En route altitudes and safety

buttman wrote in news:7a1a8551-4840-45e3-a452-
:

On Aug 27, 10:22*am, Frank Olson
wrote:
a wrote:
A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an
personal
flying practice. * When en route, as a way of reducing the
likelihood
of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor
of
two for the non mathematically inclined) I *fly the nominal
altitude
less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The
idea
of course is if the unseen/unreported *converging traffic is at the
correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose
lower
because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree
this
makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have
overlooked?
To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
flying.

Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
safety?

I fly at the assigned altitude, period. *I put my trust in the
controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
are just as trustworthy (and professional). *Someone that thinks
deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's
going
to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
that in the name of "safety".

I many jets, it's nearly impossible to hold +/-100 feet for any
extended period of time without the autopilot.


Bull****.


Bertie

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:43:18 -0400, John Smith wrote:

In article SNhtk.966$w51.146@trnddc01, "Mike"
wrote:

The controller is not going to bust you by a small altitude deviation based
on what he sees on his scope.

The problem is, FAA HQ has recently state that the controller is being
taken out of the loop and the deviations are being automatically
recorded. The controllers don't like it and have voiced their concerns
in the past few weeks.

What's the turnaround time for the FSDO letter with the new automated
system?

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:09:01 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
u32749@uwe wrote:

John Smith wrote:

The problem is, FAA HQ has recently state that the controller is being
taken out of the loop and the deviations are being automatically
recorded. The controllers don't like it and have voiced their concerns
in the past few weeks.

If that is the case, they are probably not nit picking 100 ft. deviations.
Since altitude is reported in 100 ft. increments by the encoder, it's pretty
normal for a controller to see +/- 100 ft. when someone is flying right on
the altitude. If you're flying 1 ft. above your assigned altitude, a
properly working encoder could show you to be 100 ft. high. Last time I
visited a TRACON, there were numerous targets that were +/- 100 ft. and the
controller assumed they were flying the correct altitude.

A properly set encoder will not switch to the next altitude until 50'.
So 1149 will read 1100, 1150 will read 1200. That doesn't even
include the allowable instrument error in the altimeter.

On Aug 27, 12:22*pm, Frank Olson
wrote:
a wrote:
A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
flying practice. * When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
two for the non mathematically inclined) I *fly the nominal altitude
less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
of course is if the unseen/unreported *converging traffic is at the
correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
flying.

Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
safety?

I fly at the assigned altitude, period. *I put my trust in the
controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
are just as trustworthy (and professional). *Someone that thinks
deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's going
to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
that in the name of "safety".

As a matter of fact this altitude offset was something a CFII with
whom I was flying with did routinely. If a guy is on the gauges and
can't hold +/- 50 feet en route I would not fly with him. I'll
continue that practice, and I like the idea of missing VORs by a
quarter mile or so. Not quite sure I can do that with the same
precision I can fly altitude, though.

So in spite of all of the off topic stuff I've come away with a couple
of useful things the past few weeks -- that gentle clearing turns when
entering a pattern is a good idea, as is not directly overflying a
VOR.

RAP is working!!!

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
buttman wrote in news:7a1a8551-4840-45e3-a452-
:

On Aug 27, 10:22 am, Frank Olson
wrote:
a wrote:
A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an
personal
flying practice. When en route, as a way of reducing the
likelihood
of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor
of
two for the non mathematically inclined) I fly the nominal
altitude
less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The
idea
of course is if the unseen/unreported converging traffic is at the
correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose
lower
because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree
this
makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have
overlooked?
To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
flying.
Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
safety?
I fly at the assigned altitude, period. I put my trust in the
controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with me
are just as trustworthy (and professional). Someone that thinks
deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's
going
to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something like
that in the name of "safety".
I many jets, it's nearly impossible to hold +/-100 feet for any
extended period of time without the autopilot.


Bull****.


Bertie



It really surprises me on how many things we agree on considering you're
"supposed to be" a notorious "troll". But then all I have to really
base that opinion on is the assertion of several other rather more
obvious "trolls"... Ah me... Life was so much simpler before USENET.
To think, I'd be out there vacuuming the cabin of the plane right now if
it wasn't for this group... :-)

Frank Olson wrote in
news:UyLtk.51242$hx.9049@pd7urf3no:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
buttman wrote in news:7a1a8551-4840-45e3-a452-
:

On Aug 27, 10:22 am, Frank Olson
wrote:
a wrote:
A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an
personal
flying practice. When en route, as a way of reducing the
likelihood
of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor
of
two for the non mathematically inclined) I fly the nominal
altitude
less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The
idea
of course is if the unseen/unreported converging traffic is at
the
correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose
lower
because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree
this
makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the
other
hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-
flight
risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have
overlooked?
To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely
when
flying.
Do any of you have similar odd real life habits you think enhance
safety?
I fly at the assigned altitude, period. I put my trust in the
controllers and would hope that the PIC's sharing the airways with
me
are just as trustworthy (and professional). Someone that thinks
deviating from an assigned altitude by as much as 100 feet (plus or
minus) is "OK" should spend a few hours with an instructor that's
going
to rap your knuckles with a ruler when you try pulling something
like
that in the name of "safety".
I many jets, it's nearly impossible to hold +/-100 feet for any
extended period of time without the autopilot.


Bull****.


Bertie



It really surprises me on how many things we agree on considering
you're
"supposed to be" a notorious "troll". But then all I have to really
base that opinion on is the assertion of several other rather more
obvious "trolls"... Ah me... Life was so much simpler before USENET.
To think, I'd be out there vacuuming the cabin of the plane right now
if
it wasn't for this group... :-)


Yeah, me too!

Bertie

"a" wrote in message
...
A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
flying practice. When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
two for the non mathematically inclined) I fly the nominal altitude
less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
of course is if the unseen/unreported converging traffic is at the
correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
flying.



Well, it's not a new idea. And, if you convince everyone to do it, then the
potential benifit is lost. So it would be best to not tell anyone, eh?

Plus per 14 CFR 91.159:
"each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more
than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude
or flight level prescribed below"

What you might have overlooked is that it doesn't say "maintain an altitude
minus 100 feet". If you think it's a good idea, fine - go for it. But it
would be best not to tell anyone just in case someone has a bone to pick,
eh?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

On Aug 29, 11:43*pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My
Sig.com wrote:
"a" wrote in message

...

A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
flying practice. * When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
two for the non mathematically inclined) I *fly the nominal altitude
less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
of course is if the unseen/unreported *converging traffic is at the
correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
flying.

Well, it's not a new idea. And, if you convince everyone to do it, then the
potential benifit is lost. So it would be best to not tell anyone, eh?

Plus per 14 CFR 91.159:
"each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more
than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude
or flight level prescribed below"

What you might have overlooked is that it doesn't say "maintain an altitude
minus 100 feet". If you think it's a good idea, fine - go for it. *But it
would be best not to tell anyone just in case someone has a bone to pick,
eh?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Well, no. First, it would appear from what I've read here that most
choose not to hold altitudes as closely as I do, second high winged
airplanes would choose to fly above nominal altitudes. I'll maintain
my practice, and include some of the other ideas that have been
presented here lately, I think the best one that RAP inspired is to
include mild clearing turns when approaching a pattern

On Aug 30, 3:43*pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My
Sig.com wrote:
"a" wrote in message

...

A recent thread reminded me it might be worth discussing an personal
flying practice. * When en route, as a way of reducing the likelihood
of a midair by about a binary order of magnitude (that's a factor of
two for the non mathematically inclined) I *fly the nominal altitude
less 100 feet VFR, or the assigned altitude less 50 feet IFR. The idea
of course is if the unseen/unreported *converging traffic is at the
correct altitude or on the high side of it, we'd miss. I chose lower
because I fly a low winged airplane, and of course I would agree this
makes a very unlikely event only slightly less likely. On the other
hand, I don't see that I've significantly increased other in-flight
risks much by doing this, What (if anything) might I have overlooked?
To the wiseguys, yes I in fact do hold altitude pretty closely when
flying.

Well, it's not a new idea. And, if you convince everyone to do it, then the
potential benifit is lost. So it would be best to not tell anyone, eh?

Plus per 14 CFR 91.159:
"each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more
than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude
or flight level prescribed below"

What you might have overlooked is that it doesn't say "maintain an altitude
minus 100 feet". If you think it's a good idea, fine - go for it. *But it
would be best not to tell anyone just in case someone has a bone to pick,
eh?


He could reduce the risk even more by not getting off the ground.
I must reduce my chances of a midair to near zero by never being able
to hold any altitude perfectly constant ;-)
Well except for when I'm doing the car thing... LOL