VFR on top question

[A Lieberman]

Scenario 1....

Severe clear weather from point A to point B going east. MRA is 7000 in
which part of this area is below ATC radar coverage from past experience.
Highest OROCA enroute is 2600, filing is direct from airport to airport.

If I filed "VFR on top" /G for 3500, would I be legal to file this plan
since I would be able to maintain visual flight rules (VFR)?

Scenario 2.....

Throw in an active MOA to the above. I would assume that I would get
vectors or an amended clearance around the active MOA even though I am "VFR
on top". Would this be a correct assumption?

Allen

[john smith]

In article >,
A Lieberman > wrote:

> If I filed "VFR on top" /G for 3500, would I be legal to file this plan
> since I would be able to maintain visual flight rules (VFR)?

Doesn't /G nullify the MRA?

[A Lieberman]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 03:15:42 GMT, john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> A Lieberman > wrote:
>
>> If I filed "VFR on top" /G for 3500, would I be legal to file this plan
>> since I would be able to maintain visual flight rules (VFR)?
>
> Doesn't /G nullify the MRA?

I'd suspect so John, EXCEPT if I have to join a victor highway via VOR or
intersection via VOR radials especially if scenario two panned out with a
hot MOA.

Allen

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Doesn't /G nullify the MRA?
>
>
> I'd suspect so John, EXCEPT if I have to join a victor highway via VOR or
> intersection via VOR radials especially if scenario two panned out with a
> hot MOA.

MRA is minimum RECEPTION altitude, presumably for the primary navaid.
It's primarily a physics thing, not a legal thing. GPS is not the
primary navaid, but can substitute, so you can navigate (even on the
ground) using GPS along VOR radials or Victor Airways.

I don't know the answer to the original question though.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>Scenario 2.....
>
>Throw in an active MOA to the above. I would assume that I would get
>vectors or an amended clearance around the active MOA even though I am "VFR
>on top". Would this be a correct assumption?

VFR is not prohibited in active MOAs, just discouraged. I would suspect
that they'd let you blunder on through in that situation.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we
are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Teddy Roosevelt

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Scenario 1....
>
> Severe clear weather from point A to point B going east. MRA is 7000 in
> which part of this area is below ATC radar coverage from past experience.
> Highest OROCA enroute is 2600, filing is direct from airport to airport.
>
> If I filed "VFR on top" /G for 3500, would I be legal to file this plan
> since I would be able to maintain visual flight rules (VFR)?
>

You can legally file anything, the question is can you legally be issued
what you've filed.

VFR-On-Top is still an IFR operation and all of the Instrument Flight Rules
apply to it with the exception of § 91.179 IFR cruising altitude or flight
level which directs pilots operating VFR-On-Top to comply with § 91.159 VFR
cruising altitude or flight level. You still have to comply with § 91.177
Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.

Filing VFR-On-Top does not relieve ATC of the requirement to assign routes
on airways or within normal navaid usable limits if radar monitoring cannot
be provided. If you're assigned an airway while VFR-On-Top the lowest
altitude you can use is that which conforms to § 91.159 and is at or above
the MEA.

Why do you want to do this anyway? In areas below radar coverage VFR-On-Top
has nothing to offer. You aren't provided any separation or traffic
advisories but you're still tied to a route. Why not just go VFR?


>
> Scenario 2.....
>
> Throw in an active MOA to the above. I would assume that I would get
> vectors or an amended clearance around the active MOA even though I am
> "VFR on top". Would this be a correct assumption?
>

Yes.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> VFR is not prohibited in active MOAs, just discouraged. I would suspect
> that they'd let you blunder on through in that situation.
>

VFR-On-Top is an IFR operation.


FAA Order 7110.65R Air Traffic Control

Chapter 9. Special Flights

Section 3. Special Use and ATC Assigned Airspace

9-3-3. VFR-ON-TOP

If the aircraft's route, track, or altitude may cause it to enter an active
Prohibited/Restricted/Warning Area, MOA, or ATCAA:

a. Inform the pilot to conduct flight "VFR-on-top" at least 500 feet above
the upper limit or lower limit of the airspace (subject to para 7-3-1,
VFR-on-top); or

PHRASEOLOGY-
MAINTAIN VFR-ON-TOP AT LEAST 500 FEET ABOVE/BELOW (upper/lower limit of
airspace) ACROSS (name or number of airspace) BETWEEN (fix) AND (fix);

and if the airspace is an ATCAA,

(name of ATCAA) IS ATC ASSIGNED AIRSPACE.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Class A Airspace Restrictions, Para 7-1-1.

b. Clear the aircraft via a routing which provides approved separation from
the airspace.

c. Exception: Some Prohibited/Restricted Areas are established for security
reasons or to contain hazardous activities not involving aircraft
operations. The addition of 500 (or 1,000) feet to the upper/lower limit of
these Prohibited/Restricted Areas is not required if the areas have been
identified by facility management.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7210.3, Prohibited/Restricted Areas, Para 2-1-17.

[A Lieberman]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:37:40 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Why do you want to do this anyway? In areas below radar coverage VFR-On-Top
> has nothing to offer. You aren't provided any separation or traffic
> advisories but you're still tied to a route. Why not just go VFR?

First of all, thanks for the reference on my question as it answered it
perfectly. I was planning a flight from KMBO to KEDN today.

Several reasons why I wanted to do the original scenerio.

Winds aloft from 3,500 to 5000 made for a 15 minute difference in flight
time. Had I gone to 7000 feet to ensure radar coverage, it would have
added another 5 minutes. With passengers, that extra 20 minutes would have
been significant difference.

Going the victor highways would have added about 20 minutes as compared to
direct.

Most importantly, I love the second pair of eyes for traffic advisories.
Sure, I could do flight following VFR, but since I am already in the
system, might as well stay in the system without the risk of being dropped.

And the most fun of it all, it's nice to see my flight path at
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1943L/history/20060627/1752Z/KMBO/KEKY
when I return home. Another way of keeping track of my flight time :-)
Website doesn't track VFR flight following too well.

As it turned out, couldn't launch today as I think something went south
with my starter or whatever engages the propeller (Bendex?)

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Several reasons why I wanted to do the original scenerio.
>
> Winds aloft from 3,500 to 5000 made for a 15 minute difference in flight
> time. Had I gone to 7000 feet to ensure radar coverage, it would have
> added another 5 minutes. With passengers, that extra 20 minutes would
> have
> been significant difference.
>
> Going the victor highways would have added about 20 minutes as compared to
> direct.
>
> Most importantly, I love the second pair of eyes for traffic advisories.
> Sure, I could do flight following VFR, but since I am already in the
> system, might as well stay in the system without the risk of being
> dropped.
>

I still don't get it. If you have to go to 7000 to ensure radar coverage
then that's how high you'd have to go for that second pair of eyes. If
you're high enough to ensure radar coverage you're high enough to be cleared
direct.

[A Lieberman]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:41:31 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> I still don't get it. If you have to go to 7000 to ensure radar coverage
> then that's how high you'd have to go for that second pair of eyes. If
> you're high enough to ensure radar coverage you're high enough to be cleared
> direct.

The radar outage would only be for a small segment of the flight. Why go
so high when I don't need to.

Not quite sure why the outage, since it happens right around the MEI
airport who has approach controllers but it does. Terrain isn't a factor
since it's flat as a board.

Now, I probably could request 7000 for that short period of time when I
expect out of radar contact, but by the time I climbed to 7000 feet the
time gained in flying the lower altitude would be lost in the climb to 7000
feet.

In other sectors, I have flown outside of radar coverage, but had to report
when a certain distance of a VOR, but this particular sector doesn't work
this way.

Bottom line for "flight planning purpose" I am only out of the second pair
of eyes for a very short duration of the flight. It was more efficient to
select a lower altitude for passenger considerations and lose the second
pair of eyes in a part of the trip where traffic is very minimal at best.

So, I'd be willing to give up 20 minutes of non radar coverage for a more
direct and quicker flight. If I was by myself, this all would have been a
moot point as I would just fly the victor highways.

Allen

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> The radar outage would only be for a small segment of the flight. Why go
> so high when I don't need to.
>

Because it's the only way to get what you want.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:41:31 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> I still don't get it. If you have to go to 7000 to ensure radar coverage
>> then that's how high you'd have to go for that second pair of eyes. If
>> you're high enough to ensure radar coverage you're high enough to be
>> cleared
>> direct.
>
> The radar outage would only be for a small segment of the flight. Why go
> so high when I don't need to.

It seems you need to. Not withstanding it is safer, cooler, smoother, and
usually more efficient to be higher.

Or, go IFR, and learn how to work with ATC better to get what you want.

Karl

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:06:00 -0500, A Lieberman >
wrote:

>Scenario 1....
>
>Severe clear weather from point A to point B going east. MRA is 7000 in
>which part of this area is below ATC radar coverage from past experience.
>Highest OROCA enroute is 2600, filing is direct from airport to airport.
>
>If I filed "VFR on top" /G for 3500, would I be legal to file this plan
>since I would be able to maintain visual flight rules (VFR)?
>
>Scenario 2.....
>
>Throw in an active MOA to the above. I would assume that I would get
>vectors or an amended clearance around the active MOA even though I am "VFR
>on top". Would this be a correct assumption?
>
>Allen


Of course it would be legal to file. But don't count on getting it <g>.

ATC may not (is not allowed to) issue you an off airway routing outside of
radar coverage and outside of NAVAID standard service areas. At least not
in the lower 48. There are some exceptions in Alaska, and it may someday
be possible to do this down here, too.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Newps]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
> ATC may not (is not allowed to) issue you an off airway routing outside of
> radar coverage and outside of NAVAID standard service areas. At least not
> in the lower 48.

Bah, Salt Lake allows that all the time. To the north of us the radar
coverage is poor below about 9000. The ground here is at 3650 and gets
lower the farther north you go. ZLC regularly terminates aircraft after
we send them and asks them to make occasional reports.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Bah, Salt Lake allows that all the time. To the north of us the radar
> coverage is poor below about 9000. The ground here is at 3650 and gets
> lower the farther north you go. ZLC regularly terminates aircraft after
> we send them and asks them to make occasional reports.
>

While ignorant controllers at ZLC may do it regularly it is not allowed.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 15:13:12 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>>
>> ATC may not (is not allowed to) issue you an off airway routing outside of
>> radar coverage and outside of NAVAID standard service areas. At least not
>> in the lower 48.
>
>Bah, Salt Lake allows that all the time. To the north of us the radar
>coverage is poor below about 9000. The ground here is at 3650 and gets
>lower the farther north you go. ZLC regularly terminates aircraft after
>we send them and asks them to make occasional reports.



You've written this before.

I did not speak to the point as to whether certain controllers do this or
not. Only as to whether or not it is in accord with the regulations.

Where is the exception to the radar monitoring requirement for random
routes outside of the NAVAID Use limitation (and below FL 450 for RNAV a/c)
that is being applied by ZLC for this procedure?
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)