Is China ready for RVSM?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is China ready for RVSM?
According to this article,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_6975748.htm
China will be reducing it's vertical separation minimum to 300m from Nov. 22nd, which should help alleviate the increasing delays for commercial traffic. One would think that it would require an extra amount of vigilance for their controllers; are they up to the task?
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_6975748.htm
China will be reducing it's vertical separation minimum to 300m from Nov. 22nd, which should help alleviate the increasing delays for commercial traffic. One would think that it would require an extra amount of vigilance for their controllers; are they up to the task?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Newcastle, WA, USA
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't RVSM more of a function of airplane altimeter accuracy and the ability of the autopilot to hold altitude? I don't see that the controllers have a major role in RVSM.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China RVSM
Check out the Fragrant Harbour threads on this site.
There are some very illuminating posts recently sent by some guys in China ATC. They sound fairly credible and give some insight into the problems ATC faces doing their job in China - mostly constraints imposed by the military which has an iron hold on all airspace.
Regarding RVSM specifically, the change from imperial to metric RVSM, as the transition is made from airspace outside China to that over China itself, will be nothing short of a 'dogs breakfast'.
With the resultant confusion comes the inevitable potential for misunderstanding and loss of adequate separation. Increasing the numbers of controllers and dividing up sectors into smaller portions may help regulate enroute traffic, but terminal airspace will only become more congested. Controllers, in this context, play a crucial role in the execution of RVSM.
Could it be that RVSM will only allow more aircraft to get to the inevitable hold over BJS or PVG quicker...but they'll be holding longer?!
There are some very illuminating posts recently sent by some guys in China ATC. They sound fairly credible and give some insight into the problems ATC faces doing their job in China - mostly constraints imposed by the military which has an iron hold on all airspace.
Regarding RVSM specifically, the change from imperial to metric RVSM, as the transition is made from airspace outside China to that over China itself, will be nothing short of a 'dogs breakfast'.
With the resultant confusion comes the inevitable potential for misunderstanding and loss of adequate separation. Increasing the numbers of controllers and dividing up sectors into smaller portions may help regulate enroute traffic, but terminal airspace will only become more congested. Controllers, in this context, play a crucial role in the execution of RVSM.
Could it be that RVSM will only allow more aircraft to get to the inevitable hold over BJS or PVG quicker...but they'll be holding longer?!
Last edited by BScaler; 30th Oct 2007 at 15:08. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ready or not it happens in 21 days time the following may help...
http://www.ifalpa.org/BILLS/08ATSBL02_China_RVSM.pdf
http://www.ifalpa.org/BILLS/08ATSBL02_China_RVSM.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoofddorp -NL
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't recall any language issues while flying through China.
I don't think that RVSM will be much of a solution for European bound aircraft, without Mongolia having radar. Would be great to get some extra parallel airways there too.
I don't think that RVSM will be much of a solution for European bound aircraft, without Mongolia having radar. Would be great to get some extra parallel airways there too.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinese ATC improving by leaps and bounds
I think Chinese ATC is improving at a great pace - RVSM will in actual fact improve safety dramatically as most of the problems lie in airway spacing.
RVSM means less aircraft climbing and descending through levels due to separation problems.
Over the last year or so direct routings have become available as a norm - on many occassions offered by ATC, particularly at night when there is less domestic traffic.
Maybe not up to European standards but they'll get there quicker than most think. Compared to 20 years ago .............. !!
RVSM means less aircraft climbing and descending through levels due to separation problems.
Over the last year or so direct routings have become available as a norm - on many occassions offered by ATC, particularly at night when there is less domestic traffic.
Maybe not up to European standards but they'll get there quicker than most think. Compared to 20 years ago .............. !!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC will issue the Flight Level clearance in metres. Pilots shall use the China RVSM FLAS table to determine the corresponding Flight Level in feet. The aircraft shall be flown using the flight level in FEET.
SpaceRanger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Samsonite
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to make a statement of some kind, the feet equivalent of these levels are all 100 feet above existing RVSM, ie FL351,361,371 etc. This means there will be transisions from surrounding RVSM areas, although simpler than RVSM/feet<->NVSM/metric, it still means you will have to climb/descent 100 feet to comply 
As mentioned above, it should be followed up by larger capacities at aerodromes in China, as well as making sure there are a sufficient amount of controllers (and sectors) to avoid congestion.
All in all, good move China, you are on the right track!
As mentioned above, it should be followed up by larger capacities at aerodromes in China, as well as making sure there are a sufficient amount of controllers (and sectors) to avoid congestion.
All in all, good move China, you are on the right track!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ZSPD
Age: 56
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It helps
It's their airspace. If they want to call 37,100 feet as 11,300 metres so be it. The difference will never be more than 30 metres anyway. Way below TCAS threshhold. 
Better to be dealing with ATC then the Chinese Air Force.
Better to be dealing with ATC then the Chinese Air Force.
