RVSM check nonsense
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Middle East
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVSM check nonsense
Why in the year 2018 are we even bothering teaching that there is such a thing as RVSM compliant altimetry? I mean isn't this now the DE-FACTO standard on commercial/business jet transport? Shouldn't we just roll up to concept and put it to bed?
And as for RVSM checks - when was the last time anyone flying a modern commercial jet experienced a "bad" RVSM check? The manual check of altimeters is also nonsense (modern avionics systems will call out Altimeter mismatches anyway). This also belongs in the garbage bin. I appreciate all of this gives us something to do. I personally like to read the ever changing rules and procedures - that's something to do!
And as for RVSM checks - when was the last time anyone flying a modern commercial jet experienced a "bad" RVSM check? The manual check of altimeters is also nonsense (modern avionics systems will call out Altimeter mismatches anyway). This also belongs in the garbage bin. I appreciate all of this gives us something to do. I personally like to read the ever changing rules and procedures - that's something to do!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree. The aircraft is better at checking these things than we are and as you say, the flags appear before you become non-RVSM compliant. But what you forget is the the bed-wetters in one of EASA’s numerous Flight Prevention Departments insist that their procedures are followed by us all. Quite how we check as pass FL280 with possibly 2,500 fpm or more I’ve never worked out. But obviously we do these checks on every flight.
PM
PM
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to some types being entirely non-RVSM, remember that there are circumstances - airframe damage or degraded systems, for examples - which can cause even a normally RVSM-compliant aircraft to become non-compliant. Having a means to discriminate those cases and handle them safely is still important.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Zurich
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMC2 SPA.RVSM.105
Regulation (EU) 965/2012 on air operations
Annex V – Part-SPA
SPA.RVSM
AMC2 SPA.RVSM.105 RVSM operational approval
(d)(1)(vii)
At intervals of approximately 1 hour, cross-checks between the primary altimeters should be made. A minimum of two will need to agree within ±60 m (±200 ft). Failure to meet this condition will require that the altimetry system be reported as defective and ATC notified.
The usual scan of flight deck instruments should suffice for altimeter cross-checking on most flights.
The marked part appears to be rather new... So, no need anymore to record every hour.
Wait - you record hourly checks?
geeslouise
We just have a glance at TOC and every now and then
geeslouise
We just have a glance at TOC and every now and then
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a lighter note, some years ago we were ramp checked in Scandohooli land. The guy got quite excited because I had not put a tick in the RVSM box. He was even less amused when I suggested he look away for a moment when I would rectify this unforgiveable error.
ah happy days
ah happy days
Only half a speed-brake
2 things. Making check OR recording it? AFAIK there never was a regulatory requirement to make a written record and a sentence similar to the above was always there. Don’t quote me without checking though.
True, during the Implementation Phase, many CAA’s mandated a written record of the altimeter system check which was done before entering the RVSM airspace, in order to allow auditing whether it was done. That’s understandable and correct.
Horses for courses, is that the saying? The urge to get rid of it strongly corelates with what is prescribed.
My present airline:
On Ground: altimeter readings on-side announced by the PF during briefing
In flight: verbalized x-check during after takeoff C/L
In flight: verbalized x-check at fl270 and written record (includes STBY)
In flight: verbalized x-check during setting the landing QNH in the descent.
All the rest just normal scan.
Not perfect, but well bearable. BTW the manufacturer’s guidelines for reporting a snag on the altimeters’ system have limits more strict than the RVSM protocol.
True, during the Implementation Phase, many CAA’s mandated a written record of the altimeter system check which was done before entering the RVSM airspace, in order to allow auditing whether it was done. That’s understandable and correct.
Horses for courses, is that the saying? The urge to get rid of it strongly corelates with what is prescribed.
My present airline:
On Ground: altimeter readings on-side announced by the PF during briefing
In flight: verbalized x-check during after takeoff C/L
In flight: verbalized x-check at fl270 and written record (includes STBY)
In flight: verbalized x-check during setting the landing QNH in the descent.
All the rest just normal scan.
Not perfect, but well bearable. BTW the manufacturer’s guidelines for reporting a snag on the altimeters’ system have limits more strict than the RVSM protocol.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Zurich
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ivan, I like your Scandohooli land story, brilliant answer!
FlightDetent: thanks to the EASA nonsense, the only difference between check and record is, the latter can be proved, and therefore checked by the authorities. Therefore, some authorities still insist of having it not only checked but also recorded. The same with the hourly fuel check. Must be recorded...
FlightDetent: thanks to the EASA nonsense, the only difference between check and record is, the latter can be proved, and therefore checked by the authorities. Therefore, some authorities still insist of having it not only checked but also recorded. The same with the hourly fuel check. Must be recorded...
Only half a speed-brake
I probably fail to see what is the EASA's fault in this. Not forcing the NAAs to only ask what is written exactly? You got me lost.
