![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Military aircraft in MOA's are often given blocks of altitude.
-- Gene Seibel Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html Because I fly, I envy no one. AES/newspost wrote in message ... Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver-Reno yesterday, I heard something like: "Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation for 39 to 41?" and then "Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved." ["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.] Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway. Is that likely the case? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
AES/newspost wrote:
snip Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway. My first instrument lesson in IMC, my instructor and I went to the practice area and he requested a block altitude of 2000 to 3000 so I could practice climbs and descents. ATC approved without hesitation. Allen |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Us little guys request blocking altitudes for turbulence, but often the big
guys are asking for it because they can slowly drift upward to higher altitudes as they burn fuel and get lighter. I think they're doing this because it's more efficient to fly at higher altitudes, but they cannot get there until their weight decrease. Max T, MCFI When a pilot requests a narrow block, it's usually because the ride is unavoidably rough and he wants to be able to just hold a pitch attitude rather than continually changing pitch and airspeed to maintain altitude. It's easier on the airframe, easier on the passengers, allows you to maintain a relatively constant airspeed so it might be slightly more fuel efficient, and generally easier on the pilot as well if he is hand-flying. I routinely ask for this when I fly in convective weather, and so far I've always gotten it. Like this pilot, I also generally ask for a 2000 ft block. Michael |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:OgSVb.265595$na.420059@attbi_s04... According to the AIM P/CG, a cruise clearance permits flight from a single specified altitude down to the minimum applicable IFR altitude; the phraseology is e.g. "Cruise eight thousand". A block clearance, with an explicit lower bound, is slightly different. Exactly right. Guess I'm the one who's been using the wrong phraseology with ATC. Oh well...I guess they knew what I meant when I asked for a cruise clearance between two altitudes. They've never corrected me, in all my flights over the mountains when I've asked. In any case, the basic idea is still the same. A block altitude gives the pilot the ability to ride altitude changes without fighting them, which results in a smoother ride, better fuel economy, and less work on the pilot's part. Pete |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Continental Express conducts some training within 150 miles of my area,
and at night, I have heard them request and recieve blocks of airspace (big pie wedges) that are thousands of feet deep for airborne maneuvering. Im presuming that they are required to operate under IFR by company or Fed/Op Spec guidelines, so to conduct these maneuvers in IFR requires the chunk of airspace, hence the "block" Dave AES/newspost wrote: Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver-Reno yesterday, I heard something like: "Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation for 39 to 41?" and then "Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved." ["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.] Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway. Is that likely the case? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, A Lieberman wrote:
AES/newspost wrote: snip Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway. My first instrument lesson in IMC, my instructor and I went to the practice area and he requested a block altitude of 2000 to 3000 so I could practice climbs and descents. ATC approved without hesitation. Likewise for aerobatics; we get 2000 or 3000ft tall blocks (3000-5000 ASL or 3k-6k usually, and it's not a problem with Terminal. One weekday when we were out Terminal cleared a floatplane below us (after sending us up to 4000-5500ft and said to the floatplane: "... there's a Citabria doing airwork above you, not below 4, and... well, I'm not sure which way they'll be pointing in a minute..." That was amusing, even at the top of a loop... Brian. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave S wrote:
Continental Express conducts some training within 150 miles of my area, and at night, I have heard them request and recieve blocks of airspace (big pie wedges) that are thousands of feet deep for airborne maneuvering. Im presuming that they are required to operate under IFR by company or Fed/Op Spec guidelines, so to conduct these maneuvers in IFR requires the chunk of airspace, hence the "block" When flying a glider in Class A airspace pursuant to an LOA, I call to open what we colloquially refer to as a "wave window." The phone at ATC is always answered "Military Desk" which I presume is the desk responsible for controlling "blocks" of airspace that are defined by geographical limits (set in the LOA). ATC will ask for the name of the block (also defined in the LOA), the requested altitude block (typically from the bottom of Class A to FL250 to start) check it in the computer and then advise if/when it can be opened. These "blocks" opened by the military desk are geographically defined blocks as well as altitude blocks, and we're free to roam within the altitude and geographic limits of the block while it's open. Todd Pattist (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) ___ Make a commitment to learn something from every flight. Share what you learn. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Gene Seibel wrote: Military aircraft in MOA's are often given blocks of altitude. That's different. Once in the MOA they are not IFR. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Often air to air refueling flights will request and get block altitudes but
generally they are around 30K' not 40K'. Mike MU-2 "AES/newspost" wrote in message ... Listening to channel nine on UA 1225 Denver-Reno yesterday, I heard something like: "Denver Center, Jackpot 123, can we request a block allocation for 39 to 41?" and then "Jackpot 123, Denver Center, block allocation 39 to 41 approved." ["Jackpot 123" is made-up name since I don't remember actual name; maybe it was "block assignment" instead of "allocation"; and I don't recall if the wording was "Flight levels 39 to 41" or just the numbers.] Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best fuel economy without having to make repeated requests; and Denver Center was willing to approve this since nobody else was up that high anyway. Is that likely the case? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"AES/newspost" wrote in message ... [...] Anyway, I'm assuming that "Jackpot 1243" wanted to move up and down freely between 39,000 and 41,000 feet seeking smoothest ride and best fuel economy without having to make repeated requests Sounds like a "cruise clearance". Not sure why those words weren't used in the request. No, this is a block request. I ask for them a lot when flying over mountains looking for a smooth ride. A cruise clearance is something very different and you are probably not too likely to get it unless you are out in the middle of nowhere. -Robert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New "Rhinos" on the block (& farewell to low-viz) | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | November 25th 04 08:24 AM |
B-2 question | Harley W Daugherty | Military Aviation | 37 | August 27th 04 12:45 AM |
Block out someone? (Little Hitler) | Jeff | Military Aviation | 6 | April 13th 04 07:03 PM |
More Info on Block 52 F-16 | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 0 | November 18th 03 03:07 PM |
French block airlift of British troops to Basra | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 202 | October 24th 03 06:48 PM |