RVSM question

An12

An12

Well-Known Member
HI, people!!

Here is the situation:

Boeing 737-800 has both autopilot systems inop.

Company’s MEL/CDL says “…one system must be operative for RVSM…”.

So, I put “unable rvsm due to equipment” in RMK, filed FPL below FL290 and off it went.

Then I thought: wait a minute… Did I really have to limit the altitude? If I filed the flight at let’s say FL350 with “unable rvsm due to equipment” in RMK field of course, and get the FPL approved “as filed”?
Would it be Ok to release the flight?
 
In some western states you can sometimes coordinate with ATC an RVSM altitude for a non-rvsm airplane. I've asked for(told them non-rvsm) and received a clearance to climb to FL310 in a non-rvsm airplane coming up the Aleutian chain.
There's a good chance you're going to get stuck at FL27/280, so I hope you've got the gas.
 
For ATS filing purposes, the W should be removed from your ICAO ATS strip prior to filing. That advises ATC that the flight is non-RVSM. What ATC actually allows them to do in reality does not affect guidance issued by company and governing authorities for filing and planning purposes.
 
I would plan for the lower alt and remove the W in the strip to avoid confusion. The big issue is with ATC about FL290 is required to separate the aircraft by 2,000ft but with RVSM aircraft they can reduce it to 1,000ft. If you wanted higher you would have to coordinate with ATC as z987k mentioned.
 
About removing "W".... I believe "W" should stay, as aircraft is still certified for RVSM. To avoid confusion there is plain text RMK "unable RVSM".
 
The aircraft and fleet may be RVSM certified, however, it is not currently capable due to an equipment outage onboard the aircraft making it not legal to dispatch in RVSM per manuals and ops-specs approved by the FAA on how your company is allowed to operate. I am assuming this is a Part 121 flight?
 
Part 121, yes.
My main question is about MEL actually. Can I ignore the "one must be operative" statement?
 
The thing is, you will be separated with other aircrafts 2000 ft while in RVSM the difference will be 1000 ft ( opposite direction of course ), thats it.
 
depends on how the mels reads. my companies mel says "May be inoperative provided:d. Airplane is not dispatched into RVSM airspace." So for us we can not release the airplane into RVSM airspace.
 
An12 said:
Part 121, yes.
My main question is about MEL actually. Can I ignore the "one must be operative" statement?
Click to expand...
My vote is no. Mainly because I don't want to have to explain why I disregarded company policy. Not that FPR's are on a constant audit to begin with, but I don't want to be in that spot. To me that statement is like saying I'm not going to apply a CDL/MEL penalty to the a/c performance. Granted we do get busy and make mistakes, but that's why the flight crew is another set of eyes for review before departure.

Like others have stated, I'd remove the W and file FL290 and below. You'd be surprised how many crew members don't realize that they can fly higher depending on the controllers workload. I usually send a friendly ACARS memo stating such. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, either way they'll have the necessary fuel requirements.
 
An12 said:
About removing "W".... I believe "W" should stay, as aircraft is still certified for RVSM. To avoid confusion there is plain text RMK "unable RVSM".
Click to expand...
As a controller this only causes confusion. We could care less if the aircraft is still certified for RVSM. All we want to know is if at that moment you can fly RVSM.

File what the aircraft is capable of at that moment, if your not RVSM capable at the moment leave the w out.

Also according to the 7110 we cannot give a negative RVSM aircraft RVSM airspace except for a few situations which 121 doesn't normally qualify for. However out west it happens mostly because of the traffic levels and to help get out of rough rides. Out east 280 will be the best you get.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 
An12 said:
Ok. I get it now. Thanks everyone! :)
Click to expand...
All this icao flight plan changes have created a lot of problems for us controllers. The biggest one is everyone filing correctly for their flight. It might seem like a small item, and it really is, but these small things can create big problems for a controller trying to sort out a flight plan issue.

Just about every controller wishes we could go back to non icao flight plans.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 
F9DXER said:
Make sure you use a red pen and circle the mistake, otherwise it might not get corrected. ;)
Click to expand...

That did sound kind of "brutal", didn't it? Eek! sorry!

Well, my spidey sense tingled because ATC really doesn't want you in RVSM airspace hand-flying so there's the FL290 restriction. It's going to burn more fuel down at 290 so I see the drive to get the flight into the upper flight levels.

However, I'd rather the flight plan be set for FL290 and fueled accordingly rather than hoping that we're not only able, but willing to negotiate with ATC to get the higher flight levels. If ATC says "unable" and I have to be pessimistic about our success at negotiating higher, it might be well, "sucky".

Or MX should consider fixing it! :)
 
At a previous gig had an instance where someone filed W and put in rmks unable rvsm. FAA followed up a few weeks later with their displeasure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top