今年不会代表中国，可是我会代表正义

  先看看《厦门航空报》上的一则新闻：

厦航飞行员协会参加国际驾联亚太地区年会

    这个是我当时“国际驾联”点名要求我参加2006年亚太地区年会的报道，当时会议地点在奥克兰。在这次会议上，由于亚太地区，尤其新加坡，香港、日本、韩国等等亚太地区国家对中国地区的飞行延误体会很深，所以这次会议我专门做了一个报告，介绍关于国内空域特点、空域规划、RVSM等等做了一个报告，11月底开的会。然后当时有亚太地区各国家代表，其中新加坡的代表，同时也是ICAO的RVSM专家，会后他详细向我咨询了中国RVSM的进展及方案。

    在12月4-8号在巴厘岛召开的43RD DGCA会议（CONFERENCE OF DIRECTORS GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION ASIA AND PACIFIC REGIONS）各国政府代表，国际驾联亚太地区区域主席和一些ICAO的RVSM专家都参加了会议，会后亚太主席给我们各国成员介绍了在这次会议上中国提出的RVSM方案，提供所有飞行员协会进行讨论。在随后的日子，亚太地区的大部分国家飞行员协会RVSM相关人员都参加了讨论，因为这个问题涉及中国，而我当时是中国的唯一代表，责无旁贷的加入其中，就此问题一直和他们讨论。其实在讨论的后期，我已经从厦航辞职，可是我的遭遇我从来没有给他们讲过，家丑不能外扬，这点廉耻是起码的底线。

    国际驾联的口号就是“聆听飞行员的声音”，就是在任何与飞行员有关的事情，应该表达飞行员的声音。飞行员协会有大量的专家，或者培训大量的专家。所以国际驾联和国际航协（IATA）在国际民航组织ICAO一样都有一个席位。厦航的飞行员协会，是自成立开始，在中国唯一一个运作的协会，承办了中国民航第一份飞行员失去执照保险，代替中国飞行员协会出席“国际驾联亚太地区年会"，其他的飞行员协会没有听说过他们的消息。

    在此之后的日子，我先后解答了各国人员的专家的各种问题，虽然我无法改变中国已经确定的方案，因为这个方案据说是中国军方提供的。可是我尽量用我的知识力图让大家接受这个方案，尽量让“驾联”对此方案不反感。

    在我的观点，寥寥胜于无，况且国内的进步是大家有目共睹的，我们国家的进步是全球人都看得到的。这些观点港龙、国泰、新加坡的代表都体会很深，也非常赞同。军方能提供这个方案已经迈出了一大步，我个人感觉还是很欣慰的，至少我们也在进步。

    3个多月时间，我们这些亚太国家的代表就此问题一直讨论，大家求同存异，大部分代表还是接受了不是很完美的方案。虽然我个人起的作用微不足道，对中国的RVSM没有贡献，但我个人觉得，至少消除了很多国家飞行员对国内的误解，很多国家的飞行员对于中国飞行员，飞行安全，飞行环境等等都是由陌生恐惧，到慢慢有点接受，这也是当时他们为什么点名要求我去的原因，因为我懂一丁点英语，因为我对民航了解一丁点（我也曾经做过几年的中国民航空管局航行情报联络员），因为我可以直接和他们交流，因为我第一次把中国的一些现状和改善，介绍给了国际驾联。因为我可以给他们一个关于中国的航空环境的presentation；因为的东西太多。。。。 

    回到正题，我不知道我做的这些对我个人有利还是对中国有利，现在我辞职了，连续工作86天的我辞职了，为厦航拼了十几年的我辞职了，厦航却连我这次开会的所有开支都算到我的头上，也就是说，我还要为这次会议自己埋单，因为厦航的理由是这是我的“培训费”，是谁培训我，还是我培训谁？

    我在飞行员协会当理事这几年，搞活动请波音代表，是我自己借场地，自己买矿泉水，自己老婆布置会场，要请人家吃饭没有人埋单；我给飞行员协会办保险，磨破嘴皮子，才谈下保险。厦航的飞行员协会一直得到总会的肯定，是谁在兢兢业业给大家义务做事？飞行员协会的所有的工作都是利用我少的不能再少的休息时间，厦航给飞行员协会拨过一毛钱的活动经费吗？飞行员协会给我发过一毛钱工资吗？

     我去奥克兰，第一天坐飞机，第二天到，第三天到第五天开会，第六天当天赶回厦门，立即就给你厦航打工，我一个人坐飞机，厦航给的钱住最便宜的旅馆都不够，我都不好意思给别的国家的飞行员讲我住在哪里，我是给厦航撑面子，我有浪费过一刻钟、一毛钱吗？真以为我是去南非度假旅游阿？

    把领导去蒙特利尔吃喝玩乐的钱算我头上我觉得已经很过分了，这次我是代表中国驾联，是让亚太地区，乃至全世界的的飞行员了解中国的，难道这也要算我的“培训”费用？如果是这样，厦航，请你在我去之前通知我！！！不要我去发言，不要我去给他们作讲解，不要我替中国解释！！！因为这个是“培训费”！

    我无语了。。。

    亚太地区今年的会议10月或者11月在香港举行，通过这些年的交流，大部分国家的代表都很熟了，今年如果抽得出来时间，我想我还是会参加的，我一定自己埋单，今年不会代表中国，可是我会代表正义。

    以下是一些国家驾联的人员讨论问题的书信，总共大约有50多封，拿几个让大家看看。（我的英文名字是ROY）

 Hi Roy and all,

 The attached paper is from China and concerns the proposed implementation of RVSM in China using metric altimetry.

 The summary of the proposal and rationale is below. In early discussions on this paper last night with the FAA representative in Beijing we are not likely to make any significant change. I did ask about loosing the 100 feet and he concurred but was not sure about who(m) might need to take responsibility for a change about that aspect. He also concurred with rejecting the reference table/map. Also discussed this paper with Don Spruston IBAC. I have yet to see Dave Berhens from IATA Singapore.

 This issue may not get the full attention of the DGCA meeting as consideration of the volume of papers requires editing on a large scale.

 I must say that IFALPA as an organisation has very little capital to trade directly on this matter at the DGCA meeting. However I can get to talk to the main players here informally.

 As an opening suggestion, it may be useful for a small number of MA to contact their regulator to influence their position on this matter from home and I will help channel this at this end in Bali? The position of the FAA, Japan, Hong Kong Australia and Singapore may be a useful step in effecting change to this proposal.

 Best Regards

 Stu Julian

 Thus, between 8900meters and 12500meters, all the actual vertical separations during flight for

Boeing, Airbus and internationally manufactured aircraft will be 1000 feet.

Detailed RVSM metric flight level option: fly eastward: 8900, 9500, 10100, 10700, 11300, 11900,

12500meters, etc; fly westward: 9200, 9800, 10400, 11000, 11600, and 12200meters. Corresponding feet

flight levels: fly eastward: 29100, 31100, 33100, 35100, 37100, 39100, 41100feet; fly westward: 30100,

32100, 34100, 36100, 38100, and 40,100 feet.

 Advantages: Satisfy military requirements of applying metric flight levels, and overcome the

relatively big altitude difference between metric RVSM flight level and ICAO RVSM flight levels of

neighbouring countries; eliminate the phenomena of 900feet vertical separation and make the vertical

separation during actual flight be 1000feet or above to ensure safety. For metric flight level, east bound

flight level is odd and west bound flight level is even. For the corresponding RVSM flight levels (from

29100 to 41100) in feet, each flight level is 100 feet above ICAO RVSM FL, so it is very easy for pilot to

operate and use, and it is also easy for the transition to/from neighbouring countries RVSM FL. Airspace

from 8900meters to 12500meters is defined as RVSM Airspace, so 500 meters vertical separation between

8400 to 8900m can act as an buffer and NON-RVSM aircraft will fly at and below 8400 m or above 12500

m. Pilots shall use the China RVSM FL reference table/map and strictly fly the corresponding flight level

in feet when instructed to fly a specific metric flight level. The pilots DO NOT need to remember how to

round off (up or down), just follow the China RVSM FL reference table/map.

 Disadvantages: In the case of 12500 meters, 1253 (which means 12530 meters) may be shown on

the radar display of the controller due to the difference between the actual flight altitude and RVSM

metric flight level (The maximum difference is only 90feet and the maximum difference displayed by

radar is 30 meters. As indicated in ICAO DOC4444, The tolerance value used to determine that Mode C derived

level information displayed to the controller is accurate shall be ±60 m (±200 ft) in RVSM

airspace. An aircraft is considered to be maintaining its assigned level as long as the SSR Mode C-derived

level information indicates that it is within ±60 m (±200 ft) tolerance of the assigned level). The controller

should be well aware of this and also adapt to it. Certainly, this kind of phenomena also exists in the flight

levels presently used in China which the controllers are already familiar with. Through RVSM radar

simulation in Guangzhou Area Control Center, the controllers think that this kind of phenomena can be

overcome with necessary training.

Hi Stu,

Thanks for the information on the proposal from China for metric RVSM.

 Obviously, the military requirement to be able to fly metric altitudes is a significant and probably the driving factor for the proposal.

With the increase of glass cockpit and Air Data Computer derived altitude information, I believe it would be a good idea to try to quantify the affect on the military aircraft involved.

The number of aircraft not able to maintain the levels proposed less 30m should be very small and getting even smaller with each passing year. I think that all imported aircraft to China for the past decade, at least, have had multi unit select ability ie feet vs metre switching.

How many flights are made by the military in aircraft unable to conform to feet based flight levels?

Significantly, one has to ask how many aircraft operating in China that are RVSM certified do not have the ability to show FL data?

 I know that we all appreciate the efforts being made to facilitate RVSM implementation in China and we all have a desire to do this in the simplest and most transparent manner that will not lead to further significant effort in the future.

 Roy gave a great briefing on the challenges for reform in AKL and I hope that he will be able to continue to assist.

 Cheers,

 Chris

。。。。。。。。