RVSM question

Call the center and ask. I dare you. If you dont get berated or laughed off the phone consider that a win.
 
An12 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you would even consider filing a non-RVSM aircraft at RVSM flight levels? The MEL gives the guidance you need, stating one system must be operative. Not to mention that they probably wouldn't be assigned the higher flight level and might not have the fuel to account for increased burn at say FL270. I suppose you could always run it at 270 and add the fuel to the 350 flight plan, but again, why? It's not equipped for RVSM.

Pilots can always negotiate for higher if they want but I don't imagine they love hand flying at FL350. I've been told that due to the thinner air, the flight controls when hand flying are a little "loosy goosy" up there - not as responsive to inputs. I suppose it can be a little more challenging to hold an exact altitude. Not sure if that's true but it makes sense to me.
 
An12 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, you have to limit the altitude. You cannot plan an operation you are not legally approved to execute.
 
womanpilot73 said:
he MEL gives the guidance you need, stating one system must be operative.
Click to expand...

MEL guidance trumps whatever ATC says. Its still illegal even if ATC clears you. ATC will clear you to do a lot of things that may be illegal for you but not them. For example, visibility. ATC doesnt know or care who is CAT II or III capable. Thats the pilot/dispatcher job. Your destination may be fogged in below minimums but you cant say well ATC is giving us a clearance to shoot the CAT III approach that means its ok to attempt a 600 RVR approach when all we are legal for is CAT II 1200.
 
derriko said:
Call the center and ask. I dare you. If you dont get berated or laughed off the phone consider that a win.
Click to expand...

My experience is they just say "no" and hang up. Although, I've just filed them out of RVSM and called it a day. Why try and reinvent the wheel and introduce more risk into the system?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Flagship_dxer said:
MEL guidance trumps whatever ATC says. Its still illegal even if ATC clears you. ATC will clear you to do a lot of things that may be illegal for you but not them. For example, visibility. ATC doesnt know or care who is CAT II or III capable. Thats the pilot/dispatcher job. Your destination may be fogged in below minimums but you cant say well ATC is giving us a clearance to shoot the CAT III approach that means its ok to attempt a 600 RVR approach when all we are legal for is CAT II 1200.
Click to expand...

I knew I wouldn't plan them into RVSM (per MEL guidance) but what I meant with the other part of my post was that I thought they could request a higher flight level if ATC is aware of their limitation and traffic permitting, ATC could potentially allow it, providing appropriate separation. (2000' so it's not actually RVSM).
 
womanpilot73 said:
I knew I wouldn't plan them into RVSM (per MEL guidance) but what I meant with the other part of my post was that I thought they could request a higher flight level if ATC is aware of their limitation and traffic permitting, ATC could potentially allow it, providing appropriate separation. (2000' so it's not actually RVSM).
Click to expand...

RVSM airspace is designated at FL290-FL410 in lower contiguous 48 plus several other areas. The FAA gives guidance on when controllers are allowed to provide 2,000 feet of separation in RVSM airspace. However, the airspace remains designated as RVSM. If the MEL read "required for RVSM airspace unless approved by ATC" then it would be legal. If the MEL says "required for RVSM airspace" then its not legal even if cleared by ATC as the MEL states clearly that you need it operating to be in that airspace.
 
Flagship_dxer said:
RVSM airspace is designated at FL290-FL410 in lower contiguous 48 plus several other areas. The FAA gives guidance on when controllers are allowed to provide 2,000 feet of separation in RVSM airspace. However, the airspace remains designated as RVSM. If the MEL read "required for RVSM airspace unless approved by ATC" then it would be legal. If the MEL says "required for RVSM airspace" then its not legal even if cleared by ATC as the MEL states clearly that you need it operating to be in that airspace.
Click to expand...

Good to know. I thought by giving 2000' or more separation, it was then not technically "RVSM", even at the flight levels that make up RVSM. It really boils down to how the MEL reads then. Good discussion. Always learning something. Thanks! ;-)
 
2−1−28. Controller responsibilities must include but not be limited to the following:
a. Non−RVSM aircraft operating in RVSM airspace.
1. Ensure non-RVSM aircraft are not permitted in RVSM airspace unless they meet the criteria of excepted aircraft and are previously approved by the operations supervisor/CIC.
The following aircraft are excepted: DOD, DOD-certified aircraft operated by NASA (T38, F15, F18, WB57, S3, and U2 aircraft only), MEDEVAC, manufacturer aircraft being flown for development/certification, and Foreign State aircraft. These exceptions are accommodated on a workload or traffic-permitting basis.

2. Ensure sector−to−sector coordination for all non−RVSM aircraft operations within RVSM airspace.
3. Inform the operational supervisor/CIC when a non−RVSM exception flight is denied clearance into RVSM airspace or is removed from RVSM airspace.
b. Non−RVSM aircraft transitioning RVSM airspace. Ensure that operations supervisors/CICs are made aware when non−RVSM aircraft are transitioning through RVSM airspace.
c. Apply appropriate separation standards and remove any aircraft from RVSM airspace that advises it is unable RVSM due to equipment while en route.
d. Use “negative RVSM” in all verbal ground−to− ground communications involving non−RVSM aircraft while cleared to operate within RVSM airspace.

EXAMPLE− “Point out Baxter21 climbing to FL 360, negative RVSM.” e. For the following situations, use the associated phraseology:

1. To deny clearance into RVSM airspace. PHRASEOLOGY− “UNABLE CLEARANCE INTO RVSM AIRSPACE.”
2. To request a pilot to report when able to resume RVSM. PHRASEOLOGY− “REPORT ABLE TO RESUME RVSM.”
f. In the event of a change to an aircraft’s navigational capability amend the equipment suffix in order to properly identify non−RVSM aircraft on the controller display.
 
I had this issue today. MEL for non-RVSM and no CATII. They had already pushed and called mx with issue. Once mx let me know we were going to MEL for non-RVSM ran new numbers at FL270 and called TMU to remove W from strip and amend from FL340 to FL270.

Company MEL trumps whatever ATC may give them as others have mentioned above.

Pretty easy MEL except on long legs the CA will complain about actually having to fly. I tell them that is what FOs are for. Hahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top