Porter at 27000

Discuss topics relating to airlines.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
av8ts
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Porter at 27000

#1 Post by av8ts » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:10 am

Twice now I've heard a Porter flight climb to fl 270. Do they have a let from Transport Canada allowing this or are they just ignoring the aircraft limitations ?
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
'97 Tercel
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: Porter at 27000

#2 Post by '97 Tercel » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:58 am

Maybe some of their birds have O2 plumbing.
---------- ADS -----------

CZBBYYZPilot
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:20 am

Re: Porter at 27000

#3 Post by CZBBYYZPilot » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:02 pm

They could be ferrying empty. Then they can go above FL250 as long as one of them wears an oxygen mask. They can go up to FL270, the bottom of RVSM airspace.
---------- ADS -----------

Big Pistons Forever
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4907
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Porter at 27000

#4 Post by Big Pistons Forever » Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:58 pm

270 is the max certified altitude of the Dash 8 400.
---------- ADS -----------

plhought
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Calgary

Re: Porter at 27000

#5 Post by plhought » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:18 pm

There was a SB in development for 27000 when I was last browsing Bombardier's portal around a year ago. Check the newsletters.

I think Porter and FlyBE were some of the driving operators behind it. Not sure if it is 'public' yet.

Having said that, heard people do it with ferry flights on Q's and older Dash's with the Press controller in Manual to avoid always bumping off the safety valve.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by plhought on Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Spirit
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Porter at 27000

#6 Post by Spirit » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:14 pm

"The maximum operating altitude is 25,000 ft (7,600 m) for the standard version, although a version with drop-down oxygen masks is offered, which increases maximum operating altitude to 27,000 ft (8,200 m). "

Source: Wikipedia (so take it for what it is)
---------- ADS -----------

Chris M
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:41 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Porter at 27000

#7 Post by Chris M » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:57 pm

If you can somehow find the serial number of the plane in question I can pull up its build option sheet. Haven't seen anything for 27,000' so far. Westjet has the 25,000' option on theirs.

A quick browse shows Porter also went with 25,000' for the planes I've seen so far.
---------- ADS -----------

PostmasterGeneral
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm

Re: Porter at 27000

#8 Post by PostmasterGeneral » Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:13 pm

It has nothing to do with being equipped with drop down masks, although they are an option. There is a let that both Jazz and Porter looked into with transport Canada that would allow them to use the existing -402's at 27,000' with no modifications provided they could demonstrate an emergency descent to 14,000' within a given amount of minutes. I forget what the actual figure was, but having flown the Q, I remember thinking it was easily possible and then some.

Like everything, transport wanted an exhorbitant amount of money from the carriers in order to grant said approval, Jazz passed on it citing that the amount of money spent was not worth the amount of money saved. Most legs on the Q at jazz are less than 2.5 hours. I know porter has some really long stretches down to Florida, so maybe for them the extra 2000' was worth it in fuel savings, or not having to make a tech stop.
---------- ADS -----------

av8ts
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Re: Porter at 27000

#9 Post by av8ts » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:13 pm

mantogasrsrwy wrote:
av8ts wrote:
vrefplus5 wrote:Av8ts, IMHO, a more professional and less cynical wording to your questiom could have been... "Twice now I've heard a Porter flight climb to fl 270. Do they have a let from Transport Canada allowing this?"

Accept the light admonishment. You may receive better quality responses if the negative and slurring comment was omitted.

Cheers.
Your right. I forgot about all the snowflakes on here that believe the world is their "safe space"
Nothing to do with snowflakes in this case. Your comment was somewhat dickish and you got called out for it.
Oh my someone else's feeling got hurt
---------- ADS -----------

goingnowherefast
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Porter at 27000

#10 Post by goingnowherefast » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:14 pm

Why wasn't the Q400 certified for FL270 in the first place?
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7325
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Porter at 27000

#11 Post by Rockie » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:19 am

goingnowherefast wrote:Why wasn't the Q400 certified for FL270 in the first place?
Good question. If 2000 feet makes that much of a difference I would think it would be a selling point over the competition.
---------- ADS -----------

flyer 1492
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:55 pm

Re: Porter at 27000

#12 Post by flyer 1492 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:20 am

To cruise above FL250 (with passengers on board) you are required to have drop down masks.
---------- ADS -----------

goingnowherefast
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Porter at 27000

#13 Post by goingnowherefast » Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:26 pm

flyer 1492 wrote:To cruise above FL250 (with passengers on board) you are required to have drop down masks.
Do you mind quoting a regulation? I can't seem to find it anywhere. 605.31 talks about oxygen available to crew when above FL250, but nothing about drop down masks for passengers.
---------- ADS -----------

Ki-ll
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:16 pm

Re: Porter at 27000

#14 Post by Ki-ll » Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:41 pm

goingnowherefast wrote:
flyer 1492 wrote:To cruise above FL250 (with passengers on board) you are required to have drop down masks.
Do you mind quoting a regulation? I can't seem to find it anywhere. 605.31 talks about oxygen available to crew when above FL250, but nothing about drop down masks for passengers.
Not a pro at this but could it be the combination of:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... m#525.1447 part (b)
and:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regu ... l#s-705.72
?
---------- ADS -----------

Sulako
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:01 pm

Re: Porter at 27000

#15 Post by Sulako » Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:20 am

Let's keep things on topic, shall we? I deleted a bunch of irrelevant posts. Thanks, and Happy Canada Day! :)
---------- ADS -----------

Big Pistons Forever
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4907
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Porter at 27000

#16 Post by Big Pistons Forever » Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:56 am

goingnowherefast wrote:
flyer 1492 wrote:To cruise above FL250 (with passengers on board) you are required to have drop down masks.
Do you mind quoting a regulation? I can't seem to find it anywhere. 605.31 talks about oxygen available to crew when above FL250, but nothing about drop down masks for passengers.
CAR 525.1447
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Jack Klumpus
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: In a van down by the river.

Re: Porter at 27000

#17 Post by Jack Klumpus » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:42 am

Big Pistons Forever wrote:
goingnowherefast wrote:
flyer 1492 wrote:To cruise above FL250 (with passengers on board) you are required to have drop down masks.
Do you mind quoting a regulation? I can't seem to find it anywhere. 605.31 talks about oxygen available to crew when above FL250, but nothing about drop down masks for passengers.
CAR 525.1447
525.1447

Equipment Standards for Oxygen Dispensing Units

If oxygen dispensing units are installed, the following apply:

......
---------- ADS -----------

leftoftrack
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 pm

Re: Porter at 27000

#18 Post by leftoftrack » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:42 am

FL270 gets you above all the classic dash's and ATR's that are truing out at 270kts, It allows a more direct routing with less delays, the fuel is a small but nice side benifit.
---------- ADS -----------

av8ts
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Re: Porter at 27000

#19 Post by av8ts » Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:38 pm

We are all aware of the benefits of going up to 270. Nobody has answered the original question which in I think gives us the answer
---------- ADS -----------

vrefplus5
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:04 pm

Re: Porter at 27000

#20 Post by vrefplus5 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:12 pm

Av8ts, I'm going to suggest that the reason you haven't gotten a proper response to your question is that you were mistaken & heard the wrong callsign.....and not once, but twice at that! That's me giving you the benefit of the doubt...that you simply misheard. It happens. Or you may have had some other knotty motive for posing it. I'm not getting into a debate about the veracity of your claim, just that your puzzling allegation is just as odd as someone saying "Twice now I've heard a Westjet/Air Canada/Sunwing/Transat etc. flight climb to FL470. Do they have a let from Transport Canada allowing this or are they just ignoring the aircraft limitations?" Think about that oddity for a minute.

The mods cleaned up the post to try and keep it on track, so just be content with the responses you've generated to date and keep calm. The posters who professionally contributed to this topic did so in good faith, and I suspect your getting frustrated by a lack of anyone taking your bait to discuss....alleged...deliberate limitation exceedances may be off-putting. Don't get too terribly wound up sir/madam, in a rebuttal about snowflakes, etal, I'm just offering you perspective and will now sit back and watch your CRM at play. En garde monsieur/mademoiselle!!
---------- ADS -----------

Post Reply

Return to “General Airline Industry Comments”