Altitude versus which? Mag or ground track?

[Casey Wilson]

Here's the real life scenario: The bearing (GPS track ) from Mojave
(KMHV) to Inyokern (KIYK) California is 006 Mag up along the east face of
the Sierra Nevada. Heading home the other day in VMC, the airmass spilling
off the Sierra was giving me a healthy quartering tail wind from the left
(port if you prefer) side. In order to maintain the GPS track line I was
holding in a crab angle of nearly ten degrees. A little arithmetic says my
magnetic heading was 356.
So, for safety purposes to avoid trying to occupy the same finite
airspace as one of my fellow flyers, should my altitude have been 6500 for
the mag heading -- or 7500 for the ground track? It is a tight corridor;
SUAs and cumulus-granitus don't allow for much zig-zagging to add ten
degrees to either side, which I've always considered unacceptable anyway.

[Bob Gardner]

The reg says "magnetic course," and if you successfully figured out the
appropriate wind correction, your ground track would have been the same as
your magnetic course. Ergo, 7500.

Bob Gardner

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kPA5g.3298$6d4.231@trnddc03...
> Here's the real life scenario: The bearing (GPS track ) from Mojave
> (KMHV) to Inyokern (KIYK) California is 006 Mag up along the east face of
> the Sierra Nevada. Heading home the other day in VMC, the airmass spilling
> off the Sierra was giving me a healthy quartering tail wind from the left
> (port if you prefer) side. In order to maintain the GPS track line I was
> holding in a crab angle of nearly ten degrees. A little arithmetic says my
> magnetic heading was 356.
> So, for safety purposes to avoid trying to occupy the same finite
> airspace as one of my fellow flyers, should my altitude have been 6500 for
> the mag heading -- or 7500 for the ground track? It is a tight corridor;
> SUAs and cumulus-granitus don't allow for much zig-zagging to add ten
> degrees to either side, which I've always considered unacceptable anyway.
>

[Journeyman]

In article >, Bob Gardner wrote:
> The reg says "magnetic course," and if you successfully figured out the
> appropriate wind correction, your ground track would have been the same as
> your magnetic course. Ergo, 7500.

Just be very, very careful you understand what the controller
means when he says, "squawk altitude"


Morris

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Journeyman" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Just be very, very careful you understand what the controller
> means when he says, "squawk altitude"
>

Are you suggesting he means something other than turn on the automatic
altitude reporting feature of your transponder?

[Casey Wilson]

"Journeyman" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, Bob Gardner wrote:
>> The reg says "magnetic course," and if you successfully figured out the
>> appropriate wind correction, your ground track would have been the same
>> as
>> your magnetic course. Ergo, 7500.
>
> Just be very, very careful you understand what the controller
> means when he says, "squawk altitude"
>

Pardon my confusion but what does a controller have to do with this?

[Journeyman]

In article <wVM5g.39847$C63.24161@trnddc06>, Casey Wilson wrote:
>
>>> your magnetic course. Ergo, 7500.
>>
>> Just be very, very careful you understand what the controller
>> means when he says, "squawk altitude"
>
> Pardon my confusion but what does a controller have to do with this?

It's an old joke. A controller telling you to squawk altitude means
you need to turn on the transponder's mode C, not use your current
altitude (7500') as the transponder code. Much hilarity ensues from
misunderstanding this point.

Morris (off to recalibrate my sense of humor)