VFR cruising levels... legal requirement?

aart wrote:

Spain and Portugal the semi-circular system is N-S instead of E-W

How does it works near Spain-France border? I need to cross it at +45deg SW-NE to avoid changing my VFR level

Ibra wrote:

Clipperstorch wrote: There is the 1997 Namibia mid-air collision (in VMC) where a Tu154M and a C-141 collided over the Atlantic Ocean

At 35000ft that looks like IFR in controlled airspace or under ATC watch in procedural IFR routes?

Until a few years ago Namibia didn’t have radar, it was all procedural.

Alpha_Floor wrote:

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?

I may add two suggestions here as I have quite some experience flying VFR across Europe: First one is, I have quit using the exact recommended altitudes. It seems as if most of GA tends to fly in specific altitudes. In lower altitudes, say below 6000 ft or 3000 ft AGL, even nobody concerns about directions, so in exactly 3500 ft or even 4000 ft you find any traffic in any direction. In 4300 ft its just as if 80% of the traffic vanishes. You see them pass below or above, but it’s safe enough. So I tend to stick to the recommended VFR level, but with an offset of 100 to 200 feet either above or below (without any preference). I think this would be perfect if everybody would do it this way, to extend the given level by 200 feet in either direction, so you still are related to the recommended level, but don’t fly it perfectly fine. Even in IFR flying it’s OK to fly in such a “block level” 200 below/above the given level, however it’s not as useful when flying in typical IFR levels (due to all participants having transponder and radar telling us where to fly).

And yes, I had quite some close nearbys in my life. Actually, having ADS-B in and out as well as FLARM in my Comanche, I don’t know whether I should like it or hate it. I tend to look out less having most of the traffic indicated in my panel, but then often enough I still pass a plane without seeing it on the screen, even fat ones sometimes – two weeks earlier I crossed my track with a Cessna Grand Caravan, and if I would have climbed to the recommended VFR altitude for my flight back I would not be writing here, because it was where this Caravan was flying. We passed each other on the same lateral position, but I was 200 ft below – just started from a nearby aerodrome, finished climb and about to call Flight Information Service.

And to answer Ibra, there have been just too many mid-air collisions in solid VMC. I note that you ask about uncontrolled airspace above 4000ft AGL, don’t know if such airspace exists. Typically only the lowest 1000 to 2000 ft are called uncontrolled. In Germany, where I know it best, you have Airspace E up to FL100, but this is not called “uncontrolled” like G. G in turn ends typically between 1000 or 2000 ft AGL (depending on distance to closest bigger airports and/or elevation) However you can perfectly fly up to FL100 without talking to anybody.

I participated in a simulator test at a University (TU Darmstadt) some years ago where one specific accident was replayed in a professional simulator, two planes on the same level, it was late, one coming “from the sun”, the other one following exactly the hill top line behind. It was practically impossible to see either of them. I managed to evade in the simulator situation, but rather by means of luck (and me not perfectly maintaining the given altitude). It was my first impulse to leave the even altitude, but the instructor on the simulator told me to maintain it. A discussion spun about that I never fly even altitudes due to the high risk of accident and wush passed the other plane two or three meters above me. I only noticed it parts of a second earlier, when it starts to get bigger, without practically any possibility to react. In the real accident behind this, two families were killed, and one of them was from the club I fly.

Second one, I used to file and fly controlled VFR above FL100 in longer trips, say from Germany to Spain and back. Initially I used to file the recommended VFR levels. But the most honest reply I got was from a spanish controller on my way back to Germany (so easterly heading), who told me, he just doesn’t have flight level 115. We agreed on 120, and it was the last time I filed “recommended VFR level” above FL100 – never ever had any complaints about me flying VFR on IFR levels.

Regards, Udo

It’s all fine until it isn’t.

UdoR wrote:

I note that you ask about uncontrolled airspace above 4000ft AGL, don’t know if such airspace exists.

Certainly it exists. Not in Germany – sure – but in e.g. the UK, Sweden, Norway just to name a few.

Second one, I used to file and fly controlled VFR above FL100 in longer trips, say from Germany to Spain and back. Initially I used to file the recommended VFR levels. But the most honest reply I got was from a spanish controller on my way back to Germany (so easterly heading), who told me, he just doesn’t have flight level 115. We agreed on 120, and it was the last time I filed “recommended VFR level” above FL100 – never ever had any complaints about me flying VFR on IFR levels.

The semicircular rule (including the VFR 500’ offset) doesn’t apply to controlled flights – you fly whatever level you are cleared at. Controlled VFR flights are very frequently assigned “IFR” levels, otherwise they would block two “IFR” levels and not just one.

Airborne_Again wrote:

UK, Sweden, Norway just to name a few.

OK then, so far I’ve flown more south-bound for which I don’t have experience “up” there; But all three countries are definitely on my “wish to go” list for the next years. Will have to check this then.

It’s so exciting how small Europe becomes having a capable tourer at hand :-)

Alpha_Floor wrote:

report it

Report what? That I do not follow a “recommendation” due to safety reasons? Well I’d bet this could get interesting.

What typically is questioned (in case of an accidence) is whether good airmanship has been shown. If, for example, you typically fly at altitude 4500 easterly bound and 5500 westerly bound, which is of course quite wrong for lots of parts of the world, then this could be accused as lack of good airmanship.

And in fact this is what I meant, that you could stick to the recommendation, but without interpreting it as a strict law, which it is not (it’s a recommendation in the end). So flying easterly bound at 4400 tends to be a bad idea, whereas flying at 5400 would perfectly be a good idea.

UdoR wrote:

which is of course quite wrong for lots of parts of the world,

How come?