Standard altitudes

S

Slackyhacky

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
54
Display Name
Display name:
Jeremy
Traveling east = odd altitudes

Traveling west = even altitudes

VFR add 500.

This rule makes no sense to me. What's the point of putting everyone at the same altitude? Wouldn't it be safer to not say "everyone going west, please fly at this same altitude ...try not to hit each other"
 
The closure rate in a head on is incredibly quick so I imagine this has something to do with it as well.
 
That's better than people going east at the same altitude as westbounders, head on!
 
The chance of a head on would be pretty small I think. I would prefer not ever getting hit. A guy going the direction 179 toward the guy going 003 is pretty close to headon- but now we try to bunch them all at the same altitude
 
It does make it easier for ATC to separate traffic. Flying IFR is easier on the 000s, too. Relax, the Ease-West thing goes away in Florida, they separate everyone with a North-South bias [north of 270-90 vs. south of 270-90]. :)
 
What do you want? Metric Altitudes??
 
Captain said:
What do you want? Metric Altitudes??
Click to expand...
I'm also curious what the alternative proposal would be. More divisions? You've already got 2,000 ft between potential altitudes for a given course. We could split it four ways, but then you'd have 4,000 ft between potential altitudes.
 
Slackyhacky said:
The chance of a head on would be pretty small I think. I would prefer not ever getting hit. A guy going the direction 179 toward the guy going 003 is pretty close to headon- but now we try to bunch them all at the same altitude
Click to expand...

Since the country is bigger east to west than north to south, there are fewer going north and south so we lose fewer to those head-ons.
 
geneseib said:
Since the country is bigger east to west than north to south, there are fewer going north and south so we lose fewer to those head-ons.
Click to expand...

Let me introduce yo to Florida.
 
Slackyhacky said:
The chance of a head on would be pretty small I think. I would prefer not ever getting hit. A guy going the direction 179 toward the guy going 003 is pretty close to headon- but now we try to bunch them all at the same altitude
Click to expand...

No they aren't. They don't say everyone headed West VFR fly at 8500 could be 4500, 6500, 10,500.

Makes it easier if you know where to look.
 
Slackyhacky said:
The chance of a head on would be pretty small I think. I would prefer not ever getting hit. A guy going the direction 179 toward the guy going 003 is pretty close to headon- but now we try to bunch them all at the same altitude
Click to expand...

Even so, there is only one point in space they could hit each other...and they'd both have to be there at the same time, without ever seeing each other. Very small chance.
 
Waiting to see the solution,east west has worked fine for me in over 40 years of flying.
 
AdamZ said:
No they aren't. They don't say everyone headed West VFR fly at 8500 could be 4500, 6500, 10,500.

Makes it easier if you know where to look.
Click to expand...

On my favorite cross state route only the last will avoid hitting rocks. Highest MEA on V204 between OLM and YKM is 10,000 MSL for a very good reason. :D

On the other hand, I don't often see (or have called out by ATC) other traffic when flying across the state, either.
 
Hank S said:
Relax, the Ease-West thing goes away in Florida, they separate everyone with a North-South bias [north of 270-90 vs. south of 270-90]. :)
Click to expand...
Is that Florida rule just for IFR? I never heard about that until listening to an IFR training session.
 
Why stay on your side of the solid yellow line on the highway?...if the lane is open over there, why not be able to use it?
 
Well, it insures that every midair collision will be at an angle of 179° or less... :eek:
 
Hank S said:
It does make it easier for ATC to separate traffic. Flying IFR is easier on the 000s, too. Relax, the Ease-West thing goes away in Florida, they separate everyone with a North-South bias [north of 270-90 vs. south of 270-90]. :)
Click to expand...

And if you are flying heading 270 (or 90) exactly? What is it in most of the US , 0-179 & 180- 359, odd-even?
 
LongRoadBob said:
And if you are flying heading 270 (or 90) exactly? What is it in most of the US , 0-179 & 180- 359, odd-even?
Click to expand...

ATC will correct you if you're wrongs that's how I learned it,had to change altitude by 1000' (they didn't care up or down) just after I passed away cross, GA. My flight plan was filed using the 0-180° rule, KMLJ --> KFXE.
 
I'm just spit-balling here, but the OP has, what, 6 hrs TT and wants to set some new rules that'll work WAY better than what's been working fine so far....
 
Slackyhacky said:
Traveling east = odd altitudes

Traveling west = even altitudes

VFR add 500.

This rule makes no sense to me. What's the point of putting everyone at the same altitude? Wouldn't it be safer to not say "everyone going west, please fly at this same altitude ...try not to hit each other"
Click to expand...

Going west on the east coast is completely different from going west in Wyoming. What single altitude do you think will work for every single airplane headed somewhat west? Pick any altitude that's an even number of thousands of feet, and fly 500 feet above it; this leaves the thousand-foot intervals for instrument pilots, where it's easier to see the altimeter needle pointing straight up when you can't see anything out the windows.

4500' may be a good VFR West altitude in most of Ga, Al, Miss, La, but it's underground in Denver . . . Remember, altitudes are not "height above ground" but "height above the average sea level". Height above ground would require frequent altimeter changing, and don't be slow or get lost flying around mountains!
 
JCranford said:
I'm just spit-balling here, but the OP has, what, 6 hrs TT and wants to set some new rules that'll work WAY better than what's been working fine so far....
Click to expand...

Sure, why not? I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time that someone with little to no experience gets to make the rules or be in charge.
 
I think that barring the use of autopilot, a lot of guys can wander 50 to 100 feet above or below the designated cruising altitude (never me, of course! :D:D), so that gives a bit more cushion in avoiding a mid-air. Just pay attention, check your fish finder if you have one, and scan, scan, scan.
 
Calculate the amount of time you have to see and avoid another aircraft on a head on collision course with both aircraft doing 120 knots. Assume the two aircraft start at VFR visibility minimums apart (3 miles).

Now calculate the time you have to see and avoid an aircraft going 120 ahead of you when you're going 130 at the same 3 mile visibility limit.

Now will you see the other aircraft at a mile? Half a mile? Ever have trouble seeing traffic in the airport traffic pattern? How far away were they? Were they head on, with a tiny visible cross-section or perpendicular to your flight path or turning when you finally saw them?

Now change that to he's blocked from your view on a converging course by the bottom of that cloud that you're 2000' away from horizontally and you'll meet somewhere just beyond that cloud.

The hemispheric rule is designed out of time available.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
I think that barring the use of autopilot, a lot of guys can wander 50 to 100 feet above or below the designated cruising altitude (never me, of course! :D:D), so that gives a bit more cushion in avoiding a mid-air. Just pay attention, check your fish finder if you have one, and scan, scan, scan.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my point.


JCranford said:
I'm just spit-balling here, but the OP has, what, 6 hrs TT and wants to set some new rules that'll work WAY better than what's been working fine so far....
Click to expand...

Nope - not at all. In fact, you all PLEASE follow the rules and stay on X500 altitude.

I'll be somewhere 200 feet above or below that.

But please - you all stay on the ruled defined level. That will work out best for me.
 
You all seriously think it is better to tell everyone to be on the same level of X500?

You don't think a range would be better - so say all west going VFR traffic : even X150-X850 , east bound : odd X150-X850?

A plane is less than 10 ft high. That is a lot of possible levels that would totally allow from randomness that two planes are NOT on the same plane.

But as it stands now, FAA defines you to make sure you have a much more likely chance of being in the exact same plane as another plane.

So I'm not looking to change anything as someone expressed - I'm just looking for some wisdom. Please explain it to me. Where is the wisdom in putting all planes at the same level?
 
Please, just follow the rules. If you follow the rules, other pilots and ATC will know where to expect you to be and they will have an easier time finding you. If you don't follow the rules and just adjust your cruising altitude by 200 feet, here's what happens:

You are VFR eastbound at an indicated altitude of 5,700 feet (200 feet higher than you are supposed to be flying, which is what you have said you will be doing) but your altimeter is out of whack by 100 feet, your altimeter setting is 0.1" off from the local setting, and you catch an updraft that you do not immediately correct for and end up at a true altitude of 6,000 feet.

I am IFR westbound at a true altitude of 6,000 feet, which I am maintaining because my altimeter has been calibrated recently and I have the benefit of regular altimeter setting updates from ATC. I may even be 100 feet below that without ATC reminding me of my assigned altitude.

Suddenly, I pop out of a cloud that you were supposed to be 2,000 feet away from laterally; and let's just give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were actually that far away from it. Our rate of closure is at least 250 knots, which is 417 feet per second. We have four seconds within which to figure out that we are about to collide. The reality is that you'll have less than 4 seconds because you will have also misjudged your distance from the cloud, because the human eye is not good at measuring distances to clouds. You'll probably panic and turn the wrong way, too (quick, tell us which way you would turn without taking 4 seconds to think about your answer or look it up), making a collision even more likely.

If you and everyone else follow the rules, this situation does not happen. Head-on flight paths (say, flying 360 and 179 toward each other at the same altitude) can occur, but if you are flying that close to due north or south you at least know you are in the envelope where they can occur. If I am flying along at 6,000 on a course of 270, I should not have to expect to see a head-on airplane at my altitude when I pop out of a cloud.

That's why we have these rules. By people following them and having at least some reliance on others following them, these rules allow us to predict where other airplanes will be.
 
And of course, folks are climbing and descending out of the ordained cruising altitudes all the time, for any number of reasons. Scan, scan, scan, and head on a swivel!!
 
I was using flight following yesterday and the controller asked me to descend from 5500 to 5000 for traffic separation. Five minutes later, another plane crossed my path 500 feet above. We would have collided without the vertical separation. I lay in bed last night trying to calculate the odds on that but it seems like they'd be pretty low.
 
TylerSC said:
I was using flight following yesterday and the controller asked me to descend from 5500 to 5000 for traffic separation. Five minutes later, another plane crossed my path 500 feet above. We would have collided without the vertical separation. I lay in bed last night trying to calculate the odds on that but it seems like they'd be pretty low.
Click to expand...

But if you saw him, you could've taken evasive action. ATC is great, but you are a big part of the equation too!
 
Slackyhacky said:
This is exactly my point.




Nope - not at all. In fact, you all PLEASE follow the rules and stay on X500 altitude.

I'll be somewhere 200 feet above or below that.

But please - you all stay on the ruled defined level. That will work out best for me.
Click to expand...

If you're not a troll (my working assumption) just be aware you're admitting to continuing violations of federal law on an online forum.

But my money is on troll.
 
FastEddieB said:
If you're not a troll (my working assumption) just be aware you're admitting to continuing violations of federal law on an online forum.

But my money is on troll.
Click to expand...
I would probably agree on the troll guess. This is a pretty strong stance for violation AND bragging about it. Either way, you asked where the wisdom is in the rule. I would suggest it's probably in the numbers. Maybe I'm wrong on this because I don't know the stats, but these rules have been in place how long? So in cruise (e.g. outside the pattern), how frequently do mid airs occur when people are flying according to the rules? Just a guess, but I'm thinking it is extremely rare.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
Regardless, no one has explained to me the logic of having everyone fly at the exact same altitude. Saying "well it's worked in the past" is not a great answer as to why it can't be improved, or why was decided in the first place.

If you have planes in a small space - why is it better to put them ALL at the exact same altitude - rather than say "find an altitude between a defined 400ft? I need that explained to me.

It could be that since our altimeters are likely 100-200 ft off all the time, the difference is already there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top