Is China ready for RVSM?

[Long Haul]

According to this article,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/30/content_6975748.htm
China will be reducing it's vertical separation minimum to 300m from Nov. 22nd, which should help alleviate the increasing delays for commercial traffic. One would think that it would require an extra amount of vigilance for their controllers; are they up to the task?

[Old Aero Guy]

Isn't RVSM more of a function of airplane altimeter accuracy and the ability of the autopilot to hold altitude? I don't see that the controllers have a major role in RVSM.

[BScaler]

Check out the Fragrant Harbour threads on this site.

There are some very illuminating posts recently sent by some guys in China ATC. They sound fairly credible and give some insight into the problems ATC faces doing their job in China - mostly constraints imposed by the military which has an iron hold on all airspace.

Regarding RVSM specifically, the change from imperial to metric RVSM, as the transition is made from airspace outside China to that over China itself, will be nothing short of a 'dogs breakfast'.

With the resultant confusion comes the inevitable potential for misunderstanding and loss of adequate separation. Increasing the numbers of controllers and dividing up sectors into smaller portions may help regulate enroute traffic, but terminal airspace will only become more congested. Controllers, in this context, play a crucial role in the execution of RVSM.

Could it be that RVSM will only allow more aircraft to get to the inevitable hold over BJS or PVG quicker...but they'll be holding longer?!

[Fart Master]

NO......not until they can at least speak English to a level 3 standard as a minimum:=

[Ace Rimmer]

Ready or not it happens in 21 days time the following may help...


http://www.ifalpa.org/BILLS/08ATSBL02_China_RVSM.pdf

[LLuke]

Don't recall any language issues while flying through China.

I don't think that RVSM will be much of a solution for European bound aircraft, without Mongolia having radar. Would be great to get some extra parallel airways there too.

[Just wondering]

I think Chinese ATC is improving at a great pace - RVSM will in actual fact improve safety dramatically as most of the problems lie in airway spacing.

RVSM means less aircraft climbing and descending through levels due to separation problems.

Over the last year or so direct routings have become available as a norm - on many occassions offered by ATC, particularly at night when there is less domestic traffic.

Maybe not up to European standards but they'll get there quicker than most think. Compared to 20 years ago .............. !!

[threemiles]

ATC will issue the Flight Level clearance in metres. Pilots shall use the China RVSM FLAS table to determine the corresponding Flight Level in feet. The aircraft shall be flown using the flight level in FEET.

Why is it then to issue the Flight Level clearance in meters?

[TheDrop]

Just to make a statement of some kind, the feet equivalent of these levels are all 100 feet above existing RVSM, ie FL351,361,371 etc. This means there will be transisions from surrounding RVSM areas, although simpler than RVSM/feet<->NVSM/metric, it still means you will have to climb/descent 100 feet to comply :ugh:

As mentioned above, it should be followed up by larger capacities at aerodromes in China, as well as making sure there are a sufficient amount of controllers (and sectors) to avoid congestion.

All in all, good move China, you are on the right track!

[eight16kreug]

It's their airspace. If they want to call 37,100 feet as 11,300 metres so be it. The difference will never be more than 30 metres anyway. Way below TCAS threshhold. :)

Better to be dealing with ATC then the Chinese Air Force.:p