coma24
Line Up and Wait
It sure COULD make a difference. The controller might have a similar interaction with someone else, who then cancels flight following in a panic, who then has a midair. Likely? No. POSSIBLE? Yes.
VFR Altitude
- Thread starter cowtowner
- Start date
It sure COULD make a difference. The controller might have a similar interaction with someone else, who then cancels flight following in a panic, who then has a midair. Likely? No. POSSIBLE? Yes.
Shepherd
Final Approach
I rarely know my AGL altitude. I typically fly just high enough not to run into things.
I will occasionally climb to 2,500 feet so they can see me on radar a KPOU, and if I fly west I will climb to 3,500 feet to clear the Catskills and avoid turbulence, but I have no idea what my height is, agl.
I will occasionally climb to 2,500 feet so they can see me on radar a KPOU, and if I fly west I will climb to 3,500 feet to clear the Catskills and avoid turbulence, but I have no idea what my height is, agl.
Mxfarm
Line Up and Wait
I’d say you’ll change the same number of controllers minds as are changed on the POA w/discussion.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Its doesn't take more than 4 brain cells to know that Oklahoma isn't at sea level. (The lowest point is 289MSL and the average elevation is 1300 MSL) Or are you saying that controllers - whom we task with keeping planes from running into each other - can't do simple math? In this case subtracting ANYTHING from 3000 is too difficult a task for controllers to know he would be lower than 3000AGL? Am I understanding this correctly?
Are you saying you want controllers using average elevation to make decisions for us? No thanks. 'specially in mountainous areas.
The point is, it's not their job to know what AGL you are at that moment. Even with IFR, their job is to know what you altitude MSL you SHOULD be based on published criteria, not pulling up a terrain map and plotting you to figure what your AGL is at that moment.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I'm saying I want controllers to know that with the exception of the Salton Sink, Death Valley, and New Orleans, every place in the US is above sea level, so if you are at 3000 MSL, you MUST be less than 3000 AGL. Is that too much to ask? Evidently you think it is.
It's not their responsibility to know what your AGL is.
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,927
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
I would kind of hope that the controller had enough common sense to realize that at 3,000 MSL, nearly everywhere in the US, you'll be flying at less than 3,000 AGL. Really no math involved for every elevation 1' and greater.
If the argument was "I was flying at 4,500' MSL going eastbound and was admonished by the controller, but the ground level was 1,800, and I didn't have to abide by hemispheric + 500," you'd have a point. I wouldn't expect the controller to know what the spot altitude was at your location. But 3,000' MSL... come on. That's common sense.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Lol. Yeah. But the Controllers boss can do it.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Are you intentionally missing the point that 3000 minus ANY POSITIVE NUMBER is less than 3000? Or are you really that mathematically challenged?
We aren't talking 6200 MSL minus who knows what over western North Carolina may or may not be less than 3000.
It's 3000 - X.
Are you intentionally missing out that it's not their responsibility to know that. There is no reason for them to figure out that it's easy to figure out. It's not their problem. It's not even a problem.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Headline:
Florida Man Says First Grade Math Is Too Hard.
Yes it is their responsibility to know that 3000 minus 1 is less than 3000. It's called being able to pass the GED - which you say is too hard for ATC controllers.
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,927
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
It doesn't sound like it was a problem at all until the controller made it a problem (incorrectly).
All I know is that if I'm going to call someone out one something, I try to make damn sure that I'm right. The controller especially should have been clued in after the OP told him he was at a VFR altitude, but then the controller doubled down on his wrongness by telling OP he wasn't. This one is squarely on the controller.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Which takes us full circle back to Post #1 where a Controller did seem to think it was his problem.
If you don't want to take arbitrary altitude instructions from a controller, don't get flight following. This is not an issue.
The controller may have had a real reason to want him at a different altitude and tried to explain it in the wrong way. Bottom line is, the controller could say "I don't care, I want you at 3500" and all you have to do is drop FF. No problem.
As I said earlier in the thread, it's true, he was not at a VFR altitude. It's also irrelevant, but it's true. If you don't want arbitrary altitudes assigned to you, then don't use FF.
The controller may have had a real reason to want him at a different altitude and tried to explain it in the wrong way. Bottom line is, the controller could say "I don't care, I want you at 3500" and all you have to do is drop FF. No problem.
As I said earlier in the thread, it's true, he was not at a VFR altitude. It's also irrelevant, but it's true. If you don't want arbitrary altitudes assigned to you, then don't use FF.
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
NO, that was my conclusion on page one. There's not really any such thing as a "vfr altitude". But if there were, 3000 wouldn't be it. IFR flights are assigned to 3000, so you can't call it a VFR altitude. VFR flights can also fly at that altitude, so it's not an IFR altitude either, but whatever a "VFR altitude" is, 3000 ain't it.What? 3 pages and that's your conclusion?
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
So you haven't learned anything in 3 pages of discussion. Then why are you here?
A VFR altitude is one that complies with 91.159. For example, AIM 3-2-3 e. 4:
ATC may assign altitudes to VFR aircraft that do not conform to 14 CFR Section 91.159. “RESUME APPROPRIATE VFR ALTITUDES” will be broadcast when the altitude assignment is no longer needed for separation or when leaving Class B airspace. Pilots must return to an altitude that conforms to 14 CFR Section 91.159.
Emphasis appears in original.
In the scenario described, 3,000' MSL is a VFR altitude.
Okay, please cite a source that says an altitude can't be used for both IFR and VFR.
coma24
Line Up and Wait
"If you don't like the altitude assignment, don't get flight following."
PRECISELY the takeaway we're trying to avoid. Regardless of AGL, 3000ft MSL, in ~99.9999% of the country is a valid VFR cruising altitude. So is 2931, and so is 1453.
The point is that the controller likely wasn't aware of this. The solution isn't to pack up your bat and ball in a huff, or resign yourself to thinking nothing can change. The solution is to tell the #$#$#$@ controller what the deal is so they can improve for next time. If it doesn't work on freq, then make a phone call.
Page 3 of this thread has me questioning my very existence.
PRECISELY the takeaway we're trying to avoid. Regardless of AGL, 3000ft MSL, in ~99.9999% of the country is a valid VFR cruising altitude. So is 2931, and so is 1453.
The point is that the controller likely wasn't aware of this. The solution isn't to pack up your bat and ball in a huff, or resign yourself to thinking nothing can change. The solution is to tell the #$#$#$@ controller what the deal is so they can improve for next time. If it doesn't work on freq, then make a phone call.
Page 3 of this thread has me questioning my very existence.
But why? If you don't want to be controlled, don't talk to a controller and ask for controlling services. Seemples. If you do ask for controlling services, don't be surprised when you are controlled in a way you didn't want to be.
Lindberg
Final Approach
I am loathe to derail the thread with something that's been covered a thousand times, but for the peanut gallery, no, if ATC gives you an instruction that you don't want to follow, canceling flight following doesn't get you out of it.
coma24
Line Up and Wait
Your post assumes that the controller has their own reason for wanting you at a specific altitude, despite the current altitude being legal.
In fact, what appears to be happening is that the controller is suggesting another altitude because they believe the current one is NOT valid/legal. Those are absolutely NOT the same issue.
You're saying, "well, regardless of the reason, don't talk to ATC if you won't want to be controlled."
That's fine, except, the reason for the instruction is likely based on a flawed assumption. Therefore, the solution is to question that assumption, rather than pack up and leave. It's basic communication between two human beings.
What I"m saying is that you don't actually know the reason. You're assuming the reason based on what the controller said. People often try to make things easier by using a reason that isn't directly why they want something.
coma24
Line Up and Wait
That's pretty darned clear. The controller is stating his/her believe that 3000ft isn't a VFR altitude. They're not saying, "3000 isn't going to work because of traffic."
If we were to point out the reg and the controller said, "I meant 3000 is no good, I have a conflict coming up in a bit...[even though I don't have to separate VFR and IFR traffic in Class Echo]," then it'd be a VERY different and short conversation. But until that is said, then I'm going take each party at their actual word and respond accordingly, because I'm not a mind reader, or a psychologist.
It became a tit-for tat which rarely stays on target. "actually you aren't" is a clue to that. That "tat" was accurate even if pedantic. 3000 is not a "VFR altitude". It's an altitude.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
Following is not Controlling. Flight Following is an Advisory service. The controller does not assign altitudes or headings. He will provide safety alerts and traffic advisories.
I don't agree with you. But if I did, then I'd still say "so what's the problem? just ignore them when they advise you to change altitude".
Ed Haywood
En-Route
Ed Haywood
En-Route
I agree with you on the "so what's the problem." Big nothing burger.
But you are wrong on flight following. You are free to choose any altitude and heading you want, as long as it complies with the FAR. The controller in this incident did not assign an altitude. He provided a safety alert by informing the pilot that the aircraft was not in compliance with FAA regulations on altitude.
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
Any altitude at or below 3,000' AGL is a VFR altitude. The references have been posted. Repeating a falsehood does not make it true.
Question: Does 91.123 (Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions) apply when on flight following?
Lindberg
Final Approach
Is there any reason to believe it doesn't?
Wagondriver
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2020
- Messages
- 661
- Display Name
Display name:
375Taylor
I was at 14,500 recently. It’s my practice to use the even odd rule almost all the time. Even when at 14,500 I was less than 1500’ agl.
An instructor once confirmed the rule, but wanted me to still abide by even odd even when not required. I still do that.
An instructor once confirmed the rule, but wanted me to still abide by even odd even when not required. I still do that.
The person I quoted seems to be suggesting just that. I was interested in his interpretation of that regulation as it relates to flight following.
Some might argue that when the controller assumed responsibility for enforcing VFR-altitude rules, he assumed responsibility for doing so correctly.