This was my reply to the original poster:

And I don't know if this is a trick question, but if you are at 6000 (no
+500) wouldn't you be on an IFR flight plan, talking to ATC, and receiving
traffic advisories?

See that little squiggly thing with a dot under it at the end of the line?
That's called a "question mark". That means I was asking a question, not
that I "made implication", which is actually "implied", by the way.

Look around on the page today; I've made a couple of mistakes and readily
acknowledged them.

My response to Denver was incorrect, as you pointed out, and I readily
acknowledge it.

But I don't run around trying to pick arguments; I have much better things
to do with my life. Obviously, you don't...



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
An even number of hundreds of feet is reserved for IFR flights (5,000 or
6,000). VFR flights must be +500 (5,500 or 6,000). If you see someone
breaking the rules by flying VFR at 6,000 feet you should report them;
it's
your safety that's at stake.

Cruising altitudes need only be observed when above 3000' AGL. There are
plenty of places in the US where 6000' is NOT 3000' AGL, including Denver
(which Peter specifically mentioned).

Feel free to report a VFR pilot flying near Denver at 6000' for violating
the cruising altitude rules, but I doubt you'll find anyone to take you
seriously.

This is not a matter of winning an losing, it's a matter of learning the
rules and assuring everyone's safety.

It sure seems like it's a matter of "winning an [sic] losing" to you.
Your
original reply to the original poster made implication that, since the
aircraft at 6000' must be IFR (not even necessarily true, but for the sake
of argument let's grant that), the pilot would be receiving traffic
advisories and so didn't need to worry about aircraft climing through his
cruise altitude of 6000'.

Your implication was patently false, and your continued insistence on
trying
to introduce new, unrelated topics to the discussion sure make it seem
like
you've dug your heels in and are willing to do pretty much whatever it
takes
to avoid admitting that you made a mistake in your original reply.

If it's not a matter of "winning an [sic] losing" to you, why so resistant
to admitting your mistake?

Pete