Differing Transition Altitudes

[dcb2008uk]

Can someone please explain the reason for their being differing transition altitudes throughout the u.k?

So we've got 3,000ft as the common TA, but a lot of the major aerodromes have different ones, whats the reason for this; compliance sids and stars? NPR's?

Cheers

[Talkdownman]

With the highest terrain in the UK of approx 4406 a common TA of 6000 feet (in line with that of the LTMA) is long overdue. I have never understood all these inexplicable disparities. A TA of 3000 feet in the open FIR with terrain above that is absolutely outrageous. Whoever implemented that should be shot. That is, if they haven't suffered from CFIT already.

[Not Long Now]

Common TA of 6000' is in progress, area around BB is being processed at the moment, expect results in either spring or autumn next year apparently. It's very slow progress as, for example, the SIDs from BB go to FL60 so have to change, so affect the NX traffic, BE traffic etc all of which have to be procedurally seperated, plus notification of changes to everyone for bases that used to be FL's around 45, 55 etc..

[goatface]

Concur with Talkdown Man - a common TA of at least 6000ft would save a lot of confusion and probably a lot of level busts.

[Talkdownman]

.....and CAS FL base 'busts'
.....and terrain clearance 'busts' by pilots who forget to change from SPS to QNH descending through TL.....
Rationalisation would eliminate the majority of such errors because for various reasons the majority of piston GA flights seem to operate below 6 in the UK. During my time providing ATSOCA it was unusual to see pistons cruising above 6 in the open FIR especially when impeded by so many CAS stubs.
An aligned half-million TA 6 and below would probably be useful to low level operators, more so than the old (mixed-up) 5 and below half million.

[chevvron]

The RAF like it. It means they don't need to use actual QNH, changing straight from QFE (yes they still use that) to SPS on departure and vice versa on recovery.

[anotherthing]

Depends what type of aircraft you are flying and the sortie profile Chevvron - a pointy jet climbing straight into CAS, then maybe, but a pointy jet staying in the LFS, or a military prop or helo and they still use QNH after departure.

Many Mil airfields use QFE on commencement of recovery from well above the TA; changing from a TA of 3000 to 6000 would not make a jot of difference to mil operations.

However, a common TA would make a lot of sense as mentioned above.

[chevvron]

..... unless you're at an airfield under the LTMA such as Odiham or Benson.

[anotherthing]

Jets, at Odiham?!

[bookworm]

Common TA of 6000' is in progress,

So how's that going to work with the quadrantal rule outside controlled airspace? At the moment, quadrantal levels are mandatory for IFR flights above the transition altitude. If that TA becomes 6000 ft, that's a lot more random level selection (which may not, in fact, be a bad thing).

[anotherthing]

Might be mandatory for IFR flights, but they are not for VFR, therefore not really an issue.

Being IFR on a quadrantal doesn't help a flight that is filed IFR electing to take a BS or TS due to weather conditions.

[bad bear]

Ta too low

The TA of 6,000' in the UK is too low. Are there plans in Europe for a common level? Should it be 10,000? It does seem mad that pilots are forced to fly on 1013 under airspace with a base given as an altitude and that pilots with high ground around do not fly on altitude until above sector safe. Who wants a TA of 3,000'? Could the whole of Scotland change to 6,000' ?
b b

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

anotherthing. Perhaps I'm being thick but I don't think you've answered bookworm's quite simple question.

[Not Long Now]

Fly at the same level/altitude you would now but change to levels at 6000' instead of 3000' or 4000' etc depending where you are...?