Flight Planning problems with charts RVSM or not?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Planning problems with charts RVSM or not?
The following question:
Route manual E(HI)4 CAA edition. An aircraft has to fly from Abbeville to Biggin. What is the first FL above FL295 that can be flown on an IFR flightplan?
Now the problem is that I have heard 2 different answers. (in the semi circular it is NW track)
Using the Jeppesen Manual, and the actual map itself, it should be FL310, because no RVSM is implied on the chart. However looking at Bristol QB, they have the answer FL300, where it says assume RVSM, unless otherwise specified.
I thought flight planning was to use the actual charts at hand, to make the correct decision, as all the charts are anyway outdated, and if one was to assume different other changes the whole object of the subject would be useless.
Anyone had any experience with this problem?
Route manual E(HI)4 CAA edition. An aircraft has to fly from Abbeville to Biggin. What is the first FL above FL295 that can be flown on an IFR flightplan?
Now the problem is that I have heard 2 different answers. (in the semi circular it is NW track)
Using the Jeppesen Manual, and the actual map itself, it should be FL310, because no RVSM is implied on the chart. However looking at Bristol QB, they have the answer FL300, where it says assume RVSM, unless otherwise specified.
I thought flight planning was to use the actual charts at hand, to make the correct decision, as all the charts are anyway outdated, and if one was to assume different other changes the whole object of the subject would be useless.
Anyone had any experience with this problem?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Scotland
Age: 37
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fp
Not got my jepp handy to look but check if theres an E> symbol denoted to that route and if so you must fly even flight level. As i said, not got jepp on me so cant see question, just a thought.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I know, there is no E > , in the Jeppesen it is 100% not marked for RVSM. However Bristol QB says it should be RVSM even if it is not on the map, map says it should be FL310 - normal vertical seperation.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, normal these days IS indeed RVSM above 295, isn't it? Edit: or above 285 was it? Anyway according to wikipedia all of Europe has had RVSM implemented since 2005 anyway. I don't know if current regs are a matter in the ATPLs but for all practical purposes, whatever the chart says or doesn't say, assume RVSM.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, assume RVSM unless otherwise instructed, however this kind of defeats the whole purpose of the Flight Planning exam, as the whole purpose is to use the charts available, and make the correct actions with information given.
Is this the CAA view, use RVSM unless otherwise instructed?
From other instructors I have also got mixed messages on this.
Is this the CAA view, use RVSM unless otherwise instructed?
From other instructors I have also got mixed messages on this.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In The Overhead
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TMJ,
Sorry, I didn't mean to appear condescending.
Having just passed the FP exam (95%) with Bristol Groundschool we were advised to assume RVSM unless the exam question specified otherwise.
Hope that helps.
Sorry, I didn't mean to appear condescending.
Having just passed the FP exam (95%) with Bristol Groundschool we were advised to assume RVSM unless the exam question specified otherwise.
Hope that helps.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Spain
Age: 35
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought it would be a good idea to duly point out that perhaps in the UK exams the correct answers are assuming RVSM but when I sat my exams here in Spain, around June '09, the correct answers were assuming non-RVSM airspace.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Mighty 8th land
Age: 75
Posts: 37
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight levels & RVSM
Are you flying from the airfield of Abbeville, or the "Beacon"? Are you flying out of the Paris TMA?? Are you flying from further afield??? All these have a bearing on the level you can plan. For instance, the French and UK AIP's stipulate that F260 is the max level out of the Paris TMA. For flights originating from further south, then the level would be F300
MACR
MACR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this is not REAL LIFE, CAA ATPL exams only, and they seem to assume their own rules when ever that makes them happy, and they like they to change them too, without informing anyone, including the schools teaching ATPL. Always RVSM in the ATPL FP exam, unless otherwise specified in the question.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brussels
Age: 43
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider or not consider European airspace as RVSM
Good afternoon everyone,
From what I have seen on the outdated map E(Hi)4 in the student pilot route manual that I just bought, you may read on the cover that the map is
EFECTIVE 3 May 90
On that date I believe The RVSM airspace didn't exist in Europe.
Furthermore, a bit further on the same cover, you can see a list of the allowed Flight Level. And it says clearly that FL 300 is not allowed and that you have to fly FL310.
I must admit that it took me more than 1h to find that explanation.
Have all a good day.
Emmanuel Cordier.
From what I have seen on the outdated map E(Hi)4 in the student pilot route manual that I just bought, you may read on the cover that the map is
EFECTIVE 3 May 90
On that date I believe The RVSM airspace didn't exist in Europe.
Furthermore, a bit further on the same cover, you can see a list of the allowed Flight Level. And it says clearly that FL 300 is not allowed and that you have to fly FL310.
I must admit that it took me more than 1h to find that explanation.
Have all a good day.
Emmanuel Cordier.
