DUAT

"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.

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

Interesting. I never heard that before. So a TRACON controller cannot
change a clearance without calling center to do it?


It's a flight data processing issue. A terminal controller cannot amend a
flight plan in the computer if the host center has auto-acquired a target on
that flight. The revised clearance must then be manually coordinated. The
alternative is to suspend the auto-acquire feature, which will then require
the center to manually start a track on aircraft that depart from airports
where the center provides approach control services. Suspending the
auto-acquire is the way to go, starting a track is quick and easy and is
more than made up for by the reduced manual coordination.

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

Do you receive these restrictions after reporting VFR-on-top?


Sometimes yes, sometimes no.


Are you operating in airspace where ATC provides separation to VFR
aircraft?


Not to my knowledge. Not in Class B airspace nor Class C airspace.


Is Special Use Airspace a factor?


My flight path is always clear of SUA.


Then there is no reason for the altitude restrictions.



Well, when I have received the OTP
restrictions, anyway. I always file a route that is clear of SUA, but
sometimes I get recleared enroute for direct destination (without request)
which puts me through SUA, and sometimes I get vectored around the SUA
when I get to it. Arghhh..


I stay out of the cockpit when I'm controlling and when I'm flying I expect
the controller to stay out of my cockpit. As a controller I'll move an
airplane for traffic, for SUA, or to comply with a LOA. That's it. If I
see you're /G but have filed a bunch of VORs or airways I'll offer a
shortcut, but I won't just issue one of my own volition. If you want to pay
for GPS and still navigate by VOR that's your business.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

Interesting. I never heard that before. So a TRACON controller cannot
change a clearance without calling center to do it?


It's a flight data processing issue. A terminal controller cannot amend a
flight plan in the computer if the host center has auto-acquired a target
on that flight. The revised clearance must then be manually coordinated.
The alternative is to suspend the auto-acquire feature, which will then
require the center to manually start a track on aircraft that depart from
airports where the center provides approach control services. Suspending
the auto-acquire is the way to go, starting a track is quick and easy and
is more than made up for by the reduced manual coordination.


So this becomes an issue only at a towered field using center approach
control services?

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

So this becomes an issue only at a towered field using center approach
control services?


No, it's an issue at any field using center approach control services and
pop-ups in center airspace.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

So this becomes an issue only at a towered field using center approach
control services?


No, it's an issue at any field using center approach control services and
pop-ups in center airspace.



I don't understand. Your prior discussion was in the context of a terminal
controller and center approach control, I thought. That's why I was trying
to clarify that it applied to a towered field using center approach control.

Can the terminal controller suspend auto-acquire?

If there is not a terminal controller, does center suspend auto-acquire?

Is suspending auto-acquire done on a per-acft basis?

Stan Prevost wrote:


Interesting. I never heard that before. So a TRACON controller cannot
change a clearance without calling center to do it?

Right. Although here at BIL we are in the process of getting that
changed, so anytime I want I can change any aircrafts data in the
computer. It's a pain in the ass and a relic from days gone by.

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.

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.

Stan Prevost wrote:



So this becomes an issue only at a towered field using center approach
control services?

No it's an issue for any TRACON. All computer systems run thru the
center computer. They set the paramters. Right now whenever you
takeoff and tag up on the radar I lose the ability to make changes to
your flightplan thru the computer. I have to call the center controller
on the landline. We are in the process of having that changed with Salt
Lake. Both them and us here at BIL don't like this needless
coordination so we are changing it.