Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

VFR cruising levels... legal requirement?

Hello folks,

I keep having my doubts as to the legal requirement on VFR cruising levels.
So it’s an even level +500ft on westerly tracks, and an odd level +500ft on easterly tracks. Fine. But how binding is this? It says “except where otherwise indicated in ATC clearances”, so if you’re flying in CAS and ATC approves of it, no problem. But is it absolutely mandatory to respect it OCAS? Has there been any prosecution for violation of this ever?

One of the issues I see with this whole thing is the following. Say we’re flying westerly, the TA is 6000ft and the TRL is FL70. Because you can’t fly inside the transition layer, that leaves effectively only 4500ft and FL85 as usable VFR cruising levels. The difference is 4000ft. And anyway, you may not want to be able to fly as high as FL85 but 4500 is too low for comfort/weather/views/reasons. Could an authority potentially prosecute you if you decided to fly at, let’s say, 6000ft?

I heard some people say this is only a “recommendation”; “guidance” etc. Then I hear it’s actually recommended to fly the “non-obvious” levels, so 5700, 4200 etc. Or do they mean that only below 3000ft?

SERA.5000g
(g)
Except where otherwise indicated in air traffic control clearances or specified by the competent authority, VFR flights in level cruising flight when operated above 900 m (3 000 ft) from the ground or water, or a higher datum as specified by the competent authority, shall be conducted at a cruising level appropriate to the track as specified in the table of cruising levels in Appendix 3.

EDDW, Germany

It is pretty much as you say. It IS a rule (not a recommendation). But then, since we are talking OCAS (or better, since we are talking uncontrolled flights, i.e. including VFR in class E) nobody cares too much, and therefore there is very little enforcement.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

boscomantico wrote:

nobody cares too much, and therefore there is very little enforcement.

I thought this was the case.

Personally I never really cared about this rule when cruising VFR.
Or, to put it another way, I had so many other higher priority considerations when choosing cruising levels (weather, terrain, performance, airspace etc.) that I never bothered with this.

EDDW, Germany

Is the loophole here not the phrase “VFR flights in level cruising flight”?

So you must be both “level” and “cruising”.
¿Could one argue they are not cruising (what is the definition of cruise in a legal context anyway)? ¿Or they are not level and keep going up/down around their desired level at 100fpm for 10 minutes at a time?

Definition from SERA:

62.
‘cruise climb’ means an aeroplane cruising technique resulting in a net increase in altitude as the aeroplane mass decreases;

63.
‘cruising level’ means a level maintained during a significant portion of a flight;

EDDW, Germany

Alpha_Floor wrote:

Is the loophole here not the phrase “VFR flights in level cruising flight”?

It sounds to me like quite a strange approach to look for “loopholes” in rules that are there to improve safety (by separating IFR from VFR traffic and at least reducing some risk for midair collision.

It’s quite simple: As the rule says you “shall” use cruising levels. And that means that whenever there is no specific reason not to use them (like weather, terrain, etc.) one just should use them. As simple as that.
If you fly from A to B you need to decide for an altitude for the enroute section of this flight anyways – so why not just use the cruising levels?

Alpha_Floor wrote:

Personally I never really cared about this rule when cruising VFR.
Or, to put it another way, I had so many other higher priority considerations when choosing cruising levels (weather, terrain, performance, airspace etc.) that I never bothered with this.

That is a bit confusing because it is 2 very different statements! Not really caring is almost the opposite of taking a conscious decision to not use them due to other considerations.
In practice I would say the cruising level question is quite simple for a cross country flight: First chose the route, then look for the adequate cruising level (for direction of flight, terrain, airplane performance, etc.) and then check if there is a reason not to use this level. If there is such a reason (like weather) check if the next best available level is adequate – if not, just chose an altitude.

Last Edited by Malibuflyer at 24 Feb 07:21
Germany

The UK’s Skyway Code is a good place to check this sort of stuff. It says:

VFR cruising levels
Under the standardised European Rules of the
Air (SERA), there are VFR cruising altitudes
specified for flight above 3000 ft AGL – the idea being you fly at a particular altitude depending on the direction you are flying.

These are not mandatory in the UK; indeed randomisation of cruising levels is encouraged.

EGBJ and Firs Farm, United Kingdom

boscomantico wrote:

nobody cares too much, and therefore there is very little enforcement

There are no enforcements (by some law enforcing entity) in G whatsoever, that doesn’t mean you personally shouldn’t enforce the rule. (Nothing in controlled airspace either when thinking about it, but ATC may file a report and contact the police if they feel like it)

This reminds me of the boarder between Sweden and Norway in these corona times. The boarder is closed for recreational trips. But the boarder is long, the longest boarder in Europe, and enforcement is done only on the main roads, and on many of them only occasionally. To get around the law and take a trip to Sweden, isn’t exactly difficult. This time of year with a skidoo, it’s like picking candy from a child (no roads needed for a skidoo). This is helped along with the media making stories, videos and pictures of desolated boarder crossing roads, then crying “where is the boarder control”. Further the story follows the line of reasoning that since there is no boarder control, people can cross as they please. So, time and time again, some boarder controlling official has to explain that this is exactly like speed limits on the roads. You have to be unlucky to actually get a ticket, but that doesn’t mean the speed limit is not in place and should be followed (according to law).

Anyway, I have a feeling that these cruising alts are from ages long gone, before airspaces like we have now, and where a substantial amount of cruising actually were done VFR. If I put a flight level in the FP, ATC always asks if this is an IFR flight But it still makes sense because it do creates a higher degree of separation in uncontrolled airspace. Well, if it wasn’t for all those that mean if something isn’t enforced, it doesn’t apply

Last Edited by LeSving at 24 Feb 08:23
The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

It wasn’t too long ago that the UK gave up the quadrantal rule in favour of the semi-circular rule used in most ICAO countries. Whether the air police will fine you is one thing, whether you have a mid air collision is down to you. I know which is more important to me.

France

Curious question, was there any documented VFR mid-air collision in uncontrolled airspace above 4000ft agl worldwide? in VMC? in IMC?

Last Edited by Ibra at 24 Feb 09:54
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

I have found that when I am cruising above 3000ft VFR “going somewhere” and I choose and relay to the FIS controller (Europe) that I am at FL45/55/65 etc, then half the time they reply confirming the FL and half the time they reply with a comparable altitude with QNH…

Regards, SD..

94 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top