USAirwaysCLT From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 28 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2691 times:
I saw a post awhile back where someone said that if a flight was less than a certain distance, than it was restricted to FL280 and below. Can someone help me out with this? What is the distance, I have forgotten. Thanks.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1293 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2496 times:
Ya Timz, that just happened to me this summer on a flight from OAK-LAX on WN. I never thought we would go to FL 410 but there we were. And that flight is only about 50 minutes to an hour. It was interesting to say the least.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2352 times:
>>>I saw a post awhile back where someone said that if a flight was less than a certain distance, than it was restricted to FL280 and below. Can someone help me out with this? What is the distance, I have forgotten. Thanks.
There is no hard-and-fast regulation that mandates this, and it's largely a function of the efficiency of the aircraft used, the actual load (weight) plus what the ATC system can handle. To some extent, getting up to FL410 on a short flight is something like getting on the freeway and going to the far left lane, only to immediately start heading to the rightmost lane to make the next exit 3/4 mile down the road. You can certainly do this if there's no traffic, but if there is any, you'll probably never get more than a lane or two away from the rightmost.
Someone mentioned a SWA OAK-LAX getting FL410, and while it happens, it's not always a certainty. Our flight planning computer looks for optimum altitudes, and had the flight been heavy, or a -300/-500, it'd have been lower, and again, ATC traffic can be a factor.
Sometimes, ATC "cap" flights (that could go higher) to lower altitudes. LAS-RNO (and vice versa) are good examples, as ATC will almost always cap you at FL280 or FL270 so as to stay underneath all the traffic in/out ofthe Bay-area airports (SFO, OAK, SJC). Ditto for PHX-SLC or SLC-PHX flights, so they can keep you underneath the transcon streams into LAS, LAX, and the other SOCAl airports.
COFreqFlyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2239 times:
Was on a flight EWR-MHT here a couple months back... because of routing and higher traffic, we stayed at 17,000 the entire flight (abt 40min), never even got into the flight levels. We were actually able to do the flight more directly, as routing via the flight levels is KEWR-ALB-KMHT.
ATLhomeCMH From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 770 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2227 times:
I'm not sure about exact flight levels...what I do know is that on the CMH to CVG flights I've been on, we normally don't get up above fl180 or so...same w/ ORD-MKE. Both flights vary from between 25mins to 45mins, depending on air speed and traffic volume.
So decending down from fl280 on these short hops wouldn't make sense, be a fuel drain, and an overall pain in the a$$.
"The most terrifying words in the Engligh language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"-Ronald Reagan
Venuscat2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 478 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1845 times:
the past week i have done MKE-ORD a few times, which is only 67 miles apart. i was surprised that we went as high as FL80 (is that 8,000ft?) since the flight lasted a whole 18minutes.
It's only considered a flight level above 18000 feet (FL 180). 19000 feet is FL190, 20000 feet is FL200, etc. Below 18000 feet, altitudes are referred to by the actual number of feet. (ten thousand, eleven thousand, etc.)