Back at 2000 feet
 

I seem to remember all those instructors saying do'nt fly at 2000 feet, everyone else does - try 2200 feet or even 2400 feet. It probably has led to a whole culture of new pilots flying VMC at 2200 feet.

Maybe the thing to do now is fly at 2000 feet!

What altitude do most others use I wonder.

Yep - mine too & I regulary potter around at 2300 or 2400. It will be very interesting to see the responses to this one.

Fly Safe

Suction

I tend to listen out and go for one that it seems few people are at. I used to go for an xx50 alt, but don't think it is worth it, when just over 1mb different (and within altimeter tolerance anyway) will swipe it all.

Main worry that crosses through my mind is people calling an altitude, but no knowledge if they are on the regional, or whose QNH (or QFE!) thy are using. Nothing like a Mk1 eyeball looking *outside* the cockpit

I was up at 10500 today :-)

I alway worry slightly when I hear someone pipe up on the radio "G-QQQQ is over XXXXXXX at 2,000'" and I think to myself, 'Thats interesting, I'm over XXXXXXX at 2,000', I wonder where he is, shall I go up, down or carry on level?'

Who has control?: I agree - and it seems to happen all the time too...

Has anyone started using those "cheap" (relative term!) CAS systems which have recently been advertised in the magazines? We fly in some pretty crowded space - would be sensible I think!

Andy

I do carry a Traffic Proximity Warning System - it's a very expensive one, but it is multifunctional. My particular example has audio output - here a some examples of the other 'advice' it provides:

'You're driving too close'
'You're driving too fast'
'I told you it was left..'
'What time do call this ?'

:D :D :D :D

As long as different people are looking at differrent levels it will help, but WHY do most people stick around 2,000ft? I know sometimes airspace or wx dictates this, but when I can I fly as high as I can, generally better vis., better radio nav range and if all goes quiet you have many more options available.

Well said foxmouth.
As an instructor i always teach people to fly as high as reasonably possible(weather permitting) for the reasons you mentioned but also because there is a lot less GA traffic if you just go up to four or five thousand feet. I can't think of one good reason for flying low.

Icarus - One reason to go low - the view is better ;~))

From an airliner at 35K you can see for miles - but no detail and it all looks 'flat'. Down in the weeds you feel like a bird!

One decider is wind - if a headwind stay low to avoid it, if a tailwind go high to take advantage.

I usually have 2 phases to my VFR bimbles - high for aeros, low for sightseeing.

SSD

I must admit, crossing the channel at 3000' gets the sphincter twitching a bit. I'd rather be at 8k myself...but alas not possible due to airspace.....

Altitude is your friend.....

Great topic.

I guess 2000-2500 is favourite because it gets you over the ATZs but below the Airspace without constantly jinking around things.

I personally cover all options by constantly varying height by plus or minus 300ft. If anyone knows how to make a plane stay level when you look away from the altimeter or talk on the radio or put the flaps down or write down a clearance of carry out a freda check I'd be very grateful (and so will my instructor).

If I am flying a cabriolet plane I tend to favour 500-1000' because it is a lot warmer than 3000 and you can see a lot more. Its also quite fun navigating so low and needing to jink around every town you come across.

How to stay level and keep your altitude? Practise, listen (to engine sound), get used to doing several things at once, practise some more. Above all know it can be done. and it can. If I can do it in an R22, then you can do it in a f/w aircraft.

For some reason I like to fly as high as possible in a f/w aircraft, and as low as possible in a helicopter. Aside from safety, legality, etc, that's just what feels right. Does anyone else find this?

[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: Whirlybird ]

To keep altitude etc....learn power settings for different phases of flight and keep well trimmed. I stay as high as possible in a SE aircraft as an insurance....

I used to fly at 1,000-1,500 cos the Cub was quiet and so slow people used to wave at you.

The Auster is so noisy I try to keep it at around 3,000. No heater, brrrrrr :( At least I don't get lost so often :rolleyes:

Why 2000'?

It is a well-known meteorological phenomenon that all cloud bases start at 2200', which is why we all fly at 2000' :)

I agree with foxmoth, fly high, see more, hear more. The problem in the South East is London TMA at 2500' minus ground rising to 300' and 1500' Low flying Rule only leaves 700' to fly in. I can't help but feel that if all the London TMA bases were raised by 500' it would help. Also, isn't it time that the zone height boundaries were reviewed? I understand that they were established back in the 1950s, when prop-driven airliners had different descent profiles to todays jets.

Anyone from ATC care to enlighten us?

I'm not an airspace construction expert, but you need to be aware that around LL/KK/GW/SS there are many conflicting routes which have to have some form of procedural separation from each other in the case of R/T failure.

To give you an example, there are many departure routes over BPK. The highest is the LL BPK SID which places an aircraft at 6000' over BPK. Then there are SS/GW/WU departures which occupy the levels from 5000' down to 3000', but I can't remember in which order. WU departures are sometimes struggling to make 3000 ft by the edge of the LL CTR anyway. Don't forget LC departures as well, which have to remain inside CAS (base 2500') but remain separated from the other traffic.
Then there are the arrivals which have to descend into the various airports. Minimum stack level is the lowest FL which will give 1000 ft separation against 6000' QNH (usually FL70 or 80). To raise the base of CAS would push all the SID levels up and the stack levels as well, making it difficult to lose the height in time to land.

So in short, it has little to do with aircraft performance and more to do with route conflictions. Don't forget the Worthing CTA base was raised a few years back because a/c performance had improved such that the lower levels were no longer needed.

The airspace around LL CTR is indeed funnelling a/c into a very small volume of airspace, and the lack of a reliable LARS service between the LL and GW CTRs is in my mind an accident waiting to happen, but that has been discussed in depth before on this forum. All I can say is: KEEP A GOOD LOOKOUT!! By the way, Northolt Approach are most helpful in providing a service around the NW corner of the LL CTR.

Welcome to the Two Mile High Club, Englishal!

Go with Whirly on this. If weather permits I will bounce off the base of the airways if poss, so regular 5-8000' flights poss in the UK. Plus, the air is smoother and the TAS is greater at altitude.

I remember once seeing a Cessna single flying above my mums (East London) at what looked like I would say between 5-7000ft, it was going from north to south. With all the SIDS and STARS for EGLL, how possible is a high altitude (7-10,000ft) flight over London these days?

Unless you are IFR in contact with Heathrow Approach, it isn't!