FAO Chris Wonnacott
Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore
-
- ISGPOTM, 2nd only to Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger
- Posts: 1444
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:26 pm
- Princess Leia
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:44 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
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
- tds
- Posts: 937
- Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:55 pm
- Location: ...a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
Outstanding warrant, perhaps?Don't worry Shadey, I don't blame you for avoiding Tennessee until the last moment either.
- VectorForFood
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
But did you fly the outbound leg from KDOV that night?
If you did... then a belated hello.
If you did... then a belated hello.
-
- Posts: 2130
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
Why are they at a VFR altitude?
-
- Posts: 1420
- Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:16 pm
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
Is FL390 the Basement of outerspace, or perhaps Lower Parking Level 1 of outerspace?
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
Odd's are they had great visibility and VMC.Why are they at a VFR altitude?Concorde photo[/img]
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4397
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
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.Why are they at a VFR altitude?
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-
- Posts: 2130
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
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...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.Why are they at a VFR altitude?
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4397
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
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.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.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-
- Posts: 2130
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
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.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.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.
- VectorForFood
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
The Concorde was constantly changing flight levels as it chased pressure gradients
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
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).
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).
-
- Posts: 2130
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
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 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).
- tds
- Posts: 937
- Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:55 pm
- Location: ...a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
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?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.
Although I'm guessing no one would be referring to FL180 in those conditions, since FL180 wouldn't be assigned.
Right?
-
- Posts: 2130
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
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: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?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.
Although I'm guessing no one would be referring to FL180 in those conditions, since FL180 wouldn't be assigned.
Right?
- tds
- Posts: 937
- Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:55 pm
- Location: ...a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
Very true!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:
- VectorForFood
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
Sometimes we have slow pilots who request FL420, which I'm sure all of you aviation prodigys know doesn't exist
-
- Posts: 2130
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
Silly arbitrary RVSM rules...Sometimes we have slow pilots who request FL420, which I'm sure all of you aviation prodigys know doesn't exist
- VectorForFood
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
I will accept that answer as being in the close enough category...
-
- Posts: 2130
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
No no no. I know you like me but I won't let you play favorites. Let's hear the full story.I will accept that answer as being in the close enough category...
- VectorForFood
- Posts: 859
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:49 am
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
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.
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.
-
- ISGPOTM, 2nd only to Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger
- Posts: 1444
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:26 pm
Re: FAO Chris Wonnacott
Based upon?
The reasoning for the 2000' separation above FL410 is due to apparent equipment limitations and accuracy, which I would find questionable given todays technology.
.
Aviation Pilot, Author, Genius
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 15 guests