Seems a little strange-

[Capt.Doug]

It seems a little strange when Havana Center says "Cleared to flight level
three zero zero". It seems a little strange going eastbound at FL 310. It
seems a little strange when Atlanta Center actually has a different altitude
available while going to O'Hare. It seems very strange when another airliner
passes within a 1000' at FL 360.

I just finished my first trip with RVSM (Conveniently sitting on a Caribbean
island while many of ya'll got snowed on- Nah Nah!). It didn't take long to
overcome the strangeness and appreciate the new way (unlike when they
started calling airspace by classes).

It is good, unless you are one of the uncertified stuck at FL280. A friend
in Washington DC related to me that after the inauguration there was a
logjam of airplanes waiting to depart at FL280 while his RVSM ride went
around all of them for a hasty departure. Another friend who drives a Lear
is stuck at 280 and can barely make TEB from MIA now.

D.

[zatatime]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:37:40 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
wrote:

>It seems a little strange when Havana Center says "Cleared to flight level
>three zero zero". It seems a little strange going eastbound at FL 310. It
>seems a little strange when Atlanta Center actually has a different altitude
>available while going to O'Hare. It seems very strange when another airliner
>passes within a 1000' at FL 360.
>
>I just finished my first trip with RVSM (Conveniently sitting on a Caribbean
>island while many of ya'll got snowed on- Nah Nah!). It didn't take long to
>overcome the strangeness and appreciate the new way (unlike when they
>started calling airspace by classes).
>
>It is good, unless you are one of the uncertified stuck at FL280. A friend
>in Washington DC related to me that after the inauguration there was a
>logjam of airplanes waiting to depart at FL280 while his RVSM ride went
>around all of them for a hasty departure. Another friend who drives a Lear
>is stuck at 280 and can barely make TEB from MIA now.
>
>D.
>


Care to elaborate for us non-flight level flyers why FL280 is now some
sort of magic number? I didn't know you needed a special endorsement
to fly higher than that.

TIA,
z

[jsmith]

Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation M?? begins at FL280.
Prior to January 20, 2005, vertical separation between aircraft above
FL280 was 2000 feet. As of 20 January 2005, the vertical separation
between aircraft at FL280 and above is 1000 feet. Only aircraft properly
equipped for DRVSM are permitted to fly above FL280.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, jsmith >
wrote:

> Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation M?? begins at FL280.
> Prior to January 20, 2005, vertical separation between aircraft above
> FL280 was 2000 feet. As of 20 January 2005, the vertical separation
> between aircraft at FL280 and above is 1000 feet. Only aircraft properly
> equipped for DRVSM are permitted to fly above FL280.
>

m = Minimums

non-RVSM aircraft can indeed fly above FL280, but will require special
handling (e.g., traffic permitting).

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Blueskies]

"jsmith" > wrote in message ...
> Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation M?? begins at FL280.
> Prior to January 20, 2005, vertical separation between aircraft above FL280 was 2000 feet. As of 20 January 2005, the
> vertical separation between aircraft at FL280 and above is 1000 feet. Only aircraft properly equipped for DRVSM are
> permitted to fly above FL280.
>

Altimeter accuracy ±65' for current birds and ±130' for older ones. Pretty amazing stuff actually, something like 1/4 of
1%...

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:15:41 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:

>
>"jsmith" > wrote in message ...
>> Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation M?? begins at FL280.
>> Prior to January 20, 2005, vertical separation between aircraft above FL280 was 2000 feet. As of 20 January 2005, the
>> vertical separation between aircraft at FL280 and above is 1000 feet. Only aircraft properly equipped for DRVSM are
>> permitted to fly above FL280.
>>
>
>Altimeter accuracy ±65' for current birds and ±130' for older ones. Pretty amazing stuff actually, something like 1/4 of
>1%...
>

Pretty sure that the ±65' and ±130' tolerance is for the "automatic
altitude control system" in regard to the "acquired altitude" in
"straight and level flight under nonturbulent, nongust conditions". If
there is an altitude select/acquire system, it's tolerance is ±25'
between the selected/displayed altitude and the corresponding signal
to the autopilot.

The tolerance for altimetry error is roughly between ±140' and ±200'.
There is also a requirement for an altitude alerter with a nominal
±200' ±50' (newer aircraft) and ±300' ±50' (older aircraft) alert
threshold.

If these numbers have changed recently, I apologize, am looking at
older reference/study material.

TC

[Scott Skylane]

Bob Noel wrote:
/snip/
> non-RVSM aircraft can indeed fly above FL280, but will require special
> handling (e.g., traffic permitting).
>

Bob,

That is what we thought, but there is more to it than that. This is from :
FAA Notice GEN04009 (Operational Policy/Procedures For RVSM In the
Domestic US, Alaska , Offshore Airspace and the San Juan FIR ( 24 Nov 04 )

http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/150_docs/DRVSM_Notice_GEN04009-120.doc




"2. Categories of Non-RVSM Aircraft That May Be Accommodated

* (a) Subject to FAA approval and clearance, the following categories
of Non-RVSM aircraft may operate in Domestic U.S. RVSM airspace provided
that they have an operational transponder:

• Department of Defense (DoD) aircraft

• Flights conducted for aircraft certification and development purposes

• Active Air Ambulance flights utilizing a “Lifeguard” call sign

• Aircraft climbing/descending through RVSM flight levels (without
intermediate level off) to/from FL’s above RVSM airspace (Policies for
these flights are detailed in paragraph k below)

• Foreign State (government) aircraft"

i.e. if you don't fit in the above categories, you *can not* operate
above FL280.

We've been slogging along at 280 all week...

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Dave S]

A couple freight dog companies out there are cryin in their beer right
now.. they figured the govt would flinch and not go LIVE like they said
they would be...

Topping out at FL 280 turns an older learjet from a 1500 nm plane to a
6-800 nm plane.

Dave

Capt.Doug wrote:
> It seems a little strange when Havana Center says "Cleared to flight level
> three zero zero". It seems a little strange going eastbound at FL 310. It
> seems a little strange when Atlanta Center actually has a different altitude
> available while going to O'Hare. It seems very strange when another airliner
> passes within a 1000' at FL 360.
>
> I just finished my first trip with RVSM (Conveniently sitting on a Caribbean
> island while many of ya'll got snowed on- Nah Nah!). It didn't take long to
> overcome the strangeness and appreciate the new way (unlike when they
> started calling airspace by classes).
>
> It is good, unless you are one of the uncertified stuck at FL280. A friend
> in Washington DC related to me that after the inauguration there was a
> logjam of airplanes waiting to depart at FL280 while his RVSM ride went
> around all of them for a hasty departure. Another friend who drives a Lear
> is stuck at 280 and can barely make TEB from MIA now.
>
> D.
>
>

[kage]

RVSM kits are available for the older Lears. We put one on our Lear 35A, it
was something like $90,000. But the price has come down about by half now.

Karl


"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>A couple freight dog companies out there are cryin in their beer right
>now.. they figured the govt would flinch and not go LIVE like they said
>they would be...
>
> Topping out at FL 280 turns an older learjet from a 1500 nm plane to a
> 6-800 nm plane.
>
> Dave
>
> Capt.Doug wrote:
>> It seems a little strange when Havana Center says "Cleared to flight
>> level
>> three zero zero". It seems a little strange going eastbound at FL 310. It
>> seems a little strange when Atlanta Center actually has a different
>> altitude
>> available while going to O'Hare. It seems very strange when another
>> airliner
>> passes within a 1000' at FL 360.
>>
>> I just finished my first trip with RVSM (Conveniently sitting on a
>> Caribbean
>> island while many of ya'll got snowed on- Nah Nah!). It didn't take long
>> to
>> overcome the strangeness and appreciate the new way (unlike when they
>> started calling airspace by classes).
>>
>> It is good, unless you are one of the uncertified stuck at FL280. A
>> friend
>> in Washington DC related to me that after the inauguration there was a
>> logjam of airplanes waiting to depart at FL280 while his RVSM ride went
>> around all of them for a hasty departure. Another friend who drives a
>> Lear
>> is stuck at 280 and can barely make TEB from MIA now.
>>
>> D.
>>
>>
>

[zatatime]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:45:36 GMT, jsmith > wrote:

>Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation M?? begins at FL280.
>Prior to January 20, 2005, vertical separation between aircraft above
>FL280 was 2000 feet. As of 20 January 2005, the vertical separation
>between aircraft at FL280 and above is 1000 feet. Only aircraft properly
>equipped for DRVSM are permitted to fly above FL280.


Thanks.
z

[Dale]

In article >,
Scott Skylane > wrote:

>
> We've been slogging along at 280 all week...


In a DC-6?!

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:16:49 GMT, Dave S >
wrote:

>A couple freight dog companies out there are cryin in their beer right
>now.. they figured the govt would flinch and not go LIVE like they said
>they would be...

Are they unable to get waivers per 91(g)(5) (operator submits request
for waiver and at flight plan filing time ATC determines old-style
separation rules can be used)? For the night-op freight stuff I
wouldn't think traffic volume would be an issue?

[[email protected]]

> i.e. if you don't fit in the above categories, you *can not* operate
above FL280.

Not exactly true.
You can not operate in RVSM airspace if you don't fit in one of those
categories. You are allowed to transition it.
So if you can coax your plane up to FL430 you can operate above FL280
even without being RVSM equipped.

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:15:41 GMT, "Blueskies"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"jsmith" > wrote in message ...
>>> Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation M?? begins at FL280.
>>> Prior to January 20, 2005, vertical separation between aircraft above FL280 was 2000 feet. As of 20 January 2005,
>>> the
>>> vertical separation between aircraft at FL280 and above is 1000 feet. Only aircraft properly equipped for DRVSM are
>>> permitted to fly above FL280.
>>>
>>
>>Altimeter accuracy ±65' for current birds and ±130' for older ones. Pretty amazing stuff actually, something like 1/4
>>of
>>1%...
>>
>
> Pretty sure that the ±65' and ±130' tolerance is for the "automatic
> altitude control system" in regard to the "acquired altitude" in
> "straight and level flight under nonturbulent, nongust conditions". If
> there is an altitude select/acquire system, it's tolerance is ±25'
> between the selected/displayed altitude and the corresponding signal
> to the autopilot.
>
> The tolerance for altimetry error is roughly between ±140' and ±200'.
> There is also a requirement for an altitude alerter with a nominal
> ±200' ±50' (newer aircraft) and ±300' ±50' (older aircraft) alert
> threshold.
>
> If these numbers have changed recently, I apologize, am looking at
> older reference/study material.
>
> TC

Yup, I looked at the docs again and it looks like you got it right, except the total altimetry system error may not
exceed 120 feet for pre-97 planes and 80 feet for recent birds....

[[email protected]]

You are correct, sir.

Unless it's a non "group" aircaft, then it's 160 feet in the basic
envelope, and 200 feet in the full.

Am thinking I just fulfilled my recurring RVSM training requirements
while on Usenet.

Gotta love those federal regulations...

TC

[Scott Skylane]

Peter Clark wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:16:49 GMT, Dave S >
> wrote:
>
>
>>A couple freight dog companies out there are cryin in their beer right
>>now.. they figured the govt would flinch and not go LIVE like they said
>>they would be...
>
>
> Are they unable to get waivers per 91(g)(5) (operator submits request
> for waiver and at flight plan filing time ATC determines old-style
> separation rules can be used)? For the night-op freight stuff I
> wouldn't think traffic volume would be an issue?
>


Peter,

See my previous post on this subject. The waivers are available to only
a select few, specialized operators. The vast majority of us do not
qualify, and thus are not even allowed to *ask* for clearance.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Scott Skylane > wrote:

> See my previous post on this subject. The waivers are available to only
> a select few, specialized operators. The vast majority of us do not
> qualify, and thus are not even allowed to *ask* for clearance.

what is stopping anyone from asking for a clearance into RVSM flight levels?

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Scott Skylane]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> Scott Skylane > wrote:
>
>
>>See my previous post on this subject. The waivers are available to only
>>a select few, specialized operators. The vast majority of us do not
>>qualify, and thus are not even allowed to *ask* for clearance.
>
>
> what is stopping anyone from asking for a clearance into RVSM flight levels?
>

Bob,

Nothing, of course, is preventing anyone from asking for a clearance
into RVSM. FAR 91.180 prevents anyone from *accepting* such a
clearance, unless they comply with RVSM standards, or the
*administrator* grants an exemption. And, the administrator has stated
that they will only grant exemptions in a few, very specialized
circumstances. Even if ATC were to clear a non-RVSM aircraft into RVSM
airspace, it would not be legal to operate there, unless you qualify for
that narrow list of exceptions.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Blueskies]

> Bob,
>
> Nothing, of course, is preventing anyone from asking for a clearance into RVSM. FAR 91.180 prevents anyone from
> *accepting* such a clearance, unless they comply with RVSM standards, or the *administrator* grants an exemption.
> And, the administrator has stated that they will only grant exemptions in a few, very specialized circumstances. Even
> if ATC were to clear a non-RVSM aircraft into RVSM airspace, it would not be legal to operate there, unless you
> qualify for that narrow list of exceptions.
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane



I wonder if an F-15 is RVSM capable?

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Scott Skylane > wrote:
>
> > See my previous post on this subject. The waivers are available to
only
> > a select few, specialized operators. The vast majority of us do
not
> > qualify, and thus are not even allowed to *ask* for clearance.
>
> what is stopping anyone from asking for a clearance into RVSM flight
levels?
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> looking for a sig the lawyers will like

The question of who is monitoring whether an aircraft that has been
issued a clearance into RVSM airspace has been issued a Letter of
Authorization (LOA)to fly in RVSM airspace was brought up in my DRVSM
training. The answer was that the FAA is checking aircraft that have
accepted clearances into RVSM airspace to confirm that the operator has
been issued an LOA.

G. Lee

[Capt.Doug]

>"Scott Skylane" wrote in message > The waivers are available to only
> a select few, specialized operators. The vast majority of us do not
> qualify, and thus are not even allowed to *ask* for clearance.

Additionally, commercial operators must have an operations specification
permitting RVSM operations.

D.