If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
En route altitudes and safety
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
En route altitudes and safety
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? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
En route altitudes and safety
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
En route altitudes and safety
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!!! |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
En route altitudes and safety
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
En route altitudes and 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. 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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
En route altitudes and safety
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
En route altitudes and safety
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USA / The Soaring Safety Foundation (SSF) Safety Seminars 2008 | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | November 8th 07 11:15 PM |
The Soaring Safety Foundation (SSF) Safety Seminars Hit The Road in the USA | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | September 11th 06 03:48 AM |
Picking Optimal Altitudes | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 20 | January 8th 04 02:59 PM |
Center vs. Approach Altitudes | Joseph D. Farrell | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | October 21st 03 08:34 PM |
Ta-152H at low altitudes | N-6 | Military Aviation | 16 | October 13th 03 03:52 AM |