RVSM
Guest
Posts: n/a
RVSM
Hi folks. Just wondering what your views are on RVSM and how it's all going now that it's in. Some of us are off and have not worked the new system as of yet. It would appear everything went smoothly, no safety implications and everyone is content. SURELY NOT
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, more or less.............. and why not ???
------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]
Pegase Driver
Findo quote : ..." the rest of Europe should ......get their act together.." Hummmm. Is isn't it the UK (and Ireland)going solo on this , while the rest of Europe had agreed on a common application date of 22 Jan 2002 ?
Incidentally does anyone knows what is today the current percentage of a/c using LATCC airpace above FL280 which are not RVSM compliant or RVSM certified ?
Incidentally does anyone knows what is today the current percentage of a/c using LATCC airpace above FL280 which are not RVSM compliant or RVSM certified ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, wish the continentals would follow soon, it is a bit crowded around BLUFA/BEENO with all kinds of traffic climbing and descending into and out RVSM airspace.
Funny thing is that we have been told that although Germany, Austria and Slovenia (?) are not fully implemented yet, the controllers have the authority to clear to an RVSM level, but we as pilots may NOT request them....
This sort of makes Maastricht a very busy area...
Funny thing is that we have been told that although Germany, Austria and Slovenia (?) are not fully implemented yet, the controllers have the authority to clear to an RVSM level, but we as pilots may NOT request them....
This sort of makes Maastricht a very busy area...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I´m working in the Munich ACC and UAC, and actually we may use RVSM since the 19th of April. However, we may only use it for separation purpose, not as cruising levels for the pilots. And its quite complicatet, because we have to ask each pilot, if he is RVSM equipped and so on.
Austria is also working with RVSM under the same conditions.
Austria is also working with RVSM under the same conditions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The main problem with RVSM is the lack of practice we've all had at getting used to it. A fundamental change in ATC, and we get an hour in the sim, and a brief chat before our first time on duty. Absolutely farcical. And as for the reduced traffic flows to help us.. well I wasnt aware of any as I was going under on STU.. This takes a lot of getting used to. Sure, it will be good when we are all confident with it, but in the meantime, let's all be careful out there.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Is anybody else as astounded as I am at the percentage of traffic which is still non-approved and passing through our airspace? We were assured it would be LESS THAN 5pct AT STARTUP and 10 days on it is sometimes as high as 30pct. What is being done to monitor/improve it?? Nothing, I suspect, as usual, in the hope that we will just learn to live with it.
In addition, was there any simulation done or assessment made of the R/T loading which now occurs since EVERY aircraft which enters UK airspace on NSEA from MAAS westbound needs a level change to comply with RVSM. While we might choose to leave them at 350/310 when it is quiet, when it is busy the easiest way is to change to RVSM levels, and this is of course when R/T loading is the highest. What is it ging to be like when the TSFs are back to 100 pct?
It seems to me this is yet another case of a capacity-increasing measure being implemented on various promises which have not been fulfilled. The exclusion of non-approved traffic goes on of course, but we are not allowed to tell the aircraft that, so the message never gets through.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
In addition, was there any simulation done or assessment made of the R/T loading which now occurs since EVERY aircraft which enters UK airspace on NSEA from MAAS westbound needs a level change to comply with RVSM. While we might choose to leave them at 350/310 when it is quiet, when it is busy the easiest way is to change to RVSM levels, and this is of course when R/T loading is the highest. What is it ging to be like when the TSFs are back to 100 pct?
It seems to me this is yet another case of a capacity-increasing measure being implemented on various promises which have not been fulfilled. The exclusion of non-approved traffic goes on of course, but we are not allowed to tell the aircraft that, so the message never gets through.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Guest
Posts: n/a
The first step would have been to introduce RVSM with the rest of Europe. And in the meantime EYEINTHESKY, if it all goes pear shaped on your sector guess who the fall guy's going to be? I'm really surprised that you guys accepted RVSM under the present conditions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
RVSM provides additional airspace - if one a/c isn't suitably equipped, then you use 2,000 ft vertical sep'n, just like you did two weeks ago! What's hard about that? I understand the complications with Europe not using the same system and therefore levels need adjusting/altering etc, I've been doing that for the past couple of years feeding traffic to other ScACC & London sectors. Trust me after this summer you'll wonder how you managed without it! Honest 
------------------
RogerOut
I Keep Mine Hidden
------------------
RogerOut
I Keep Mine Hidden
Guest
Posts: n/a
If, as "eyeinthe sky" states, 30% is not equipped and as someone else stated, some are deliberately flaunting the regs., then I'm glad we in Europe are waiting until the agreed date.
BTW the North Sea problem will be solved when (if) NERC comes on line.
Due to insoluble software problems, draconian (Oops , what a give away Sandy)FLRs will be introduced. Maastricht gets FL280 and 320 whilst Copenhagen has 300 and 340. Hope you guys are training to accept formation flights
------------------
Lon More,just an ATCO
BTW the North Sea problem will be solved when (if) NERC comes on line.
Due to insoluble software problems, draconian (Oops , what a give away Sandy)FLRs will be introduced. Maastricht gets FL280 and 320 whilst Copenhagen has 300 and 340. Hope you guys are training to accept formation flights
------------------
Lon More,just an ATCO
Guest
Posts: n/a
It occurs to me that the 95 pct we were all assured did not include biz jets as many of these seem to be non-compliant. But we were assured it would all be OK. That's why we accepted it.
What is also worrying is that some pilots and more than a few Ops depts do not understand the basics of RVSM. Examples are to be found in the R&N forum where it seems some pilots think being cleared to 320 means you have to be RVSM equipped!
More worrying is the filing of flights as compliant when they are not, due to crew training or whatever. Just today I noticed a flight from BB which was filed with a 'W' (i.e. compliant) but which had a Remark on the strip: TCAS U/S. I thought you had to have TCAS 6.04 or 7 to be approved. Or am I wrong? As it was we did not need to use RVSM separation for him, but did the Ops dept know that?
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. I'm sure that if the system is properly managed it is very easy. My point is that this is not being properly managed. It's been brought in as yet another NERC-enabling quick fix on the back of empty assurances.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
What is also worrying is that some pilots and more than a few Ops depts do not understand the basics of RVSM. Examples are to be found in the R&N forum where it seems some pilots think being cleared to 320 means you have to be RVSM equipped!
More worrying is the filing of flights as compliant when they are not, due to crew training or whatever. Just today I noticed a flight from BB which was filed with a 'W' (i.e. compliant) but which had a Remark on the strip: TCAS U/S. I thought you had to have TCAS 6.04 or 7 to be approved. Or am I wrong? As it was we did not need to use RVSM separation for him, but did the Ops dept know that?
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. I'm sure that if the system is properly managed it is very easy. My point is that this is not being properly managed. It's been brought in as yet another NERC-enabling quick fix on the back of empty assurances.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"