A PIC OF AN H25 FILED AND RECEIVED A FLT PLAN WHICH INVOLVED AN AREA RELATED TO REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS OVER A NAT TRACK FROM REYKJAVIK TO GOOSE BAY. RPTR WAS CONCERNED WITH HAVING FLOWN IN AN UNQUALIFIED ACFT FOR THOSE SEPARATION MINIMUMS.

Narrative

THE DECEMBER MEETING OF A NORTH ATLANTIC TRACK GROUP CAUSED AMBIGUOUS RPTS ABOUT PHASE II OF REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS. I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT ON APR/XA/98 THE BOTTOM OF REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS WAS LOWERED TO FL310. I THOUGHT PHASE II (FL319-FL390) WAS DELAYED UNTIL OCTOBER. I FILED AND RECEIVED FL310 IN AN MNPS QUALIFIED HAWKER. TO MY KNOWLEDGE; NO ONE WAS NEAR US AT FL320. NO INCIDENTS OCCURRED. I AM STILL UNCLR ABOUT THE NEXT PHASE OF REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS; BUT FOR NOW I WILL ASSUME THE WORSE OF FL290-FL410 IN OCTOBER. UNRELATED TO THIS INCIDENT -- I'M BOTHERED BY THE LACK OF SENSE OF THIS WHOLE REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS PROC. IF THE DIFFERENCE BTWN FL280 AND FL290 HAS BEEN SAFE FOR ALL THESE YRS; WHY IS FL310 TO FL320 UNSAFE FOR OUR 1969 HAWKER. THE ERRORS IN THE ALTIMETRY ARE BASED ON MACH NUMBER. OUR MACH WOULD BE THE SAME AT FL290 AND FL350. I WROTE TO SENATORS WITH A RESPONSE FROM ONE OF THEM; BUT I THINK ICAO IS HANDLING THIS VERY POORLY. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TFC FOR REDUCED VERT SEPARATION MINIMUMS TO GO FROM 24 DEGS N TO 90 DEGS N. SAFETY IS A CONCERN BECAUSE THE LOWER ALTS WE MUST FLY AT REDUCES OUR RESERVE FUEL ON LNDG.