VFR cruising altitudes and FF

[Palmpilot]

All you have to do is tell ATC "I'm going north for a bit," or if they want a destination, make one up, and then change it whenever you want. It's not hard at all. You can even tell them you're following the coastline.

There are no separation minimums under VFR. There is for IFR, but forcing a deviation for someone else 'cause you don't care is kinda rude.

You speak as though you have to choose between "big sky" and flight following. Umm, the sky is just as big when you use the radio. But it is smaller when you follow a path someone else might also choose, like a coastline or an airway.

I don't think it's rude to not use flight following. I do think it would be rude to fail to yield to an aircraft that had the right-of-way, or to fail to maintain an adequate scan for traffic (which could cause a failure to yield the right-of-way).

I'm tending to use flight following more often lately, because I'm not as good at spotting traffic as I would like, but I recognize that some people are better at it than I am. I agree that in the example above, telling a controller that you're following the coastline can be a good solution. On the other hand, while controllers' instructions to VFR aircraft tend to be reasonable where we fly, I have heard that that is not the case in some areas.

 

[Mistake Not...]

I'm always on flight following. I figured it was good practice for the eventual IFR rating and now that I almost have one, it has been.

Last week, there was a bit of confusion on my part. I was at 5500, eastbound, when ATC called out traffic. I didn't see it, and the other traffic wasn't on FF. After a few minutes of this, he recommended I climb to "at or above 6000" for traffic avoidance. Well, being a good little VFR guy, I was all "NXXXX climbing to 7500". He politely let me know, and I forget the exact phrasing, but he was giving me... permission? to temporarily fly a non-VFR altitude. I picked 6500, but really didn't have much of a clue what to pick.

Suggestions? Should i have just taken the minimum altitude offered, hoping that that's the one he really wanted to assign me? 6500, to get out of the IFR altitude (6000)... what?

I obeyed the letter of the "clearance', but feel like I probably should have done the minimum rather than trying to be smart about it.

 

[Shawn]

Essentially yes, you were give permission to fly at a non VFR altitude. It was simply a maneuver to keep you safe from the unverified traffic without visual contact. Climbing to 6000' would have been perfectly acceptable in that case. He would not have given you 6000 as an option if it would have created another potential conflict.

Now, once the potential conflict had passed which ATC would let you know with "altitude at your discretion" or other phrase...then yes, you should return to 5500 or continue up to 7500 for normal cruise.

 

[MAKG1]

Essentially yes, you were give permission to fly at a non VFR altitude. It was simply a maneuver to keep you safe from the traffic. Climbing to 6000' would have been perfectly acceptable in that case. Now, once the potential conflict had passed which ATC would let you know with "altitude at your discretion" or other phrase...then yes, you should return to 5500 or continue up to 7500 for normal cruise.

Sure, it's acceptable to fly to 6000 until traffic clears under the conditions given.

The one thing I wouldn't do is climb to 6500. IFR traffic is under positive control, and you know you're in a radar environment, so 6000 is not a big deal. But 6500 is likely to have opposite-direction VFR traffic. When in doubt, you could use an oddball altitude like 6200.

I really hate traffic calls like "Traffic 12 oclock 1 mile opposite direction altitude unknown type unknown."

 

[Mistake Not...]

Sure, it's acceptable to fly to 6000 until traffic clears under the conditions given.

The one thing I wouldn't do is climb to 6500. IFR traffic is under positive control, and you know you're in a radar environment, so 6000 is not a big deal. But 6500 is likely to have opposite-direction VFR traffic. When in doubt, you could use an oddball altitude like 6200.

Yeah, that makes sense. He knew (or should have known) no IFR traffic at 6000 would conflict for the time this was likely to take. 6500 was a bad choice. But it would have been nice if he'd said "suggest climb to 6000."

I did eventually see the traffic, and it would have been close if i hadn't been on flight following. I'd much rather have the help than not have it.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

Did you go back to 5500' after traffic was deemed to not be a factor?

With an instruction like that, I'd probably split the difference between VFR and IFR cruising altitudes...about 6250', so fewer worries about head-on traffic at 6500'. It's just temporary, and he's got you on the scope.

 

[Shawn]

Yeah, that makes sense. He knew (or should have known) no IFR traffic at 6000 would conflict for the time.

...and your scenario is a perfect example of 91.159 "... shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level...unless otherwise authorized by ATC."

 

[Mistake Not...]

Yeah. I went back to 5500 when he told me the traffic was no longer a factor. And it was fun, in that it broke up a long trip with fun little climb. Nothing about this was unusual or uncertain except ">=6000". Well, i can't make orbit, and I can easily get above 6000.... so what to pick?

 

[danhagan]

E-W traffic in my area used to fly at 5500 MSL both directions. Choppers were at 5000 and heavies departing ELP over downtown were climbing out through 6500. That 5500 kept the wake TB encounters reduced. Now with new controllers we fly hemispheric rules, get vectored into Mexico often and it seems like a real **** show even though traffic is less now.

 

[bmoeller]

Perfect timing on this thread. Was just thinking about a flight NE of NYC airspace. I would be tracking Broadway VOR (BWZ) to (4N1). NY TAC shows Broadway and Sparta VORs as heavy arrival/departure routes. Feel like 5500 or 7500 is the preferred route East and 6500 West with FF. Should help avoid a decent amount of descending or ascending commercials.

 

[GeorgeC]

Perfect timing on this thread. Was just thinking about a flight NE of NYC airspace. I would be tracking Broadway VOR (BWZ) to (4N1). NY TAC shows Broadway and Sparta VORs as heavy arrival/departure routes. Feel like 5500 or 7500 is the preferred route East and 6500 West with FF. Should help avoid a decent amount of descending or ascending commercials.

I was just in this neck of the woods yesterday. There was indeed not much traffic at 7500.

 

[jordane93]

Perfect timing on this thread. Was just thinking about a flight NE of NYC airspace. I would be tracking Broadway VOR (BWZ) to (4N1). NY TAC shows Broadway and Sparta VORs as heavy arrival/departure routes. Feel like 5500 or 7500 is the preferred route East and 6500 West with FF. Should help avoid a decent amount of descending or ascending commercials.

55 and 65 are good east and west. I've never been denied a transition in NY. The controllers are always helpful and professional.

 

[Sundancer]

All you have to do is tell ATC "I'm going north for a bit," or if they want a destination, make one up, and then change it whenever you want. It's not hard at all. You can even tell them you're following the coastline.

There are no separation minimums under VFR. There is for IFR, but forcing a deviation for someone else 'cause you don't care is kinda rude.

You speak as though you have to choose between "big sky" and flight following. Umm, the sky is just as big when you use the radio. But it is smaller when you follow a path someone else might also choose, like a coastline or an airway.

You missed my later post - sometimes, often really, when VFR, I don't want the noise. If you find it "rude" or scary that airplanes are airborne sans ATC contact, you are flying in the wrong country. . .

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

You missed my later post - sometimes, often really, when VFR, I don't want the noise. If you find it "rude" or scary that airplanes are airborne sans ATC contact, you are flying in the wrong country. . .

I'm the same way. Depending on duration and direction of the flight, and expected traffic density of the route/area, I may or may not pick up FF. If available, I'll always get it through the L.A. basin, though!

It's nice that we have freedom of choice. And sometimes, if workload is too heavy for the controllers, we may not get FF, so we need to be prepared for the possibility.

 

[MAKG1]

You missed my later post - sometimes, often really, when VFR, I don't want the noise. If you find it "rude" or scary that airplanes are airborne sans ATC contact, you are flying in the wrong country. . .

It's rude that you don't care about "separation" and might divert an aircraft with dozens of times your hourly operating costs, to avoid "noise." Selfish as hell, actually.

 

[Palmpilot]

The trouble with concepts like rudeness is that, absent a rule violation, it's a matter of personal opinion.

Some tracons reportedly have a practice of sending VFR aircraft far out of their way as an SOP. Some people think THAT'S rude.

 

[pburger]

It's rude that you don't care about "separation" and might divert an aircraft with dozens of times your hourly operating costs, to avoid "noise." Selfish as hell, actually.

Oh please. "Selfish as hell"? Not hardly. I can pretty much guarantee I'm not going to "divert an aircraft with dozens of times my hourly operating costs" if I'm doing my own thing clear of Class B, C, and D, airspace. If every little 1200 on ATC's screen called in and asked for FF they would just start denying service at some point. FF isn't required, and it's on a workload permitting basis, anyway. I have been denied FF before. Was ATC being rude? Of course not, they were just too busy with IFR traffic. Class B and C and D are there for a reason. You are required to talk to someone in those areas. Is it a good idea to get FF in many cases? Sure. Does it give positive separation? Heck no! You still need to keep your head on a swivel. Do I get FF on every 50, 60, or 70 nm hamburger run on a nice clear day? Heck no! I get Sundancer's point exactly. Sometimes you just want to go flying, and you don't want to talk to anybody. Ain't nuthin' wrong with 'dat, as long as you are following all the rules.

 

[roncachamp]

...and your scenario is a perfect example of 91.159 "... shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level...unless otherwise authorized by ATC."

Here's the cruising altitude regulation as it appeared in 1968:


91.109 VFR cruising altitude or flight level.

Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while
turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight
more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below:

(a) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and--

(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd
thousand foot MSL altitude +500 feet (such as 3,500, 5,500, or 7,500); or

(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even
thousand foot MSL altitude +500 feet (such as 4,500, 6,500, or 8,500).

(b) When operating above 18,000 feet MSL to flight level 290 (inclusive)
and--

(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd
flight level +500 feet (such as 195, 215, or 235); or

(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even
flight level +500 feet (such as 185, 205, or 225).

(c) When operating above flight level 290 and--

(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any flight
level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 300
(such as flight level 300, 340, or 380); or

(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any flight
level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 320
(such as flight level 320, 360, or 400).



Note that "unless otherwise authorized by ATC" was not part of the reg in 1968. What prompted the change? Terminal Control Areas, what we now call Class B airspace, were established in June 1970. ATC was now responsible for separation of VFR in TCAs and they needed the tools to accomplish that, one tool is the assignment of altitudes to VFR aircraft. The reg was changed so that ATC could assign altitudes inconsistent with the regulation, without that change pilots would be in violation if they complied with the controller's instruction.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Oh please. "Selfish as hell"? Not hardly. I can pretty much guarantee I'm not going to "divert an aircraft with dozens of times my hourly operating costs" if I'm doing my own thing clear of Class B, C, and D, airspace. If every little 1200 on ATC's screen called in and asked for FF they would just start denying service at some point. FF isn't required, and it's on a workload permitting basis, anyway. I have been denied FF before. Was ATC being rude? Of course not, they were just too busy with IFR traffic. Class B and C and D are there for a reason. You are required to talk to someone in those areas. Is it a good idea to get FF in many cases? Sure. Does it give positive separation? Heck no! You still need to keep your head on a swivel. Do I get FF on every 50, 60, or 70 nm hamburger run on a nice clear day? Heck no! I get Sundancer's point exactly. Sometimes you just want to go flying, and you don't want to talk to anybody. Ain't nuthin' wrong with 'dat, as long as you are following all the rules.

I fly concord ccr to Monterey mry with some regularity. My route takes directly over San Jose and under sfo class b. I don't talk to anyone after tower until I need a clearance to get under the marine layer. Are southwest planes and other pricey to fly airplanes being vectored around me because I'm quiet? You better believe it! Is it selfish as hell? I don't think so. Is it inconsiderate? Maybe a little bit.
I'd rather listen to my latest Spotify playlist and watch the airplanes on my gtn than listen to atc chatter sometimes. I just want to fly.

 

[pburger]

Let's see, you are flying under Class B and over the Class C, and you think they are vectoring the airliners around you? I doubt you're the only VFR traffic flying, and I certainly doubt that any significant deviations are necessary because you are flying along outside of Bravo and Charlie. It is neither selfish nor inconsiderate to fly where you are allowed to fly while following all rules that apply.

 

[MAKG1]

Let's see, you are flying under Class B and over the Class C, and you think they are vectoring the airliners around you? I doubt you're the only VFR traffic flying, and I certainly doubt that any significant deviations are necessary because you are flying along outside of Bravo and Charlie. It is neither selfish nor inconsiderate to fly where you are allowed to fly while following all rules that apply.

Where HE's flying, specifically, he's cutting off the instrument approaches to San Jose. Instrument approaches are not contained entirely within Class C; for instance the ILS 30L has a segment at 4000 in Class E, between GILRO and KLIDE. He has mountains to cross and most of us don't do it below 3500. If IFR, you get routed over there either right over SJC or above 5000. On flight following, you are GUARANTEED to get requests to stay out of the extended centerline until there is a big enough hole.

And a TCAS RA will send them on a missed approach.

So, yes, it's both rude, and quite selfish to spend thousands of dollars of other people's money because he'd rather listen to Spotify. After all, one pilot's entertainment is always much more important than other people's money.

 

[Palmpilot]

Where HE's flying, specifically, he's cutting off the instrument approaches to San Jose. Instrument approaches are not contained entirely within Class C; for instance the ILS 30L has a segment at 4000 in Class E, between GILRO and KLIDE. He has mountains to cross and most of us don't do it below 3500. If IFR, you get routed over there either right over SJC or above 5000. On flight following, you are GUARANTEED to get requests to stay out of the extended centerline until there is a big enough hole.

And a TCAS RA will send them on a missed approach.

So, yes, it's both rude, and quite selfish to spend thousands of dollars of other people's money because he'd rather listen to Spotify. After all, one pilot's entertainment is always much more important than other people's money.

The guy said he was flying directly over San Jose. If he meant the airport, that has no effect on the instrument approach courses into there.

https://skyvector.com/?ll=37.39704272013357,-122.04008702339392&chart=301&zoom=7&fpl= KCCR KSJC KMRY

I do think one should be judicious in one's choice of routes. One time when I was direct from the Palmdale (PMD) area to Palo Alto (PAO), and monitoring Approach but not talking to them, I noticed that the magenta line would keep me very close to the San Jose localizer for quite a while, so I sidestepped a few miles. I didn't hear anyone being vectored around me on the frequency.

 

[MAKG1]

The guy said he was flying directly over San Jose. If he meant the airport, that has no effect on the instrument approach courses into there.

https://skyvector.com/?ll=37.39704272013357,-122.04008702339392&chart=301&zoom=7&fpl= KCCR KSJC KMRY

I do think one should be judicious in one's choice of routes. One time when I was direct from the Palmdale (PMD) area to Palo Alto (PAO), and monitoring approach but not talking to them, I noticed that the magenta line would keep me very close to the San Jose localizer for quite a while, so I sidestepped a few miles. I didn't hear anyone being vectored around me on the frequency.

Maybe not the instrument approaches at that location if he's really right over SJC, but the LOUPE FOUR departure will be problematic if he's above the Class C. And that one is routinely used for southbound departures. And at altitudes high enough for that, the Oakland ILS 28R gets disturbed. Transitions to the SFO 28R ILS are also affected; surely you've heard all the traffic calls you get east of Sunol Pass at altitudes above 4000.

It's rude to make every one else get out of your way because you want to listen to music.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm aware that go-arounds in an airliner are expensive, because they involve circumnavigating the airport, but my experience has been that vectors for traffic add very little to my flight time, even in the slow moving airplanes I fly.

By the way, that's actually Mission Pass, according to a USGS map I looked at.

 

[Sundancer]

Part of the price of doing business - and if it was an issue in a particular area, the FAA could gack with the airspace. I suspect it's not. As it is legal, and not at all unusual, one person's "rude" is just a personal point of view, not an absolute.

 

[gismo]

Yeah...that is usually to keep ya from smacking into another plane...kinda the whole point of FF.

In the vicinity of a busy Class B that's not always (or even often) the case. Some TRACONs like to keep all the VFR traffic much further away from the airlines than is legally required let alone necessary or collision avoidance. But if you're getting FF a long way from any Class B, MOA, or restricted airspace, a vector is indeed likely for noise abatement (aka avoiding the sound of aluminum breaking).

 

[AKBill]

91.159 (bolded mine):

"Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless otherwise authorized by ATC."


My take is if ATC says "Altitude at pilot's discretion", that authorizes deviation from the hemispheric rule.

Lacking a ruling to the contrary, I'll stick to that interpretation.

Agreed

 

[roncachamp]

Agreed

See message #58.