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!

Pleased to say my airline has done away with airborne RVSM checks. Just a ground check required and your good to go.

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.

My company also ditched the inflight checks on the 73NG. Understand that regulations changed recently making inflight checks not mandatory anymore.

Just curious. Does anyone have a reference to the EU regulatory change for this? Would be glad to forward this to my company.
Proxus

AMC2 SPA.RVSM.105
 

Yes, I do:

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

Does it really matter, how much of your life is really taken up by recording an RVSM check once an hour? what would you be doing otherwise?

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.

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...

:confused: 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.