So... Today I was starting a nice flight back home at 3,000 ft to take advantage of a nice tailwind. I called the local approach controller shortly after take off and getting established at altitude for flight following and the he asked me what I wanted as my cruising altitude. I told him 3,000 ft. He then told me an acceptable VFR cruising altitude was 4,500 and I could climb to that when able.

I didn't want to make a scene because that never seems to end well, so I ended up climbing to 8,500 to get above a light FEW layer and got transferred to another controller shortly after.

I pulled up the regs when I got home and I was right. Here's what it says:

§91.159 VFR cruising altitude or flight level:
Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless otherwise authorized by ATC:

(a) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and—

(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 3,500, 5,500, or 7,500); or

(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 4,500, 6,500, or 8,500).

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

So, what's the best way to handle this in the future? It ended up being relatively a non-issue since I saw the same ground speed at either altitude, and I'm not going to fall on my sword for minutia. But I can't help feeling like I helped perpetuate the issue with this specific controller by not correcting him. Like I let him set a new standard. This obviously isn't a major issue in my life; its more like a little, nagging feeling.

What would you do?

You should have given him a number to call.

As you know, 3,000 is a fine altitude for VFR. So he may just have been misinformed. There are areas where that can also be an assigned IFR altitude, so it is also true that in some areas it maybe shouldn't be a vfr altitude. As to what to do, I try to do what I am asked when on flight following. But I also tell them what I want to do and usually they just say fine.

Zzz wrote:You should have given him a number to call.

What do you mean?



Also, I've always understood the reg as above 3,000 ft.

I was just re-reading the excerpt and saw the magic words "above the surface" after 3,000 ft. I hadn't noticed that before. Guess I need to pay more attention.

Zzz wrote:You should have given him a number to call.

LOL I might just crash from laughter if I heard that one on the radio.

I know what you mean about validating their knowledge. New guy I'm sure.

Normally I only monitor the flight following freq. and listen for other traffic in the area.

Occasionally I have keyed up and said "Traffic reported to C1234 has C1234 in sight and clear.
ATC "Are you on flight following?" Me, "Negative - just listenin' in, keeps the channel cleaner."

One possibility is that you may have been too low for their radar, slim maybe but possible..

There are places out west here where you need to be 10K min. to make contact and be seen.

Trim

This happened to me once out of KELP. Had received a clearance for 5000 NE bound, but then the tower told me it was the wrong altitude for my direction of flight. Now, this is only 1000 AGL, and I was making a quick hop to a military strip 15 miles away. I simply replied "well that's the altitude that I want" and a different voice came back and told me to proceed as requested. El Paso is a training tower, everyone makes few mistakes learning a new job. I'm sure sure the experienced controllers explained the rules to him.
Dave

Yea . Always thought it was 3000agl when you had to go odd , east west even,Whenever I talk to ACT I just remember that they are down there in that box because I am up there .I am not up there because they are down there .

I, like Trimtab, used the receiver much more than the transmitter. Catching a tailwind is fine, but if you stay low they don't know.

Lots of controllers, and pilots, feel the need for a hemispheric rule in the mountains where most little planes never get more than 3,000' AGL. Lot of gas wasted pulling back when the airplane would actually go up a little faster if the pilot pushed forward a bit.

Higher is not always better. The government is spring loaded to the "you need me" concept.

He might have felt since you requested VFR flight following he wanted you at a VFR cruising attitude er I mean altitude

1-800-EAT-SHIT

I use flight following all the time going to/from and through the Skankorage area, and they are normally accommodating with requests from me if I don't agree with what they would like me to do. I don't really want to fly out toward Fire Island to get into Lake Hood. I just say I'm in a single and not a twin and I forgot my arm floats.

I like the 500 foot thing. Out here we may only be clearing mountain peaks by 1000 feet but if we're on an altitude, hopefully we won't hit the guy coming the other way because he's 500 feet higher. Sometimes, ifr in a little plane, we ask for minimum vectoring altitudes that are less than 3000' agl. In theory, they should pick up other traffic at our altitudes, but mountain coverage is spotty in areas. Same with dropping through a layer into uncontrolled airports below radar coverage. We're usually ifr without radar services not really wanting to share even altitudes if we're in and out of IMC.

3000', esp 3000' AGL, should be good for whatever direction you wanna go. If he wanted to bump you up for traffic avoidance, that's different.
When flying out over the open water to the San Juans, I generally check in with Navy Whidbey even if my course doesn't actually take me through their airspace. I don't specifically request flight following (aka "radar service") but I get it. My course north is usually just a bit west of north, so should be evens plus five. Sometimes I don't feel like climbing to 4500, so I just stay at 3000- even though that doesn't quite keep me within gliding distance to shore. Or sometimes I go to 3500, but even though I'm at the wrong altitude per the hemi rules I've rarely if ever been called on it.

The tactical situation is always fluid.

CamTom12 wrote:So... Today I was starting a nice flight back home at 3,000 ft to take advantage of a nice tailwind. I called the local approach controller shortly after take off and getting established at altitude for flight following and the he asked me what I wanted as my cruising altitude. I told him 3,000 ft. He then told me an acceptable VFR cruising altitude was 4,500 and I could climb to that when able.

This happens a lot. ATC has their own limitations and knowledge. I.e. minimum vector altitudes, RADAR, coverage, traffic etc.

I didn't want to make a scene because that never seems to end well, so I ended up climbing to 8,500 to get above a light FEW layer and got transferred to another controller shortly after.

Every situation is different but , with Center I say "Question Sir". And wait. If he feels like chatting then he will come back. If not he will ignore you.

I pulled up the regs when I got home and I was right. Here's what it says:

§91.159 VFR cruising altitude or flight level:
Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless otherwise authorized by ATC:

(a) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and—

(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 3,500, 5,500, or 7,500); or

(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 4,500, 6,500, or 8,500).

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

So, what's the best way to handle this in the future? It ended up being relatively a non-issue since I saw the same ground speed at either altitude, and I'm not going to fall on my sword for minutia. But I can't help feeling like I helped perpetuate the issue with this specific controller by not correcting him. Like I let him set a new standard. This obviously isn't a major issue in my life; its more like a little, nagging feeling.

I like it when pilots learn the FARs. But, ATC is a (95%) IFR organization and (5%) VFR. VFR is very loose flying compared to what the controllers can offer.

What would you do?

Be polite and go with the flow...unless you can NOT 100% accept the altitude. Then later ask if workload is light.

I.e. "Request lower" Etc....

"request 3,000 if able"

akgreg wrote:1-800-EAT-SHIT

Ah, I get the phone number thing now. Haha!

I use flight following quite a bit, just because its nice to have someone on the radio in case I need to call a mayday. If I'm low enough that I'm not in radar contact I'll just bounce my freqs around to the nearest CTAF frequency as I'm moving along.

I've never had ATC tell me I needed to be at an altitude for cruising, except once I was asked to remain above X ft for traffic. No big deal there. I have been asked politely if I intended to remain at my altitude because my radar contact would soon be lost, and those cases are super easy, either climb or cancel flight following. Flight following services in my experience have always been VERY user friendly and accommodating.

I was kind of caught off guard to get 'corrected' by the guy on the other end of the radio. I know for a fact that I'd have been in radar coverage much lower than 3,000 ft since I've been there in helos with this same approach control. But, in the end it was a non-issue so I just climbed. My only (super minor) regret is not fixing this guy's apparent misunderstanding of the regs. Somehow I still managed to sleep soundly last night.

In the end, the event got me to dig into the regs again, so there's some goodness in that.

In the high country I fly in, I'm often below 3000' AGL, so the hemispheric rule doesn't apply. If I go above 3000' AGL, I'll follow it--it's there for a reason, to minimize potential conflicts that could result in a collision. But when I'm below 3000', the only time ATC has a say in how high I fly is when I'm within the Class B or within the Mode C area around it. If they ask me to change altitudes when I'm on flight following, I may or may not. If it means (as it may) that they'll lose me on radar, I'm likely to climb to the suggested altitude at night, but in the day time, I'll likely stay at the altitude I'm already using and then monitor ATC--and I tell them that. Sometimes they ask me to switch to 1200; other times they'll want me to maintain the previous squawk.

That a review of the regs disclosed some forgetting, you're not alone, CamTom. When I took my SES checkride in July 2014, the DPE asked me chart questions that I had a hard time with--and I've always considered myself a pretty good chart reader. But when we don't need to refer to a particular thing in our everyday flying, it's easy to forget it. Yeah, it's "basic" stuff, but a lot of what we learned way back when is minutia that really doesn't affect us very often.

Cary

One possibility is that you may have been too low for their radar, slim maybe but possible..

Out here in Socal if I'm at 3,000 ft in some areas with flight following they advise they can't keep me on radar and ask if I wish to be dropped.

As was mentioned he might have needed you higher to get you on radar, although I think he would have said that. What is more likely is that he wanted you higher to reduce his workload. While 3000' agl and below is a non-directional cruise altitude for regs, the controller might like the separation that 500' will give you from other traffic. Down low he will be seeing more non-flight following traffic he has no com with that he will have to alert you to because a lot of vfr flights are low and don't use flight following. And reducing his workload is a good thing, as he is herding around heavy jet traffic with high life loads. Thse are his priority.

As for "handling it", I think you handled it just fine. You did what he asked. You are not required to fly at those flight levels but on the other hand he is only required to give flight following as able. He is the sole judge of whether he is able and had you balked he would have probably just terminated flight following. Was he wrong? He didn't say that it was only legal to fly at the VFR levels only that it was "acceptable" and that could mean acceptable to him at that time.

Controllers can be asshats for sure, but pilots can be real asshats too. You can always ask for the facility phone number and call for a "clarification" when on the ground. I've done that, using questions to gently educate controllers while not gumming up the airways with ego talk.