En route altitudes and safety

"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.

"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.

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.

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. :-)

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!!

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!

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.

"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.

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.