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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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? Happy flying. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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
Well, terrain is an issue. 3000 AGL rides up and down with the terrain, and at the altitudes I like to fly, I'd be passing through the border (between flight levels and feet MSL) quite often. I am more in favor of a higher transition altitude. The transistion altitude should be one whose vacancy would not be an issue. The vacancy of 3000 AGL is an issue for me. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 16 May 2005 17:45:45 +0200, "Olivier Demacon"
wrote: 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? I think it would be a real pain for those of us who spend much of our time at the lower altitudes; and would likely decrease the safety of operations here in the US. For example, on a typical flight of mine at 4000'MSL, I would be changing the altimeter from 29.92 to the local setting many times. It's pretty simple in the US to get local settings, and even easier if one is IFR. When most traffic is commercial and generally operating at higher altitudes then us GA pilots, it probably makes little difference. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Olivier Demacon" wrote in message .. . 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? Perhaps you meant 3000 MSL? A transition altitude based on some distance above the ground doesn't make a lot of sense. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Perhaps you meant 3000 MSL? A transition altitude based on some distance above the ground doesn't make a lot of sense. Acutally, it makes a lot of sense if you consider the airspace structure and air traffic rules of Europe. It may make a lot less sense in the USA. Stefan |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Perhaps you meant 3000 MSL? A transition altitude based on some distance above the ground doesn't make a lot of sense. Actually, it makes a lot of sense if you consider the airspace structure and air traffic rules of Europe. It may make less sense in the USA. Stefan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I don't have my European charts in front of me, but depending on what
country you are flying in, the transition levels and transition altitudes vary. In fact, the Transition ALTITUDE and the Transition LEVEL can vary within the same country. Once you climb through the Transition Altitude, all altitudes become Flight Levels and once you descend below the Transition Level, the Flight Levels revert back to normal altitudes. When flying to and over multiple destinations in Europe, you can easily forget where these TA's and TL's begin and end. Also, many of the older (US) jets only have altimeters that are set to inches. You must constantly make the interpretation from millibars (or hectopascals) to inches via a conversion chart. Fortunately, the newer jets let you select which medium of altimeter settings you want to use based on where you are flying. If this was an old DC10, you can bet they were doing the conversion "longhand". Until you flown in Europe and experienced "their different way" (especially France) of doing things, don't be too hard on a US carrier that just spent 8+ hours enroute to Europe in an old "steam gauge" airliner. ;-) BJ 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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
B. Jensen wrote:
Until you flown in Europe and experienced "their different way" (especially France) of doing things, don't be too hard on a US carrier that just spent 8+ hours enroute to Europe in an old "steam gauge" airliner. ;-) 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. On the other hand, everybody is making mistakes, of course. Stefan |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Stefan wrote: 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. And I expect a surgeon with a Ph.D. in medicine and years of training to be flawless too, however, we both know that isn't always the case. (sigh) On the other hand, everybody is making mistakes, of course. Yep...it's called being human. (double sigh) BJ |
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 |