RVSM questions
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVSM questions
On Friday and Saturday I had my first opportunity to fly in and around RVSM airspace. I fly turbojets "non RVSM" but with a "state aircraft" Exemption.
My flight was from S. Italy to England (over France) and then from England (over France) to Crete via Italy.
We were denied RVSM airspace over France on both legs. Italy and Greece gladly allowed FL410 and FL360.
This also occured to a colleague on Friday flying from S. Italy to Germany via Switzerland. He was also denied RVSM altitudes even though he also has a "state aircraft" exemption.
Both aircraft can easily operate at FL400 and FL410. There are few airlines operating at these altitudes.
Does anyone know why there is a lack of cooperation in the states north of Italy? Might this change as ATC become more comfortable with separating RVSM approved with non-RVSM?
Your thoughts and comments appreciated.
[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: Check 6 ]</p>
My flight was from S. Italy to England (over France) and then from England (over France) to Crete via Italy.
We were denied RVSM airspace over France on both legs. Italy and Greece gladly allowed FL410 and FL360.
This also occured to a colleague on Friday flying from S. Italy to Germany via Switzerland. He was also denied RVSM altitudes even though he also has a "state aircraft" exemption.
Both aircraft can easily operate at FL400 and FL410. There are few airlines operating at these altitudes.
Does anyone know why there is a lack of cooperation in the states north of Italy? Might this change as ATC become more comfortable with separating RVSM approved with non-RVSM?
Your thoughts and comments appreciated.
[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: Check 6 ]</p>
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to remember that just because you are RVSM exempt does not give you the RIGHT to operate in RVSM airspace. All it means is that you are not automatically EXCLUDED from it as other non-approved aircraft are. More important is the fact that you may well not be able to be fitted in because of traffic loading. Remember that if you fly in RVSM airspace without being equipped we have to provide 2000ft separation between you and all the other (approved) aircraft.
For example: You are flying at FL370 eastbound, RVSM exempt. The next usable flight levels in your area are therefore FL350 and FL390. Therefore you are in fact 'occupying' three flight levels: 360,370,380. In dense traffic areas this is a lot to ask, and may explain your exclusion rather than a lack of cooperation.
Hope this helps.
For example: You are flying at FL370 eastbound, RVSM exempt. The next usable flight levels in your area are therefore FL350 and FL390. Therefore you are in fact 'occupying' three flight levels: 360,370,380. In dense traffic areas this is a lot to ask, and may explain your exclusion rather than a lack of cooperation.
Hope this helps.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check6...
Can your Lear squeeze up to FL430 (i.e. ABOVE RVSM airspace?) You shouldn't have any trouble up there.
BEX
[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: BEXIL ]</p>
Can your Lear squeeze up to FL430 (i.e. ABOVE RVSM airspace?) You shouldn't have any trouble up there.
BEX
[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: BEXIL ]</p>
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eyeinthesky, thank you for your prompt reply. I did not imply that I have any "right."
As there are now twice as many altitudes available, it seems that any conflicts would be an infrequent occurance, PLUS a little vectoring would provide separation as has always been the case, pre-RVSM.
Also at least in my case, there did not seem to be much traffic out there, based on the radio traffic and visual observations. I realize that this might be mislead me.
As there are now twice as many altitudes available, it seems that any conflicts would be an infrequent occurance, PLUS a little vectoring would provide separation as has always been the case, pre-RVSM.
Also at least in my case, there did not seem to be much traffic out there, based on the radio traffic and visual observations. I realize that this might be mislead me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEXIL, I wish, but flying a C-21. Coming out of the U.K. when we were light enough, we requested FL430, but that was abeam Geneva. This request was approved. While passing FL415, Roma approved FL410, and we decended back to FL410.
FL430 is a struggle to get to when heavy (we usually are with fuel), but FL410 is usually no problem. It seems that ATC would authorize FL400 or FL410 (as appropriate) as I can rarely see any 1000 ft separation conflicts.
I rarely see other aircraft above FL390.
Your thoughts?
FL430 is a struggle to get to when heavy (we usually are with fuel), but FL410 is usually no problem. It seems that ATC would authorize FL400 or FL410 (as appropriate) as I can rarely see any 1000 ft separation conflicts.
I rarely see other aircraft above FL390.
Your thoughts?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check6..
Yes I see why FL430 would be a problem for you. Well, it's very early days for RVSM for mainland Europe so I would guess that my EUR controller colleagues are being a bit defensive until they become more familiar with the system. As indeed we in the UK were last year.
I would hope that as they all get more familiar with the levels available that they be a bit more accomodating, especially up at the higher levels like 390/400/410. As you say there aren't too many airliners up there, and I'd suggest that you keep asking for as high as you are able.
As I say, try to be patient. I'm sure as they get to grips with what's possible in RVSM (and what isn't) you'll find more and more requests being granted.
rgds BEX
Yes I see why FL430 would be a problem for you. Well, it's very early days for RVSM for mainland Europe so I would guess that my EUR controller colleagues are being a bit defensive until they become more familiar with the system. As indeed we in the UK were last year.
I would hope that as they all get more familiar with the levels available that they be a bit more accomodating, especially up at the higher levels like 390/400/410. As you say there aren't too many airliners up there, and I'd suggest that you keep asking for as high as you are able.
As I say, try to be patient. I'm sure as they get to grips with what's possible in RVSM (and what isn't) you'll find more and more requests being granted.
rgds BEX
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEXIL, thank you for your thoughts. Do you work at LATCC? I am always impressed by both the civil controllers there and the London Mil controllers as well.
I always find it interesting how we are blended into the traffic flow after departing Mildenhall.
I forgot that the LATCC controller who handed me off to Paris could not understand why we were denied FL410 either. He suggested I keep asking until I got it.
Yes, RVSM is new, and hopefully European ATC will become more comfortable with it sooner than later.
Cheers,
[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: Check 6 ]</p>
I always find it interesting how we are blended into the traffic flow after departing Mildenhall.
I forgot that the LATCC controller who handed me off to Paris could not understand why we were denied FL410 either. He suggested I keep asking until I got it.
Yes, RVSM is new, and hopefully European ATC will become more comfortable with it sooner than later.
Cheers,
[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: Check 6 ]</p>
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check6..
"Do I work at LATCC?"... err, I used to, right up until yesterday. As you've probably been hearing we're all (well, the AREA controllers anyway), off to our New Centre at Swanwick, wef from tomorrow.
Thanks for the kind words about UK ATC, we do our best, and it's good to hear from the recievers end that we (usually) get it right. Cheers.
Best Rgds BEX
"Do I work at LATCC?"... err, I used to, right up until yesterday. As you've probably been hearing we're all (well, the AREA controllers anyway), off to our New Centre at Swanwick, wef from tomorrow.
Thanks for the kind words about UK ATC, we do our best, and it's good to hear from the recievers end that we (usually) get it right. Cheers.
Best Rgds BEX
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Belgium
Age: 48
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give us a couple of days to get used to RVSM, and I'm sure you will have no problems operating at your requested level. As you say, especially at FL410 there is not that much traffic, and any conflict surely could be solved by some good old vectors! I could imagine though that flights would be refused at busy levels (like 330/350/370), just to keep things from becomming all to complicated.
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check 6... .{ see no reason why you should not be accepted. The only problem mightbe that you get a lot more radar vectors than normal as we have to apply the 2000'separation between you and others.. .Possibly your flight plan was not sent correctly and your status not recognised.. .Were you non state exempt the problem would still exist as it is not allowed for non RVSM tfc to climb or descend through the levels within the EUR RVSM area.. .Visit the Eurocontrol web site for more info.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lon More, thanks. Yes, our flight plans were filed correctly and acknowledged. ATC confirmed via radio transmissions with us that we are exempt. We replied with "negative RVSM state aircraft."
I have been communicating with the RVSM Cell at Eurocontrol regarding our exemption prior to 24 January.
i.e. all the t's crossed, all the i's dotted. It was only a problem with French ATC. It was very clear to LATCC that we are exempt. LATCC coordinated our request for FL410 with Paris, as did Rome on the way north. All agreed we were exempt, but "no joy."
I have been communicating with the RVSM Cell at Eurocontrol regarding our exemption prior to 24 January.
i.e. all the t's crossed, all the i's dotted. It was only a problem with French ATC. It was very clear to LATCC that we are exempt. LATCC coordinated our request for FL410 with Paris, as did Rome on the way north. All agreed we were exempt, but "no joy."
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: France
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Check 6,. .Yes it is early days with the State flights and as eyeinthesky said you do block the 2 opposite direction FLs which can greatly increase the controller's/planner's workload (especially between FL320-370) as they have to 'clear the way' so to speak through all the sectors/ACCs on your route.
However, you have the potential advantage of being able to use a high cruising FL where there isn't too much traffic, so dont give up, keep requesting higher!
I have seen many European ACCs and LATCC (as it was)has one of the best Civil/Military working relationships, unfortuneately French Civil ATC dont work/coordinate closely with their Military ATC, a sentiment that probably applies to having to work Non RVSM State A/C in RVSM airspace as well.
So, at the end of the day you've answered your own question "It was only a problem with French ATC !" .
However, you have the potential advantage of being able to use a high cruising FL where there isn't too much traffic, so dont give up, keep requesting higher!
I have seen many European ACCs and LATCC (as it was)has one of the best Civil/Military working relationships, unfortuneately French Civil ATC dont work/coordinate closely with their Military ATC, a sentiment that probably applies to having to work Non RVSM State A/C in RVSM airspace as well.
So, at the end of the day you've answered your own question "It was only a problem with French ATC !" .
Rainbow Chaser
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: At home, mostly!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVSM has its own Eurocontrol website AND there is a forum although having registered for it I found that there has been nothing posted since Nov last year! If anyone is interesting in making a pprune-raid on it the url is:
<a href="http://www.eur-rvsm.com/forum/" target="_blank">http://www.eur-rvsm.com/forum/</a>
<a href="http://www.eur-rvsm.com/forum/" target="_blank">http://www.eur-rvsm.com/forum/</a>
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Back in land of tiny cabbages
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check 6, why not make things a little easier for yourself and all the ATCO's and get RVSM equipped?
Why should state aircraft be the only ones who get exemption all the time? Commercial operators lose a lot of money if they are held down at non RVSM levels so they upgrade, why can't governments?
Also because the definition of state aircraft is so loose, this leads to many many "exceptional circumstances".
Why should state aircraft be the only ones who get exemption all the time? Commercial operators lose a lot of money if they are held down at non RVSM levels so they upgrade, why can't governments?
Also because the definition of state aircraft is so loose, this leads to many many "exceptional circumstances".
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF2 you are misinformed. For RVSM purposes only, the definition of "state aircraft" is MILITARY, POLICE, and CUSTOMS. This seems pretty definitive.
Secondly, you taxpayers would have to pay for RVSM compliance. For a C-21, that runs about $450,000 U.S. per airframe. You are very generous with your fellow taxpayers dosh methinks.
I hope this clarifies your concerns, sir.
Secondly, you taxpayers would have to pay for RVSM compliance. For a C-21, that runs about $450,000 U.S. per airframe. You are very generous with your fellow taxpayers dosh methinks.
I hope this clarifies your concerns, sir.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Itchy feet;
I expect that they had to make the exception for those few aircraft to get it passed. However, the idea of mixing RVSM and non-RVSM aircraft is one that is not east to deal with when you are busy. There is too much chance of messing up and not knowing that a particular aircraft if a non player when you are in the middle of a furrball...
regards
I expect that they had to make the exception for those few aircraft to get it passed. However, the idea of mixing RVSM and non-RVSM aircraft is one that is not east to deal with when you are busy. There is too much chance of messing up and not knowing that a particular aircraft if a non player when you are in the middle of a furrball...
regards
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott, I do not think you have an insight into the traffic picture in Europe, however correct me please if you have flown extensively here or have been an en route ATCO in Europe or the UK.
There are few aircraft operating FL390 and above. When we ask for FL410 and are refused, this is ATC not showing their best side. This non-cooperation so far has been limited to the French ATC, no big suprise here.
There were many reasons for the State Exemption. This includes aircraft not capable of RVSM, including but not limited to available space for the avionics, certification, prohibitive costs, and old technology airframes. However, I agree with your thought that a compromise was necessary, i.e. pragmatism was required.
I must emphasize that the Spanish, Italian, Greek, and Cypriot ATCO’s have allowed our fleet into RVSM airspace without exception.
How do you explain this??
All comments are appreciated.
There are few aircraft operating FL390 and above. When we ask for FL410 and are refused, this is ATC not showing their best side. This non-cooperation so far has been limited to the French ATC, no big suprise here.
There were many reasons for the State Exemption. This includes aircraft not capable of RVSM, including but not limited to available space for the avionics, certification, prohibitive costs, and old technology airframes. However, I agree with your thought that a compromise was necessary, i.e. pragmatism was required.
I must emphasize that the Spanish, Italian, Greek, and Cypriot ATCO’s have allowed our fleet into RVSM airspace without exception.
How do you explain this??
All comments are appreciated.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Six;
I've spent many an hour in European ATC facilities plugged in and learning their ways. I've also spent many hours in the cockpit, so I do have an idea of what goes on over there. The part about being level at 410 isn't the issue as much as getting them there through the other levels when you are busy. There are also the issues of the folks who can't quite make it to 410 but want to get to 370. That is becoming more and more frequented by everything from the heavy jets to the regional jets and the citations. The days of 370 and above being empty are becoming long gone...
regards
I've spent many an hour in European ATC facilities plugged in and learning their ways. I've also spent many hours in the cockpit, so I do have an idea of what goes on over there. The part about being level at 410 isn't the issue as much as getting them there through the other levels when you are busy. There are also the issues of the folks who can't quite make it to 410 but want to get to 370. That is becoming more and more frequented by everything from the heavy jets to the regional jets and the citations. The days of 370 and above being empty are becoming long gone...
regards
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worked a PC9 this morning non RVSM and non 8.33 who desperately wanted to get above 270 for fuel efficiency before more restrictive airspace en route. Even with the wide open spaces of the North Sea to vector, FL330 was a very difficult level to monitor and separate when needed. Every time I looked for another level there were conflicts. Ended up with 2 other levels being changed and 2 on headings.
Glad to help but boy is it hard work.
<img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Glad to help but boy is it hard work.
<img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">