Block level clearances

[Spodman]

Hello,

I'm an ATC from Australia with a question to ask. Will ATC there issue clearances with block levels in E airspace?

I see the phrase "MAINTAIN BLOCK [level] THROUGH [level]" in the Handbook, but don't know if that would only be issued in A airspace or whatever.

Would being a military aircraft be a factor in this??

[FWA NATCA]

Spodman,

Block altitudes can be utilized in a variety of circumstances and is quite commonly used. Below are a few examples of when I've used Block Altitudes:

Air carrier and air taxi aircraft doing IFR training (stalls, steep turns, etc.).

NASA aircraft doing icing test and wanting to stay within icing conditions.

Military aircraft in large formation flights or multiple flights.

Or other aircraft wanting to stay out of the clouds.

Mike R
NATCA FWA

[zerozero]

I've requested blocks due to inability to maintain altitude due to mountain wave action--or just plain old-fashioned turbulence.

Severe icing or engine-out ops may be other good reasons to request blocks.

[karrank]

These are interesting insights, but I would like to emphasise the question, do the block level clearances happen in E airspace?

I imagine Spodman is asking because we are unable to use block levels in E airspace, yet we are basing our airspace on yours (supposedly). If you use block levels in E airspace I wonder why we don't????:}

[weasil]

yes. Blocks are assigned in E airspace. All IFR airways below FL180 are class E. I have requested blocks of airspace enroute to train pilots and been given them several times.

I have been following the posts on the Dunnunda forum RE: the airspace changes. It seems to me a lot of people are afraid of change. I trained in Australia for several years, and I have to tell you I find the system here works really well (IMHO).

It is just something new, everybody will figure out how to use the new system, and new pilots coming into the system won't know any different and it will work because people will make it work.

My two cents.

[karrank]

Thanks for the definitive answer Weasil. I think some people here are just completeply change fatigued. This is the 5th attempt at major airspace change over here in the last decade or so. The others have all been beaten down by the inevitible fact that somebody, somewhere, can find an ugly safety issue that can't be mitigated through our torturous safety process; or some inconvenienced minority achieves enough coverage to embarrass or terrorfy somebody into abandoning the change. Or something really bad happens that captures the public's attention.

The people that have introduced the current change set their groundwork well.
They have the Aviation minister bent over a barrel and his @rse greased (by the threat of a popular independant who would have creamed him in our last election, but stood aside at the last minute, around when the minister gained an interest in airspace reform...) so he 100% backs up the proponents.

The safety process has a loophole that you don't have to use it if you adopt something from overseas that seems to work. Hence what we get is supposedly based on your airspace & services.

Next they got themselves made the final arbiter (by the minister) over what is or isn't done over there, and what is done in the way of airspace. Every bit of "consultation" that has occurred is prefaced by the comment: "Nothing you say will actually change anything in the model".

The result: the ARG has the final say over whether something will be implemented, they have the final say over whatever they implement is what is done over there, and they have the final say regarding the safety or neccessity over any introduced element.

I only embarked on this diatribe for one reason, here is another way we have departed from your model. You allow block level clearances in E, we don't (for civil aircraft). How can they claim greater efficiency from the new airspace? When such issues are raised with the project we are accused of dinosaurism and job-protection:yuk:

[FWA NATCA]

You need to remember that a Block Altitude clearance is only issued Traffic Permitting. If the requested Block Altitude isn't available then the pilot doesn't get it.

Mike R
NATCA FWA

[Spodman]

Yep, we have that one two. Also anybody else conflicting who requests a level in such a flights block has priority over the guy in the block.

No block levels in E airspace has be sold to me in the past by "crivens, this could put an IFR at a VFR level, and we'll all be rooned". On the other hand your AIM table of cruising levels seems pretty restrictive for IFR aircraft in E, so I'm surprised to hear block level clearances are OK.

[West Coast]

Mike
I stand to be corrected, but I don't think that applies to ALTRV flight plans.

[Spodman]

ALTRY????

I think the above covers is, but Danny won't let you post less than 15 chr...

[FWA NATCA]

West Coast,

ALTRV's must still be approved by the appropriate FAA Facility, so again if the block altitudes are NOT available, then the requested block doesn't get approved.

What you may be thinking is back to the days of when SAC use to flush all their aircraft out during an alert. Huge blocks of airspace would be blocked to allow SAC to depart, and climb out. I haven't seen a flush in a very long time.

Mike

[av8boy]

ALTRV = "Altitude Reservation," if that's what you were asking...

Dave

[West Coast]

Mike
My memories are of tanker and chicks departing on a trans conus flights on ALTRV flight plans. From one coast to another crossing God only knows how many differing sectors of many different centers all in block altitude fashion. Your the expert, if one of those guys wanted us at a hard altitude thruough his small piece of sky I guess we would be obligated. I can tell you it would be a pain in the rump for the guy in the right seat of the tanker along with the guys being dragged. I don't imagine the guy in the preceeding sector would be all that happy either as what is already a gaggle is made worse as the flight reconfigures to meet the suceeding sectors demands. I was under the impression that once an ALTRV departs from A to B needing a block to contain its operations it was allowed to remain in block fashion till no longer needed.

[FWA NATCA]

West Coast,

In your example it the ALTRV probably stays in effect unless for some reason that ATC has to restrict them to a smaller Block of altitude due to traffic.

Mike

[galaxy flyer]

FWA NATCA:

Remember ALTRVs are only in FAAO .65, an ALTRV is not recognized by ICAO and most member states. While there is a PAC Military Altitude Reservation Facility and a EuCARF that coordinates ALTRV requests (mostly US Mil), only in the US can ATC give an ALTRV clearance that remains in effect take-off to IFPFP or landing. Elsewhere, an ALTRV is really just a request that is handled by each ACC. And there are two types--stationary and moving.

Are Block Altitudes available outside the US? I have gotten them in CA, but never tried in Europe.

GF

[Spodman]

Available in Class A airspace in Australia. I could clear an aircraft to operate in a block that includes A, G and/or C, but not E.