En route altitudes and safety

[a[_3_]]

A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
flying practice. When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
two for the non mathematically inclined) I fly the nominal altitude
less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
of course is if the unseen/unreported converging traffic is at the
correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
flying.

Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
safety?

[Mike[_22_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...
>A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
> flying practice. When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
> of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
> two for the non mathematically inclined) I fly the nominal altitude
> less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
> of course is if the unseen/unreported converging traffic is at the
> correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
> because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
> makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
> hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
> risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
> To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
> flying.

Even if you do hold altitude pretty closely, it's inevitable you're going to
vary every now and then. As far as IFR goes, 200' altitude deviation busts
are pretty common these days. In theory, you could get busted for a 100'
variation, but I don't know if anyone has ever received a deviation for
such.

One thing to remember is if a controller ever asks, do NOT tell them you are
200' (or more) off your assigned altitude. A good stalling technique is to
ask them for the altimeter setting again and quickly correct while they are
giving it to you. The people who get busted are the ones that fess up.

[john smith]

> One thing to remember is if a controller ever asks, do NOT tell them you are
> 200' (or more) off your assigned altitude. A good stalling technique is to
> ask them for the altimeter setting again and quickly correct while they are
> giving it to you. The people who get busted are the ones that fess up.

You can also tell them you are resetting the transponder. While it is
off, fly to the correct altitude.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:

> Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
> safety?

When flying VOR to VOR, I never fly directly over the VOR.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
>a > wrote:
>
>> Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
>> safety?
>
> When flying VOR to VOR, I never fly directly over the VOR.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Don't worry about it. With a little more practice, you'll be able to do it.

--
Regards, BobF.

[Frank Olson]

a wrote:
> A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
> flying practice. When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
> of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
> two for the non mathematically inclined) I fly the nominal altitude
> less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
> of course is if the unseen/unreported converging traffic is at the
> correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
> because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
> makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
> hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
> risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
> To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
> flying.
>
> Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
> safety?


I fly at the assigned altitude, period. I put my trust in the
controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
are just as trustworthy (and professional). Someone that thinks
deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's going
to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
that in the name of "safety".

[JB]

On Aug 27, 12:22*pm, Frank Olson
> wrote:
> a wrote:
> I fly at the assigned altitude, period. *I put my trust in the
> controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
> are just as trustworthy (and professional). *Someone that thinks
> deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
> minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's going
> to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
> that in the name of "safety".- Hide quoted text -

I fly the assigned altitude as well. And while I put my trust in the
controller, I occassionally hear the little voice in my head reminding
of that pilot saying..."When the pilot makes a mistake, the pilot
dies. When the controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies."

--Jeff

[the extremophile]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:22:12 GMT, Frank Olson wrote:

> I fly at the assigned altitude, period. I put my trust in the
> controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
> are just as trustworthy (and professional). Someone that thinks
> deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
> minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's going
> to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
> that in the name of "safety".

Jesus trusted Judas.

****ing moron.

[Mike[_22_]]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> One thing to remember is if a controller ever asks, do NOT tell them you
>> are
>> 200' (or more) off your assigned altitude. A good stalling technique is
>> to
>> ask them for the altimeter setting again and quickly correct while they
>> are
>> giving it to you. The people who get busted are the ones that fess up.
>
> You can also tell them you are resetting the transponder. While it is
> off, fly to the correct altitude.

That's pretty much unnecessary and if your transponder is off for very long
it can cause your tag to go into coast on the controller's scope which means
he has to reacquire and that certainly won't score you any points.

The controller is not going to bust you by a small altitude deviation based
on what he sees on his scope. The reason is because it's possible for
barometric pressure to vary over small distances which cause errors. His
scope only reads in 100' increments also. He doesn't know what your
altimeter is reading until you tell him, which is the most accurate
instrument. A good controller will repeat the altimeter setting which is
your que to check your altitude. If you miss that que, and he asks you what
your altitude is, and you report something different than what you were
assigned, there's a good chance you're going to be writing down a number.
Most controllers do not want to bust you, but they are left with few options
these days.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

the extremophile <" the > wrote in news:g94e7s
:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:22:12 GMT, Frank Olson wrote:
>
>> I fly at the assigned altitude, period. I put my trust in the
>> controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
>> are just as trustworthy (and professional). Someone that thinks
>> deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
>> minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's going
>> to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
>> that in the name of "safety".
>
> Jesus trusted Judas.


Why would he need to do that if he knew what he was going to do?


>
> ****ing moron.


Tch tch , that'll get you a fast boat to hell.


Bertie
>

[Mike[_22_]]

"Frank Olson" > wrote in message
news:Uaftk.124355$nD.38043@pd7urf1no...
>a wrote:
>> A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
>> flying practice. When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
>> of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
>> two for the non mathematically inclined) I fly the nominal altitude
>> less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
>> of course is if the unseen/unreported converging traffic is at the
>> correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
>> because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
>> makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
>> hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
>> risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
>> To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
>> flying.
>>
>> Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
>> safety?
>
>
> I fly at the assigned altitude, period. I put my trust in the controllers
> and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me are just as
> trustworthy (and professional). Someone that thinks deviating from an
> assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or minus) is "OK" should
> spend a few hours with an instructor that's going to rap your knuckles
> with a ruler when you try pulling something like that in the name of
> "safety".

I would say that would be a good instructor to have. It's important to
remember that IFR mid-airs are practically unheard of (at least in the US).
Many times the verticle separation between aircraft is 1,000'. If you're
purposely flying above or below, you've just effectively reduced that margin
for safety. You're also making the controller's job harder, because he has
to keep an extra eye out for someone who can't hold his assigned altitude.

[Mike[_22_]]

"JB" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 27, 12:22 pm, Frank Olson
> > wrote:
> > a wrote:
> > I fly at the assigned altitude, period. I put my trust in the
> > controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
> > are just as trustworthy (and professional). Someone that thinks
> > deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
> > minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's going
> > to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
> > that in the name of "safety".- Hide quoted text -
>
> I fly the assigned altitude as well. And while I put my trust in the
> controller, I occassionally hear the little voice in my head reminding
> of that pilot saying..."When the pilot makes a mistake, the pilot
> dies. When the controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies."

Never trust a controller. They will NOT return the favor anyway.

[john smith]

In article <SNhtk.966$w51.146@trnddc01>, "Mike" >
wrote:

> The controller is not going to bust you by a small altitude deviation based
> on what he sees on his scope.

The problem is, FAA HQ has recently state that the controller is being
taken out of the loop and the deviations are being automatically
recorded. The controllers don't like it and have voiced their concerns
in the past few weeks.

[Frank Olson]

JB wrote:
> On Aug 27, 12:22 pm, Frank Olson
> > wrote:
>> a wrote:
>> I fly at the assigned altitude, period. I put my trust in the
>> controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
>> are just as trustworthy (and professional). Someone that thinks
>> deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
>> minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's going
>> to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
>> that in the name of "safety".- Hide quoted text -
>
> I fly the assigned altitude as well. And while I put my trust in the
> controller, I occassionally hear the little voice in my head reminding
> of that pilot saying..."When the pilot makes a mistake, the pilot
> dies. When the controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies."
>
> --Jeff
>


I hear ya, but let's not make the controller's job more difficult by
deviating from our assigned altitude. The fewer "yo-yo's" in the air,
the better. :-)

[Frank Olson]

Mike wrote:

> ... You're also making the controller's job harder,
> because he has to keep an extra eye out for someone who can't hold his
> assigned altitude.

EXACTLY!!

[Frank Olson]

the extremophile wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:22:12 GMT, Frank Olson wrote:
>
>> I fly at the assigned altitude, period. I put my trust in the
>> controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
>> are just as trustworthy (and professional). Someone that thinks
>> deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
>> minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's going
>> to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
>> that in the name of "safety".
>
> Jesus trusted Judas.

Yes, he did. Jesus "trusted" him to fulfill his destiny (and the
Scriptures). Judas didn't exactly "betray" Jesus. I believe He even
gave Judas leave to do what he had to.

But we digress. This is an aviation related forum. Let's try to stay
on topic.

>
> ****ing moron.

Hey, nice sig line!

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

John Smith wrote:
>
>The problem is, FAA HQ has recently state that the controller is being
>taken out of the loop and the deviations are being automatically
>recorded. The controllers don't like it and have voiced their concerns
>in the past few weeks.

If that is the case, they are probably not nit picking 100 ft. deviations.
Since altitude is reported in 100 ft. increments by the encoder, it's pretty
normal for a controller to see +/- 100 ft. when someone is flying right on
the altitude. If you're flying 1 ft. above your assigned altitude, a
properly working encoder could show you to be 100 ft. high. Last time I
visited a TRACON, there were numerous targets that were +/- 100 ft. and the
controller assumed they were flying the correct altitude.

300 ft. is where they start asking questions. If your real altitude and
your squawked altitude differ by 300 ft. or more, ATC will have you turn off
the Mode C (assuming that cycling didn't help).

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Mike[_22_]]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <SNhtk.966$w51.146@trnddc01>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
>> The controller is not going to bust you by a small altitude deviation
>> based
>> on what he sees on his scope.
>
> The problem is, FAA HQ has recently state that the controller is being
> taken out of the loop and the deviations are being automatically
> recorded. The controllers don't like it and have voiced their concerns
> in the past few weeks.

There is no snitch patch in the TRACONs and towers. Controllers self
report almost all errors. The centers have had the snitch patch for years.

[Mike[_22_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:8950357b63687@uwe...
> John Smith wrote:
>>
>>The problem is, FAA HQ has recently state that the controller is being
>>taken out of the loop and the deviations are being automatically
>>recorded. The controllers don't like it and have voiced their concerns
>>in the past few weeks.
>
> If that is the case, they are probably not nit picking 100 ft.
> deviations.
> Since altitude is reported in 100 ft. increments by the encoder, it's
> pretty
> normal for a controller to see +/- 100 ft. when someone is flying right on
> the altitude. If you're flying 1 ft. above your assigned altitude, a
> properly working encoder could show you to be 100 ft. high. Last time I
> visited a TRACON, there were numerous targets that were +/- 100 ft. and
> the
> controller assumed they were flying the correct altitude.
>
> 300 ft. is where they start asking questions. If your real altitude and
> your squawked altitude differ by 300 ft. or more, ATC will have you turn
> off
> the Mode C (assuming that cycling didn't help).

There's been numerous busts of 200' in the last few months, so the margin
for error becomes less.

[buttman]

On Aug 27, 10:22*am, Frank Olson
> wrote:
> a wrote:
> > A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
> > flying practice. * When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
> > of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
> > two for the non mathematically inclined) I *fly the nominal altitude
> > less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
> > of course is if the unseen/unreported *converging traffic is at the
> > correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
> > because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
> > makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
> > hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
> > risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
> > To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
> > flying.
>
> > Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
> > safety?
>
> I fly at the assigned altitude, period. *I put my trust in the
> controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
> are just as trustworthy (and professional). *Someone that thinks
> deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
> minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's going
> to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
> that in the name of "safety".

I many jets, it's nearly impossible to hold +/-100 feet for any
extended period of time without the autopilot. In a single engine
piston, its not a problem, but with heavier and faster planes, it gets
much harder.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

buttman > wrote in news:7a1a8551-4840-45e3-a452-
:

> On Aug 27, 10:22*am, Frank Olson
> > wrote:
>> a wrote:
>> > A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an
personal
>> > flying practice. * When en route, as a way of reducing the
likelihood
>> > of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor
of
>> > two for the non mathematically inclined) I *fly the nominal
altitude
>> > less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The
idea
>> > of course is if the unseen/unreported *converging traffic is at the
>> > correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose
lower
>> > because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree
this
>> > makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
>> > hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
>> > risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have
overlooked?
>> > To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
>> > flying.
>>
>> > Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
>> > safety?
>>
>> I fly at the assigned altitude, period. *I put my trust in the
>> controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
>> are just as trustworthy (and professional). *Someone that thinks
>> deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
>> minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's
going
>> to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
>> that in the name of "safety".
>
> I many jets, it's nearly impossible to hold +/-100 feet for any
> extended period of time without the autopilot.


Bull****.


Bertie

[Just go look it up!]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:43:18 -0400, John Smith > wrote:

>In article <SNhtk.966$w51.146@trnddc01>, "Mike" >
>wrote:
>
>> The controller is not going to bust you by a small altitude deviation based
>> on what he sees on his scope.
>
>The problem is, FAA HQ has recently state that the controller is being
>taken out of the loop and the deviations are being automatically
>recorded. The controllers don't like it and have voiced their concerns
>in the past few weeks.

What's the turnaround time for the FSDO letter with the new automated
system?

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:09:01 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote:

>John Smith wrote:
>>
>>The problem is, FAA HQ has recently state that the controller is being
>>taken out of the loop and the deviations are being automatically
>>recorded. The controllers don't like it and have voiced their concerns
>>in the past few weeks.
>
> If that is the case, they are probably not nit picking 100 ft. deviations.
>Since altitude is reported in 100 ft. increments by the encoder, it's pretty
>normal for a controller to see +/- 100 ft. when someone is flying right on
>the altitude. If you're flying 1 ft. above your assigned altitude, a
>properly working encoder could show you to be 100 ft. high. Last time I
>visited a TRACON, there were numerous targets that were +/- 100 ft. and the
>controller assumed they were flying the correct altitude.

A properly set encoder will not switch to the next altitude until 50'.
So 1149 will read 1100, 1150 will read 1200. That doesn't even
include the allowable instrument error in the altimeter.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 27, 12:22*pm, Frank Olson
> wrote:
> a wrote:
> > A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
> > flying practice. * When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
> > of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
> > two for the non mathematically inclined) I *fly the nominal altitude
> > less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
> > of course is if the unseen/unreported *converging traffic is at the
> > correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
> > because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
> > makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
> > hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
> > risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
> > To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
> > flying.
>
> > Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
> > safety?
>
> I fly at the assigned altitude, period. *I put my trust in the
> controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
> are just as trustworthy (and professional). *Someone that thinks
> deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
> minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's going
> to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
> that in the name of "safety".

As a matter of fact this altitude offset was something a CFII with
whom I was flying with did routinely. If a guy is on the gauges and
can't hold +/- 50 feet en route I would not fly with him. I'll
continue that practice, and I like the idea of missing VORs by a
quarter mile or so. Not quite sure I can do that with the same
precision I can fly altitude, though.

So in spite of all of the off topic stuff I've come away with a couple
of useful things the past few weeks -- that gentle clearing turns when
entering a pattern is a good idea, as is not directly overflying a
VOR.

RAP is working!!!

[Frank Olson]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> buttman > wrote in news:7a1a8551-4840-45e3-a452-
> :
>
>> On Aug 27, 10:22 am, Frank Olson
>> > wrote:
>>> a wrote:
>>>> A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an
> personal
>>>> flying practice. When en route, as a way of reducing the
> likelihood
>>>> of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor
> of
>>>> two for the non mathematically inclined) I fly the nominal
> altitude
>>>> less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The
> idea
>>>> of course is if the unseen/unreported converging traffic is at the
>>>> correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose
> lower
>>>> because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree
> this
>>>> makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
>>>> hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
>>>> risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have
> overlooked?
>>>> To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
>>>> flying.
>>>> Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
>>>> safety?
>>> I fly at the assigned altitude, period. I put my trust in the
>>> controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
>>> are just as trustworthy (and professional). Someone that thinks
>>> deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
>>> minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's
> going
>>> to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
>>> that in the name of "safety".
>> I many jets, it's nearly impossible to hold +/-100 feet for any
>> extended period of time without the autopilot.
>
>
> Bull****.
>
>
> Bertie
>


It really surprises me on how many things we agree on considering you're
"supposed to be" a notorious "troll". But then all I have to really
base that opinion on is the assertion of several other rather more
obvious "trolls"... Ah me... Life was so much simpler before USENET.
To think, I'd be out there vacuuming the cabin of the plane right now if
it wasn't for this group... :-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Frank Olson > wrote in
news:UyLtk.51242$hx.9049@pd7urf3no:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> buttman > wrote in news:7a1a8551-4840-45e3-a452-
>> :
>>
>>> On Aug 27, 10:22 am, Frank Olson
>>> > wrote:
>>>> a wrote:
>>>>> A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an
>> personal
>>>>> flying practice. When en route, as a way of reducing the
>> likelihood
>>>>> of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor
>> of
>>>>> two for the non mathematically inclined) I fly the nominal
>> altitude
>>>>> less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The
>> idea
>>>>> of course is if the unseen/unreported converging traffic is at
the
>>>>> correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose
>> lower
>>>>> because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree
>> this
>>>>> makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the
other
>>>>> hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-
flight
>>>>> risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have
>> overlooked?
>>>>> To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely
when
>>>>> flying.
>>>>> Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
>>>>> safety?
>>>> I fly at the assigned altitude, period. I put my trust in the
>>>> controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with
me
>>>> are just as trustworthy (and professional). Someone that thinks
>>>> deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
>>>> minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's
>> going
>>>> to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something
like
>>>> that in the name of "safety".
>>> I many jets, it's nearly impossible to hold +/-100 feet for any
>>> extended period of time without the autopilot.
>>
>>
>> Bull****.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>
> It really surprises me on how many things we agree on considering
you're
> "supposed to be" a notorious "troll". But then all I have to really
> base that opinion on is the assertion of several other rather more
> obvious "trolls"... Ah me... Life was so much simpler before USENET.
> To think, I'd be out there vacuuming the cabin of the plane right now
if
> it wasn't for this group... :-)
>

Yeah, me too!

Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"a" > wrote in message
...
>A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
> flying practice. When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
> of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
> two for the non mathematically inclined) I fly the nominal altitude
> less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
> of course is if the unseen/unreported converging traffic is at the
> correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
> because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
> makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
> hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
> risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
> To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
> flying.
>


Well, it's not a new idea. And, if you convince everyone to do it, then the
potential benifit is lost. So it would be best to not tell anyone, eh?

Plus per 14 CFR 91.159:
"each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more
than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude
or flight level prescribed below"

What you might have overlooked is that it doesn't say "maintain an altitude
minus 100 feet". If you think it's a good idea, fine - go for it. But it
would be best not to tell anyone just in case someone has a bone to pick,
eh?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 29, 11:43*pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My
Sig.com> wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
> > flying practice. * When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
> > of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
> > two for the non mathematically inclined) I *fly the nominal altitude
> > less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
> > of course is if the unseen/unreported *converging traffic is at the
> > correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
> > because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
> > makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
> > hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
> > risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
> > To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
> > flying.
>
> Well, it's not a new idea. And, if you convince everyone to do it, then the
> potential benifit is lost. So it would be best to not tell anyone, eh?
>
> Plus per 14 CFR 91.159:
> "each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more
> than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude
> or flight level prescribed below"
>
> What you might have overlooked is that it doesn't say "maintain an altitude
> minus 100 feet". If you think it's a good idea, fine - go for it. *But it
> would be best not to tell anyone just in case someone has a bone to pick,
> eh?
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Well, no. First, it would appear from what I've read here that most
choose not to hold altitudes as closely as I do, second high winged
airplanes would choose to fly above nominal altitudes. I'll maintain
my practice, and include some of the other ideas that have been
presented here lately, I think the best one that RAP inspired is to
include mild clearing turns when approaching a pattern

[More_Flaps]

On Aug 30, 3:43*pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My
Sig.com> wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
> > flying practice. * When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
> > of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
> > two for the non mathematically inclined) I *fly the nominal altitude
> > less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
> > of course is if the unseen/unreported *converging traffic is at the
> > correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
> > because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
> > makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
> > hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
> > risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
> > To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
> > flying.
>
> Well, it's not a new idea. And, if you convince everyone to do it, then the
> potential benifit is lost. So it would be best to not tell anyone, eh?
>
> Plus per 14 CFR 91.159:
> "each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more
> than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude
> or flight level prescribed below"
>
> What you might have overlooked is that it doesn't say "maintain an altitude
> minus 100 feet". If you think it's a good idea, fine - go for it. *But it
> would be best not to tell anyone just in case someone has a bone to pick,
> eh?
>

He could reduce the risk even more by not getting off the ground.
I must reduce my chances of a midair to near zero by never being able
to hold any altitude perfectly constant ;-)
Well except for when I'm doing the car thing... LOL