Harmonised 18000 ft Transition Altitude on the way for UK?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with chevvron with 6000ft.
It gives 1500ft above Ben Nevis, which is the highest ground obstruction. The Scottish and London TMAs already use a 6000ft TA, and it seems to work.
At present, many ATC sectors are divided at FL195, so these will need re-engineering.
With the large horizontal pressure changes that frequently occur, the idea of each sector having to give it's QNH,(often followed by HPa), to every a/c on first contact will be music to every area ATCOs ears. (Many of the of UK's en-route sectors are geographically fairly small). In the UK, pressure can vary rapidly with time, so area control will need to be alert for QNH changes, but ATC 'managers' would like single-manned sectors.
It also introduces the possibility of small horizontal level busts if you forget to change, or set the wrong QNH.
Some argue that the high TA will accommodate modern a/c performance, but if there is conflicting traffic at 7000ft, you still won't be climbing above 6000.
It gives 1500ft above Ben Nevis, which is the highest ground obstruction. The Scottish and London TMAs already use a 6000ft TA, and it seems to work.
At present, many ATC sectors are divided at FL195, so these will need re-engineering.
With the large horizontal pressure changes that frequently occur, the idea of each sector having to give it's QNH,(often followed by HPa), to every a/c on first contact will be music to every area ATCOs ears. (Many of the of UK's en-route sectors are geographically fairly small). In the UK, pressure can vary rapidly with time, so area control will need to be alert for QNH changes, but ATC 'managers' would like single-manned sectors.
It also introduces the possibility of small horizontal level busts if you forget to change, or set the wrong QNH.
Some argue that the high TA will accommodate modern a/c performance, but if there is conflicting traffic at 7000ft, you still won't be climbing above 6000.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 2nd Feb 2012 at 12:04.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10,000 ft would be an obvious choice in the UK.
Anyway... what happens in the UK doesn't worry me in the grand scheme of things. I personally can't see this proposal working in some of the other states in Europe though and that is sadly down to the standard of controlling.
Last edited by Mister Geezer; 2nd Feb 2012 at 12:02.
I'm with ZOOKER and chevvron on this. A 6000ft TA across the UK would be a step forward
I had been flying professionally in the UK for 21 years before I went to America. For 21 years I was taught that the TA should be the highest obstacle within xx miles of the airfield plus 1,500 feet plus 10%. So it was that the UK ended up with God knows how many TAs.
Along came jet aeroplanes that climbed so fast that they had gone through the local TA before the captain even had the chance to sniff his first coffee.
So it was that the London TMA came up with a standard TA of 6,000 feet, which had nothing to do with terrain or safety height but which gave us a fighting chance to at least smell the coffee before doing anything drastic.
I first went to the USA in 1972 when I was a member of Mrs Windsor's private airline. As a Brit, I was aesthetically appalled by their approach to the TA problem by adopting a universal TA for all of 18,000 feet.
This, I assume, is Mount St Helens + 1,500 feet + 10% (or something very similar). Apart from the problems of Victor Airways and Juliet Airways, this was actually a beautifully simple solution.
In other words, it didn't matter if you were flying in Hawaii or Alaska or even Florida, your chances of hitting Mount St Helens were 'nil'.
So why are we Europeans so averse to change?
Perhaps there is a certain faction out there still who would like to reintroduce QFE?
As someone has already pointed out, a TA of 18,000 feet in most of Europe would take care of Mont Blanc etc. (As a matter of historical interest, Air India hit Mont Blanc twice; once with a Constellation and once with a 707).
So why not go with 18,000 feet?
I for one would definitely go for it.
Along came jet aeroplanes that climbed so fast that they had gone through the local TA before the captain even had the chance to sniff his first coffee.
So it was that the London TMA came up with a standard TA of 6,000 feet, which had nothing to do with terrain or safety height but which gave us a fighting chance to at least smell the coffee before doing anything drastic.
I first went to the USA in 1972 when I was a member of Mrs Windsor's private airline. As a Brit, I was aesthetically appalled by their approach to the TA problem by adopting a universal TA for all of 18,000 feet.
This, I assume, is Mount St Helens + 1,500 feet + 10% (or something very similar). Apart from the problems of Victor Airways and Juliet Airways, this was actually a beautifully simple solution.
In other words, it didn't matter if you were flying in Hawaii or Alaska or even Florida, your chances of hitting Mount St Helens were 'nil'.
So why are we Europeans so averse to change?
Perhaps there is a certain faction out there still who would like to reintroduce QFE?
As someone has already pointed out, a TA of 18,000 feet in most of Europe would take care of Mont Blanc etc. (As a matter of historical interest, Air India hit Mont Blanc twice; once with a Constellation and once with a 707).
So why not go with 18,000 feet?
I for one would definitely go for it.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I support the 18000ft proposal.
It could give VFR traffic a lot more headroom for self-separation, especially in the narrow corridors between some blocks of controlled airspace where it can get horribly congested especially at weekends.
It could give VFR traffic a lot more headroom for self-separation, especially in the narrow corridors between some blocks of controlled airspace where it can get horribly congested especially at weekends.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some background knowledge to help you all understand why it WILL be 18,000ft (and why it is also DIFFERENT from the USA & Canada) 
The powers that be have decided that Europe will harmonise their TA's. 18,000ft was decided as it clears every European peak by at least 1000ft other than a couple that lie on the edge of European airspace in Georgia and Russia. NATS (UK) Airspace will not be initially redesigned but some minor changes will occur, including the removal of FL190 for any use, but the long term picture will involve major redesigning. Not all of Europe will make the change at the same time so NATS are working on the best way to accept/handover aircraft at the boundaries.
The main reason for this need to change is all about the environment. Some study has highlighted just how much extra fuel is being unnecessarily burnt by departing flights due to our airspace structure and TA. With the London TA set at 6000ft, that is the maximum level that any SID can finish at, as a SID cannot use flight levels. If aircraft could get airborne and climb straight to 10000ft or even higher as stated in the SID (even with steps built in), then they could carry less fuel (rather than planning to stay at 6000ft under all the stacks at LHR say). Carrying less fuel obviously has many advantages for the entirety of the flight in all phases. This will mean moving the stacks and conducting holding at higher levels (another fuel saver too), and will combine with the other projects including passing EAT's up to an hour in advance and losing time enroute to avoid excessive holding.
This TA is different from what is used to the West of the Atlantic, as my understanding is that the TA over there is actually FL180, the last altitude is 17,999ft. We will use altitude 18,000ft and the next recognised flight level will be FL190, although this probably will never be used!! It is just because we have to be different and those that don't use, never understand.
The powers that be have decided that Europe will harmonise their TA's. 18,000ft was decided as it clears every European peak by at least 1000ft other than a couple that lie on the edge of European airspace in Georgia and Russia. NATS (UK) Airspace will not be initially redesigned but some minor changes will occur, including the removal of FL190 for any use, but the long term picture will involve major redesigning. Not all of Europe will make the change at the same time so NATS are working on the best way to accept/handover aircraft at the boundaries.
The main reason for this need to change is all about the environment. Some study has highlighted just how much extra fuel is being unnecessarily burnt by departing flights due to our airspace structure and TA. With the London TA set at 6000ft, that is the maximum level that any SID can finish at, as a SID cannot use flight levels. If aircraft could get airborne and climb straight to 10000ft or even higher as stated in the SID (even with steps built in), then they could carry less fuel (rather than planning to stay at 6000ft under all the stacks at LHR say). Carrying less fuel obviously has many advantages for the entirety of the flight in all phases. This will mean moving the stacks and conducting holding at higher levels (another fuel saver too), and will combine with the other projects including passing EAT's up to an hour in advance and losing time enroute to avoid excessive holding.
This TA is different from what is used to the West of the Atlantic, as my understanding is that the TA over there is actually FL180, the last altitude is 17,999ft. We will use altitude 18,000ft and the next recognised flight level will be FL190, although this probably will never be used!! It is just because we have to be different and those that don't use, never understand.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To hell with it, let's 'go global' and raise the transition altitude to 31,000 feet. That will ensure that Chomolungma is safely cleared too. 
zonoma, just curious, if it "WILL be 18000ft", why are the CAA wasting time and money on a consultation exercise?
Will it be as successful as 'The Eurozone' I wonder.
zonoma, just curious, if it "WILL be 18000ft", why are the CAA wasting time and money on a consultation exercise?
Will it be as successful as 'The Eurozone' I wonder.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zonoma
my understanding is that the TA over there is actually FL180
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as a SID cannot use flight levels
Upton sids climb to FL60.
If airlines want constant climb departure routes, then there is no reason that they cannot climb to a flight level, even FL100, FL150 or higher. If this isnt possible due to traffic reasons, then its probably more often than not going to be a tactical solution anyway, and all the perceived benefits have already been lost. Lets not forget that most aircraft get a constant climb anyway due to the hardworking, underappreciated Atco's.
Benefits of climbing to a SID FL... you can set standard pressure on the ground! Now that would free up RT time and cockpit workload after departure wouldnt it!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by zonoma
my understanding is that the TA over there is actually FL180
- I assume we will be getting the new definition of what a TA is soon? I wonder what a TL will become?
Originally Posted by zonoma
my understanding is that the TA over there is actually FL180
- I assume we will be getting the new definition of what a TA is soon? I wonder what a TL will become?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I refuse to believe 'European harmonisation' is anything other than a steaming lump of foetid turd.
The regulatory structure should have started with air traffic control procedures, especially for things like VFR traffic and services outside of controlled airspace, which would ensure that everyone was reading from the same page and one could except the same style of controlling and service anywhere in Europe. A standard TA would be a step towards that.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
With the London TA set at 6000ft, that is the maximum level that any SID can finish at, as a SID cannot use flight levels.
Anyway, even transition at 10,000/FL130 or 14,000/FL140 as in some countries in Asia and the Middle East would be an improvement.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure if the rest of Europe will follow but I think this is only a British/Irish proposal at the moment. The IAA and CAA got together and agreed to harmonise the TA in both British and Irish airspace. That's the background to it. Here it was usually in and around FL65.
That always seemed a bit low to me. Just another little job to do in the climb. Not that it bothered me too much as I have an FL readout quite separate from the altimeters.
18000 makes sense to me.
That always seemed a bit low to me. Just another little job to do in the climb. Not that it bothered me too much as I have an FL readout quite separate from the altimeters.
18000 makes sense to me.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm also curious about being unable to go into the flight levels on a SID. On practically all of the departures from KDFW, you're pretty close to your cruising altitude by the time the SID terminates.
Carrying less fuel obviously has many advantages for the entirety of the flight in all phases.
Actually what would probably save the most fuel in the London area would be for Heathrow to pour some concrete and build a third runway! Sorry, I could not resist. I am paid by the hour so it matters little to me, but I recently read that there is almost 200K pounds of extra fuel burned per day at LHR in the various holding patterns. Oh, sorry again, I forgot that Boris is going to start the concrete pour in the Estuary
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the early 1980s, the SIDS from EGCC did go to Flight Levels. I still have the charts in the loft somewhere. In fact EGCC had SIDs which finished in 4 different countries.
HONILEY/LICHFIELD/OTTRINGHAM
BRECON.
DUBLIN.
TALLA/DEAN CROSS.
Actually 4 1/2 if you count ISLE OF MAN departures.
Prior to the alphanumeric designation system, the SIDs from R/W 06 were called '61' departures, and those from R/W 24 were '60' departures.
The transition altitude at this time was 4000ft, and the OTR 60 SID passed underneath the Barton stack, climbing initially to 4000ft.
It all worked splendidly until a chap in a TU54 departed on an OTR 60 and climbed to FL60, narrowly missing someone who was holding at FL50 over the BTN VOR.
Thread drift? Certainly. So, back to the 18,000ft UK TA.
HONILEY/LICHFIELD/OTTRINGHAM
BRECON.
DUBLIN.
TALLA/DEAN CROSS.
Actually 4 1/2 if you count ISLE OF MAN departures.
Prior to the alphanumeric designation system, the SIDs from R/W 06 were called '61' departures, and those from R/W 24 were '60' departures.
The transition altitude at this time was 4000ft, and the OTR 60 SID passed underneath the Barton stack, climbing initially to 4000ft.
It all worked splendidly until a chap in a TU54 departed on an OTR 60 and climbed to FL60, narrowly missing someone who was holding at FL50 over the BTN VOR.
Thread drift? Certainly. So, back to the 18,000ft UK TA.