Fly at the table of levels, VFR at 3000FT or more
 

Don't recall any mention of this previously. CAR173 and AIP ENR 3.1.4 said you must conmly with the table of levels when at 5,000FT AMSL or more. From 02DEC21 the same AIP reference and CASR 91.275 says the applicable level is 3,000FT AMSL or more. Where have been the howls of outrage, or at least discussion???

Perhaps because the usual non-existent or inadequate 'education' effort by CASA means that very few people know about it. Either that, or your post is an early April Fools joke.

Either way, little to nothing will change in the real world.

Generally speaking I find most pilots comply with this, however weather plays such a big part, especially in Vic.

What has happened in Victoria that the weather is suddenly so bad for GA aircraft? I Instructed for many years around Vic and NSW and never had a problem flying hemispherical except the odd bit of weather, I mean if it was that bad you'd never be able to do night VFR which was regularly done. You might pick up some ice in winter IFR but it's definitely not that bad. It's generally clear below 8000ft most days except in winter and the passage of fronts.

I wouldn’t say it’s clear below 8,000’ most days here…..

Thanks Spod for pointing this out. Flying hemispherical is not hard but for those who prefer to fly high, in a single, over hilly terrain, some initiative is required.

I agree nothing is likely to change in practice. It does appear to be a rule that ignores common sense. The reason it used to be 5000' is to give some flexibility close to the ground. If the ground level is above 500' and cloud base is below 6500' there is now only one legal cruise level eastbound - 3500' (assuming you don't want to stay below 1500 AGL). Likewise westbound, if the cloud is below 5500, 2500 is the only legal level. It also appears to be illegal to allow a 100-200' buffer below the controlled airspace e.g. around Melbourne which I know a lot of people like to do - you are now required to cruise exactly at the lower level.

Hemispherical levels are of limited usefulness for VFR. They're not much help if one aircraft is tracking 010 and the other 170. Or even 045 and 135. They are designed for the case where 2 aircraft are tracking opposite directions between 2 points - which is not common in VFR flying.

I must live in a different Victoria. The last maybe 5 times I’ve flown, flying hemispherically correct would be a challenge for a lowly VFR aircraft.

Hey Mr 'Spod',

LOTSA 'Cumulus Granulus' B050 and..even MORE at B030 in LOTSA OZ, 'especially in 'DG'........as U are no doubt aware....hence yr post.....
Check ya PM's..........

Griffo....Area QNH 1013....

When has any VFR aircraft in G ever been ‘bailed up’ by Centre or the erstwhile Flight Service or CASA for not flying at the correct hemispherical or erstwhile quadrantal level? I’ve never heard of it.


I can remember being at the ‘wrong’ cruising level, twice. On the first occasion - in the mid 80s - I did a position report and my altitude for the next leg was 6,000’ or 6,500’ - can’t remember which was correct and which was wrong, but in any event it was 500’ ‘wrong’ for the track. It was only when I got back on the ground that I realised my mistake and why Flight Service had queried the altitude I had reported. The second was about 6 years ago and I was on flight following, fat dumb and happy cruising at 9,500’ when I realised it was on an ‘evens and a half’ track. Reported descending to 8,500’. Centre hadn’t queried the 9,500’ in the first place.

Who’s going to be enforcing the rule, and how?

andrewr nailed it. (Though I’m scratching my head wondering why anyone needs a 100’ - 200’ buffer below the LL of controlled airspace. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with cruising at the LL. I think airspace designers build some assumed instrument errors and small altitude meanderings into controlled airspace levels. I’ll be jiggered if I’m going to fly at 300’ above sea level down V1.)

Anyway, no effective education campaign = no change in the real world.

It used to be hemisphericals at 3000 and above...up until the early 2000s.

It was only somewhere around 2002 that it was changed to 5000 and above.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

I’ve never heard of anyone being pinged for it, however you’d have to assume if you had a near miss with opposite direction traffic and you’ve been zooming along for an hour at the wrong level, that you might expect an uncomfortable phone call to follow…

Not saying you're wrong, out, but I'd be interested in a primary reference for hemisphericals at 3,000 and above up until the early 2000s.

In any event, this is obviously some desk-jockey's pet issue. It's been eating away at him her for ages and now we're all 'safer' for the change. Meanwhile, in the real world...

In the good old days, Nosar no details, below 5000, go for it.

Flight plans would be annotated "B050" to show that no quadrantal levels applied. And it was quadrantal, not hemispherical.

Slight Drift........

And the 'other' bit that B050 signified was, that the flight was OCTA.

Cheers

Never was. Rules re levels applied at 5000ft and above from back in the 60;s.

And 5000ft was not Below 5000.

There was no rule against flying at a "non standard" level provided you advised FS/ATC

That’s exactly as I remember it, cogwheel.

Yes I agree always has been above 5000 ft before you must fly hemispherical since the early 80's at least.
That said I just looked up the latest VFG guide which is part of my EFB package and on page 229 shows the new levels. Yes they have lowered it to 3000ft . God knows why but I will bet London to a brick it has been done by someone who either has never held a pilot license or if they have they have spent 99% of their time in airlines or military up in the flight levels.
Anyway there are some exceptions when OCTA .
1. the aircraft is at,or above,3000ft AMSL, but below 1500ft, above ground level (AGL) or
2. it is not practicable to do so or
3. if the aircraft is a glider in soaring flight.
4. when in controlled airspace ,and ATC has given you a clearance or instruction.
Point 2 is the important get out of jail card, for those days when the cloud base is low and the ground is not flat. or some fog and low stratus about.
Business as usual.

Could you expand on your reasoning for singling out those 3 groups of people?

Sure Capt, because I have been to enough CASA/ASA /ATSB seminars over the years (40 odd) to come to that conclusion. Many of the speakers when you actually get the chance to enquire of their background experience etc you find they fall into one of those categories. Most (but not all ) have forgotten what GA flying was all about, and how different single pilot ops down in the weather is to their life or (past life) flying in controlled airspace on set routes, with load sheets ,fuel calcs etc all done for them.
They then have the gall to lecture the rest of us how we should be doing things. There are some very good men at the said named organisations but from my observation most of them give it away after a few years disillusioned with the meaningless rule changes, and crap they too have to try and sell.
I'm old enough to remember the flight plan form that came out in red with yellow paper that became invisible at night ! Don't they ever road test anything. Enough said or this thread will drift off into other appalling decisions/outcomes.