Block Allocation?

AES/newspost wrote
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?

Well, sort of but not quite. I think what he really requested was a
block altitude, which is the standard phraseology, and the goal was
not to intentionally change altitude but simply to avoid having to
correct the altitude all the time when turbulence changed it for him.

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

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

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

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.

Brian Burger wrote in message ria.tc.ca...
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..."


A true "block altitude" is usually for IFR or in class C,B airspace. I
don't know how ATC could "authorize" a block elsewhere. They may,
however, enjoy just knowing where you plan to be. However, a "block
altitude' implies that no one else will be assigned to fly into that
area when you are there.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

A true "block altitude" is usually for IFR

Only for IFR.

"Newps" wrote in message news:KTaWb.45$uV3.1610@attbi_s51...


Robert M. Gary wrote:

A true "block altitude" is usually for IFR

Only for IFR.

I suppose a VFR could get a block in class B. Certainly got plenty of "at or below"
instructions there.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Robert M. Gary wrote:

Brian Burger wrote in message ria.tc.ca...
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..."


A true "block altitude" is usually for IFR or in class C,B airspace. I
don't know how ATC could "authorize" a block elsewhere. They may,
however, enjoy just knowing where you plan to be. However, a "block
altitude' implies that no one else will be assigned to fly into that
area when you are there.

I'm not sure of the exact terminology & legalese, but by your def'n 'block
alititude' sounds like the right phrase. We're flying aerobatics in Class
C Terminal (Approach, to Americans) airspace, and they'll send other a/c
around/over/under our airwork block rather than through. Which makes
sense, given that they know we're up there doing aero work. Loops &
wingovers must make our radar track look fairly strange...

Uncontrolled airspace over 3000ft around here only starts about 30min
flying time away from home base, so to go high for aerobatic work means
working inside the Class C. Terminal assigns us blocks, and it's usually
pretty painless.

Just distracting when ATC calls you when you're upside down in mid-loop...


Brian.

AES/newspost wrote:

Is that likely the case?

It's more likely that they're encountering turbulence which makes it difficult
to maintain altitude.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

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?