Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

RVSM in London Airspace

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

RVSM in London Airspace

Old 29th Apr 2001, 11:31
  #21 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a


Not really relevant to this thread, but you display a surprising lack of awareness of the wider situation. I imagine you were routing through LAM from COA/REFSO direction on the occasion you mention. Depending on your relative positions it is likely that you were given speed contol because even if you had flown at he 330 kts you say you wanted you would not have got far enough past the 146 in time to present to the next sector. We are funnelling traffic into a narrowing corridor which makes a 40 degree right turn, so the presentation of traffic is not easy. Your suggestion of a fast and a slow lane is unworkable since there is not enough airspace.

Having said that, it does seem that the speed restriction of 270 kts behind 295 was a little restrictive (why not 290 kts also?), and I certainly try and get faster traffic past if I can. Sometimes it's just not possible. Bit like the M25 at times...

Back to the original topic: RVSM is actually VERY simple:
If you are equipped you can fly above 280 with only 1000 ft separation from other traffic. If you are NOT equipped you might also be given a level above 280 but you will be provided with 2000 ft separation from other traffic. The use of 340/350/360 in whichever direction you are flying is ultimately the choice of the controller, but GENERALLY 300,320,340,360 etc are the new Westbound levels.

As from 24/1/02 you will be EXCLUDED from RVSM airspace if you do not have RVSM approval.


"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Old 29th Apr 2001, 11:54
  #22 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

One For Sick--
Being stuck behind a slower aircraft is a real pain. In the TriStar I find that following a ScareBus is bad news, we can cruise at .86 and the French wonder can only do .81, if that.
Old 29th Apr 2001, 13:09
  #23 (permalink)  
one four sick
Posts: n/a

eyeinthesky - It's more like wishful thinking than lack of awareness, we were coming in from BIG - Grove 1C direction. The speed restriction was actually removed by BHX as soon as we changed freq. to them and we nearly caught up with the offender!!!!!

411A - I do sympathise mate, I too get stuck behind minibuses and the rest. I just don't understand why some jets are being flown like Ford Fiestas.
Old 29th Apr 2001, 13:31
  #24 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

One of the problems of ATC can be a lack of consistency, in that one person's plan is not the same as the next, and our aim of a seamless exchange sometimes falls over. This seems to be one of those cases. You might say of course that the earlier speed control was so effective that BHX approach were then able to allow you free speed as the distance between you and the flying brick was enough.

The question of Mach restrictions in the cruise is one of those which RVSM might help to resolve, as there are twice as many levels available.

Again, it depends on the controller. I will usually offer you a choice between speed control and a lower level, and most of us don't try to speed 747s behind 737s etc. I consider 747s to be impossible to speed behind anything other than another 747, A340s are OK in front of 767s or other Airbuses, A320s etc are OK with 757s but not 737s, and 737s and CRJs/EMBs are OK once the RJs get levelled off and build speed.

Then of course you have the rpoblem you have mentioned of different operators of the same type having a differen speed schedule.

Never simple, is it??

"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Old 29th Apr 2001, 19:14
  #25 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

14sick, to reply to a much earlier question, we cannot 'exclude' non-RVSM traffic, however we can refuse clearence into RVSM airspace due to traffic loads, a safety issue really.

As for the speed control, the guy funnelling you into Hemel from BIG is also putting in traffic feeding from MID and CLN, so it wasnt definately your CRX 146, and could have been slotted in between you. Your lucky that you were only speeded, I'm sorry to the Mearskair I had to give an orbit to around Tiger for the same reason!!!!
Old 29th Apr 2001, 19:35
  #26 (permalink)  
Background Noise
Posts: n/a
Red face

Re exclusion from RVSM airspace,

State aircraft (eg military) will be exempt and will be permitted to operate in RVSM airspace but only with 2000' separation.
Old 29th Apr 2001, 21:42
  #27 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

BN I think its not just them, you'll find its any a/c that can be afforded CAT A-E priority.
Old 30th Apr 2001, 13:55
  #28 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Bashaholic
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


From January next year, the following applies in European RVSM airspace, regardless of the flight category. It comes direct from Eurocontrol. So Background Noise is correct.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">As a civil aircraft operator, operating in EUR RVSM airspace, it is not possible to obtain an exemption from the RVSM approval requirement. Non-approved flights intending to cross the EUR RVSM area will be required to flight plan below (or above) RVSM airspace. Climbing and descending through EUR RVSM airspace without being RVSM approved is also not possible, although for aircraft requiring to climb or descend to/from above NAT MNPS/RVSM airspace there will be special procedures in place. </font>
10 West
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by 10W (edited 30 April 2001).]
10W is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2001, 16:37
  #29 (permalink)  
250 kts
Posts: n/a

zonoma, are you really serious that you orbited a EGBB inbound at TIGER??? . I know it's preferable to stream if you can, but spinning one that far back is just ridiculous. That's just the reason BB has a holding fix to the south. What will you do during the summer - get Rheims/Paris to hold em for you ?
Old 30th Apr 2001, 17:56
  #30 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

An ops point of view here (cannot speak for all ops controllers/dispatchers, but I guess 90% do the same

RVSM compliant aa/cc shows letter "W" in ATC fpl (section 10), this should help ATC'ers.

I've read here about ops that should plan the right level. What ops normally do is to let their flight planning system choosing the best level, then we care about SRS's, CDR's, CRAM's, AIM's etc...In poor words, we file an ATC fpl prying to get an "ack" from Eurocontrol at the first attempt.
In addition, when RPL's (repetitive flight plans) apply, they are checked by Eurocontrol the first time, then generated automatically by the system...we suppose they are filed according to all existing regulations.
Anyway my experience is that what ops file, Eurocontrol receipt and ATC applies are three different worlds...Then there's a fourth world: pilots, but this is another story

Now my question is: when RVSM will be fully implemented in the whole europe, they should indicate some sort of gates from where you are not RVSM anymore: i.g. the routes to/from Brazil, at a certain point the levels used in the SAM area are exactly the opposite to european (and general) semi-circular levels.


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

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.