Block Allocation?

Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver-Reno yesterday, I heard
something like:

"Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation
for 39 to 41?"

and then

"Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved."

["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe
it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if
the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.]

Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.

Is that likely the case?

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
fuel economy without having to make repeated requests

Sounds like a "cruise clearance". Not sure why those words weren't used in
the request. There are any number of reasons to request a cruise clearance,
but a common one is if there's some sort of mountain wave action going on,
making it desirable to "go with the flow" as the wave alternately causes
ascents and descents.

2000' isn't a heck of wide range for that purpose, granted. But neither
would it be for the purpose of finding a smooth ride. Changing altitude
repeatedly isn't good for fuel economy, so I don't think that was the
purpose either.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
fuel economy without having to make repeated requests

Sounds like a "cruise clearance". Not sure why those words weren't used
in
the request.

According to the AIM P/CG, a cruise clearance permits flight from a single
specified altitude down to the minimum applicable IFR altitude; the
phraseology is e.g. "Cruise eight thousand". A block clearance, with an
explicit lower bound, is slightly different.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" writes:

[...]
Sounds like a "cruise clearance". Not sure why those words weren't used
in the request.

According to the AIM P/CG, a cruise clearance permits flight from a single
specified altitude down to the minimum applicable IFR altitude [...]

I believe a "cruise clearance" also implies an approach clearance, making it
even more different from an ordinary block altitude assignment.


- FChE

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:OgSVb.265595$na.420059@attbi_s04...
According to the AIM P/CG, a cruise clearance permits flight from a single
specified altitude down to the minimum applicable IFR altitude; the
phraseology is e.g. "Cruise eight thousand". A block clearance, with an
explicit lower bound, is slightly different.

Exactly right. Guess I'm the one who's been using the wrong phraseology
with ATC. Oh well...I guess they knew what I meant when I asked for a
cruise clearance between two altitudes. They've never corrected me, in all
my flights over the mountains when I've asked.

In any case, the basic idea is still the same. A block altitude gives the
pilot the ability to ride altitude changes without fighting them, which
results in a smoother ride, better fuel economy, and less work on the
pilot's part.

Pete

Cruise clearance allows you to operate freely between the specified
altitude and the minimum IFR altitude. If the lower limit is not the
MIA, then a block clearance is issued. At least that is my
understanding.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
fuel economy without having to make repeated requests

Sounds like a "cruise clearance". Not sure why those words weren't used in
the request. There are any number of reasons to request a cruise clearance,
but a common one is if there's some sort of mountain wave action going on,
making it desirable to "go with the flow" as the wave alternately causes
ascents and descents.

2000' isn't a heck of wide range for that purpose, granted. But neither
would it be for the purpose of finding a smooth ride. Changing altitude
repeatedly isn't good for fuel economy, so I don't think that was the
purpose either.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
[...]
Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
fuel economy without having to make repeated requests

Sounds like a "cruise clearance". Not sure why those words weren't used in
the request.

No, this is a block request. I ask for them a lot when flying over
mountains looking for a smooth ride. A cruise clearance is something
very different and you are probably not too likely to get it unless
you are out in the middle of nowhere.

-Robert

He asked for and received a block altitude. Controller phraseology
would be "Jackpot 123 maintain FL390 through FL410." Normally done at
this altitude for turbulence.



AES/newspost wrote:
Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver-Reno yesterday, I heard
something like:

"Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation
for 39 to 41?"

and then

"Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved."

["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe
it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if
the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.]

Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.

Is that likely the case?

In article ,
AES/newspost wrote:
Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.

That is bizjet territory so you can probably get a pretty big block
without conflicting with traffic. I wonder what happens when a bus
requests 330-350...

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

your analysis is essentially correct - they requested to be able to go FL
39-41 and in between without requesting additional clearance

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver-Reno yesterday, I heard
something like:

"Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation
for 39 to 41?"

and then

"Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved."

["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe
it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if
the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.]

Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down
freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best
fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center
was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway.

Is that likely the case?