Reduction Of Vertical Seperation

[Garfield1966]

I read on US Today or NY Times that the FAA is either considering or has implemented (I do not remember which and I cannot find the link now) a reduction of the minimum separation of aircraft to 1,000 ft. Is this a safe idea considering how many near misses we hear about, how antiquated the FAA computers are and how crowed the skies are? Seems like an invitation for disaster.

 

[hp_fa]

I read on US Today or NY Times that the FAA is either considering or has implemented (I do not remember which and I cannot find the link now) a reduction of the minimum separation of aircraft to 1,000 ft.  Is this a safe idea considering how many near misses we hear about, how antiquated the FAA computers are and how crowed the skies are?  Seems like an invitation for disaster.

[post="239092"][/post]​

My understanding is it was implemented above FL 300. Had HP kept any of it's 737-200 aircraft they would have been limited to FL 290 and lower because they did not have the upgraded avionics for 1,000 vertical seperation.

There has not been a midair at cruise altitude that I can currently remember, so please don't scare people.

 

[IFLYA9]

1000 ft. vertical separation above 29,000 feet (FL290)
goes into effect 1-20-05. We already do that for altitudes
below 29,000 feet.

IFLYA9

 

[SVQLBA]

My understanding is it was implemented above FL 300.  Had HP kept any of it's 737-200 aircraft they would have been limited to FL 290 and lower because they did not have the upgraded avionics for 1,000 vertical seperation. 

There has not been a midair at cruise altitude that I can currently remember, so please don't scare people.

[post="239098"][/post]​

You're forgetting the mid-air over the swiss-german border. Memory's fuzzy but I believe it was between a DHL freighter and a Russian (or ex USSR state) pax aircraft on a charter a couple of years ago. Issue was more around TCAS, controller instructions, what should pilots do when the two are in conflict, a back-up controller on an "organic" break, and non-functioning controller conflict alerting equipment.

Given adequate altimetry equipment, 1000 ft vertical separation is fine. This has been implement over the North Atlantic and Europe and as hp_fa pointed out it has always been the case under FL290 (because you get steeper air pressure gradients as you get lower, so barimetric altimetry equipment is more accurate). I haven't read anything to suggest there have been increased near missed as a result of RVSM in Europe or over the North Atlantic.

[Edited to add detail]

 

[AA191]

As a response to this. The General Aviation industry has known about this for a few years. Many private and corporate aircraft owners have spent a tremendous amount of money complying with the FAA regulation over the past few years. Now some private jets have not, and will not have this tye of equipment on board so they will not be allowed above 29,000ft. The other aircraft have this already, or have had it installed. This has been a BIG issue in this industry for the past 3-4 years. However, numerous private jets will not be allowed in the "club" as of the 20th because they did not get the avionics upgrade.