Midlands Transition Altitude Change
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midlands Transition Altitude Change
Now that the Transition Altitude across the centre of England is changing to 6000ī, (and the minimum stack level is FL70) isnīt it time the DAYNE holding pattern was moved SE to enable continuous climb of EGCC 05L/R outbounds?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 March is the date, I believe, with changes to BHX and EMA SIDS. http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...1_Y_004_en.pdf refers.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Out on the bike in Northumberland
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Applies to the uncontrolled airspace under the DTY CTA, so where the base of controlled airspace has been defined as a level you may find now its an Altitude-ie the East Mids airspace to the north and east of leicester-have just finished a series of Sim runs highlighting that eventuality!
Slightly off-thread, but why are UK altimeter settings so unnecessarily complicated? Why do we need QFE and Regional Pressure Settings? Most other countries (and commercial airliner crews) manage without them. Every time an altimeter is reset the opportunity arises for mis-setting. Altimeter resetting is also a distraction from other cockpit tasks, usually at a time of high workload (because TA is too low!). QFE reduces terrain awareness. It is not difficult, even for student pilots, to add field elevation to circuit height to determine circuit altitude, rounded to the nearest 100 feet*. Local QNH should be the default setting below TA. For GA flights it rarely changes significantly over short time spells and short distances departure QNH would suffice for most VFR flights, even without updating.
I am a fan of a world-wide 18,000 ft TA (it is unlikely the US would accept any other 'non-American' figure), although as a fan also of the metric system, a better datum would be 5000 or 6000 metres (with vertical separation between flight levels of 300 metres both above and below TA).
*50 metres when the world's aviation industry finally catches up with other technical industries.
I am a fan of a world-wide 18,000 ft TA (it is unlikely the US would accept any other 'non-American' figure), although as a fan also of the metric system, a better datum would be 5000 or 6000 metres (with vertical separation between flight levels of 300 metres both above and below TA).
*50 metres when the world's aviation industry finally catches up with other technical industries.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In the rain
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry did I hear the word meters? Flying in metric airspace is arguably one of the most unpleasant experiences possible, about the same as cyclones or snow storms in my book. Counting in 300s is very counter intuitive and a shift would mean rewriting all separation rules worldwide so they made sense.
I'm not aware of any commercial traffic that operates on OFE in the UK, the only place in the world they seem to use it - to my knowledge - is russia, where they also use those horrible M things. Even flying GA the QNH is always available if asked for.
S.
I'm not aware of any commercial traffic that operates on OFE in the UK, the only place in the world they seem to use it - to my knowledge - is russia, where they also use those horrible M things. Even flying GA the QNH is always available if asked for.
S.
