X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:40:52 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3080743 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:26:39 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.158.62.67; envelope-from=cfi@instructor.net Received: from wfilter3.us4.outblaze.com.int (wfilter3.us4.outblaze.com.int [192.168.8.242]) by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id 142171800308 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:26:00 +0000 (GMT) X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.80) by wfilter3.us4.outblaze.com; 17 Aug 2008 17:25:42 -0000 Received: by ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EDB2B83BE2; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:25:59 +0000 (GMT) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_1218993959223912" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Ron Galbraith" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:25:59 -0400 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: VFR on top Received: from [68.34.231.172] by ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com with http for cfi@instructor.net; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:25:59 -0400 X-Originating-Ip: 68.34.231.172 X-Originating-Server: ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Message-Id: <20080817172559.EDB2B83BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_----------=_1218993959223912 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Well, actually there are two separate issues. The first one is to allow you to use GPS for your primary navigation using the WAAS cert.=20 Secondly, the ATC manuals are not and have not kept up with the rest of the RNAV aircraft rules. The 7110.65 (ATC manual chapter 4) does not care about what type navigation you are using (WAAS or non WAAS) when going direct, radar monitoring is required. That is the issue that I'm working on right now at FAA headquarters. I'd sure like to think this can be complete this year, but the FAA works at the speed of light....um I mean dark. (is dark slow?). I would anticipate these rules in place in Alaska within a month, then sometime after that in the CONUS. ERAM is taking a lot of our time at the moment too which is the En Route Automation Modernization system for all the ARTCC's. (replacement of all hardware and software exept displays). First facility that will start using it will take place in Februrary at Salt Lake City ARTCC. Nothing changes for the pilots, but the controllers will have many more new tools.=20 Ron Galbraith ----- Original Message ----- From: Sky2high@aol.com To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: VFR on top Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:12:23 -0400 Ron, You have only caused greater confusion for me. I understood that even with an approach certified GPS (say, an old Garmin 430 filed as a /G) it could not be used as a primary navigation device outside of radar coverage areas. Then along came WAAS. After a certain FAA approved software level, a Garmin 430W (again still filed as /G) was now certified for sole navigation anywhere in the continental US as long as there was appropriate WAAS coverage and the hell with "radar coverage" (not much in mountainous regions anyway). I thought I could go direct anywhere with such a system (ATC permitting) as that is what various public documents have led me to believe. Grayhawk PS What use are those sloppy low altitude airways anyway (deviations and deviants being what they are)? In a message dated 8/15/2008 3:26:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time, cfi@instructor.net writes: I'd like to clarify a misconception about flying VFR on top or OTP as the controller sees it in his flight plan and on the data block on the scope. This clearance isn't a clearance for a free for all or going as low as you can go. You are still on an IFR flight plan and must stay on the filed route. The ONLY thing that does for you is allow you to stay clear of clouds. You must still comply with VFR visibility, distance from cloud criteria, and the minimum IFR altitudes. This last one is the biggy. It takes the burden off the controller to separate you from the ground with minimum IFR separation (1000' AGL or 2000' AGL in mountainous terrain), and other IFR aircraft unless in class B or C airspace. You are still required to comply with this altitude. I saw this as a controller on many many occasions, and most controllers don't know what the pilot rules are (and don't really care), so if they tell you go as low as you want, that is not a clearance to break the FAR's. You can be violated if you do this. (I've seen it happen). I'd really hate for someone to get a violation on their record because they didn't understand the rules. If you want to fly right right over Mt Rainier (less than 2000' AGL) and think you can do it VFR on top, you better be canceling IFR first. There are waivers that the ATC facilities can get such as when flying over Pikes Peak just West of Colorado Springs. The MIA (minimum IFR altitude) is 16000'MSL. This is less than 2000 AGL, but ATC has authorization to do this. Pilots don't have this authorization via a VFR on top clearance. In this case you would have to be at least 16115' MSL (2000'AGL). Another point I'd like to bring up that goes along with this discussion is that you are not allowed to go Direct using GPS (or other RNAV equipment such as INS) in any controlled airspace unless you are receiving radar monitoring(except when within navaid limitations and going direct to a navaid). What this means is that unless you are in radar contact, you cannot go direct. I'm sure this has happened to some of you and you were frustrated by why you had to stay on an airway. This is a huge issue in Alaska since there are so many non radar areas and so many remote airports. Alaska had a waiver to be able to do this, but it expired last month. I'm working on this very issue right now with flight standards and all the other affected offices here at the FAA, to allow GPS direct from airport to airport in non radar situations. Once this is approved, we will hopefully be able to apply it in the lower 48 and you will all be going direct to your destination a lot more frequently. As a side note, a loophole exists that allows you to go direct in non radar if you are on a VFR on top clearance, so keep that in mind and use the rules to your advantage when possible.=20 Ron Galbraith >i used to fly in this area of the Cascades all the time. If you are on an ifr flight plan with a "vfr on top" clearance, ATC will let you go as low as you want. One time, when on a VFR on top clearance near Mt Ranier, I asked how low i could go....they said "you can taxi from there to here if you want". > -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. --_----------=_1218993959223912 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Well, actually there are two separate issues.   The first one is = to allow you to use GPS for your primary navigation using the WAAS cert.&nb= sp; Secondly, the ATC manuals are not and have not kept up with the rest of= the RNAV aircraft rules.  The 7110.65 (ATC manual chapter 4) does not= care about what type navigation you are using (WAAS or non WAAS) when goin= g direct, radar monitoring is required.   That is the issue that = I'm working on right now at FAA headquarters.  I'd sure like to think = this can be complete this year, but the FAA works at the speed of light....= um I mean dark.  (is dark slow?).   I would anticipate these= rules in place in Alaska within a month, then sometime after that in the C= ONUS.  ERAM is taking a lot of our time at the moment too which is the= En Route Automation Modernization system for all the ARTCC's.&nb= sp; (replacement of all hardware and software exept displays).   = First facility that will start using it will take place in Februrary at Sal= t Lake City ARTCC.  Nothing changes for the pilots, but the controller= s will have many more new tools. 

Ron Galbraith

----- Original Message -----
From: Sky2high@aol.com
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: VFR on top
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:12:23 -0400

Ron,
 
You have only caused greater confusion for me. 
 
I understood that even with an approach certified GPS (say, an old Gar= min=20 430 filed as a /G) it could not be used as a primary navigation device outs= ide=20 of radar coverage areas.  Then along came WAAS.  After a certain = FAA=20 approved software level, a Garmin 430W (again still filed as /G) was now=20 certified for sole navigation anywhere in the continental US as long as the= re=20 was appropriate WAAS coverage and the hell with "radar coverage" (not = much=20 in mountainous regions anyway). 
 
I thought I could go direct anywhere with such a system (ATC=20 permitting) as that is what various public documents have led me to=20 believe.
 
Grayhawk
 
PS What use are those sloppy low altitude airways anyway (deviati= ons=20 and deviants being what they are)?
 
In a message dated 8/15/2008 3:26:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 cfi@instructor.net writes:
I'd like=20 to clarify a misconception about flying VFR on top or OTP as the controll= er=20 sees it in his flight plan and on the data block on the scope.  This= =20 clearance isn't a clearance for a free for all or going as low as you can= =20 go.  You are still on an IFR flight plan and must stay on the filed= =20 route.  The ONLY thing that does for you is allow you to stay clear = of=20 clouds.  You must still comply with VFR visibility, distance from cl= oud=20 criteria, and the minimum IFR altitudes.  This last one is the=20 biggy.  It takes the burden off the controller to separate you from = the=20 ground with minimum IFR separation (1000' AGL or 2000' AGL in mountainous= =20 terrain), and other IFR aircraft unless in class B or C airspace.  Y= ou=20 are still required to comply with this altitude.   I saw this a= s a=20 controller on many many occasions, and most controllers don't know what t= he=20 pilot rules are (and don't really care), so if they tell you go as low as= you=20 want, that is not a clearance to break the FAR's.  You can be violat= ed if=20 you do this. (I've seen it happen).   I'd really hate for someo= ne to=20 get a violation on their record because they didn't understand the=20 rules.  If you want to fly right right over Mt Rainier (less than 20= 00'=20 AGL) and think you can do it VFR on top, you better be canceling IFR=20 first.   There are waivers that the ATC facilities can get such= as=20 when flying over Pikes Peak just West of Colorado Springs.  The MIA= =20 (minimum IFR altitude) is 16000'MSL.  This is less than 2000 AGL, bu= t ATC=20 has authorization to do this.  Pilots don't have this authorization = via a=20 VFR on top clearance.  In this case you would have to be at least 16= 115'=20 MSL (2000'AGL).
    Another point I'd like to bring up = that=20 goes along with this discussion is that you are not allowed to go Direct = using=20 GPS (or other RNAV equipment such as INS) in any controlled airspace unle= ss=20 you are receiving radar monitoring(except when within navaid limitations = and=20 going direct to a navaid).  What this means is that unless you are i= n=20 radar contact, you cannot go direct.  I'm sure this has happened to = some=20 of you and you were frustrated by why you had to stay on an airway. = This=20 is a huge issue in Alaska since there are so many non radar areas and so = many=20 remote airports.  Alaska had a waiver to be able to do this, but it= =20 expired last month.  I'm working on this very issue right now with f= light=20 standards and all the other affected offices here at the FAA, to allow GP= S=20 direct from airport to airport in non radar situations.  Once this i= s=20 approved, we will hopefully be able to apply it in the lower 48 and you w= ill=20 all be going direct to your destination a lot more frequently.  As a= side=20 note, a loophole exists that allows you to go direct in non radar if you = are=20 on a VFR on top clearance, so keep that in mind and use the rules to your= =20 advantage when possible. 


Ron=20 Galbraith


 
>i used to fly in this area of the Casc= ades=20 all the time.  If you are on an ifr flight plan with a "vfr on top"= =20 clearance, ATC will let you go as low as you want.  One time, when o= n a=20 VFR on top clearance near Mt Ranier,  I asked how low i could go....= they=20 said "you can taxi from there to here if you=20 want".
>



--
For archives and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
<= /div>


Looking for a car that's sporty,= fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.

--_----------=_1218993959223912--