This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flight level article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
The rules for altitudes and directions are not correct for VFR flight in the United States. I'm not sure what other cases they are incorrect for. See, for example: http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-159-FAR.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelKatz (talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 October 2003
The page says 'above FL245' but now has examples below FL245! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelKatz (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 November 2003
Someone keeps inserting "See Also cloud base". The cloud base has nothing whatever to do with flight levels. Absolutely none. So stop that already! GRAHAMUK 22:44, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
i have a suspicion that the article is wrong on one thing ... it claims that the lowest FL in Poland is FL 285... which is simply not true, because transition level for Warsaw Okecie airport is FL 060 ... and that is certainly lower than FL 285...
which means, that those "lowest flight levels" are used for something different - maybe quadrantial / semicircular rules??? - but surely not for the transition levels... i'm not correcting the article because i'm not 100% sure - maybe someone more knowledgeable than me could fix it? - Blueshade 12:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Currently studying for my PPL (no instrument rating...) and here's what I have found so far. But IANAPY (I am not a pilot yet)
This is the first semi-circular rule. It applies to IFR flights, with some exceptions (see RSVM) (in the UK it only applies to IFR flights above FL 245)
This is the second semi-circular rule. It applies to VFR flights (but not in the UK):
This is the quandrantal rule. It applies in the UK to VFR and IFR flights below FL 245:
Variations on this theme:
The IFR semi-circular rule for Russia as an example:
Good stuff... the article should stress that FL quadrantal and semi-circular rule are based on "track magnetic" (M) not "track true" (T) as the article might be read.
So your track true (T) as on your chart plus/minus (+ for W - for E) variation (for your position on this planet in relation to magnetic north) gives the "track magnetic" (M) that depicts your flight level (odd or even).
And then it comes, Graham you are are absolutely right, cloud base has nothing to do with flight levels, but what about terrain clearance (which is always the responsibility of the pilot in command).
So for me the FL is depicted by magnetic track (M) and minimum terrain clearance. The latter one differs depending on the rules you apply (VFR or IFR).
From my experience, it is not that much different in the US and the UK. In both countries you SHOULD apply the quadrantal/semi-circular rule when in VFR and above 3,000ft. In IFR you HAVE TO fly a FL above TA (and the controler tells which one, when you get your departure clearance).
Personally I always try to fly a flight level (in VMC), just in case the flight becomes IMC at any stage. So I (and the controller) don't have to worry that much about separation when I do my pop-up filing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.45.215.11 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 October 2005
Should the page mention the abbreviated way of writing flight levels? (For example, is "flight level 123" = 12300 feet?) Ojw 13:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the lazy head comment at the end of the article? It appears on the article Flight_level but not on Flight_Level I'm new and confused :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.187.171 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 31 October 2005
Could we add a snippet about when/why the altimeter would be set to something other than 29.92? --Scott P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.62.46 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 24 May 2007
Altimeters should not normally be set to the standard setting of 1013.25 (29.92 is the equivalent) below the transition level which is well covered in the article. treesmill 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the transition layer extend and cover the hole FIR (controlled airspace and uncontrolled airspace?), i.e: in uncontrolled airspace is there any limit or altitude at which the pilot has to set his altimiter to standard 1013.25? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.72.19.146 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the highest used flight level? --88.77.226.109 14:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no theoretical maximum although aerodynamic flight becomes impossible at something in the region of 100,000 feet, FL1000. The highest FL used by civil aircraft these days is somewhere in the 500s. A Gulfstream 550 executive jet has a maximum altitude of FL510 but there may be others with higher limits. Concorde had a maximum cruise level of FL600. Military aircraft obviously operate higher than this. treesmill 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non flyers want to know: e.g., FL320: assume two days with very different pressures. What is the
actual, real, non-pressure related, tape measure elevation this could mean? Jidanni (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, answers it with pleasure. Thanks. Consider adding something like that into the article if not there already.
Hmmm, just hope everybody has accurate pressure meters, and GPSs... if they had to do it all over again maybe they would have used hard tape measure elevations for the FL definition... but wait, if GPS fails one could fall back to the pressure meter which is not dependant on external satellites, so pressure related FLs are safer. OK over and out. Jidanni (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trellis, thanks for pointing out my earlier error. Indeed QNH does not give pressure altitude. But nor does it give "true" altitude, except under ISA conditions (temperature 15ºC, density 1.225kg/m3 at sea-level, both decreasing uniformly with altitude). An altimeter cannot be calibrated for temperature or density (see Altimeter), so the altitude shown will vary from the actual (or true) altitude depending on the conditions at a given time and place. This time I have just removed the word "true", which incorrectly implies an accuracy which is not justified. 82.1.57.47 (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many ATCO's, especially from UK, refer to an opposite flight level (for example if the flight is eastbound at FL350 and they instruct a flight to climb to FL360 opposite) as a non-standard flight level. From my personal point of view an even or uneven flight level it is a standard one as long as it is as well defined in this document. I could say for example that FL420 is a non-standard flight level under RVSM between FL290 and FL410.
Concluding: an opposite flight level can be described as an non-standard flight level?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.34.199.124 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This source says that, as from one minute past midnight, UTC, on the 17 November, 2011, Russia has been using『the standard ICAO Flight Levels in feet, that we are used to in the rest of the world – which is happening everywhere except Mongolia.』Is this true? What is the situation in Ukraine? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
your text is wrong: France has since definition from ICAO (in French OACI) accepted and used the Standard rhuleset East/West. There are some heavy trafic routes arround big public aerports, where mandatory routing and FL is fixed. That spacing was made out of ICAO for responds to main traffic orientation, somewhere it could be N/S instead of east-west. But the rhules for half-cirqle according to ICAO are mandatory over the entire french airspace where no special routing is defined.
cosy-ch --81.13.181.100 (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an officially recognised upper limit? Does this vary by region? The upper limit for RVSM is 41,000. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flight level. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flight level. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP410PtA.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with aviation lingo to know whether "flight level" refers to any vertical zoning system, or just the US-centric FL-nnn notation, so I offer two options here.
Perhaps this article needs severe cutting, to describe only “FL _nnn_”, and all the other material should be in a different article.
Or perhaps not, in which case it seems to me odd (non-NPOV) that this article describes almost everything in imperial units, and relegates metric to a minor afterthought. Likewise it seems non-NPOV that it treat any separation scheme except east-west as minor aberrations. This article needs an overhaul to separate out the commonalities from the details that differ between jurisdiction, and to restrict the discursive emphasis on any one system to a section or article that clearly identifies it as such.
I suggest that an article covering the range of material currently in this article, either as a rewrite of this article or as a new article, should comprise: 1. A section explaining what flight levels are for, that they're based on angular separation of flight tracks, that both barometric and sea-level elevation are used, with a transition level, and that the details differ by jurisdiction. Highlight that it won't prevent lateral collisions, but will greatly reduce the chance of a head-on collision. 2. A subsection highlighting why FL cannot apply everywhere (eg. holding patterns near airports) and that air traffic control can override standard flight levels. 2. Some tables outlining the various schemes in use; hopefully someone can add a world map later; 3. A few paragraphs (being footnotes to the tables) explaining the variations in transition level, the variations in transition bearings; 4. A series of sections explaining the details of schemes in particular places; 5. A few paragraphs on historical practice, such as quadrant bearings, assuming that they're not in current use anywhere. Martin Kealey (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that this is now defunct. This is true of much of the world, but in the Kuala Lumpur and Kota Kinabula FIRS (Both Malaysian), this rule remains in effect for uncontrolled airspace above A030 and below FL250. Refer Malaysian AIP ENR 1.7 section 5 [1]:
The pilot-in-command of a VFR or IFR flight at or above 3000 ft outside controlled airspace and below FL 250 shall select a level corresponding to the appropriate magnetic track as indicated in the following Quandrantal Cruising Levels.
Magnetic Tracks (feet)
000°-089°|090°-179°|180°-269°|270°-359° Cruising (feet) 3 000 | 3 500 | 4 000 | 4 500
5 000 | 5 500 | 6 000 | 6 500
7 000 | 7 500 | 8 000 | 8 500
9 000 | 9 500 | 10 000 | 10 500
11 000| NA | NA | NA
Cruising Flight Level (1013.2 HPa)
130 | 135 | 140 | 145
150 | 155 | 160 | 165
170 | 175 | 180 | 185
190 | 195 | 200 | 205
210 | 215 | 220 | 225
230 | 235 | 240 | 245
(DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AVIATION MALAYSIA)
It may be the case that other countries also retain the Quadrantal rule, this would require consultation of each countries AIP (the non-conformance with ICAO recommendations section is a good place to start). The Quadrantal rule is superior to the hemispherical rule for collision avoidance of *all* traffic, as hemispherical rules can easily result in northerly VFR traffic being co-altitude with Southerly VFR traffic with just a few degrees of error in *track* calculation, example, Pilot a thinks he is tracking 175 degrees, but is actually tracking 180 degreees, whilst pilot B correctly thinks he is tracking zero degrees. Hemispherical rule could have them both at, say 7,500 feet on reciprocal courses, whereas Quadrantal rules would have Pilot A at 7,500 and Pilot B at 7,000. Vastly superior separation. The hemispherical rule improves the safety of IFR traffic, which is mostly RPT, by separating it from VFR traffic, whilst confining more numerous VFR aircraft to fewer altitudes, increasing the risk of collision for VFR aircraft. This is to increase the safety of RPT, which is usually flown under the IFR.
With regard to the article itself, I would suggest that writers confine themselves to known facts, such as "the Quadrantal rule is defunct in the UK since 2015", instead of making expansive statements that suggests that this applies to the whole world.Psaccani (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
I came here because I was curious what the semicircular rule was and why it was called that, and I have read over the article twice, yet I do not see any explanation of why it is called "semicircular", nor does it appear immediately obvious from the context. So flights are split into flight levels based on whether they are east or west bound, and this somehow makes it a "hemispherical" rule? An explanation would be nice. In fact, I don't really follow any of this. Maybe it is just me, maybe I am just really dense, but I don't feel like i understand flight levels after reading this article, and if the point of an article is to educate those who don't already know, I think this one is not doing a great job at it. If it was, it would make some sense to me.
64.222.159.22 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mention how much the difference between flight level elevation and real elevation could be on some days. 100 ft, a thousand feet? Jidanni (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]