Rvsm

[RENURPP]

This question relates to NON RVSM aircraft.

If you plan into RVSM airspace does MATs have a requirement for aircraft to report that they are Negative RVSM??

AIP says something along the lines, aircraft requesting clearance in RVSM airspace, must indicate that they are Negative RVSM.

If you are departing from say Brisbane, climbing to F310 when do you make this statement??
Clearance delivery is the only time you request clearance!


Answers from ATC'ers is the goal.
Quotes from MATs would be appreciated.

[Spodman]

There are no requirements in MATS for pilots. If there was we would have to send you all a copy to bone up on (and they don't even do that for ATC any more.)

If we want to know what pilots are required to do or say we look it up in AIP like you do.

Specific to your question, the way it works is aircraft call me from Approach assigned FL200, and I clear them higher without any actual request from the pilot. Some pilots work in a somewhat uncertain "negative RVSM" when I do so. Others don't, maybe they consider their duty done by telling Clearance Delivery (who probably didn't know what it meant, they certainly won't tell me.) It is a hole in the procedure.

Personally speaking I find the prompt a lot more useful coming from an aircraft cruising outside the RVSM band when requesting to enter the band.

[RENURPP]

Spodman,

I have read AIP leaves the su bject a little uncertain.

I realise that MATs is directed at ATC and as such would not have our requirements in it, having said that what I was trying to extract from you guys is,
Is there any where in MATs where it states something along the lines of " pilots will indicate their status, i.e. negative RVSM" ??
If so when are we supposed to do it.
I spoke to a controller from BNE CTR over the phone about the subject and he said some thing along the lines " if we planned in RVSM levels that it would be indicated through TAATs and that there is no requirement or need to conitinue to advise. If we planned below RVSM and wanted an RVSM level then we would have to advise as it wouldn't be displayed (in whatever form ) by TAATs. I assume that meant on the sreen in some fashion??

Finally, can you explain this comment thanks Some pilots work in a somewhat uncertain "negative RVSM" when I do so.


by not stating negative RVSM they are in that airspace without clarification of their status???

[Pass-A-Frozo]

With Brisbane I've found that not indicating RVSM compliance on the flight plan seems to be enough - well, I've never been questioned on the matter! The only time I use it would be if I flight planned say F280, then wanted to step up above that during the cruise "<callsign> Request climb FL300 Negative RVSM". Seem to always get it in Australia, just pushed down back below it once near Sydney.

Some overseas FIR's require you through to call not before 12 hours before departure and confirm in on the phone (Oakland FIR from memory), and others from memory required a specific remark on the flight plan "Negative RVSM compliant" (Europe?)

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on Brisbane/Melbourne FIR??

PAF.

[RENURPP]

I guess from the lack of info here, that the AIP says it all.

Only advise negative RVSM when requesting a clearnce.

[Ausatco]

RENURRP,

In recent years much work has been done to make MATS and AIP complement each other. No doubt I'll get shot down here with exceptions and oversights because there are some, but generally AIP will specify what the pilot has to do and MATS will specify what ATC has to do to the pilot doing what AIP says....

So here's the chain of document logic as I see it...

AIP ENR 1.1
52.2.5 Approved operators must indicate RVSM approval by inserting
“W” in Item 10 (Equipment) of the ATS flight notification.

So you must indicate your RVSM status on the flight plan. Black and white.

AIP ENR 1.1
52.2.6 Pilots of aircraft that are not RVSM-approved may plan within the
RVSM flight level band (FL290 to FL410 inclusive). However,
clearance at RVSM levels is subject to disposition of traffic and
RVSM aircraft priority. The conventional vertical separation minimum
will be applied between aircraft that are not RVSM-approved
and all other aircraft.

You can plan there, but you may not get the level you want...
(And, of course, you wouldn't circle "W" on the flight plan :) )

AIP ENR 1.1
52.2.8 Pilots of aircraft that are not RVSM-approved must report “NEGATIVE RVSM” in accordance with the requirements of GEN 3.4 Sub-section 5.5 Item 2.p.

Regardless of what is or is not shown on the flight plan, all pilots of non-RVSM flight, both civil and military, must report NEGATIVE RVSM when requesting a clearance. The reference is all about phraseologies, not flight plan notification. AIP is saying that you have to support your Flight Plan notification of Non-RVSM by using this warning phrase at clearance request.

As you suggest, RENURRP, that would be at Clearance Delivery for many flights.


MATS, for its part, says ...

6.5.3. Coordination of Change to RVSM Status

6.5.3.1 When a pilot advises a change to RVSM status after filing the flight plan the controller shall:

a. Non TAAATS Unit:

1. coordinate the change of status verbally; and

2. submit a CHG message.

b. TAAATS Unit:

1. submit a CHG message if the flight affects any other unit; and

2. coordinate change of status verbally if the status change is received
when the flight is less than 15 minutes from the next unit boundary,
or, intra / external unit coordination has already been performed.


6.5.3.2 The first TAAATS unit becoming aware of the change of status shall modify the FDR.

Hope this helps and that there are enough references for you. :D(For info, all available on-line from the Airservices website.)

Spodman,

I don't see any holes in the procedures, but then I'm not an ENR controller. TWR and ACD, that's me. I think AIP makes it quite clear what pilots should do and MATS makes it quite clear what Clearance Delivery should do if they are first in possession of changed RVSM info. If your ACDs aren't doing the right thing maybe a little fireside chat is required in the Team Leader's office... :)

AA

[RENURPP]

Ausatco

thank you

[Capt Claret]

Ausatco

Given that all the airways clearances received from ACD/TWR/GND by the likes of RENURPP and myself when departing a controlled airport, are to either, A060, F120 or F200, can you give me an idea of how the "Negative RVSM" message gets to the sector looking after us in the RVSM band?

[Ausatco]

A few possibilities, Capt Claret...

1 RVSM status is as planned

The RVSM info on your flight plan (circled or un-circled "W") is parsed by the almighty NAIPS/TAAATS computer brotherhood and is shown on the aircraft's label on the screen.

2 Change of RVSM status:-

For each flight plan there is a flight data record, or FDR. We can access the FDR. The FDR contains much of the flight plan, but not all of it. It doesn't contain the "Equipment Carried", so ATCs cannot modify that component of the flight plan directly. We have to notify others of the change by other means....

First step - notify immediate on-going sectors:

At SY that would be SY Departures. But they don't assign levels into RVSM bands, so they don't need to know.

But if they did (and equivalents at other locations may, I dunno, my aviation expertise is 10nm SY/3000ft, but I think I can discuss general principles using SY as a hypothetical starting point)...

There is a user modifiable field in a FDR called OP DATA which is displayed on an aircraft's label on the screen. It is used for incidental info or as a quick-and-dirty heads-up to alert immediately following sectors that there is a change to what may be expected for that flight. If there is a change of RVSM status notified to Clearance Delivery (ACD), the ACD operator could type NIL RVSM or RVSM OK as applicable to the change, into the OP DATA field. Immediate ongoing sectors would see that OP DATA info as soon as the aircraft gets airborne.

Units affected will have Local Instructions to cover this, and they may be different from my scenario, depending on airspace structure and other local factors not relevant to this general discussion.

Second step - notify subsequent down-track sectors.

In every flight's FDR there is Field 18. It is for incidental info, and there is a special code, STS, which causes particular incidental info to be presented to controllers ahead of other incidental info. So I would enter in Field 18 for your flight your changed RVSM status in the form "STS/NIL RVSM" or "STS/RVSM OK". TAAATS ensures that every down-track controller who needs to know that info would see it in the electronic flight progress strips before the aircraft entered the controller's jurisdiction. So they would have a heads-up and be able to plan their traffic.

Third step - notify users across the Flight Data Region Boundary (FDRG).

As you probably know, there are two FDRGs - BN and ML.

If the flight is not going to cross the FDRG boundary, then the above is enough.

If the flight will cross the FDRG boundary soon after departure (SY to any points north is the classic example), then because the boundary is so close to SY (bull**** design by self-interested parties when the TAAATS specs were formulated - but that's another subject) we must voice-coordinate with an operator in Melbourne who will modify the "W" in the flight plan. The change will notify users on the other side of the FDRG boundary that the RVSM status has changed. Because the boundary is so close to SY there may also be voice coordination to ensure that users across the boundary will be aware of the changes in sufficient time before the aircraft departs.

The above is a general answer. Procedures will vary between ATC locations.

Hope this helps,

AA

[Capt Claret]

Ausatco

Thanks for your reply. Let me rephrase the question to refine the answer.

With reference to your first post on this thread:
AIP ENR 1.1
52.2.8 Pilots of aircraft that are not RVSM-approved must report “NEGATIVE RVSM” in accordance with the requirements of GEN 3.4 Sub-section 5.5 Item 2.p.


If the pilot of a non RVSM approved aircraft flight plans IFR in the RVSM band and makes the mandatory report "Negative RVSM" to ACD/GND/TWR as appropriate does the report get passed up the line to various controllers, or is it better to save the report "Negative RVSM" until speaking to the controller most likely to clear one into the RVSM band?

I don't have access to AIP docs, only Jepps, but assume the reference you give is from the communications section. As it is published in the Jepps version, it mandates the report but gives no guidance as to when or to which ATS unit the report should be made.

[ferris]

IMHO: If you have correctly planned non-RVSM, it doesn't matter when you verbally report non-RVSM, as it will be displayed to enroute guy who is going to make the decision to allow you into RVSM space.
If the verbal report is supposed to be a back-up to this i.e. plan incorrect, some stuff-up somewhere, etc. resulting in the info not in label, then the time to give it would be when cleared into the RVSM levels. I suspect this is the intent of the verbal report requirement, but not the result. The way it reads, as others have pointed out, you need only report non-compliance at clearance delivery on the ground (who probably should check that it is in the system), but otherwise couldn't give a toss.

[Ausatco]

Clarrie,

No, in the circumstances you describe the "Negative RVSM" report does not get passed up the line, because the flight planned RVSM status has not changed. As ferris says, the reason is that the en-route guy will already have that info on the label.

Re guidance as to when you should give the report - AIP is only slightly less sterile than you say Jepps are. AIP says at clearance request. For most of the aircraft I deal with that is Clearance Delivery, which is what RENURPP was getting at when he started this thread. But, like ferris, I don't think the authors thought of that or its implications when they wrote it.

Perhaps they should get out of bull**** castle and into the field occasionally.

Ferris, yes, we would check if we received a negative report.

Clarrie,

Sorry for the long-winded reply last time. We get (and encourage) visiting aircrew and they don't know all that much about TAAATS, which is fair enough, we don't know much about Boeing 7xx or A3xx :D. Tried to cover all bases to give you a bit of background and missed the essential bit. :o

Cheers

AA

[Dan Kelly]

Ausatco,

I'll bet that all Clarrie knows about B7xx or A3yy is that they're aeroplanes, he might just know a weenie bit more about the smurfjet he flies! :cool: :p

[Capn Bloggs]

All,

Opening a can of worms....

1. Why. given that the Flight Notification has the RVSM status of the aircraft in it (and, if my understanding of the earlier posts are correct, the TAAATS aircraft label has W on it), do pilots have to say anything about their RVSM status?

2. I disagree that the AIP is clear on what is supposed to be said: the quoted GEN 3.4 5.5p certainly appears to apply to in-flight situations only: [(level or requested level)]. If we are required to pass Negative-RVSM status at the Clearance-Delivery point, then GEN 3.4 5.12.2 box 2 should have a statement to that effect there.

[SM4 Pirate]

Bloggs,

I think the concept of pilots telling ATCs that they were negative RVSM was a 'reminder' of that fact. In the beginning there wan't going to be an indication on our scope of RVSM status, the union got that changed for us and was the real reasons for the delay of implementation, that and training... But this procedure was not amended even though we now have a visual indicator on the screen.

Is it required now; probably not but under the pressure of the job, 1000ft has become common place and that subtle yet important phrase is a great reminder to ensure 2000 feet is applied. The indicator is a small orange X in a cluttered label, which really stands out against a black 'not concerned track' (I've finished with it or it won't ever concern my airspace) but seems to blend in on a green 'jurisdiction' (I'm controlling it) track.

I don't think I've missed it yet, but I've seen a few that have. as far as I know most problems have come from the wrong info in the flight plan, so I guess the verbalisation is an excellent way to confirm the 'status' of your RVSM when entering the band, which afterall is where it's important. I find it most helpful, once you're in the band and after a level change; easy to double check for 2000 rather than 1000.

Bottle of rum.

[Ausatco]

Yes, Bloggs, I think the worms are well and truly wriggling ...

I think SM4 Pirate answered your first point.

Re your second point, since I wrote my posts I have been thinking maybe all is not as clear as I first thought.

I agree with you that, taken together, the example phraseologies in AIP GEN 3.4, 5.5 (p) seem to be oriented toward in-flight situations. But then the section is headed "General Phrases", not "In Flight Phrases".

And it does say "When requesting clearance".

If the only time that you will request clearance is at Clearance Delivery, then I think that's when you should say the phrase. But it's not necessarily the only time. It's also clear to me that, from the "In Flight" context you have pointed out, it should be used when requesting to enter the RVSM band, or when requesting a change of level within the band.

You say that if the intention is to use the phrase at Clearance Delivery it should be included in Gen 3-4 5.12.2, box 2. I agree. But I also know from personal experience that by the time a proposed amendment to documents has been duly processed by bureauocracy, the actual amendment does not necessarily reflect the proponent's intentions. Central Office and CASA just love to fiddle with what field people have to say.

To tell you the truth, I am now not at all sure what the intention is. All I can do is interpret, using my knowledge of how the system should logically work, to get the required result.

I suggest that the only person who really knows what is supposed to happen is the bloke/blokette who proposed the amendment, and who is probably disappointed with the result but accepted it with a sigh of resignation, just as I did mine.

Best

AA