It occurs to me that the 95 pct we were all assured did not include biz jets as many of these seem to be non-compliant. But we were assured it would all be OK. That's why we accepted it.
What is also worrying is that some pilots and more than a few Ops depts do not understand the basics of RVSM. Examples are to be found in the R&N forum where it seems some pilots think being cleared to 320 means you have to be RVSM equipped!
More worrying is the filing of flights as compliant when they are not, due to crew training or whatever. Just today I noticed a flight from BB which was filed with a 'W' (i.e. compliant) but which had a Remark on the strip: TCAS U/S. I thought you had to have TCAS 6.04 or 7 to be approved. Or am I wrong? As it was we did not need to use RVSM separation for him, but did the Ops dept know that?
On another note, I'm getting a bit fed up of Scottish ATCOs reminding us that it's all OK and they've been doing it for years. Big deal. You've got the HUTA to play with and also have less traffic (irrespective of your assertions to the contrary) than we have. You have also not been mixing approved and non-approved traffic in the same quantities as we are. I'm sure that if the system is properly managed it is very easy. My point is that this is not being properly managed. It's been brought in as yet another NERC-enabling quick fix on the back of empty assurances.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"