Flight Level and a half

[Scott Draper]

Is there a proper phraseology for reporting leaving 33,500? The AIM
doesn't say; it always assumes you're at a whole number flight level.

[S Narayan]

"Scott Draper" > wrote in message
...
> Is there a proper phraseology for reporting leaving 33,500? The AIM
> doesn't say; it always assumes you're at a whole number flight level.

Why can't you say FL 335? After all 33,000ft is FL 330.

[rps]

I didn't know you could be at a 500ft level in Class A airspace (which
I've never flown in, except in a commercial carrier).

According to FAR =A7 91.135 : Operations in Class A airspace.
Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each person
operating an aircraft in Class A airspace must conduct that operation
under instrument flight rules (IFR) and in compliance with the
following:

(a) Clearance. Operations may be conducted only under an ATC clearance
received prior to entering the airspace.

I've never received an en route clearance to an altitude other than in
the thousands, (except, of course during departure or approach).

[Brengsek!]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:18:09 GMT, Scott Draper
> wrote:

>Is there a proper phraseology for reporting leaving 33,500? The AIM
>doesn't say; it always assumes you're at a whole number flight level.

Your leaving Angels 33 point 5? Or Flight level 335..?

--
Boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Scott Draper" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is there a proper phraseology for reporting leaving 33,500? The AIM
> doesn't say; it always assumes you're at a whole number flight level.
>

33,500 is a whole number. Try "leaving flight level three three five".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"rps" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I didn't know you could be at a 500ft level in Class A airspace (which
> I've never flown in, except in a commercial carrier).
>

Think about block altitudes, and remember that not all airspace above 18,000
is Class A.

[Newps]

rps wrote:

> I didn't know you could be at a 500ft level in Class A airspace (which
> I've never flown in, except in a commercial carrier).

He didn't say he was level, only that he was reporting on the freq
leaving an altitude. We get this all the time here, an RJ 30 miles out
still in the low to mid 20's descending.

[Blanche]

Uh....if you're between 18K and 60K in the US, then you are required
to be on an IFR flight plan, hence only at even number altitudes.
33,500 is inappropriate.

[Newps]

Blanche wrote:
> Uh....if you're between 18K and 60K in the US, then you are required
> to be on an IFR flight plan, hence only at even number altitudes.
> 33,500 is inappropriate.

Number one that's wrong. Number two that wasn't the point of the question.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 9/23/05 7:13 PM, in article , "Blanche"
> wrote:

> Uh....if you're between 18K and 60K in the US, then you are required
> to be on an IFR flight plan, hence only at even number altitudes.
> 33,500 is inappropriate.
>
I was eastbound here in Georgia the other day on an IFR flight plan, at
8ooo, as requested by ATC. A westbound AC passed below me and had heard that
I was at 8000 and petulantly asked ATC why. I fully expected ATC to answer
that it was for noise abatement...

....the noise of his aircraft and mine colliding head on.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
>
> Uh....if you're between 18K and 60K in the US, then you are required
> to be on an IFR flight plan, hence only at even number altitudes.
> 33,500 is inappropriate.
>

That's not correct. You're required to be on an IFR flight plan in Class A
airspace, but not all airspace between 18K and 60K in the US is Class A.

By the way, 33,500 IS an even number.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
>> Uh....if you're between 18K and 60K in the US, then you are required
>> to be on an IFR flight plan, hence only at even number altitudes.
>> 33,500 is inappropriate.
>That's not correct. You're required to be on an IFR flight plan in Class A
>airspace, but not all airspace between 18K and 60K in the US is Class A.
>
>By the way, 33,500 IS an even number.

Plus 33,500 is a perfectly valid altitude on an IFR flight plan if you're
climbing, descending, VFR-OTP, given a block altitude or on a cruise
clearance.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
please excuse my typing, but my whole left arm is in a cast. and i don't
mean _the king and i_.

[Matt Barrow]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> said:
>>"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
>>> Uh....if you're between 18K and 60K in the US, then you are required
>>> to be on an IFR flight plan, hence only at even number altitudes.
>>> 33,500 is inappropriate.
>>That's not correct. You're required to be on an IFR flight plan in Class
>>A
>>airspace, but not all airspace between 18K and 60K in the US is Class A.
>>
>>By the way, 33,500 IS an even number.
>
> Plus 33,500 is a perfectly valid altitude on an IFR flight plan if you're
> climbing, descending, VFR-OTP, given a block altitude or on a cruise
> clearance.
>
VFR On Top at 33,500?

[Scott Draper]

<<33,500 is a whole number. Try "leaving flight level three three
five". >>

Sorry, it was a stupid question. But a newbie airline pilot asked me
and I made the assumption that the answer wasn't obvious. I guess my
intuitive reaction is to think of FL's are in thousands, when they're
really in 100's. Duh.

Thanks

[Scott Draper]

<<Why can't you say FL 335? After all 33,000ft is FL 330. >>

You're absolutely right. Dumb question. I should have written it
before asking.

Thank you.

[Scott Draper]

<<Your leaving Angels 33 point 5? Or Flight level 335..?>>

The 33 point 5 is what spawned the question. A new airline pilot
asked me what was proper instead of the 33.5 that most people seem to
use.

I didn't carry my decimals properly and missed the friggin obvious
answer.

Flight Level 335 is proper. Obviously, I don't fly those altitudes.
:-)

Thanks

[Blanche]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>"Blanche" > wrote in message
>>
>> Uh....if you're between 18K and 60K in the US, then you are required
>> to be on an IFR flight plan, hence only at even number altitudes.
>> 33,500 is inappropriate.
>
>That's not correct. You're required to be on an IFR flight plan in Class A
>airspace, but not all airspace between 18K and 60K in the US is Class A.
>
>By the way, 33,500 IS an even number.

My bad. I meant all thousands, not the half thousands that we're
used to in VFR.

Second my bad...what airspace in the US > 18K and < 60K is not
Class A? Not counting the big mountain in Washington state. (sorry,
can't remember the name)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> VFR On Top at 33,500?
>

Yes. Not all airspace between 18K and 60K in the US is Class A.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
>
> Second my bad...what airspace in the US > 18K and < 60K is not
> Class A?
>

There's no Class A airspace over Hawaii, the Alaska Peninsula west of
longitude 160° 00' 00" West, the California islands Santa Barbara and
Farallon, and the Florida keys south of latitude 25° 04' 00" North.


>
> Not counting the big mountain in Washington state. (sorry, can't remember
> the name)
>

I think you mean Alaska. The highest point in the contiguous states is
California's Mt. Whithey at 14,494 feet. The airspace above 18,000' but
less than 1,500 feet above the surface of the earth in Alaska is not Class
A.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> Plus 33,500 is a perfectly valid altitude on an IFR flight plan if you're
>> climbing, descending, VFR-OTP, given a block altitude or on a cruise
>> clearance.
>>
>VFR On Top at 33,500?

You can't do VFR OTP in class A? I didn't know that. I assumed that
since it was still an IFR clearance, it was still valid. Not that flight
level rules are likely to apply to me any time soon.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
please excuse my typing, but my whole left arm is in a cast. and i don't
mean _the king and i_.

[Newps]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

>
>
> You can't do VFR OTP in class A? I didn't know that.

If you want to be OTP in class A you get a block altitude and fly in the
middle.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> You can't do VFR OTP in class A? I didn't know that. I assumed that
> since it was still an IFR clearance, it was still valid. Not that flight
> level rules are likely to apply to me any time soon.
>

FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 7. Visual

Section 1. General

7-1-1. CLASS A AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS

Do not apply visual separation or issue VFR or "VFR-on-top" clearances in
Class A airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you want to be OTP in class A you get a block altitude and fly in the
> middle.
>

Or at the upper or lower limit of the block or anywhere between them.

[Mark Hansen]

On 9/23/2005 4:13 PM, Blanche wrote:

> Uh....if you're between 18K and 60K in the US, then you are required
> to be on an IFR flight plan, hence only at even number altitudes.
> 33,500 is inappropriate.
>

Actually, while in controlled airspace you are required to fly at
the altitude assigned by ATC. The odd/even altitudes/levels is only
when outside of controlled airspace.


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

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You can't do VFR OTP in class A? I didn't know that.
>
> If you want to be OTP in class A you get a block altitude and fly in the
> middle.

Not in Class A, you can't.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not in Class A, you can't.

Why can't you get a block altitude and fly in the middle of it in Class A
airspace?

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>You can't do VFR OTP in class A? I didn't know that.
>>
>>If you want to be OTP in class A you get a block altitude and fly in the
>>middle.
>
>
> Not in Class A, you can't.

You most certainly can.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You can't do VFR OTP in class A? I didn't know that.
>>>
>>>If you want to be OTP in class A you get a block altitude and fly in the
>>>middle.
>>
>>
>> Not in Class A, you can't.
>
> You most certainly can.

Well knock me over with a feather!!

Above 18,000 feet, where the separation is 1000 feet and AFAIK, VFR
operations are definitely NOT allowed? The example given was 33,500
feet...RVSM air space.

Could you 'splain that one?

--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well knock me over with a feather!!
>
> Above 18,000 feet, where the separation is 1000 feet and AFAIK, VFR
> operations are definitely NOT allowed? The example given was 33,500
> feet...RVSM air space.
>
> Could you 'splain that one?
>

Block altitude. "Maintain block FL 330 through FL 350". You can operate at
any altitude within that block and have vertical separation from traffic at
FL 320 and FL 360.

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> Well knock me over with a feather!!
>
> Above 18,000 feet, where the separation is 1000 feet

The separation is a minimum of 1000 feet, no reason I can't just give
you more airspace.

and AFAIK, VFR
> operations are definitely NOT allowed? The example given was 33,500
> feet...RVSM air space.

You won't be given an OTP clearance but then at 330 you wouldn't need
that since you're hard pressed to find many clouds up there that aren't
already thunderstorms.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>> Well knock me over with a feather!!
>>
>> Above 18,000 feet, where the separation is 1000 feet
>
> The separation is a minimum of 1000 feet, no reason I can't just give you
> more airspace.

So where in the FAR' is there authorization for VFR ops above FL180?

>
> and AFAIK, VFR
>> operations are definitely NOT allowed? The example given was 33,500
>> feet...RVSM air space.
>
> You won't be given an OTP clearance but then at 330 you wouldn't need that
> since you're hard pressed to find many clouds up there that aren't already
> thunderstorms.

So you're saying one could operate VFR at FL330?


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Mike Rapoport]

The US mountains where 1500AGL is over 18K' are all in AK. There is also no
class A over the Aleution Islands.

Mike
MU-2


"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>>"Blanche" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> Uh....if you're between 18K and 60K in the US, then you are required
>>> to be on an IFR flight plan, hence only at even number altitudes.
>>> 33,500 is inappropriate.
>>
>>That's not correct. You're required to be on an IFR flight plan in Class
>>A
>>airspace, but not all airspace between 18K and 60K in the US is Class A.
>>
>>By the way, 33,500 IS an even number.
>
> My bad. I meant all thousands, not the half thousands that we're
> used to in VFR.
>
> Second my bad...what airspace in the US > 18K and < 60K is not
> Class A? Not counting the big mountain in Washington state. (sorry,
> can't remember the name)
>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

It isn't a VFR op.

Mike
MU-2


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well knock me over with a feather!!
>>>
>>> Above 18,000 feet, where the separation is 1000 feet
>>
>> The separation is a minimum of 1000 feet, no reason I can't just give you
>> more airspace.
>
> So where in the FAR' is there authorization for VFR ops above FL180?
>
>>
>> and AFAIK, VFR
>>> operations are definitely NOT allowed? The example given was 33,500
>>> feet...RVSM air space.
>>
>> You won't be given an OTP clearance but then at 330 you wouldn't need
>> that since you're hard pressed to find many clouds up there that aren't
>> already thunderstorms.
>
> So you're saying one could operate VFR at FL330?
>
>
> --
> Matt
>
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> It isn't a VFR op.
>

VFR on top is not a VFR op?


>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well knock me over with a feather!!
>>>>
>>>> Above 18,000 feet, where the separation is 1000 feet
>>>
>>> The separation is a minimum of 1000 feet, no reason I can't just give
>>> you more airspace.
>>
>> So where in the FAR' is there authorization for VFR ops above FL180?
>>
>>>
>>> and AFAIK, VFR
>>>> operations are definitely NOT allowed? The example given was 33,500
>>>> feet...RVSM air space.
>>>
>>> You won't be given an OTP clearance but then at 330 you wouldn't need
>>> that since you're hard pressed to find many clouds up there that aren't
>>> already thunderstorms.
>>
>> So you're saying one could operate VFR at FL330?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt
>>
>> ---------------------
>> Matthew W. Barrow
>> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
>> Montrose, CO
>>
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> So where in the FAR' is there authorization for VFR ops above FL180?
>

There isn't any. The FARs tend to prohibit things, not authorize them. So
where in the FARs is there prohibition of VFR ops above FL180?


>
> So you're saying one could operate VFR at FL330?
>

Sure, as long as you're not in Class A airspace.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> VFR on top is not a VFR op?
>

No, it isn't. VFR-on-top is an IFR operation.

[Mike Rapoport]

No, like Steven said, it is an IFR operation.

Mike
MU-2


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> It isn't a VFR op.
>>
>
> VFR on top is not a VFR op?
>
>
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well knock me over with a feather!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Above 18,000 feet, where the separation is 1000 feet
>>>>
>>>> The separation is a minimum of 1000 feet, no reason I can't just give
>>>> you more airspace.
>>>
>>> So where in the FAR' is there authorization for VFR ops above FL180?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> and AFAIK, VFR
>>>>> operations are definitely NOT allowed? The example given was 33,500
>>>>> feet...RVSM air space.
>>>>
>>>> You won't be given an OTP clearance but then at 330 you wouldn't need
>>>> that since you're hard pressed to find many clouds up there that aren't
>>>> already thunderstorms.
>>>
>>> So you're saying one could operate VFR at FL330?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> ---------------------
>>> Matthew W. Barrow
>>> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
>>> Montrose, CO
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Actually VFR glider operations are frequently authorized above 18K' (in
class A). Near Minden, NV, ATC simply opens up blocks of airspace allowing
gliders to soar in mountain waves.

Mike
MU-2


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So where in the FAR' is there authorization for VFR ops above FL180?
>>
>
> There isn't any. The FARs tend to prohibit things, not authorize them.
> So where in the FARs is there prohibition of VFR ops above FL180?
>
>
>>
>> So you're saying one could operate VFR at FL330?
>>
>
> Sure, as long as you're not in Class A airspace.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Actually VFR glider operations are frequently authorized above 18K' (in
> class A).

Sure, in accordance with FAR 91.135(d).

"An operator may deviate from any provision of this section under the
provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC facility having
jurisdiction of the airspace concerned."

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> No, like Steven said, it is an IFR operation.
>

Well, Newps and a couple others have been saying that VFR on top at 33,500
feet was legit. (or at least they snipped the original statement).


I agree with you that and hold that anything over 18,000 feet is strictly a
IFR operation and conducted in 1000 foot increments (also that if someone is
at a 500 foot intermediate level they are only passing through that
altitude, not cruising.


> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> It isn't a VFR op.
>>>
>>
>> VFR on top is not a VFR op?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well knock me over with a feather!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Above 18,000 feet, where the separation is 1000 feet
>>>>>
>>>>> The separation is a minimum of 1000 feet, no reason I can't just give
>>>>> you more airspace.
>>>>
>>>> So where in the FAR' is there authorization for VFR ops above FL180?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and AFAIK, VFR
>>>>>> operations are definitely NOT allowed? The example given was 33,500
>>>>>> feet...RVSM air space.
>>>>>
>>>>> You won't be given an OTP clearance but then at 330 you wouldn't need
>>>>> that since you're hard pressed to find many clouds up there that
>>>>> aren't already thunderstorms.
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying one could operate VFR at FL330?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------
>>>> Matthew W. Barrow
>>>> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
>>>> Montrose, CO
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> There isn't any. The FARs tend to prohibit things, not authorize them.
>> So where in the FARs is there prohibition of VFR ops above FL180?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So you're saying one could operate VFR at FL330?
>>>
>>
>> Sure, as long as you're not in Class A airspace.

Other than the special exception listed of Glider ops in a blocked off
region, where is there airspace that is NOT Class A at FL330? The glider ops
at altitudes over FL180 is still Class A, but given special handling. I
seriously doubt they are mixing jets and gliders at those altitudes WITHIN
those areas.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Actually VFR glider operations are frequently authorized above 18K' (in
> class A). Near Minden, NV, ATC simply opens up blocks of airspace
> allowing gliders to soar in mountain waves.
>

Quite. It's still Class A, but an area receiving special handling (or
sumthin to that effect), correct?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree with you that and hold that anything over 18,000 feet is strictly
> a IFR operation and conducted in 1000 foot increments (also that if
> someone is at a 500 foot intermediate level they are only passing through
> that altitude, not cruising.
>

Well, anything over 18,000 feet is NOT strictly an IFR operation.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Other than the special exception listed of Glider ops in a blocked off
> region, where is there airspace that is NOT Class A at FL330?

Hawaii, the Alaska Peninsula west of longitude 160° 00' 00" West, the
California islands Santa Barbara and Farallon, and the Florida keys south of
latitude 25° 04' 00" North.

[Mike Rapoport]

"VFR on top" is an IFR operation requiring a clearance and the adherence to
both IFR and VFR rules at the VFR XX,500' altitudes..

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/V.HTM



Mike
MU-2

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> No, like Steven said, it is an IFR operation.
>>
>
> Well, Newps and a couple others have been saying that VFR on top at 33,500
> feet was legit. (or at least they snipped the original statement).
>
>
> I agree with you that and hold that anything over 18,000 feet is strictly
> a IFR operation and conducted in 1000 foot increments (also that if
> someone is at a 500 foot intermediate level they are only passing through
> that altitude, not cruising.
>
>

[S Herman]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:50:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Other than the special exception listed of Glider ops in a blocked off
>> region, where is there airspace that is NOT Class A at FL330?
>
>Hawaii, the Alaska Peninsula west of longitude 160° 00' 00" West, the
>California islands Santa Barbara and Farallon, and the Florida keys south of
>latitude 25° 04' 00" North.
>
Finally. Wish this was posted at the BEGINNING of the thread :-)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"S Herman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Finally. Wish this was posted at the BEGINNING of the thread :-)
>

It was posted in this thread 2 1/2 days ago.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "VFR on top" is an IFR operation requiring a clearance and the adherence
> to both IFR and VFR rules at the VFR XX,500' altitudes..
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/V.HTM
>
>
>
"ATC authorization for an IFR aircraft to operate in VFR conditions at any
appropriate VFR altitude.."

Yes, but the point I was making (from the original) was that VFR-OT would be
conduced in Class A.

Class A, AIUI, contains NO "appropriate VFR altitudes".

The first point I disputed, and the one that many responders seemed to have
missed, was claiming VFR-OT at 33,500 feet.

Below Class A, I'm sure we've all done VFR-OT.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ATC authorization for an IFR aircraft to operate in VFR conditions at any
> appropriate VFR altitude.."
>
> Yes, but the point I was making (from the original) was that VFR-OT would
> be conduced in Class A.
>
> Class A, AIUI, contains NO "appropriate VFR altitudes".
>
> The first point I disputed, and the one that many responders seemed to
> have missed, was claiming VFR-OT at 33,500 feet.
>
> Below Class A, I'm sure we've all done VFR-OT.

Is all airspace at 33,500 feet Class A?

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> I agree with you that and hold that anything over 18,000 feet is strictly a
> IFR operation and conducted in 1000 foot increments (also that if someone is
> at a 500 foot intermediate level they are only passing through that
> altitude, not cruising.

Ok, then please 'splain my glider operations?

NO IFR pilot on board, glider not IFR certified, no transponder,
VFR pilot on board, unable to hold altitude.

I assert this is a legal operation... VFR, above FL180.


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 233 Young Eagles!

[Michael R]

AIM 6-4-1

1. General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has two-way
radio communications failure when operating under IFR shall comply with the
rules of this section.

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

NOTE-
This procedure also applies when two-way radio failure occurs while
operating in Class A airspace.




"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So where in the FAR' is there authorization for VFR ops above FL180?
>>
>
> There isn't any. The FARs tend to prohibit things, not authorize them.
> So where in the FARs is there prohibition of VFR ops above FL180?
>
>
>>
>> So you're saying one could operate VFR at FL330?
>>
>
> Sure, as long as you're not in Class A airspace.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael R" > wrote in message
...
>
> AIM 6-4-1
>
> 1. General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has two-way
> radio communications failure when operating under IFR shall comply with
> the rules of this section.
>
> 2. VFR conditions. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR
> conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue
> the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.
>
> NOTE-
> This procedure also applies when two-way radio failure occurs while
> operating in Class A airspace.
>

Your point?

[Michael R]

That it is legal to fly VFR at FL335 in class A airspace. All you need is a
comm failure first.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Michael R" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> AIM 6-4-1
>>
>> 1. General. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each pilot who has
>> two-way radio communications failure when operating under IFR shall
>> comply with the rules of this section.
>>
>> 2. VFR conditions. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR
>> conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue
>> the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.
>>
>> NOTE-
>> This procedure also applies when two-way radio failure occurs while
>> operating in Class A airspace.
>>
>
> Your point?
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael R" > wrote in message
...
>
> That it is legal to fly VFR at FL335 in class A airspace. All you need is
> a comm failure first.
>

The reference in AIM 6-4-1.c. that you quoted is to FAR 91.185, an
Instrument Flight Rule.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael R" > wrote in message
...
>
> That it is legal to fly VFR at FL335 in class A airspace. All you need is
> a comm failure first.
>

The reference in AIM 6-4-1.c. that you quoted is to FAR 91.185, an
Instrument Flight Rule. The regulation says; "If the failure occurs in VFR
conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure, each
pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable."
You can't just continue on VFR at FL 335. If you encounter a field where
it's practicable for you to land you must descend and land.

[Michael R]

The AIM continues:

However, it is not intended that the requirement to "land as soon as
practicable" be construed to mean "as soon as possible." Pilots retain the
prerogative of exercising their best judgment and are not required to land
at an unauthorized airport, at an airport unsuitable for the type of
aircraft flown, or to land only minutes short of their intended destination.

Sounds like I can continue on for 59 minutes and meet the letter of the AIM.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Michael R" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> That it is legal to fly VFR at FL335 in class A airspace. All you need is
>> a comm failure first.
>>
>
> The reference in AIM 6-4-1.c. that you quoted is to FAR 91.185, an
> Instrument Flight Rule. The regulation says; "If the failure occurs in
> VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure,
> each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as
> practicable." You can't just continue on VFR at FL 335. If you encounter
> a field where it's practicable for you to land you must descend and land.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael R" > wrote in message
...
>
> The AIM continues:
>
> However, it is not intended that the requirement to "land as soon as
> practicable" be construed to mean "as soon as possible." Pilots retain the
> prerogative of exercising their best judgment and are not required to land
> at an unauthorized airport, at an airport unsuitable for the type of
> aircraft flown, or to land only minutes short of their intended
> destination.
>
> Sounds like I can continue on for 59 minutes and meet the letter of the
> AIM.
>

How did you arrive at that conclusion? The AIM and the FARs are consistent,
if you encounter a field where it's practicable for you to land you must
descend and land. There is no time mentioned, if if you encounter VFR
conditions and a field where it's practicable for you to land you must
descend and land at that field.