TIS and What could have been

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

So thats the FAA solution: More cost to you, less functionality,
less safety! Yea!

Is there an FAA paper or similar that describes its intentions for TIS and
ADS-B?

Julian

Mark T. Dame wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


But it
seems odd that you weren't assigned an altitude restriction as you'd
be pretty much right over DAY.

DAY isn't very busy. My last flight through the DAY class C, they let
me fly right over the field at 4,500 using FF. I was expecting to be
vectored around but, all they did was give me notices of departing traffic.

To clarify: I was at 4,500 when I contacted them and they didn't give
me an assigned altitude. They just gave the usual "advise of altitude
change".


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer."
-- Star Trek: Dr. McCoy, "The Devil In The Dark"

Julian Scarfe wrote:
"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...

So thats the FAA solution: More cost to you, less functionality,
less safety! Yea!

Is there an FAA paper or similar that describes its intentions for TIS and
ADS-B?

Julian

See the AOPA Online - AirTraffic Services Brief - TIS

Chuck

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...

DAY isn't very busy. My last flight through the DAY class C, they let me
fly right over the field at 4,500 using FF. I was expecting to be
vectored around but, all they did was give me notices of departing
traffic.


I think you're missing the point. DAY is busy enough to warrant Class C
airspace and in Class C airspace VFR aircraft must be separated from IFR
aircraft. Overflying VFR aircraft are typically assigned an altitude
restriction 500' above whatever is used as the initial altitude for IFR
departures.

Mark T. Dame wrote:




No, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that I also have been right over
DAY without being assigned an altitude. While it may be "typical" to
assign an altitude in such a case, it is by no means unusual not to be
(or, as you stated "pretty odd"). I was merely pointing out that I have
been in the same situation as the OP: over DAY without having been
assigned an altitude.

If you are going right over the field altitude is not nearly as
important as position. If the runways are east/west and they are
departing to the west then tell the VFR aircraft to pass just to the
east of the airport and altitude is irrelavant. Of course if they are
not very busy at the time then no restriction is the right move.


Be that as it may, it is not unusual (nor "odd") to not be assigned an
altitude when over flying the airport associated with a class C airspace.

Most facilities use the ceiling of their airspace as the initial
altitude given to IFR departures. Here at BIL that means you get 12,000
or requested lower altitude. And since 90% of overflight traffic is
lower than that it would be stupid to take the overflights that high.

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...

No, I'm not.


Then your response didn't make sense.



I'm simply pointing out that I also have been right over DAY
without being assigned an altitude. While it may be "typical" to assign
an altitude in such a case, it is by no means unusual not to be (or, as
you stated "pretty odd"). I was merely pointing out that I have been in
the same situation as the OP: over DAY without having been assigned an
altitude.


If it is typical to assign an altitude in these cases, it is unusual not to
be.



Which, while may normally result in an assigned altitude for VFR traffic,
doesn't have to.


Correct.



Be that as it may, it is not unusual (nor "odd") to not be assigned an
altitude when over flying the airport associated with a class C airspace.


Actually it is, and you're contradicting yourself.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Most facilities use the ceiling of their airspace as the initial altitude
given to IFR departures.


Most facilities use an altitude well below the top of their delegated
airspace and keep overflight traffic above the altitude used for departures.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


Be that as it may, it is not unusual (nor "odd") to not be assigned an
altitude when over flying the airport associated with a class C airspace.

Actually it is, and you're contradicting yourself.

I'm not going to get dragged into a ****ing contest over semantics, but
I'm only contradicting myself if you are misreading (either
intentionally or unintentionally) what I wrote.

While you may think that it's unusual to not be assigned an altitude
when under VFR following through class C or over the associated airport,
my experience has shown that, while it doesn't happen all the time, it
is not strange, odd, unusually, unlikely, bizarre, goofy, or whatever
adjective you want to through in.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine."

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...

I'm not going to get dragged into a ****ing contest over semantics, but
I'm only contradicting myself if you are misreading (either intentionally
or unintentionally) what I wrote.


I can assure you I understood what you wrote, perhaps you meant something
else.



While you may think that it's unusual to not be assigned an altitude when
under VFR following through class C or over the associated airport, my
experience has shown that, while it doesn't happen all the time, it is not
strange, odd, unusually, unlikely, bizarre, goofy, or whatever adjective
you want to through in.


It IS unusual not to be assigned an altitude restriction in those cases.