Can GPS be *too* accurate? Do I need some XTE??

VFR-on-top:

1. Is requested by pilot flying on an IFR flight plan.

2. Is flown under Visual Flight Rules.

3. May or may not be flown following the IFR flightplan's route.

4. Ends when the pilot cancels IFR or returns to the original flight plan at
a waypoint on that plan.

Very simple; it's in the book.

-----------------------------------------------------

A pilot flying VFR is required to observe "see and avoid". One pilot
observing "see and avoid" and taking appropriate evasive action can avoid a
collision.

If a VFR pilot is climbing/descending, it is his responsibility to avoid
pilots above him or below him.

A pilot flying IFR under VMC who is not observing "see and avoid" is not a
very smart pilot.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[...]
As I stated above, VFR-on-top operations are conducted on IFR flight
plans
and the purpose of this section is to explain the services to be
provided
or
not provided by ATC to VFR-on-top pilots.

"VFR-on-top" is still an IFR operation. That's not what Peter is talking
about.

Basically, your belief that a pilot flying on an instrument flight plan is
immune from the scenario posted in the original message is simply wrong.
All it takes is a pilot on an instrument flight plan (satisfying the 6000'
cruise altitude), and another pilot flying VFR (not "VFR-on-top"...just
plain old VFR) climbing on the airway as described by the original poster.

Pete

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
VFR-on-top:
[Description snipped]

I know what VFR-on-top is. It's nice to see you know too. But so what? We
aren't talking about "VFR-on-top" (well, we weren't until YOU brought it
up).

A pilot flying VFR is required to observe "see and avoid". One pilot
observing "see and avoid" and taking appropriate evasive action can avoid
a
collision.

One day, when you've got a few more hours, you'll realize that you had
better not trust the other guy to do your "see and avoid" for you.

If a VFR pilot is climbing/descending, it is his responsibility to avoid
pilots above him or below him.

The IFR pilot cruising at 6000' is ALSO responsible for avoiding pilots
climbing or descending through his altitude.

A pilot flying IFR under VMC who is not observing "see and avoid" is not a
very smart pilot.

I agree. But if you feel that way, what is the point to all of your other
"contribution" to this thread?

For a professional writer, you sure seem to be having a big problem getting
your point across (whatever it happens to be).

Pete

Someone named "Peter R." gave an interpretation of a section of the AIM;
4-4-10. IFR SEPARATION STANDARDS

I posted the text of that section; if you want to call that bringing
something up, be my guest. You're only looking for an argument anyway.

I said I was a professional writer; I in no way implied that you were a
competent reader.



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
VFR-on-top:
[Description snipped]

I know what VFR-on-top is. It's nice to see you know too. But so what?
We
aren't talking about "VFR-on-top" (well, we weren't until YOU brought it
up).

A pilot flying VFR is required to observe "see and avoid". One pilot
observing "see and avoid" and taking appropriate evasive action can
avoid
a
collision.

One day, when you've got a few more hours, you'll realize that you had
better not trust the other guy to do your "see and avoid" for you.

If a VFR pilot is climbing/descending, it is his responsibility to avoid
pilots above him or below him.

The IFR pilot cruising at 6000' is ALSO responsible for avoiding pilots
climbing or descending through his altitude.

A pilot flying IFR under VMC who is not observing "see and avoid" is not
a
very smart pilot.

I agree. But if you feel that way, what is the point to all of your other
"contribution" to this thread?

For a professional writer, you sure seem to be having a big problem
getting
your point across (whatever it happens to be).

Pete

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
news
Someone named "Peter R." gave an interpretation of a section of the AIM;
4-4-10. IFR SEPARATION STANDARDS

I posted the text of that section; if you want to call that bringing
something up, be my guest.

That section has nothing to do with "VFR-on-top".

You're only looking for an argument anyway.

Ad hominem.

I said I was a professional writer; I in no way implied that you were a
competent reader.

Ad hominem.

b. Separation will be provided (by ATC - my note) between all aircraft
operating on IFR flight plans except during that part of the flight (outside
of Class B airspace or a TRSA) being conducted on a VFR-on-top/VFR
conditions clearance. Under these conditions, ATC may issue traffic
advisories, but it is the sole responsibility of the pilot to be vigilant so
as to see and avoid other aircraft.

That's the section I posted. The third line down references VFR-on-top.

Reading is fundamental...



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
news
Someone named "Peter R." gave an interpretation of a section of the AIM;
4-4-10. IFR SEPARATION STANDARDS

I posted the text of that section; if you want to call that bringing
something up, be my guest.

That section has nothing to do with "VFR-on-top".

You're only looking for an argument anyway.

Ad hominem.

I said I was a professional writer; I in no way implied that you were a
competent reader.

Ad hominem.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[snip]

That's the section I posted. The third line down references VFR-on-top.

So, now you are agreeing that it was you that brought up VFR-on-top? As
irrelevant as it is to this thread, you are the person who introduced it.
By your own admission.

No, I am not agreeing to anything. I will state that I was the first to
introduce the words VFR-on-top into the thread, while quoting a section of
the AIM.

The AIM states that ATC will provide IFR/IFR separation. But, a VFR-on-fop
flight is an IFR flight, and ATC does not provide separation to VFR-on-top
aircraft. We were discussing IFR separation and this is a part of them, so
it is relevant to the thread.



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
[snip]

That's the section I posted. The third line down references VFR-on-top.

So, now you are agreeing that it was you that brought up VFR-on-top? As
irrelevant as it is to this thread, you are the person who introduced it.
By your own admission.