Non Exception Negative RVSM Transitioning

FoggyWindow

Trusted Contributor
Feb 18, 2011
684
16
18
Los Santos Intl Airport
Can you stop them for traffic? If a non exception negative RVSM acft is transitioning through to FL430, can you stop them under traffic? Example: traffic at FL350, non RVSM guy is stopped under him at FL330, is that legal, or does that guy need to be vectored out so he can climb up above RVSM airspace?
 

Stinger

Epic Member
May 24, 2009
1,563
22
38
I've heard of pilots in non-RVSM aircraft flying in RVSM airspace. If the controller can provide 2,000 foot separation they'll allow it.
So in your example, I see absolutely nothing wrong with stopping an aircraft in RVSM airspace and then climbing above when the traffic is clear. However, I'd call traffic and ask if the non-RVSM aircraft was fine with stopping the climb or would like a vector away.
 

FoggyWindow

Trusted Contributor
Feb 18, 2011
684
16
18
Los Santos Intl Airport
I don’t think I’d have an issue with it either, but I’m asking because I thought for sure they weren’t allowed in RVSM if they weren’t an exception acft. The book seems vague on it.
 

Stinger

Epic Member
May 24, 2009
1,563
22
38
If the 7110 doesn't specifically say it's not allowed, I'd be doing it. Don't be one of the people that needs the book to say something is allowed or it must be illegal.
 

wxdude

Senior Member
Jun 5, 2015
172
0
16
51
I think the key is that they are transitioning through, not planning to operate in RVSM airspace. In addition safety is one of the key functions of atc. Last time I checked RVSM capability checks fell well below that.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

FoggyWindow

Trusted Contributor
Feb 18, 2011
684
16
18
Los Santos Intl Airport
Wouldn’t they be operating in RVSM is they level off underneath traffic? Might just be semantics but I’m looking for a solid .65 answer if there is one. As usual, it seems as if it’s grey area.
 

bub89y2k

Rookie
Jan 23, 2014
44
1
8
I'm guessing the statement in the .65 that says "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..."

There's your solid 7110.65 answer. Source: google search 7110.65 RVSM and about 15 seconds of scrolling.
 

lowapproach

Epic Member
Oct 29, 2010
1,316
33
48
WV
Can you stop them for traffic? If a non exception negative RVSM acft is transitioning through to FL430, can you stop them under traffic? Example: traffic at FL350, non RVSM guy is stopped under him at FL330, is that legal, or does that guy need to be vectored out so he can climb up above RVSM airspace?
The alternative is to continue the climb and give yourself a deal, which we know to be wrong.

How your non-RVSM airplane gets above RVSM airspace is up to you and the traffic in your sector. So long as you separate the non-RVSM airplane from RVSM-capable airplanes on his way up, and he doesn't tell you in the course of his climb that he really can't make FL 430, the manner and timing of his climb is up to you.
 

FoggyWindow

Trusted Contributor
Feb 18, 2011
684
16
18
Los Santos Intl Airport
No, that’s not a solid answer. Acft are allowed to transition through if they are negative RVSM and want to fly above it, so they are permitted in RVSM airspace, so your smug ass catch all statement doesn’t work.
 

Stinger

Epic Member
May 24, 2009
1,563
22
38
I thought we agreed that when the .65 doesn't say one way or another, that's it's legal to do and use your best judgment on how to do it.

But if you want a real answer, go to the FARs. Specifically 91.180.
Sec. 91.180

[Operations within airspace designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum airspace.]



[(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft in airspace designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace unless:
(1) The operator and the operator's aircraft comply with the minimum standards of appendix G of this part; and
(2) The operator is authorized by the Administrator or the country of registry to conduct such operations.
(b) The Administrator may authorize a deviation from the requirements of this section

By that, a pilot is not allowed to fly in rvsm unless the operator company says it's okay. There's a bunch of aircraft requirements to be able to use rvsm standards, but depending on the specific MEL the company has, there may be some component inoperative. However, controllers should not be second guessing the pilot on what is legal for them or not, so even if the pilot asks to stay in rvsm we assume it's legal to do so.

Plus using 2,000 foot separation basically removes the rvsm aspect of the airspace. It's standard separation at that point, so all the above is basically moot I guess.
 
Last edited: