Harmonised 18000 ft Transition Altitude on the way for UK?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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!!!!
And, as sure as you've set QNE on the ground, you'll get 'cleared for takeoff, maintain 3000 feet'. It is nice to move all this altimeter setting confusion higher but some of it is cultural, we Americans enjoy simplicity in procedures, others seem to thrive on obscure detail.
And speaking of obscure detail:
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.
At and above 18,000 feet MSL (FL 180), state the words "flight level" followed by the separate digits of the flight level.
Anyway, don't know where that last foot went (is it lost in the transition layer, perhaps?) but we do get clearances to FL180 and sometimes it is not a legal FL due to low QNH.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would save fuel at the moment, and be a 'quick win', (oops, management-speak), would be the relocation of the DAYNE hold about 4nm south-east towards the TRENT VOR.
This would allow Scottish to climb the LISTO departures off R/W 05L/R inside the traffic going downwind right-hand from DAYNE. (A similar procedure is employed with NOKIN/WALLASEY departures and with POL/DESIG SIDs from 23L/R. It is known affectionately as 'turning and burning').
At present 05 LISTO departures often maintain 5000ft from about Jodrell Bank until south of Congleton.
Sadly, this simple change cannot be easily implemented today, as consultation has to take place with many ground-based 'interested stakeholders', such as Macclesfield Townswomen's Guild and farmer Bloggs, who keeps 500 'Herdwicks' just east of Leek.
Strangly enough, in the 1970s, when Amber34, AKA Blue4, AKA Bravo4 AKA N601 (BPK-POL) was established, I cannot recall it being mentioned in either 'The Leicester Mercury', or 'The Lougbrorough Echo'. This was odd, condsidering the number of red-winged BEA Tridents and PanAm 747s which (albeit at high levels), subsequently flew over our house.
This would allow Scottish to climb the LISTO departures off R/W 05L/R inside the traffic going downwind right-hand from DAYNE. (A similar procedure is employed with NOKIN/WALLASEY departures and with POL/DESIG SIDs from 23L/R. It is known affectionately as 'turning and burning').
At present 05 LISTO departures often maintain 5000ft from about Jodrell Bank until south of Congleton.
Sadly, this simple change cannot be easily implemented today, as consultation has to take place with many ground-based 'interested stakeholders', such as Macclesfield Townswomen's Guild and farmer Bloggs, who keeps 500 'Herdwicks' just east of Leek.
Strangly enough, in the 1970s, when Amber34, AKA Blue4, AKA Bravo4 AKA N601 (BPK-POL) was established, I cannot recall it being mentioned in either 'The Leicester Mercury', or 'The Lougbrorough Echo'. This was odd, condsidering the number of red-winged BEA Tridents and PanAm 747s which (albeit at high levels), subsequently flew over our house.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 2nd Feb 2012 at 22:40.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, to clear up a few bits then!
The last altitude in reference to altitude in America is 17,999ft. The first recognised flight level is FL180, as Airbubba clarifies above. I wrongly worded that then, but you got the idea.
So SID's can finish at a flight level as proven. I will check this out but looking further into this, it looks like safety have intervened regarding stepped SID's in the London TMA. Having a transition in the middle can lead to someone getting it wrong or more so, when EXACTLY do you select 1013hpa? Think Zooker's drift below shows kind of an example of that, but if we modify it slightly and say the aircraft holding was kept at FL70 so the departure could safely go underneath, what happens if the departure levels at 6,000ft THEN selects 1013hpa to find they are now a few feet closer as a result? As I said, I will check this out further.
Defruiter:
Don't know where you heard that, the French have been involved in the consultation and when asked, also suggested 18,000ft. They did say they would be unlikely to change at the same time as the UK, but that they supported the change. Don't know anything about the Germans.
Not saying I am pro this or anti it, I see arguments from both sides of the fence with equal force, but with the Euro Union on their pro-Eco drive, thats why I say it WILL happen as it isn't just a NATS idea trying to be shoe horned in.
The last altitude in reference to altitude in America is 17,999ft. The first recognised flight level is FL180, as Airbubba clarifies above. I wrongly worded that then, but you got the idea.
So SID's can finish at a flight level as proven. I will check this out but looking further into this, it looks like safety have intervened regarding stepped SID's in the London TMA. Having a transition in the middle can lead to someone getting it wrong or more so, when EXACTLY do you select 1013hpa? Think Zooker's drift below shows kind of an example of that, but if we modify it slightly and say the aircraft holding was kept at FL70 so the departure could safely go underneath, what happens if the departure levels at 6,000ft THEN selects 1013hpa to find they are now a few feet closer as a result? As I said, I will check this out further.
Defruiter:
I heard that the French and Germans have said no to it, so it kind of defies the purpose really...
Not saying I am pro this or anti it, I see arguments from both sides of the fence with equal force, but with the Euro Union on their pro-Eco drive, thats why I say it WILL happen as it isn't just a NATS idea trying to be shoe horned in.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Fred, the most fuel wasted at LHR is on departure ie. getting airborne off r/w27 with enough fuel to stay at 6,000ft until CLN/DVR before further climb. Easyjet conducted a test on a flight from Stansted to Edinburgh where they were given a much higher level to climb to on departure. I cannot remember the exact figure, but I think it was at least 10% less fuel needed!! Now put those sort of figures to a flight going to the Far East, I know it won't be 10%, but it is a vast difference and a major saving for the airlines.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zonoma,
ATC does not keep aircraft at SID altitudes, to increase fuel consumption. They do it because there are other aeroplanes above or below, which are in the way. The same applies to direct routings.
A year ago, Big Airways demonstrated 'The Perfect Flight', EGLL to EGPH. Unfortunately it was demonstrated about 1700 UTC on Saturday, not at 0700 UTC on a Tuesday, when everyone else is trying to achieve their ideal vertical and horizontal profiles.
Sadly, until there is a strategy to spread the load over 24 hours, then, just like the roads and the railways, there will be delays.
Every system, unfortunately, has its own 'carrying capacity'.
ATC does not keep aircraft at SID altitudes, to increase fuel consumption. They do it because there are other aeroplanes above or below, which are in the way. The same applies to direct routings.
A year ago, Big Airways demonstrated 'The Perfect Flight', EGLL to EGPH. Unfortunately it was demonstrated about 1700 UTC on Saturday, not at 0700 UTC on a Tuesday, when everyone else is trying to achieve their ideal vertical and horizontal profiles.
Sadly, until there is a strategy to spread the load over 24 hours, then, just like the roads and the railways, there will be delays.
Every system, unfortunately, has its own 'carrying capacity'.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All these different TA/TL are highly confusing. Surely it's not rocket science to just set one common level, especially hre in the sand pit. Otherwise just set the level in the box and wait for it to shout at you 'check baro set'. One less thing to worry about. (that is a joke ok!)
My point about the UK was not some 'Little England' nonsense - it was to highlight that an 18000 ft TA, whilst appearing attractive to airline traffic, will increase RT and ATC workload for traffic below, climbing through or descending through 18000ft. Every time someone comes on frequency, they will need to confirm and readback the relevant QNH - and if there's a significant QNH change all traffic on the frequency will need to acknowledge receipt. That will apply to everyone, not just those cruising at a constant level.
The UK has nothing like the same level of sectorisation as the US and a high TA could lead to a non-stop babble of QNH exchange on busy frequencies. This would be less likely if the TA was down at 6000ft.
In the UK, traffic is allowed to fly IMC outside CAS - without even needing to talk to anyone or to squawk. If the UK retains its archaic 'regional pressure setting' system based on forecast, not actual atmospheric pressure, separation between traffic outside and beneath CAS and that flying inside CAS could be significantly reduced.
With increasing pressure to reduce separation minima, anything which might lead to altimeter setting errors must be examined with considerable care.
The economic argument is phooey - as is most of the global warmists' envirofundamental greenwash. An airliner still has to get from the ramp to cruising level; where and when it changes altimeter setting doesn't alter this one iota.
The UK has nothing like the same level of sectorisation as the US and a high TA could lead to a non-stop babble of QNH exchange on busy frequencies. This would be less likely if the TA was down at 6000ft.
In the UK, traffic is allowed to fly IMC outside CAS - without even needing to talk to anyone or to squawk. If the UK retains its archaic 'regional pressure setting' system based on forecast, not actual atmospheric pressure, separation between traffic outside and beneath CAS and that flying inside CAS could be significantly reduced.
With increasing pressure to reduce separation minima, anything which might lead to altimeter setting errors must be examined with considerable care.
The economic argument is phooey - as is most of the global warmists' envirofundamental greenwash. An airliner still has to get from the ramp to cruising level; where and when it changes altimeter setting doesn't alter this one iota.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
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.
I can't find anything on their website but I believe BALPA supports the proposal.
10,000', 14,000' and 18,000' options are discussed in this CAA consultation paper which includes a Response Form at Appendix 4.
The consultation period began on 31 January and is due to close on 1 May.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting familiar with this change will be easy. ATIS gives you the altimiter setting of your landing airport so at 18,000 feet set it. Unless it changes significantly ATC never gives you a setting. Going to AA from a west coast airline we had to switch to QFE for a while and what a mess that was. The 727 100 couldn't tune in the Reno altitude because of the old altimeters and the FE couldn't figure out how to calculate it so being a new captain at AA told him to leave it at QNH and do the call outs from 4400 ft field elevation and we will reset it on the ground to zero for the crew taking our aircraft so we don't look stupid. They finally joined the rest of the world and set altimeters like everybody else.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would think this to be a simple matter, easily settled. But no..
Australia has a TA of 10,000 feet and a TL of 11,000 feet then says nobody can cruise in the layer. So if you are going West you cannot use 10,000 and are forced to go down to 8,000 (IFR) which could and often is affected by weather and ice. And for some reason Australian pilots are unable to function without oxygen above 10,000 so they cannot fly at 12,000, like American pilots can do, so there is only one altitude available in a lot of the Eastern states due to the high ground around the Snowy Mountains. (if you fly unpressurised of course).
NZ uses 13,000 feet, and that would be perfect for Aus, but no, it was notinventedhere. Then NZ has high mountains in the South and a TA of 18,000 would work better there, but no, notinventedhere.
Even in the US, the TA of 18,000 does not work in Alaska, where mountains go up to 21,000 feet, but I suppose a TA of 22,000 would be difficult to manage. As a photo pilot, I have a lot of trouble with 18,000 in Alaska, it makes a lot of my flying IFR and since the US does not use photo blocks (another piece of notinventedhere) some areas are extremely difficult to shoot.
Now along comes Europe, and is bound and determined to reinvent this wheel. The system of varying TAs is stupid, always was and always will be. But please, don't fall into the trap the Aussies set for themselves, and don't dismiss 18,000 just because the cousins use it. As in most things aviation, simplicity is good.
Australia has a TA of 10,000 feet and a TL of 11,000 feet then says nobody can cruise in the layer. So if you are going West you cannot use 10,000 and are forced to go down to 8,000 (IFR) which could and often is affected by weather and ice. And for some reason Australian pilots are unable to function without oxygen above 10,000 so they cannot fly at 12,000, like American pilots can do, so there is only one altitude available in a lot of the Eastern states due to the high ground around the Snowy Mountains. (if you fly unpressurised of course).
NZ uses 13,000 feet, and that would be perfect for Aus, but no, it was notinventedhere. Then NZ has high mountains in the South and a TA of 18,000 would work better there, but no, notinventedhere.
Even in the US, the TA of 18,000 does not work in Alaska, where mountains go up to 21,000 feet, but I suppose a TA of 22,000 would be difficult to manage. As a photo pilot, I have a lot of trouble with 18,000 in Alaska, it makes a lot of my flying IFR and since the US does not use photo blocks (another piece of notinventedhere) some areas are extremely difficult to shoot.
Now along comes Europe, and is bound and determined to reinvent this wheel. The system of varying TAs is stupid, always was and always will be. But please, don't fall into the trap the Aussies set for themselves, and don't dismiss 18,000 just because the cousins use it. As in most things aviation, simplicity is good.
...don't dismiss 18,000 just because the cousins use it. As in most things aviation, simplicity is good.
...which, at the moment, they certainly cannot.
Because their ATC environment has received sufficient infrastructural investment over the years whereas the UK's hasn't. Outside CAS, most of the time, the level of air traffic radar service provision (or even FIS) in the UK is virtually non-existent.
Buttonpusher
Because their ATC environment has received sufficient infrastructural investment over the years whereas the UK's hasn't. Outside CAS, most of the time, the level of air traffic radar service provision (or even FIS) in the UK is virtually non-existent.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbubba:
Flight levels "float" up and down. The regulatory definition (FAR Part 95) of a Jet Route has to be a constant; i.e., feet.
That's a major screw up on the part of ATC. They are well trained in the same Part 91 table you use, "Lowest useable flight level."
And to add to the discussion of that last foot, jet airways are listed in the AIM as starting at 18,000 feet, not FL180.
Anyway, don't know where that last foot went (is it lost in the transition layer, perhaps?) but we do get clearances to FL180 and sometimes it is not a legal FL due to low QNH.
I'm just going to toss in one other difference betwen the U.S. and the U.K. Possibly overlooked since this is a pro pilot forum.
The flight levels (Class A airspace) REQUIRE an IFR clearance (except for rare SVFR). In the U.S. there are still a fair number of well-off private pilots who like to hop in their turbocharged whatsis, strap on the nasal oxygen, and fly VFR in the 'teens - without having to get involved with ATC over the wide open spaces (except towers, or the high-volume big-city airports with Class B protection.)
The average procotologist in a P210N flying from the L.A. basin to Aspen or Lake Tahoe would consider it "unwarranted government interference" to have to file IFR to cruise at 17,500' on a clear day (let alone 7,000' or lower). And they have a lobbying group - the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA).
The flight levels (Class A airspace) REQUIRE an IFR clearance (except for rare SVFR). In the U.S. there are still a fair number of well-off private pilots who like to hop in their turbocharged whatsis, strap on the nasal oxygen, and fly VFR in the 'teens - without having to get involved with ATC over the wide open spaces (except towers, or the high-volume big-city airports with Class B protection.)
The average procotologist in a P210N flying from the L.A. basin to Aspen or Lake Tahoe would consider it "unwarranted government interference" to have to file IFR to cruise at 17,500' on a clear day (let alone 7,000' or lower). And they have a lobbying group - the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA).
Yes, if the UK ATC infrastructure can cope with the requirement to provide Area QNH on request 24/7.....
...which, at the moment, they certainly cannot.
...which, at the moment, they certainly cannot.
As a regular visitor to US airspace, I've not found it particularly onerous, given that passing transition on the way down, you're probably within 70nm of destination; closer when operating into the higher altitude airports of the Mid-West. Most of the time you get one, maybe two QNHs - in the UK you get it going through transition and then seemingly every time you change controller...
The only time you get repeated changes of QNH in the US is if you're going a long way at low level, like routing round the back of New York to get to EWR. Even then, it's not a particular chore.
It doesn't take long to say "Altimeter 29.97" or "QNH 1015" compared with all the other guff that goes out over the airwaves...
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pattern is full:
Point taken. But, the turbocharged crowd is declining. The fat cats that fly their own high end birds are mostly turbo-props these days, and they come right on up into Class A, RVSM and all. Then, many of the turbo-chared that are around today can, and do, go as high as FL 250.
Then, there is the Cessna Mustang Mach 0.61 single-pilot jet that can go to FL 410. If they go to 410 they aren't such a problem, but at FL 350, or so, they clog the system as bad as King Airs do.
I'm just going to toss in one other difference betwen the U.S. and the U.K. Possibly overlooked since this is a pro pilot forum.
The flight levels (Class A airspace) REQUIRE an IFR clearance (except for rare SVFR). In the U.S. there are still a fair number of well-off private pilots who like to hop in their turbocharged whatsis, strap on the nasal oxygen, and fly VFR in the 'teens - without having to get involved with ATC over the wide open spaces (except towers, or the high-volume big-city airports with Class B protection.)
The average procotologist in a P210N flying from the L.A. basin to Aspen or Lake Tahoe would consider it "unwarranted government interference" to have to file IFR to cruise at 17,500' on a clear day (let alone 7,000' or lower). And they have a lobbying group - the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA).
The flight levels (Class A airspace) REQUIRE an IFR clearance (except for rare SVFR). In the U.S. there are still a fair number of well-off private pilots who like to hop in their turbocharged whatsis, strap on the nasal oxygen, and fly VFR in the 'teens - without having to get involved with ATC over the wide open spaces (except towers, or the high-volume big-city airports with Class B protection.)
The average procotologist in a P210N flying from the L.A. basin to Aspen or Lake Tahoe would consider it "unwarranted government interference" to have to file IFR to cruise at 17,500' on a clear day (let alone 7,000' or lower). And they have a lobbying group - the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA).
Then, there is the Cessna Mustang Mach 0.61 single-pilot jet that can go to FL 410. If they go to 410 they aren't such a problem, but at FL 350, or so, they clog the system as bad as King Airs do.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK has nothing like the same level of sectorisation as the US and a high TA could lead to a non-stop babble of QNH exchange on busy frequencies. This would be less likely if the TA was down at 6000ft.
I would be supportive of changing the the transition altitude to 18,000 ft and transition level to FL180 worldwide. In addition to clearing 99% of the planet's terrain, it also represents the 50% point for atmospheric pressure and seems like a natural place to delineate low altitude and high altitude flight. Also, raising the transition level/altitudes to these heights allows the change to come at a less workload intensive phase of flight in the flight deck, whereas the flaps are still being retracted during the changeover in places such as Amsterdam.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In the rain
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call me crazy but wouldn't the lowest possible TA be more sensible? Platform altitude a-la Paris/Amsterdam/Frankfurt/etc with all SIDs climbing to FLs. Would mean no QNH change on departure (1013 before leaving the ground) and only one at the very end with very little chance of it changing before landing. All this talk about continuous climbs is complete nonsense, that depends entirely on airspace design and atco brain power.
Terrain avoidance is much less of an issue now than it was in the past, standby altimeters set to QNH permanently combined with ATC seem to look after it well enough.
Terrain avoidance is much less of an issue now than it was in the past, standby altimeters set to QNH permanently combined with ATC seem to look after it well enough.
