 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A PIC of an H25 filed and received a flight plan which involved an area related to reduced vertical separation minimums over a nat track from reykjavik to goose bay. Reporter was concerned with having flown in an unqualified aircraft for those separation minimums.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 402474 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199805 |
| Day | Sun |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | atc facility : bird |
| State Reference | FO |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 31000 msl bound upper : 31000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : bird |
| Operator | general aviation : corporate |
| Make Model Name | HS 125 Series 1-600 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Navigation In Use | Other |
| Flight Phase | climbout : intermediate altitude cruise other descent other |
| Route In Use | enroute : atlantic enroute : other oceanic |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 7000 flight time type : 700 |
| ASRS Report | 402474 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation other |
| Situations | |
| ATC Facility | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Narrative:
The december meeting of a north atlantic track group caused ambiguous reports about phase ii of reduced vertical separation minimums. I misunderstood that on apr/xa/98 the bottom of reduced vertical separation minimums was lowered to FL310. I thought phase ii (FL319-FL390) was delayed until october. I filed and received FL310 in an mnps qualified hawker. To my knowledge, no one was near us at FL320. No incidents occurred. I am still unclr about the next phase of reduced vertical separation minimums, but for now I will assume the worse of FL290-FL410 in october. Unrelated to this incident -- I'm bothered by the lack of sense of this whole reduced vertical separation minimums procedure. If the difference between FL280 and FL290 has been safe for all these yrs, why is FL310 to FL320 unsafe for our 1969 hawker. The errors in the altimetry are based on mach number. Our mach would be the same at FL290 and FL350. I wrote to senators with a response from one of them, but I think ICAO is handling this very poorly. There is not enough traffic for reduced vertical separation minimums to go from 24 degrees north to 90 degrees north. Safety is a concern because the lower altitudes we must fly at reduces our reserve fuel on landing.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A PIC OF AN H25 FILED AND RECEIVED A FLT PLAN WHICH INVOLVED AN AREA RELATED TO REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS OVER A NAT TRACK FROM REYKJAVIK TO GOOSE BAY. RPTR WAS CONCERNED WITH HAVING FLOWN IN AN UNQUALIFIED ACFT FOR THOSE SEPARATION MINIMUMS.
Narrative: THE DECEMBER MEETING OF A NORTH ATLANTIC TRACK GROUP CAUSED AMBIGUOUS RPTS ABOUT PHASE II OF REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS. I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT ON APR/XA/98 THE BOTTOM OF REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS WAS LOWERED TO FL310. I THOUGHT PHASE II (FL319-FL390) WAS DELAYED UNTIL OCTOBER. I FILED AND RECEIVED FL310 IN AN MNPS QUALIFIED HAWKER. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE WAS NEAR US AT FL320. NO INCIDENTS OCCURRED. I AM STILL UNCLR ABOUT THE NEXT PHASE OF REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS, BUT FOR NOW I WILL ASSUME THE WORSE OF FL290-FL410 IN OCTOBER. UNRELATED TO THIS INCIDENT -- I'M BOTHERED BY THE LACK OF SENSE OF THIS WHOLE REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS PROC. IF THE DIFFERENCE BTWN FL280 AND FL290 HAS BEEN SAFE FOR ALL THESE YRS, WHY IS FL310 TO FL320 UNSAFE FOR OUR 1969 HAWKER. THE ERRORS IN THE ALTIMETRY ARE BASED ON MACH NUMBER. OUR MACH WOULD BE THE SAME AT FL290 AND FL350. I WROTE TO SENATORS WITH A RESPONSE FROM ONE OF THEM, BUT I THINK ICAO IS HANDLING THIS VERY POORLY. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TFC FOR REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS TO GO FROM 24 DEGS N TO 90 DEGS N. SAFETY IS A CONCERN BECAUSE THE LOWER ALTS WE MUST FLY AT REDUCES OUR RESERVE FUEL ON LNDG.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.