Wikiposts
Search
ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

RVSM

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 2nd May 2001, 23:12
  #21 (permalink)  
chiglet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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?
 
Old 3rd May 2001, 00:17
  #22 (permalink)  
unwise
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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!
 
Old 5th May 2001, 23:27
  #23 (permalink)  
eyeinthesky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Angry

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"
 
Old 6th May 2001, 15:13
  #24 (permalink)  
unwise
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

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.
 
Old 7th May 2001, 14:27
  #25 (permalink)  
RogerOut
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

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).]
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.