Vertical and horizontal separation between cruising and climbing aircraft
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
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 at 21:31
Daniel Hutmacher
1535
New contributor
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
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 at 21:31
Daniel Hutmacher
1535
New contributor
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
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 at 21:31
Daniel Hutmacher
1535
New contributor
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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 at 21:31
Daniel Hutmacher
1535
New contributor
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Nov 12 at 21:31
Daniel Hutmacher
1535
New contributor
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Nov 12 at 21:31
Daniel Hutmacher
1535
New contributor
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Nov 12 at 21:31
Daniel Hutmacher
1535
asked Nov 12 at 21:31
Daniel Hutmacher
1535
1535
New contributor
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
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 at 22:04
Dave
59.8k4108218
3
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.
– Jimmy
Nov 12 at 22:19
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
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 at 22:04
Dave
59.8k4108218
3
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.
– Jimmy
Nov 12 at 22:19
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
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 at 22:04
Dave
59.8k4108218
3
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.
– Jimmy
Nov 12 at 22:19
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
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 at 22:04
Dave
59.8k4108218
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 at 22:04
Dave
59.8k4108218
answered Nov 12 at 22:04
Dave
59.8k4108218
answered Nov 12 at 22:04
Dave
59.8k4108218
answered Nov 12 at 22:04
Dave
59.8k4108218
59.8k4108218
3
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.
– Jimmy
Nov 12 at 22:19
add a comment |
3
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.
– Jimmy
Nov 12 at 22:19
3
3
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.
– Jimmy
Nov 12 at 22:19
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.
– Jimmy
Nov 12 at 22:19
add a comment |
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Daniel Hutmacher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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
