Seems a little strange-

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

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?

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.

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....

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

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

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

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

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?

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