Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

'Not Above' clearance

While flying under VFR, a clearance “not above” a particular level is quite common. Eg “cleared to xxx not above altitude 2500 on 1011”.

Why is this phraseology used? It seems to me that it would be easy to miss the “not” part and instead hear that you were cleared to a point “above altitude xxxx”.

Indeed sometimes you also be cleared “not below”.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to clear an aircraft “below” or “above” which wouldn’t be open to the same problem.

EIWT Weston, Ireland

dublinpilot wrote:

Why is this phraseology used? It seems to me that it would be easy to miss the “not” part and instead hear that you were cleared to a point “above altitude xxxx”.

I only heard “not above xxx” and “not bellow xxx”, I never heard “cleared above 2000ft” or “cleared bellow 2000ft” !

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

‘Cleared to’ in the US would mean you’re on an IFR flight plan.

Usual VFR departure at Inverness EGPE is: “Not above 2000’ until coordinated with Radar.” No problem.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

At EDLN, some SIDs for rw 13 are crossing the approach into 05 of EDDL, therefore it’s quite common to get an initial IFR departure clearance of ‚not above 2000ft initially‘. Usually higher shortly after calling radar.

Safe landings !
EDLN, Germany

The usual phraseology will not be ‘cleared not above xxxxx’ allowing an error at that point.
The usual phraseology will be ‘cleared xxxxx (to transit controlled airspace, for example) and then include not above xxxxx’
You are expected to read back all of it correctly and if you have misunderstood, the controller will reaffirm. Which is exactly how the process is designed to operate.

United Kingdom

I actually think you have a good point, though I’ve never given it much thought.

Obviously in an ideal world, regardless of the exact phrase comms will be perfectly clear and any misunderstanding will be caught in a readback, but we all know that is not how things actually are. Many clearances have been read back incorrectly and many have been missed by the other party.

This is the reason why we have certain procedures, such as using the word departure rather than takeoff etc.

I can’t really think why it is always “not above” and “not below” rather than below and above. My best guess is either that it re-enforces it as a limit with there being a “do not” type phrase, or that it was perhaps deemed easier for international use. I believe the latter is the reason for “behind the landing … line up and wait behind” rather than to use the word ‘after’.

United Kingdom

Here we get clearance (in the CTR typically) as: “cleared to XXX, 2000 ft or below”. Also when flying acro (or just instructing stall training etc) and don’t want to fly for 1/2 for the TMA to reach sufficient alt (as no one do), we say “request clearance to operate XXX feet or below overheat Y”. Then we get “cleared to operate XXX feet or below overhead Y”. Sometimes an airliner is coming. Then the ATC simply say “stay below XXX feet, standby for further clearance” or something like that.

It is almost always “or below”, but there are exceptions. A few times I have got “or above”, or simply “above”. Those times, by habit, I have answered “or below”, and then I got a correction. Each time it has been helicopter traffic.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Not above/Not below is used so that flights can operate in a larger band of altitudes (if they prefer), but the altitude restriction applies so that they are separated from other traffic. If the cleared altitude is unsuitable, then there’s nothing to stop one from asking for a different altitude.

You might even get it.

Last Edited by James_Chan at 12 Sep 11:22

Yes that was my impression, VFR you will never get cleared “to above xx” or “to bellow xx”, you will rather get an equivalent as “keep ground in sight” or “maintain vmc”

Last Edited by Ibra at 12 Sep 09:46
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom
25 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top