RVSM in London Airspace
Guest
Posts: n/a
RVSM in London Airspace
A polite request.
As I sure most European pilots are aware, we have brought in RVSM in London airspace. If you are entering our airspace above FL280 and are not RVSM compliant it would help us a great deal if you tell us on initial contact. This means we can provide the appropriate separation of 2000ft above FL290. This would negate lots of form filling by both us and you.
As I sure most European pilots are aware, we have brought in RVSM in London airspace. If you are entering our airspace above FL280 and are not RVSM compliant it would help us a great deal if you tell us on initial contact. This means we can provide the appropriate separation of 2000ft above FL290. This would negate lots of form filling by both us and you.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As the pilot - you should know whether you are RVSM approved/equipped/able. If you don't know what chance have we got?
When we get strips produced on your flight there are attention getters printed to highlight those which we are unsure of or have been told by the operators that they are not RVSM compliant. If you were given FL320, no questions asked, your operator must have confirmed that you are RSVM compliant.
If you have any doubts, tell us and normal separation can be applied - it's your lives and our licences!
When we get strips produced on your flight there are attention getters printed to highlight those which we are unsure of or have been told by the operators that they are not RVSM compliant. If you were given FL320, no questions asked, your operator must have confirmed that you are RSVM compliant.
If you have any doubts, tell us and normal separation can be applied - it's your lives and our licences!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to be clear: Your level does not dictate whether we are using RVSM or not. What does matter is the difference between your level and everybody else's. If you are at FL320 then all that means is you are probably westbound (since 310,350,390 are now eastbound levels). If you are not RVSM equipped then you will be separated by at least 2000 ft from everybody else. Count yourself lucky to be there as you are effectively blocking 3 RVSM levels (310,320,330). Come 24th Jan 2002 and you will be excluded from the airspace!
Also, please try and persuade your ops depts to file correct direction levels (ie FL 300, 320, 340, 360, 380 Westbound). It saves a lot of R/T time finding out whether the W/B a/c filed at 350 actually wants 360 or 340.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Also, please try and persuade your ops depts to file correct direction levels (ie FL 300, 320, 340, 360, 380 Westbound). It saves a lot of R/T time finding out whether the W/B a/c filed at 350 actually wants 360 or 340.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Goldfish Watcher-
I think SkyClear's question was valid-
I did the same route at FL320 and declared 'NEGATIVE RVSM' which was acknowledged by the controller. I just assumed we would have 2000ft seperation
I wouldn't like to guess how many times I've been cleared to an opposite direction level, But when it happens I don't question the controller, I let him get on with his/her job.
The way I see it, YOU should know from our flight plans whether we are RVSM or not
If YOU don't know, what chance have we got?
I think SkyClear's question was valid-
I did the same route at FL320 and declared 'NEGATIVE RVSM' which was acknowledged by the controller. I just assumed we would have 2000ft seperation
I wouldn't like to guess how many times I've been cleared to an opposite direction level, But when it happens I don't question the controller, I let him get on with his/her job.
The way I see it, YOU should know from our flight plans whether we are RVSM or not
If YOU don't know, what chance have we got?
Guest
Posts: n/a
If we have any doubts, the individually filed plans are input with RVU = status unknown, so that's when we ask the question and we would expect an instant reply just like asking your minima etc, the pilot should know his status regarding RVSM.
The stored flight plans generally seem to be OK, however......
One point I would like to add is that if there is a late aircraft type change there can be the situation where the type is changed OK but the RVSM status remains the same as on the original plan regardless of the replacement type's status, everyone beware....
Regards to all,
------------------
FATCO
[This message has been edited by The Fat Controller (edited 24 April 2001).]
[This message has been edited by The Fat Controller (edited 24 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
affangu
I think we are on abou the same thing. I might have confused the situation by assuming that FL320 was allocated as an RVSM level. I don't reall think however that FL320 would be allocated as a cruise level to non RVSM aircraft. Just causes too much hassle.
You are right - if we don't know then no one has a chance. So you must tell us if you are not. We don't seem to have completely up to date information.
Whether that is a fault on our part or just plain laziness on the part of some operators I don't know. However, whatever failings our systems have, we can still share the information on the RT.
My point still stands - if pilots don't know the RVSM status of the aircraft they are flying, they should still be on the ground doing some reading!!
GW
I think we are on abou the same thing. I might have confused the situation by assuming that FL320 was allocated as an RVSM level. I don't reall think however that FL320 would be allocated as a cruise level to non RVSM aircraft. Just causes too much hassle.
You are right - if we don't know then no one has a chance. So you must tell us if you are not. We don't seem to have completely up to date information.
Whether that is a fault on our part or just plain laziness on the part of some operators I don't know. However, whatever failings our systems have, we can still share the information on the RT.
My point still stands - if pilots don't know the RVSM status of the aircraft they are flying, they should still be on the ground doing some reading!!
GW
Guest
Posts: n/a
I couldn't agree more with the last sentence skywatcher. I asked last week on this page what briefings had been given to aircrews and was given , I think , a single reply referring to ROC/ROD.
The crews MUST be aware of the status of their aircraft BEFORE they attempt to get airborne or somebody ,probably sitting at LATCC, is going to get one almighty shock.
I for one would like to hear the crews who aren't equipped ask for below FL280 to cruise as a matter of course.
The crews MUST be aware of the status of their aircraft BEFORE they attempt to get airborne or somebody ,probably sitting at LATCC, is going to get one almighty shock.
I for one would like to hear the crews who aren't equipped ask for below FL280 to cruise as a matter of course.
Guest
Posts: n/a
-Ops must file a flightplan indicating if the a/c is RVSM compliant.
-The a/c commander MUST know his RVSM status and advise ATC"Negative RVSM" well before entering RVSM airspace.
On my a/c type RVSM is indicated by yellow dashed rectangles around the static plates.No significant damage inside this area is acceptable for RVSM ops.Apart from that if there is nothing in the tech log we are compliant.
-The a/c commander MUST know his RVSM status and advise ATC"Negative RVSM" well before entering RVSM airspace.
On my a/c type RVSM is indicated by yellow dashed rectangles around the static plates.No significant damage inside this area is acceptable for RVSM ops.Apart from that if there is nothing in the tech log we are compliant.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The question was not really concerned with whether we were RVSM approved/equipped/able. We were on that day.
The point being, should we have been asked our RVSM status? Or everytime we are cleared to a none standard level or any other cruise level, for that matter, should we be announcing 'affirm RVSM'. I understood it from the 'Phraseology' section of the syllabus that that was the response to the question 'confirm RVSM approved'.
The point being, should we have been asked our RVSM status? Or everytime we are cleared to a none standard level or any other cruise level, for that matter, should we be announcing 'affirm RVSM'. I understood it from the 'Phraseology' section of the syllabus that that was the response to the question 'confirm RVSM approved'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As I said earlier, the level you were given was probably not governed by whether you were RVSM approved or not. That is up to the controller. If he/she wanted to put you at 320 westbound and provide 2000 ft separation then that is his choice. We are not legally allowed to exclude traffic from RVSM airspace because it is not equipped until 24/1/02. We can however limit it due to traffic...
To answer your question precisely: It is up to YOU to tell us if you are NOT RVSM equipped and you are requesting a level above 280 for cruise. We will probably have the strips to confirm that, but there is always the possibility that the flight plan info is wrong. There should be no need to confirm you are RVSM approved unless requested.
OK?
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
[This message has been edited by eyeinthesky (edited 27 April 2001).]
To answer your question precisely: It is up to YOU to tell us if you are NOT RVSM equipped and you are requesting a level above 280 for cruise. We will probably have the strips to confirm that, but there is always the possibility that the flight plan info is wrong. There should be no need to confirm you are RVSM approved unless requested.
OK?
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
[This message has been edited by eyeinthesky (edited 27 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
One Four Sick:- At least the 146's can't get up to RVSM airspace - well done BAe - so there has to be some good in it. Now if we could only get the cockroaches off the approaches with their 95 kt speeds we might be able to use the other airspace a bit better.
Guest
Posts: n/a
RVSM is a great idea, i`ve found that complying with the rod/roc requirements(max1500ftpm)climbing thro FL250 and the same until descent below FL280 a real pain, and in practice you have to start your descent earlier, and you get to your cruise later, so you use more fuel!! and it doesn`t leave an awfull long time for lunch!!!
Edited for typo
---ditto------
[This message has been edited by INKJET (edited 27 April 2001).]
[This message has been edited by INKJET (edited 27 April 2001).]
Edited for typo
---ditto------
[This message has been edited by INKJET (edited 27 April 2001).]
[This message has been edited by INKJET (edited 27 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
crossfeedclosed,
I agree with you. I think the 146 is the worst thing BAe have ever made, in order to sabotage proper aviation. The other day I was asked to fly at 270kts all the way into BHX, following a Crossair 146 who could JUST give us 295kts at a push in the descent.
In my opinion there should be a slow and a fast lane created, in order that we could all fly at the speeds that we're meant to.
Just think, I was (737) 60kts slower than I would have been otherwise on an already late schedule.
I agree with you. I think the 146 is the worst thing BAe have ever made, in order to sabotage proper aviation. The other day I was asked to fly at 270kts all the way into BHX, following a Crossair 146 who could JUST give us 295kts at a push in the descent.
In my opinion there should be a slow and a fast lane created, in order that we could all fly at the speeds that we're meant to.
Just think, I was (737) 60kts slower than I would have been otherwise on an already late schedule.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Surely the changes in levels to odds/evens between 290 and 390 applies to everybody, RVSM compliant or not. You can't have NONRVSM going west at 350 and RVSM coming the other way at the same level. So you will be at 320 going west whether you're compliant or not.
The point is that if both aircraft are RVSM compliant they can be 1000 ft apart. If either or both are non-compliant/exempt/unknown then they must be kept 2000 ft apart.
RVSM status must be included in the flt plan.
You're fortunate if you fly an aircraft which can cruise above RVSM at max weight.
There's good info at:
www.eur-rvsm.com and
www.nats.co.uk/operational/rvsm.html
The point is that if both aircraft are RVSM compliant they can be 1000 ft apart. If either or both are non-compliant/exempt/unknown then they must be kept 2000 ft apart.
RVSM status must be included in the flt plan.
You're fortunate if you fly an aircraft which can cruise above RVSM at max weight.
There's good info at:
www.eur-rvsm.com and
www.nats.co.uk/operational/rvsm.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
INKJET - u don't need max 1500 fpm throughout rvsm climb/descents.... Only in the last 2000ft before level off (if leveling off in RVSM). And then really only if there is proximate TCAS traffic to you that will be 1000 vertically from your level.
[This message has been edited by dayoff (edited 28 April 2001).]
[This message has been edited by dayoff (edited 28 April 2001).]