 
Jeff Szlauko said:
Thanks for all the input everyone! Next time I see my CFI, I'll pick his brain a bit more about this, and if he sticks to his guns, then I'll see about getting the opinion from the person that owns and runs the club.
Click to expand...

I wish there was somewhere this information was actually in writing. I guess for now just take the word of random internet strangers.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I'd believe you if you hadn't said "never". But now I think you've been to the edge of the flat earth and peeked at the underside.:eek:
Click to expand...

I’ve always wondered just how this whole Flat Earther problem even got started with such excellence in government schools. :) :) :)
 
MauleSkinner said:
I'd believe you if you hadn't said "never". But now I think you've been to the edge of the flat earth and peeked at the underside.:eek:
Click to expand...
The only reason I'm here is that I fell off the edge of the moon!

I find myself wondering what these people think the laws of physics are, but I'm not sufficiently interested to waste time reading their Web sites.
 
denverpilot said:
I’ve always wondered just how this whole Flat Earther problem even got started with such excellence in government schools. :) :) :)
Click to expand...
Other than Sunday School, I went to exclusively government schools, and the latter gave me a good grounding in science and engineering, but that was many decades ago, so maybe things have changed since then. :dunno:
 
Tell the flat-earthers the look at the partial moon and explain why the Earth's shadow is round.
 
Larry in TN said:
Tell the flat-earthers the look at the partial moon and explain why the Earth's shadow is round.
Click to expand...
Ouch. That’s horribly wrong dude. Except when there is an active eclipse, the curvature of the “partial moon” is due to the fact that the moon is a sphere, and has nothing at all to do with the earth or its shadow.

After thinking about it, I think you’re pulling our legs. I hope.
 
Salty said:
it's definitely not something to switch CFI's over unless he's a _____ about it.
Click to expand...

If you discuss it and he sticks with his wrong answer, I'd start to question other stuffs he's telling you.
 
Ryanb said:
Possibly, but here is what I'm implying.

Take for example a flight that from A to B gives a course of 015deg, if you go direct. Instead, you fly from fix to fix. The first waypoint from the origin airport places the aircraft on 050 and then after that, the next leg is 355deg. Although some of route puts the aircraft on an Even/Odd course, they could still file for an Odd altitude since the straight line distance is 015. The leg flown from Origin to XYZ VOR on 050, would not require that aircraft to fly at an Odd altitude and then change to an Even altitude once they pass XYZ and then fly to the next fix on a 355deg.

Catch my drift?
Click to expand...

.......they could still file for........

They could file for any altitude. Pick the odd one or the even one. The only purpose it serves on the Flight Plan is to give the briefer, human or digital, what he, she or it needs to give you a pertinent weather briefing. See AIM 5-1-4. l. 7.
You could even file the IFR altitude in between. That would probably raise some eyebrows though.
 
TommyG said:
I wish there was somewhere this information was actually in writing. I guess for now just take the word of random internet strangers.
Click to expand...

I sort of get the sarcasm here, but what's the point? Also comes across as insulting, as you're basically saying I'm too stupid to look up the information, and am also stupid enough to take the advice from random strangers. Then again, if one reads my initial post, it's clear what my objective is. Oh well, guess some people just can't resist the urge to mock others.
 
Jeff Szlauko said:
He then tells me "no", and you go by whatever the heading of the plane is based on what the compass is telling you.
Click to expand...

Common sense, and not just rules, say he’s wrong.

Instead of shoving the rule book under his nose, give your instructor this common-sense test, which has a Catch22 outcome:

Just imagine that as you climb to your planned altitude of 6500, you find that the wind is such that your magnetic heading must not be 358 as you had expected, but 002, to remain on course. Following your instructor’s rule, you are not allowed to remain at 6500, so you choose to climb another 1000 to 7500, but upon arriving there you discover the wind is different, and you must point the plane’s nose a bit more westerly to a heading of 358, which is also not allowed as per your instructor. So, you have a Catch22: you can fly at neither 6500 nor at 7500 because neither altitude allows you to satisfy your instructor’s hemispheric rules. How would your instructor choose to continue this flight?
 
NoHeat said:
Common sense, and not just rules, say he’s wrong.

Instead of shoving the rule book under his nose, give your instructor this common-sense test, which has a Catch22 outcome:

Just imagine that as you climb to your planned altitude of 6500, you find that the wind is such that your magnetic heading must not be 358 as you had expected, but 002, to remain on course. Following your instructor’s rule, you are not allowed to remain at 6500, so you choose to climb another 1000 to 7500, but upon arriving there you discover the wind is different, and you must point the plane’s nose a bit more westerly to a heading of 358, which is also not allowed as per your instructor. So, you have a Catch22: you can fly at neither 6500 nor at 7500 because neither altitude allows you to satisfy your instructor’s hemispheric rules. How would your instructor choose to continue this flight?
Click to expand...

Yes, good point. This scenario also explains why your altitude is based on your course, as the course does not change with wind conditions.
 
Jeff Szlauko said:
Yes, good point. This scenario also explains why your altitude is based on your course, as the course does not change with wind conditions.
Click to expand...
I think another reason is that flying on airways was much more common back in the days when VORs were the latest and greatest. That made the hemispheric rule much more effective for northbound vs. southbound traffic, because pilots were much less likely to be converging on nearly opposite courses like 001 and 358. The few exceptions would likely have been at specific points, such as directly over a VOR, or where there was a bend in an airway.
 
Salty said:
Ouch. That’s horribly wrong dude. Except when there is an active eclipse, the curvature of the “partial moon” is due to the fact that the moon is a sphere, and has nothing at all to do with the earth or its shadow.
Click to expand...
I was talking about a lunar eclipse but failed to include that in what I wrote. You're right. What I wrote means something completely different from what I intended!
 
NoHeat said:
Common sense, and not just rules, say he’s wrong.
Instead of shoving the rule book under his nose, give your instructor this common-sense test, which has a Catch22 outcome:
Just imagine that as you climb to your planned altitude of 6500, you find that the wind is such that your magnetic heading must not be 358 as you had expected, but 002, to remain on course. Following your instructor’s rule, you are not allowed to remain at 6500, so you choose to climb another 1000 to 7500, but upon arriving there you discover the wind is different, and you must point the plane’s nose a bit more westerly to a heading of 358, which is also not allowed as per your instructor. So, you have a Catch22: you can fly at neither 6500 nor at 7500 because neither altitude allows you to satisfy your instructor’s hemispheric rules. How would your instructor choose to continue this flight?
Click to expand...

I know this is an old thread, but I just recently ran across this in a document at Gold Seal Online Ground School that I've been using, entitled "Part 91 VFR Regulations Summary", that presents this example:
"Conditions are solid VFR. We’re on a trip from Tyler, Texas to Houston. True course is 177 degrees, but with the magnetic variation thrown in, our magnetic course will be 171. What altitudes may we choose from?
Of course it has to be some number of thousands plus five hundred feet. We’re going in an easterly direction so we use odd thousands plus five hundred feet. For example, 5,500 feet, 7,500 feet.
Now, consider that we have a stiff crosswind from the west and we need to put in about 10 degrees of crab angle. We add our 10-degree crosswind correction to our 171 degree magnetic course yielding a new magnetic heading of 181 degrees. What happens to our altitude now? Nothing. That’s right, absolutely nothing. No one cares what our magnetic heading is. All that matters is the course that we track over the ground and that’s still 171 degrees.
So, the rule that says we use odd thousands plus 500 for easterly courses, and even thousands plus 500 for westerly courses means exactly what it says. Use your magnetic course, not your magnetic heading. And note that the hemispherical rule is not a requirement at altitudes of 3000 feet AGL or less."

So, this clearly spells out the exact scenario I was running by my instructor who said that one goes by your magnetic heading, and not the course. He was indeed wrong!
 
flyingron said:
The goal of the reg is to decrease the liklihood of traffic conflicts, not guarantee that their won't be. As pointed out, those turning, in holding patterns, climbing or descending, or just not playing by the rules, will still cause a potential conflict. The idea is to avoid head-on intersections where the closure rates will be high and shorten the reaction time.
Click to expand...

Really, the rule just guarantees that all midairs will be at an angle of 179 degrees or less... :eek:
 
Dana said:
Really, the rule just guarantees that all midairs will be at an angle of 179 degrees or less... :eek:
Click to expand...
Not even that really with reasonable error thrown in.

I've never understood this rule unless on an airway. 500 feet increments to keep IFR and VFR separated, sure. But otherwise I don't see how it helps at all.
 
Salty said:
Not even that really with reasonable error thrown in.

I've never understood this rule unless on an airway. 500 feet increments to keep IFR and VFR separated, sure. But otherwise I don't see how it helps at all.
Click to expand...
The rule was created before GPS was invented, so a higher percentage of flights were on airways. Since an airway bearing is printed on the chart, that eliminates any ambiguity about which altitude to fly, and it's rare for airways to cross each other with only a few degrees of bearing difference.
 
Palmpilot said:
The rule was created before GPS was invented, so a higher percentage of flights were on airways. Since an airway bearing is printed on the chart, that eliminates any ambiguity about which altitude to fly, and it's rare for airways to cross each other with only a few degrees of bearing difference.
Click to expand...
So why isn’t the rule limited to airways? Rhetorical.
 
Dana said:
Really, the rule just guarantees that all midairs will be at an angle of 179 degrees or less... :eek:
Click to expand...
Yup...the rule lacks more fidelity. I’d advocate adding and east west heading too with more separation....maybe on the 250’s? Vs the 500 ft separation.
 
Salty said:
So why isn’t the rule limited to airways? Rhetorical.
Click to expand...
Even off airways, it helps because having both aircraft flying close to a 180 or 360 degree course is not a high percentage of the time outside of Florida.
 
Palmpilot said:
Even off airways, it helps because having both aircraft flying close to a 180 or 360 degree course is not a high percentage of the time outside of Florida.
Click to expand...
Ah. Yet another interesting factor of flying mostly in Florida. Makes sense though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top