FAO Chris Wonnacott

Discussion of aviation issues which are not safety related (airline operations, pilot contracts, aviation industry news, etc.)

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

IntheShade
ISGPOTM, 2nd only to Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:26 pm

FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby IntheShade » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:34 pm

Ever wonder what FL390 looks like?

Image
Aviation Pilot, Author, Genius

User avatar
Verbal
Posts: 3579
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Planet Bacterion

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby Verbal » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:04 pm

Genius!
"I'm putting an end to this f*ckery." - Rayna Boyanov

User avatar
Princess Leia
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby Princess Leia » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:51 pm

Don't worry Shadey, I don't blame you for avoiding Tennessee until the last moment either.
May a plethora of uncultivated palaeontologists raise the dead in a way that makes your blood boil

User avatar
tds
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:55 pm
Location: ...a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby tds » Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:30 pm

Don't worry Shadey, I don't blame you for avoiding Tennessee until the last moment either.
Outstanding warrant, perhaps?

User avatar
VectorForFood
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby VectorForFood » Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:24 pm

But did you fly the outbound leg from KDOV that night?

If you did... then a belated hello.

Lomcevak
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:54 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby Lomcevak » Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:40 pm

Image

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby PurduePilot » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:46 pm

Image
Why are they at a VFR altitude? :P

OldSowBreath
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:16 pm

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby OldSowBreath » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:49 pm

Is FL390 the Basement of outerspace, or perhaps Lower Parking Level 1 of outerspace?

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8273
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby 3WE » Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:39 pm

Concorde photo[/img]
Why are they at a VFR altitude? :P
Odd's are they had great visibility and VMC.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby flyboy2548m » Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:03 pm

Why are they at a VFR altitude? :P
You disappoint me, Bradley. How do you know they've leveled off and, besides, remind me what their altimeter would be set to above FL180.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby PurduePilot » Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:38 pm

Why are they at a VFR altitude? :P
You disappoint me, Bradley. How do you know they've leveled off and, besides, remind me what their altimeter would be set to above FL180.
Well, if they weren't leveled off then there is only a 1 in 10 chance of that photo being taken while they were on a xx500 altitude. And I'm assuming the cabin display is fed by a repeater from one of the flight deck instruments, which would be set to 29.92. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Class A goes up to 60,000, which means they must be on an IFR flight plan. That being said, they're the only ones up there so ATC would probably give them whatever altitude they want. My comment was more meant for humor than anything else, as there actually aren't going to be any 172s to dodge up there...

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby flyboy2548m » Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:47 pm

Well, if they weren't leveled off then there is only a 1 in 10 chance of that photo being taken while they were on a xx500 altitude. And I'm assuming the cabin display is fed by a repeater from one of the flight deck instruments, which would be set to 29.92. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Class A goes up to 60,000, which means they must be on an IFR flight plan.
You don't reckon the cabin display might go something like "51,000...51,500...52,000 etc"? And yes, you are wrong, or at least not technically correct, as Class A extends to FL600, not 60,000', which I'm sure you know isn't the same.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby PurduePilot » Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:01 pm

Well, if they weren't leveled off then there is only a 1 in 10 chance of that photo being taken while they were on a xx500 altitude. And I'm assuming the cabin display is fed by a repeater from one of the flight deck instruments, which would be set to 29.92. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Class A goes up to 60,000, which means they must be on an IFR flight plan.
You don't reckon the cabin display might go something like "51,000...51,500...52,000 etc"? And yes, you are wrong, or at least not technically correct, as Class A extends to FL600, not 60,000', which I'm sure you know isn't the same.
A quick google image search seems to indicate you are correct. I assumed it would have 100 foot precision. I guess they don't want the passengers to see when they deviate a bit. And good catch on the FL--you got me there.

User avatar
VectorForFood
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby VectorForFood » Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:40 pm

The Concorde was constantly changing flight levels as it chased pressure gradients

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3705
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby Gabriel » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:38 am

I don't know how it is in the US, but here VFR flight is restricted to the lower airspace. All flight in the upper airspace must be IFR. Now I don't remember what is was the boundary (mid twenties?), but certainly 51500ft (or FL 515) would be in the upper airspace and hence not VFR.

By the way, the standard transition level here is FL 040, or better said a FL that corresponds to about 4000ft AGL. So the transition level depends on the location but also, at least theoretically, can change with extreme weather conditions. The transition altitude is fixed for each location (about 3000ft AGL).

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby PurduePilot » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:21 am

I don't know how it is in the US, but here VFR flight is restricted to the lower airspace. All flight in the upper airspace must be IFR. Now I don't remember what is was the boundary (mid twenties?), but certainly 51500ft (or FL 515) would be in the upper airspace and hence not VFR.

By the way, the standard transition level here is FL 040, or better said a FL that corresponds to about 4000ft AGL. So the transition level depends on the location but also, at least theoretically, can change with extreme weather conditions. The transition altitude is fixed for each location (about 3000ft AGL).
You are correct: Class A airspace FL180-FL600 is IFR only. I was making an attempt at humor in my suggestion that the Concorde was at a VFR altitude. Transition is FL180.

User avatar
tds
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:55 pm
Location: ...a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby tds » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:02 am

You are correct: Class A airspace FL180-FL600 is IFR only. I was making an attempt at humor in my suggestion that the Concorde was at a VFR altitude. Transition is FL180.
I thought the floor of Class A and the transition altitude was 18,000' AMSL. Flyboy's CRJ could be climbing through FL180 (defined as a specific, constant pressure) without having reached 18,000' AMSL in low pressure conditions, couldn't it?

Although I'm guessing no one would be referring to FL180 in those conditions, since FL180 wouldn't be assigned.

Right?

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby PurduePilot » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:39 am

You are correct: Class A airspace FL180-FL600 is IFR only. I was making an attempt at humor in my suggestion that the Concorde was at a VFR altitude. Transition is FL180.
I thought the floor of Class A and the transition altitude was 18,000' AMSL. Flyboy's CRJ could be climbing through FL180 (defined as a specific, constant pressure) without having reached 18,000' AMSL in low pressure conditions, couldn't it?

Although I'm guessing no one would be referring to FL180 in those conditions, since FL180 wouldn't be assigned.

Right?
Yeah I suppose you are correct, though couldn't FL180 be assigned on a standard or high pressure day? Not that I really need to worry about it at my lowly altitudes:
Image

User avatar
tds
Posts: 937
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:55 pm
Location: ...a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby tds » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:29 am

Yeah I suppose you are correct, though couldn't FL180 be assigned on a standard or high pressure day? Not that I really need to worry about it at my lowly altitudes:
Image
Very true!

User avatar
VectorForFood
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby VectorForFood » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:26 pm

Sometimes we have slow pilots who request FL420, which I'm sure all of you aviation prodigys know doesn't exist

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby PurduePilot » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:00 pm

Sometimes we have slow pilots who request FL420, which I'm sure all of you aviation prodigys know doesn't exist
Silly arbitrary RVSM rules...

User avatar
VectorForFood
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby VectorForFood » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:53 am

I will accept that answer as being in the close enough category...

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby PurduePilot » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:48 am

I will accept that answer as being in the close enough category...
No no no. I know you like me but I won't let you play favorites. Let's hear the full story.

User avatar
VectorForFood
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby VectorForFood » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:19 pm

sorry Brad, I thought my reply went through but apparently it did not....

FL420 can't REALLY be blamed on RVSM airspace, since FL420 is not inside RVSM airspace (FL290-410).

The reasoning for the 2000' separation above FL410 is due to apparent equipment limitations and accuracy, which I would find questionable given todays technology.

Nevertheless it is what is.

IntheShade
ISGPOTM, 2nd only to Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott

Postby IntheShade » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:33 pm


The reasoning for the 2000' separation above FL410 is due to apparent equipment limitations and accuracy, which I would find questionable given todays technology.

.
Based upon?
Aviation Pilot, Author, Genius


Return to “Aviation Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 15 guests