En route altitudes and safety

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?

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

"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.

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?

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.

wrote in message
news
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.