VFR Altitude

PaulS said:
I've had a controller ask me to climb from 3,000 to 3,500. I just said "ok". I really didn't think twice about it. I mostly don't worry about winds aloft unless I am going on a long cross country. I think you are working yourself up over nothing.
Click to expand...

What! You didn’t put up a fight, argue, or call when you landed? That 500 feet could have killed you. You need to be more confrontational.
 
TommyG said:
What! You didn’t put up a fight, argue, or call when you landed? That 500 feet could have killed you. You need to be more confrontational.
Click to expand...

"Don't make me come over there!" :rofl:
 
PaulS said:
If the wind difference from 3,000 to 3,500 causes you a problem, you are cutting it much too close.
Click to expand...
Cutting what too close? I stop with 15-20 gallons left in my tanks.


I want to get there faster and a difference of 5-6 knots makes a difference.
 
cowtowner said:
So I'm headed north east from Texas to Illinois last Friday and it was a great day to fly. I'm on FF cruising along at 3,000ft above Oklahoma because it was early, so it was smooth, and I had a 6 knot tailwind.

Foreflight was predicting no tailwind at 3,500 and a headwind at 5,500

When handed off to a new sector, the controller comes on and asks if "Are you going to fly at a VFR altitude?"

I respond "Affirmative, I'm at a VFR altitude"

He responds, "Actually you aren't"

I responded "Actually I am, but I will climb to 3,500"

Airport below me is at 812ft, putting me 2,188 ft above the earth....according to 91.159 I'm at a VFR altitude.

I had a couple of choices with this guy, climb to 3,500 and check to see if I still had my tailwind, or just cancel FF and continue on my way.

I climbed to 3,500, lost about half my tailwind but remained there and stewed for the 40 minutes to I got handed off to Razorback approach who didn't care what altitude I was at as long as I "remained VFR"

If the guy had issues with radar coverage at that altitude, he should have told me that like they do in certain sectors I fly a lot.

What say the peanut gallery?
Click to expand...

You handled it just fine. The only thing I might have asked the controller is what altitude he wanted me at, rather than offering 3500.
I've flown 500 NM trips VFR at 3000 ft MSL to avoid headwinds. The only thing the controller griped about was when I asked for an IFR clearance. He said I was too low for that.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I would have said to the controller "below 3000AGL any altitude I want is VFR, unless OK is somehow below sea level now. I have a number for you to call advise when ready to copy."
Click to expand...

:D
 
Amusingly, I was flying a supercub in the Netherlands yesterday. A lot of the ground level is below 0 MSL.
 
Did he actually instruct you to do anything, or just say wrong things about your choice of altitude?
 
I might have just descended to 2700 or so. It's Oklahoma, and that controller is putting everyone else at 3,500 . . . :)
 
There’s no point in telling someone over the radio they are wrong (or implying it) without providing a basis. Controllers are also bad about this sometimes.
 
EdFred said:
I've seen a 20kt change in ground speed in a 500' altitude change before.

700/100 vs 700/120.

Thats over an hour difference.
Click to expand...
At 3,000 feet you had a 20 knot difference? That's usually some nasty weather. The bottom line is if he didn't want to do something like this, just say no. I suspect the controller did it so he doesn't have to make a dozen more callouts while he has the guy. In any case, if someone gets worked up enough to think about calling the controller over this they are a little high strung.

On top of that, in this case is was a change from a 7 knot tailwind to a 3 knot tailwind. That was 12 minutes at 100 versus 103 knots if I believe he went 7 hours in a cherokee. Winds aloft probably vary by 3 times that at 3000 feet on their own, especially over 700 miles. One of the advantages of having an actual wind vector read out in your avionics, you can see how much the winds aloft vary over a relatively short distance down low and understand how bad the winds aloft forecasts are. Then he didn't tell the guy 3,000 is a vfr altitude because he could "tell" that by his "attitude" the guy was going to drop him if he didn't climb? This is a mountain out of a molehill.
 
dbahn said:
I might have just descended to 2700 or so. It's Oklahoma, and that controller is putting everyone else at 3,500 . . . :)
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t have climbed to 2700.;)

Of course, the only time I talked to a controller in Oklahoma while VFR, he called an airliner at my altitude to find out if he was in the clouds before he responded to me.:rolleyes:
 
PaulS said:
At 3,000 feet you had a 20 knot difference? That's usually some nasty weather. The bottom line is if he didn't want to do something like this, just say no. I suspect the controller did it so he doesn't have to make a dozen more callouts while he has the guy. In any case, if someone gets worked up enough to think about calling the controller over this they are a little high strung.

On top of that, in this case is was a change from a 7 knot tailwind to a 3 knot tailwind. That was 12 minutes at 100 versus 103 knots if I believe he went 7 hours in a cherokee. Winds aloft probably vary by 3 times that at 3000 feet on their own, especially over 700 miles. One of the advantages of having an actual wind vector read out in your avionics, you can see how much the winds aloft vary over a relatively short distance down low and understand how bad the winds aloft forecasts are. Then he didn't tell the guy 3,000 is a vfr altitude because he could "tell" that by his "attitude" the guy was going to drop him if he didn't climb? This is a mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...

Nope, just a temperature inversion at night. Dead-ass calm up to 3000. But at 3000 the winds were whipping along. As for the rest of it, yeah, 4 knots is a yawner. But even 10 knots on the longest leg I've done (925nm) in the Comanche made a difference. It was the difference between a fuel stop and no fuel stop. I had an hour of fuel left when I landed, but had I not gotten than 10 extra knots, I would have been below fuel reserves.
 
EdFred said:
Nope, just a temperature inversion at night. Dead-*** calm up to 3000. But at 3000 the winds were whipping along. As for the rest of it, yeah, 4 knots is a yawner. But even 10 knots on the longest leg I've done (925nm) in the Comanche made a difference. It was the difference between a fuel stop and no fuel stop. I had an hour of fuel left when I landed, but had I not gotten than 10 extra knots, I would have been below fuel reserves.
Click to expand...

Then you say unable, I'll run out of gas. I know you probably know this. I used to be uptight about controllers, what they think, now I don't give a ****. They are sitting comfy in their dark room. I'm in the elements flying. I also figured out I'm terrible at reading their minds.

At the end of the day they are providing a service to me. Tell them what you want, they will usually give it to you. If they don't there is generally a good reason and it probably makes you a little (or a lot) unsafe if you cancel over something like this. Losing flight following is not a big deal, happens pretty often when they are overloaded. I use it all the time, it's nice to have, but I would never tell my wife or let her dictate that it's a go / no-go deal. In fact, when I started back flying, my wife wasn't happy with one of my inflight decisions, mainly because it was going to extend the flight by about 15 minutes. I forget the details, but I told her : "Honey, I love you, but flying decisions are not a 50/50 deal up for discussion. If you want that you need to go get your license." She understood and said she didn't want a pilot's license.
 
cowtowner said:
I know a couple of ZFW controllers....I'm not going to get a guy called in over it. More venting than anything. I even looked up the FAR number and had a "speech" planned when he handed me off. I wussed out and just didn't thank him as I usually do at handoff.
Click to expand...

Snarky people can get under my skin as well. But as stated before - it's not a ding on your skill as a pilot, etc. Pick your fights. Be polite, be as factual as possible. But in this case, this one isn't even close to making the list.
 
PaulS said:
That was 12 minutes at 100 versus 103 knots if I believe he went 7 hours in a cherokee. Then he didn't tell the guy 3,000 is a vfr altitude because he could "tell" that by his "attitude" the guy was going to drop him if he didn't climb? This is a mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...

First off, reread my initial post. I was asking for advice as to what people here thought. Secondly, you question if I went 7 hours in a Cherokee? It's a 180, I true out about 118 knots, not 103. It was actually a 6 hour flight up and 6.5 coming back on Monday.

Third, I fly it around 250 hours a year from Mexico to North Dakota. It's also why I'm in the midst of upgrading to a faster plane where I don't worry about a 4 knot difference. But that's another story. You want my tail number so you can see my actual flights this weekend or over the last year?

I didn't make it a mountain, you did. I simply asked a question.

I use it all the time, it's nice to have, but I would never tell my wife or let her dictate that it's a go / no-go deal.
Click to expand...

You do your life, I'll do mine. My wife's happiness is very important to me, and her comfort with me flying is also very important to me. I get it, you "rule" your house. I'm sure you come home and complain the dishes aren't done as well.

I think you might be the first person I will mute on here.[/QUOTE]
 
cowtowner said:
First off, reread my initial post. I was asking for advice as to what people here thought. Secondly, you question if I went 7 hours in a Cherokee? It's a 180, I true out about 118 knots, not 103. It was actually a 6 hour flight up and 6.5 coming back on Monday.

Third, I fly it around 250 hours a year from Mexico to North Dakota. It's also why I'm in the midst of upgrading to a faster plane where I don't worry about a 4 knot difference. But that's another story. You want my tail number so you can see my actual flights this weekend or over the last year?

I didn't make it a mountain, you did. I simply asked a question.



You do your life, I'll do mine. My wife's happiness is very important to me, and her comfort with me flying is also very important to me. I get it, you "rule" your house. I'm sure you come home and complain the dishes aren't done as well.

I think you might be the first person I will mute on here.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
You are very sensitive.
 
When flying outta here, the controllers are like PEACE! Now when flying in the southeast, I got called out on altitude, and flight following suddenly became mandatory or the norm. That’s fine, different experience, everyone was helpful and a great learning experience. Wait till you see the top of a lightning bolt and “Fly the airplane first” suddenly makes sense. ;)

I say pop, you say soda.
 
cowtowner said:
I had a couple of choices with this guy, climb to 3,500 and check to see if I still had my tailwind, or just cancel FF and continue on my way.
Click to expand...

You had a third option..."I am below 3000' AGL...need me higher for some reason"
 
PaulS said:
"Honey, I love you, but flying decisions are not a 50/50 deal up for discussion. If you want that you need to go get your license."
Click to expand...


There's a certain approach controller at MCO that I'll have to try that line on....
 
mandm said:
When flying outta here, the controllers are like PEACE! Now when flying in the southeast, I got called out on altitude, and flight following suddenly became mandatory or the norm.
Click to expand...

The area around ATL the controllers can get a bit terse, but I attribute that to they have a lot going on and there are more opportunities for something to go wrong. When flying to Jacksonville or north to Louisville, ATC gets less "tense" IMHO.

Shawn said:
You had a third option..."I am below 3000' AGL...need me higher for some reason"
Click to expand...

Or "My altimeter is showing 3000 MSL, which is well below the 3000 AGL for VFR altitude requirements. Do you see something different? Appreciate the double check on my altitude".
 
It's reasonable to assume that the controller wasn't aware of the nuances of VFR cruising alts. There's a limit to how much can be worked out on frequency, however, this one was simple enough to have been resolved on freq, allowing you to comfortably continue at your desired/legal altitude.

"The odd plus 500 VFR altitude rule only applies above 3000ft AGL, and I am below that. I'm going to remain at 3000 for performance reasons." Done.

The first sentence summarizes the rule, the second sentence states your intention. If more discussion is required beyond that, a phone call would be fine. Absolutely do NOT cancel your radar service over a small misunderstanding.

The controller thought he/she was doing the right thing to keep your safe, however, it was LIKELY based on a misunderstanding of the regs. Had the controller been aware of the rule and was simply trying to avoid a conflict with IFR traffic at 3k, they would've likely made that clear. In absence of a traffic call, it's reasonable to assume the controller was mistaken in his/her understanding of the reg.

Being able to resolve simple misunderstandings on freq in a non-confrontational way is an important skill. There's lessons to be learned here.

It's easy to stay calm when you consider that the controller is not acting out of malice, but simply operating with a flawed understanding of an infrequently encountered nuance of the regs.
 
coma24 said:
Being able to resolve simple misunderstandings on freq in a non-confrontational way is an important skill.
Click to expand...
This for the win - well said.

Should be a carved on plaque and hung over the door at every flight school.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
How common is IFR traffic at 3000' msl?
Click to expand...

Pretty common in the flat lands. IAFs around here are almost all 3000 or below, so it's descend and maintain 3000 A LOT.
 
Dana said:
How common is IFR traffic at 3000' msl?
Click to expand...

I've been told to "descend and maintain 3000" while being vectored for approaches, and have been left at that altitude for a descent amount of time. So, while it may not be common for the enroute portion of a flight, it's absolutely used as a level off point during the departure and arrival phase (I've had both, countless times).
 
coma24 said:
If it helps resolve a misunderstanding that a controller has....why not? It's a team effort, we're not suggesting filing a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
To each his own. In the grand scheme of things, it don't make a bit of difference.
 
EdFred said:
Pretty common in the flat lands. IAFs around here are almost all 3000 or below, so it's descend and maintain 3000 A LOT.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And this may have been the basis for the controller’s statement. He may well have known it was “legal” to be VFR at 3,000 but it may well have caused him issues with IFR traffic on approaches - actual or practiced.

I’ve personally had a lot of success just calling and ASKING rather than telling; done that way, unknown reasons often pop up and it then makes sense. On occasion it’s a “learning moment” for ATC and they’ve been very gracious about it. But it’s good to remember I’m not personally the only one in the sky on their scope.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Exactly. And this may have been the basis for the controller’s statement. He may well have known it was “legal” to be VFR at 3,000 but it may well have caused him issues with IFR traffic on approaches - actual or practiced.

I’ve personally had a lot of success just calling and ASKING rather than telling; done that way, unknown reasons often pop up and it then makes sense. On occasion it’s a “learning moment” for ATC and they’ve been very gracious about it. But it’s good to remember I’m not personally the only one in the sky on their scope.
Click to expand...
Sounds more like the Controller didn't know and was doing it out of ignorance

When handed off to a new sector, the controller comes on and asks if "Are you going to fly at a VFR altitude?"

I respond "Affirmative, I'm at a VFR altitude"

He responds, "Actually you aren't"
 
coma24 said:
If it helps resolve a misunderstanding that a controller has....why not? It's a team effort, we're not suggesting filing a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Yup. And the Controller isn't going to get in trouble. He'll just learn something and not waste his and a pilots time in the future.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Exactly. And this may have been the basis for the controller’s statement. He may well have known it was “legal” to be VFR at 3,000 but it may well have caused him issues with IFR traffic on approaches - actual or practiced.

I’ve personally had a lot of success just calling and ASKING rather than telling; done that way, unknown reasons often pop up and it then makes sense. On occasion it’s a “learning moment” for ATC and they’ve been very gracious about it. But it’s good to remember I’m not personally the only one in the sky on their scope.
Click to expand...

Doubtful this was the case here or the controller would've likely referenced a potential conflict with other traffic. That's not what happened in this case. Hence, my argument that it was almost certainly a controller misunderstanding about a rarely used nuance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top