Mon, Jan 24, 2005
An ANN Reader Talks About The Downside of RVSM
By Mark Conner, Chief Pilot, Dycom Industries, Inc.
Most corporate operators see this as
a winning move for the airlines and a financial burden to us. True
that the airlines will save money by cruising at more efficient
altitudes but the cost to my corporation is significant with little
reward.
The cost to conform our late model LearJet 35A was over $180,000 in
direct cost. If one includes the cost of nearly a month of downtime
for the modification, that number might easily be doubled. We
will see little if any reward as our cruise is usually above
RVSM altitudes. Moreover, the FAA placed a huge burden on part 91
operators to submit a manual covering operations and maintenance
procedures. This should have been covered by the SCT's continued
airworthiness instructions and a new FAR 91 regulation covering
RVSM operations. This time and expense to small flight department
is not insignificant.
Many turboprop operators have chosen
not to spend the money to modify their aircraft. They will now be
forced to operate at inefficient altitudes. Moreover, the weather
they used to top will now force either a circumnavigation or a
cancellation of the flight. This hurts general aviation as it makes
planes more expensive to own, or operate and reduces the utility of
a huge number of planes.
Many operators of older jets have found conformity to RVSM cost
prohibitive. There is a whole generation of older LearJets,
Citations, Hawkers, and Saberliners that will be doomed. Their
values have steadily dropped and operating costs have risen due to
high fuel flows. For example, older Lear 24 can be had for little
more than the price of a good Navajo with an operating cost over
$1500 per hour. This made them ideal for owners who operated
infrequently and were willing to foot the bill for fuel as long as
they didn't have to face a multimillion-dollar debt service. These
planes are destined to be sold to third world countries for little
more than their salvage values.
RVSM has not been a friend to General Aviation. It is yet
another move toward the restrictive type of airspace that plagues
Europe. I cannot help but ask how long until the rest of General
Aviation is as restricted and costly as it is now in Europe. How
long before legislators, in the name of national security and
airline profitability, add the next level of bricks on the tomb of
General Aviation?
More News
Runway Lead-in Light System Runway Lead-in Light System Consists of one or more series of flashing lights installed at or near ground level that provides positive visual guidance a>[...]
Aero Linx: Aviation Without Borders Aviation Without Borders uses its aviation expertise, contacts and partnerships to enable support for children and their families – at hom>[...]
Dave Juwel's Aviation Marketing Stories ITBOA BNITBOB ... what does that mean? It's not gibberish, it's a lengthy acronym for "In The Business Of Aviation ... But Not In The Busine>[...]
From 2010 (YouTube Version): Yeah.... This IS A Really Cool Job When ANN's Nathan Cremisino took over the lead of our Aero-TV teams, he knew he was in for some extra work and a lot>[...]
Also: Junkers A50 Heritage, Montaer Grows, Dynon-Advance Flight Systems, Vans' Latest Officially, the Carbon Cub UL and Rotax 916 iS is now in its 'market survey development phase'>[...]