Vfr cruising altitudes

[Pinstriper]

A few weeks ago we flew from OVE to LLR (but had to divert to UKI due to fog.) Along the flight I flew through a saddle next to Snow Mtn 7056' and the neighboring Mtn 6121'. With FF both ways I opted to climb up to 8500' while going west to avoid rollers off of the highest peak due to a 9mph north wind.

On the return flight I told atc my cruise alt would be 7500', as we approached the saddle I called Atc to tell them I would be climbing to 8500' as we went through the ridge. As we cleared the ridge heading east bound I called back to tell them I started my decent to 7500' (and continued to 3500') until we got home to OVE..

My question is this, was there any wrong doing in popping up to 8500' while heading east? My pax was also a pilot and he discouraged it. My thoughts were I had flight following and I'm sure they would've warned me about possible oncoming traffic (if of course they were transponder equipped).
So what do you guys think?
(Low time 110hr pilot here) thanks in advance..

 

[Alexb2000]

The rule with directions of flight apply >3000 AGL and below 18K MSL. So if the terrain was ~7000 MSL then you would technically be fine going either direction at 8,500 up to 10K. As a practical matter I would be very careful doing it. I would always ask ATC for any traffic in my area that may conflict and announce myself altitude/location on unicom especially around mountain passes.

Short answer: IMO only when absolutely necessary (clouds won't allow the climb), better to keep the climb going to say 9,500 East bound even if you come back down immediately.

You just can't see all the traffic out there and some/many won't be listening/talking either.

 

[MAKG1]

If it were me, I would have stayed at 7500 -- it's still higher than the peak, and a 6-7 knot wind isn't that significant. Perhaps planned a bit further south (like, over Clear Lake), as there aren't many coast range peaks above 7000 feet.

That saddle is under 5000 feet, so you weren't legal at 8500.

 

[poadeleted20]

All that said, as long as ATC is happy with it, you can fly a non-standard altitude while VFR.

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:

 

[Geico266]

If it were me, I would have stayed at 7500 -- it's still higher than the peak, and a 6-7 knot wind isn't that significant. Perhaps planned a bit further south (like, over Clear Lake), as there aren't many coast range peaks above 7000 feet.

That saddle is under 5000 feet, so you weren't legal at 8500.

I agree. A 8 knot wind is not going to cause any problems over a mountain range.

 

[Pinstriper]

I agree. A 8 knot wind is not going to cause any problems over a mountain range.

Hey I'm a newbie.. And I'm not taking any chances
At 48 I learned to ease into things.. I do a lot of reading on this board and over at Student Pilot.com.. I try and absorb as much info as I can.. That was my first trip out of the valley floor (other than June 2011 on my dual Xc with my CFI)
And with age you realize flying can kill you.. I'm going into this hobby cautiously

 

[nosehair]

On the return flight I told atc my cruise alt would be 7500', as we approached the saddle I called Atc to tell them I would be climbing to 8500' as we went through the ridge. As we cleared the ridge heading east bound I called back to tell them I started my decent to 7500' (and continued to 3500') until we got home to OVE..

From this description, it doesn't sound like you were cruising at 8500. What is a cruise? A significant time at a constant heading and altitude.

Don't be too concerned about short deviations from the enroute cruise to climb or descend to new altitudes briefly for terrain or weather. You ain't cruising there.

 

[roncachamp]

A few weeks ago we flew from OVE to LLR (but had to divert to UKI due to fog.) Along the flight I flew through a saddle next to Snow Mtn 7056' and the neighboring Mtn 6121'. With FF both ways I opted to climb up to 8500' while going west to avoid rollers off of the highest peak due to a 9mph north wind.

On the return flight I told atc my cruise alt would be 7500', as we approached the saddle I called Atc to tell them I would be climbing to 8500' as we went through the ridge. As we cleared the ridge heading east bound I called back to tell them I started my decent to 7500' (and continued to 3500') until we got home to OVE..

My question is this, was there any wrong doing in popping up to 8500' while heading east? My pax was also a pilot and he discouraged it. My thoughts were I had flight following and I'm sure they would've warned me about possible oncoming traffic (if of course they were transponder equipped).
So what do you guys think?
(Low time 110hr pilot here) thanks in advance..

Yes, if you were not within 3,000 feet of the surface and level at 8,500 MSL you were in violation of FAR 91.159. That you were on flight following is irrelevant, ATC cannot authorize deviations from that regulation outside of Class B airspace, Class C airspace (including the Outer Area), and TRSAs.

 

[roncachamp]

All that said, as long as ATC is happy with it, you can fly a non-standard altitude while VFR.

ATC cannot issue that authorization outside of Class B airspace, Class C airspace (including the Outer Area), or TRSAs.

 

[MAKG1]

No worries. Excessive caution isn't usually fatal.

If you live in Oroville, get connected to a mountain instructor ASAP. If all your flying has been over the Valley, you've been missing out on the best part of local flying.

Having said that, I deviated off my cruise altitude over Donner Pass -- up to 9000 feet on a westbound heading -- because it was getting pretty bumpy at 8500. No higher because a passenger was complaining about the altitude (in retrospect, there was an issue with dehydration -- not good). I dropped down as soon as I was clear of the pass. Flight following dropped me later (no radar coverage at that altitude over that part of the Sierra), but not before I got back on a VFR cruise altitude.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, if you were within 3,000 feet of the surface and level at 8,500 MSL you were in violation of FAR 91.159. That you were on flight following is irrelevant, ATC cannot authorize deviations from that regulation outside of Class B airspace, Class C airspace (including the Outer Area), and TRSAs.

There is nothing in Part 91 to that effect, nor any other regulation. And if there is something to that effect in 7110.65, Mr. McNicoll's colleagues seem unaware of it, as I've been authorized by ATC to cruise VFR at the "wrong" altitude outside B-space more times than I have fingers and toes. In any event, since it's not a regulation, if there is such a restriction in 7110.65, that's a controller issue, not a pilot problem, so if ATC says it's OK, then as far as the pilot is concerned, it's OK.

 

[roncachamp]

There is nothing in Part 91 to that effect, nor any other regulation. And if there is something to that effect in 7110.65, Mr. McNicoll's colleagues seem unaware of it, as I've been authorized by ATC to cruise VFR at the "wrong" altitude outside B-space more times than I have fingers and toes. In any event, since it's not a regulation, if there is such a restriction in 7110.65, that's a controller issue, not a pilot problem, so if ATC says it's OK, then as far as the pilot is concerned, it's OK.

You're saying, in effect, that a controller's misapplication of Order JO 7110.65 will excuse a pilot's misapplication of Part 91. Is this another one of those times that those skeptical of your position must contact Flight Standards or the Chief Counsel for confirmation?

 

[poadeleted20]

You're saying, in effect, that a controller's misapplication of Order JO 7110.65 will excuse a pilot's misapplication of Part 91. Is this another one of those times that those skeptical of your position must contact Flight Standards or the Chief Counsel for confirmation?

I still haven't seen anything which says a controller isn't allowed to do it. And it certainly isn't a "misapplication of Part 91" if the pilot does exactly what the regulation says.

But enough of this. Mr. McNicholl is incorrect on this point as far as a pilot and Part 91 are concerned no matter what he thinks a controller is or is not permitted to do, and that is black letter law.

 

[Pinstriper]

Ok guys I'm now on my computer, I guess I should've clarified the title ... "Vfr cruising altitude rules" When I departed OVE ATC asked me my cruising altitude, I stated that I was @ 2,000' for 8,500'.. she then confirmed by asking "what is your cruising altitude" I said 8,500.. Now in the 172e it took almost as long to get to the coastal range as it took to get to 8500 as we were taking a semi leasure climb out.

But one lesson I learned that day was when I call the WX briefer I neglected to ask for the winds aloft so the winds were at 9 at OVE but a little more at 8500' . Not bad but enough to know there were some heavier winds aloft (exercised my license to learn that day) ..

We made it just west of UKI but could see the fogg was thick at LLR, Then is when I decided to divert to UKI. After leaving UKI on climb out I contacted ATC and again they asked "cruising Altitude", I then stated 7500'... we flew that for aprox 10 minutes or so and when I got closer I decided to contact them and state I was going to climb to 8500' just long enough to cross the saddle.. They came back with my call sign and acknowledged what I said.. so for the next few minutes we climbed up, then back down..

I learned a few good lessons that day.. And had a great 2.4hr flight..
I have been in contact with a CFI friend that we are going to do some mountain flying some day soon.. He has 14k hours and is a former crop dusting pilot as well.. I fly and I learn.. And I'm lovin' it!

 

[Velocity173]

What a second. It sounds like he was less than 3,000 AGL correct? Altitude for direction of flight doesn't apply.

 

[roncachamp]

I still haven't seen anything which says a controller isn't allowed to do it. And it certainly isn't a "misapplication of Part 91" if the pilot does exactly what the regulation says.

FAA ORDER JO 7110.65U Air Traffic Control

Chapter 7. Visual

Section 7. Terminal Radar Service
Area (TRSA)− Terminal

7−7−5. ALTITUDE ASSIGNMENTS

a. Altitude information contained in a clearance,
instruction, or advisory to VFR aircraft must meet
MVA, MSA, or minimum IFR altitude criteria.

REFERENCE−
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4−5−2, Flight Direction.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4−5−3, Exceptions.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4−5−6, Minimum En Route Altitudes.

b. If required, issue altitude assignments, consistent
with the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.119.

NOTE−
The MSAs are:
1. Over congested areas, an altitude at least 1,000 feet
above the highest obstacle; and

2. Over other than congested areas, an altitude at least
500 feet above the surface.

c. When necessary to assign an altitude for
separation purposes to VFR aircraft contrary to
14 CFR Section 91.159, advise the aircraft to resume
altitudes appropriate for the direction of flight when
the altitude assignment is no longer needed for
separation or when leaving the TRSA.

PHRASEOLOGY−
RESUME APPROPRIATE VFR ALTITUDES.

REFERENCE−
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4−8−11, Practice Approaches.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5−6−1, Application.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 7−2−1, Visual Separation.


Section 8. Class C Service− Terminal

7−8−5. ALTITUDE ASSIGNMENTS

a. When necessary to assign altitudes to VFR
aircraft, assign altitudes that meet the MVA, MSA, or
minimum IFR altitude criteria.

b. Aircraft assigned altitudes which are contrary to
14 CFR Section 91.159 must be advised to resume
altitudes appropriate for the direction of flight when
the altitude is no longer needed for separation, when
leaving the outer area, or when terminating Class C
service.

PHRASEOLOGY−
RESUME APPROPRIATE VFR ALTITUDES.

REFERENCE−
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 7−2−1, Visual Separation.


Section 9. Class B Service Area− Terminal

7−9−7. ALTITUDE ASSIGNMENTS

a. Altitude information contained in a clearance,
instruction, or advisory to VFR aircraft must meet
MVA, MSA, or minimum IFR altitude criteria.

b. Issue altitude assignments, if required, consistent
with the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.119.

NOTE−
The MSAs are:
1. Over congested areas, an altitude at least 1,000 feet
above the highest obstacle,

2. Over other than congested areas, an altitude at least
500 feet above the surface.

REFERENCE−
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4−5−2, Flight Direction.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4−5−3, Exceptions.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4−5−6, Minimum En Route Altitudes.

c. Aircraft assigned altitudes which are contrary to
14 CFR Section 91.159 must be advised to resume
altitudes appropriate for the direction of flight when
the altitude assignment is no longer required or when
leaving Class B airspace.

PHRASEOLOGY−
RESUME APPROPRIATE VFR ALTITUDES.



Prior to the establishment of TCAs, what we now call Class B airspace, around 1970,
there was no provision in FAR 91.159 (then FAR 91.109) for ATC authorization of
incorrect VFR cruise altitudes. Here is the old regulation:

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).


If ATC was to provide separation for VFR aircraft it must have authority to
assign routes, altitudes, and headings to VFR aircraft and the FAR had to
be changed or pilots could be in violation when complying with ATC instructions.

But enough of this. Mr. McNicholl is incorrect on this point as far as a pilot and Part 91 are concerned no matter what he thinks a controller is or is not permitted to do, and that is black letter law.

As you understand it, but your input in this forum often indicates a disparity between what is written and your understanding of it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Very interesting, Steve, but totally irrelevant, and in fact, in contradiction to your original statement that such altitudes could only be assigned in Class B airspace. In any event, 91.159 says what it says, and if ATC issues the authorization, the pilot is legal.

And the ancient version of 91.109 simply isn't the rule any more.

:bye:

 

[Alexb2000]

Before we go on a tangent, here is the regulation:


Sec. 91.159 — 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, unless otherwise authorized by ATC:
(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, maintain the altitude or flight level assigned by ATC.

This is what the OP needs to know. As I said, I wouldn't go against traffic within 3000' unless absolutely required by the conditions.

 

[roncachamp]

Very interesting, Steve, but totally irrelevant,...

It's actually quite relevant.

...and in fact, in contradiction to your original statement that such altitudes could only be assigned in Class B airspace.

My original statement was:

That you were on flight following is irrelevant, ATC cannot authorize deviations from that regulation outside of Class B airspace, Class C airspace (including the Outer Area), and TRSAs.

So your statement above proves my other statement:

As you understand it, but your input in this forum often indicates a disparity between what is written and your understanding of it.

In any event, 91.159 says what it says, and if ATC issues the authorization, the pilot is legal.

As far as your limited understanding of the issue is concerned.

And the ancient version of 91.109 simply isn't the rule any more.

No ****, that's why it was referred to as the "old regulation".

:bye:

Don't forget to take your ball with you.

 

[kkoran]

What a second. It sounds like he was less than 3,000 AGL correct? Altitude for direction of flight doesn't apply.

The 7056' and 6121' elevations were the heights of the peaks on either side of his path. He was flying over the valley between the two mountains.

 

[Velocity173]

The 7056' and 6121' elevations were the heights of the peaks on either side of his path. He was flying over the valley between the two mountains.

Well if that valley was greater than 3,000 ft below his aircraft, then I'd have to say he was in the wrong.

 

[Dr. O]

The sheet house lawyers are spitting and biting as usual. It gets really old really fast.

Over the middle of Iowa I would have argued you should follow the cruising rules no matter what the wind is.
Mountain passes, however, are an example of where the PIC has to exercise, command authority when the usual rules don't fit the situation. You did.
It was VFR - so LOOK and avoid. You did.
It was your judgement as PIC that it was the best way to traverse some dangerous terrain. So be it.

You were not in controlled airspace. The enroute controller is going to 'roger' whatever you tell him - unless he sees an immediate conflict.

Consider this: The cruising altitudes rule only applies to airplanes maintaining altitude. You say you were in the wrong 1000 foot block for ten minutes getting through the pass.
An airplane beginning a cruise letdown at 100fpm is legal to be in that 'wrong' block for the ten minutes it will take to pass through it. Or vice versa a 100fpm climb. (shrug)

If you have learned something from this discussion.
First might be - think about what you post in light of the jousters waiting to start the brawl all over again.
Second might be - so what if there is a 9 knot adverse wind a thousand foot higher. You only have to be at that altitude for what, 10- 20 minutes at the center of the pass?

Lastly, what would I have done?
I would have climbed another thousand feet just for the additional security of reducing the probability of a head on closure that scares both of us to death - or worse.

I actually like controllers - good folks.

 

[roncachamp]

The sheet house lawyers are spitting and biting as usual. It gets really old really fast.

Over the middle of Iowa I would have argued you should follow the cruising rules no matter what the wind is.
Mountain passes, however, are an example of where the PIC has to exercise, command authority when the usual rules don't fit the situation. You did.
It was VFR - so LOOK and avoid. You did.
It was your judgement as PIC that it was the best way to traverse some dangerous terrain. So be it.

You were not in controlled airspace. The enroute controller is going to 'roger' whatever you tell him - unless he sees an immediate conflict.

Consider this: The cruising altitudes rule only applies to airplanes maintaining altitude. You say you were in the wrong 1000 foot block for ten minutes getting through the pass.
An airplane beginning a cruise letdown at 100fpm is legal to be in that 'wrong' block for the ten minutes it will take to pass through it. Or vice versa a 100fpm climb. (shrug)

If you have learned something from this discussion.
First might be - think about what you post in light of the jousters waiting to start the brawl all over again.
Second might be - so what if there is a 9 knot adverse wind a thousand foot higher. You only have to be at that altitude for what, 10- 20 minutes at the center of the pass?

Lastly, what would I have done?
I would have climbed another thousand feet just for the additional security of reducing the probability of a head on closure that scares both of us to death - or worse.

I actually like controllers - good folks.

He was in controlled airspace, Class E, which is irrelevant anyway because FAR 91.159 applies in uncontrolled airspace.

 

[poadeleted20]

He was in controlled airspace, Class E, which is irrelevant anyway because FAR 91.159 applies in uncontrolled airspace.

Actually, since it lacks any limitation in that regard, 91.159 applies in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace. In any event, in controlled airspace, if the controller approved it (which according to the OP s/he did), the pilot was legal.

As for the safety issues, the FAA recommends crossing ridgelines 2000 AGL, a recommendation in which I strongly concur. Even if you can't get the controller's approval, keep in mind that the ground can punish you far worse than the FAA. A friend of mine tried a crossing one at 800 AGL, and it ended badly.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20020730X01250&ntsbno=DEN02LA075&akey=1

 

[MAKG1]

What a second. It sounds like he was less than 3,000 AGL correct? Altitude for direction of flight doesn't apply.

Looking at the chart, I think he was at least 3500 AGL.

 

[roncachamp]

Actually, since it lacks any limitation in that regard, 91.159 applies in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace.

Of course. It appears he understood it applied in controlled airspace, the reference to uncontrolled airspace suggested he was not aware it applied there as well.

In any event, in controlled airspace, if the controller approved it (which according to the OP s/he did), the pilot was legal.

Can you provide anything to support that?

 

[poadeleted20]

Can you provide anything to support that?

Already did -- 91.159, quoted again for those with short memories:

Sec. 91.159

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, unless otherwise authorized by ATC:

And there is no other regulation which says otherwise.

 

[Pinstriper]

Thank you guys for all the replies

 

[roncachamp]

Already did -- 91.159, quoted again for those with short memories:

There is no language in 91.159 that supports your belief that a controller's misapplication of Order JO 7110.65 will excuse a pilot's violation of the regulation. I assume you know of no time a violation has been so excused.

And there is no other regulation which says otherwise.

Logic says otherwise.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ah, so now your logic trumps the FAA's regulations. Thank you, Steven -- I'm sure you have case law to support that position.

Amazing how I keep responding to such preposterousness, isn't it?

 

[danhagan]

Thank you guys for all the replies

ATC even wants their controllers to keep it short as possible when flying against the hemispheric rules under their control (as has been quoted in blue in the prevous posts).

As you fly more in rough weather, you'll learn to ask for "block" altitudes and will find yourself through most of the "block".

On a trip to California, there were 5 of us approaching Banning pass from the east. Due to overtake, the controller had me climb to 9500 westbound and did the same for one of the other aircraft. I was descended as soon as the traffic cleared.

Take a mountain flying course to get a little more experience in ridge crossing, recovery from upsets, etc.

 

[roncachamp]

Ah, so now your logic trumps the FAA's regulations. Thank you, Steven -- I'm sure you have case law to support that position.

Amazing how I keep responding to such preposterousness, isn't it?

Logic trumps your input to this forum.

 

[Velocity173]

I agree with Ron on this one. I didn't realize the controller rogered the request for wrong altitude for direction of flight. IMO that's the authorization granted by 91.159.

Steven your airspace examples are for assigning an altitude for separation purposes. This post is simply about approval not an ATC assignment. Do you not believe "unless otherwise authorized by ATC" is a blanket approval for you to allow it? Now I would never handoff a guy at the wrong altitude but someone cruising along for 10 mins for either cloud or terrain separation. I'd have no problem with that. If I was super busy, well then I wouldn't approve it or I'd terminate radar. Either way it's not a big deal.

 

[roncachamp]

I agree with Ron on this one. I didn't realize the controller rogered the request for wrong altitude for direction of flight. IMO that's the authorization granted by 91.159.

The controller didn't roger a request for wrong altitude as there was no such request, the controller simply acknowledged the pilot's statement that he decided to climb to 8500'.

Steven your airspace examples are for assigning an altitude for separation purposes. This post is simply about approval not an ATC assignment. Do you not believe "unless otherwise authorized by ATC" is a blanket approval for you to allow it? Now I would never handoff a guy at the wrong altitude but someone cruising along for 10 mins for either cloud or terrain separation. I'd have no problem with that. If I was super busy, well then I wouldn't approve it or I terminate radar. Either way it's not a big deal.

No I do not. The sole reason "unless otherwise authorized" was added to the regulation was to permit ATC to assign altitudes in TCAs for separation purposes. But we're not talking about assigning an altitude for separation purposes as ATC had no responsibility for separation and did not assign an altitude. The OP wrote:

We made it just west of UKI but could see the fogg was thick at LLR, Then is when I decided to divert to UKI. After leaving UKI on climb out I contacted ATC and again they asked "cruising Altitude", I then stated 7500'... we flew that for aprox 10 minutes or so and when I got closer I decided to contact them and state I was going to climb to 8500' just long enough to cross the saddle.. They came back with my call sign and acknowledged what I said.. so for the next few minutes we climbed up, then back down..

The controller didn't approve anything, she simply acknowledged the pilot's statement that he'd be operating at the wrong altitude for his direction of flight. What else could she do? Pretend she didn't hear it? The pilot is operating in airspace where she has no authority to assign or to prohibit an altitude, it's the pilot's responsibility to adhere to the regulation. If charged with busting the regulation I do not think "I told ATC I'd be operating at the wrong altitude for direction and ATC acknowledged my transmission" will be considered a valid defense.

 

[poadeleted20]

The controller didn't approve anything, she simply acknowledged the pilot's statement that he'd be operating at the wrong altitude for his direction of flight. What else could she do?

Exactly what more than one controller has done when I forgot which way I was going -- reminded the pilot of the correct altitude.

To all still following this thread (if there is anyone that dedicated), no pilot will ever get in trouble for doing what the OP did. The controller involved might (or might not -- I'm really not sure), but not the pilot.

 

[roncachamp]

Exactly what more than one controller has done when I forgot which way I was going -- reminded the pilot of the correct altitude.

And in your mind not issuing that reminder constitutes authorization to disregard the regulation.

To all still following this thread (if there is anyone that dedicated), no pilot will ever get in trouble for doing what the OP did. The controller involved might (or might not -- I'm really not sure), but not the pilot.

A product of the same mind that produced the absurdity above.

 

[poadeleted20]

All I can say to that is don't do this when talking to Green Bay Approach, as Steven may turn you in. Anywhere else, sweat not.

 

[Velocity173]

I don't think either one would get into trouble. The controller isn't a Part 91.159 traffic cop. They're not there to remind them of a FAR they may or may not be breaking.

One time on arrival I had 2 F-15s doing 460 kts at 1,500 ft for the overhead. Now they are definitely in violation of 250 KIAS below 10,000 ft and there's no way they need that for a minimum airspeed. Lead asked if the speed "worked" for me. I guess that was his way of getting approval. I said "Peach 15 you're good, maintain 1,500 til the 5 mile initial, contact twr 340.2." Now I didn't say approved or disapproved. I didn't remind him he was breaking a FAR either. I simply looked the other way. It wasn't my job to issue speeding tickets, just like in this case it's not the controllers job to write up a pilot for wrong altitude for direction of flight, especially when 91.159 authorizes it.

 

[MAKG1]

The 250 KIAS speed limit applies only to civil aircraft. Unless those F-15s were privately owned, they weren't in violation.

 

[poadeleted20]

The 250 KIAS speed limit applies only to civil aircraft. Unless those F-15s were privately owned, they weren't in violation.

First, Part 91 applies to all aircraft operated in US airspace, not just civil aircraft -- read 91.1 and 91.101 for details. In addition, the military has its own rules, one of which is the FAA flight rules must be obeyed unless otherwise authorized by the military. Unless those F-15's were on an authorized high speed/low level route, they were almost certainly breaking both FAA and USAF rules. The only difference between them and us is that the USAF preempts the FAA in terms of dropping the hammer on the crews -- and you'd better believe that USAF hammer is larger and heavier than any hammer the FAA has available.