今年不會代表中國，可是我會代表正義

  先看看《廈門航空報》上的一則新聞：

廈航飛行員協會參加國際駕聯亞太地區年會

    這個是我當時「國際駕聯」點名要求我參加2006年亞太地區年會的報道，當時會議地點在奧克蘭。在這次會議上，由於亞太地區，尤其新加坡，香港、日本、韓國等等亞太地區國家對中國地區的飛行延誤體會很深，所以這次會議我專門做了一個報告，介紹關於國內空域特點、空域規劃、RVSM等等做了一個報告，11月底開的會。然後當時有亞太地區各國家代表，其中新加坡的代表，同時也是ICAO的RVSM專家，會後他詳細向我諮詢了中國RVSM的進展及方案。

    在12月4-8號在巴厘島召開的43RD DGCA會議（CONFERENCE OF DIRECTORS GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION ASIA AND PACIFIC REGIONS）各國政府代表，國際駕聯亞太地區區域主席和一些ICAO的RVSM專家都參加了會議，會後亞太主席給我們各國成員介紹了在這次會議上中國提出的RVSM方案，提供所有飛行員協會進行討論。在隨後的日子，亞太地區的大部分國家飛行員協會RVSM相關人員都參加了討論，因為這個問題涉及中國，而我當時是中國的唯一代表，責無旁貸的加入其中，就此問題一直和他們討論。其實在討論的後期，我已經從廈航辭職，可是我的遭遇我從來沒有給他們講過，家醜不能外揚，這點廉恥是起碼的底線。

    國際駕聯的口號就是「聆聽飛行員的聲音」，就是在任何與飛行員有關的事情，應該表達飛行員的聲音。飛行員協會有大量的專家，或者培訓大量的專家。所以國際駕聯和國際航協（IATA）在國際民航組織ICAO一樣都有一個席位。廈航的飛行員協會，是自成立開始，在中國唯一一個運作的協會，承辦了中國民航第一份飛行員失去執照保險，代替中國飛行員協會出席「國際駕聯亞太地區年會"，其他的飛行員協會沒有聽說過他們的消息。

    在此之後的日子，我先後解答了各國人員的專家的各種問題，雖然我無法改變中國已經確定的方案，因為這個方案據說是中國軍方提供的。可是我盡量用我的知識力圖讓大家接受這個方案，盡量讓「駕聯」對此方案不反感。

    在我的觀點，寥寥勝於無，況且國內的進步是大家有目共睹的，我們國家的進步是全球人都看得到的。這些觀點港龍、國泰、新加坡的代表都體會很深，也非常贊同。軍方能提供這個方案已經邁出了一大步，我個人感覺還是很欣慰的，至少我們也在進步。

    3個多月時間，我們這些亞太國家的代表就此問題一直討論，大家求同存異，大部分代表還是接受了不是很完美的方案。雖然我個人起的作用微不足道，對中國的RVSM沒有貢獻，但我個人覺得，至少消除了很多國家飛行員對國內的誤解，很多國家的飛行員對於中國飛行員，飛行安全，飛行環境等等都是由陌生恐懼，到慢慢有點接受，這也是當時他們為什麼點名要求我去的原因，因為我懂一丁點英語，因為我對民航了解一丁點（我也曾經做過幾年的中國民航空管局航行情報聯絡員），因為我可以直接和他們交流，因為我第一次把中國的一些現狀和改善，介紹給了國際駕聯。因為我可以給他們一個關於中國的航空環境的presentation；因為的東西太多。。。。 

    回到正題，我不知道我做的這些對我個人有利還是對中國有利，現在我辭職了，連續工作86天的我辭職了，為廈航拼了十幾年的我辭職了，廈航卻連我這次開會的所有開支都算到我的頭上，也就是說，我還要為這次會議自己埋單，因為廈航的理由是這是我的「培訓費」，是誰培訓我，還是我培訓誰？

    我在飛行員協會當理事這幾年，搞活動請波音代表，是我自己借場地，自己買礦泉水，自己老婆布置會場，要請人家吃飯沒有人埋單；我給飛行員協會辦保險，磨破嘴皮子，才談下保險。廈航的飛行員協會一直得到總會的肯定，是誰在兢兢業業給大家義務做事？飛行員協會的所有的工作都是利用我少的不能再少的休息時間，廈航給飛行員協會撥過一毛錢的活動經費嗎？飛行員協會給我發過一毛錢工資嗎？

     我去奧克蘭，第一天坐飛機，第二天到，第三天到第五天開會，第六天當天趕回廈門，立即就給你廈航打工，我一個人坐飛機，廈航給的錢住最便宜的旅館都不夠，我都不好意思給別的國家的飛行員講我住在哪裡，我是給廈航撐面子，我有浪費過一刻鐘、一毛錢嗎？真以為我是去南非度假旅遊阿？

    把領導去蒙特利爾吃喝玩樂的錢算我頭上我覺得已經很過分了，這次我是代表中國駕聯，是讓亞太地區，乃至全世界的的飛行員了解中國的，難道這也要算我的「培訓」費用？如果是這樣，廈航，請你在我去之前通知我！！！不要我去發言，不要我去給他們作講解，不要我替中國解釋！！！因為這個是「培訓費」！

    我無語了。。。

    亞太地區今年的會議10月或者11月在香港舉行，通過這些年的交流，大部分國家的代表都很熟了，今年如果抽得出來時間，我想我還是會參加的，我一定自己埋單，今年不會代表中國，可是我會代表正義。

    以下是一些國家駕聯的人員討論問題的書信，總共大約有50多封，拿幾個讓大家看看。（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

。。。。。。。。