The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
340". This can't be possible, can it? Is there enough air up there for
the rotors to be effective?
-Robert

The world record for helos is held by a French helicopter called a Lama at
something like FL410. Pretty unusual to hear of any flying above 10,000. I
don't think that I have ever seen a preasurized helicopter, certainly never
ridden in one.

Mike
MU-2

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
> 340". This can't be possible, can it? Is there enough air up there for
> the rotors to be effective?
> -Robert

The world record for helos is held by a French helicopter called a Lama at
something like FL410. Pretty unusual to hear of any flying above 10,000. I
don't think that I have ever seen a preasurized helicopter, certainly never
ridden in one.

Mike
MU-2

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
> 340". This can't be possible, can it? Is there enough air up there for
> the rotors to be effective?
> -Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
> 340". This can't be possible, can it?


Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January 2005.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
> 340". This can't be possible, can it?


Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January 2005.

In article >,
says...
>
>The world record for helos is held by a French helicopter called a Lama at
>something like FL410. Pretty unusual to hear of any flying above 10,000. I
>don't think that I have ever seen a preasurized helicopter, certainly never
>ridden in one.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>


No longer the record. It's another French pilot who now holds that honor, in a
"common" AS-350 (Aerospatiale "squirrel") to FL425!!

http://www.fred-north.com/pages-frame/Biography-fr.html

I actually know this guy - he's a specialist in motion picture work.
Having flown with him once, I fully believe he would do this!

So, it's "possible" you would hear a chopper report at something like FL340,
or other non-standard altitudes, if you are near someone working on this type
of one-upmanship.

G Faris

In article >,
says...
>
>The world record for helos is held by a French helicopter called a Lama at
>something like FL410. Pretty unusual to hear of any flying above 10,000. I
>don't think that I have ever seen a preasurized helicopter, certainly never
>ridden in one.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>


No longer the record. It's another French pilot who now holds that honor, in a
"common" AS-350 (Aerospatiale "squirrel") to FL425!!

http://www.fred-north.com/pages-frame/Biography-fr.html

I actually know this guy - he's a specialist in motion picture work.
Having flown with him once, I fully believe he would do this!

So, it's "possible" you would hear a chopper report at something like FL340,
or other non-standard altitudes, if you are near someone working on this type
of one-upmanship.

G Faris

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>The world record for helos is held by a French helicopter called a Lama at
>>something like FL410. Pretty unusual to hear of any flying above 10,000.
>>I
>>don't think that I have ever seen a preasurized helicopter, certainly
>>never
>>ridden in one.
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>>
>
>
> No longer the record. It's another French pilot who now holds that honor,
> in a
> "common" AS-350 (Aerospatiale "squirrel") to FL425!!
>
> http://www.fred-north.com/pages-frame/Biography-fr.html
>
> I actually know this guy - he's a specialist in motion picture work.
> Having flown with him once, I fully believe he would do this!
>
> So, it's "possible" you would hear a chopper report at something like
> FL340,
> or other non-standard altitudes, if you are near someone working on this
> type
> of one-upmanship.
>
> G Faris
>

Man, he has a hell of a resume...no matter how high he flies.

He can certainly "walk the walk" when it comes to listing who he has worked
with / for in the "biz."

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>The world record for helos is held by a French helicopter called a Lama at
>>something like FL410. Pretty unusual to hear of any flying above 10,000.
>>I
>>don't think that I have ever seen a preasurized helicopter, certainly
>>never
>>ridden in one.
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>>
>
>
> No longer the record. It's another French pilot who now holds that honor,
> in a
> "common" AS-350 (Aerospatiale "squirrel") to FL425!!
>
> http://www.fred-north.com/pages-frame/Biography-fr.html
>
> I actually know this guy - he's a specialist in motion picture work.
> Having flown with him once, I fully believe he would do this!
>
> So, it's "possible" you would hear a chopper report at something like
> FL340,
> or other non-standard altitudes, if you are near someone working on this
> type
> of one-upmanship.
>
> G Faris
>

Man, he has a hell of a resume...no matter how high he flies.

He can certainly "walk the walk" when it comes to listing who he has worked
with / for in the "biz."

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL

Hi Mike,

> The world record for helos is held by a French helicopter called a Lama at
> something like FL410.

IIRC, one of them had to autorotate to land because of a stripped-out
battery (weight...) combined with an in flight failure of the engine... was
that the Lama or the AS350?

Regards,
Peter

Hi Mike,

> The world record for helos is held by a French helicopter called a Lama at
> something like FL410.

IIRC, one of them had to autorotate to land because of a stripped-out
battery (weight...) combined with an in flight failure of the engine... was
that the Lama or the AS350?

Regards,
Peter

Newps > wrote in message >...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
> > 340". This can't be possible, can it?
>
>
> Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January 2005.

Is that necessarily true? I've been given some odd altitudes at times
in my Mooney, for reasons I don't know. I've been assigned 5500 when
IFR, I've been assigned an odd when flying West, etc. Not very common,
but I've had it happen. I'm not sure why though. Perhaps the pilot
requested to go just a bit higher to top some CU? I"m not sure about
the Flight Levels, but down where I fly the FARs only say you have to
fly at the magic IFR altitudes when uncontrolled. When in controlled
airspace and IFR you fly whatever ATC assigns.

-Robert

Newps > wrote in message >...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
> > 340". This can't be possible, can it?
>
>
> Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January 2005.

Is that necessarily true? I've been given some odd altitudes at times
in my Mooney, for reasons I don't know. I've been assigned 5500 when
IFR, I've been assigned an odd when flying West, etc. Not very common,
but I've had it happen. I'm not sure why though. Perhaps the pilot
requested to go just a bit higher to top some CU? I"m not sure about
the Flight Levels, but down where I fly the FARs only say you have to
fly at the magic IFR altitudes when uncontrolled. When in controlled
airspace and IFR you fly whatever ATC assigns.

-Robert

Newps > wrote in message >...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
> > 340". This can't be possible, can it?
>
>
> Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January 2005.

Care to elaborate? Do you mean we have been doing something illegal all these years?

Newps > wrote in message >...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
> > 340". This can't be possible, can it?
>
>
> Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January 2005.

Care to elaborate? Do you mean we have been doing something illegal all these years?

"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
om...
> Newps > wrote in message
>...
> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > > The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
> > > 340". This can't be possible, can it?
> >
> >
> > Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January 2005.
>
> Care to elaborate? Do you mean we have been doing something illegal all
these years?

In the U.S. all Flight Levels 290 and above are odd thousands to give 2000
ft. separation. E.G. FL 290 eastbound, FL 310 westbound, FL 330 eastbound
etc. Newps is probably talking about the reduced separation coming up if
you have certain equipment installed?

Al

"SelwayKid" > wrote in message
om...
> Newps > wrote in message
>...
> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > > The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
> > > 340". This can't be possible, can it?
> >
> >
> > Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January 2005.
>
> Care to elaborate? Do you mean we have been doing something illegal all
these years?

In the U.S. all Flight Levels 290 and above are odd thousands to give 2000
ft. separation. E.G. FL 290 eastbound, FL 310 westbound, FL 330 eastbound
etc. Newps is probably talking about the reduced separation coming up if
you have certain equipment installed?

Al

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Newps > wrote in message >...
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
>>>340". This can't be possible, can it?
>>
>>
>>Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January 2005.
>
>
> Is that necessarily true? I've been given some odd altitudes at times
> in my Mooney, for reasons I don't know. I've been assigned 5500 when
> IFR,

That was probably the controllers MVA. We use 6500 and 9300 here all
the time because it is our MVA.


I've been assigned an odd when flying West, etc. Not very common,
> but I've had it happen. I'm not sure why though.

We use 13,000 westbound all the time here because it is the lowest
useable altitude over the mountains on one of our most popular airways.


Perhaps the pilot
> requested to go just a bit higher to top some CU? I"m not sure about
> the Flight Levels, but down where I fly the FARs only say you have to
> fly at the magic IFR altitudes when uncontrolled. When in controlled
> airspace and IFR you fly whatever ATC assigns.

Until January when all aircraft will be required to meet the RVSM
standard FL 340 is not a useable altitude.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Newps > wrote in message >...
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight Level
>>>340". This can't be possible, can it?
>>
>>
>>Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January 2005.
>
>
> Is that necessarily true? I've been given some odd altitudes at times
> in my Mooney, for reasons I don't know. I've been assigned 5500 when
> IFR,

That was probably the controllers MVA. We use 6500 and 9300 here all
the time because it is our MVA.


I've been assigned an odd when flying West, etc. Not very common,
> but I've had it happen. I'm not sure why though.

We use 13,000 westbound all the time here because it is the lowest
useable altitude over the mountains on one of our most popular airways.


Perhaps the pilot
> requested to go just a bit higher to top some CU? I"m not sure about
> the Flight Levels, but down where I fly the FARs only say you have to
> fly at the magic IFR altitudes when uncontrolled. When in controlled
> airspace and IFR you fly whatever ATC assigns.

Until January when all aircraft will be required to meet the RVSM
standard FL 340 is not a useable altitude.

Could have been Descending or climbing, avoiding traffic, or not even been
in US airspace.... There is a lot of non-US airspace




"Allen" > wrote in message
...
>
> "SelwayKid" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Newps > wrote in message
> >...
>> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> > > The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight
>> > > Level
>> > > 340". This can't be possible, can it?
>> >
>> >
>> > Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January
>> > 2005.
>>
>> Care to elaborate? Do you mean we have been doing something illegal all
> these years?
>
> In the U.S. all Flight Levels 290 and above are odd thousands to give 2000
> ft. separation. E.G. FL 290 eastbound, FL 310 westbound, FL 330 eastbound
> etc. Newps is probably talking about the reduced separation coming up if
> you have certain equipment installed?
>
> Al
>
>

Could have been Descending or climbing, avoiding traffic, or not even been
in US airspace.... There is a lot of non-US airspace




"Allen" > wrote in message
...
>
> "SelwayKid" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Newps > wrote in message
> >...
>> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> > > The other day I heard on Center "Helicopter 1234 with you Flight
>> > > Level
>> > > 340". This can't be possible, can it?
>> >
>> >
>> > Nope, not possible. FL340 is not a useable altitude until January
>> > 2005.
>>
>> Care to elaborate? Do you mean we have been doing something illegal all
> these years?
>
> In the U.S. all Flight Levels 290 and above are odd thousands to give 2000
> ft. separation. E.G. FL 290 eastbound, FL 310 westbound, FL 330 eastbound
> etc. Newps is probably talking about the reduced separation coming up if
> you have certain equipment installed?
>
> Al
>
>

wrote:
> Could have been Descending or climbing,

Not according to the original post.


avoiding traffic,

If you're level at 340 you are causing all sorts of problems.


or not even been
> in US airspace.... There is a lot of non-US airspace

Can't be.

Newps > wrote in message >...
> wrote:
> > Could have been Descending or climbing,
>
> Not according to the original post.
>
>
> avoiding traffic,
>
> If you're level at 340 you are causing all sorts of problems.

Maybe that was as high as he could go. We were at FL 320 at the time
and I don't remember center talking to any other low traffic. I
assumed this freq was only for FL traffic at the time.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Newps > wrote in message >...
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Could have been Descending or climbing,
>>
>>Not according to the original post.
>>
>>
>> avoiding traffic,
>>
>>If you're level at 340 you are causing all sorts of problems.
>
>
> Maybe that was as high as he could go. We were at FL 320 at the time
> and I don't remember center talking to any other low traffic. I
> assumed this freq was only for FL traffic at the time.

If you were in the US you were not level at 320.

Newps > wrote in message >...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > Maybe that was as high as he could go. We were at FL 320 at the time
> > and I don't remember center talking to any other low traffic. I
> > assumed this freq was only for FL traffic at the time.
>
> If you were in the US you were not level at 320.

I didn't say we were level, I said we were at FL 320.