Thought is was effective the 22nd.

It may be more exciting than you wished:

Effective January 22, 2019.

Mike C.

Is it the 22nd? Rats! 280 it is I guess...

Well? Did anyone attempt to exercise the new RVSM regs today?

I think this soon to be published AC 91-85B, as soon as the Gov reopens, will close Mike C's loophole. https://aviationmanuals.com/wp-content/ ... zation.pdf

"CHAPTER 2. AIRCRAFT ELIGIBILITY 2.1 Introduction. This chapter provides guidance on how operators can determine if their aircraft is compliant and eligible for operations in RVSM airspace. 2.2 Aircraft Eligibility. An aircraft is an “RVSM-Compliant Aircraft” when: 1. The aircraft design ensures the aircraft will meet RVSM performance requirements, and 2. The aircraft has been properly maintained on an on-going basis to conduct such operations. 2.2.1 Aircraft may be produced RVSM-compliant or brought into compliance through the application of appropriate Service Bulletins (SB), Service Letters (SL), Engineering Change Orders (ECO), or Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs). For airworthiness guidance, see Appendix A. 2.2.2 To determine eligibility for RVSM operations the limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or AFM Supplement should indicate the aircraft has been determined to be capable of meeting the RVSM performance requirements of part 91 appendix G. Note: For operators and pilots authorized under part 91 appendix G, section 9, the aircraft may have qualified as Group or Non-group aircraft described in Appendix A."

This may be an issue for immediate use of RSVM airspace, from the above mentioned AC.

3.1.1 Parts 91 K, 121, 125, and 135 Operator Training. Part 91 K, 121, 125, and 135 operators should have a training program addressing the operational practices, procedures, and training items related to RVSM (e.g., initial, upgrade, or recurrent training for pilots, operational control personnel, and maintenance personnel).

91K is for fractional operators.

AC are advisory.

Note the language:

For operators and pilots authorized under part 91 appendix G, section 9, the aircraft may have qualified as Group or Non-group aircraft described in Appendix A."

Doesn't say "must".

It should be obvious that if you meet the old standards, you can operate under the new rule, and that's all that phrase means.

Mike C.

AC are advisory.

Note the language:

For operators and pilots authorized under part 91 appendix G, section 9, the aircraft may have qualified as Group or Non-group aircraft described in Appendix A."

Doesn't say "must".

It should be obvious that if you meet the old standards, you can operate under the new rule, and that's all that phrase means.

Mike C.

The AC doesn't say that. It said an aircraft previously meeting section 2 automatically meets section 9 criteria. It does not say an aircraft is required to meet section 2 to be eligible under section 9. In fact it explicitly says otherwise:

SECTION 2. AIRCRAFT APPROVAL

(a) Except as specified in Section 9 of this appendix, an operator may be authorized to conduct RVSM operations if the Administrator finds that its aircraft comply with this section.


The new rule with section 9 explicitly changes how ASE is assured. It changes from something that is assured by equipment design and certification, to one that is measured in real time.

The aircraft must have its height-keeping performance monitored in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.

The altimetry system error (ASE) of the aircraft does not exceed 200 feet when operating in RVSM airspace.

Mike C.

The AC doesn't say that. It said an aircraft previously meeting section 2 automatically meets section 9 criteria. It does not say an aircraft is required to meet section 2 to be eligible under section 9. In fact it explicitly says otherwise:

SECTION 2. AIRCRAFT APPROVAL

(a) Except as specified in Section 9 of this appendix, an operator may be authorized to conduct RVSM operations if the Administrator finds that its aircraft comply with this section.


The new rule with section 9 explicitly changes how ASE is assured. It changes from something that is assured by equipment design and certification, to one that is measured in real time.

The aircraft must have its height-keeping performance monitored in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.

The altimetry system error (ASE) of the aircraft does not exceed 200 feet when operating in RVSM airspace.

Mike C.

I can't take my plane into RVSM airspace, certified ceiling is FL280.

If I had a later model (Solitaire, FL310) or owned a 441 not currently RVSM (FL350) under the old rules, I'd be considering it very strongly.

I went and looked at my plane carefully. I DO have dual static systems, two static ports on each side (4 total), with pilots' altimeter hooked to one set and copilot's to another. I checked an F model, and it was the same, so perhaps all MU2s have this. Based on the location of the static ports, I expect them to have fairly low altimetry errors (not on a curved forward section, for example).

I also looked at my altimeter error card. Both my altimeters measured within 15 ft all the way up to FL350. So the altimeter itself is clearly accurate enough, so it will depend mostly on the static port air flow characteristics whether the 200 ft ASE can be achieved in the system. I suspect it can into the low 30s at least.

I would expect to have no problems with the AP altitude hold. Mine has performed very well at FL280, rock solid. In smooth air, maybe +/- 10 ft.

To enjoy FL310, say, I'd first have to STC an increase in ceiling, then deal with RVSM section 9 checklist.

Mike C.

What would happen if you would take a C registered aircraft into RVSM airspace in the US or Carabeens?

This is the part that is unfortunate if true:

2.2.2 To determine eligibility for RVSM operations the limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or AFM Supplement should indicate the aircraft has been determined to be capable of meeting the RVSM performance requirements of part 91 appendix G. Note: For operators and pilots authorized under part 91 appendix G, section 9, the aircraft may have qualified as Group or Non-group aircraft described in Appendix A."

If you had the "old way" of RVSM acceptance, that still works, of course.

If you have a C registered airplane in the US, and your airplane meets the section 9 criteria, then I think you are good to go into RVSM in the US, just any other N registered airplane could. One question would be if the US requires the LOA for foreign aircraft or not, I'd guess they wouldn't since they don't require it for US planes.

Likewise, if you have an N registered airplane and operate in RVSM using section 9 criteria, you can't do that in Canada unless the Canadians also establish a similar rule. The planes that fly internationally will still have to maintain the "old way" with an LOA to meet international requirements.

Mike C.