Can GPS be *too* accurate? Do I need some XTE??

Bill Denton ) wrote:

The separation of VFR/IFR aircraft is not covered in this section; the
separation of ALL aircraft is discussed in the previous section.

Then why are you and I having this disagreement?

You asked about separation of an aircraft flying at 6,000 feet,
presumably on an IFR flight plan, I maintained all along about the fact
that IFR flights are not separated from VFR flights and presented two
scenarios where an IFR aircraft at 6,000 feet might encounter a VFR
aircraft, yet you quote a passage that admittedly has nothing to do with
my posts.


The purpose of this section is to remind VFR-on-top-pilots that while they
are on an IFR flight plan, ATC has allowed them to deviate and fly under VFR
rules (including see and avoid) and that ATC is not obligated to provide
traffic guidance.

I am not sure what your point about VFR-on-top is, but as a reminder to
you, in the US VFR-on-TOP is a specific IFR clearance that must be
requested.

Simply being on an IFR flight plan in visual conditions is not the same
as VFR-on-top. In the case of the IFR flight in VMC, the pilot is still
guaranteed ATC separation between other IFR aircraft, but not VFR
aircraft (excluding class B).

Thus, to your question in your first post, an IFR aircraft at 6,000 feet
is still at risk of a mid-air collision.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Bill Denton ) wrote:

The separation of VFR/IFR aircraft is not covered in this section; the
separation of ALL aircraft is discussed in the previous section.

Then why are you and I having this disagreement?

You asked about separation of an aircraft flying at 6,000 feet,
presumably on an IFR flight plan, I maintained all along about the fact
that IFR flights are not separated from VFR flights and presented two
scenarios where an IFR aircraft at 6,000 feet might encounter a VFR
aircraft, yet you quote a passage that admittedly has nothing to do with
my posts.

No, the orignal poster presented the scenario. I simply pointed out that a
6000 feet he would be on an IFR flight plan, talking to ATC, and receiving
traffic from ATC.

You introduced the passage and misinterpreted it. I provided a correct
interpretation.


The purpose of this section is to remind VFR-on-top-pilots that while
they
are on an IFR flight plan, ATC has allowed them to deviate and fly under
VFR
rules (including see and avoid) and that ATC is not obligated to provide
traffic guidance.

I am not sure what your point about VFR-on-top is, but as a reminder to
you, in the US VFR-on-TOP is a specific IFR clearance that must be
requested.

And if you are granted that clearance, you will be flying under what are
essentially Visual Flight Rules, you will be allowed to deviate from your
as-filed flight plan, and ATC is not obligated to provide traffic guidance
outside of Class B's and TRSA's.They still have an open IFR flight plan;
they must either cancel IFR, or they must rejoin that flight plan at a
waypoint on the plan and continue fllying that flight plan.



Simply being on an IFR flight plan in visual conditions is not the same
as VFR-on-top. In the case of the IFR flight in VMC, the pilot is still
guaranteed ATC separation between other IFR aircraft, but not VFR
aircraft (excluding class B).

Thus, to your question in your first post, an IFR aircraft at 6,000 feet
is still at risk of a mid-air collision.

But a pilot flying on a VFR flight plan is required to observe "see and
avoid", and if he is observing it and taking appropriate evasive action, a
collision cannot occur.

Keep in mind that separation is not provided only by ATC traffic guidance
and "see and avoid", it's also provided by "east is odd, west is even, VFR
+500" altitudes and other things.



--
Peter

Bill Denton ) wrote:

No, the orignal poster presented the scenario. I simply pointed out that a
6000 feet he would be on an IFR flight plan, talking to ATC, and receiving
traffic from ATC.

6,000 feet guarantees an IFR flight plan? Really? You had better
notify the FAA about all those VFR pilots who fly around Denver, CO.

You introduced the passage and misinterpreted it. I provided a correct
interpretation.

OK, Bill, you win. Your string of non sequiturs throughout this portion
of the thread has worn me out. I have no idea what passage you think I
introduced, as in reality I didn't introduce any passage in this thread,
but nonetheless, you win. I didn't think you were a troll, since you
are a regular in this and other aviation forums, but your self-admitted
lack of any real aviation experience combined with your talent to post
with such authority and conviction now make me wonder.

--
Peter

An even number of hundreds of feet is reserved for IFR flights (5,000 or
6,000). VFR flights must be +500 (5,500 or 6,000). If you see someone
breaking the rules by flying VFR at 6,000 feet you should report them; it's
your safety that's at stake.

This is not a matter of winning an losing, it's a matter of learning the
rules and assuring everyone's safety.

And it's not a matter of aviation experience or the lack thereof. Very few
ATC controllers actually know how to fly. But we all read the same AIM, and
while it can sometimes be confusing, if you look at things in the larger
context you can usually make sense out of it. And if that fails, you can
always phone or email your local FSDO with any questions (which I frequently
do), I've always gotten very prompt answers.

As far as my "talent to post with such authority and conviction" goes, I've
been a professional writer most of my life; that's the way professional
writers write. But just because I write with "authority and conviction"
doesn't mean I'm always right. And I've been married and divorced four
times; I had more arguments than any man needs. I'm certainly not looking
for another. I'm here to learn and contribute what I can; that's all.




"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Bill Denton ) wrote:

No, the orignal poster presented the scenario. I simply pointed out that
a
6000 feet he would be on an IFR flight plan, talking to ATC, and
receiving
traffic from ATC.

6,000 feet guarantees an IFR flight plan? Really? You had better
notify the FAA about all those VFR pilots who fly around Denver, CO.

You introduced the passage and misinterpreted it. I provided a correct
interpretation.

OK, Bill, you win. Your string of non sequiturs throughout this portion
of the thread has worn me out. I have no idea what passage you think I
introduced, as in reality I didn't introduce any passage in this thread,
but nonetheless, you win. I didn't think you were a troll, since you
are a regular in this and other aviation forums, but your self-admitted
lack of any real aviation experience combined with your talent to post
with such authority and conviction now make me wonder.

--
Peter

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
An even number of hundreds of feet is reserved for IFR flights (5,000 or
6,000). VFR flights must be +500 (5,500 or 6,000). If you see someone
breaking the rules by flying VFR at 6,000 feet you should report them;
it's
your safety that's at stake.

Cruising altitudes need only be observed when above 3000' AGL. There are
plenty of places in the US where 6000' is NOT 3000' AGL, including Denver
(which Peter specifically mentioned).

Feel free to report a VFR pilot flying near Denver at 6000' for violating
the cruising altitude rules, but I doubt you'll find anyone to take you
seriously.

This is not a matter of winning an losing, it's a matter of learning the
rules and assuring everyone's safety.

It sure seems like it's a matter of "winning an [sic] losing" to you. Your
original reply to the original poster made implication that, since the
aircraft at 6000' must be IFR (not even necessarily true, but for the sake
of argument let's grant that), the pilot would be receiving traffic
advisories and so didn't need to worry about aircraft climing through his
cruise altitude of 6000'.

Your implication was patently false, and your continued insistence on trying
to introduce new, unrelated topics to the discussion sure make it seem like
you've dug your heels in and are willing to do pretty much whatever it takes
to avoid admitting that you made a mistake in your original reply.

If it's not a matter of "winning an [sic] losing" to you, why so resistant
to admitting your mistake?

Pete

This was my reply to the original poster:

And I don't know if this is a trick question, but if you are at 6000 (no
+500) wouldn't you be on an IFR flight plan, talking to ATC, and receiving
traffic advisories?

See that little squiggly thing with a dot under it at the end of the line?
That's called a "question mark". That means I was asking a question, not
that I "made implication", which is actually "implied", by the way.

Look around on the page today; I've made a couple of mistakes and readily
acknowledged them.

My response to Denver was incorrect, as you pointed out, and I readily
acknowledge it.

But I don't run around trying to pick arguments; I have much better things
to do with my life. Obviously, you don't...



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
An even number of hundreds of feet is reserved for IFR flights (5,000 or
6,000). VFR flights must be +500 (5,500 or 6,000). If you see someone
breaking the rules by flying VFR at 6,000 feet you should report them;
it's
your safety that's at stake.

Cruising altitudes need only be observed when above 3000' AGL. There are
plenty of places in the US where 6000' is NOT 3000' AGL, including Denver
(which Peter specifically mentioned).

Feel free to report a VFR pilot flying near Denver at 6000' for violating
the cruising altitude rules, but I doubt you'll find anyone to take you
seriously.

This is not a matter of winning an losing, it's a matter of learning the
rules and assuring everyone's safety.

It sure seems like it's a matter of "winning an [sic] losing" to you.
Your
original reply to the original poster made implication that, since the
aircraft at 6000' must be IFR (not even necessarily true, but for the sake
of argument let's grant that), the pilot would be receiving traffic
advisories and so didn't need to worry about aircraft climing through his
cruise altitude of 6000'.

Your implication was patently false, and your continued insistence on
trying
to introduce new, unrelated topics to the discussion sure make it seem
like
you've dug your heels in and are willing to do pretty much whatever it
takes
to avoid admitting that you made a mistake in your original reply.

If it's not a matter of "winning an [sic] losing" to you, why so resistant
to admitting your mistake?

Pete

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
This was my reply to the original poster:

And I don't know if this is a trick question, but if you are at 6000 (no
+500) wouldn't you be on an IFR flight plan, talking to ATC, and receiving
traffic advisories?

See that little squiggly thing with a dot under it at the end of the line?
That's called a "question mark". That means I was asking a question, not
that I "made implication"

The question implies that if you WERE "on an IFR flight plan, talking to
ATC, and receiving traffic advisories" that there's not an issue with
avoiding other airplanes.

Perhaps you'd like to start from the beginning and explain what the point of
that post was, if not to question whether an airplane in the originally
described scenario would need to worry about traffic avoidance?

In absence of any implication on your part, your reply appears to be
completely irrelevant and tangential, which confuses the reader (who expects
there to be some intended meaning).

Pete

Bill Denton wrote:

I am not sure what your point about VFR-on-top is, but as a reminder to
you, in the US VFR-on-TOP is a specific IFR clearance that must be
requested.


And if you are granted that clearance, you will be flying under what are
essentially Visual Flight Rules, you will be allowed to deviate from your
as-filed flight plan,

No. You must follow the flight plan just as if you were regular IFR.
Slight deviations for cloud clearance are OK. If you want a different
route then you must ask for and receive a new clearance.

"Cloud clearance" was what I was referring to; sorry for my lack of
clarity...




"Newps" wrote in message
...


Bill Denton wrote:

I am not sure what your point about VFR-on-top is, but as a reminder to
you, in the US VFR-on-TOP is a specific IFR clearance that must be
requested.


And if you are granted that clearance, you will be flying under what are
essentially Visual Flight Rules, you will be allowed to deviate from
your
as-filed flight plan,

No. You must follow the flight plan just as if you were regular IFR.
Slight deviations for cloud clearance are OK. If you want a different
route then you must ask for and receive a new clearance.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

No. You must follow the flight plan just as if you were regular IFR.
Slight deviations for cloud clearance are OK. If you want a different
route then you must ask for and receive a new clearance.


IFR "VFR on top" routing remains the same but you fly at VFR altitudes
(cardinal altitude plus 500) of your choice while remaining in VMC.

Allen