RVSM Is Finally Here !!

[Daveman]

Well, TonyC has been (in my opinion) a fair and honest guy.
Cut some slack.

 

[TonyC]

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).


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).

I apologize for the outburst. I had a crummy day, and my patience was expended. No excuse - - I should have never logged on.

When The Av1ator impugned my opinion based on his incorrect assumption that I "DON"T (sic) fly into the Northeast or any BUSY airspace" I was patient and made the point where I fly is irrelevant. I didn't even mention that he was wrong in assuming he knew where I fly.

When he impugned my opinion based on another incorrect assumption and irrelevant point, I opted for a shorter answer. What I should have said was, "not only do I not fly only at night, but the time I fly and the contents of the airplane behind the cockpit door have no bearing whatsoever on RVSM or my opinion of RVSM."

I've flown in RVSM. I will continue to fly in RVSM. I like RVSM.

I'll stay away from the keyboard next time.

 

[Daveman]

I'll stay away from the keyboard next time.

Hope ya don't. I, for one respect your input!
Trust me, not blowin' smoke up yer arse.

 

[Uncle Sparky]

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!

Not to rekindle any arguments.....................Aaaaaawwww, what the heck! Why are we all here anyway?
I do like the highway analogy. It makes it much easier for simple brained dolts such as myself to comprehend and rationalize. So......to continue under this rationale.......You increase the number of lanes, while the volume of traffic remains the same? More lanes+same traffic volume=more air between vehicles! Let me ask you. Does this Utopian SuperSlab have offramps and interchanges and provide access to slower city roads or do the, now happier, motorists drone along euphorically until they run out of fuel?

 

[TonyC]

Let me ask you. Does this Utopian SuperSlab have offramps and interchanges and provide access to slower city roads or do the, now happier, motorists drone along euphorically until they run out of fuel?

Same number of off ramps.

But since the "Slower Traffic Keep to the RIGHT" rule can be better enforced, I can pass the Airbus 300 and get to my off ramp ahead of him!

 

[Uncle Sparky]

I absolutely agree with that logic but I think the arrival segment is going to be the wrench in the gears, not the enroute portion of the flight. I have experienced the "hold down" more frequently, it would seem, lately. More FL's = less "holding down" in my opinion. That and the "commuter lane" thinking would be good examples of pro's.
I keep hearing about this "fixed quantity" of traffic that exists at the present. Is anyone accounting for the 20-30 aircraft that are holding short at places like ATL and BOS or the squadron of iron that's in gate hold at TEB? Will these airplanes be released any sooner? As it is, ATL has a fixed holding stack even in "severe clear" weather and a let down in excess of 100miles from the standard profile is "the norm" when going into places like ORD and TEB. I think the naysayers are trying to say that "increasing flight level density is a great idea but a bottle neck is still going to occur at the return end". I hope it all works out in the end but I have my own doubts. As the saying goes, we all "soon shall see!"

 

[TonyC]

Is anyone accounting for the 20-30 aircraft that are holding short at places like ATL and BOS or the squadron of iron that's in gate hold at TEB? Will these airplanes be released any sooner? As it is, ATL has a fixed holding stack even in "severe clear" weather and a let down in excess of 100miles from the standard profile is "the norm" when going into places like ORD and TEB. I think the naysayers are trying to say that "increasing flight level density is a great idea but a bottle neck is still going to occur at the return end".

I don't think RVSM will effect those problems either way. Until ATL gets another runway, their capacity will remain largely unchanged. Arrival procedures at ORD and TEB will likely remain unchanged. Gate holds and ground releases will still abound. RVSM adresses an enroute problem, and quite well, I think. However, it doesn't presume to fix ALL the traffic problems.

"increasing flight level density" ??? I think it will do the opposite. I think we'll be arriving at the arrival gates with more gas to hold longer.

 

[Uncle Sparky]

"increasing flight level density" ??? I think it will do the opposite. I think we'll be arriving at the arrival gates with more gas to hold longer.

I think this is a " ....glass half full vs. half empty" argument. Some are saying that every aircraft will now be spread out further, horizontally, due to vertical relief. Others are saying that ATC will just fill in the new holes. I'm not so naive to think that there will now be twice as many aircraft in the air but I think overall numbers will increase regardless. So......if you look at it from a two-dimensional perspective, density may increase.