Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Standard/Non-standard altitudes in cross country VFR flying

LeSving wrote:

I can’t really understand why people would be non-txp (unless it is a garden chair variety microlight with no transponder, glider or something). It is illegal not to turn on the transponder for one. It’s an odd behavior.

The issue is twofold. One is that the UK airspace is a complete mess – a dogs dinner would be too kind. You often have airspace boundaries quite close together leading to potential choke points with aircraft conflicting and no joined up radar back flight information services. That means that the average pilot, left on his own, has to navigate some complex airspace without the assistance of a friendly controller – I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard a controller on Langen Information call a pilot and ask his intentions about the CAS ahead; the second is the draconian way with which the CAA deals with infringements, means that if a pilot is concerned he might infringe, then by turning off his transponder (or leaving it off, declaring it U/S etc.) his chances of “receiving an invite” to a Gasco Infringement course is lower….

EDL*, Germany

Pick a vegetable? Were you thinking of a carrot?

Pick a flower? Were you thinking of a rose? My son picked a geranium, but most people think of roses.

A bit late to the party, a few years back I did a survey where I asked people to pick random cruising altitudes. The results were, as predicted, far from random. If you wanted to pick a random altitude, take the last digit of the day of the month on which you have your birthday, multiply by 100, and add it to the number of 1000s of feet you want to fly at. If everybody did this, collisions would be even less likely.

Whilst reading the thread about infringements I keep thinking of the time I couldn’t tell the controller my altitude because it was too bumpy to read it!

@Capitaine wrote:

I was taught anything over 3000’ ASFC should be a flight level

You should be flying at flight level above transition altitude (TA). If TA has not been specified, you should be flying at flight level at and above above the Lowest Available Flightlevel (LAF). In Sweden you have TA in controlled airspace, usually 5000 ft. Outside of controlled airspace you do not have TA, and the LAF is FL95 or FL125 in the mountainous area up north.

Last Edited by Dimme at 19 Aug 11:18
ESME, ESMS

@Frans wrote:

because if they approve FL65 in class C, FL60 and FL70 are blocked for IFR-traffic

Why? Isn’t the minimum separation between IFR and VFR 500 ft?

ESME, ESMS

In airpace class C, VFR and IFR (and VFR and VFR) is not separated from each other. Hence, we are not strictly speaking about “Separation” anyway. But still, within that class C, German ATC still prefers all traffic to be at least 1000 feet apart vertically.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Pick a vegetable? Were you thinking of a carrot?

Indeed, but where you live there are some of these

In the most congested parts of the UK, there is almost no terrain, hence the “low level habits”.

I would agree flying at 2200ft is not a great idea, but 3200 / 4200 etc works well since a) there is far less traffic anyway and b) what traffic there is, is likely to be “pretend IFR” i.e. 4000ft / 5000ft etc. Especially if they are IR/IMCR students.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Dimme wrote:

You should be flying at flight level above transition altitude (TA). If TA has not been specified, you should be flying at flight level at and above above the Lowest Available Flightlevel (LAF). In Sweden you have TA in controlled airspace, usually 5000 ft. Outside of controlled airspace you do not have TA, and the LAF is FL95 or FL125 in the mountainous area up north.

SERA says that you should cruise on “flight levels, for flights at or above the lowest usable flight level or, where applicable, above the transition altitude.”

The term “lowest usable flight level” is not well defined. My opinion is that the Swedish Transport Agency has misinterpreted the regulations. It is true that the LAF in Suecia CTA is FL100 (not FL95 – that’s the lower limit), but the airspace below is not in Suecia CTA so I don’t see why you should cruise at altitudes rather than flight levels.

To make things worse, Swedish ATS radar systems always show flight levels above 5000 ft (or possibly higher in the mountainous regions), so if you fly on QNH in class G between 5000 ft and FL95, ATS radar will use a different altitude reference! Not good, particularly not for IFR.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

boscomantico wrote:

In airpace class C, VFR and IFR (and VFR and VFR) is not separated from each other. Hence, we are not strictly speaking about “Separation” anyway. But still, within that class C, German ATC still prefers all traffic to be at least 1000 feet apart vertically.

IFR-VFR are separated in class C, so it’s not a question of preference. But not in class D.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Oopsy. Yes, of course.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

IFR-VFR are separated in class C, so it’s not a question of preference. But not in class D.

Is that actually operated everywhere?

I looks like, in the UK, where Class D is a totally strict clearance and a Radar Control Service, they separate everybody. There may be a difference in what an ATCO can be disciplined for, but that’s a different angle.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top