RVSM
Guest
Posts: n/a
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"
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"
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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).]
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).]
