Reduced Vertical Separation for America
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 10,225
Likes: 36
From: In the sticks
Reduced Vertical Separation for America
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...t_050121003248
The Federal Aviation Administration is doubling the airspace routes between 29,000 feet (8,839 meters) and 41,000 feet (12,496 meters) by spacing aircraft a thousand feet (304 meters) apart instead of 2,000," the regulator said.
It said the reform gives air traffic controllers more choices so that aircraft can fly more direct routes at the most fuel-efficient altitudes.
The agency said the procedure -- known formally as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum -- will work safely because most jets are now equipped with more advanced flight systems.
The horizontal separation of aircraft at high altitudes remains at five miles (eight kilometers).
The Federal Aviation Administration is doubling the airspace routes between 29,000 feet (8,839 meters) and 41,000 feet (12,496 meters) by spacing aircraft a thousand feet (304 meters) apart instead of 2,000," the regulator said.
It said the reform gives air traffic controllers more choices so that aircraft can fly more direct routes at the most fuel-efficient altitudes.
The agency said the procedure -- known formally as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum -- will work safely because most jets are now equipped with more advanced flight systems.
The horizontal separation of aircraft at high altitudes remains at five miles (eight kilometers).
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA USA
I'm glad someone posted this subject - I was on a UA flight last week and while listening to their Channel 9 on the IFE (for those that are not familiar, UA offers Channel 9 as an option to listen to ATC at the discretion of the Captain).
While passing through SLC control, I heard an exchange between a flight crew (while being delayed clearance to a higher FL due to traffic) and ATC briefly discussing the subject. At one point, the FC made the statement, "We'll be seeing a lot more passenger injuries."
I know that the US is a bit late in the game to take on RVSM domestically, but I was intrigued by the comment and wondered if there is any validity to the statement.
I'm not taking any stance on the subject, nor am I particularly concerned as I always keep belted in when seated, I just found it a curious statement. With crews believing that there may be an increased danger, would that not cause even more issues with aircraft not feeling comfortable in complying with RVSM procedures and deciding to follow routings that would avoid the reduced minimums?
Just clearing a nagging thought way in the back of my head since I heard that...
Thank you.
While passing through SLC control, I heard an exchange between a flight crew (while being delayed clearance to a higher FL due to traffic) and ATC briefly discussing the subject. At one point, the FC made the statement, "We'll be seeing a lot more passenger injuries."
I know that the US is a bit late in the game to take on RVSM domestically, but I was intrigued by the comment and wondered if there is any validity to the statement.
I'm not taking any stance on the subject, nor am I particularly concerned as I always keep belted in when seated, I just found it a curious statement. With crews believing that there may be an increased danger, would that not cause even more issues with aircraft not feeling comfortable in complying with RVSM procedures and deciding to follow routings that would avoid the reduced minimums?
Just clearing a nagging thought way in the back of my head since I heard that...
Thank you.
Last edited by whauet; 21st January 2005 at 06:25.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
From: England.
I always keep belted in when seated
Unless, that is, you've been vapourised in the impact.
.....will work safely because most jets are now equipped with more advanced flight systems.
In addition, RVSM flight is, in theory and in law, not permitted if pre flight instrument checks are beyond prescribed tolerances.
This assumes that the Captain is willing to resist commercial pressures...........
aircraft not feeling comfortable in complying with RVSM procedures and deciding to follow routings that would avoid the reduced minimums?
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA USA
acbus1,
Okay, so while I'm strapped to my seat to my impending doom (as opposed to those who unbuckle the moment the wheels leave the ground and find themselves having an intimate encounter with the cabin ceiling), I assume you are referring to the DHL/BAC collision and have validated part of the intent of my original question...
While that is a tragic incident, is that due to RVSM procedures? If we count the number of midair collisions that have taken place within Class B, C and D airspace (and on the ground nontheless) versus the airspace that would fall under RVSM rules, that tips the scales in a far different direction.
Individual accidents are always a slap in the face, but is there an inherent flaw in the theory? My main question is whether the belief that RVSM is a "bad" thing will lead to crews who decide not to fly a route under the rules (if it is an option to decline) will result in a greater problem.
Okay, so while I'm strapped to my seat to my impending doom (as opposed to those who unbuckle the moment the wheels leave the ground and find themselves having an intimate encounter with the cabin ceiling), I assume you are referring to the DHL/BAC collision and have validated part of the intent of my original question...
While that is a tragic incident, is that due to RVSM procedures? If we count the number of midair collisions that have taken place within Class B, C and D airspace (and on the ground nontheless) versus the airspace that would fall under RVSM rules, that tips the scales in a far different direction.
Individual accidents are always a slap in the face, but is there an inherent flaw in the theory? My main question is whether the belief that RVSM is a "bad" thing will lead to crews who decide not to fly a route under the rules (if it is an option to decline) will result in a greater problem.
Only half a speed-brake
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 136
From: Commuting not home
I think the perceived danger was rather of wake turbulence from traffic at adjecent higher level. European experience shows this is not an issue.
For starters, I suggest this lovely RVSM Eurocontrol page. It gives some guidance to the busy pilot and some easy reading for all the techy types as well.
Cheers,
FD.
For starters, I suggest this lovely RVSM Eurocontrol page. It gives some guidance to the busy pilot and some easy reading for all the techy types as well.
Cheers,
FD.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 21st January 2005 at 08:24.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: Milano
Well, I can't actually see the point here. It rather sounds very bad to me, to make such a comment on an ATC -RECORDED!- freq. 
This makes me argue a not-so-clever pilot was holding the mike.
I wouldn't say air over Europe and the Atlantic is far different from the air over the States. So, the key is implementing RVSM with the right procedures and smoothness. As far as I can see or read, RVSM just works here
Making that statement without being informed about the issue, or worse, without even knowing this is ACTUALLY working in Europe, sounds pretty much like old men complaining about the world and recalling their good old times.
Cheers
This makes me argue a not-so-clever pilot was holding the mike.I wouldn't say air over Europe and the Atlantic is far different from the air over the States. So, the key is implementing RVSM with the right procedures and smoothness. As far as I can see or read, RVSM just works here
Making that statement without being informed about the issue, or worse, without even knowing this is ACTUALLY working in Europe, sounds pretty much like old men complaining about the world and recalling their good old times.
Cheers
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
I suspect the statement,
"We'll be seeing a lot more passenger injuries"
was made in reference to the possibility of increased wake turbulence encounters due to the reduced vertical separation, which may or may not be a valid concern. That aside I can tell you that most folks in the States don't consider the introduction of RVSM as a big deal, most operators that cross the Atlantic or Pacific have been working with it just fine for years. The only ones complaining would be the operators of older jets who had to shell out upwards of $200,000 per AC to get them in compliance, and even they should get a return on their investment with the fuel savings.
"We'll be seeing a lot more passenger injuries"
was made in reference to the possibility of increased wake turbulence encounters due to the reduced vertical separation, which may or may not be a valid concern. That aside I can tell you that most folks in the States don't consider the introduction of RVSM as a big deal, most operators that cross the Atlantic or Pacific have been working with it just fine for years. The only ones complaining would be the operators of older jets who had to shell out upwards of $200,000 per AC to get them in compliance, and even they should get a return on their investment with the fuel savings.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 34
From: London,England
The only problem I have had with RVSM is wake turbulence from crossing traffic. If you have someone cross your track about 20 miles ahead at 1000ft above you the wake seems to drift down just in time for you to meet it a few minutes later. Had it twice now.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 3
From: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
In my humble opinion RVSM operations in the United States is a complete waste of money, time and materials.
There are traffic delays for operations at DFW on clear weather days, there are delays for ORD during marginal VFR days. On any given day in the United States there ground holds for many major airports.
The problem we in the US is not airspace, we have plenty of that. We don’t have enough runways.
Now can anyone explain to me how, by putting more aircraft in the sky between, say LAX and PHX that because of RVSM that will alleviate the S turns, 90 degree turns off course and just plain holding that existed before RVSM because of airport saturation?
Bottom line is that in the US ATC delays are because of airport saturation, not airspace saturation. You only fit so many airplanes on a runway and by have more airplanes in the sky wanting to use that same runway is not going to help.
Yes my airplanes are RVSM certified, and it wasn’t cheap. But we were RVSM certified for Europe anyway.
There are traffic delays for operations at DFW on clear weather days, there are delays for ORD during marginal VFR days. On any given day in the United States there ground holds for many major airports.
The problem we in the US is not airspace, we have plenty of that. We don’t have enough runways.
Now can anyone explain to me how, by putting more aircraft in the sky between, say LAX and PHX that because of RVSM that will alleviate the S turns, 90 degree turns off course and just plain holding that existed before RVSM because of airport saturation?
Bottom line is that in the US ATC delays are because of airport saturation, not airspace saturation. You only fit so many airplanes on a runway and by have more airplanes in the sky wanting to use that same runway is not going to help.
Yes my airplanes are RVSM certified, and it wasn’t cheap. But we were RVSM certified for Europe anyway.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: Milano
That's definitely a good point. In Europe RVSM was a matter of need, which is NOT in the USA.
Nonetheless, the idea of allowing seamless transitions through Europe, NAT and US airspace is likely to be among the key factors which carried to the RVSM path.
Nonetheless, the idea of allowing seamless transitions through Europe, NAT and US airspace is likely to be among the key factors which carried to the RVSM path.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
The comment "We'll be seeing a lot more passenger injuries" might have been in relation to wake turbulence, but it might also have been in regard to mis-handled high altitude TCAS RAs.
The following questions are purely rhetorical.
The following questions are purely rhetorical.
- When was the last time you hand-flew at 39,000 feet?
- How much of an adrenalin rush do you get when the TCAS aurals start going off?
- How many seconds "reaction time" (ie before you make a control input) are assumed in TCAS RA calculations?
- What change in g should you use to fly a TCAS RA?
- What does a change in g of that magnitude feel like in the seat of your pants? (since most airliner cockpits don't have a G-meter
) - What should passengers perceive during a properly-flown TCAS RA?
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 611
From: surfing, watching for sharks
Con
Some good points but I think RVSM will benefit us in other areas. As your flying a corporate rocket, it prolly doesn't concern you as much as airline guys. Imagine I'm stuck at 33,000 getting the snot knocked out of me and I'm too heavy and/or there is a mongo bad ISA deviation that prevents me from climbing to 37,000. My only option is to gut it out or go down to 29,000 and cut in to cont/Captain's add/holding fuel. Now I have the option of only having to climb 2000 feet instead of 4000 feet to find a better ride/winds/deviaton/fill in the blank.
ORD will always be ORD no matter what type of airspace procedures are introduced. Need to bulldoze that place and approach it with a clean sheet approach. Controllers are the only thing that keeps that place functionally working.
Some good points but I think RVSM will benefit us in other areas. As your flying a corporate rocket, it prolly doesn't concern you as much as airline guys. Imagine I'm stuck at 33,000 getting the snot knocked out of me and I'm too heavy and/or there is a mongo bad ISA deviation that prevents me from climbing to 37,000. My only option is to gut it out or go down to 29,000 and cut in to cont/Captain's add/holding fuel. Now I have the option of only having to climb 2000 feet instead of 4000 feet to find a better ride/winds/deviaton/fill in the blank.
ORD will always be ORD no matter what type of airspace procedures are introduced. Need to bulldoze that place and approach it with a clean sheet approach. Controllers are the only thing that keeps that place functionally working.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
From: the Tearooms of Mars
I think I can put your mind at rest on most of your 'thousands will be killed' concerns. Mainly in so far as the minimum equipment list requirements to operate in RVSM airspace.
What may be of concern is the implicit violent reaction to TCAS alerts that one might construe from reading these posts. A Resolution Advisory is a mild manoeuvre and not a GPWS pull up. The attitude change required for 1000 fpm v/s is about 1000/TAS. Perhaps a few RAs for practice in the sim would come in handy?
What may be of concern is the implicit violent reaction to TCAS alerts that one might construe from reading these posts. A Resolution Advisory is a mild manoeuvre and not a GPWS pull up. The attitude change required for 1000 fpm v/s is about 1000/TAS. Perhaps a few RAs for practice in the sim would come in handy?
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
From: somewhere out there
RVSM isn't without it's problems, the incident detailed here is a prime example of how dangerous 1000ft separation can be under certain conditions and with modern avionics
edited because I'm an idiot
edited because I'm an idiot
Last edited by caniplaywithmadness; 21st January 2005 at 18:26.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
I can't quite see the difference in 1000 feet between (say) 25,000 and 26,000 (which has been around for decades) and 32,000 and 33,000 (which has been around already for a few years now). Altimeter technology has come on apace, so that's not an issue. If wake turbulence is the issue, then why wasn't it an issue in the umpteen decades of aviation up to now?