3 ms·

I don't know what you mean by flight level. Flight level is a standard term in aviation and is based on pressure altitude. Strictly speaking pressure altitude i

by cmurf 8y ago

I don't know what you mean by flight level. Flight level is a standard term in aviation and is based on pressure altitude. Strictly speaking pressure altitude is the height above the standard datum plane at standard temperature and pressure, but for practical purposes it's above mean sea level. https://www.flyingmag.com/everything-explained-all-about-altitude https://www.flyingmag.com/everything-explained-all-about-alt... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_level Pilot vernacular often uses just `altitude` but which kind of altitude depends on context, but if there's ambiguity I say MSL (mean sea level) or AGL (above ground).

drawkbox 8y ago
By flight level I meant from above ground level (AGL). The previous commenter was thinking we were talking about height relative to ground level. Altitude/elevation is height from sea level as specified. I used flight level more as above ground level (AGL) but it also means not all the way to sea level and takes into account ground terrain. The point being that all these planes (both 737s and the 767 Amazon cargo plane) all had similar issues between 6000-8500 feet in altitude (from seal level) but the ones that crashed on ascent took off from higher ground. Moot point as it was sea level/altitude where all these plans had the same repeating/turbulent nose up 4 degree turbulence, then a direct 49 degree nose down state that led to the crashes, regardless of AGL. Whether related or not the planes all experienced a nose dive in that range that was catastrophic. It makes more sense with the 737 Max planes as they have center of gravity further back and software has to keep the nose down/straight, it makes zero sense for the 767 do similar movements unless it is common across software in that altitude range for some reason, possibly being more reactive at that range because of common elevations and it is harder to recover at that point.

by cmurf 8y ago

drawkbox 8y ago

By flight level I meant from above ground level (AGL). The previous commenter was thinking we were talking about height relative to ground level. Altitude/elevation is height from sea level as specified. I used flight level more as above ground level (AGL) but it also means not all the way to sea level and takes into account ground terrain. The point being that all these planes (both 737s and the 767 Amazon cargo plane) all had similar issues between 6000-8500 feet in altitude (from seal level) but the ones that crashed on ascent took off from higher ground. Moot point as it was sea level/altitude where all these plans had the same repeating/turbulent nose up 4 degree turbulence, then a direct 49 degree nose down state that led to the crashes, regardless of AGL. Whether related or not the planes all experienced a nose dive in that range that was catastrophic. It makes more sense with the 737 Max planes as they have center of gravity further back and software has to keep the nose down/straight, it makes zero sense for the 767 do similar movements unless it is common across software in that altitude range for some reason, possibly being more reactive at that range because of common elevations and it is harder to recover at that point.