An RVSM Question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An RVSM Question
Hi Guys,
The scenario I am about to suggest is unlikely I know but I have to set parameters for a new ATC System we have been developing.
I have an aircraft at FL285 Negative RVSM (I know unlikely in Europe etc. but not impossible out here with all our military due regard flights that regularly go at VFR levels even though we have to provide an IFR separation service), I have another RVSM approved at FL295, do I have separation, or should the system create an STCA (Short Term Conflict Alert). If an aircraft is Negative RVSM at FL295 (Neg RVSM Military aircraft are allowed in RVSM airspace here in the Middle East) and an RVSM approved aircraft at FL285 do you have separation. If not, why is it different from FL290 Neg RVSM versus FL280 below?
I hope the question makes sense and if I am asking a stupid question then give me some stupid answers I guess. As I said I know in the ICAO level table FL295 is not a valid level but I am needing to set rules for a computer system and computers don't take kindly to "don't worry about this scenario as ICAO says it isn't allowed".
Thanks.
The scenario I am about to suggest is unlikely I know but I have to set parameters for a new ATC System we have been developing.
I have an aircraft at FL285 Negative RVSM (I know unlikely in Europe etc. but not impossible out here with all our military due regard flights that regularly go at VFR levels even though we have to provide an IFR separation service), I have another RVSM approved at FL295, do I have separation, or should the system create an STCA (Short Term Conflict Alert). If an aircraft is Negative RVSM at FL295 (Neg RVSM Military aircraft are allowed in RVSM airspace here in the Middle East) and an RVSM approved aircraft at FL285 do you have separation. If not, why is it different from FL290 Neg RVSM versus FL280 below?
I hope the question makes sense and if I am asking a stupid question then give me some stupid answers I guess. As I said I know in the ICAO level table FL295 is not a valid level but I am needing to set rules for a computer system and computers don't take kindly to "don't worry about this scenario as ICAO says it isn't allowed".
Thanks.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say FL285 NEG RVSM and FL295 RVSM Approved is not a STD, because the RVSM band applies for 1000 foot protection from FL290, not from FL295, FL285 + 1000 isn't ok unless RVSM approved, unlike FL280 + 1000.
It's about the 'tollerence' applied to the non-RVSMer in this case, it's not about the one approved as such. Ask yourself what sep would you need if the Non-RVSMer was at FL290, or FL300 what minimum would you apply above or below? So I'd be applying those "standards" to any level above FL280.
It's about the 'tollerence' applied to the non-RVSMer in this case, it's not about the one approved as such. Ask yourself what sep would you need if the Non-RVSMer was at FL290, or FL300 what minimum would you apply above or below? So I'd be applying those "standards" to any level above FL280.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Overhead
Age: 54
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting ???
It is a peculiar situtaion, In my opinion the aircrfat should not be given VFR level within RVSM band, if it is provided than above F290 it should be provided either 2000 feet vertical separation or prescribed radar/non radar Lateral Separation Minima. Regarding STCA, it is function of the Radar system and input provided by the ANSP. If the software is designed to keep 2000 feet separation btn Non RVSM above F290 thewn STCA will be generated, if software is designed for RVSM band staring at Fl300 it wont be generated ( I dont think this would be the case)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UAE
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as opposed to an unprofessional ATC Consultant??ANSA
Since the concept of RVSM relies on the accuracy of equipment then the safe and perhaps 'logical' suggestion would be to apply 2000' for any flights above FL280 (for non-RVSM). FL290 is the first available FL in RVSM but FL280 is the last available non-RVSM level and therefore anything above must comply to RVSM standard?
See, it is for free!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would they want to fly at FL285 anyway, is that because they are just being anally retentive or what? The point here is that civil traffic does not use 500ft flight levels unless of course it is emergency separation or they are in the lower airspace i.e.the quadrantal rule so what is the problem with the military? 
