RVSM questions

[Check 6]

On Friday and Saturday I had my first opportunity to fly in and around RVSM airspace. I fly turbojets "non RVSM" but with a "state aircraft" Exemption.

My flight was from S. Italy to England (over France) and then from England (over France) to Crete via Italy.

We were denied RVSM airspace over France on both legs. Italy and Greece gladly allowed FL410 and FL360.

This also occured to a colleague on Friday flying from S. Italy to Germany via Switzerland. He was also denied RVSM altitudes even though he also has a "state aircraft" exemption.

Both aircraft can easily operate at FL400 and FL410. There are few airlines operating at these altitudes.

Does anyone know why there is a lack of cooperation in the states north of Italy? Might this change as ATC become more comfortable with separating RVSM approved with non-RVSM?

Your thoughts and comments appreciated.

[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: Check 6 ]</p>

[eyeinthesky]

You need to remember that just because you are RVSM exempt does not give you the RIGHT to operate in RVSM airspace. All it means is that you are not automatically EXCLUDED from it as other non-approved aircraft are. More important is the fact that you may well not be able to be fitted in because of traffic loading. Remember that if you fly in RVSM airspace without being equipped we have to provide 2000ft separation between you and all the other (approved) aircraft.

For example: You are flying at FL370 eastbound, RVSM exempt. The next usable flight levels in your area are therefore FL350 and FL390. Therefore you are in fact 'occupying' three flight levels: 360,370,380. In dense traffic areas this is a lot to ask, and may explain your exclusion rather than a lack of cooperation.

Hope this helps.

[BEXIL160]

Check6...

Can your Lear squeeze up to FL430 (i.e. ABOVE RVSM airspace?) You shouldn't have any trouble up there.

BEX

[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: BEXIL ]</p>

[Check 6]

Eyeinthesky, thank you for your prompt reply. I did not imply that I have any "right."

As there are now twice as many altitudes available, it seems that any conflicts would be an infrequent occurance, PLUS a little vectoring would provide separation as has always been the case, pre-RVSM.

Also at least in my case, there did not seem to be much traffic out there, based on the radio traffic and visual observations. I realize that this might be mislead me.

[Check 6]

BEXIL, I wish, but flying a C-21. Coming out of the U.K. when we were light enough, we requested FL430, but that was abeam Geneva. This request was approved. While passing FL415, Roma approved FL410, and we decended back to FL410.

FL430 is a struggle to get to when heavy (we usually are with fuel), but FL410 is usually no problem. It seems that ATC would authorize FL400 or FL410 (as appropriate) as I can rarely see any 1000 ft separation conflicts.

I rarely see other aircraft above FL390.

Your thoughts?

[BEXIL160]

Check6..

Yes I see why FL430 would be a problem for you. Well, it's very early days for RVSM for mainland Europe so I would guess that my EUR controller colleagues are being a bit defensive until they become more familiar with the system. As indeed we in the UK were last year.

I would hope that as they all get more familiar with the levels available that they be a bit more accomodating, especially up at the higher levels like 390/400/410. As you say there aren't too many airliners up there, and I'd suggest that you keep asking for as high as you are able.

As I say, try to be patient. I'm sure as they get to grips with what's possible in RVSM (and what isn't) you'll find more and more requests being granted.

rgds BEX

[Check 6]

BEXIL, thank you for your thoughts. Do you work at LATCC? I am always impressed by both the civil controllers there and the London Mil controllers as well.

I always find it interesting how we are blended into the traffic flow after departing Mildenhall.

I forgot that the LATCC controller who handed me off to Paris could not understand why we were denied FL410 either. He suggested I keep asking until I got it.

Yes, RVSM is new, and hopefully European ATC will become more comfortable with it sooner than later.

Cheers,

[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: Check 6 ]</p>

[BEXIL160]

Check6..

"Do I work at LATCC?"... err, I used to, right up until yesterday. As you've probably been hearing we're all (well, the AREA controllers anyway), off to our New Centre at Swanwick, wef from tomorrow.

Thanks for the kind words about UK ATC, we do our best, and it's good to hear from the recievers end that we (usually) get it right. Cheers.

Best Rgds BEX

[ive348]

Give us a couple of days to get used to RVSM, and I'm sure you will have no problems operating at your requested level. As you say, especially at FL410 there is not that much traffic, and any conflict surely could be solved by some good old vectors! I could imagine though that flights would be refused at busy levels (like 330/350/370), just to keep things from becomming all to complicated.

[Lon More]

Check 6... .{ see no reason why you should not be accepted. The only problem mightbe that you get a lot more radar vectors than normal as we have to apply the 2000'separation between you and others.. .Possibly your flight plan was not sent correctly and your status not recognised.. .Were you non state exempt the problem would still exist as it is not allowed for non RVSM tfc to climb or descend through the levels within the EUR RVSM area.. .Visit the Eurocontrol web site for more info.

[Check 6]

Lon More, thanks. Yes, our flight plans were filed correctly and acknowledged. ATC confirmed via radio transmissions with us that we are exempt. We replied with "negative RVSM state aircraft."

I have been communicating with the RVSM Cell at Eurocontrol regarding our exemption prior to 24 January.

i.e. all the t's crossed, all the i's dotted. It was only a problem with French ATC. It was very clear to LATCC that we are exempt. LATCC coordinated our request for FL410 with Paris, as did Rome on the way north. All agreed we were exempt, but "no joy."

[Bronco]

Hi Check 6,. .Yes it is early days with the State flights and as eyeinthesky said you do block the 2 opposite direction FLs which can greatly increase the controller's/planner's workload (especially between FL320-370) as they have to 'clear the way' so to speak through all the sectors/ACCs on your route.

However, you have the potential advantage of being able to use a high cruising FL where there isn't too much traffic, so dont give up, keep requesting higher!

I have seen many European ACCs and LATCC (as it was)has one of the best Civil/Military working relationships, unfortuneately French Civil ATC dont work/coordinate closely with their Military ATC, a sentiment that probably applies to having to work Non RVSM State A/C in RVSM airspace as well.

So, at the end of the day you've answered your own question "It was only a problem with French ATC !" .

[ERJ_145]

Now that RVSM is upon us proper, I am sure that you will see far more B757/767 and A320/321 aircraft at FL370+. We now have new FL to play with!!!!!!!!

[brockenspectre]

RVSM has its own Eurocontrol website AND there is a forum although having registered for it I found that there has been nothing posted since Nov last year! If anyone is interesting in making a pprune-raid on it the url is:

<a href="http://www.eur-rvsm.com/forum/" target="_blank">http://www.eur-rvsm.com/forum/</a>

:)

[ItchyFeet2]

Check 6, why not make things a little easier for yourself and all the ATCO's and get RVSM equipped?

Why should state aircraft be the only ones who get exemption all the time? Commercial operators lose a lot of money if they are held down at non RVSM levels so they upgrade, why can't governments?

Also because the definition of state aircraft is so loose, this leads to many many "exceptional circumstances".

[Check 6]

IF2 you are misinformed. For RVSM purposes only, the definition of "state aircraft" is MILITARY, POLICE, and CUSTOMS. This seems pretty definitive.

Secondly, you taxpayers would have to pay for RVSM compliance. For a C-21, that runs about $450,000 U.S. per airframe. You are very generous with your fellow taxpayers dosh methinks.

I hope this clarifies your concerns, sir.

[Scott Voigt]

Itchy feet;

I expect that they had to make the exception for those few aircraft to get it passed. However, the idea of mixing RVSM and non-RVSM aircraft is one that is not east to deal with when you are busy. There is too much chance of messing up and not knowing that a particular aircraft if a non player when you are in the middle of a furrball...

regards

[Check 6]

Scott, I do not think you have an insight into the traffic picture in Europe, however correct me please if you have flown extensively here or have been an en route ATCO in Europe or the UK.

There are few aircraft operating FL390 and above. When we ask for FL410 and are refused, this is ATC not showing their best side. This non-cooperation so far has been limited to the French ATC, no big suprise here.

There were many reasons for the State Exemption. This includes aircraft not capable of RVSM, including but not limited to available space for the avionics, certification, prohibitive costs, and old technology airframes. However, I agree with your thought that a compromise was necessary, i.e. pragmatism was required.

I must emphasize that the Spanish, Italian, Greek, and Cypriot ATCO’s have allowed our fleet into RVSM airspace without exception.

How do you explain this??

All comments are appreciated.

[Scott Voigt]

Check Six;

I've spent many an hour in European ATC facilities plugged in and learning their ways. I've also spent many hours in the cockpit, so I do have an idea of what goes on over there. The part about being level at 410 isn't the issue as much as getting them there through the other levels when you are busy. There are also the issues of the folks who can't quite make it to 410 but want to get to 370. That is becoming more and more frequented by everything from the heavy jets to the regional jets and the citations. The days of 370 and above being empty are becoming long gone...

regards

[Findo]

Worked a PC9 this morning non RVSM and non 8.33 who desperately wanted to get above 270 for fuel efficiency before more restrictive airspace en route. Even with the wide open spaces of the North Sea to vector, FL330 was a very difficult level to monitor and separate when needed. Every time I looked for another level there were conflicts. Ended up with 2 other levels being changed and 2 on headings.

Glad to help but boy is it hard work.

<img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[ItchyFeet2]

Check 6, as you say state aircraft are for military, police and customs. This is irrespective of the state being overflown (eg French military are exempt over germany etc.) What about when charter flights are flying military, are they exempt and why? they can't use it normally so why should they now?

[Check 6]

IF2, military charter flights are exempt if the aircraft are used exclusively by the military. This was decided in June 2001 by the Eurocontrol Council.

[Check 6]

ATCOs, here is the latest. On a flight from Naples to/from Ramstein, Germany, the Italian, Swiss, and German controllers assigned us FL380 and FL390 without hesitation.

Thanks to all concerned. The final test will be an overflight of France. :) :) :)

[MASOR Monkey]

Interesting thread. We were discussing this very evening at LATCC(Mil) whether RVX applies to foreign mil or not, and now we have the answer. Might have known the French would enter into the equation.

On another point, there is no reason why a non-RVSM aircraft should block 2 opposite direction levels. Reverse the semi-circular system for non-RVSM aircraft and you only block one opposite direction level, the one it is occupying. I know capacity will still be lost, especially at route crossing points, but it's an improvement.

Another anomaly, 2 RVSM approved aircraft flying in formation are given non-RVSM status and therefore block 3 levels. Split them and they only block 2 levels. Something aircrew might like to consider if a formation is not operationally necessary.

Just my idle brain rambling,. .Good luck on the next sortie, Check 6.. .Or should I say "Bon chance" <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> . .MM

[coalface]

Excuse me butting into this thread, but what is RVSM? I am a helicopter pilot so spend most of my time low level. I heard a controlling querying a F/W the other day asking if he was RVSM equipped and i had never heard this term before. A short explaination would be appreciated.

[1261]

RVSM = Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

i.e. the ability to separate suitably equipped aircraft by 1000' above FL290 instead of the usual 2000'.

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: 1261 ]</p>

[Check 6]

Coalface, RVSM is Reduced Vertical Separation, i.e. 1000 feet separation at higher levels vs. the usual 2000 feet.

Over most of Europe, this occurs at FL290 to and including FL410, i.e. separation is now reduced to 1000 feet.

To make this happen, both the aircraft, and the pilots must be certified to conduct flight in RVSM airspace.

"State Aircraft" are exempt from the certification, however, 2000 feet separation must then be provided, or the appropriate horizontal separation.

I hope this simple explanation helped.

[2 six 4]

Masor - using an ODL does block just the one level but you have to be very wary with catch up traffic and the b***ers always meet crossing traffic which means that you cannot use the 2 levels immediately above and below the one you have allocated. All in all it is pretty difficult ane needs a lot of monitoring. That is something we are constantly taught we should not do.

Set it up safe and it should remain that way. Set it up with the intention to monitor and we end up with a distraction and a loss of separation.

Do you wonder in high traffic leves why we are reluctant to even start the process by allowing non RVSM into the airspace ?

. . <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Check 6]

Here is the latest ladies and gentleman ATCO's. We are consistently allowed into RVSM airspace by Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and a few others.

We are consistently NOT ALLOWED into RVSM airspace by the FRENCH ATC, including the small stretch along UM603 between Sardinia and Menorca. And this is while cruising at FL400 upon entering French airspace.

Thanks to all who help us.

I detect a pattern here.

[madbird]

Why in North Atlantic Airspace (NAT region) there are no exemptions for non approved RVSM aircrafts?

[Scott Voigt]

Madbird;. .. .I would assume that they don't allow exemptions oceanic due to the waste of airspace and the difficulty of keeping up with everyone.... .. .regards

[10W]

Madbird. .. .There are exemptions in the NAT actually.. .. .Non RVSM aircraft are permitted to climb or descend through RVSM airspace to reach a cruising level outside the RVSM band.. .. .Or, a reservation can be granted to permit non RVSM to transit the NAT at RVSM airspace in certain scenarios.. .. .Delivery from manufacturer to State of Registry, or,. .. .In the case of RVSM equipment failure where the aircraft is being ferried to maintenance for repair or reapproval, or,. .. .Aircraft on mercy or humanitarian flights. . . . . <small>[ 03 March 2002, 18:58: Message edited by: 10W ]</small>

[romeowiz]

It is simply not allowed to let non-approved acft into RVSM airspace, and that makes sense. In the first days of RVSM we let a non-approved Citation X get through it, pushed her way up to FL450 where nobody else flies. (Except the other Citation-X coming the other way, a few Gulfstreams, some Lears, occasionally Falcons.... you´re not all alone up there, believe me!). .We and our neighbouring Center had no problems with that. But we put the controllers near the destination of our highflying Cessna into deep **** because he had to get her down through RVSM airspace, needing twice as much separation as for all others.. .We will never do that again, it is almost impossible if not during nighthours with very little traffic.