Why is RVSM necessary?

[Lead Sled]

Personally, I was one of those guys who accused the FAA of allowing the tail to wag the dog. Imagine, allowing the Europeans (especially ze French) to tell us what we need to do. After all, don't we have more airplanes parked on the ramp at some of our mid-sized "general-aviation" airports than do have in their entire county?

It still frosts me, but when it comes to flight planning, fuel burn, Flight Level selection, etc. it's sure been nice. I wouldn't want to go back to the way it was. About the only complaint that I have with the current system is the way it's implimented. Why can't we handle the recurrent maintainace, training and certification requirements the way we handle things like transponder/pitot static inspections and the existing PPCs? Having this stuff clogg up the system with LOAs and OPSPECS doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Now about those TAFs and METARs...

'Sled

 

[tracearabians]

The real reason?? MONEY, MONEY, and more MONEY!!!

Can anyone explain why RVSM is necessary above FL 290. What is so special about those higher altitudes?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Now about those TAFs and METARs...

'Sled

You got that right on this subject. I hate them. The old SA and TF were much better. At least the temp was in English and everything was in a logical sequence.

 

[2000flyer]

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. In the North Atlantic, sure. Central East Pacific, sure. Europe, even.

But the US? Give me a break. RVSM in the US was done because of pressure from the Europeans, and so the FAA could feel like we are not inferior to the French.

So are you saying let the rest of the world accept a certain standard but we in the U.S. are too good for someone elses idea? It's no wonder with an attitude like that we're frowned upon in parts of the world.

Secondly, the rest of the world accepts the new standard but since we don't we'll be severely limited in where and when we can operate around the globe. Worst yet, those operators who wish to comply will be burden with a much higher cost.

Sometimes change is good and others have a pretty darn good idea. Would you feel better if it were an American idea and the rest of the world had to comply?

Yes, having to jump through all the hoops to comply is a burden and the paperwork over blown.

 

[Check 6]

Here is my cynical viewpoint. I was based in S. Europe from 1999-2006. RVSM was implemented during this time in Europe and forced on everyone by Eurocontrol. The modifications involved for compliance cost hundreds of millions of dollars across Europe.

Not all aircraft are capable of compliance with RVSM, but are capable of FL290 and above. What happened in Europe is that RVSM forced these aircraft below FL290 and thus made it more crowded in the lower altitudes. It is not crowded at all above FL280 over Europe. The dense traffic is in the lower altitudes because of the non-compliant RVSM airframes and because of departures and arrivals.

Then the FAA bureaucrats looking for new projects figured they could bring RVSM to the good old USA. If it is good for the French, it is good for America.

Ask the FAA how many incidents of loss of separation occur above FL280 vs. FL280 and below.

We need more runway capacity! We also need more refineries!

If the FAA/Congress force user fees on us our industry will take a dive. I cost us approximately $650 in Eurocontrol fees to fly from S. Italy to London. The FAA would kill for this kind of cash cow.

Lastly there is no doubt that for 1,000 foot separation RVSM is needed at the higher altitudes. Flying formation in Lear 35's at FL310 over Italy our altimeters (current/calibrated/both 29.92) read 700' difference prior to the RVSM conversion. This is how inaccurate they can be.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

We need more runway capacity!

STL has heard you whether they needed it or not!

 

[some_dude]

No, what I am saying is that other parts of the world NEEDED the standard because of limited airspace. We have lots of airspace and didn't need it.

As for being limited in where we operate, I don't know about you but I was flying RVSM airplanes long before it was required in the US, so that I could operate in those places. We weren't limited at all.

And Lead, amen on the METARs and TAFs!

So are you saying let the rest of the world accept a certain standard but we in the U.S. are too good for someone elses idea? It's no wonder with an attitude like that we're frowned upon in parts of the world.

Secondly, the rest of the world accepts the new standard but since we don't we'll be severely limited in where and when we can operate around the globe. Worst yet, those operators who wish to comply will be burden with a much higher cost.

Sometimes change is good and others have a pretty darn good idea. Would you feel better if it were an American idea and the rest of the world had to comply?

Yes, having to jump through all the hoops to comply is a burden and the paperwork over blown.