Ekfan From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 25 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3807 times:
I often fly to West Africa for work, and on a recent trip to Dakar, Senegal, I flew with South African Airways on their A340-300e service from IAD, which stops in Dakar and then continues on to Johannesburg, SA. During the flight to Dakar, the aircraft reached a maximum cruise altitude of 42,000 feet. On the return, the flight was at 41,000 for most of the cruise phase. This strikes me as a very high altitude - is this a normal flight level in this region? I would not imagine it's due to crowded airspace since the flight tracks over a remote part of the Atlantic ocean (in fact I have often wondered what the viable diversion points are in case of a problem). Is it due to the bad weather that can often occur in these southern parts of the Atlantic?
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2221 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3761 times:
The Azores come to mind, however the diversion points are few and far between, hence the 4 engined aircraft which dominates SAA's long haul fleet, however DL does it's non-stop to Jo'burg on the 777.
Next Flights: AS PDX-SAN-LIH on 739/738 in F, HA LIH-HNL-KOA-OGG on 717 in Y, AS OGG-PDX on 738 in F
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21045 posts, RR: 60 Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3645 times:
I was under the impression that the higher you can fly, the better. Considering the flight is short in comparison to the range of the birds, climbing to this height would not be difficult from takeoff. In comparison, a 772 flying DFW-NRT must step up in altitude over time as fuel is burned off and the plane is lighter.
I know in the USA airlines try to get their 737s and A320s up to max efficient cruise on shorter missions as soon as possible, but ATC doesn't always let them because they want to flow them in their lanes. Over southern Africa, one imagines that the traffic is lighter than the USA.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3405 times:
Quoting Ekfan (Thread starter): stops in Dakar and then continues on to Johannesburg, SA.
You've got a plane designed for 7400 nm on a flight that's only 3600 nm...you'd certainly hope, absent ATC restrictions, they can get up near maximum service ceiling.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
I was under the impression that the higher you can fly, the better.
Exactly. As long as you've got the performance and the route isn't so short that you never get to a steady cruise altitude, you want to be as high as you can. Optimum altitude for long range aircraft when they're lightly loaded is often at or near their maximum certified altitude.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2675 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3241 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2): a 772 flying DFW-NRT must step up in altitude over time as fuel is burned off and the plane is lighter.
Interesting. Thanks for that. I flew SYD-HNL on a 767 and LAX-MEL on a 744 in June/July on QF and both ways we started cruising at 28,000 and then about 2 hours into the flight started slowly rising until we got to 40,000 several hours later. I was wondering why, and this suddenly makes a lot of sense. Both flights would be pushing the range of the aircraft so they wouldn't want to burn a ton of fuel just getting up.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6196 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3204 times:
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 4): Both flights would be pushing the range of the aircraft so they wouldn't want to burn a ton of fuel just getting up.
Usually the aircraft is not physically capable of climbing to the highest cruise levels until it burns off a lot of that fuel.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15907 posts, RR: 66 Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2864 times:
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 4): Both flights would be pushing the range of the aircraft so they wouldn't want to burn a ton of fuel just getting up.
The fuel burn is not the issue. Weight is the issue. As rfields5421 says, the aircraft is not physically able to go that high at high weights because the wing can't carry it that high. It would fall below stall speed, or to be more precise it would fall out of the certified envelope and too close to stall speed.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
flymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6328 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2845 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7): The fuel burn is not the issue. Weight is the issue. As rfields5421 says, the aircraft is not physically able to go that high at high weights because the wing can't carry it that high. It would fall below stall speed, or to be more precise it would fall out of the certified envelope and too close to stall speed.
Exactly. That is the purpose of a step climb. Go to the best optimal altitude for the weight of the aircraft is at. The FMC lets the pilots know what altitude they should be flying at. More fuel burned higher you can go.
As for the OP, as many have said the higher the better for fuel burn. That is a pretty short flight for the A340 so getting up there is no problem. When I fly AA on MIA-LAX the 777s get right up to around 39,000 feet usually, pretty short flight for a 777.
Quoting Ekfan (Thread starter): (in fact I have often wondered what the viable diversion points are in case of a problem)
There are not many. With four engine A340s not much to worry about. Of course ETOPS twin engines can do the route also but the more the better of course
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
Earlier this year, I flew on a DJ 737-700 from SYD-MEL where we were cruising at 41,000ft even though the sector is only 381nm with a flight duration of about 1 hour. Even for such short sectors it seems worthwhile to get as high as possbile as soon as possible.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15907 posts, RR: 66 Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 23 hours ago) and read 2664 times:
Quoting jetmech (Reply 9): Earlier this year, I flew on a DJ 737-700 from SYD-MEL where we were cruising at 41,000ft even though the sector is only 381nm with a flight duration of about 1 hour. Even for such short sectors it seems worthwhile to get as high as possbile as soon as possible.
41000 feet is peanuts compared to the distance traveled, only 6.75nm altitude. In this case of 381nm the maximum altitude is thus 1.75% of the distance. If you reduce the scale to a tabletop one meter long, the aircraft would be traveling 1.75 cm above it. The aircraft is practically grazing the ground.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1849 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 2586 times:
Interestingly, on short haul, the most economical flight path is parabolic. In other words, it makes sense to climb as high as you can, even if you don't spend any time on your maximum altitude, and instead start the descend immediately. ATC won't like it though.
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
andz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8306 posts, RR: 11 Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 19 hours ago) and read 2574 times:
I have flown SAA between South Africa and Europe many times and usually they will start around 37,000ft as an initial destination, more often than not when waking up in the morning the display showed 41,000ft. I don't recall ever seeing 42,000ft though (I'm sure I would remember as it would seem extraordinary to me).
Many years ago my wife and I were in the cockpit jumpseats on a 747SP between JNB and DUR (258nm according to Great Circle Mapper) and we climbed to FL410. When I asked the Captain why, he said "because we can".
After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 19 hours ago) and read 2571 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 13):
Interestingly, on short haul, the most economical flight path is parabolic. In other words, it makes sense to climb as high as you can, even if you don't spend any time on your maximum altitude, and instead start the descend immediately. ATC won't like it though.
They will let you do a triangular profile in some parts of the world though...I used to fly HOU-MSY all the time. You climb all the way to your top-of-descent point then descend all the way back down. There's effectively no time in cruise.
I agree that the overall flight profile is quite shallow, but on the other hand, it probably takes around 15 minutes to get that high and 15 minutes to descend from that altitude, so at least half the flight time of such a short sector is spent getting to and from 41,000ft. It would take a fair amount of extra fuel consumption to get the extra altitude above a lower flight level such as 31,000ft for instance, so that half hour cruising at 41,000ft must really pay off.
Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21690 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2): I know in the USA airlines try to get their 737s and A320s up to max efficient cruise on shorter missions as soon as possible, but ATC doesn't always let them because they want to flow them in their lanes.
Quoting jetmech (Reply 9): Earlier this year, I flew on a DJ 737-700 from SYD-MEL where we were cruising at 41,000ft even though the sector is only 381nm with a flight duration of about 1 hour. Even for such short sectors it seems worthwhile to get as high as possbile as soon as possible.
I've been on 2 KLM 737-700 flights in the past month that reached 40,000 ft. on one hour flights (e.g. AMS-GVA 368 nm and AMS-MUC 359 nm).
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 2325 times:
Quoting David L (Reply 16): Could it be something simple, like the difference between pressure altitude and GPS altitude plus software rounding, for example?
Most IFE moving-map displays get their GPS and altitude data from the aircraft, and the aircraft doesn't use GPS altitude unless something has gone wrong. If the IFE is saying FL420 it's most likely because the aircraft it telling it that it's at FL420.
jox From Sweden, joined Jan 2003, 79 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 hour ago) and read 2289 times:
Very often on LLA-ARN (and back) if you are on a 73NG, at least SAS cruises on FL390-410. It is an hour flight, and usually the pattern is roughly like this: climb 20 min, cruise 20 min, descend 20 min.
Speedbird128 From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1159 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1882 times:
Quoting andz (Reply 14): Many years ago my wife and I were in the cockpit jumpseats on a 747SP between JNB and DUR (258nm according to Great Circle Mapper) and we climbed to FL410. When I asked the Captain why, he said "because we can".
Hey Andz,
Seen 43 and I am sure 45 on that route too... Because they can, and fuel bill is not the crews problem
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 25 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2675 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4656 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15907 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8306 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9248 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21690 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2003, 79 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
