DUAT

Stan Prevost wrote:
Then
another controller wouldn't let me descend in time (while I was still VFR On
Top), I wound up cancelling IFR and circling down to the airport.

Wouldn't let you descend? It's not his call. You tell him you're
descending, if you choose to tell him at all.



From your post, I learn that I should report OTP as soon as I am OTP and can
remain so, even if I have not reached the "report reaching" altitude.

The report reaching altitude is usually the top of that controllers
airspace. That way he is protected in case you don't break out. Here
we don't usually have clouds so you're on top while taxiing out.


Then
I should be cleared to just Maintain VFR On Top, and I can continue to climb
to my desired altitude. Is that right?

Right. As you break out just say "N123 is on Top at this time" and keep
right on climbing to whatever altitude you wanted.



It's been too long to remember the details, but once I left our local
airport in Class C and the controller would not clear me for OTP, or gave me
OTP below 10000, can't remember now. His reason had something to do with
he didn't own the airspace above 10000. Does that mean the controller must
restrict my clearance to something that will cause me to be contained within
his airspace?\

Yes. If there are no clouds just tell the ground controller or the
tower controller that you are on top at this time.

"Newps" wrote in message
news


Stan Prevost wrote:
Then
another controller wouldn't let me descend in time (while I was still VFR
On Top), I wound up cancelling IFR and circling down to the airport.

Wouldn't let you descend? It's not his call. You tell him you're
descending, if you choose to tell him at all.


Yes, I know, but when I have been given an instruction to advise of altitude
changes, and then when I advise of an altitude change and am told to remain
at my present altitude and he will give me lower in a few miles, my choices
are limited. I can start an argument on the frequency, cancel IFR,
disregard his instructions, or go along with what he says. There is that
pesky FAR that says pilots must comply with ATC clearances and instructions
(as long as they would not cause me to violate a FAR or compromise the
safety of my flight). Some say that pilots are not obligated to comply with
an instruction that an controller is not authorized to give, but that is
usually an issue to be sorted out on the ground, IMO.

If he wanted to keep me at altitude, he could have and probably should have
assigned me a hard IFR altitude, such as 12000 (I was at 12500). There is
not a lot of difference in the end result, so why cause a scene over it in
the air?

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

Yes, I know, but when I have been given an instruction to advise of
altitude changes, and then when I advise of an altitude change and am told
to remain at my present altitude and he will give me lower in a few miles,
my choices are limited. I can start an argument on the frequency, cancel
IFR, disregard his instructions, or go along with what he says. There is
that pesky FAR that says pilots must comply with ATC clearances and
instructions (as long as they would not cause me to violate a FAR or
compromise the safety of my flight). Some say that pilots are not
obligated to comply with an instruction that an controller is not
authorized to give, but that is usually an issue to be sorted out on the
ground, IMO.

If he wanted to keep me at altitude, he could have and probably should
have assigned me a hard IFR altitude, such as 12000 (I was at 12500).
There is not a lot of difference in the end result, so why cause a scene
over it in the air?


You're dealing with a controller unfamiliar with VFR-on-top. Separation is
not an issue so there's no reason to keep you at altitude.

Stan Prevost wrote:




Yes, I know, but when I have been given an instruction to advise of altitude
changes, and then when I advise of an altitude change and am told to remain
at my present altitude and he will give me lower in a few miles, my choices
are limited.

My first choice will be to then ask why or play chicken on the air and
say "I'm descending to maintain VFR." He can't deny that. Assuming
you're not real close to a terminal area and sequencing becomes an issue
the controller shouldn't be stopping you from changing altitudes.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Stan Prevost wrote:




Yes, I know, but when I have been given an instruction to advise of
altitude changes, and then when I advise of an altitude change and am
told to remain at my present altitude and he will give me lower in a few
miles, my choices are limited.

My first choice will be to then ask why or play chicken on the air and say
"I'm descending to maintain VFR." He can't deny that. Assuming you're
not real close to a terminal area and sequencing becomes an issue the
controller shouldn't be stopping you from changing altitudes.


I was approaching the terminal area, IND, from the north.

Newps wrote:


Wouldn't let you descend? It's not his call. You tell him you're
descending, if you choose to tell him at all.


Ok, how about the route aspect of VFR-On-Top? I know I'm supposed to fly
the route I was cleared for but what if ask for amended clearance?
Would it be easier to get it if I'm OTP instead of having a hard
altitude assigned? Here is why I'm asking - I few weeks ago on me and a
friend were on CEC-OTH-ONP route along the CA/OR coast in a C172. He
asked for direct to KONP and center said he could give it to him at 15
000 or higher, even though there was no significant terain all the way
north. Would it have been easier to get this if we were VFR-On-Top,
providing our own terrain and traffic separation? Of course, we could
have cancelled IFR but that would have meant that we would have needed
another clearance at our destination.

-ML

"Milen Lazarov" wrote in message
ink.net...

Ok, how about the route aspect of VFR-On-Top? I know I'm supposed to fly
the route I was cleared for but what if ask for amended clearance? Would
it be easier to get it if I'm OTP instead of having a hard altitude
assigned?


Probably. But it's a double-edged sword. Traffic that wouldn't permit the
reroute while on a hard altitude will prevent a return to a hard altitude if
you can't maintain VFR conditions.



Here is why I'm asking - I few weeks ago on me and a friend were
on CEC-OTH-ONP route along the CA/OR coast in a C172. He asked for direct
to KONP and center said he could give it to him at 15 000 or higher, even
though there was no significant terain all the way north.


I don't see how that could make a difference. I also don't see why you'd
even ask for the reroute. The difference between CEC-OTH-ONP and CEC-ONP is
about 0.02 miles.



Would it have
been easier to get this if we were VFR-On-Top, providing our own terrain
and traffic separation?


Provide your own terrain separation? While operating VFR-on-top you're
still subject to FAR 91.177. The controller may be able to assign a lower
altitude than would be available to you under VFR-on-top, assuming traffic
is not a factor. The controller can assign the minimum IFR altitude, but
while VFR-on-top you could only use that altitude if you're not more than
3000 feet above the surface.

Milen Lazarov wrote:

Newps wrote:



Wouldn't let you descend? It's not his call. You tell him you're
descending, if you choose to tell him at all.


Ok, how about the route aspect of VFR-On-Top? I know I'm supposed to fly
the route I was cleared for but what if ask for amended clearance?

Then you just might get one.


Would it be easier to get it if I'm OTP instead of having a hard
altitude assigned?

Yes.


Here is why I'm asking - I few weeks ago on me and a
friend were on CEC-OTH-ONP route along the CA/OR coast in a C172. He
asked for direct to KONP and center said he could give it to him at 15
000 or higher, even though there was no significant terain all the way
north.

Sounds like he was going to lose radar contact with you. A rule with
direct clearances is that you must be in radar contact outside of the
service volumes. Salt Lake disregards that pretty regularly but when
there is little traffic it doesn't matter.


Would it have been easier to get this if we were VFR-On-Top,

Maybe.


providing our own terrain and traffic separation?

Then you may as well be VFR.