typical cruise altitude for short range turboprop and jet AC

[donnybalonny 46]

Hi, I´m sure someone here can answer this:

 

what is the typical cruise altitude for short distance airline operation (100 - 200nm distance). Something like London to Belfast/Dublin/Glasgow or Brussels to Munich/Zürich/Hamburg  (just examples)

 

*Turboprops like Dash 8 100 / Fokker 50 /Saab 340

*Smaller jets like Embraer 145 and 175 range.

 

I have recently started flying this kind of flights but I´m not really to sure how high i should go. Anything above 18000feet seems to much, just going up and down again without any level cruise.

[stu7708 244]

A quick, and far from extensive, search on flight aware based on the first similar types of flights gave this.

FlyBe flight from Manchester to Inverness in the Dash-8, cruise at FL240.

FlyBe flight from Inverness to Amsterdam in a ERJ-170, cruise at FL370.

As said it's far from a scientific truth but should be a fair indication at least.

[J G 927]

I spent some of my working life doing once a week day trips from Heathrow to East Midlands airport.

We flew aT fl360 but only for about 15 mins. The flight was only about 45 mins.

As we were in Business class, the poor cabin crew served us food in that time, pushing the loaded trolleys up hill from the rear during the climb and then back up hill to the rear during the decent.

[donnybalonny 46]

Thanks for your replys. I didnt know Flightaware, but googled and found some answers.

Example:

luxemburg - Amsterdam, Fokker 70, 54minuts, FLP 220.

Aalborg - Copenhagen A320 33 minuts flp 220

 

I will look around some more. I found it difficult to find turboprop flights with altitude.

 

JG, thats a good story.  

[UKJim 502]

It does make you wonder though, how can 15mins worth of flying in the thinner air at altitude etc. be more efficient than climbing less? I mean surely you would use more fuel for climbing to high altitudes - does such a short cruise outweigh that?

 

It must work out else the companies wouldn't do this but it just seems crazy

[stu7708 244]

During the summer both Norwegian and SAS flies 737-800 planes from Arlanda (ESSA) to Visby (ESSV), direct route is just over 120nm. 

 

I flew on one such flight this passed summer and I don't think there even was a cruise phase in the flight, nor were there any service at all from the cabin crew. But considering we were in the air for less than 30 minutes I can really understand that decision..

 

Can't remember how high up we went though, and neither Flight Aware nor Flightradar24 seem to store historical data from that far back...

[allardjd 1,853]

It's not unusual for commercial aircraft on short haul flights to climb and then start the descent almost immediately. Don't forget that the higher you get, the more time you spend "coasting downhill" at a reduced fuel burn. Average height for the flight is higher that way too than a short climb and leveling off, and they probably spend most of it in cruise climb, not METO.

 

I think the optimum height for a short leg is different for different AC too and even for heavy/light loading in the same aircraft. There's also ATC to consider - you don't always get what you file.

 

I can only conclude that the difference in fuel burn between high and low must be pretty significant.

 

John

[donnybalonny 46]

Doesnt it have something to do with legislation?

 

I mean we cant have all these jets flying around at 5000 feet

[allardjd 1,853]

It's not legislation directly, but administrative law. The legislative authorities (Parliament, Congress, etc.) authorize regulatory agencies (CAA, FAA, etc.) to be responsible for regulation and rule-making within certain areas of concern. So, yes, it's sometimes legally mandated, but by administrative regulation, not normally by direct legislative action.

 

I don't think there are any laws that prohibit jets from flying at 5,000' (but airspace restrictions abound) however the ATC organizations bring order to the madness and mandate what makes the system work best by their standards. The concerns of the operators for cost, convenience, schedule and efficiency are a distant second place to the needs of the "system" to operate smoothly and safely.

 

The individual pilot always has the legal authority to deviate from the rules if he perceives there's an emergency, but he can expect a poop-storm on arrival and had better have been right in doing what he did or he's likely to have a short career.

 

John

[UKJim 502]

Definitely interesting subject - great responses too.

[donnybalonny 46]

Thanks John. Its more or less what i thought and it make sense. I can remember in one of the chapters of "Ice Pilots", where the pilot takes the C-46 down to just a few hundred feets agl saying that its what he likes about flying in North-west territories, there´s no restrictions.  Stunning pictures of this brutal bird roaring along a deepfrozen landscape as if it was a small GA plane.

[J G 927]

The aircraft that I was in for my hops up north was a 737, just about the biggest thing that could land at Leeds Bradford at that time. This was probably a factor with the FL we used. I would be surprised if there wasn't any restrictions as to the height you can fly over the UK. We are a small nation and anyone flying at their own chosen altitude is most likely going to hit something sooner rather than later. And even more importantly the noise abatement tossers people would have something to say if their beauty sleep was disturbed!

[allardjd 1,853]

Quote

 ...the noise abatement tossers people would have something to say if their beauty sleep was disturbed!

 

 

Here's the best comment ever on noise abatement.

 

[donnybalonny 46]

So you guys have a dream, to live near a noisy and busy airport, not sleep very much, not having many conversations, just spotting planes and sniffing avgas and jetfuel?

I like geeks 

[J G 927]

My wife wont let me move to the end of the runway at RAF Valley.  I just don't see why not