Changing VFR Altitude While Getting Radar Services

Jmcmanna said:
The point of flight following is generally to aid in avoiding conflicts with other aircraft, right?
Click to expand...

Right.

If you're operating at a certain altitude, I appreciate an advisory before changing altitude because I may have a plan to work around that altitude with bigger/faster traffic. I never understand when pilots call for advisories, then ignore me when I issue traffic calls, suggested headings away from other traffic, etc...(happens all the time). I am more perplexed when I assign an at-or-below altitude for traffic, then the pilot climbs through it and causes a 737 to have an RA.
Click to expand...

Where do you assign at-or-below altitudes to VFR traffic?
 
roncachamp said:
Where do you assign at-or-below altitudes to VFR traffic?
Click to expand...

I don't know where he does, but just last Friday I was instructed to remain at or below 4500' (I think it was) as I was coming into KEYE from the WSW. I was still well west of the western edges of KIND bravo (like 20 miles) when I was given this "restriction".
 
flyingron said:
Note that just because you are getting flight following from ATC doesn't mean they are authorizing you to fly at a random altitude not consistent with 91.159.
Click to expand...

I replied... said:
Thanks. Wasn't completely clear to me before, but is now. Appreciate it!
Click to expand...

OK. I lied and I have confused myself again.

I just looked at 91.159 and notice that it says a VFR pilot should maintain the prescribed VFR altitudes "unless authorized by ATC."

When and how would ATC clearly authorize me to fly at a non-standard VFR altitude?

Here's a hypothetical...

Is an announcement of my intent to climb to altitude of 5500, followed by ATC saying "radar contact, proceed as requested," authorization to fly at that altitude? It would seem so to me.

If so, assuming ATC knew of my intended flight path and it involved a turn to a non-159 altitude, wouldn't I still have ATC authorization to remain at that altitude when I make that turn?

Edit: I would not want to do this as I know there may be non-participating VFR aircraft flying in generally opposite directions and ATC is only providing me with radar services on an as-available basis.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
Ron assumes the Chief Counsel included controller instructions that are contrary to Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control. That assumption is illogical.
Click to expand...
Steven assumes facts not in evidence since neither the regulation nor the Chief Counsel letter make any such distinction You can listen to Steve or you can listen to the Chief Counsel. Choose wisely.
 
I've never had a controller say "proceed as requested." Asking for flight following usually generates an altimeter setting, a squawk code, and radar contact (occasionally with a maintain VFR). If you want to assume that just because the controller has you in radar contact he is authorizing you to fly at a non-standard cruising altitude, especially in light of course changes, etc... is more of a leap of faith than I want to make.

Now if I told him I was going to fly at 4000 and he said altitude at your discretion, then I would assume I do have his authorization.
 
flyingron said:
I've never had a controller say "proceed as requested."
Click to expand...

Thanks Ron :). However, in case it matters, my hypothetical is based on yesterday's flight when ATC went a little bit beyond confirming radar contact. I recorded the communications and his exact words were "Radar contact. Proceed as requested."

I'm not sure it means anything specific relative to 91.159.

flyingron said:
Now if I told him I was going to fly at 4000 and he said altitude at your discretion, then I would assume I do have his authorization.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but "altitude at your discretion" is a little ambiguous as far as being an authorization. In other words, one might reasonably interpret "your discretion" as the opposite of an authorization. It sounds almost like he's saying do whatever you want, not that it's OK by him for you to fly at 4000.
 
flyingron said:
Now if I told him I was going to fly at 4000 and he said altitude at your discretion, then I would assume I do have his authorization.
Click to expand...

But I doubt the FAA is gonna buy "but ATC told me it was OK" if you smack into another plane at 4000' while VFR cuz he was supposed to be at 3500' and you at 4500'

I always look at is as "...at your discretion [within the limitations and regulations of the flight rules under which you are operating]"
 
Last edited:
This thread has been well thrashed, but I'd like to ask a related question.
If a controller says "advise before altitude change", how long does that apply? Is it suspended if we are handed off to a different controller?

And unrelated, last weekend we were returning from Key West and ATC vectored us around an Airbus. The vector carried us into class Bravo without the magic words and there was absolutely no break on the frequency for us to ask further instructions. Should we have changed course, or continue into Bravo without specific clearance. We chose to follow his directions and bust Bravo, and when we finally got through he just said resume own navigation.

We also requested 6500 ft. We were cleared to 3500, then 4500, then 5500 then 6500. Half of them were incorrect, but we followed their assignments.
 
Last edited:
I believe you can be busted. You must hear the magic words, "Cleared into Bravo," to enter.

I don't know if I've heard of a case of a controller purposefully asking you to go on a course into Bravo and then busting you with an "AH HAH! GOT YOU!" but, if you're under VFR, it is your job as PIC to ensure you have the clearance to enter.

On the same trip under Flight Following I mentioned a page back, I was approaching Miramar's Bravo north of Mt Soledad which is from 1,800 to 3,200 off shore and SoCal Approach asked me to descend 2,500 as I approached that shelf. I asked for confirmation "SoCal Approach confirm 2,500" and he responded with "Affirmitive, that will put you into Bravo, cleared to enter at 2,500 traffic at... "

I doubt it was a test and Miramar probably wasn't active at that time, but I'm glad I asked for confirmation.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Steven assumes facts not in evidence since neither the regulation nor the Chief Counsel letter make any such distinction You can listen to Steve or you can listen to the Chief Counsel. Choose wisely.
Click to expand...

Steven is correct. The Chief Counsel did not interpret the regulation but rather attempted a rewrite. This has been discussed before. You are unmoved by the contradictions that arise by the "interpretation." That is unwise.
 
JOhnH said:
This thread has been well thrashed, but I'd like to ask a related question.
If a controller says "advise before altitude change", how long does that apply? Is it suspended if we are handed off to a different controller?

And unrelated, last weekend we were returning from Key West and ATC vectored us around an Airbus. The vector carried us into class Bravo without the magic words and there was absolutely no break on the frequency for us to ask further instructions. Should we have changed course, or continue into Bravo without specific clearance. We chose to follow his directions and bust Bravo, and when we finally got through he just said resume own navigation.

We also requested 6500 ft. We were cleared to 3500, then 4500, then 5500 then 6500. Half of them were incorrect, but we followed their assignments.
Click to expand...


Miami center gets CRAZY busy and getting a word in is very hard....

My guess is the controller had you id'ed on his screen and was too wrapped up to give you the "magic" words, but he saw you were following his previous commands and kept the traffic flowing.....

When we leave out of Tamiami in the jet headed back to Wyoming we file for FL450 and they step us up asap... But it still usually takes till almost the Lakeland VOR till they clear us to the final cruise level..
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Thanks Ron :). However, in case it matters, my hypothetical is based on yesterday's flight when ATC went a little bit beyond confirming radar contact. I recorded the communications and his exact words were "Radar contact. Proceed as requested."
Click to expand...
it means exactly what it says -- as far as ATC is concerned, you are authorized to do whatever you asked to do.
Maybe, but "altitude at your discretion" is a little ambiguous as far as being an authorization. In other words, one might reasonably interpret "your discretion" as the opposite of an authorization. It sounds almost like he's saying do whatever you want, not that it's OK by him for you to fly at 4000.
Click to expand...
That is correct. You aren't required by ATC to be at any particular altitude, but that's the limit of what they are saying.
 
JOhnH said:
If a controller says "advise before altitude change", how long does that apply? Is it suspended if we are handed off to a different controller?
Click to expand...
Uncertain, so I would still ask.

And unrelated, last weekend we were returning from Key West and ATC vectored us around an Airbus. The vector carried us into class Bravo without the magic words and there was absolutely no break on the frequency for us to ask further instructions. Should we have changed course, or continue into Bravo without specific clearance. We chose to follow his directions and bust Bravo, and when we finally got through he just said resume own navigation.
Click to expand...
You should not have entered the Bravo. This was the subject of a specific Chief Counsel letter some time back.
 
Ron Levy said:
You should not have entered the Bravo. This was the subject of a specific Chief Counsel letter some time back.
Click to expand...

Would I at least get a little sympathy since the controller ordered me to turn to that heading due to an Airbus climbing through my flight path and I hadn't been able to see the Airbus yet? As it was, the turbulence we proceeded through soon after was kind of thrilling. Not bad but very noticeable.
 
If it's an emergency (and a potential mid-air with an Airbus is certainly that), then the emergency exception in 91.3(b) applies and you go wherever you have to in order to avoid the mid-air despite that violating 91.131(a)(1).
 
Regarding the Chief Counsel interpretation, whatever Jim L and Steven think, it's the way it is unless/until the US Court of Appeals says otherwise. You can argue that point before that court if you like, but you're not likely to win.
 
Ron Levy said:
Regarding the Chief Counsel interpretation, whatever Jim L and Steven think, it's the way it is unless/until the US Court of Appeals says otherwise. You can argue that point before that court if you like, but you're not likely to win.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, and not that it's necessarily a smart thing to do, but can a VFR pilot, while flying in Class E airspace and receiving flight following, summarily and immediately go it on his own by saying something like this?

"Sometown Approach, Bugsmasher 1234 is terminating radar services. So long."
 
Ron Levy said:
No, and that is covered in the letter.
Click to expand...

I don't remember that in the Karas letter Ron. Is there another version?

If in communications with ATC, then yes, you must comply. There is nothing in it that says you can't terminate on your own though. One is not compelled to use FF until ATC says they're done with you.
 
Last edited:
GeorgeC said:
Sometimes, ATC has gotten cranky when I let them know I intended to change altitude ("altitude your discretion..."). Other times, ATC has gotten cranky when I changed altitude without first letting them know.
Click to expand...

Yep, happens to me on occassion. I know the rules, but I am going to tell them anyway as a courtesy. They don't like it? Too bad.
 
JOhnH said:
If a controller says "advise before altitude change", how long does that apply? Is it suspended if we are handed off to a different controller?
Click to expand...
I always assume it applies until he later tells you "altitude your discretion". If he doesn't tell me on his own, then it typically happens when I advise him of an altitude change.
 
anigif_enhanced-buzz-24936-1366672649-1.gif
 
If you request a VFR descent then yeah, they might come back with a " no need to request a descent. Maintain VFR." If you simply announce your actions of a VFR descent like I do, then most likely you'll just get a "roger." I don't even wait for a reply. Just do it.
 
The way it works: Bugsmasher with appr/dep/center on FF. Ctlr issues an instruction(direction, alt, restriction, etc). There are two, and only two correct replies. "Bugsmasher 12345, wilco"(turn, climb, no climb, no descend, etc). Or "Bugsmasher 12345 Unable; (optionally - reason)". You can cancel on your own, but if you do, and do not comply with the last instruction, you have committed a violation(so the chief says).

The fact that they can and do give 'instruction' to a VFR pilot on FF is a different but related discussion. I think, but will no prove it's also a reason one often hears the kind of "whatever dude" response you get from ATC when you advise them of what you are doing. It's an example of asymmetric communication which the FAA allows because it satisfies their charge of the NAS, however it leaves serious gaps which several have fallen into, such as the snarkiness expressed in the OP, and the poor sod who took the direction, went into the B space, and was subsequently violated. In that case, if the instruction were given, I would reply "unable", and if unable to reply unable, I would circle before going into the B and if that causes a RA (conflict), that's just too damn bad, cause I'm not taking a violation for the ATC screwup.
 
Last edited:
register@teamandras.com said:
OK. I lied and I have confused myself again.

I just looked at 91.159 and notice that it says a VFR pilot should maintain the prescribed VFR altitudes "unless authorized by ATC."
Click to expand...

Prior to the establishment of TCAs, what we now call Class B airspace, there was no provision in FAR 91.159 (then FAR 91.109) for ATC authorization of
incorrect VFR cruising altitudes. Here is the old regulation:

91.109 VFR cruising altitude or flight level.

Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while
turning, 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:

(a) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and--

(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd
thousand foot MSL altitude +500 feet (such as 3,500, 5,500, or 7,500); or

(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even
thousand foot MSL altitude +500 feet (such as 4,500, 6,500, or 8,500).

(b) When operating above 18,000 feet MSL to flight level 290 (inclusive)
and--

(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd
flight level +500 feet (such as 195, 215, or 235); or

(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even
flight level +500 feet (such as 185, 205, or 225).

(c) When operating above flight level 290 and--

(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any flight
level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 300
(such as flight level 300, 340, or 380); or

(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any flight
level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 320
(such as flight level 320, 360, or 400).
Click to expand...

If ATC was to provide separation for VFR aircraft it must have authority to assign routes, altitudes, and headings to VFR aircraft and the FAR had to
be changed or pilots would be in violation when instructed to maintain altitudes that did not conform to the regulation. The clause "unless otherwise authorized by ATC" had to be added.

When and how would ATC clearly authorize me to fly at a non-standard VFR altitude?
Click to expand...

In a TRSA, in Class C airspace as well as the Outer Area associated with it, and in Class B airspace. See Order JO 7110.65 Air Traffic Control, paragraphs 7−7−5. ALTITUDE ASSIGNMENTS, 7−8−5. ALTITUDE ASSIGNMENTS, and 7−9−7. ALTITUDE ASSIGNMENTS.

Here's a hypothetical...

Is an announcement of my intent to climb to altitude of 5500, followed by ATC saying "radar contact, proceed as requested," authorization to fly at that altitude? It would seem so to me.
Click to expand...

Sure, but only where ATC can assign altitudes to VFR aircraft; within a TRSA, in Class C airspace as well as the Outer Area associated with it, and in Class B airspace. Upon leaving these areas ATC must instruct aircraft that have been assigned altitudes which are contrary to FAR 91.159 to resume altitudes appropriate for the direction of flight.

If so, assuming ATC knew of my intended flight path and it involved a turn to a non-159 altitude, wouldn't I still have ATC authorization to remain at that altitude when I make that turn?
Click to expand...

Altitude assignments/restrictions remain in effect until altered or rescinded.
 
wow this is sure getting complicated. when I learned to fly, I was taught that the pilot and ATC relationship was mutually professional and a team effort. Any changes to route/altitude/headings, would be communicated to ATC first, even if VFR. 99% of the time, the ATC reply is "Cessna 456, thanks, you are VFR proceed at your discretion" or similar phrase.

It looks like the last 20 years and 8000+ hours (taught how to fly by a crop duster by the way) I have been doing it all wrong, and from today forward, I will consult the FAR/AIM and Chief Counsel opinions before I make an altitude change.

While 95% of this deals with traffic separation (ATC's primary role), a portion of it deals with other stuff, such as "Did Pilot Joe just have a heart attack" and "why is Pilot Joe doing XYZ". If you are flying heading 090 in cruise, on FF, and then fly 100 to get around a puffy cloud, that is fine. If you suddenly, without communicating, fly 180 and do some orbits to take a pic of that pretty lake, even VFR FF, ATC is gonna ask whats up. If you make a 1000 foot altitude change, ATC will probably ask whats up. Etc

Yes I know what the regs say and what Chief Counsel says etc.

In the post 9-11 climate, the FAA is much more sensitive to security issues and pilot behavior, as they should be.

If you want (and are using) ATC services, then you can't do stuff "on your own" because you are no longer "on your own", you are with ATC. It is ATC and YOU, together.

I could care less about the argument claiming "but I am VFR", if you decided to have a guy at an ATC facility, on the other side of the microphone, provide flight following, then you need to work with him and not against him.

Put the shoe on the other foot. What would you, the Pilot prefer ? ATC suddenly, out of nowhere, tells you "Cherokee 123, squawk 1200, FF is terminated, good day" or "Cherokee 123, tell you what, in 20 miles, my radar can't see you anymore, plan on squawking 1200 and I won't be able to provide FF at that point"

Which one is preferred ?

If you want to do stuff on your own, then be on your own
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Steven assumes facts not in evidence since neither the regulation nor the Chief Counsel letter make any such distinction You can listen to Steve or you can listen to the Chief Counsel. Choose wisely.
Click to expand...

Did I? Is it not your position that pilots operating VFR must adhere to an ATC assigned altitude or altitude restriction even when not operating in a TRSA, when not in Class C airspace including the Outer Area associated with it, and when not in Class B airspace unless an emergency exists because the Chief Counsel says that's how it is?
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Out of curiosity, and not that it's necessarily a smart thing to do, but can a VFR pilot, while flying in Class E airspace and receiving flight following, summarily and immediately go it on his own by saying something like this?

"Sometown Approach, Bugsmasher 1234 is terminating radar services. So long."
Click to expand...

Affirmative.
 
B350ATP said:
wow this is sure getting complicated. when I learned to fly, I was taught that the pilot and ATC relationship was mutually professional and a team effort. Any changes to route/altitude/headings, would be communicated to ATC first, even if VFR. 99% of the time, the ATC reply is "Cessna 456, thanks, you are VFR proceed at your discretion" or similar phrase.

It looks like the last 20 years and 8000+ hours (taught how to fly by a crop duster by the way) I have been doing it all wrong, and from today forward, I will consult the FAR/AIM and Chief Counsel opinions before I make an altitude change.

While 95% of this deals with traffic separation (ATC's primary role), a portion of it deals with other stuff, such as "Did Pilot Joe just have a heart attack" and "why is Pilot Joe doing XYZ". If you are flying heading 090 in cruise, on FF, and then fly 100 to get around a puffy cloud, that is fine. If you suddenly, without communicating, fly 180 and do some orbits to take a pic of that pretty lake, even VFR FF, ATC is gonna ask whats up. If you make a 1000 foot altitude change, ATC will probably ask whats up. Etc

Yes I know what the regs say and what Chief Counsel says etc.

In the post 9-11 climate, the FAA is much more sensitive to security issues and pilot behavior, as they should be.

If you want (and are using) ATC services, then you can't do stuff "on your own" because you are no longer "on your own", you are with ATC. It is ATC and YOU, together.

I could care less about the argument claiming "but I am VFR", if you decided to have a guy at an ATC facility, on the other side of the microphone, provide flight following, then you need to work with him and not against him.

Put the shoe on the other foot. What would you, the Pilot prefer ? ATC suddenly, out of nowhere, tells you "Cherokee 123, squawk 1200, FF is terminated, good day" or "Cherokee 123, tell you what, in 20 miles, my radar can't see you anymore, plan on squawking 1200 and I won't be able to provide FF at that point"

Which one is preferred ?

If you want to do stuff on your own, then be on your own
Click to expand...

Hi B350ATP - If directed at me, don't confuse curiosity with contempt. I completely get the team effort with ATC. But, can't learn if you don't ask.
 
B350ATP said:
wow this is sure getting complicated.
Click to expand...
only by people trying to make it complicated. It's simple and straightforward.

It's part of our deal with ATC on flight following to let them know what we are doing.

If we actually get an instruction from ATC in controlled airspace, it is our obligation to follow it unless it presents a safety hazard or will result in violating something else (or both as a hypothetical instruction to fly into a cloud).
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Hi B350ATP - If directed at me, don't confuse curiosity with contempt. I completely get the team effort with ATC. But, can't learn if you don't ask.
Click to expand...

Not at you. It is a "broadcast in the blind" for those who may benefit from it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
only by people trying to make it complicated. It's simple and straightforward.

It's part of our deal with ATC on flight following to let them know what we are doing.

If we actually get an instruction from ATC in controlled airspace, it is our obligation to follow it unless it presents a safety hazard or will result in violating something else (or both as a hypothetical instruction to fly into a cloud).
Click to expand...

agree completely. But some folks seem like they could make a ham sandwich complicated
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Does it change your answer if you don't assume, as I think you're reasonably doing, that the VFR pilot just received some instruction from ATC?
Click to expand...
The question was whether once you receive an instruction you can eliminate the requirement to obey that instructing by terminating flight following, and the answer is "no". However, if there was no ATC instruction, then it really doesn't matter and you can terminate at will.
 
Velocity173 said:
I don't remember that in the Karas letter Ron. Is there another version?

If in communications with ATC, then yes, you must comply. There is nothing in it that says you can't terminate on your own though. One is not compelled to use FF until ATC says they're done with you.
Click to expand...
I see nothing in the regulation or the letter which says you can by any means opt not to obey an instruction once received, only that once an ATC instruction is received, you must obey it unless/until ATC says otherwise.

Like Mark and B350ATP said, it's pretty simple. Once you choose to be part of the system, you play by the rules until properly relieved of the obligation you chose to accept. If you don't want to play by the rules, don't enter the game, but then don't expect to receive the benefits of playing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top