A while back I was flying from DFW-FRA and it was still dark out as it was maybe 0500 local time. I took a peek out the window and saw that we were right over London, which I could ID very easily because of the distinct outline of the Thames.
Anyway, that got me wondering, which cities can FTers identify from 30,000 feet?
A while back I was flying from DFW-FRA and it was still dark out as it was maybe 0500 local time. I took a peek out the window and saw that we were right over London, which I could ID very easily because of the distinct outline of the Thames.
Anyway, that got me wondering, which cities can FTers identify from 30,000 feet?
It's probably worth differentiating between cities which can be identified at night and those which can be identified during the day - you can see streets lit up by streetlights much more easily at night but it can be difficult to tell the difference between parks and bodies of water. The reverse generally holds for daylight.
Certainly the presence of a river or other water feature makes it easy to identify certain cities - the Thames is a very good and famous example of this. Also a distinctive layout of streets and main roads, or the presence of famous parks definitely helps.
Let's see, some examples of very recognisable cities IMHO are:
New York City
San Francisco
Zurich
Las Vegas (even without a river )
London
Copenhagen
Vienna
Paris
Boston
Chicago
Sydney
Mumbai
Chicago is a particularly good example since the city uses a green-ish color streetlight while the suburbs use a yellow-ish color streetlight. At night, the exact outline of the city is easy to see, then the color of the lights change as the suburbs begin.
Also at night......St. Louis is distinctive because of the curve of the river, then the dark oblong of their "Central Park" (Forest Park)
Actually, from 30,000 feet you can see both Chicago and Milwaukee at night. Two big patches of light, gradually fading toward the suburbs, but with an abrupt cutoff at Lake Michigan. Saw this during a redeye from SEA to DTW.
Nottingham because you can see both football grounds either side of the River Trent
Lucerne on the lake
Liverpool because of the shape of the Wirral peninsula
I would contend that most of the cities thus far named don't qualify. Sure they're recognizable, but almost all would be destination or origination cities. Most, with a few exceptions, aren't cities one flies over, e.g., I've never flown over Chicago without landing there, so identification from the air isn't really very hard is it?
__________________
Hofstadter’s Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.
I would contend that most of the cities thus far named don't qualify. Sure they're recognizable, but almost all would be destination or origination cities. Most, with a few exceptions, aren't cities one flies over, e.g., I've never flown over Chicago without landing there, so identification from the air isn't really very hard is it?
I would contend that most of the cities thus far named don't qualify. Sure they're recognizable, but almost all would be destination or origination cities. Most, with a few exceptions, aren't cities one flies over, e.g., I've never flown over Chicago without landing there, so identification from the air isn't really very hard is it?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
I can think of instances in which almost every single one of the cities listed are overflown at height.
For instance, flying SFO-JFK goes almost directly above Chicago. On a red-eye, you'd pass over it in the middle of the night.
And I've personally flown over London, Vienna, Zurich, Las Vegas, Boston and Paris several times.
)
)
