incorrect altitude UAL895/H

[flyboy2757]

Didn't get a chance to grab a audio clip, but I heard the conversation starting to build. A United 747-200 departed KORD(Chicago O'Hare) at 12:41 pm CST. They are IFR to VHHH (Hong Kong). They entered Winnipeg Center airspace at FL300. Winnipeg Center notified them of FL300 being an incorrect altitude for their direction of flight. Winnipeg Center asked if they could climb to FL310. The United aircraft said that they couldn't for another hour due to their current weight. Winnipeg Center notified them that they could only stay at FL300 for 1 of the following reasons: Fuel, Icing,or Turbulence.
The United aircraft said they were unable due to their fuel, so they were asked to maintain FL300 and report at basically all their intersections until they can climb to FL310.

Event heard at 19:45 UTC Jan. 9th, 2009

[AaronCannata]

Wouldn't an option be to descend and maintain FL290, should that be a valid altitude?

[englishpilot]

Sounds like a NASA report might be in order.......... ?

[Jay]

Sounds like a radar coverage issue. If the plane is going for ORD to HHH how is an even alt WAFDOF?
Why the NASA report? There isn't a safety issue here, also I'm not sure it would apply in Canadian airspace.

[englishpilot]

Of course it would apply, it's a US aircraft with US crew.  In fact if you every have read the NASA reports which were filed for aircraft in the UK or at LHR  for example they make quite interesting reading, the boring ones contain reports such as planes flying at incorrect alts., overshooting assigned alts. etc.

The plane was flying at an incorrect altitude for it's direction of flight.  That in itself could have put the aircraft into a position which could have safetly implications on the aircraft in theory.

[KSYR-pjr]

Here in the states IFR aircraft can be placed at or even request the "wrong" altitude for direction of flight, depending on preferred ATC traffic flow, weather (icing or storm cells), or unfavorable headwinds.  This happens all the time, but of course the caveat is that ATC first ensures that this altitude does not conflict with nearby IFR aircraft in the other direction.

One prime example of this is filing IFR to the west out of White Plains, NY.  If an IFR aircraft files for any altitude below 10,000 feet to the west, that aircraft will be given 9,000 feet (the wrong altitude).  This is done to get these departures above the Newark arrival/departure corridor. 

I am not familiar with Canadian airspace regulations so I cannot say if the controller in this case were enforcing a regulation or simply concerned about a traffic conflict further down the route, but most likely the United was placed there by ATC farther back.  Personally I do not see a reason for a NASA report.

[englishpilot]

I hear you! My point is that the reason for the report could be:

"we were at FL XXX, informed that it was the incorrect FL for the direction of travel due to xxxx" and then it all goes into the think tank for those who create the rules of the sky as examples of what really happens.

I'm not suggesting that the crew put anyone in harms way or that they need to protect themselves however, perhaps at a different time of day it could have been an issue.

That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

[Fryy/Avocadoflight]

what feed did this happen on?

[KSYR-pjr]

I hear you!

My apologies - I do not mean any disrespect.  I had read the following quote and interpreted to mean that you believed any IFR aircraft at the "wrong" altitude for direction of flight automatically was in an unsafe position.

The plane was flying at an incorrect altitude for it's direction of flight.  That in itself could have put the aircraft into a position which could have safetly implications on the aircraft in theory.

[englishpilot]

I hear you!

My apologies - I do not mean any disrespect.

[/quote]

No worries, don't worry I didn't take offense!

Have a good weekend pal!