I used to use DUAT to file flight plans for VFR Flight Following and VFR On
Top. Not long ago, they changed their software. Now I can't get it to
accept an OTP flight plan. Haven't tried FF.

Example: Yesterday I filed an IFR plan having altitude field of 125/OTP.
It rejected it. It accepted 125 for altitude, but I had to put "VFR On Top"
in Remarks.

Anyone else have this problem with DUAT? I haven't tried DUATS.

Stan

Stan Prevost wrote:
> Anyone else have this problem with DUAT? I haven't tried DUATS.

As I have a Mac, the Golden Eagle software is useless for me.
I do use the service online for preflight planning.
There have been too many reported problems with flight plans not
entering the system for me to file online.
I always call a briefer verify the duat preflight info I obtained and
file my flight plans with the briefer.

Try just OTP. The actual altitude is not needed.



Stan Prevost wrote:
> I used to use DUAT to file flight plans for VFR Flight Following and VFR On
> Top. Not long ago, they changed their software. Now I can't get it to
> accept an OTP flight plan. Haven't tried FF.
>
> Example: Yesterday I filed an IFR plan having altitude field of 125/OTP.
> It rejected it. It accepted 125 for altitude, but I had to put "VFR On Top"
> in Remarks.
>
> Anyone else have this problem with DUAT? I haven't tried DUATS.
>
> Stan
>
>

OK, I'll try, but it used to work.


"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> Try just OTP. The actual altitude is not needed.
>
>
>
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>> I used to use DUAT to file flight plans for VFR Flight Following and VFR
>> On Top. Not long ago, they changed their software. Now I can't get it
>> to accept an OTP flight plan. Haven't tried FF.
>>
>> Example: Yesterday I filed an IFR plan having altitude field of 125/OTP.
>> It rejected it. It accepted 125 for altitude, but I had to put "VFR On
>> Top" in Remarks.
>>
>> Anyone else have this problem with DUAT? I haven't tried DUATS.
>>
>> Stan
>>

"Stan Prevost" wrote

> I used to use DUAT to file flight plans for VFR Flight Following and
> VFR On Top. Not long ago, they changed their software. Now I can't
> get it to accept an OTP flight plan. Haven't tried FF.

If you want to fly VFR, it's "VFR Over the Top", not VFR on Top.
VFR ON Top is an IFR type flight.
Seems as if you pu in a VFR altitude for an IFR flight...confused
the computer.

Bob Moore

I tried it and OTP is accepted. However, I then tried OTP/125, and that was
also accepted, as was VFR/125 (for FF). I just had the order of the
subfields switched in my head. Apparently nothing has changed.

Stan


"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> Try just OTP. The actual altitude is not needed.
>
>
>
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>> I used to use DUAT to file flight plans for VFR Flight Following and VFR
>> On Top. Not long ago, they changed their software. Now I can't get it
>> to accept an OTP flight plan. Haven't tried FF.
>>
>> Example: Yesterday I filed an IFR plan having altitude field of 125/OTP.
>> It rejected it. It accepted 125 for altitude, but I had to put "VFR On
>> Top" in Remarks.
>>
>> Anyone else have this problem with DUAT? I haven't tried DUATS.
>>
>> Stan
>>

There's no reason to put an altitude in when you're OTP. ATC knows you
may need to change altitudes for clouds, winds, etc.



Stan Prevost wrote:
> I tried it and OTP is accepted. However, I then tried OTP/125, and that was
> also accepted, as was VFR/125 (for FF). I just had the order of the
> subfields switched in my head. Apparently nothing has changed.
>
> Stan
>
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Try just OTP. The actual altitude is not needed.
>>
>>
>>
>>Stan Prevost wrote:
>>
>>>I used to use DUAT to file flight plans for VFR Flight Following and VFR
>>>On Top. Not long ago, they changed their software. Now I can't get it
>>>to accept an OTP flight plan. Haven't tried FF.
>>>
>>>Example: Yesterday I filed an IFR plan having altitude field of 125/OTP.
>>>It rejected it. It accepted 125 for altitude, but I had to put "VFR On
>>>Top" in Remarks.
>>>
>>>Anyone else have this problem with DUAT? I haven't tried DUATS.
>>>
>>>Stan
>>>
>
>

If I put the desired altitude in the plan, then the controller knows that I
want 12500 and can tell me to "maintain VFR On Top at or below 12500". If I
don't put it in, then he has to ask me what altitude I want or just
arbitrarily assigns me something and then if it's not what I want we have to
go through more radio exchange.

How is it better to not include the altitude?


"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> There's no reason to put an altitude in when you're OTP. ATC knows you
> may need to change altitudes for clouds, winds, etc.
>
>
>
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>> I tried it and OTP is accepted. However, I then tried OTP/125, and that
>> was also accepted, as was VFR/125 (for FF). I just had the order of the
>> subfields switched in my head. Apparently nothing has changed.
>>
>> Stan
>>
>>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Try just OTP. The actual altitude is not needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Stan Prevost wrote:
>>>
>>>>I used to use DUAT to file flight plans for VFR Flight Following and VFR
>>>>On Top. Not long ago, they changed their software. Now I can't get it
>>>>to accept an OTP flight plan. Haven't tried FF.
>>>>
>>>>Example: Yesterday I filed an IFR plan having altitude field of
>>>>125/OTP. It rejected it. It accepted 125 for altitude, but I had to put
>>>>"VFR On Top" in Remarks.
>>>>
>>>>Anyone else have this problem with DUAT? I haven't tried DUATS.
>>>>
>>>>Stan
>>>>
>>

Include what you *think* the weather conditions *might* allow your VFR
cruising altitude to be if you feel like it but "VFR-On-Top" alone is your
*requested/assigned* IFR altitude.

Once you report reaching VFR-On-Top and the controller reclears to to
"Maintain VFR-On-Top" he isn't responsible for separation. After that he
doesn't really care much what your actual altitude is now or might be later
(beyond verifying your Mode C for traffic or idle curiosity).

Any altitude restrictions issued *before* you reach VFR-On-Top are a
different matter.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
> If I put the desired altitude in the plan, then the controller knows that
> I want 12500 and can tell me to "maintain VFR On Top at or below 12500".
> If I don't put it in, then he has to ask me what altitude I want or just
> arbitrarily assigns me something and then if it's not what I want we have
> to go through more radio exchange.
>
> How is it better to not include the altitude?
>
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There's no reason to put an altitude in when you're OTP. ATC knows you
>> may need to change altitudes for clouds, winds, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Stan Prevost wrote:
>>> I tried it and OTP is accepted. However, I then tried OTP/125, and that
>>> was also accepted, as was VFR/125 (for FF). I just had the order of the
>>> subfields switched in my head. Apparently nothing has changed.
>>>
>>> Stan
>>>
>>>
>>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Try just OTP. The actual altitude is not needed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Stan Prevost wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I used to use DUAT to file flight plans for VFR Flight Following and
>>>>>VFR On Top. Not long ago, they changed their software. Now I can't
>>>>>get it to accept an OTP flight plan. Haven't tried FF.
>>>>>
>>>>>Example: Yesterday I filed an IFR plan having altitude field of
>>>>>125/OTP. It rejected it. It accepted 125 for altitude, but I had to
>>>>>put "VFR On Top" in Remarks.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyone else have this problem with DUAT? I haven't tried DUATS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stan
>>>>>
>>>
>

>Once you report reaching VFR-On-Top and the controller reclears to to
>"Maintain VFR-On-Top" he isn't responsible for separation. After that he
>doesn't really care much what your actual altitude is now or might be later
>(beyond verifying your Mode C for traffic or idle curiosity).

Maybe so, but you're required to report changing altitudes when flying
VFR-On-Top (at least, per the AIM)...

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"KP" <nospam@please> wrote in message
...
> Include what you *think* the weather conditions *might* allow your VFR
> cruising altitude to be if you feel like it but "VFR-On-Top" alone is your
> *requested/assigned* IFR altitude.
>
> Once you report reaching VFR-On-Top and the controller reclears to to
> "Maintain VFR-On-Top" he isn't responsible for separation. After that he
> doesn't really care much what your actual altitude is now or might be
> later (beyond verifying your Mode C for traffic or idle curiosity).
>

I have never received a clearance for just "VFR On Top" without further
restrictions, although I understand it is permitted. Restrictions can be
"Maintain VFR On Top at or below xxx", "....at or above xxx", or "... at or
between xxx and yyy".

I understand that the controller is not responsible for separation, so I
wonder why I always get an altitude restriction, usually "at or below".

Stan

Stan Prevost wrote:
> If I put the desired altitude in the plan, then the controller knows that I
> want 12500 and can tell me to "maintain VFR On Top at or below 12500". If I
> don't put it in, then he has to ask me what altitude I want

No he does not.


or just
> arbitrarily assigns me something

Say unable. OTP is a VFR altitude and no separation is provided. The
only time a controller should start trying to nail you down is as you
get close to your destination and you will need to be fit into an
arrival stream.

KP wrote:

> Include what you *think* the weather conditions *might* allow your VFR
> cruising altitude to be if you feel like it but "VFR-On-Top" alone is your
> *requested/assigned* IFR altitude.
>
> Once you report reaching VFR-On-Top and the controller reclears to to
> "Maintain VFR-On-Top" he isn't responsible for separation. After that he
> doesn't really care much what your actual altitude is now or might be later
> (beyond verifying your Mode C for traffic or idle curiosity).
>
> Any altitude restrictions issued *before* you reach VFR-On-Top are a
> different matter.

Yep and here 99% of OTP is from the night cargo haulers in their 99's
and Airliners. Their IFR flightplan is prefiled and as they taxi they
request OTP and say "I am OTP at this time." So we don't give them an
altitude, just "maintain VFR on Top."

Stan Prevost wrote:


>
> I have never received a clearance for just "VFR On Top" without further
> restrictions, although I understand it is permitted.

I can't understand why you'd restrict an aircraft, outside of a class B.

Restrictions can be
> "Maintain VFR On Top at or below xxx", "....at or above xxx", or "... at or
> between xxx and yyy".

Yes, but what's the point? I don't have to separate you so why restrict
you?


>
> I understand that the controller is not responsible for separation, so I
> wonder why I always get an altitude restriction, usually "at or below".

Ask next time.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> If I put the desired altitude in the plan, then the controller knows that
> I want 12500 and can tell me to "maintain VFR On Top at or below 12500".
> If I don't put it in, then he has to ask me what altitude I want or just
> arbitrarily assigns me something and then if it's not what I want we have
> to go through more radio exchange.
>
> How is it better to not include the altitude?
>

An alternative clearance is issued when necessary to ensure separation from
other traffic or airspace. For example, if the controller had traffic at
nine thousand a proper clearance would be; "Climb to and report reaching
VFR-on-top, no tops reports. If not on top at eight thousand maintain
eight thousand and advise." Remember, you're just another IFR aircraft
until you report reaching and are cleared to maintain VFR-on-top.

To issue "maintain VFR On Top at or below 12500" the controller would have
to know the tops were 11,500 or lower. Why use a restriction of 12,500? To
separate from IFR traffic at 13,500 or VFR traffic at 13,000?

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Maybe so, but you're required to report changing altitudes when flying
> VFR-On-Top (at least, per the AIM)...
>

The AIM says pilots SHOULD advise ATC prior to any altitude change when
operating OTP.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have never received a clearance for just "VFR On Top" without further
> restrictions, although I understand it is permitted. Restrictions can be
> "Maintain VFR On Top at or below xxx", "....at or above xxx", or "... at
> or between xxx and yyy".
>
> I understand that the controller is not responsible for separation, so I
> wonder why I always get an altitude restriction, usually "at or below".
>

Do you receive these restrictions after reporting VFR-on-top? Are you
operating in airspace where ATC provides separation to VFR aircraft? Is
Special Use Airspace a factor?

On 7/12/2005 07:47, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Maybe so, but you're required to report changing altitudes when flying
>> VFR-On-Top (at least, per the AIM)...
>>
>
> The AIM says pilots SHOULD advise ATC prior to any altitude change when
> operating OTP.
>
>

Sorry if I'm missing something, but aren't we talking about two different
flight modes here?

Over the Top is a VFR flight mode. You are not under IFR restrictions.

VFR On Top is an IFR clearance. You are under IFR restrictions and must
report changes in altitude (among other IFRs).


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

>> The AIM says pilots SHOULD advise ATC prior to any altitude change when
>> operating OTP.
>
>Sorry if I'm missing something, but aren't we talking about two different
>flight modes here?
>
No, just one.

>Over the Top is a VFR flight mode. You are not under IFR restrictions.
>
Not this one.

>VFR On Top is an IFR clearance. You are under IFR restrictions and must
>report changes in altitude (among other IFRs).

This is the one we're talking about. I think Steve is pointing out the
distinction
between my use of the words "required to", your use of the word "must",
and the AIM's use of the word "should" (AIM 5-3-3).

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> KP wrote:
>
>> Include what you *think* the weather conditions *might* allow your VFR
>> cruising altitude to be if you feel like it but "VFR-On-Top" alone is
>> your *requested/assigned* IFR altitude.
>>
>> Once you report reaching VFR-On-Top and the controller reclears to to
>> "Maintain VFR-On-Top" he isn't responsible for separation. After that he
>> doesn't really care much what your actual altitude is now or might be
>> later (beyond verifying your Mode C for traffic or idle curiosity).
>>
>> Any altitude restrictions issued *before* you reach VFR-On-Top are a
>> different matter.
>
> Yep and here 99% of OTP is from the night cargo haulers in their 99's and
> Airliners. Their IFR flightplan is prefiled and as they taxi they request
> OTP and say "I am OTP at this time." So we don't give them an altitude,
> just "maintain VFR on Top."

OK, seems like reporting that I am OTP is part of the puzzle. A few days
ago, I had requested 125/OTP. I intended to fly at 12500 while VFR On Top,
so I requested that. The controller seemed a little uncertain, said he
didn't have any tops reports. Finally he cleared me to "Climb to and report
reaching 12000, maintain VFR-on-top at 12000. If not on top at 12000
maintain 12 thousand and advise." It seemed wierd, but I decided to climb
on up and clear it up at altitude. So I climbed to 12000 and reported "VFR
On Top at 12000". Then he told me to "Maintain VFR On Top at 12000", as I
recall, it might have been "at or below 12000". So I asked him if I
shouldn't be up at 12500, he stammered a bit, said stand by, then came back
and said to "Maintain VFR On Top at 12500 (might have been 12500 or below,
it has gotten fuzzy now)". It was a bit of a circus the rest of the way on
handoffs. One controller told me "For further advisories contact XXX Center
on YYY.ZZ", which I had not heard before while on an IFR flight plan. Then
another controller wouldn't let me descend in time (while I was still VFR On
Top), I wound up cancelling IFR and circling down to the airport.

From your post, I learn that I should report OTP as soon as I am OTP and can
remain so, even if I have not reached the "report reaching" altitude. Then
I should be cleared to just Maintain VFR On Top, and I can continue to climb
to my desired altitude. Is that right?

It's been too long to remember the details, but once I left our local
airport in Class C and the controller would not clear me for OTP, or gave me
OTP below 10000, can't remember now. His reason had something to do with
he didn't own the airspace above 10000. Does that mean the controller must
restrict my clearance to something that will cause me to be contained within
his airspace?\

Stan

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> An alternative clearance is issued when necessary to ensure separation
> from other traffic or airspace. For example, if the controller had
> traffic at nine thousand a proper clearance would be; "Climb to and report
> reaching VFR-on-top, no tops reports. If not on top at eight thousand
> maintain eight thousand and advise." Remember, you're just another IFR
> aircraft until you report reaching and are cleared to maintain VFR-on-top.
>

It seems to be to everyone's advantage for the pilot to report being OTP as
soon as he is and can remain that way, even if that is on the runway, as
newps described, or on initial contact with Departure. That minimizes the
time and space during which I must be provided separation, as long as I am
willing to forego that.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I have never received a clearance for just "VFR On Top" without further
>> restrictions, although I understand it is permitted. Restrictions can be
>> "Maintain VFR On Top at or below xxx", "....at or above xxx", or "... at
>> or between xxx and yyy".
>>
>> I understand that the controller is not responsible for separation, so I
>> wonder why I always get an altitude restriction, usually "at or below".
>>
>
> Do you receive these restrictions after reporting VFR-on-top?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

> Are you operating in airspace where ATC provides separation to VFR
> aircraft?

Not to my knowledge. Not in Class B airspace nor Class C airspace.

> Is Special Use Airspace a factor?

My flight path is always clear of SUA. Well, when I have received the OTP
restrictions, anyway. I always file a route that is clear of SUA, but
sometimes I get recleared enroute for direct destination (without request)
which puts me through SUA, and sometimes I get vectored around the SUA when
I get to it. Arghhh..

Stan Prevost wrote:
Then
> another controller wouldn't let me descend in time (while I was still VFR On
> Top), I wound up cancelling IFR and circling down to the airport.

Wouldn't let you descend? It's not his call. You tell him you're
descending, if you choose to tell him at all.


>
> From your post, I learn that I should report OTP as soon as I am OTP and can
> remain so, even if I have not reached the "report reaching" altitude.

The report reaching altitude is usually the top of that controllers
airspace. That way he is protected in case you don't break out. Here
we don't usually have clouds so you're on top while taxiing out.


Then
> I should be cleared to just Maintain VFR On Top, and I can continue to climb
> to my desired altitude. Is that right?

Right. As you break out just say "N123 is on Top at this time" and keep
right on climbing to whatever altitude you wanted.


>
> It's been too long to remember the details, but once I left our local
> airport in Class C and the controller would not clear me for OTP, or gave me
> OTP below 10000, can't remember now. His reason had something to do with
> he didn't own the airspace above 10000. Does that mean the controller must
> restrict my clearance to something that will cause me to be contained within
> his airspace?\

Yes. If there are no clouds just tell the ground controller or the
tower controller that you are on top at this time.

Stan Prevost wrote:


>
> It seems to be to everyone's advantage for the pilot to report being OTP as
> soon as he is and can remain that way, even if that is on the runway, as
> newps described, or on initial contact with Departure. That minimizes the
> time and space during which I must be provided separation, as long as I am
> willing to forego that.

If you report it prior to departure the tower controller can amend your
clearance in the computer and this will save a landline call to the
center. Once you tag up on the radar the tower/departure controller
loses the ability to make changes in the computer, only the center can
do it.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It seems to be to everyone's advantage for the pilot to report being OTP
>> as soon as he is and can remain that way, even if that is on the runway,
>> as newps described, or on initial contact with Departure. That minimizes
>> the time and space during which I must be provided separation, as long as
>> I am willing to forego that.
>
> If you report it prior to departure the tower controller can amend your
> clearance in the computer and this will save a landline call to the
> center. Once you tag up on the radar the tower/departure controller loses
> the ability to make changes in the computer, only the center can do it.

Interesting. I never heard that before. So a TRACON controller cannot
change a clearance without calling center to do it?

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stan Prevost wrote:
> Then
>> another controller wouldn't let me descend in time (while I was still VFR
>> On Top), I wound up cancelling IFR and circling down to the airport.
>
> Wouldn't let you descend? It's not his call. You tell him you're
> descending, if you choose to tell him at all.
>

Yes, I know, but when I have been given an instruction to advise of altitude
changes, and then when I advise of an altitude change and am told to remain
at my present altitude and he will give me lower in a few miles, my choices
are limited. I can start an argument on the frequency, cancel IFR,
disregard his instructions, or go along with what he says. There is that
pesky FAR that says pilots must comply with ATC clearances and instructions
(as long as they would not cause me to violate a FAR or compromise the
safety of my flight). Some say that pilots are not obligated to comply with
an instruction that an controller is not authorized to give, but that is
usually an issue to be sorted out on the ground, IMO.

If he wanted to keep me at altitude, he could have and probably should have
assigned me a hard IFR altitude, such as 12000 (I was at 12500). There is
not a lot of difference in the end result, so why cause a scene over it in
the air?

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Wouldn't let you descend? It's not his call. You tell him you're
> descending, if you choose to tell him at all.
>

Ok, how about the route aspect of VFR-On-Top? I know I'm supposed to fly
the route I was cleared for but what if ask for amended clearance?
Would it be easier to get it if I'm OTP instead of having a hard
altitude assigned? Here is why I'm asking - I few weeks ago on me and a
friend were on CEC-OTH-ONP route along the CA/OR coast in a C172. He
asked for direct to KONP and center said he could give it to him at 15
000 or higher, even though there was no significant terain all the way
north. Would it have been easier to get this if we were VFR-On-Top,
providing our own terrain and traffic separation? Of course, we could
have cancelled IFR but that would have meant that we would have needed
another clearance at our destination.

-ML

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The AIM says pilots SHOULD advise ATC prior to any altitude change when
>> operating OTP.
>
> Sorry if I'm missing something, but aren't we talking about two different
> flight modes here?
>
> Over the Top is a VFR flight mode. You are not under IFR restrictions.
>
> VFR On Top is an IFR clearance. You are under IFR restrictions and must
> report changes in altitude (among other IFRs).
>

OTP is the contraction for "On Top". It is what ATC enters in an IFR flight
plan for aircraft that are operating VFR-on-top.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, seems like reporting that I am OTP is part of the puzzle.
>

Depends on the situation. If you're cruising along on an IFR clearance and
request VFR-on-top the controller can simply clear you to maintain
VFR-on-top. It's assumed the conditions permit you to comply with the
clearance or you wouldn't have made the request. Once you've been cleared
to maintain "VFR-on-top," you are responsible to fly at an appropriate VFR
altitude, comply with VFR visibility and cloud clearance criteria, and
to be vigilant so as to see and avoid other aircraft. You're still
responsible to comply with instrument flight rules applicable to your
flight, such as adherence to ATC clearances. ATC will no longer provide
standard IFR separation, but will continue to provide traffic advisories.

Climbing through clouds in order to maintain VFR-on-top is another matter.
In that case ATC must provide standard IFR separation until you reach VFR
conditions and are cleared to maintain VFR-on-top. The controller won't
know those conditions exist until you report reaching them.


>
> A few days
> ago, I had requested 125/OTP. I intended to fly at 12500 while VFR On
> Top, so I requested that. The controller seemed a little uncertain, said
> he didn't have any tops reports. Finally he cleared me to "Climb to and
> report reaching 12000, maintain VFR-on-top at 12000. If not on top at
> 12000 maintain 12 thousand and advise." It seemed wierd, but I decided to
> climb on up and clear it up at altitude.
>

Bad phraseology. Assuming he had traffic at 13,000, the clearance should
have been; "Climb to and report reaching VFR-on-top, no tops reports. If
not on top at one two thousand maintain one two thousand and advise."


>
> So I climbed to 12000 and
> reported "VFR On Top at 12000". Then he told me to "Maintain VFR On Top
> at 12000", as I recall, it might have been "at or below 12000".
>

Bad clearance. You can't maintain VFR-on-top at 12,000, VFR-on-top requires
flight at appropriate VFR cruise altitudes and 12,000 ain't one of 'em. The
controller shouldn't be instructing you to maintain any specific altitude at
all, even if it is a proper VFR altitude. If there is special use airspace
in use on your route, the controller must instruct you to operate at least
500 feet above the upper limit or 500 feet below the lower limit of the
airspace. Example, "Maintain VFR-on-top at least 500 feet below one three
thousand across Johnson East MOA between Smith and Jones VORs."


>
> So I
> asked him if I shouldn't be up at 12500, he stammered a bit, said stand
> by, then came back and said to "Maintain VFR On Top at 12500 (might have
> been 12500 or below, it has gotten fuzzy now)".
>

Still a bad clearance, should be just "Maintain VFR-on-top." You're
encountering controllers that are not very familiar with VFR-on-top.


>
> It was a bit of a circus
> the rest of the way on handoffs. One controller told me "For further
> advisories contact XXX Center on YYY.ZZ", which I had not heard before
> while on an IFR flight plan.
>

Should be just "Contact XXX Center on YYY.ZZ".


>
> Then another controller wouldn't let me descend in time (while I was still
> VFR On Top), I wound up cancelling IFR and circling down to the airport.
>

As long as you maintain VFR conditions he can't stop you from descending,
assuming you're not in airspace where ATC provides separation to VFR
aircraft and SUA is not a factor. To descend below the minimum IFR altitude
you'll have to either cancel IFR or be cleared for an approach of some kind.

Depending on where you're going the controller may have to assign a specific
IFR altitude. For example, let's say your destination is within approach
control delegated airspace where IFR aircraft on your route are assigned
eight thousand feet. You're still an IFR aircraft while operating
VFR-on-top so at some point the controller will instruct you descend and
maintain eight thousand or to cross a certain fix at eight thousand. Your
options are to comply or cancel IFR.


>
> From your post, I learn that I should report OTP as soon as I am OTP and
> can remain so, even if I have not reached the "report reaching" altitude.
> Then I should be cleared to just Maintain VFR On Top, and I can continue
> to climb to my desired altitude. Is that right?
>

That's right.


>
> It's been too long to remember the details, but once I left our local
> airport in Class C and the controller would not clear me for OTP, or gave
> me OTP below 10000, can't remember now. His reason had something to do
> with he didn't own the airspace above 10000. Does that mean the
> controller must restrict my clearance to something that will cause me to
> be contained within his airspace?
>

If the upper limit of his airspace is ten thousand an appropriate clearance
would be, "Climb to and report reaching VFR-on-top, no tops reports. If
not on top at one zero thousand maintain one zero thousand and advise."
Remember, you're treated the same as any other IFR departure until you
report reaching VFR conditions and are cleared to maintain VFR-on-top. If
your requested altitude had been 14,000 the departure controller would have
cleared you to 10,000 and told you to contact center while you were still
climbing to ten thousand. You'd contact center and he'd climb you to
fourteen thousand. It works the same way if your requested altitude is
VFR-on-top and you haven't reached VFR conditions by ten thousand, you'd
have to get a higher altitude from center.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, I know, but when I have been given an instruction to advise of
> altitude changes, and then when I advise of an altitude change and am told
> to remain at my present altitude and he will give me lower in a few miles,
> my choices are limited. I can start an argument on the frequency, cancel
> IFR, disregard his instructions, or go along with what he says. There is
> that pesky FAR that says pilots must comply with ATC clearances and
> instructions (as long as they would not cause me to violate a FAR or
> compromise the safety of my flight). Some say that pilots are not
> obligated to comply with an instruction that an controller is not
> authorized to give, but that is usually an issue to be sorted out on the
> ground, IMO.
>
> If he wanted to keep me at altitude, he could have and probably should
> have assigned me a hard IFR altitude, such as 12000 (I was at 12500).
> There is not a lot of difference in the end result, so why cause a scene
> over it in the air?
>

You're dealing with a controller unfamiliar with VFR-on-top. Separation is
not an issue so there's no reason to keep you at altitude.

"Milen Lazarov" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Ok, how about the route aspect of VFR-On-Top? I know I'm supposed to fly
> the route I was cleared for but what if ask for amended clearance? Would
> it be easier to get it if I'm OTP instead of having a hard altitude
> assigned?
>

Probably. But it's a double-edged sword. Traffic that wouldn't permit the
reroute while on a hard altitude will prevent a return to a hard altitude if
you can't maintain VFR conditions.


>
> Here is why I'm asking - I few weeks ago on me and a friend were
> on CEC-OTH-ONP route along the CA/OR coast in a C172. He asked for direct
> to KONP and center said he could give it to him at 15 000 or higher, even
> though there was no significant terain all the way north.
>

I don't see how that could make a difference. I also don't see why you'd
even ask for the reroute. The difference between CEC-OTH-ONP and CEC-ONP is
about 0.02 miles.


>
> Would it have
> been easier to get this if we were VFR-On-Top, providing our own terrain
> and traffic separation?
>

Provide your own terrain separation? While operating VFR-on-top you're
still subject to FAR 91.177. The controller may be able to assign a lower
altitude than would be available to you under VFR-on-top, assuming traffic
is not a factor. The controller can assign the minimum IFR altitude, but
while VFR-on-top you could only use that altitude if you're not more than
3000 feet above the surface.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> Interesting. I never heard that before. So a TRACON controller cannot
> change a clearance without calling center to do it?
>

It's a flight data processing issue. A terminal controller cannot amend a
flight plan in the computer if the host center has auto-acquired a target on
that flight. The revised clearance must then be manually coordinated. The
alternative is to suspend the auto-acquire feature, which will then require
the center to manually start a track on aircraft that depart from airports
where the center provides approach control services. Suspending the
auto-acquire is the way to go, starting a track is quick and easy and is
more than made up for by the reduced manual coordination.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Do you receive these restrictions after reporting VFR-on-top?
>>
>
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
>
>>
>> Are you operating in airspace where ATC provides separation to VFR
>> aircraft?
>>
>
> Not to my knowledge. Not in Class B airspace nor Class C airspace.
>
>>
>> Is Special Use Airspace a factor?
>>
>
> My flight path is always clear of SUA.
>

Then there is no reason for the altitude restrictions.


>
> Well, when I have received the OTP
> restrictions, anyway. I always file a route that is clear of SUA, but
> sometimes I get recleared enroute for direct destination (without request)
> which puts me through SUA, and sometimes I get vectored around the SUA
> when I get to it. Arghhh..
>

I stay out of the cockpit when I'm controlling and when I'm flying I expect
the controller to stay out of my cockpit. As a controller I'll move an
airplane for traffic, for SUA, or to comply with a LOA. That's it. If I
see you're /G but have filed a bunch of VORs or airways I'll offer a
shortcut, but I won't just issue one of my own volition. If you want to pay
for GPS and still navigate by VOR that's your business.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Interesting. I never heard that before. So a TRACON controller cannot
>> change a clearance without calling center to do it?
>>
>
> It's a flight data processing issue. A terminal controller cannot amend a
> flight plan in the computer if the host center has auto-acquired a target
> on that flight. The revised clearance must then be manually coordinated.
> The alternative is to suspend the auto-acquire feature, which will then
> require the center to manually start a track on aircraft that depart from
> airports where the center provides approach control services. Suspending
> the auto-acquire is the way to go, starting a track is quick and easy and
> is more than made up for by the reduced manual coordination.
>

So this becomes an issue only at a towered field using center approach
control services?

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> So this becomes an issue only at a towered field using center approach
> control services?
>

No, it's an issue at any field using center approach control services and
pop-ups in center airspace.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So this becomes an issue only at a towered field using center approach
>> control services?
>>
>
> No, it's an issue at any field using center approach control services and
> pop-ups in center airspace.
>
>

I don't understand. Your prior discussion was in the context of a terminal
controller and center approach control, I thought. That's why I was trying
to clarify that it applied to a towered field using center approach control.

Can the terminal controller suspend auto-acquire?

If there is not a terminal controller, does center suspend auto-acquire?

Is suspending auto-acquire done on a per-acft basis?

Stan Prevost wrote:

>
> Interesting. I never heard that before. So a TRACON controller cannot
> change a clearance without calling center to do it?

Right. Although here at BIL we are in the process of getting that
changed, so anytime I want I can change any aircrafts data in the
computer. It's a pain in the ass and a relic from days gone by.

Stan Prevost wrote:


>
>
> Yes, I know, but when I have been given an instruction to advise of altitude
> changes, and then when I advise of an altitude change and am told to remain
> at my present altitude and he will give me lower in a few miles, my choices
> are limited.

My first choice will be to then ask why or play chicken on the air and
say "I'm descending to maintain VFR." He can't deny that. Assuming
you're not real close to a terminal area and sequencing becomes an issue
the controller shouldn't be stopping you from changing altitudes.

Milen Lazarov wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't let you descend? It's not his call. You tell him you're
>> descending, if you choose to tell him at all.
>>
>
> Ok, how about the route aspect of VFR-On-Top? I know I'm supposed to fly
> the route I was cleared for but what if ask for amended clearance?

Then you just might get one.


> Would it be easier to get it if I'm OTP instead of having a hard
> altitude assigned?

Yes.


Here is why I'm asking - I few weeks ago on me and a
> friend were on CEC-OTH-ONP route along the CA/OR coast in a C172. He
> asked for direct to KONP and center said he could give it to him at 15
> 000 or higher, even though there was no significant terain all the way
> north.

Sounds like he was going to lose radar contact with you. A rule with
direct clearances is that you must be in radar contact outside of the
service volumes. Salt Lake disregards that pretty regularly but when
there is little traffic it doesn't matter.


Would it have been easier to get this if we were VFR-On-Top,

Maybe.


> providing our own terrain and traffic separation?

Then you may as well be VFR.

Stan Prevost wrote:


>
> So this becomes an issue only at a towered field using center approach
> control services?

No it's an issue for any TRACON. All computer systems run thru the
center computer. They set the paramters. Right now whenever you
takeoff and tag up on the radar I lose the ability to make changes to
your flightplan thru the computer. I have to call the center controller
on the landline. We are in the process of having that changed with Salt
Lake. Both them and us here at BIL don't like this needless
coordination so we are changing it.

Stan Prevost wrote:


>
> I don't understand. Your prior discussion was in the context of a terminal
> controller and center approach control, I thought. That's why I was trying
> to clarify that it applied to a towered field using center approach control.

It's affects any computer not located at a center. It does not matter
what service a center provides or doesn't provide.

>
> Can the terminal controller suspend auto-acquire?

Yes but this isn't ever done because I don't know when you are going to
make your request. It might be 20 miles after takeoff.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I know, but when I have been given an instruction to advise of
>> altitude changes, and then when I advise of an altitude change and am
>> told to remain at my present altitude and he will give me lower in a few
>> miles, my choices are limited.
>
> My first choice will be to then ask why or play chicken on the air and say
> "I'm descending to maintain VFR." He can't deny that. Assuming you're
> not real close to a terminal area and sequencing becomes an issue the
> controller shouldn't be stopping you from changing altitudes.
>

I was approaching the terminal area, IND, from the north.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't understand. Your prior discussion was in the context of a
> terminal controller and center approach control, I thought. That's why I
> was trying to clarify that it applied to a towered field using center
> approach control.
>

I believe you're thinking of terminal controllers as strictly tower
controllers. Terminal controllers are those working in control towers and
approach control facilities.

What exactly were you asking when you wrote, "So this becomes an issue only
at a towered field using center approach control services?" I took it to
mean the auto-acquire of tracks by ARTCCs. Tracks auto-acquire wherever
they happen to be if they're observed by center secondary radar when
beginning their flight.


>
> Can the terminal controller suspend auto-acquire?
>

Can the terminal controller suspend the auto-acquire of targets by the
center? No, of course not.


>
> If there is not a terminal controller, does center suspend auto-acquire?
>

No, there'd be no reason to in that case.


>
> Is suspending auto-acquire done on a per-acft basis?
>

No, it's done center-wide.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> No it's an issue for any TRACON.
>

No, it's only an issue for TRACONs hosted by centers that use auto-acquire.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I don't understand. Your prior discussion was in the context of a
>> terminal controller and center approach control, I thought. That's why I
>> was trying to clarify that it applied to a towered field using center
>> approach control.
>>
>
> I believe you're thinking of terminal controllers as strictly tower
> controllers. Terminal controllers are those working in control towers and
> approach control facilities.
>

That's how I normally think of terminal controllers. But I thought you had
excluded the approach control facilities when you used the context of fields
using center approach control.

Do you call center controllers "terminal controllers" when they are working
approach control? That could be what I missed.


> What exactly were you asking when you wrote, "So this becomes an issue
> only at a towered field using center approach control services?" I took
> it to mean the auto-acquire of tracks by ARTCCs. Tracks auto-acquire
> wherever they happen to be if they're observed by center secondary radar
> when beginning their flight.
>

I no longer think I understand anything about this discussion of under what
circumstances a controller can change a flight plan. I need to find a new
starting point, or just abandon it. It seems to be an obscure issue for
pilots, I was just curious when it came up.

Thanks.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's how I normally think of terminal controllers. But I thought you
> had excluded the approach control facilities when you used the context of
> fields using center approach control.
>

I didn't use that context. This has nothing to do with flights that
originate in center airspace. The problem is with flights that originate in
approach airspace where center gets an auto-acquire on the aircraft. When
center gets the auto-acquire approach is locked out of any further flight
data processing on that flight.


>
> Do you call center controllers "terminal controllers" when they are
> working approach control? That could be what I missed.
>

No.

Steve,
I thought that for /G there still needed to be a vor or other nav fix
in the route. I generally draw a line between the start AP and the
destination and then add a vor in the middle that doesn't increase the
distance by much. Gices me two nav checks for redundancy, too. Are
you saying that /g can be diredt between APs over several hundred miles
with no other fixs?

Chuck

"Chuck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I thought that for /G there still needed to be a vor or other nav fix
> in the route. I generally draw a line between the start AP and the
> destination and then add a vor in the middle that doesn't increase the
> distance by much. Gices me two nav checks for redundancy, too. Are
> you saying that /g can be diredt between APs over several hundred miles
> with no other fixs?
>

You don't even have to be /G. IFR flight off-airways and beyond normal
navaid distance/altitude limits just requires radar monitoring by ATC. Now,
if you're going to a rather small airport hundreds of miles away there may
be a flight data processing problem. The NAS computer serving the departure
airport may not know where the destination airport is. You can get around
that by filing a few waypoints based on H-class VORs that fall on your
route, that will also help ATC visualize the route. Or you can just file
the destination coordinates as an intermediate fix.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message =
link.net...
>=20
> "Chuck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> I thought that for /G there still needed to be a vor or other nav fix
>> in the route. I generally draw a line between the start AP and the
>> destination and then add a vor in the middle that doesn't increase =
the
>> distance by much. Gices me two nav checks for redundancy, too. Are
>> you saying that /g can be diredt between APs over several hundred =
miles
>> with no other fixs?
>>
>=20
> You don't even have to be /G. IFR flight off-airways and beyond =
normal=20
> navaid distance/altitude limits just requires radar monitoring by ATC. =
Now,=20
> if you're going to a rather small airport hundreds of miles away there =
may=20
> be a flight data processing problem. The NAS computer serving the =
departure=20
> airport may not know where the destination airport is. You can get =
around=20
> that by filing a few waypoints based on H-class VORs that fall on your =

> route, that will also help ATC visualize the route. Or you can just =
file=20
> the destination coordinates as an intermediate fix.=20
>

Sometimes, but not always, when I file direct to a distant point,
even an H-class VOR, I'll be cleared first to a nearby fix, then as =
filed.
I usually make a note of that nearby fix, and include it in subsequent =
trips.
I figure the departure controllers prefer that, and it's OK by me.