VFR altitudes, traffic, and non-standard altitudes...

cowman

cowman

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
5,456
Location
Danger Zone
Display Name
Display name:
Cowman
Let me paint the picture here... this picture as it so happens isn't far off from the weather and many recent flights I've had.

Eastbound VFR flight, METARS in the area of flight is reporting scattered 5000-5500. Area terrain is 600-800'. This would mean the clouds are(assuming an accurate METARs report between 5600 and 6100'. Also assume we're doing this entirely in class E airspace during daytime and using flight following.

Scattered layer doesn't show obvious safe ways to go over the top/we're unsure if we could get down again at the other end.

We can cruise at 3500 and there's nothing strictly speaking wrong with this. Have done it before, probably will again. However, I'm quite aware that this is around the altitude where I and many other people often go to practice their maneuvers.... stalls/steep turns/etc. This is also within 3000' AGL meaning there's no direction for flight- traffic can be coming from anywhere including head on. I've personally had a few closer than I'd like encounters around and just below this altitude. In one case ATC did see it and turn me away from the head on traffic at my altitude... we missed by probably 1/2 mile. I don't like that... I want to go higher if possible, I know there's no guarantee there either but it's still in my mind a lot better.

So let's look at the next correct altitude for VFR eastbound, 5500.... assuming the METARS is close to accurate I wouldn't get into the clouds but I'd be close... depending on how things sit I may be busting my 500' cloud clearance. Maybe I could steer around the low spots, be prepared to quickly duck, or just generally look up and say "hey, it looks like 500' to me". A scattered layer isn't a ceiling and I'm certainly not at much risk of a VFR into IMC scenario in these conditions... but I might(with these margins it's hard to even be sure) be breaking cloud clearance rules, more importantly there might be traffic up there I can't see... you'd think ATC would see it and tell me but you never know. I've also got 2000' more in the event of engine trouble...

So, in my mind(please feel free to debate this assessment), there isn't a huge safety difference between 3500' and 5500' in this scenario. I think I have a slight preference still for 5500' though... ATC will have more time to see something climbing towards me(a blind spot as I fly a low-wing) and the only traffic that should be descending out of those clouds would be IFR and should be talking to the same controller I'm talking to. The traffic down at 3500 is likely all VFR... maybe doing training. Maybe talking to someone... entirely likely they're not. Could be coming from anywhere.... and all this would be perfectly correct and legal.

Now, I remember once as a student pilot I was on a ferry flight with my "new" airplane and CFI in the right seat being in a similar situation. We were on FF and he said *something* to the controller. I think it was along the lines of "hey we're close to the clouds here, I know it's an IFR altitude but would it be ok with you if we went to 5000." Whatever he said... maybe some magic words I forgot... the controller agreed and we went down to 5000... which is just perfect for this situation. I've attempted the same thing a time or two and always been advised to remain at a VFR altitude... so... maybe it was just that controller or the traffic situation? :dunno: Being able to do that would sure be nice though.

What say POA? Stop worrying about this minutia? Just fly 5500/3500 because _____? Get off your lazy butt and get an instrument rating already? It's just a scattered layer, climb through and nobody will know :hairraise: ?

I really wonder what others do in this situation... if it comes up often for me others must deal with it fairly often too.
 
Follow the rules. Intentional flight into IMC is prohibited for VFR flight. If you are not sure, don't fly. Error on the side of caution.
 
I'd be interested in the answers too. Just the weekend, similar situation... The altitude under the clouds was lower than I'd like and the next available altitude is 2000' ft higher.

I suppose the instrument rating will help when I finally get it, but there ought to be a better solution. Maybe when 2020 rolls around and everyone is broadcasting a GPS position we can do away with the VFR altitudes?
 
Read 14 CFR 91.159. "Unless otherwise authorized by ATC."

Ask for 5000. It's same-direction IFR traffic. Avoid airways and VORs.

Or maybe ask for 4800.

I've found ATC to be quite accommodating when told cloud clearances are an issue.
 
Sometimes I hear controllers approve non-standard altitudes, sometimes I hear them say maintain appropriate altitude for direction of travel. Probably depends on workload and the controller's comfort permitting deviant altitudes. The rule dictating direction of travel allows for approved deviations.
 
cowman said:
Now, I remember once as a student pilot I was on a ferry flight with my "new" airplane and CFI in the right seat being in a similar situation. We were on FF and he said *something* to the controller. I think it was along the lines of "hey we're close to the clouds here, I know it's an IFR altitude but would it be ok with you if we went to 5000." Whatever he said... maybe some magic words I forgot... the controller agreed and we went down to 5000... which is just perfect for this situation. I've attempted the same thing a time or two and always been advised to remain at a VFR altitude... so... maybe it was just that controller or the traffic situation? :dunno: Being able to do that would sure be nice though.
Click to expand...

No reason for the controller to care if you bust the regs.
 
MAKG1 said:
Read 14 CFR 91.159. "Unless otherwise authorized by ATC."
Click to expand...

That was added when TCAs were created so that ATC could assign altitudes inconsistent with the regulation for separation. The ATC order requires controllers to advise pilots who have been assigned altitudes which are contrary to 91.159 to resume altitudes appropriate for the direction of flight when the altitude assignment is no longer required or when leaving Class B/Class C/TRSA airspace. If you're authorized an altitude inconsistent with the regulation outside of those airspace types it means the controller is not a sharp troop.
 
mkosmo said:
Sometimes I hear controllers approve non-standard altitudes, sometimes I hear them say maintain appropriate altitude for direction of travel. Probably depends on workload and the controller's comfort permitting deviant altitudes. The rule dictating direction of travel allows for approved deviations.
Click to expand...

I accidently filed a west bound IFR flight for 17,000. I picked up clearance in the air. Cleared direct, climb and maintain 17,000. No one asked me why that altitude or mentioned I needed to maintain appropriate altitude for direction of travel.

Of course I was doing a medevac flight and the flight started at 2am might have had something to do with that.
 
roncachamp said:
No reason for the controller to care if you bust the regs.
Click to expand...

How would he be busting the regs?

91.159 said:
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, unless otherwise authorized by ATC:
Click to expand...
 
Zeldman said:
I accidently filed a west bound IFR flight for 17,000. I picked up clearance in the air. Cleared direct, climb and maintain 17,000. No one asked me why that altitude or mentioned I needed to maintain appropriate altitude for direction of travel.

Of course I was doing a medevac flight and the flight started at 2am might have had something to do with that.
Click to expand...

91.159 does not apply to IFR operations unless you've received a VFR-on-Top clearance. In controlled airspace the proper IFR altitude is whatever ATC assigns.
 
It seems to me that it would be the controller busting regs in that case, not the pilot.

Also if this is the case, it seems kind of silly to me. I think safety is enhanced for everyone by allowing a controller to put me on an IFR altitude in the correct direction in this situation. He can always tell me to move if there's a conflict just like in any other situation.
 
Had a similar situation Sunday. A friend flew me up to RDU so I could pick up my plane there. We left LZU with sky clear and headed to 5500. As we closed in on the Greenville area we picked up cloud s and went up to 7500. After a bit we noticed the tops were getting to close so we went to 9500. About a half hour out from RDU again the tops were closing in on us and we ended up finding a nice hole a used it to get back down to 5500 for the rest of the trip.
 
Scattered isn't a defined ceiling, I'd climb past it and deviate left and right to avoid them to get on top.
 
mkosmo said:
Sometimes I hear controllers approve non-standard altitudes, sometimes I hear them say maintain appropriate altitude for direction of travel. Probably depends on workload and the controller's comfort permitting deviant altitudes. The rule dictating direction of travel allows for approved deviations.
Click to expand...

Just today I was assigned 5,000 feet in a class c airspace because of a traffic conflict. I was told to maintain 5,000 and then switched controllers by ATC. When I checked on I made sure to tell the next guy- " skyhawk, n12345 level assigned altitude 5,000ft." Because I wanted him to know I was not purposefully flying at a non standard altitude for VFR traffic. His aknowledgment was simply, "roger, maintain VFR." Followed by a few seconds later, "VFR altitude your discretion." The key I believe is to tell them what you were told or tell them what you want. I've never had ATC bust my hump in almost 5 years of flying around in some of the most congested areas in the world( around NYC.)

Similarly, I had a CFI tell me once when flying around clouds, "fly the plane where you need to go. Worry about what ATC will do to you once you are in safety." I think that's good advice!
 
cowman said:
It seems to me that it would be the controller busting regs in that case, not the pilot.

Also if this is the case, it seems kind of silly to me. I think safety is enhanced for everyone by allowing a controller to put me on an IFR altitude in the correct direction in this situation. He can always tell me to move if there's a conflict just like in any other situation.
Click to expand...

There is no situation outside of Class B or Class C airspace, the Outer Area, or a TRSA, in which ATC has authority to move a VFR aircraft.
 
I just had this situation over the weekend also. I agree that the extra 2000' is a better option when you can get it. Clouds were at about 56-5800'. I was on FF too and said something to the effect of "descending to 5200 for cloud clearance.". I received something to the effect of " Roger, maintain VFR". I was assuming if ATC didn't want me there they would tell me. So I'm interested in the consensus here on handling that situation.
 
roncachamp said:
Paragraphs 7-7-5.c., 7-8-5.b., and 7-9-7.c.
Click to expand...

They say they should return you to proper for direction of travel when exiting, but none of those (nor anywhere in the document) restrict them from authorizing other altitudes outside of terminal areas.
 
mkosmo said:
They say they should return you to proper for direction of travel when exiting, but none of those (nor anywhere in the document) restrict them from authorizing other altitudes outside of terminal areas.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the document is ATC given authority to authorize other altitudes outside of terminal areas.
 
I've been in the situation that JJ describes where the clouds are at 5800 and I asked ATC for 52 or 5300 to maintain separation and I get back the "Roger, maintain VFR" response we are all familiar with.

If only the clouds could understand where they are supposed to be this would all work out fine.
 
cgrab said:
I've been in the situation that JJ describes where the clouds are at 5800 and I asked ATC for 52 or 5300 to maintain separation and I get back the "Roger, maintain VFR" response we are all familiar with.

If only the clouds could understand where they are supposed to be this would all work out fine.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good solution, I may try that next time.

In the past when uncertain, I've told ATC I'm "trying for 5500 if the clouds will allow". Then I see how close it looks to me when I get up there.
 
I hate 3K'. I want higher, or lower. If VFR, i like to get lower than where most people are cruising. And if you're VFR below 3K, you can use any altitude you like. ATC isn't a factor.
 
This is one of the PITA things about flying VFR. Along with the freedom VFR allows, there is a price to be paid.
 
linuxjim said:
I just had this situation over the weekend also. I agree that the extra 2000' is a better option when you can get it. Clouds were at about 56-5800'. I was on FF too and said something to the effect of "descending to 5200 for cloud clearance.". I received something to the effect of " Roger, maintain VFR". I was assuming if ATC didn't want me there they would tell me. So I'm interested in the consensus here on handling that situation.
Click to expand...

That wasn't permission/clearance, just acknowledgment of your transmission.
 
I don't believe that ATC gives "permission/clearance" for VFR altitudes for the most part? I was basically telling them what I was doing and assumed I would get the "maintain correct altitude for direction of travel" if they didn't want me there. Again, I'm not saying this is the correct way, just what seemed to work for me. If I were busting a reg or there is a better way, I definitely want to know about it.
 
linuxjim said:
I don't believe that ATC gives "permission/clearance" for VFR altitudes for the most part? I was basically telling them what I was doing and assumed I would get the "maintain correct altitude for direction of travel" if they didn't want me there. Again, I'm not saying this is the correct way, just what seemed to work for me. If I were busting a reg or there is a better way, I definitely want to know about it.
Click to expand...

You were definitely busting a reg. ATC cannot assign or authorize altitudes contrary to FAR 91.159 outside of Class B airspace, Class C airspace (including the Outer Area), or a TRSA. The controller's response to your transmission, "Roger, maintain VFR", was just acknowledgement and a reminder to comply with Visual Flight Rules
 
Last edited:
A similar situation happened, coming home from the Hood River Fly-in Sunday. Just northwest of Mt. St. Helens I requested flight following. I was in a slow climb around 7000ft. Got a discrete code and then prompted them for a clearance thru their class B airspace. They gave me the clearance and directed me to descend to 6500 ft. and maintain a 360 course. Cloud tops were pretty close. I didn't deviate until past the point they allowed me to resume my own navigation. VFR over the top then turned out to the San Juan's for some clear sky to decend under the overcast and fly back in to Arlington. It was a good flight!
 
Last edited:
I'd do the whole damn thing at 3,000 feet and keep my eyes out, unless it was too hot.
 
comanche pilot said:
A similar situation happened, coming home from the Hood River Fly-in Sunday. Just northwest of Mt. St. Helens I requested flight following. I was in a slow climb around 7000ft. Got a discreet code and then prompted them for a clearance thru their class B airspace. They gave me the clearance and directed me to descend to 6500 ft. and maintain a 360 course. Cloud tops were pretty close. I didn't deviate until past the point they allowed me to resume my own navigation. VFR over the top then turned out to the San Juan's for some clear sky to decend under the overcast and fly back in to Arlington. It was a good flight!
Click to expand...

I don't see any similarity in your situation. In Class B airspace ATC is authorized to assign altitudes inconsistent with FAR 91.159 and FAR 91.155 requires only clear of clouds.
 
So it appears I have. Is there no way to be approved for/request a block altitude? Or is this an IFR only clearance?
 
linuxjim said:
So it appears I have. Is there no way to be approved for/request a block altitude? Or is this an IFR only clearance?
Click to expand...
Do you mean VFR on top? Otherwise, ATC doesn't assign altitudes to VFR aircraft, unless cleared into Class B, or other similar airspace. Maybe I'm missing something?

Otherwise, altitude is your discretion, 3K and below, and the hemispheres headings + 500 feet rules above 3K.

If you're getting flight following, you might mention if you're gonna be changing altitude; if they don't want you to, probably go along with them - or cancel FF and what you need to do. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top