markjoy - mea culpa! 2000 ft equals 600 metres. But where did the level bust come from? All a/c would have QNH set below the 'universal' TA (equivalent to 18,000 ft or its metric equivalent). What I'm suggesting is using 'Flight Level' terminology for all levels, above & below TA. Or else metric levels (in multiples of 300m).
The problem (& it's a big problem in UK airspace) is that the rules were set in 1949 or thereabouts, when American dominance resulted in the ICAO 'blue table' for parameter choice & European nations chose low TAs. If aviation had adopted a sensible, much higher, universal TA, we would not now be dealing with altimeter mis-set level busts (which account for about 10% of the total) and busts caused by crews distracted by altimeter resetting during critical flight phases. American domination also led to the preference of VORs for airway navigation rather than the British-designed Decca system, which would have introduced RNAV 40 years ago had it been adopted. Many in the industry considered VOR inferior to Decca. In 1949, airliner rates of climb rarely exceeded 1000 fpm (300 mpm). Todays jets can climb at 3 times this rate - another exacerbating factor.
It looks as if I'm a lone voice here. I've been an airline pilot for over 30 years, and I've witnessed RT & TMA congestion getting steadily worse. I hope I'm wrong, but I can envisage a disaster arising where our current over-complex altimeter procedures, too-low variable TA or RT overload (or a combination thereof) will perhaps be factors.
Last edited by Julien Evans; 8th Sep 2006 at 20:39.