Max Alt of Non Pressurized Aircraft
- Thread starter ncball
- Start date
z987k
Well-Known Member
I have never heard of the service ceiling stated as anything other than climb performance derived. 100fpm climb.
Damn you! Now I have to look.
z987k
Well-Known Member
I looked through the FAR/AIM and cannot find a definition. It's in books you use for studying for the CPL and such, but I can't find anything regulatory just Merriam Webster.
@z987k
An old thread that discusses it, with some FAR references. Seems like you were going in the right direction with "Service Ceiling" and the term @mikecweb and I were looking for was "Max Operating Altitude." I bet it's a common misconception with the terminology used, as I remember being told during all my different turbine training that it was "service ceiling." And now that I look at the limitations section of the manuals, it does call it the "Maximum Operating Altitude." Seems like it has more to do on the CRJ with an uncontained failure of an engine being able to puncture the pressure vessel here in the states after looking deeper into the regs, and comparing it to some other designs.
http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/service-ceiling-vs-max-operating-altitude.16302/
An old thread that discusses it, with some FAR references. Seems like you were going in the right direction with "Service Ceiling" and the term @mikecweb and I were looking for was "Max Operating Altitude." I bet it's a common misconception with the terminology used, as I remember being told during all my different turbine training that it was "service ceiling." And now that I look at the limitations section of the manuals, it does call it the "Maximum Operating Altitude." Seems like it has more to do on the CRJ with an uncontained failure of an engine being able to puncture the pressure vessel here in the states after looking deeper into the regs, and comparing it to some other designs.
http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/service-ceiling-vs-max-operating-altitude.16302/
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
I always find it fascinating how varied the rule knowledge, theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge is between pilots. You have vast differences in knowledge gained and retained, and it really shows sometimes. The line isn't drawn along "college | no college", "airline | CFI", "135 | 121", "Professional | amateur", "Bookish | PilotMan", or any other natural division I can determine.
I've never been a fan of the european style "theory", "air law" crap... but perhaps.. just perhaps ... there's something to actually understanding all of this stuff that we could sure as hell do a lot better in this country.
I still think American pilots are the best pilots in the world (In no small part 'cause I'm an American pilot, and because as an American I've been trained from childhood to think that way), but I'm a little dismayed when I read various aviation fora and see OWTs spread like absolute truths, mythological thinking postulated as fact, voodoo theory, and theory discussions with absolute, quantifiable answers just a short bit of reading away.
This isn't directed to anyone in particular, and I'm not saying "All you poor souls". I'm saying one thing, and I'll try to make this succinct:
Take pride in your knowledge, and never stop learning.
It's easy to fall into routine, and become far better at that routine than if you had to think about it every step of the way. Sinking things into your subconscious is a great way to perfect them, and coming home at the end of the day and forgetting everything you knew about aviation until the first flight of the next day is sorely tempting, yes.
But being a professional means never resting in the pursuit of knowledge and ability, and never just accepting an explanation without looking for yourself.
-Fox
I've never been a fan of the european style "theory", "air law" crap... but perhaps.. just perhaps ... there's something to actually understanding all of this stuff that we could sure as hell do a lot better in this country.
I still think American pilots are the best pilots in the world (In no small part 'cause I'm an American pilot, and because as an American I've been trained from childhood to think that way), but I'm a little dismayed when I read various aviation fora and see OWTs spread like absolute truths, mythological thinking postulated as fact, voodoo theory, and theory discussions with absolute, quantifiable answers just a short bit of reading away.
This isn't directed to anyone in particular, and I'm not saying "All you poor souls". I'm saying one thing, and I'll try to make this succinct:
Take pride in your knowledge, and never stop learning.
It's easy to fall into routine, and become far better at that routine than if you had to think about it every step of the way. Sinking things into your subconscious is a great way to perfect them, and coming home at the end of the day and forgetting everything you knew about aviation until the first flight of the next day is sorely tempting, yes.
But being a professional means never resting in the pursuit of knowledge and ability, and never just accepting an explanation without looking for yourself.
-Fox
ahw01
Well-Known Member
I find its amazing the minutiae of detail that people can go into. There's no doubt the experience gained post certificate can outweigh what you (in theory) learned during ground school. The EU way is pretty theory heavy, but the theory should be the same.
I think my CFI stance will be to emphasize the basics and hammer away on the safety side. Deep theoretical knowledge is a bonus, but I wouldn't want a pilot able to diagram a wiring system from memory who couldn't recognise an approach to stall in a TAA.
I think my CFI stance will be to emphasize the basics and hammer away on the safety side. Deep theoretical knowledge is a bonus, but I wouldn't want a pilot able to diagram a wiring system from memory who couldn't recognise an approach to stall in a TAA.