AOPA Pilot Magazine - March 1958 - (Page 48) outside of control areas at 3,000 feet ox more. above the surface and visibility iÃ1639 than three miles, VFR flights as specified by CAA. However, GAA*s today must conform to the "plus 500air tvaffie cotttrol wgOWtSS.atwnhas been foot rule" depending on direction of diapa.tchMlg IFS fiiaht-plan. aircraft h flight. In controlled airspace, above VFR weather at wny or ati of thew alti- 8,000 feet, VFE flights are w i r e d tudes, /feav,ently w, head-mi, coIlwv>~ to fly at odd or even altitudes as speeicourses with non-IFR trqffie. Dew-te fied. In view of this, it would seem logirepeated egarts by AOPA to impmss cd to simplify tills complex procedure wait your organfeafriott t&6 ffravitif of rather than complicate the IPk procethia hoseard, CAA has taken no action dure. The CAB on December 1 , 1967, 0 -to prevent a possibto collision. Save announced a proposal to achieve a you been mrsonull~ famikr with thk single simplified system applicable to problem., and Susiea the mowner h a which all airapace both in and out o mf this hazard hw been handled have y o w trolled airspace. personal aywwal? b & In November 1fi66, y w A. Yes. CAA aaticip&d the itevel- first advised us that the CAAa hadoffice redopment of this hazard Â¥welover a year ommended tv the CAB that the wather ago. In July, 1956, we recommended m i n k fwr VFR fiyi'ag be W e a a e d rule changes to alienate the situation from th& present 1,000 feet to 1,500 and these were formalized by the CAB feet and that the present three-mile w November 4,1966. We rtcoini~aided visibilf& Ihit be increased to five that VTK flights below 29,000 feet be miles. Would you care to tell us sped& made at odd or even thousand-foot alti- cally what steps were taken by you. tudes plas 600 feet. and y a w staff to obtain factual eviThe problem is to get traffic between # m e to aumort this poattton? two high-density points. In order to continue increasing the capacity of an b When this proposal was made air traffic control system, we must there was considerable difference of continue to assign both even and odd opinion within industry on its merits. thousands to IFB flights moving i n We reeognimd that there would be the same d i r e c t i d o n e routes which serious argument from some segments we in effect one-way airways. I think 6f general aviation. However, studies the plus-500-foot altitude concept for have shown that adverse weather and VFà flying rosy a solution. How- particularly low visibility ffra the greatever, flight in VFR Â¥weathe requires that all pilots be vigilant is observing other traffic. est cause o accidents in general aviaf tion. It ia therefore evident that a great majority of general aviation pilots are improperly trained and experienced to safely utilize today's air- k craft in anything but higher minimum VFR Ttfeatiter. Today's general aviation pilot is m a w better utilization of his aircraft, going places instead of staytag local and mixing with other traffic on busier airways. In addition, we realized that present.ing our proposal to the CAB would ensure a public hearing and permit an airapaee users a chance to state their views. From such discussions a compromise usually results. The CAB had indicated anch a course in preliminary talks before we made o a r formal proposal. Our decision was to send it to the Board, left them take our recommendation as well aa other comments that came in,and come up with a regulation. [AOPA COMMENT: There are misleading statements wnd assumptiona here. The bad-weather accidents in general aviation happen almost exclusively outside q t r o l zones or high density zones. C a hm ing these control zone minimums would have no bearing on accidents happening elsewhere. Also, we're a little startled to note what is purported to be the CAA method for stimulating discussion on any matter: propose In view of the fact that pilots have developed long-time habits ftyiw VFS a S dw to present rules, would w ri it not be e&r if ATC,which w e a r ily asfitgnu altitudes by number, were to o d d w even altifttdes plus 5 t o IFS HIffhta. m b No, I do not believe it would be easier for ATC to assign odd or altitudes phis 600 f& to IFR flights because : 1 This would preclude the use o . f the minimum cardinal altitude, which i s based .on the WEA (minimum enÂ¥rout altitude), resulting in the loss o m IFS altitude for non-pieasurfe ized aircraft. 2. I t would increase approach intervals by raising the initial appro& altitude unless the initial approach altitude happened to coincide with the altitude plus 500-foot rule. 3. It would prevent establishment of r*gwmd contact" or "VFR conditiom" prior to reaching the approach fix when ceilings are at or near the MEA thereby slowing down IFR operations. It should be remembered also that CAB 60.32 is effective only when aircraft ate operated at 3,000 feet or more above the surface. VFK operations be" low that level therefore are not affected and may still fly at the odd or even altitudes. Additionally, when operating Q. 1 didn't see him land tot I'm w hiok'n forward te this take Bff." e THE AOPA PILOT
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.