If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Olivier Demacon wrote:
Jay Somerset a écrit : On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:51:43 +0100, "Chris" wrote: Heard on London Airways today, NorthWest 43 called up at 'nine thousand feet climbing to one five thousand feet' the controller ever the diplomat asked 'northwest 43 can you confirm you are climbing to Flight level 150?' 'Affirm came the reply' mind you he was in some cruddy old DC-10 so he was probably busy trying to keep it in the air. In the US, flight levels start at 18,000. In Europe, they start much lower. This was just a terminology difference, and the controller was quite correct in ensuring there was no miscommunication. The pilot was merely reporting by reflex, forgetting for the moment that he was not within US airspace. It happens. I'd like to know what US pilots think of the FL rules in Europe, starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter setting (1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone been on the same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is easier to get than relying on everyone getting the proper "local setting" for the area flown. What do you think? It seems that both systems work well. I can see some logic in the European approach, but there are probably some drawbacks as well. I can't think of any right at the moment though, I'll admit. Matt |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Europe, starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter setting (1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone been on the same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is easier to get than relying on everyone getting the proper "local setting" for the area flown. What do you think? It seems that both systems work well. I can see some logic in the European approach, but there are probably some drawbacks as well. I can't think of any right at the moment though, I'll admit. Matt The one advantage is that once through the transition altitude there is no need to keep getting altimeter settings. In the UK flying IFR is often done by non instrument rated pilots because it relates only to the rules you fly by. In the case of IFR it is setting 1013 (29.92) and using the appropriate flight levels for the direction of flight. VFR only pilots still have to maintain appropriate conditions and stay out of class A airspace which can start as low as 2500ft msl. There is some around Heathrow starting at the surface but you can get SVFR for that. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Olivier Demacon opined
I'd like to know what US pilots think of the FL rules in Europe, starting at 3000 FT AGL, everyone uses standard 29.92" altimeter setting (1013 mil). I guess the "logic" behind this is that everyone been on the same altimeter setting, precise altitude separation is easier to get than relying on everyone getting the proper "local setting" for the area flown. I suspect that there will be a lot more CFIT. Pressure (and temperature) changes can change actual AGL by surprising amounts. Now, I think that I'm in a low pressure area... Am I going to miss that mountain I know is around here somewhere? -ash Cthulhu in 2005! Why wait for nature? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Stefan" wrote in message news:d6asj8 Actually, yes, I am so hard. I expect from an ATP to know the rules of the air he is flying in. I expect his employer to offer appropriate training. I expect the pilot to prepare his flight. Knowing the rules, with appropriate training, and prepared for the flight, verbal slips will still occur. Having flown transports in *exactly* the environment you described - [have you, Stefan? ] - , I would be willing to guarantee a very high probability that what you heard was merely a slip of the tongue. Happens all the time, and controllers on both sides of the ocean are well cognizant of this. You ought to take a lead from the controller's attitude. Bear in mind also that climbing to FL150 and climbing to 15000 ft aren't all that different. Let the NG know the first time *you* make a low grade error. Enquiring minds..... |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
John Gaquin wrote:
Knowing the rules, with appropriate training, and prepared for the flight, verbal slips will still occur. Of course. And I've made mistakes myself which I'm glad nobody knows of. I jumped at this thread when a poster or two pointed out that the pilot was probably American, implying, as I understood (my interpretation), that he is therefore excused to have "forgotten" that there were different traffic rules in the airspace he flew in. All I wanted to point is that this is no excuse. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Bear in mind also that climbing to FL150 and climbing to 15000 ft aren't all that different. It may be the difference between an uneventful flight and a midair, especially when climbing to one altitude involves crossing the other. Climbing or descending beyond the cleared altitude is one of the more frequent causes of near miss reports. Stefan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Stefan" wrote in message ... John Gaquin wrote: Knowing the rules, with appropriate training, and prepared for the flight, verbal slips will still occur. Of course. And I've made mistakes myself which I'm glad nobody knows of. I jumped at this thread when a poster or two pointed out that the pilot was probably American, implying, as I understood (my interpretation), that he is therefore excused to have "forgotten" that there were different traffic rules in the airspace he flew in. All I wanted to point is that this is no excuse. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Bear in mind also that climbing to FL150 and climbing to 15000 ft aren't all that different. It may be the difference between an uneventful flight and a midair, especially when climbing to one altitude involves crossing the other. Climbing or descending beyond the cleared altitude is one of the more frequent causes of near miss reports. I would echo that. It is perfectly possible that being at 15000 instead of FL150 would give you the height difference that would put you outside the deviation limit. However as the OP the point of the post was to demonstrate that pilots and ATC work as a team, not as adversaries aiming to score points of each other. For another thought on the matter lets just imagine there was an incident and the tape was being played later. If ATC had not said what they did, the pilots would have been left in the prime seat for any blame because they got it wrong. Any excuse the blame the pilot would have been taken by those with a reason to shift the blame. ATC caught the issue and although it was minor, it was straighten out with an "affirm" from the pilots. Therefore the original wrong call ceases to be a factor. I call that great teamwork. For what its worth, the correct response was "affirm" not "affirmative". Extra brownie points for that. The reason is to draw a clear distinction from "negative". If transmissions get clipped at the start of the word, then affirmative and negative risk sounding the same. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Stefan" wrote in message ... Acutally, it makes a lot of sense if you consider the airspace structure and air traffic rules of Europe. Please explain. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Stefan wrote: I jumped at this thread when a poster or two pointed out that the pilot was probably American, implying, as I understood (my interpretation), that he is therefore excused to have "forgotten" that there were different traffic rules in the airspace he flew in. All I wanted to point is that this is no excuse. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The assumption was that the pilot was American based on the "NW43" callsign and reference to a DC10. I agree that pilots should always know the rules for the airspace they are flying in, above or under. BTW, are you from Sweden or France? BJ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I think they don't have mountains in Europe.
-Robert |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Robert M. Gary wrote:
I think they don't have mountains in Europe. Is this sarcasm? Why they don't have mountains in the UK (I thinkt he maximum elevation in the UK is under 4500'), there are rather nice ones on the continent. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 2 | November 24th 03 05:23 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 24th 03 03:52 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart D. Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 22nd 03 06:24 AM |
Pros & cons of TFT monitors in flightsims? | Alan Cameron | Simulators | 7 | October 27th 03 02:57 PM |
GPS Models -- Pros and Cons | Aviv Hod | Piloting | 22 | July 22nd 03 10:35 PM |