Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Civil aircraft flying at 16000ft?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Civil aircraft flying at 16000ft?

    Hi. I usually check the app to track the flights and I am now looking at one which usually flies at the standard altitude and now it’s doing it at 16000ft. Also, the route is not the common.
    It’s flight FR2553 from Lanzarote (ACE) to Seville (SVQ). Also, its departure was delayed more than 40 minutes. Is this altitude related to a possible increase on the number of flights due to the Holly Week or could it be something else? I’m getting on this plane in some minutes...
    Thanks for your replies.

  • #2
    It is too short a hop to be a high cruise flight.

    But a large portion may not be covered by radar so the true height max may be not seen

    Looks to be ~10,000 average normally
    https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...820Z/GCRR/LEZL
    Posts not to be taken as official support representation - Just a helpful uploader who tinkers

    Comment


    • #3
      In saying that, due to its delay likely went higher to allow for a speed increase/time makeup
      Posts not to be taken as official support representation - Just a helpful uploader who tinkers

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Oblivian View Post
        It is too short a hop to be a high cruise flight.
        Lanzarote to Spain is hardly a "short hop". Over 700 nm and typically a 2 hour duration.

        I think FR24 "loses" the flight when it gets out of ADS-B ground station range and 16,000 ft is the last known altitude.
        Mike


        www.radarspotting.com

        Radarspotting since 2005

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Anmer View Post
          Lanzarote to Spain is hardly a "short hop". Over 700 nm and typically a 2 hour duration.

          I think FR24 "loses" the flight when it gets out of ADS-B ground station range and 16,000 ft is the last known altitude.
          It couldnít have lost it because the speed wasnít the same all the way. Also, my sister took pictures of Moroccan cities and they were pretty close. She even mentioned how beautiful they seemed (no doubts).
          I believe it was just due to really hight traffic and perhaps the 40 minutes delay caused having the route occupied by other flights. I donít know.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by estebantet View Post
            It couldn’t have lost it because the speed wasn’t the same all the way. Also, my sister took pictures of Moroccan cities and they were pretty close. She even mentioned how beautiful they seemed (no doubts).
            I believe it was just due to really hight traffic and perhaps the 40 minutes delay caused having the route occupied by other flights. I don’t know.
            Speed when out of range can still be guessed

            Distance/Time

            If you know the scheduled ETA (like they do) and how long till that point (loss of contact) but also the distance - you can find the average speed to display in your estimated location where no cover is present.

            Historic uploads (you can see em elsewhere, not here) are all rather low appearing
            https://flightaware.com/live/flight/.../LEZL/tracklog
            Posts not to be taken as official support representation - Just a helpful uploader who tinkers

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by estebantet View Post
              I believe it was just due to really hight traffic and perhaps the 40 minutes delay caused having the route occupied by other flights. I donít know.
              This is highly improbable.

              The FlightAware flight track shows the flight cruising at 36,000 feet. Maybe there was a data error (16,000 vs 36,000 feet) but only FR24 can explain as it should have the source data from the available feeds which, for Morocco, are not many.
              Mike


              www.radarspotting.com

              Radarspotting since 2005

              Comment


              • #8
                This was probably a problem with the air conditioning pack.

                Comment

                Working...
                X