Harmonised 18000 ft Transition Altitude on the way for UK?
 

Looks like it could be on the way.....

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Informa...ice2012016.pdf

Would mean one less thing to think about for most GA ops. However, surely it will mean a re-definition of all airspace classified by flight level below FL180?
People might need to start using ASR again. Would people still use the quadrangle rule?

What's a 'quadrangle rule'? After 40 odd years in ATC I never heard of it.
As for using ASR; this would not necessarily prevent a pilot from inadvertantly entering CAS when operating below a CTA so I would think pilots would have to get an actual QNH, possibly from the nearest airfield, as they presently MUST do when operating below a TMA (FIR might be able to help but would they have the closest local value available?).

Naughty chevvron

He clearly means "Quadrantal".........:p

Excellent ! A great step forward

Please feel fit to tell me to ......
 

As a very occasional enthusiasist Flyer; I understand that QNH will give the PIC his height above mean sea level in the vacinity of an airfield. ASR when set will give the lowest expected pressure QNH for the region in which the setting applies for a given time - So assisting the pilot against a drop in actual atmospheric pressure, erroding minimum safe sector Altitude.

Given my very limited understanding of things like this - FL 1013 Mb (old money) is set as you pass "transition altitude" on departure to provide aircraft on "Airways" with a setting calibrated to ensure a 1000 ft seperation between aircraft.

OK I suppose modern aircraft climb through the proposed transition altitude comparitively quickly so no problem. But are there routes where even modern jet aircraft actually fly comparitively low (say 18000 - FL180) because of fixed height restrictions at given waypoints.

Can you imagine the complexity imposed in a country the size of the UK by flights transititing ASR's within airways with differiing regional settings - not to mention turboprops or perhaps a day where the isobars are tightly packed.

I know in the USA (a big country) the transition altitude is something like 16,000 ft but I imagine their ASR regions are a lot bigger.

tThe small thoughts of an enthusiast)

It is 18,000 feet.

Ta
 

Thanks Con. as I said earlier. correct me - Does the higher transition make your workload harder ?

FWIW because of the high TA/TL in the States and the complexity of some of it's airspace (especially the Eastern seaboard around BOS/New York/PHL/IAD) it's not unknown in the descent to do pretty much what you describe - to fly part of the descent, including STAR altitude constraints on one altimeter setting and then have to change setting when handed over to the next agency to continue downwards, eventually landing using the airport "altimeter"....not pretty but you just need to be ready for it.

In the US each new ATC sector gives you their altimeter setting below 18,000ft. It has the advantage about not having to worry about what you real altitude is versus flight level but it also means you have to change altimeter settings a lot.

On balance I don't like the way at the moment different parts of the UK seem to work on different transition altitudes, I can't see any good reason for it and it would seem sensible to just have one. The US uses 18,000ft so that seems as good as any other altitude to use...

When I started flying IFR you got a new transponder code (if they had radar) and and the altimeter setting at each check in. So now there is only half the work. Even doing 290 knots at 15,000 PHL to JFK it's just another 3 seconds for the controller and another few for the flight to reply. In a way it may help, when the flight replys "Two niner niner seven" you know that conversation is over and you can jump in.

The US uses FL180 as the transition altitude based on the highest terrain. I know the highest terrain in the lower 48 states is in California and is around 14,000ft. In my opinion, it is a system that works very well because on an IFR flight plan in controlled airspace, the controller always gives their latest altimeter setting in your area when you check on below FL180.

It would certainly be nice if all countries could adhere to one set of airspace rules and definitions, making our lives easier. I imagine it could sometimes get tricky to remember different terminologies and transition altitudes.

Mmm . . . perhaps it's time for two distinctly different types of height information to be used. i.e. Standard all the time to stop aircraft bumping into one another, and a new display for terrain and airfield use.

This might have been nonsense once, but with modern flight-decks, the total separation of a theoretical spacing height, and a true working height, starts to make more sense.

No, I don't expect anyone to take this seriously. Keep twiddling that little knob.

Exactly the opposite. Setting QNH before or after you get busy is a good thing. Those wacky departures in the UK where every time you reach for a knob you get a radio call are spring loaded for missing that 4000 feet (or whatever) low transition altitude. Likewise, on the way down, if you miss the change to 996 hPa, you don't have much time to catch your mistake before you get a GPWS (or, so I'm told :) ).

A friend of mine from the UK is dismayed that many U.S. departures are now simple vectors, e.g. runway heading, maintain 5000 feet. I guess he still does NDB holding and stuff like that on his instrument check and doesn't like the simplicity.

If you have to change the altimeter more than once below FL180 in the U.S., it's a tweek since you've already set QNH and even if you miss a call, you'll usually be closer with the arrival ATIS value a hundred miles out than with QNE (sometimes in the NE U.S. you will be below FL180 a hundred miles out to get under another airport's corridors).

At least he will still be able to fly when the radar goes down!

Contacted,

The Transition Altitude for the whole of the US and Canada is 18,000', even though the vast majority of the terrain in both countries is below 3000'. It just makes life simpler.

As others have pointed out, when below 18,000, you are given new Altimeter Settings as appropriate (and they are NEVER referred to as QNH).

The system in the US really isn't that tedious most of the time. Once cleared below 18000ft during the descent, the controller will supply the QNH of a station within 100nm. Using the 3:1 rule, you'll see that by 18,000 you're nearly there anyway, so you only have to change it once or twice, and then maybe only by 0.01 each time.

The UK on its own could make do with TA 6,000ft, but we're talking about a European wide TA here, hence 18,000ft.

10,000 ft would be an obvious choice in the UK.
I refuse to believe 'European harmonisation' is anything other than a steaming lump of foetid turd.

I think it is an excellent idea. 18,000ft would be a good choice as it harmonises with the USA and would be good across the whole of Europe if it is adpoted more widely. Mont Blanc is 15,782ft high and without doing the calculations 18,000ft would cover this adequately (can anyone check this).

Having flown worldwide, and extensively in the US, I found that the higher transition level much reduced workload at the more critical phases of flight.

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.

Perhaps it is just me but I can't see a TA/TL being around that figure since it would involve pressure changes whilst in the hold for LHR etc. Whilst that in itself is not an issue, an incorrectly set QNH or one that is not set at all in a holding environment that leads to a level bust, is never far from generating an RA. Then the old domino effect could then occur!

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.

No it would not, It would just be another example of the UK reinventing the wheel, just that it is square. There are countless examples of the "we know better than the world" and "if the yanks are doing it we have to do something different" attitude. You can't have your little British empire built on stupidity and the wish to be different. And by the way that line of thought is already taken by the French.

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.

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.

Some background knowledge to help you all understand why it WILL be 18,000ft (and why it is also DIFFERENT from the USA & Canada) :ugh:

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.

I heard that the French and Germans have said no to it, so it kind of defies the purpose really...

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. :ok:
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. :E

Are you sure, I seem to remember that it was FL60 at BHX.
And a few others as well.

DTY departures from egnx FL90

LAMIX and DOPEK SIDs from EGNM climb to FL70.

- I assume we will be getting the new definition of what a TA is soon? I wonder what a TL will become?:confused:http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...s/confused.gif

Absolute crap. Zooker has beat me to some more sids, and I agree with his points.

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!!!!

BOAC - ditto, that was going to be my next post! spent too long writing the first one!!

I'm very much a Eurosceptic but in airspace design harmonisation seems to make sense. EASA have made a bit of a mountain out of a molehill with the whole harmonisation of licensing, flight duty times, etc etc and as an exercise to actually improve safety the JAR was a bit of a non-starter as well.

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.

Why can't a SID use flight levels? Is this a UK rule? I know of no restriction in the U.S., for example the KNIK 7 departure out of ANC has you maintain FL200.

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.

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.

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.

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 :ugh:

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.