"...expect higher in 10 minutes."

KE5BM said:
I wish there was a sort-of "pilot's guide" to local ATC SOP.
Click to expand...
YES!!! IMO it's far better if we can know that stuff so we can plan on it and then file it and save everyone a bunch of time.

flyingron said:
7110.65?
Click to expand...
Nope. Local stuff.

For example: At KMSN, there's runways 18-36 (9000), 3-21 (7200), and 14-32 (5800). They operate in either a north or south flow - For a north flow, mostly it's airlines on 36 and GA on 32; a south flow is mostly airlines on 18 and GA on 21. That's simply because in addition to the runway lengths, the airline terminal is on the west side and the GA terminal on the east side.

On top of that... Using the centerlines of 3/21 and 14/32 as well as a straight east-west line, you can split the airspace into six pizza slices. Tower is allowed to send departures out willy-nilly in parts of the airspace: In a north flow, it's VFR at or below 3000 in the two side pie slices (between 270 and the runway 3 centerline and then between the 32 centerline and 090) and IFR at 5000 in the middle slice. Same sort of thing on the north flow. So if you want to go from the west side to the east side at 3000 feet without flying right over the top of the field, you need to climb to 5500 or you'll get vectored.

So, that's one example. Most of this stuff is in LOAs between facilities and likely a bunch of local practices, NOT in the 7110.65 which is generic info for the entire NAS.
 
Doubtful. Can't even reliably get where the sectors are, let alone more esoteric local guidance.

Like I'd like to know why, if I'm on an airway, I have to climb 4000' over the MEA just because they don't have radar contact.
 
KE5BM said:
I wish there was a sort-of "pilot's guide" to local ATC SOP.
Click to expand...
One of the local clubs coordinated with the controllers at ALB a few years ago, pre-covid I think, to have an open QA session. It was interesting and informative. Questions like how they preferred VFR call-ups, why certain procedures were done, why different frequencies were used, how handoffs worked at some of the local fields, etc. We also had a kids RC flying group that reached out to ALB, and got a tour of the facilities, and short presentation and a Q/A session. Really friendly. So I'd suggest reaching out locally, either as part of a club or individually. Lately the different groups may be too busy to do extra things, but interactions that I've had have always been positive. For national weather service in Albany, too, for that matter.
 
KE5BM said:
I wish there was a sort-of "pilot's guide" to local ATC SOP.
Click to expand...

There can be at towered airports if the facility issues an LTA (Letter to Airmen). These are viewable on the ForeFlight airport page or in the FAA FNS NOTAM system.
 
bonefishpete said:
Don’t you climb to your filed altitude? Fly your flight plane then if early to the approach hold at final approach fix till eta?
Now if you find yourself in vfr land as soon as possible and contact FSS? I think this is how it went?
Click to expand...
If I received "expect higher in 10 minutes" I'd query the controller as to what higher altitude I should expect. "Expect higher" without a specific altitude is meaningless.
 
Why I carried a hand held radio. Screw that noise. TO is easy try hitting your final approach fix ETA? Inbound?
 
At FIN, we get 1,500 expect "filed altitude" in 10. The funny part is when they hand you over to approach, they nearly always give you 2,000 as part of checking in. My only guess is the top of the Delta is 1,500 so that's what tower can give. Other than knob twisting, it makes no difference as you get handed over well below 1,500, but given it's 90% of the time, surprised there's not an arrangement to just give 2,000 as the initial altitude. (first world problem)
 
roncachamp said:
Where do they do that?
Click to expand...
Hey, welcome back, Steve. It used to be on the Victor airway going from BZM to LYH, Roanoake Approach always climbed me to 7000, several thousand above the MEA. The V airway is gone now, but there's a T there now and I suspect they'll still try to climb me (I only get that if I drop over to HKY to get fuel first).
 
flyingron said:
Hey, welcome back, Steve. It used to be on the Victor airway going from BZM to LYH, Roanoake Approach always climbed me to 7000, several thousand above the MEA. The V airway is gone now, but there's a T there now and I suspect they'll still try to climb me (I only get that if I drop over to HKY to get fuel first).
Click to expand...
I have a vintage 1989 L-21/22 chart. It shows the MEA on V222 to be 5000 between BZM and HENBY, and 4000 between HENBY and LYH. T414 is 4100 to HENBY, 3700 to LYH. The higher altitudes on the Victor airway would be due to VOR reception distance.

Did they state radar coverage was the reason for the climb? Flight at the MEA would effectively shut down IFR departures from airports along the way. Leaving room for departures makes sense to me, a lack of radar coverage does not.
 
roncachamp said:
I have a vintage 1989 L-21/22 chart. It shows the MEA on V222 to be 5000 between BZM and HENBY, and 4000 between HENBY and LYH. T414 is 4100 to HENBY, 3700 to LYH. The higher altitudes on the Victor airway would be due to VOR reception distance.

Did they state radar coverage was the reason for the climb? Flight at the MEA would effectively shut down IFR departures from airports along the way. Leaving room for departures makes sense to me, a lack of radar coverage does not.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd get climbed to 7000 every time when I asked why, they said for radar coverage. I suspect their non-radar skills are about typical as to what they are for pilots.

I was over in coastal Carolina and they call and say "We need to put you back on an airway, Seymour-Johnson's radar is out." I did and then started making position reports, but the tracon had to keep prompting others to report the next point.
 
roncachamp said:
Right. "Expect higher in 10 minutes" provides nothing for lost comm purposes. How high do you climb if you find yourself NORDO ten minutes after takeoff?
Click to expand...
§ 91.185 IFR operations: Two-way radio communications failure.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has two-way radio communications failure when operating under IFR shall comply with the rules of this section.

(b) VFR conditions. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFRconditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.

(2) Altitude. At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels for the route segment being flown:

(i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;

(ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in § 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or

(iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.
 
Last edited:
Allow me to reiterate my misunderstanding and ambiguity about my original post (pretty sure I addressed this in post #23 in this thread).

I had not even taken one IFR lesson yet at the time I had asked the question. Further, I had paraphrased what the controller was instructing by saying "expect higher" as opposed to "expect <altitude> in one zero minutes." I now know better and I now know the answer to the question I had originally posted. Kinda wish the thread could be deleted unless there is some benefit to the discussion about the policies that has ensued.
 
roncachamp said:
"Expect higher in 10 minutes" does not provide an altitude or flight level.
Click to expand...
The regulation does.

The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received; He received an altitude in the last clearance.

The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in § 91.121(c)) for IFRoperations; so he doesn’t aluminum plate the ground.

While a poor clearance, the pilot would maintain the last assigned altitude or the altitude indicated on the enroute chart if required.

I have received expect lower in x miles from controllers several times, I never considered that an instruction to descend to a lower altitude if comm was lost. Nor would I climb if I received an expect higher in distance or time with with no altitude assignment. I’d simply follow the lost comm procedures.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
The regulation does.

The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received; He received an altitude in the last clearance.

The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in § 91.121(c)) for IFRoperations; so he doesn’t aluminum plate the ground.

While a poor clearance, the pilot would maintain the last assigned altitude or the altitude indicated on the enroute chart if required.

I have received expect lower in x miles from controllers several times, I never considered that an instruction to descend to a lower altitude if comm was lost. Nor would I climb if I received an expect higher in distance or time with with no altitude assignment. I’d simply follow the lost comm procedures.
Click to expand...
"Expect higher in 10 minutes" does not provide an altitude or flight level because "higher" is not an altitude or a flight level.
 
roncachamp said:
"Expect higher in 10 minutes" does not provide an altitude or flight level because "higher" is not an altitude or a flight level.
Click to expand...
I get it, but if you of your incompetent ex colleagues issued it and comm was immediately lost, the reg provides the means to deal with it.
 
Clip4 said:
I get it, but if you of your incompetent ex colleagues issued it and comm was immediately lost, the reg provides the means to deal with it.
Click to expand...
By ingoring the comment was ever made. It's entirely spurious.
 
The OP figured it out on his own: the clearances he was hearing included an altitude/FL to expect.

But controllers do frequently advise pilots to “EXPECT HIGHER/LOWER IN ___ MILES, or ___ MINUTES, or at ___ WAYPOINT.” This is not a clearance—it’s merely a courtesy provided by the controller when a climb or descent is expected or requested but not immediately available.

Since it’s not a clearance it has no relevance to 91.185. However, we might assume that the controller has a good reason for delaying an altitude change, so if we subsequently went NORDO and had to revert to 91.185, we might consider delaying a climb or descent until meeting the condition that the controller advised us to expect.

Just a thought.
 
Stephen Shore said:
As Feh said - pretty common to stay at a low altitude for more than 10 minutes if you are taking off from an airport well inside a Class B shelf (such as Houston). My wife and I took off from West Houston and were given a clearance of 2000' in the middle of the afternoon in August. It was excruciating (hot and humid) and I called ATC begging for higher. Nope....kept me at 2000' but did seem sorry about me being cooked alive.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the Houston airspace. I fly occasionally from T41 to KDWH and back. Going NW on a filed IFR, it's generally 3,000 around the KIAH bravo shelf, coming back it's 2,500 weaving through the gap between KHOU/KIAH. No allowance for weather, VFR traffic, zilch, and it doesn't matter what altitude you filed. Last time I flew it there was a stadium TFR which narrowed that middle gap REALLY tight....ATC expects us to maintain very crisp tolerances through there. Other option is to go VFR and take the long way around......pick your poison.
 
Roger Wilco said:
Since it’s not a clearance it has no relevance to 91.185.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to agree to "no relevance."

As I recall, there was an Opposing Bases discussion "expect [altitude] 10 minutes after departure." The point they were making is that, while the initial altitude is generally based on typical traffic needs, the minutes part is pretty much facility-standard (I've heard 10 and 5 and no others) and based on nothing. Nothing to do with traffic, nor, more importantly, obstructions. So, in theory, remaining at the low altitude for the whole 10 minutes on your current vector in the case of com failure can put you into terrain or another obstruction. That part doesn't change with replacing a hard altitude with "higher."

The relevance I see to 91.185 com failure is twofold. One is that you may well decide to climb even before that time is up (that mountain on your route?). Unless conditions or your judgment say "divert now!" that's going to be your 91.185(c)(2) altitude. The other is noire generic. I always point to my favorite AIM paragraph in com failure discussions:

It is virtually impossible to provide regulations and procedures applicable to all possible situations associated with two-way radio communications failure. During two-way radio communications failure, when confronted by a situation not covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in whatever action they elect to take. Should the situation so dictate they should not be reluctant to use the emergency action contained in 14 CFR section 91.3(b).​
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm not going to agree to "no relevance."

As I recall, there was an Opposing Bases discussion "expect [altitude] 10 minutes after departure." The point they were making is that, while the initial altitude is generally based on typical traffic needs, the minutes part is pretty much facility-standard (I've heard 10 and 5 and no others) and based on nothing. Nothing to do with traffic, nor, more importantly, obstructions. So, in theory, remaining at the low altitude for the whole 10 minutes on your current vector in the case of com failure can put you into terrain or another obstruction. That part doesn't change with replacing a hard altitude with "higher."

The relevance I see to 91.185 com failure is twofold. One is that you may well decide to climb even before that time is up (that mountain on your route?). Unless conditions or your judgment say "divert now!" that's going to be your 91.185(c)(2) altitude. The other is noire generic. I always point to my favorite AIM paragraph in com failure discussions:

It is virtually impossible to provide regulations and procedures applicable to all possible situations associated with two-way radio communications failure. During two-way radio communications failure, when confronted by a situation not covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in whatever action they elect to take. Should the situation so dictate they should not be reluctant to use the emergency action contained in 14 CFR section 91.3(b).​
Click to expand...
We are referring to two entirely different scenarios. Let me try to clarify my point.

Example 1: Climb and maintain three thousand. Expect eight thousand one zero minutes after departure. This is a clearance.

Example 2: Maintain eight thousand, expect lower in two zero miles. This is NOT a clearance.

91.185 states "the altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance." Example 2 clearly does not apply because it is not a clearance, and because no altitude or flight level was "advised may be expected."

In any lost comm situation, it is the PIC's responsibility to determine and follow the safest course of action per 91.3 (and basic survival imperative). If the safest course of action conflicts with guidance provided in 91.185, then it is the PIC's prerogative to ignore 91.185 to the extent necessary to ensure a safe outcome.
 
Last edited:
Roger Wilco said:
The OP figured it out on his own: the clearances he was hearing included an altitude/FL to expect.

But controllers do frequently advise pilots to “EXPECT HIGHER/LOWER IN ___ MILES, or ___ MINUTES, or at ___ WAYPOINT.” This is not a clearance—it’s merely a courtesy provided by the controller when a climb or descent is expected or requested but not immediately available.

Since it’s not a clearance it has no relevance to 91.185. However, we might assume that the controller has a good reason for delaying an altitude change, so if we subsequently went NORDO and had to revert to 91.185, we might consider delaying a climb or descent until meeting the condition that the controller advised us to expect.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
That phraseology is for aircraft already airborne. Another part of it is to request higher from another facility.

4−5−8. ANTICIPATED ALTITUDE CHANGES
If practicable, inform an aircraft when to expect climb or descent clearance or to request altitude change from another facility.

PHRASEOLOGY−
EXPECT HIGHER/LOWER IN (number of miles or minutes) MILES/MINUTES,
or
AT (fix). REQUEST ALTITUDE/FLIGHT LEVEL CHANGE FROM (name of facility).
If required,
AT (time, fix, or altitude).

The scenario that started this thread was altitude assignment given in the Departure Clearance. That’s the Clearance you get before departing. Those do require that an altitude be in the ‘expect’ portion of altitude assignment.
 
luvflyin said:
That phraseology is for aircraft already airborne. Another part of it is to request higher from another facility.

4−5−8. ANTICIPATED ALTITUDE CHANGES
If practicable, inform an aircraft when to expect climb or descent clearance or to request altitude change from another facility.

PHRASEOLOGY−
EXPECT HIGHER/LOWER IN (number of miles or minutes) MILES/MINUTES,
or
AT (fix). REQUEST ALTITUDE/FLIGHT LEVEL CHANGE FROM (name of facility).
If required,
AT (time, fix, or altitude).

The scenario that started this thread was altitude assignment given in the Departure Clearance. That’s the Clearance you get before departing. Those do require that an altitude be in the ‘expect’ portion of altitude assignment.
Click to expand...
Yes.

I can't find a point in your post about which we disagree.
 
Roger Wilco said:
We are referring to two entirely different scenarios. Let me try to clarify my point.

Example 1: Climb and maintain three thousand. Expect eight thousand one zero minutes after departure. This is a clearance.

Example 2: Maintain eight thousand, expect lower in two zero miles. This is NOT a clearance.

91.185 states "the altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance." Example 2 clearly does not apply because it is not a clearance, and because no altitude or flight level was "advised may be expected."

In any lost comm situation, it is the PIC's responsibility to determine and follow the safest course of action per 91.3 (and basic survival imperative). If the safest course of action conflicts with guidance provided in 91.185, then it is the PIC's prerogative to ignore 91.185 to the extent necessary to ensure a safe outcome.
Click to expand...
I agree with you about the difference between the two in that one states an altitude and the other doesn't. And that "higher" is not an altitude. I only disagree that "it has no relevance to 91.185." It's relevant if only because, as you say, it's not, actually can't be "The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance." "Higher" is not not an altitude or flight level.

Sorry, perhaps I'm confused because that part seems obvious to me - "higher" is not an altitude - without getting into definitions of what and what is not a "clearance" or an "expected clearance." You just use first two 91.185(c)(2) altitude directives and never get to the third.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I agree with you about the difference between the two in that one states an altitude and the other doesn't. And that "higher" is not an altitude. I only disagree that "it has no relevance to 91.185." It's relevant if only because, as you say, it's not, actually can't be "The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance." "Higher" is not not an altitude or flight level.

Sorry, perhaps I'm confused because that part seems obvious to me - "higher" is not an altitude - without getting into definitions of what and what is not a "clearance" or an "expected clearance." You just use first two 91.185(c)(2) altitude directives and never get to the third.
Click to expand...
I read and re-read your post, and I'm still baffled by what you meant when you wrote "It's relevant if only because, as you say, it's not, actually can't be "The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance." Every way that I parse that sentence, it seems to claim that it's relevant because it's not relevant.

Keep in mind that, this being the Internet, it helps to dumb things down to a level that even the village idiot (yours truly) can grasp.
 
Roger Wilco said:
I read and re-read your post, and I'm still baffled by what you meant when you wrote "It's relevant if only because, as you say, it's not, actually can't be "The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance." Every way that I parse that sentence, it seems to claim that it's relevant because it's not relevant.

Keep in mind that, this being the Internet, it helps to dumb things down to a level that even the village idiot (yours truly) can grasp.
Click to expand...
"Higher" can't be "the" altitude or flight level because it's not "an" altitude or flight level.

I can't make it any simpler than that. Asking," is that a clearance?" actual, expected, etc, doesnt mean anything to me. OTOH, 91.185 is relevant because it's lost com.

Do I have an assigned altitude? The original one.
Do I gave a minimum IFR altitude? Yep. It's charted.
Do I have an expected altitude? No, they didn't give me one.
What the highest of the two I do have? The MIA.

You call that being irrelevant. I call it part of the analysis. You say it's not a clearance. I say it's not an altitude. I think we're agree but are just looking at the question with different eyes.
 
Roger Wilco said:
Sorry, I really couldn't grasp your rationale. Nonetheless, I will raise a pint in tribute if we're somehow in agreement.
Click to expand...
:D Well, I hope we somehow agree that "higher" is not a stated altitude or fight level and that, in the case of com failure in nonvisual conditions, we'd both climb to the higher of our last assignment or the MIA unless we were diverting somewhere immediately.
 
midlifeflyer said:
:D Well, I hope we somehow agree that "higher" is not a stated altitude or fight level...
Click to expand...
In #66 I wrote, "Example 2 clearly does not apply because it is not a clearance, and because no altitude or flight level was 'advised may be expected' [in a further clearance]."

So there you have it.
 
I hear you concerning Houston approach. I fly from south central Louisiana to Houston Southwest often and I am brought down below the shelves for Hobby IFR. Same for departing the area. Since getting an air conditioner installed, it has not been so painful. By the time I get cleared to my filed altitude, I just as soon stay down low. Frustrating, but I get the reason due to two Bravos in close proximity and deconflicting traffic.
StraightnLevel said:
Welcome to the Houston airspace. I fly occasionally from T41 to KDWH and back. Going NW on a filed IFR, it's generally 3,000 around the KIAH bravo shelf, coming back it's 2,500 weaving through the gap between KHOU/KIAH. No allowance for weather, VFR traffic, zilch, and it doesn't matter what altitude you filed. Last time I flew it there was a stadium TFR which narrowed that middle gap REALLY tight....ATC expects us to maintain very crisp tolerances through there. Other option is to go VFR and take the long way around......pick your poison.
Click to expand...
 
Earlier this week, I got this clearance for an eastbound flight: "Fly heading 295, vectors, then as filed, climb and maintain 11,000." I checked in with departure "heading 295, climbing through X,000 for 11,000." A few minutes later, departure called me: "What are you doing?" Urm..."I'm flying heading 295 as requested, let me know when you want to vector me onto the airway." Controllers are humans. So are pilots. I don't know if they expected something that I missed or vice versa, but we talked it through and nobody died.
 
iamtheari said:
Earlier this week, I got this clearance for an eastbound flight: "Fly heading 295, vectors, then as filed, climb and maintain 11,000." I checked in with departure "heading 295, climbing through X,000 for 11,000." A few minutes later, departure called me: "What are you doing?" Urm..."I'm flying heading 295 as requested, let me know when you want to vector me onto the airway." Controllers are humans. So are pilots. I don't know if they expected something that I missed or vice versa, but we talked it through and nobody died.
Click to expand...
Yeah, stuff happens. I had a controller confuse me with a different plane (similar tail #) about a year ago. I was at about 3,500 feet, maybe 15 miles from destination airport, and he called and gave me "Climb to 5,000". :confused2: ???? I started climbing, assuming I was avoiding traffic or something. Then he called and said "Clear to 8,000"...LOL...... I asked if that was my vector to the RNAV...he quickly apologized and gave me the proper descent and heading clearance. I wonder what the other guy was thinking...:heli:
 
Clip4 said:
I get it, but if you of your incompetent ex colleagues issued it and comm was immediately lost, the reg provides the means to deal with it.
Click to expand...
Does it? Let's say you were issued, "climb and maintain three thousand, expect higher in ten minutes". If you lost communications shortly after departure, what altitude would you climb to according to the regulation?
 
roncachamp said:
Does it? Let's say you were issued, "climb and maintain three thousand, expect higher in ten minutes". If you lost communications shortly after departure, what altitude would you climb to according to the regulation?
Click to expand...
A. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFRconditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.

B. the highest of the following altitudes:

(i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received; or
(ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in § 91.121(c)) for IFR operations.

(iii) does not apply because an expected altitude was not issued or received.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top