Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Matthew Kosmoski

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28
31
The Control Room Floor / Re: Visual Separation and You: Dos and Don'ts
« on: January 09, 2019, 08:38:28 PM »
VFR on top is a hybrid. You need an IFR clearance to get through the IMC and then maintain visual flight rules while you are conducting the operation. It has already been covered here that you can't get a VFR-on-top clearance in Class A, despite being IFR. Further information can be found in AIM 5-5-13.

It's defined as an IFR operation. The AIM isn't regulation or law, and this is one of the many cases where it oversteps and says something that isn't substantiated by law or reg.

If it was a VFR operation, you wouldn't be constricted to your route as you are with VFR-on-top.  You're thinking about climbing and cancelling, as VFR-over-the-top, which is a VFR operation.

VFR-on-top only gives you altitude discretion, subject to VFR wx mins.  Otherwise, to cite your beloved AIM:

5-5-13(a)2: (c) Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this flight; i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications, course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.

As previously mentioned in this thread, the 7110 also prohibits VFR-on-top in Class A airspace.

Quote
7−1−1. CLASS A AIRSPACE
RESTRICTIONS
Do not apply visual separation or issue VFR or
“VFR-on-top” clearances in Class A airspace.

It might not be specifically prohibited by regulation, but you need clearance into Class A airspace, and outside the exceptions talked about (LOA, etc.) you're not going to get this clearance. This topic deserves its own thread if we continue to discuss it.

I don't think anybody is arguing the need for the clearance.  My point is that the only thing that is actually law permits for it.

32
The Control Room Floor / Re: Visual Separation and You: Dos and Don'ts
« on: January 09, 2019, 07:10:47 PM »
VFR on top is a hybrid. You need an IFR clearance to get through the IMC and then maintain visual flight rules while you are conducting the operation. It has already been covered here that you can't get a VFR-on-top clearance in Class A, despite being IFR. Further information can be found in AIM 5-5-13.

It's defined as an IFR operation. The AIM isn't regulation or law, and this is one of the many cases where it oversteps and says something that isn't substantiated by law or reg.

If it was a VFR operation, you wouldn't be constricted to your route as you are with VFR-on-top.  You're thinking about climbing and cancelling, as VFR-over-the-top, which is a VFR operation.

VFR-on-top only gives you altitude discretion, subject to VFR wx mins.  Otherwise, to cite your beloved AIM:

5-5-13(a)2: (c) Comply with instrument flight rules that are applicable to this flight; i.e., minimum IFR altitudes, position reporting, radio communications, course to be flown, adherence to ATC clearance, etc.

33
The Control Room Floor / Re: Visual Separation and You: Dos and Don'ts
« on: January 09, 2019, 07:09:31 PM »
VFR-on-top is an IFR operation... how else would you get through the layer?

Bingo.  Nothing in 91.135 would prohibit VFR-on-top.

VFR in class A in general would require an LOA as previously discussed (eg for gliders), unless they were IFR and given a block and area to play in...  But VFR-on-top, despite the name, isn't a VFR operation.  VFR-on-top is referenced in only one section only of 14 CFR 91 -- 91.179, IFR cruising altitude or flight level.

I'm not sure what the fuss is about.  It's one of the clearer parts of the law.

34
The Control Room Floor / Re: Visual Separation and You: Dos and Don'ts
« on: January 08, 2019, 12:06:50 AM »
Let's take a look at 7110.65, shall we?

Quote
7−1−1. CLASS A AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS

Do not apply visual separation or issue VFR or
“VFR-on-top” clearances in Class A airspace.


Gliders usually operate in accordance with a LOA and the facility/agency will block airspace (i.e ATCAA).

Sure, the JO can say that, but the JO isn't law nor does it require the rulemaking process.  It seems like an interesting case where the law says its okay, but the FAA is telling you not to do it anyways.  I can see why it'd be frowned upon operationally, but I'm curious to understand why the JO takes that position more than "because it does."

35
The Control Room Floor / Re: Visual Separation and You: Dos and Don'ts
« on: January 08, 2019, 12:03:15 AM »
...and we know what authority the AIM actually has.

From one of the first few pages in the AIM:

"This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be requirements in other federal publications or regulations. It is made available solely to assist pilots in executing their responsibilities required by other publications."

No authority. The AIM has no authority.

That's my point ;-)

36
The Control Room Floor / Re: Visual Separation and You: Dos and Don'ts
« on: January 07, 2019, 03:21:05 PM »
You can't be VFR on top in Class A airspace.

Why not?

91.179 (IFR cruising altitudes) permits for VFR on top above 18k, referencing requirements of 91.159 (VFR cruising altitudes), which actually permits for VFR in Class A, just requiring pilots to maintain altitude as assigned.  I've heard this regularly being done with gliders, but that's really the only time I've heard it actually used.

Quote
91.176(a) In controlled airspace. Each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in controlled airspace shall maintain the altitude or flight level assigned that aircraft by ATC. However, if the ATC clearance assigns “VFR conditions on-top,” that person shall maintain an altitude or flight level as prescribed by §91.159.

Quote
91.159(b) When operating above 18,000 feet MSL, maintain the altitude or flight level assigned by ATC.

While the AIM 4-4-7 says ATC won't authorize it, the law permits for it, and we know what authority the AIM actually has.

37
News / Re: ZAU has a new DATM
« on: December 29, 2018, 10:39:27 PM »
Congrats!

38
News / Re: Chicago has a new EC!
« on: December 29, 2018, 10:38:57 PM »
Congrats, Jason!  Glad to see you coming back to VATSIM!

39
Simple Insanity / Re: Black Friday Sales
« on: December 25, 2018, 12:03:55 AM »
Sure it does!

Can you send me a packet of seeds?

40
News / Re: Merry Christmas
« on: December 23, 2018, 11:19:32 PM »
Merry Christmas!

41
General Discussion / Re: What Website??????????
« on: December 16, 2018, 10:10:07 AM »
Who reads documentation anyway, these days?

Well, we get bored sometimes...

42
General Discussion / Re: What Website??????????
« on: December 15, 2018, 03:00:28 PM »
and usually I go by the rule that the airborne planes are more important.

Good idea!  91.113 gives the guy on final right of way :)

43
News / Re: New Atlanta TA!
« on: December 15, 2018, 12:58:04 PM »
Congrats!

44
General Discussion / Re: Mode C Transponders
« on: December 13, 2018, 09:44:14 AM »
I was just forcibly removed and banned from the network within 60 seconds of the Supervisor contacting me. I had no time to react. The supervisor was abusing his powers to say the least but, thats old news.

Any progress or status updates on following up with [email protected]?

Unfortunately, no. The incident took place nearly 6 months ago, and I never received a formal response from Tim Barber. It was kind of just shaken off, and forgotten about. It's not a huge deal since it was never listed on my action log.

Supervisor actions don't get documented in your VATUSA action log.  Did you email Tim Barber directly or supervisors@ as instructed?  I've never seen something brought to supervisors@, no matter how silly, get shaken off without so much as a response.

45
General Discussion / Re: Mode C Transponders
« on: December 12, 2018, 12:42:05 PM »
I was just forcibly removed and banned from the network within 60 seconds of the Supervisor contacting me. I had no time to react. The supervisor was abusing his powers to say the least but, thats old news.

Any progress or status updates on following up with [email protected]?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28