Fatman 8 Posted July 2, 2021 Share Posted July 2, 2021 Hello all, few months ago, I started a thread regarding Chinese and Mongolian RVSM. However, today, I am coming back with a new find. My recent flight from Hong Kong to Cologne, my initial flight level was assigned as FL302 and setp to FL322. However, as per Chinese RVSM** assigned FL should be FL301 and FL321. I know that a difference of 100' is not much, but is there any way to apply this rule to correctly reflect accurate FLs? The fact is that Meters wise, PFPX is correct (FL301/302 = 9200M, FL321/322 = 9800M). K0928S0920 BEKO2B BEKOL A461 YIN G586 SJG B330 ELKAL W179 RIRKI W232 WFX W179 OMBON B330 ELPAN/K0916S0980 B330 SUNUV W197 ANDIM B215 IBANO G470 IPMUN W192 FKG A368 SARIN/N0482F340 M166 KRG A95 ATBAN G111 LODEZ/N0481F360 G111 TITUR N985 ORTIM L158 IRGOS T613 DOGOB M864 DURTI L29 TEGLU DCT LAFAT DCT VABER DCT SUWGI DCT ALUKA DCT POVEL Q201 PODER Z189 RUNER T858 KOPAG KOPA32 **sources: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/mission_support/ato_intl/documents/cross_polar/CPWG26/ANSP/CPWG_PM1_PPT_ANSP_Update_ATMB.pdf https://www.vatprc.net/en/rvsm-en If this is not possible, no worries, I just have to make amendment of FLs myself. Thanks! Andrej Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted July 2, 2021 Share Posted July 2, 2021 Hello Anrej, I don't know if it is a general aviation rule but in this case 9200M = 30184FT which by the document provided is rounded down whereas I guess PFPX is rounding to the nearest whole figure 30200ft, the same applies to 9800M. As the conversion looks to be programmed internally I don't think there is any change I can make and would be for the developer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman 8 Posted July 2, 2021 Author Share Posted July 2, 2021 Thank you Stephen. I concur that the calculation wise, 9200 M = 31200 FT is much closer than 31100 FT. We will have to wait and see if the developer will be able to make this adjustment. If not, solution is simple. Generate OFP and then manually enter correct FLs. Cheers, Andrej Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Nav 2 Posted July 11, 2021 Share Posted July 11, 2021 That is what some "professional" flight planning software actually do, they use FL302 for 9200m, whereas you fly FL301.... I would not lose sleep over that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman 8 Posted July 11, 2021 Author Share Posted July 11, 2021 Thanks Captain. I concur that is not a big deal, but I still find it odd (FL302 is closer to 9200m vs. FL301). My approach is to amend generated flight plan to reflect "correct" FL (matter of a few seconds). That way, ATC is happy and I am happy as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.