RVSM

[unwise]

Hi folks. Just wondering what your views are on RVSM and how it's all going now that it's in. Some of us are off and have not worked the new system as of yet. It would appear everything went smoothly, no safety implications and everyone is content. SURELY NOT

[10W]

Yep, more or less.............. and why not ???

------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]

[Findo]

For some of us it has been in for years. It is such a sensible move that we just wish the rest of Europe would hurry up and get their act together.

------------------
Go with the flow ... or you'll miss your slot.

[ATC Watcher]

Findo quote : ..." the rest of Europe should ......get their act together.." Hummmm. Is isn't it the UK (and Ireland)going solo on this , while the rest of Europe had agreed on a common application date of 22 Jan 2002 ?
Incidentally does anyone knows what is today the current percentage of a/c using LATCC airpace above FL280 which are not RVSM compliant or RVSM certified ?

[unwise]

They, being management reckon 15% are non-RVSM. Whilst at work bearing in mind the average mix of a/c one in ten roughly, were non RVSM offering at high level. So it sounds about right.

[downto5]

I've heard a rumour that Ryanair have been flying around for the last 2 days as if they were RVSM certified but were not!

[dick badcock]

Yes, wish the continentals would follow soon, it is a bit crowded around BLUFA/BEENO with all kinds of traffic climbing and descending into and out RVSM airspace.

Funny thing is that we have been told that although Germany, Austria and Slovenia (?) are not fully implemented yet, the controllers have the authority to clear to an RVSM level, but we as pilots may NOT request them....

This sort of makes Maastricht a very busy area...

[MunichACC]

I´m working in the Munich ACC and UAC, and actually we may use RVSM since the 19th of April. However, we may only use it for separation purpose, not as cruising levels for the pilots. And its quite complicatet, because we have to ask each pilot, if he is RVSM equipped and so on.
Austria is also working with RVSM under the same conditions.

[ock1f]

The main problem with RVSM is the lack of practice we've all had at getting used to it. A fundamental change in ATC, and we get an hour in the sim, and a brief chat before our first time on duty. Absolutely farcical. And as for the reduced traffic flows to help us.. well I wasnt aware of any as I was going under on STU.. This takes a lot of getting used to. Sure, it will be good when we are all confident with it, but in the meantime, let's all be careful out there.

[Serco Stuffer]

I worked on this complicated project for what seems a very long time. It gives me a "warm blanky" type feeling to know that, at least, it caused you no problems and, one day, you may get to like it!

[beaglepup]

My [silly] prob is that I now have to type RVA/RVN/RVX rather than W or nowt.
W meant you got it. Nowt said that you ain't. Why the added bit?
Answers on a postcard etc....

[Avman]

The Brits once again say "screw Europe" and go it alone! An undisputedly safe and sensible decision. God it makes me wish I was a Brit. Hang on...., I am!!! (Shucks, must ahve spent too many years with these damn Europeans getting brainwashed).

[eyeinthesky]

Ref percentage of traffic not approved: it was as high as 50pct on N Sea at times on the first day!! Luckily it wasn't busy, but if it had been.....

------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"

[Serco Stuffer]

Quite a few airlines are still filing /C as opposed to /W. The automated systems then apply RVN. That's probably causing some of the problems.

[eyeinthesky]

Is anybody else as astounded as I am at the percentage of traffic which is still non-approved and passing through our airspace? We were assured it would be LESS THAN 5pct AT STARTUP and 10 days on it is sometimes as high as 30pct. What is being done to monitor/improve it?? Nothing, I suspect, as usual, in the hope that we will just learn to live with it.

In addition, was there any simulation done or assessment made of the R/T loading which now occurs since EVERY aircraft which enters UK airspace on NSEA from MAAS westbound needs a level change to comply with RVSM. While we might choose to leave them at 350/310 when it is quiet, when it is busy the easiest way is to change to RVSM levels, and this is of course when R/T loading is the highest. What is it ging to be like when the TSFs are back to 100 pct?

It seems to me this is yet another case of a capacity-increasing measure being implemented on various promises which have not been fulfilled. The exclusion of non-approved traffic goes on of course, but we are not allowed to tell the aircraft that, so the message never gets through.



------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"

[Avman]

The first step would have been to introduce RVSM with the rest of Europe. And in the meantime EYEINTHESKY, if it all goes pear shaped on your sector guess who the fall guy's going to be? I'm really surprised that you guys accepted RVSM under the present conditions.

[RogerOut]

RVSM provides additional airspace - if one a/c isn't suitably equipped, then you use 2,000 ft vertical sep'n, just like you did two weeks ago! What's hard about that? I understand the complications with Europe not using the same system and therefore levels need adjusting/altering etc, I've been doing that for the past couple of years feeding traffic to other ScACC & London sectors. Trust me after this summer you'll wonder how you managed without it! Honest :)

------------------
RogerOut
I Keep Mine Hidden

[Lon More]

If, as "eyeinthe sky" states, 30% is not equipped and as someone else stated, some are deliberately flaunting the regs., then I'm glad we in Europe are waiting until the agreed date.

BTW the North Sea problem will be solved when (if) NERC comes on line.
Due to insoluble software problems, draconian (Oops , what a give away Sandy)FLRs will be introduced. Maastricht gets FL280 and 320 whilst Copenhagen has 300 and 340. Hope you guys are training to accept formation flights

------------------
Lon More,just an ATCO

[eyeinthesky]

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"

[2 six 4]

eye .. my contacts in Ops say that the ScATCC ATCOs were dead against the plan to mix RVSM and non compliant. I think they were right. Gets kinda tricky.

Foot ? Shoot ?

[chiglet]

Talkig with the guys the other day. If FL280 and 290 are ok on RVU/N then where is the problem on FL290 and 300 if one A/c is so equipped?

[unwise]

Quick update. Spoke to the chap claiming to be the manager for airline RVSM liason, what ever that means. Anyway he says the figure for compliance is now above 93%. Yeh right!

[eyeinthesky]

I have been having an exchange with several crews of a certain British regional airline regarding the filing of RVSM compliance when they are not. I heard recently that Head of AC Ops had decreed that the plans should be put in as RVSM compliant (since this allowed the airline in question to plan non-stop to destination at 330/370 without having to stop for fuel). It would be left up to the crews to ensure that ATC was informed of any non-compliance.
Fail-safe? Methinks not. Quick fix to meet expedience (again)? Methinks so. As has been said earlier in this thread, it wouldn't be said bloke's head on the block when it all went pear shaped.

And all this with no bonus...! ;)

------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"

[unwise]

just another example of taking the piss. If ops tell them to file 330/370 to enable non-stop flights to destination should they not be telling us. This is one example, how many others have been told to adopt similar procedures? I wonder who came up with this masterpiece anyway Mr V or one of his workers. Interested in any feed back.

[RogerOut]

Pieinthesky said :
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.
What's the HUTA got to do with it? Are we allowed 500' sep'n or something, I'm talking about vertical sep'n - it's still 1000' for RVSM. And who is asserting that ScOACC has as much traffic as LATCC? Not me - We're not paid as much as you :) However I do dispute the mixing of approved/non-approved traffic, we HAVE - and we have been for years. I'll stick to my main point - once the system is bedded in, you will wonder how you managed without it.

------------------
RogerOut
I Keep Mine Hidden

[This message has been edited by RogerOut (edited 07 May 2001).]