RVSM Is Finally Here !!

[The Av1ator]

I don't see how RVSM is going to create more congestion. Congestion would require either increasing the number of airplanes airborne, or decreasing the space they have to fit in. RVSM does neither. Inasmuch as it will eliminate the airplanes that are not RVSM compliant, it will do the opposite.


Guess you DON"T fly into the Northeast or any BUSY airspace.
And, MOST airplanes that are now flying above FL290 have been or are being retrofitted to be RVSM compliant and least that what I am seeing and hearing as I travel round the country. There are a few that are still taking a wait and see attitude and they will be stuck at 280 and below for awhile sooner or later they will all be up to speed.

On another note. A few weeks ago I was meeting our Local RVSM FAA rep. He tells me that at the national flow control center 3 times a day they are going to print out a list of every airplane in RVSM airspace and see if the N number is on the complient list. Those that aren't are going to get an AUTOMATIC 90 day suspension of their certificate for the pilot named on the flight plan. He says they are expecting to be sending out A LOT OF EM. Yeah the JOYS of RVSM. Glad someone is looking forward to it.

 

[Daveman]

On another note. A few weeks ago I was meeting our Local RVSM FAA rep. He tells me that at the national flow control center 3 times a day they are going to print out a list of every airplane in RVSM airspace and see if the N number is on the complient list. Those that aren't are going to get an AUTOMATIC 90 day suspension of their certificate for the pilot named on the flight plan. He says they are expecting to be sending out A LOT OF EM. Yeah the JOYS of RVSM. Glad someone is looking forward to it.

This hasn't been a joy for me and most people. But it will happen.
This isn't an attack but, I don't understand this paragraph of your's.
In Jan. aircraft not rvsm complient shouldn't be in rvsm airspace.
I'm not supporting the FAA, but this is no surprise.

 

[rvsm410]

I Believe we will see more flow control, and gate holds everyday regardless of weather...most of the CRJ-2 never flight plan for higher than 290 now so the non-rvsm aircraft being forced out of RVSM FL's will clog up the works to some degree.

 

[The Av1ator]

My POINT IS make SURE your aircraft is listed on the RVSM complient list before you fly in the airspace. Your airplane may be legal and complient but for some reason not get on the list. In that case you risk getting the automatic 90 day suspension. Yeah, you'll proabley be able get it taken care of if it is a mistake, just something else to add to the list of things to concern yourself with. Say you are a contract Capt. for a day. Company says everything is all up to speed. Better check the list to make sure the craft is listed. It is on the net somewhere, I bet someone on here has the address.

 

[TonyC]

I don't see how RVSM is going to create more congestion. Congestion would require either increasing the number of airplanes airborne, or decreasing the space they have to fit in. RVSM does neither. Inasmuch as it will eliminate the airplanes that are not RVSM compliant, it will do the opposite.


Guess you DON"T fly into the Northeast or any BUSY airspace.

Guess you don't make a living with your critical thinking skills.

What difference does it make WHERE I fly? NONE!


Please explain to us idiots how RVSM will create more congestion.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

I read that about 90% of the potential RVSM aircraft are NOT compliant.

The higher altitudes will be reserved for the most fuel-critical aircraft (Lears). The 20s will be so saturated with jets, one article I read said, that the turboprops would all be flying below 20K.

Cliff
YIP

 

[Daveman]

Hi!

I read that about 90% of the potential RVSM aircraft are NOT compliant.

The higher altitudes will be reserved for the most fuel-critical aircraft (Lears). The 20s will be so saturated with jets, one article I read said, that the turboprops would all be flying below 20K.

Cliff
YIP

I have heard less, but still a big number. The "20s" you refer to may be a mess I don't know. As far as T-props, I've never flown one above 270.
\
This is just my feelings. We're in this together

 

[The Av1ator]

Maybe I WAY off base on this. I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, but guess I have. The way I see it there will be MORE flight levels to stuff airplanes in. More potential airspace equals more potential congestion, conflicts, wake upsets. There are a LOT of new small jets coming off the lines that are all going to be in the RVSM airspace in the next few years, on any given busy day today, I find that ATC has problems dealing with it. Just a few weeks ago on 2 differerent occasions center could not get me out of the flight levels to get into my destination airport. There are enough problems today without adding RVSM in the mix.

But then I guess some see RVSM as the fix for the problem. The next year will be interesting!

 

[TonyC]

Maybe I WAY off base on this. I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, but guess I have. The way I see it there will be MORE flight levels to stuff airplanes in. More potential airspace equals more potential congestion, conflicts, wake upsets.

Do you drive a car to work? How's the traffic? Do you ever have to slow down for someone in front of you?

If the next time you drove to work there were magically twice as many lanes available to choose from, do you think the commute would be less congested, or more congested?


If the lanes are doubled, and the VOLUME of traffic is doubled, logic would demand that it is JUST AS congested. If the lanes are doubled and the volume is MORE THAN doubled, it would be more congested. But if the lanes are doubled, and the volume is not doubled, it would have to be LESS CONGESTED.


I don't see the volume doubling overnight. In fact, given the capacity limits at airports, I don't see the volume doubling for several overnights.


RVSM has the effect of doubling the number of lanes, and taking a lot of the curves and bends out of the roads. Instead of following the 2-lane winding State highway through every podunk municipality with a local yokel cop and a radar gun, I get to hop on the 4- or 6-lane divided highway Interstate. I'm in!

 

[The Av1ator]

I hope you are right and it all works out that way. I guess if you are flying freight in the middle of the night you are not too worried about it.

Here is another point to ponder. The boss buys a new airplane you are going to have to wait until you get an approved RVSM manual for THAT airplane Unless you have somehow arranged to have an approved RVSM manual for THAT airplane you will be stuck at FL280. The manuels are not transferable from one to another, you will have to go throught the whole approval process with the feds. Which could take weeks or months to get your "New" manual approved. Don't think the boss is going to be happy with that. I spoke to our local FAA RVSM rep about this issue and he said he didn't see anyway around it.

 

[ultrarunner]

I hope you are right and it all works out that way.

Here is another point to ponder. The boss buys a new airplane you are going to have to wait until you get an approved RVSM manuel for THAT airplane Unless you have somehow arranged to have an approved RVSM manuel for THAT airplane you will be stuck at FL280. The manuels are not transferable from one to another, you will have to go throught the whole approval process with the feds. Which could take weeks or months to get your "New" manuel approved. Don't think the boss is going to be happy with that. I spoke to our local FAA RVSM rep about this issue and he said he didn't see anyway around it.

Yep, this is an issue. However, many FSDO's have been turning LOA requests in 30 days. For RVSM 'out of the box ready' airplanes, new operators will likely be able to submit the required paper work prior to taking delivery. I suspect they will have LOA's before leaving the completion centers.

 

[TonyC]

I guess if you are flying freight in the middle of the night you are not too worried about it.

You know what? I'm tired of being civil, and I had a bad day yesterday.

You're a moron.

Here is another point to ponder. The boss buys a new airplane you are going to have to wait until you get an approved RVSM manuel for THAT airplane Unless you have somehow arranged to have an approved RVSM manuel for THAT airplane you will be stuck at FL280. The manuels are not transferable from one to another, you will have to go throught the whole approval process with the feds. Which could take weeks or months to get your "New" manuel approved. Don't think the boss is going to be happy with that. I spoke to our local FAA RVSM rep about this issue and he said he didn't see anyway around it.

It's a shame they just announced RVSM last week, isn't it? Caught everyone off guard. Terribly unfair. Oh, the injustice

It's manuAl.


MORON !



(I'll think about taking it back tomorrow.)

 

[dispatchguy]

As far as T-props, I've never flown one above 270.

I remember jumpseating up front ORDPHX and KC Center calling opposite direction traffic, 12 oclock, 5 miles, King Air at FL330...

Sure nuf, this King air passes us contrailing at 330 (we were at 310).

So, some can get up there....

 

[The Av1ator]

Thanks for the spelling lession and I have certainly been called worse.

 

[Brett Hull]

You know what? I'm tired of being civil, and I had a bad day yesterday.

You're a moron.

That's real classy. I thought someone of your obviously superior intellect wouldn't have to resort to name-calling (I'm not even sure that's supposed to be hyphenated, but I'm sure you'll let us all know if it isn't).

It's a shame they just announced RVSM last week, isn't it? Caught everyone off guard. Terribly unfair. Oh, the injustice

MORON !

That's not even the point he was trying to make (notice I'm not going to call you any names, and I'm not even a college graduate). There's a company that's scheduled to take delivery of a brand new Challenger 300 just after the new year. They're estimating that they'll be stuck at 270 and below (can't use 280 since 290 is an RVSM altitude) for up to 90 days because their FSDO will not allow them to submit their application until they take delivery. Should this be acceptable? And I'm quite sure they've been aware of the implementation date for some time.

 

[pilotyip]

It is here, we will make it work.

 

[beernuts]

Well it wouldn't have done any good at all for all of us stuck with 2+ hour gate holds at TEB last night (12/8...confirmed by questioning ATC). All it will do is allow more enroute traffic to show up at the same time and create even bigger delays trying to get on or off the airports that still have the same amount of runways and surrounding terminal space. The best answer is BUILD MORE RUNWAYS. Preferrably parallel runways that allow simultaneous ILS approaches.

 

[Bandit60]

Do you drive a car to work? How's the traffic? Do you ever have to slow down for someone in front of you?

If the next time you drove to work there were magically twice as many lanes available to choose from, do you think the commute would be less congested, or more congested?


If the lanes are doubled, and the VOLUME of traffic is doubled, logic would demand that it is JUST AS congested. If the lanes are doubled and the volume is MORE THAN doubled, it would be more congested. But if the lanes are doubled, and the volume is not doubled, it would have to be LESS CONGESTED.


I don't see the volume doubling overnight. In fact, given the capacity limits at airports, I don't see the volume doubling for several overnights.


RVSM has the effect of doubling the number of lanes, and taking a lot of the curves and bends out of the roads. Instead of following the 2-lane winding State highway through every podunk municipality with a local yokel cop and a radar gun, I get to hop on the 4- or 6-lane divided highway Interstate. I'm in!

I understand what you are saying but if you have 5 lanes of traffic but only one lane to exit the highway, you will find delays.

 

[DesertFalcon]

I don't see how RVSM is going to create more congestion. Congestion would require either increasing the number of airplanes airborne, or decreasing the space they have to fit in. RVSM does neither. Inasmuch as it will eliminate the airplanes that are not RVSM compliant, it will do the opposite.

The big advantage I see, though, is the increased routing options. Today if I'm stuck at an altitude behind a slower aircraft going the same general direction, I can descend 4,000' (and burn more gas), climb 4,000' (if I'm even able, and burn more gas), slow down (and burn more gas), or get vectors around the slower airplane (and - - you got it - - burn more gas). With the additional options of descend or climb 2,000, I have more options, better options, and a far greater chance of receiving more direct routing. Even if traffic is not an issue, the greater variety of flight levels means I get to fly at an altitude closer to my optimum altitude.


If that gets me to my destination sooner, that ALSO means less congestion of the friendly skies.

True statement...... Here's something to think about:

You cruising at FL370 and you have rapid decompression occur... Your RVSM with heavy traffic in the area at all lower altitudes. You turn off the airway and declare and emergency.

With RVSM your chances of hitting another aircraft, on the way down, is going to be much greater!

So, the solution? Another Avionic requirment imposed by the FAA..... Here is what it will be called..... (I made this up.)

ETAS = Enroute Traffic Awareness System.

With ETAS installed you be able to see the aircraft, on the display, just before you hit it!

 

[FracCapt]

With ETAS installed you be able to see the aircraft, on the display, just before you hit it!

Well, in that case....I already have an ETAS....I call it a windshield!