Doug Jackson and I were discussing RVSM last week and he mentioned we probably need to start a thread, and then today I was asked another RVSM question, so here’s the thread.

As often occurs in aviation, there’s what you’re supposed to do, what you must do and what everyone actually does!

I think this definitely applies to RVSM, especially since the rules for operating in and out of US airspace are different.

An example of this is that I can say “you need an RVSM Manual and an LOA to go to the Bahamas” and I might hear “BS. We do it all the time!”

What does the Beechtalk braintrust say?

Absolutely, 100% you do.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publica ... d%20States.

If we can agree that the Bahamas is not in the USA, then you need to only read one sentence

Never been asked for it in Mexico but you need it to be legal. Paid a company $2,500.00 to get mine written and approved about 2 months.

I can say for certain; the Bahamians would prefer a fresh box of Krispy Kreme’s all day long and twice on Sunday to your “appropriate” RVSM LOA. And rightly so.

You need an RVSM LOA to operate in RVSM airspace outside of the US. So technically, no, you don’t need an LOA to go to the Bahamas.

You can technically as well get a climb or descent through RVSM airspace without an LOA. So let’s say you’ve got a cool CJ3 that happily flies all day long at FL430. Workload and traffic permitting, ATC can give you a climb through RVSM airspace to FL430.

One of the misconceptions I hear occasionally is that if you have ADS-B Out, you’re legal for RVSM operations, it’s important to understand that the airplane still has to be RVSM Certified, it’s only the Manual and LOA that are no longer required. (US Operations)

I use KFC as my distraction. 4 buckets of original recipe gets you through customs and immigration very quickly.

Hmmm…

I’m going to disagree. I can’t find the FAR that says the plane has to be RVSM certified. It has to be RVSM compliant. That means the operating limitations of the airplane, and every component on it, can’t prohibit RVSM.

91 Appendix G Section 9 provides a clear path for aircraft to fly in RVSM airspace. It gives you an equipment list, a monitoring requirement, and a maximum error tolerance. That’s it.

Hmmm…

I’m going to disagree. I can’t find the FAR that says the plane has to be RVSM certified. It has to be RVSM compliant. That means the operating limitations of the airplane, and every component on it, can’t prohibit RVSM.

91 Appendix G Section 9 provides a clear path for aircraft to fly in RVSM airspace. It gives you an equipment list, a monitoring requirement, and a maximum error tolerance. That’s it.

This is going to go in circles again.

If you have an older turbine and are interested in talking to someone who has experience with the section 9 process, including direct communication with the local FSDO, NAARMO, and a lawyer with RVSM experience, DM me.

If that makes you nervous, or you need it for 135 or international flight, I’m sure there are good competent people on BT who can help you get certified.

The tricky one is complying with ASE requirement. The ways to do that are via an RVSM certified airframe, STC, or a one-off study documenting compliance via air-data collection etc. AC 91-85A (B?) that clarified that requirement.

The tricky one is complying with ASE requirement. The ways to do that are via an RVSM certified airframe, STC, or a one-off study documenting compliance via air-data collection etc. AC 91-85A (B?) that clarified that requirement.

That’s great, actually. What did you have to do to acquire such a letter?

When the Section 9 rules came out there was a bunch of argument whether simple observation/collection of the FAA ADSB data was a way to demonstrate ASE compliance, and the result was the hastily revised AC 91-85 that shot that down. Glad to see maybe it has changed.

On a related note, are the legacy jets (in the TP vs legacy citation thread) RVSM compliant through their certification?

Meaning, would they require hardware changes or creation of an RVSM program to fly them in that airspace?

That’s great, actually. What did you have to do to acquire such a letter?

When the Section 9 rules came out there was a bunch of argument whether simple observation/collection of the FAA ADSB data was a way to demonstrate ASE compliance, and the result was the hastily revised AC 91-85 that shot that down. Glad to see maybe it has changed.