Writing Homework Help

You are a new First Officer on a fractionally owned Falcon 9000 flying with a Captain you have never met. The weather is severe clear. It is a short flight from Melbourne, FL to Tampa, FL where you will pick-up your passengers. During the climb through 3,000′ the Captain wants you to request an altitude to FL 160, instead of the assigned altitude of 9,000′ where the temperature forecast is 5o C. You would prefer to not  spend so much time climbing to 16,000′ and instead make 9,000′ your cruise altitude. From what you know of the effects of the atmosphere on aircraft behavior, which course of action do you think is better and why?

hi jody I have an example that one of the students made and got a full mark

Hi Everyone,

First, let’s look into a couple of details regarding the route and the airplane. Yes, the flight from Melbourne to Tampa is short at 101 nautical miles. A Falcon 900LX has a long-range cruising speed of 459 knots (“Falcon 900LX Specifications”). Assuming I am at a cruising altitude at this cruising speed over Melbourne, I would easily be able to fly over Tampa in only 13-14 minutes. Given the extra time it takes to climb and then execute the arrival and approach into Tampa, I still think this flight would easily be under 30 minutes. Dassault Aviation claims their Falcon 900LX can reach FL390 in only 20 minutes.

I do think it is possible to quickly climb to FL160 for this short flight, but it would be a waste of time because it would likely be time to start getting ready for the approach into Tampa. So instead of saving fuel by cruising (and saving the fuel for the upcoming passenger flight too), climbing to FL160 would not be efficient as we would have to descend again shortly. On top of that, if it is already 5°C at 9,000, I already feel safe and do not see how it is necessary to climb into a potentially freezing level, only to possibly risk having to test the deicing equipment. Even if we do not encounter icing conditions (which we normally will not here in Florida), climbing that extra 7,000ft on a really short route could cost us extra time and fuel, especially by giving us a longer way back down. When it comes to safety considerations, the Falcon 900LX has three engines, an engine more than most airliners you usually fly and a typical landing distance of 2,415ft (“Falcon 900LX”). This route does not go over large bodies of water and offers several airports (Orlando International, Kissimmee, Bartow, and Lakeland) that are well-suitable for earlier emergency landings.

I would stick with 9,000ft instead of executing the extra climb. I have even flown from Melbourne to Tampa in the Piper Archer and it did not even take an hour.

Works Cited

“Falcon 900LX Specifications.” Altivation, https://altivationaircraft.com/falcon-900lx/ Accessed

29 Aug. 2021.

“Falcon 900LX.” Dassault Aviation,

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/civil/falcon-… 

Post 1

jhon

If I were the FO on this very short flight from Melbourne to Tampa and I were deciding between 16,000 feet or the originally assigned 9000 Feet, I would choose 9000 feet. According to the Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK), as the temperature in the atmosphere decreases, the density of the air increases. As we know, in a stable atmosphere the temperature drops 2 degrees Celsius per 1000 feet of altitude climbed. This temperature decrease that would occur between a cruising altitude of 9000 feet and 16,000 would provide a small amount of increased aircraft performance for the trip. This is why on longer flights aircraft tend to climb to much higher altitudes for the increased performance gains. However, when considering such a short flight between Melbourne, Florida and Tampa, Florida the slight performance gains may not be worth an increased climb/descent and a decreased cruising time. As the FO on this flight the larger factor in determining the cruising altitude for this short trip would be any adverse weather conditions that could effect the safety of the flight. Since the weather in the prompt is described as being severe clear conditions and there are no adverse weather conditions to avoid I would choose a 9000 feet cruising altitude to avoid the longer climb and descent. In conclusion, given that the weather conditions are described as severe clear and there is no weather that needs to be avoided, I would choose a cruising altitude of 9000 feet for the short flight to Tampa despite the slight increase in performance that would be gained for a short time. 

Post 2

indana

I know that climbing to a higher altitude could mean better performance, but because the weather is good and the distance to be traveled is short, I would say going up to 16000 is unnecessary. Choosing an altitude higher up would be the best choice if the weather is poor at or below 9,000, but the weather is severe clear; because of that, I would say that 9000 is a better choice. If you were to Climb the Falcon 9,000 up to 16,000, that would mean a longer flight time and more fuel consumption, considering that the distance is only 101NM. Winds also tend to move faster in the Troposphere at a higher altitude, and going from Melbourne to Tampa, you’re likely to get a headwind. In an article written by Charlie Page, she writes, “As a general principle, wind flows around the globe from west to east. This is why it takes longer to fly from London to New York than the other way around. At times, these winds can be so strong that they can have a major effect on the flight time.” In another by Colin Cutler, he talks about choosing an altitude, and he says, “You need to be practical with your altitude choice. If you’re flying a short distance, it doesn’t make sense to spend the majority of your flight in a climb. That’s where your aircraft’s Fuel, Time and Distance to climb chart comes into play. For most aircraft, your time-to-climb is pretty linear, but if you’re flying a normally aspirated airplane above 10,000 feet MSL, your climb rate can start dropping off significantly. On top of that, you’re burning extra fuel in a climb, and flying a slower indicated airspeed too.”