DRVSM
Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) is the process by which aircraft that
currently operate with 2,000 feet of vertical separation are permitted to reduce that
separation to 1,000 feet. RVSM has been implemented in various regions worldwide and the FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for implementation
of Domestic RVSM (DRVSM) in January 2005 at flight levels above 29,000 feet
(FL290) up to 41,000 feet (FL410).
DRVSM is highly supported by the airlines who believe that the increased number
of available flight levels will result in substantial fuel savings. The FAA contends
that RVSM will alleviate en route congestion. While cost savings for airlines are
highly touted, those reductions are offset by the increased fuel burn for operators
who are unable to use RVSM airspace and who will be forced to fly below FL290.
Furthermore, the air traffic congestion benefits have not been reexamined in light
of the overall decrease in air traffic in the post-September 11th era.
Special Problems for Small Business Operators
¾ The FAA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis of Alternatives failed to
consider a widely-accepted alternative. The determination stated the
agency examined three alternatives. But there is another, fourth alternative
known as a “phase-in approach.” Essentially, this method would see
DRVSM implemented in several airspace blocks instead of all at once as is
the current FAA proposal. The phase-in was the preferred method for the
general aviation industry and was also the method used to implement
RVSM over the North Atlantic. The FAA has given no explanation as to
why this preferred option was not listed as a viable alternative to the full
scale implementation the agency chose. FAA even conducted simulations
with ATC on the feasibility of this method.
¾ The FAA’s proposal did not account for on-demand Part 135 small
businesses that would be impacted. The FAA now admits that at least
380 on-demand operators (20% of all such businesses) will be substantially
impacted by the rule. However, no formal notice of this fact appears in the
rulemaking docket and no formal notice has been published in the Federal
Register indicating the recognition of this dramatic oversight. Furthermore,
the FAA has not, to our knowledge, made any attempt to quantify the
number of non-aviation small businesses, utilizing private aircraft in the
furtherance of their business, that will be impacted by this rule.
¾ Although the FAA stated it presumed all operators would proceed with
RVSM aircraft modifications, even in the absence of a rule requiring it,
this is not the case. We challenged the FAA on this topic in our comments.
By presuming that operators would install expensive equipment prior to a
regulation, the FAA gave a clear message that their implementation
schedule was a foregone conclusion, that no public comment regardless of
merit could possibly change the FAA’s plan. Making this assumption
allowed the FAA to avoid subtracting fuel burn penalties from its costbenefit analysis for those aircraft that do not upgrade and are subsequently
forced to fly below the fuel-efficient routes above FL290.
¾ The FAA’s current schedule provides just 15 months to meet DRVSM requirements
following a final rule. As of today, the final rule is still at OST. If it were to go to OMB
by month’s end, and OMB conducts its standard 90-day review, we could expect rule
publication by early October 2003. This would give these small businesses just 15 months
to implement a rule that will likely cost over $200,000 per aircraft. Interestingly, FAA’s
own data show that over 90% of all Part 135 operators have annual revenues of less than
$5 million.
¾ The FAA has given longer compliance schedules for less expensive modifications. To
show how skewed this schedule is, compare the DRVSM implementation plan to the rule
mandating terrain awareness equipment (TAWS). Once a final rule was issued in 2000, it
provided five years (60 months) for the retrofit of the existing fleet to occur. The cost for
installing the TAWS system is estimated as between $10-100K.
Small Business is Between a Rock and a Hard Place
No matter which option is examined by a small business impacted by this rule, the numbers just
don’t add up, particularly for those operating the older aircraft in the fleet.
Should DRVSM be implemented as the FAA plans in January 2005, these are the options for
operators:
1. Upgrade the aircraft at a cost that equals 20-40% of the hull value. Keep in mind that the
oldest aircraft are planned to be phased out of service over the next 5-8 years anyway. It
will be very difficult for a small business to obtain loans to upgrade an aircraft whose life
expectancy is so short.
2. Fly below DRVSM airspace, which results in a 20-30% fuel penalty and increased en route
landings to refuel. This option decreases safety, increases wear and tear on components
and decreases an operator’s ability to compete in a marketplace driven by the ability to
“get there quickly.”
3. Buy newer airplanes. The cost for newer airplanes in prohibitive, particularly with such
little time to revise financial planning. Most importantly, the aircraft in this market often
will still need the RVSM upgrades.
Conclusion
The FAA’s proposed rule implementing DRVSM is flawed in its conception, its implementation
and in the benefits expected. Further, it places on small businesses – those least able to absorb
them – the greatest costs for compliance. Finally, benefit analysis is based on pre-2001 flight
activity data.
These and other factors combine to forcefully argue against implementing DRVSM at this time
and in favor of a significant delay and/or a phased-in approach to the final rule.