Vertical and horizontal separation between cruising and climbing aircraft
$begingroup$
I was recently a passenger on a commercial aircraft at cruise altitude when I noticed another aircraft just reaching its cruising altitude while crossing our flightpath from below, at what looked like a very close distance.
I looked up the two flights (LH491, AC172 on Nov 10, 2018) on Flightradar 24, linearly interpolated the following values in Excel to roughly 2-3 seconds resolution, and calculated the great circle distance between the coordinates:
AC 172 was heading 106° at the very end of its climb to FL 350. LH 491 was heading 51°, cruising at FL 350.
The smallest horizontal separation by my calculation was about 3.67 nm (at 1300 ft vertically). When we reached 1000 ft vertical separation, that distance was about 4.7 nm.
To my understanding, aircraft at these altitudes should always have a separation of least 1000 ft or 5 nm.
Not being an aviation professional myself, could someone please help me understand what was happening here?
I'm sure there must be a duplicate question, but I couldn't find one that involves both the vertical and horizontal components.
instrument-flight-rules separation
asked Nov 12 '18 at 21:31
Daniel HutmacherDaniel Hutmacher
1585
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was recently a passenger on a commercial aircraft at cruise altitude when I noticed another aircraft just reaching its cruising altitude while crossing our flightpath from below, at what looked like a very close distance.
I looked up the two flights (LH491, AC172 on Nov 10, 2018) on Flightradar 24, linearly interpolated the following values in Excel to roughly 2-3 seconds resolution, and calculated the great circle distance between the coordinates:
AC 172 was heading 106° at the very end of its climb to FL 350. LH 491 was heading 51°, cruising at FL 350.
The smallest horizontal separation by my calculation was about 3.67 nm (at 1300 ft vertically). When we reached 1000 ft vertical separation, that distance was about 4.7 nm.
To my understanding, aircraft at these altitudes should always have a separation of least 1000 ft or 5 nm.
Not being an aviation professional myself, could someone please help me understand what was happening here?
I'm sure there must be a duplicate question, but I couldn't find one that involves both the vertical and horizontal components.
instrument-flight-rules separation
asked Nov 12 '18 at 21:31
Daniel HutmacherDaniel Hutmacher
1585
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was recently a passenger on a commercial aircraft at cruise altitude when I noticed another aircraft just reaching its cruising altitude while crossing our flightpath from below, at what looked like a very close distance.
I looked up the two flights (LH491, AC172 on Nov 10, 2018) on Flightradar 24, linearly interpolated the following values in Excel to roughly 2-3 seconds resolution, and calculated the great circle distance between the coordinates:
AC 172 was heading 106° at the very end of its climb to FL 350. LH 491 was heading 51°, cruising at FL 350.
The smallest horizontal separation by my calculation was about 3.67 nm (at 1300 ft vertically). When we reached 1000 ft vertical separation, that distance was about 4.7 nm.
To my understanding, aircraft at these altitudes should always have a separation of least 1000 ft or 5 nm.
Not being an aviation professional myself, could someone please help me understand what was happening here?
I'm sure there must be a duplicate question, but I couldn't find one that involves both the vertical and horizontal components.
instrument-flight-rules separation
asked Nov 12 '18 at 21:31
Daniel HutmacherDaniel Hutmacher
1585
$endgroup$
I was recently a passenger on a commercial aircraft at cruise altitude when I noticed another aircraft just reaching its cruising altitude while crossing our flightpath from below, at what looked like a very close distance.
I looked up the two flights (LH491, AC172 on Nov 10, 2018) on Flightradar 24, linearly interpolated the following values in Excel to roughly 2-3 seconds resolution, and calculated the great circle distance between the coordinates:
AC 172 was heading 106° at the very end of its climb to FL 350. LH 491 was heading 51°, cruising at FL 350.
The smallest horizontal separation by my calculation was about 3.67 nm (at 1300 ft vertically). When we reached 1000 ft vertical separation, that distance was about 4.7 nm.
To my understanding, aircraft at these altitudes should always have a separation of least 1000 ft or 5 nm.
Not being an aviation professional myself, could someone please help me understand what was happening here?
I'm sure there must be a duplicate question, but I couldn't find one that involves both the vertical and horizontal components.
instrument-flight-rules separation
instrument-flight-rules separation
asked Nov 12 '18 at 21:31
Daniel HutmacherDaniel Hutmacher
1585
asked Nov 12 '18 at 21:31
Daniel HutmacherDaniel Hutmacher
1585
asked Nov 12 '18 at 21:31
Daniel HutmacherDaniel Hutmacher
1585
asked Nov 12 '18 at 21:31
Daniel HutmacherDaniel Hutmacher
1585
asked Nov 12 '18 at 21:31
Daniel HutmacherDaniel Hutmacher
1585
1585
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think you may have answered your own question note the use of the word OR
To my understanding, aircraft at these altitudes should always have a
separation of least 1000 ft or 5 nm.
If you take a look at your data the aircraft are always separated by 1000 feet OR 5nm. The singular exception to this is when you have the separation quoted at 4.81 miles and 982ft. This can to an extent be explained away by the inaccuracies in systems like FlightRadar24
answered Nov 12 '18 at 22:04
DaveDave
62.6k4111229
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
The separation of 982ft would also most likely not be "out of bounds" for the 1000ft rule, since ATC scopes only see increments of 100ft. Per the ATC data, the two aircraft were back into the 5+ horizontal separation range before they fell out of the 1000ft vertical separation range.
$endgroup$
– Jimmy
Nov 12 '18 at 22:19
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57023%2fvertical-and-horizontal-separation-between-cruising-and-climbing-aircraft%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think you may have answered your own question note the use of the word OR
To my understanding, aircraft at these altitudes should always have a
separation of least 1000 ft or 5 nm.
If you take a look at your data the aircraft are always separated by 1000 feet OR 5nm. The singular exception to this is when you have the separation quoted at 4.81 miles and 982ft. This can to an extent be explained away by the inaccuracies in systems like FlightRadar24
answered Nov 12 '18 at 22:04
DaveDave
62.6k4111229
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
The separation of 982ft would also most likely not be "out of bounds" for the 1000ft rule, since ATC scopes only see increments of 100ft. Per the ATC data, the two aircraft were back into the 5+ horizontal separation range before they fell out of the 1000ft vertical separation range.
$endgroup$
– Jimmy
Nov 12 '18 at 22:19
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you may have answered your own question note the use of the word OR
To my understanding, aircraft at these altitudes should always have a
separation of least 1000 ft or 5 nm.
If you take a look at your data the aircraft are always separated by 1000 feet OR 5nm. The singular exception to this is when you have the separation quoted at 4.81 miles and 982ft. This can to an extent be explained away by the inaccuracies in systems like FlightRadar24
answered Nov 12 '18 at 22:04
DaveDave
62.6k4111229
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
The separation of 982ft would also most likely not be "out of bounds" for the 1000ft rule, since ATC scopes only see increments of 100ft. Per the ATC data, the two aircraft were back into the 5+ horizontal separation range before they fell out of the 1000ft vertical separation range.
$endgroup$
– Jimmy
Nov 12 '18 at 22:19
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you may have answered your own question note the use of the word OR
To my understanding, aircraft at these altitudes should always have a
separation of least 1000 ft or 5 nm.
If you take a look at your data the aircraft are always separated by 1000 feet OR 5nm. The singular exception to this is when you have the separation quoted at 4.81 miles and 982ft. This can to an extent be explained away by the inaccuracies in systems like FlightRadar24
answered Nov 12 '18 at 22:04
DaveDave
62.6k4111229
$endgroup$
I think you may have answered your own question note the use of the word OR
To my understanding, aircraft at these altitudes should always have a
separation of least 1000 ft or 5 nm.
If you take a look at your data the aircraft are always separated by 1000 feet OR 5nm. The singular exception to this is when you have the separation quoted at 4.81 miles and 982ft. This can to an extent be explained away by the inaccuracies in systems like FlightRadar24
answered Nov 12 '18 at 22:04
DaveDave
62.6k4111229
answered Nov 12 '18 at 22:04
DaveDave
62.6k4111229
answered Nov 12 '18 at 22:04
DaveDave
62.6k4111229
answered Nov 12 '18 at 22:04
DaveDave
62.6k4111229
62.6k4111229
3
$begingroup$
The separation of 982ft would also most likely not be "out of bounds" for the 1000ft rule, since ATC scopes only see increments of 100ft. Per the ATC data, the two aircraft were back into the 5+ horizontal separation range before they fell out of the 1000ft vertical separation range.
$endgroup$
– Jimmy
Nov 12 '18 at 22:19
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
The separation of 982ft would also most likely not be "out of bounds" for the 1000ft rule, since ATC scopes only see increments of 100ft. Per the ATC data, the two aircraft were back into the 5+ horizontal separation range before they fell out of the 1000ft vertical separation range.
$endgroup$
– Jimmy
Nov 12 '18 at 22:19
3
3
$begingroup$
The separation of 982ft would also most likely not be "out of bounds" for the 1000ft rule, since ATC scopes only see increments of 100ft. Per the ATC data, the two aircraft were back into the 5+ horizontal separation range before they fell out of the 1000ft vertical separation range.
$endgroup$
– Jimmy
Nov 12 '18 at 22:19
$begingroup$
The separation of 982ft would also most likely not be "out of bounds" for the 1000ft rule, since ATC scopes only see increments of 100ft. Per the ATC data, the two aircraft were back into the 5+ horizontal separation range before they fell out of the 1000ft vertical separation range.
$endgroup$
– Jimmy
Nov 12 '18 at 22:19
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57023%2fvertical-and-horizontal-separation-between-cruising-and-climbing-aircraft%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
