Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver->Reno yesterday, I heard
something like:

"Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation
for 39 to 41?"

and then

"Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved."

["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe
it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if
the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.]

Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.

Is that likely the case?

"AES/newspost" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> fuel economy without having to make repeated requests

Sounds like a "cruise clearance". Not sure why those words weren't used in
the request. There are any number of reasons to request a cruise clearance,
but a common one is if there's some sort of mountain wave action going on,
making it desirable to "go with the flow" as the wave alternately causes
ascents and descents.

2000' isn't a heck of wide range for that purpose, granted. But neither
would it be for the purpose of finding a smooth ride. Changing altitude
repeatedly isn't good for fuel economy, so I don't think that was the
purpose either.

Pete

He asked for and received a block altitude. Controller phraseology
would be "Jackpot 123 maintain FL390 through FL410." Normally done at
this altitude for turbulence.



AES/newspost wrote:
> Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver->Reno yesterday, I heard
> something like:
>
> "Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation
> for 39 to 41?"
>
> and then
>
> "Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved."
>
> ["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe
> it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if
> the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.]
>
> Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
> was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.
>
> Is that likely the case?

your analysis is essentially correct - they requested to be able to go FL
39-41 and in between without requesting additional clearance

"AES/newspost" > wrote in message
...
> Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver->Reno yesterday, I heard
> something like:
>
> "Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation
> for 39 to 41?"
>
> and then
>
> "Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved."
>
> ["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe
> it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if
> the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.]
>
> Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
> was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.
>
> Is that likely the case?

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "AES/newspost" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> > freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> > fuel economy without having to make repeated requests
>
> Sounds like a "cruise clearance". Not sure why those words weren't used
in
> the request.

According to the AIM P/CG, a cruise clearance permits flight from a single
specified altitude down to the minimum applicable IFR altitude; the
phraseology is e.g. "Cruise eight thousand". A block clearance, with an
explicit lower bound, is slightly different.

--Gary

In article >,
AES/newspost > wrote:
>Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
>freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
>fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
>was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.

That is bizjet territory so you can probably get a pretty big block
without conflicting with traffic. I wonder what happens when a bus
requests 330-350...

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

Cruise clearance allows you to operate freely between the specified
altitude and the minimum IFR altitude. If the lower limit is not the
MIA, then a block clearance is issued. At least that is my
understanding.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "AES/newspost" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> > freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> > fuel economy without having to make repeated requests
>
> Sounds like a "cruise clearance". Not sure why those words weren't used in
> the request. There are any number of reasons to request a cruise clearance,
> but a common one is if there's some sort of mountain wave action going on,
> making it desirable to "go with the flow" as the wave alternately causes
> ascents and descents.
>
> 2000' isn't a heck of wide range for that purpose, granted. But neither
> would it be for the purpose of finding a smooth ride. Changing altitude
> repeatedly isn't good for fuel economy, so I don't think that was the
> purpose either.
>
> Pete

"Gary Drescher" > writes:

> [...]
> > Sounds like a "cruise clearance". Not sure why those words weren't used
> > in the request.
>
> According to the AIM P/CG, a cruise clearance permits flight from a single
> specified altitude down to the minimum applicable IFR altitude [...]

I believe a "cruise clearance" also implies an approach clearance, making it
even more different from an ordinary block altitude assignment.


- FChE

AES/newspost > wrote
> Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
> was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.
>
> Is that likely the case?

Well, sort of but not quite. I think what he really requested was a
block altitude, which is the standard phraseology, and the goal was
not to intentionally change altitude but simply to avoid having to
correct the altitude all the time when turbulence changed it for him.

When a pilot requests a narrow block, it's usually because the ride is
unavoidably rough and he wants to be able to just hold a pitch
attitude rather than continually changing pitch and airspeed to
maintain altitude. It's easier on the airframe, easier on the
passengers, allows you to maintain a relatively constant airspeed so
it might be slightly more fuel efficient, and generally easier on the
pilot as well if he is hand-flying. I routinely ask for this when I
fly in convective weather, and so far I've always gotten it. Like
this pilot, I also generally ask for a 2000 ft block.

Michael

AES/newspost wrote:
>
> Is that likely the case?

It's more likely that they're encountering turbulence which makes it difficult
to maintain altitude.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

Military aircraft in MOA's are often given blocks of altitude.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.




AES/newspost > wrote in message >...
> Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver->Reno yesterday, I heard
> something like:
>
> "Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation
> for 39 to 41?"
>
> and then
>
> "Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved."
>
> ["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe
> it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if
> the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.]
>
> Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
> was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.
>
> Is that likely the case?

AES/newspost wrote:

<snip>

> Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
> was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.

My first instrument lesson in IMC, my instructor and I went to the
practice area and he requested a block altitude of 2000 to 3000 so I
could practice climbs and descents. ATC approved without hesitation.

Allen

Us little guys request blocking altitudes for turbulence, but often the big
guys are asking for it because they can slowly drift upward to higher altitudes
as they burn fuel and get lighter. I think they're doing this because it's more efficient to
fly at higher altitudes, but they cannot get there until their weight decrease.
Max T, MCFI

>
> When a pilot requests a narrow block, it's usually because the ride is
> unavoidably rough and he wants to be able to just hold a pitch
> attitude rather than continually changing pitch and airspeed to
> maintain altitude. It's easier on the airframe, easier on the
> passengers, allows you to maintain a relatively constant airspeed so
> it might be slightly more fuel efficient, and generally easier on the
> pilot as well if he is hand-flying. I routinely ask for this when I
> fly in convective weather, and so far I've always gotten it. Like
> this pilot, I also generally ask for a 2000 ft block.
>
> Michael

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:OgSVb.265595$na.420059@attbi_s04...
> According to the AIM P/CG, a cruise clearance permits flight from a single
> specified altitude down to the minimum applicable IFR altitude; the
> phraseology is e.g. "Cruise eight thousand". A block clearance, with an
> explicit lower bound, is slightly different.

Exactly right. Guess I'm the one who's been using the wrong phraseology
with ATC. Oh well...I guess they knew what I meant when I asked for a
cruise clearance between two altitudes. They've never corrected me, in all
my flights over the mountains when I've asked.

In any case, the basic idea is still the same. A block altitude gives the
pilot the ability to ride altitude changes without fighting them, which
results in a smoother ride, better fuel economy, and less work on the
pilot's part.

Pete

Continental Express conducts some training within 150 miles of my area,
and at night, I have heard them request and recieve blocks of airspace
(big pie wedges) that are thousands of feet deep for airborne
maneuvering. Im presuming that they are required to operate under IFR by
company or Fed/Op Spec guidelines, so to conduct these maneuvers in IFR
requires the chunk of airspace, hence the "block"

Dave

AES/newspost wrote:
> Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver->Reno yesterday, I heard
> something like:
>
> "Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation
> for 39 to 41?"
>
> and then
>
> "Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved."
>
> ["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe
> it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if
> the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.]
>
> Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
> was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.
>
> Is that likely the case?

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, A Lieberman wrote:

> AES/newspost wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> > freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> > fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
> > was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.
>
> My first instrument lesson in IMC, my instructor and I went to the
> practice area and he requested a block altitude of 2000 to 3000 so I
> could practice climbs and descents. ATC approved without hesitation.

Likewise for aerobatics; we get 2000 or 3000ft tall blocks (3000-5000 ASL
or 3k-6k usually, and it's not a problem with Terminal.

One weekday when we were out Terminal cleared a floatplane below us (after
sending us up to 4000-5500ft and said to the floatplane: "... there's a
Citabria doing airwork above you, not below 4, and... well, I'm not sure
which way they'll be pointing in a minute..."

That was amusing, even at the top of a loop...

Brian.

Dave S > wrote:

>Continental Express conducts some training within 150 miles of my area,
>and at night, I have heard them request and recieve blocks of airspace
>(big pie wedges) that are thousands of feet deep for airborne
>maneuvering. Im presuming that they are required to operate under IFR by
>company or Fed/Op Spec guidelines, so to conduct these maneuvers in IFR
>requires the chunk of airspace, hence the "block"

When flying a glider in Class A airspace pursuant to an LOA,
I call to open what we colloquially refer to as a "wave
window." The phone at ATC is always answered "Military
Desk" which I presume is the desk responsible for
controlling "blocks" of airspace that are defined by
geographical limits (set in the LOA). ATC will ask for the
name of the block (also defined in the LOA), the requested
altitude block (typically from the bottom of Class A to
FL250 to start) check it in the computer and then advise
if/when it can be opened. These "blocks" opened by the
military desk are geographically defined blocks as well as
altitude blocks, and we're free to roam within the altitude
and geographic limits of the block while it's open.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

Gene Seibel wrote:

> Military aircraft in MOA's are often given blocks of altitude.

That's different. Once in the MOA they are not IFR.

Often air to air refueling flights will request and get block altitudes but
generally they are around 30K' not 40K'.

Mike
MU-2


"AES/newspost" > wrote in message
...
> Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver->Reno yesterday, I heard
> something like:
>
> "Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation
> for 39 to 41?"
>
> and then
>
> "Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved."
>
> ["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe
> it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if
> the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.]
>
> Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
> was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.
>
> Is that likely the case?

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "AES/newspost" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> > freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> > fuel economy without having to make repeated requests
>
> Sounds like a "cruise clearance". Not sure why those words weren't used in
> the request.

No, this is a block request. I ask for them a lot when flying over
mountains looking for a smooth ride. A cruise clearance is something
very different and you are probably not too likely to get it unless
you are out in the middle of nowhere.

-Robert

Brian Burger > wrote in message .ca>...
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, A Lieberman wrote:
>
> > AES/newspost wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> > > freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> > > fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
> > > was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.
> >
> > My first instrument lesson in IMC, my instructor and I went to the
> > practice area and he requested a block altitude of 2000 to 3000 so I
> > could practice climbs and descents. ATC approved without hesitation.
>
> Likewise for aerobatics; we get 2000 or 3000ft tall blocks (3000-5000 ASL
> or 3k-6k usually, and it's not a problem with Terminal.
>
> One weekday when we were out Terminal cleared a floatplane below us (after
> sending us up to 4000-5500ft and said to the floatplane: "... there's a
> Citabria doing airwork above you, not below 4, and... well, I'm not sure
> which way they'll be pointing in a minute..."


A true "block altitude" is usually for IFR or in class C,B airspace. I
don't know how ATC could "authorize" a block elsewhere. They may,
however, enjoy just knowing where you plan to be. However, a "block
altitude' implies that no one else will be assigned to fly into that
area when you are there.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> A true "block altitude" is usually for IFR

Only for IFR.

"Newps" > wrote in message news:KTaWb.45$uV3.1610@attbi_s51...
>
>
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > A true "block altitude" is usually for IFR
>
> Only for IFR.
>
I suppose a VFR could get a block in class B. Certainly got plenty of "at or below"
instructions there.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Brian Burger > wrote in message .ca>...
> > On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, A Lieberman wrote:
> >
> > > AES/newspost wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
> > > > freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
> > > > fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
> > > > was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.
> > >
> > > My first instrument lesson in IMC, my instructor and I went to the
> > > practice area and he requested a block altitude of 2000 to 3000 so I
> > > could practice climbs and descents. ATC approved without hesitation.
> >
> > Likewise for aerobatics; we get 2000 or 3000ft tall blocks (3000-5000 ASL
> > or 3k-6k usually, and it's not a problem with Terminal.
> >
> > One weekday when we were out Terminal cleared a floatplane below us (after
> > sending us up to 4000-5500ft and said to the floatplane: "... there's a
> > Citabria doing airwork above you, not below 4, and... well, I'm not sure
> > which way they'll be pointing in a minute..."
>
>
> A true "block altitude" is usually for IFR or in class C,B airspace. I
> don't know how ATC could "authorize" a block elsewhere. They may,
> however, enjoy just knowing where you plan to be. However, a "block
> altitude' implies that no one else will be assigned to fly into that
> area when you are there.

I'm not sure of the exact terminology & legalese, but by your def'n 'block
alititude' sounds like the right phrase. We're flying aerobatics in Class
C Terminal (Approach, to Americans) airspace, and they'll send other a/c
around/over/under our airwork block rather than through. Which makes
sense, given that they know we're up there doing aero work. Loops &
wingovers must make our radar track look fairly strange...

Uncontrolled airspace over 3000ft around here only starts about 30min
flying time away from home base, so to go high for aerobatic work means
working inside the Class C. Terminal assigns us blocks, and it's usually
pretty painless.

Just distracting when ATC calls you when you're upside down in mid-loop...
:)

Brian.