ICAO Doc 10084, if you have not come across it, is a sixty plus page document looking at ‘Risk Assessment for Civil Aircraft Operation Over or Near Conflict Zones’. Important stuff.

But despite manuals and procedures, regulations and recommendations telling us how to watch out for, assess, mitigate and manage the risk of conflict zones, there remains a much bigger and more significant risk to safety because of conflict zones.

So, what is this risk, and more importantly, what can we do about it in the aviation community?

Information

The huge hindrance to maintaining safety does not lie just with the SAMs themselves. It lies with information – the quality, quantity, reliability and promulgation of it. The result is that risk assessments are fundamentally flawed, understanding is limited and critical information does not reach those who need it.

So, there are four big points that need considering when we look at conflict zones and their impact on airspace safety:

1. The Bigger Question – A risk assessment is much more than just asking “Is there a weapon down there?”
2. Rules alone do not change the behavior of states – Information from states is critical, but it is often not shared, or not shared very well.
3. Are we actively seeking information, or simply waiting for it to come our way? – The safety process does not stop at the state level, it continues (should continue) dynamically with operators and with the pilots, so understanding the situation is important.
4. How can we do better? – Individuals and the industry have a responsibility to ensure information and strategies are shared.

SafeAirspace main page

1. The Bigger Question

The bigger question is to do with how risk is assessed, and it is a complex process even when information is available.

ICAO Doc 10084 lays out the risk assessment process. It’s an interesting read and worth taking a few minutes to think about because understanding the background to conflicts and what the key factors at play are is the only way for safety strategies and risk assessments to continue, and continue they should – it does not stop when a Notam is released.

The process is dynamic and needs to continue with the operator and the pilots too.

What are the key factors in a risk assessment?

First up, what are we actually talking about here? Long-range Surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) can reach aircraft cruising in excess of 25,000ft (7600m). They are often linked with radar sensor systems to help identify targets, and are mobile and easily and quickly relocated.

Russian mobile SAM

So we need an assessment of what danger these pose to airlines and airplanes, and this means we need to know who has them (the capability) and also their intent (who or what do they plan to target).

But it is not that simple. Where there is intent, there is not always capability; and as importantly, where there is capability there is not always intent. The Iranian shoot down is a clear example of this. So we also need to consider the unintentional risks as well.

The questions asked look something like this:

• Is there use of military aircraft in combat roles or for hostile reconnaissance (including unmanned aircraft)?
• Are aircraft used to transport troops into the area and do these routes coincide with civil air corridors, or lie close and so pose a risk of misidentification between civil and military aircraft operating in the area?
• What are the politics relating to the region?
• What are the training levels of SAM operators and what is the military deployment of SAMs? How reliable and credible is the information shared by the state regarding this?
• Is there a lack of effective air traffic management over the relevant airspace? Is the state fully in control of their own territory and do they fulfil all their ATC, coordination and promulgation (of information) obligations?
• Do civil aircraft route pass over or close to locations or assets of high strategic importance or which may be considered vulnerable to aerial attack in a conflict situation?

The Risk Assessment cycle is worthless if Point 1 – the collection of relevant information – is flawed

But, the risk continues beyond this initial assessment because we also have to identify any ongoing consequences of an event. If a major airport is targeted, the impact is not only with the initial damage – if that initial damage is to the ATC systems required to maintain control and separation of aircraft then now we have reduced safety in the airspace and a much larger level of disruption.

So, we must think about the overall severity, and with that the tolerability of an infrastructure or operation. We are asking both ‘What can it hurt?’ and ‘How much it will hurt?’ 

This assessment, according to the ICAO document, is thrown into a matrix and churns out a ‘Risk Level’ which leads to the actions taken. 

The Matrix for Recommended action

Sounds simple, but there is one key point here – 

This info is not easy to come by. It is rarely reliable, and there is a qualitative narrative that makes it very subjective. The information has to be promulgated from states.

Which leads us to Point Number 2.

2. Rules do not change the behavior of a state….

States are responsible for sharing info on hazards, on what mitigation strategies they have in place, and the assessed impact of the strategies they adopt.

This often does not happen, or it does not happen well. Look at Ethiopia/Tigray region situation – misleading Notams and no guidance from the Ethiopian authorities led to Opsgroup issuing our own warning regarding the situation.

Further to that, ICAO only mandated the reporting of hazards in notices to pilots since 2020, and some states are still failing to do so.

Letter issued by ICO highlighting concerns in South Sudan

3. People are not seeking information, they are waiting for it to come their way

This is why SafeAirspace was created.

Information is not being shared well and risk assessments are fundamentally flawed because the information on key factors is simply not available or reliable most of the time.

What’s more, people are rarely questioning whether the information they received was reliable, accurate or complete. Few proper risk assessments are taking place because those responsible are waiting for the information to come to them, and without a proper risk assessment, mitigation strategies are not sufficient, and are not being passed on to those who need them – the pilots.

The information we provide on SafeAirspace

What is the Operator’s continued role in the process?

Every operator is responsible for continuing the risk assessment. It is not enough to simply direct crew to a Notam. Ensuring crew have a full briefing on the threat and any mitigation strategies is important.

• Emergency and abnormal procedures should be considered in advance. Take Mogadishu airspace where only flights on specific airways over the water are allowed. What is the strategy here in case of an engine failure or depressurization? If you operate over this region, you should have access to this information.
• Operators are also responsible reviewing fuel requirements – ensuring additional fuel is provided for potential diversions around conflict zones.
• If aircraft will be operating into conflict zones, then a review of MEL items which can be deferred is a good call – can the aircraft get out again without requiring maintenance or fueling?

What is the pilot’s continued responsibility in the process?

The information and strategies we see at the operations end are things like these:

• Coordination between military authorities, security and ATS units
• Briefings of personnel
• Identification of civil aircraft by military units
• Issuance of warnings and navigation advice
• Air Traffic Restrictions
• Closure of Airspace

But this does not mean the full risk has been removed. Understanding this, understanding how the situation got to this point, and understanding the risk assessment and safety management that has taken place is vital because the process now continues with you, the pilot, and this a fundamental step in continuing to manage safety.

• The Crew, and the Commander of the aircraft are responsible for the safety of the aircraft and the passengers. Of course, we all know that, but if you are given a Notam saying “this airspace ain’t great, maybe avoid it” and then you fly through it, where does the responsibility of your operator end and yours begin?
• Reading notams, the AIPs, AICs, and being aware of the threats of the airspace you might be asked to operate into is vital. More than that, ensure you are aware of any mitigation strategies required.
• Pre-prepare for diversions and know where you can safely go. Some diversions might take you through prohibited airspace so if you are operating in the vicinity of some, have a route ready in box two so you can easily avoid airspace when you need to.
• Be aware of security threats and hazards on the ground, in advance.
• Consider the serviceability of aircraft equipment before you go – critical equipment would be communication systems, and those required to ensure military units can identify them as civilian;
• Have an awareness of the potential political implications if diverting into some regions with certain nationalities onboard. If you divert there, what will happen to your passengers and crew, and why?
• Report things. Keep the information loop going.

Send in AirportSpy reports on hazards and security concerns

4. How can we do better?

Aeronautical info from states and authorities is your first point of call. AICs, AIPs and Notams are going to contain info on advisories, restrictions and recommendations.

If you are an FAA operator, then the FAA put out KICZ notams and this page has all the current ones for airspace.

Networks and organizations such as us here at OPSGROUP try to share relevant and up-to-date information on airspace, conflicts and the risks that are out there.

Open sources like social media and news sites are also good – but be careful, these may come from unconfirmed or unreliable sources. We recommend checking info with other sources too, like handling agents in the area.

Finally, talk to other pilots and operators, and be sure to report information you have from operating in or through airspace.

2020 was an interesting year for aviation. It was dominated by Covid, which saw traffic numbers fall to the levels of several decades before – which is why a review of the accident statistics is an interesting one to consider.

What sort of accidents are taking place?

The primary accidents seen in 2020 are unsurprisingly similar to those seen over the last decade:

• Runway excursions
• Loss of control in flight
• CFIT
• Abnormal runway contact (hard landings and tail strikes)
• Actually missing the runway (undershoot and overshoots)
• System malfunction or failure
• Fire

We wrote a bit about these in a bit more detail not that long ago. We called it the ‘Seven Deadly Things’ and you can read it here.

What are the 2020 stats?

Well, first up, 2020 was roughly the same in terms of capacity as 1998 – a year known for Bill Clinton, the inception of the Euro and the movie ‘Titanic’. Yep, that long ago. So, same traffic levels, but different accident rates – 1998 saw 10 fatal accidents and 24 hull losses compared to “just” 3 and 6 in 2020.

But if we compare the 2020 numbers to 2019 it paints a different picture. Or rather, it is actually a very similar picture. While there there were only roughly 50% the number of flights in 2020 that took place in 2019, there were still 75% the number of fatal accidents. 

OK, this isn’t a very telling statistic since we’re talking 3 instead of 4 and neither is huge, but it does mean the fatality rate and hull loss rate went up per million flights in 2020. It was not a significant increase, but it is enough to suggest that yes, not flying regularly can lead to more accidents and incidents. 

Not really news there then, but something worth considering.

The Stats for 2019/2020 (Credit: Airbus)

Point number 1 – Lack of flying leads to mistakes

If we take a leap back to 1958 and look at the accident rates through the decades then there has been a steady overall decline, and now we are sitting “comfortably” at under 5 fatal accidents per year, while flights have increased from about 12.5 million (1989 sort of time) to 35.8 million (the peak in 2019).

So, in thirty years the rate per million flights has dropped significantly to around the 0.17 per million flights point, and hull losses to 0.34 per million.

How did it get so low?

Significant leaps have been made in aircraft design over the years and this has had a huge impact on safety levels. Of course, training, CRM, Human Factors awareness and all of that has played a part too, but the major pat on the back goes to the airplane builders. For every silly mistake a pilot has made, they have generally identified it and then helped prevent it by building us better instruments, more robust systems, or things that catch our mistakes for us.

In fact, if you look at the fatal accident rates per million and then break it down into aircraft generation, it has dropped from 3.0 to 0.1 , and 5.4 to 0.2 for the hull losses. So technology is helping us. A lot.

Those big ones – the CFITs and LOC-I accidents – have reduced by 86% and 89% because of technology upgrades from Generation 1 to Generation 4 aircraft. This is down to the introduction of things like glass cockpits, FMW and TAWS systems.

Evolution of Commercial Jet Aircraft (Credit: Airbus)

How low can it go?

Can we reduce the occurrences to zero? If not, even with all this handy automation, then why not?

Well, these statistics offer us an answer there as well.

They are taken from across civil aviation, revenue flights on western built commercial jet aircraft that carry over 40 passengers, and also big cargo ones. It doesn’t include non-western built aircraft (possibly because the safety records on them ain’t great), and it doesn’t include Business Aviation.

Why not? Well, because the operational environment is very different, and very different in challenging ways. 

So, we are looking at the accidents which have involved nice, relatively modern commercial aircraft generally piloted by experienced folk going into places they have gone into many times before. And yet they are still managing to get it wrong.

What’s more, we’ve seen how automation is helping – it has brought us down to a very steady level.  So what is going on? We recently published a piece on the ‘Hidden Risks of Automation’, which we think offers some of the answer.

All the gadgets

The ‘Problem of the Person’

Unfortunately, the solution to the Problem of the Person is not a simple one.

‘Human Factors’ might give us some reasons – poor decision making, bad workload management, lack of understanding the systems, but none of these really provide the answer to correcting it. The work now comes down to us.

1. Don’t Become Complacent: We have multiple systems put there to provide another layer of safety but we are seeing pilots rely on them as the only level of safety. These systems are a last line of defence though, not the the only defence.

ROW/ROP should supplement good landing performance assessment and stabilized approach management.

TAWS and GPWS systems give us a hard floor that we must not go below, but our own situational awareness should keep us well away from ever having to hear those calls.

Autopilots, flight protections and warnings should be a final alert, but basic airmanship and handling skills should correct our flightpath long before we reach a level that needs those systems to help.

2. Poor Decision Making and Workload Management: None of our clever automation and systems have the ability to think and question for us. So we need to make sure we are doing this, and we need to make sure we are doing it in the right way. Ask the right questions, gather information and use your resources properly.

Ask “What does this mean?” – Diagnose the problem not based on what has happened, but on what the impact and consequence of that failure is.

Ask “What has changed?” –  Review your decisions. Don’t fit new information into the solution you’ve already picked, rather adapt your solution to consider the new information. 

Ask “What do you think?” – Open-ended questions that gather input from someone else might catch things you have missed, or misinterpreted.

3. Just Do better

When we have seen automation and systems reduce the number of occurrences down to this point where the vast majority of accidents are down to human error, there really is no better solution than us Just Doing Better.

But this ‘better’ falls on the whole industry.

Sharing information, experiences, supporting development in others and improving training and pilot resilience. 

There are multiple projects out there:

• IATA and the Flight Safety Foundation have just released their recommendations for reducing runway excursions (GAPRE).
• ICAO are implementing new Runway Condition Assessment and Reporting standards from the end of this year.
• UPRT training is being developed and improved.
• IATA and ICAO Evidence Based Training development is shifting the training paradigm to train competencies rather than practicing solutions to singular events.

At the end of the day, aviation has grown progressively safer and more efficient over the last few decades, but the trend is flattening out and the same events seem to be occurring, for the same reasons. The ball is now in our court to try and fix the remaining issue – because, as harsh as it sounds, that issue is us.

The last line of defence is us

Fancy reading some more?

• We got a lot of our info from the Airbus Safety Analysis report, and you can check it out here.
• The Global Action Plan for Preventing Runway Excursions is full of recommendations. You can see the report here.
• Here’s one we wrote earlier on Unstabilised Approaches which are one of the most common precursors to runway excursions and abnormal landing events.

All across Europe, ‘Airspace Improvement Events’ are occurring. It sounds huge. We were expecting new regions, routes, maybe some special-filtered cleaner air being puffed out into it…

Alas, we read through all the Airspace Improvement Event notices, and from what we gather, it is part of a big, ongoing project to implement things like Free Route Airspace, more PBN routes, and to basically tidy up the airspace a little. This is not limited to just Europe though – the world is going PBN.

So, less an ‘Event’ and more a ‘Something’?

Everything is moving to Performance Based Navigation. It has something to do with being compliant with EC Regulation 2018/1048, but really just comes down to more efficient, better, safer, increased capacity airspace and approach benefits for everyone.

As simply as possible – VORs are out, Waypoints are in.

In a bit more detail – fixed ATS routes will continue to be implemented for better flow management and lateral separation, you’ll hear more about Free Route Space, and you’ll start seeing more RNP approaches popping up at airports.

So it is actually quite a big change, but one that will be slow to get implemented. Actually, most countries brought in things like RNAV5 routes and SIDs/STARs that use RNAV1 and GNSS instead of old-fashioned, Navaid-based manoeuvrings quite some time ago, so this isn’t something pilots will necessarily notice and there is no Big Date to look out for.

Except for one – December 1 2022 (but we will get to that later).

Why don’t we like conventional Navaids anymore?

Well, old Navaids need a lot of maintenance and they break a lot. Ok, not a lot, but they do potentially double the chance of some sort of issue for an airplane relying on them. Take your bog standard ILS for example – it has ground transmitters and aircraft receivers (and all the bits around them and in between then) and if any one of these conks out then you can’t fly the ILS (quite so well) anymore.

Your GPS approach on the other hand relies on the aircraft system only, which means less to go wrong.*

*Actually satellites can have issues too – GPS Jamming is a big problem and the plan to decommission Navaids is being delayed because of this.

A relic almost as old as Stonehenge

So, what does this all actually mean, practically?

For operators, it doesn’t mean a whole lot. Most aircraft will have been operating to RNAV5 for a fair old while now, so the only noticeable change will probably some newly named waypoints, and some slightly more efficient routings.

You might need to pay a little more attention to any MELs that affect your performance capabilities, and be aware that approaches might no longer have conventional Navaids as backups in the future because a bunch of these are getting decommissioned.

But overall, it really means keeping an eye on them charts to see what’s happening where, and to make sure you pull the right plate out for your arrival.

PBN, Say Again?

So, PBN, again. And December 1 2022. What happens then?

ICAO has ordered all approach charts to reflect the new specifications by December 1, 2022.

This

What is changing?

All charts will say RNP APCH on them (or RNP AR APCH) instead of RNAV, RNP (GNSS) or whatever other random title they currently have. The chart should have the three lines of minima on it which you will need to know – your LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or your LPV.

The Chart and the Minimas

Which country is winning the chart race?

ICAO post updates on the implementation which you can follow here, although they last updated it in 2017 so let’s hope it is looking a little better now.

All the R’s

In case you are still lost at RNP instead of RNAV, here is a quick recap on some terms for you:

• GNSS is your Global Navigation Satellite System and it is a generic terms for all satellite navigation systems including GPS, Galileo, GLONASS, and ones augmented by ABAS, SBAS, GBAS… all the BASes.
• LNAV, VNVAV, LPV, LP are your different minimus given on an RNP approach chart.
• PBN is Performance Based Navigation based on performance requirements of the aircraft on a route or approach or in designated airspace.
• RNP is required navigation performance which basically means the onboard monitoring and alerting system your aircraft has.
• RNP Approach is a generic term for any approach which uses GNSS to enable it and an RNP system to fly it.
• RNAV Approach is what RNP approaches used to be called.
• RNP APCH is the name of the navigation specification in the ICAO PBN manual for the 4 types of approach:
  • LNAV (GPS NPA)
  • LP (SBAS-based NPA)
  • LNAV/VNAV (APV Baro-VNAV)
  • LPV (APV SBAS or SBAS Cat I)
• RNP AR APCH is an approach the requires a specific aircraft qualification and operational approval. Usually because it takes places in an environment “rich in obstacles”. The AR stands for ‘approval required”. So you might be allowed to fly an RNP (RNAV) but not an RNP AR and your OpSpec (and training) are going to make this pretty clear.

What is Free Route Airspace?

FRA is a specified volume of airspace in which users can freely plan a route between defined entry and exit points. It makes the sector much more efficient.

And because we mentioned it earlier, what about RNAV?

Way back in the olden days (not as far back as when airplanes just had a compass and a map to use, but before GPS came in), there used to be Navaids. Ancient relics called VORs and NDBs which helped pilots work out where they were.

Possibly the least necessary (and most boring) visual explanation of something we’ve ever seen

But then GPS came along and brought with it a way more effective and accurate way to navigate. How accurate is defined by ICAO under their four main navigation specifications – RNAV10, RNAV5, RNAV2 and RNAV1

RNAV5 is actually fairly basic. It has been around in Europe since 1998 and is mandated in pretty much all high level airspace there. 

The 5 bit refers to the requirement for aircraft to operate to a minimum navigational accuracy of +/-5nm for 95% of the time.

RNAV1 is your precision RNAV (1 being +/-1nm). RNAV10 is generally what you find over the oceans, and RNAV2 is generally used in en-route areas of the US.

Fun fact: The UAE and Bahrain FIRs implemented RNAV1 a while back, which means you need GPS Primary to route into here. If you’ve encountered GPS jamming en-route, (common in Turkey, Iran, Iraq etc, read all about that here), then this might cause problems for you.

What do you need for RNAV5 operations?

You need some sort of FMS, 1 IRS, 1 GPS or VOR/DME receiver and 2 nav displays.

What about RNP?

If it is an RNP navigation specification then there is also a requirement for on-board performance monitoring and alerting. RNAV refers to ‘area navigation’ and it is slightly different to an RNP system (the monitoring and alerting requirements). PBN requires an RNAV or RNP system, while and RNP APCH specifically requires an RNP system.

What else?

Actually, that’s about it. Except for the poor old UK that will no longer support LPV approaches from June.

In case you were wondering about the accuracy, here is a glorious image to show you

Need to know more?

Here is ICAO EUR Doc 025 which contains all the EUR RNP APCH Guidance Material.

The Bermuda Triangle. A place of myths and legends. But how real is it, and what affect if any does it have on aircraft flying through it?

Where exactly?

The Bermuda is a fairly loosely defined area out in the great Atlantic Ocean, generally mapped out with its three corners reaching Bermuda, Miami and the northwestern corner of Puerto Rico. It varies in size from around 500,000 sq. miles to 1,500,000 sq. miles depending on how its boundaries are drawn.

An oldish map of the Bermuda Triangle

Why do we talk about it in Aviation?

It has a reputation for disappearances – sinking ships and vanishing airplanes, dots on the radar that are gone in a blink, never to be seen again. Some say it is haunted, some say aliens use it as a human abduction point, others reckon it is home to an immense Kraken that swallows ships whole…

These might be tall tales, but in fact is has been the location of a higher-than-its-fair-share of naval and aviation disappearances, and random technical malfunctions too. Somewhere in the region of 50 ships and 20 airplanes since folk started paying attention.

In 2017, a Turkish Airlines A330-200 experienced a series of electrical and mechanical malfunctions while routing over the Triangle. Routing from Istanbul to Cuba, they ended up making a diversion to Washington Dulles. Flight 19 was a squadron of five Torpedo Bombers that disappeared in the area. And of course the famous Amelia Earhart’s final flight was rumored to have gone down in this general location.

It gained its name from an article written back in 1964, which started with an attention grabbing hook –

Fact or Fiction?

Read through the list of sea and air incidents and accidents and you will notice something – the vast majority of events happened last century. Aside from TK183 and a few light aircraft accidents, all the rest generally took place between the 1940s and 1970s.

The investigations into Flight 19 and Amelia Earhart’s disappearance both concluded that poor weather, a loss of situational awareness regarding their actual positions, and ultimately running out of fuel were most likely to blame.

Flight 19 was attributed to the Flight Leader mistaking the Bahamas for the Florida Keys, a broken compass and the fact that the advice for if you got lost in the area back then was to just “take up a heading of 270”. And the Turkish Airlines flight was a fairly uneventful malfunction and diversion.

The high numbers of events can also be put down to the high amount of traffic that routes through this region. It is a fairly major shipping route between the East Coast of the US and the Gulf of Mexico, and in more modern times it has become a fairly busy area for aircraft too.

Airways and routes in the region

What is causing it all then?

Well, weather seems an obvious answer. It is a pretty popular area for hurricanes to aim towards. In fact, Bermuda (the island) sits in Hurricane alley – the more frequent path taken by Atlantic Hurricanes. So it is no surprise old airplanes and ships without the use of modern weather radar systems might fly into this region and be surprised by some really nasty ship-sinking / airplane-crashing storms.

Hurricane Alley

Another explanation offered up by science is to do with magnetism. You all know this, but the Earth’s magnetic pole isn’t quite in the same spot as True North. Your compass points to magnetic north, but there are these things called Agonic Lines which line up magnetic and true north and along these your compass is Truly (pun intended) accurate. One such line runs from Lake Superior and down through the Gulf of Mexico.

Back in the days before GPS, when pioneering navigators relied on compasses and stars (which they couldn’t see because of all the bad weather), they would have potentially corrected for Magnetic to True. But correcting along an agonic line would actually have led them astray.

Then there is the depth of the trenches in this area of the ocean. Most of the sea floor is as far down as 19,000 feet, some areas over 27,500 feet. Which means when things do sink there, they are not easily found. So your sunken ship or ditched airplane is not likely to be found and the conspiracies about aliens and wormholes start to run rampant.

So, the lack of recent aviation events attributable to supernatural phenomena do suggest that it was probably due to more standard reasons that incidents were higher here than in others areas. Added to the fact it makes a good story, and we find we just have an area of bad weather, lots of traffic, and disappointingly unexciting reasons for accidents.

Are there any things modern aviators should look out for in the region?

Yes. Those hurricanes are worth keeping an eye on. The main Atlantic Hurricane season runs from June to the end of November. We wrote a bit about it here.

If you are flying to Bermuda itself then the fact it is a very remote island is also worth thinking about. TXKF/Wade International is your main airport, and some of the nearest alternates lie a good 650 miles away on the east coast of the US.

Some serious fuel planning is a good idea then – Isolated Airport Procedures usually require you to carry at least 2 hours additional fuel (at normal cruise consumption above the destination aerodrome). Here is a useful CAA produced checklist for Isolated Airport Procedures.

The surrounding airspace is also a threat. To the East you have the open Atlantic and all the procedures and challenges associated with that. To the West you have the East coast of the US, including the Florida Metroplex airspace, along with KMIA/Miami and KFLL/Fort Lauderdale – two of the busiest airports, in some of the busiest airspace of the USA.

Nothing odd in the area… except maybe this?

Did you know there is a Bermuda Triangle in space?

Yep, astronauts have their own ‘Bermuda Triangle’ to contend with. It lies over the South Pacific, stretching between Chile and Zimbabwe, and is rather more real than its earthly counterpart.

This area of space is where the inner Van Allen radiation belt comes closest to the Earth. These rings of charged particles – loads of electrons in the outer ring and high-energy protons in the inner –  surround the planet, and are caused by the Earth’s magnetic field which protects us from this harmful radiation by trapping these particles in its magnetic grip.

Unfortunately, in this particular area, the Earth’s magnetic field is weakest, so all those particles are free to swoosh around more. They have also managed to get much closer to the Earth which means our satellites, space equipment and space travelers sometimes orbit through it.  This pretty much messes with electrical equipment, and people for that matter.

For the Hubble telescope, which passes through it about 10 times a day, it means a disruption in its workings for about 15% of each day. Satellites often experience temporary system failures when passing through during high flux days, and the astronauts onboard the ISS have to be shielded to prevent excess radiation. They often report seeing random white flashes, and having issues with communication equipment.

Van Allen explained

Disappointingly then it seems the Bermuda Triangle is just the stuff of fiction

Most authorities and Scientific organizations agree, but if you fancy reading some more about it then these are some good places to head to:

• A National Geographic article on it
• The NOAA official word on it

Airport security means the threat of a bomb onboard is greatly reduced. But if you do receive a bomb threat, or find a suspicious package onboard, what procedure does your operator have in place for you to follow?

How much risk is there?

You have probably all heard the Shoe Bomber attempt from 2001. This was thwarted by some brave passengers and crew, and also the fact the bomber had sweaty feet – his swamp foot dampened the trigger preventing it from igniting.

In 2016, an aircraft made an emergency at HCMM/Mogadishu airport after a bomb exploded onboard. The bomb was likely brought on concealed within a laptop. This flight was lucky though – the impact of the bomb was minimal, limited because the bomb exploded while the aircraft was at a lower altitude (11,000ft).

In 2020 a European airline found a ‘bomb note’ onboard. The flight was escorted to a safe landing and passengers disembarked without incident.

So bomb threats, and attempted bombings, do occur, and while security is getting better and better, unfortunately terrorists are getting more creative in finding ways to bring items on board. The attempts are not always aimed at causing destruction either – threats alone cause a huge amount of disruption to operations. So understanding how to assess the risk and credibility of a threat is as important as knowing how to deal with a possible explosive device if one is found onboard.

Th shoe bomber was thwarted by his own sweaty feet

Is the threat credible?

Threats received regarding an aircraft need to be assessed, and the credibility determined. The threat classification will generally be based around how specific the threat is. Most operators will have a procedure in place for determining this, and probably take into account something along the following lines:

If a threat mentions a specific target, or is made by a known terrorist organization and is deemed credible then this is going to be considered more serious. Often these are referred to as a red threat.

On the other hand, a threat which is vague, general, and doesn’t specify targets might be considered less credible. A hand scribbled note in the toilet for example. This would be categorized as a green threat.

However, regardless of the assessed credibility, a bomb threat has to be taken seriously and treated as a genuine situation.

If you are on the ground

The simplest and safest option if you are on the ground is to disembark and carry out a full search of the aircraft. It might be a hassle and result in some big delays, but the possible alternative is much worse.

A serious threat may require a precautionary disembarkation – which will result in offloading the passengers as quickly and as safely as possible. This creates a risk to safety in itself, and generally the credibility of the threat will be communicated to the crew so that they can judge the risk of waiting (for steps) versus disembarking immediately to clear the aircraft (but have passengers hurling themselves towards the tarmac).

His face is the red threat apparently

If you are in flight

If a threat is received against your aircraft while in flight, carry out a search checking those places which are often overlooked during security checks on the ground, but where an article might easily be concealed – toilets, galleys, jump seats, stowage areas, closets etc. Try and do it discreetly to avoid unnecessary worry for passengers.

If an article is found, do not move it or touch it. Move passengers away from the immediate area, and remove any flammable items and have fire extinguishers ready in case. A PA asking for anyone onboard with ‘BD or EOD experience’ might help – these are terms which experts will recognize without saying “Hey, passengers, is there a bomb expert onboard?”

Not terrifying your passengers is probably a good call, but ensuring they are following your crew’s orders, and that they are prepared for the situation on the ground, is also necessary. This means providing them with clear information, but without dramatizing the situation.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, we have received a message that a threat has been made against one of our aircraft/an aircraft in this airspace. These threats do happen, however, until we can establish how credible it is, we will take all possible precautions and therefore intend to land at… in…”

If you find a suspicious article

Most manufacturers provide checklists for bomb-on-board situations. Know where this is, and understand what it says. 

There are a few measures you might want to consider:

• Talk to ATC so they know exactly what is going on and what you need. They all assist with locating an airport with services needed, and coordinating with military if necessary.
• Try to avoid routes over heavily populated areas.
• Consider carefully the choice between flying fast to minimize airborne time versus flying slow to minimize air-loads and damage (in the event of fuselage rupture).
• Request remote parking on the ground if there isn’t a designated bomb location.
• Brief your crew for a possible emergency landing, and in any event, brief them to ensure passengers are disembarked quickly and moved to at least 200m upwind from the aircraft.
• Avoid large and rapid changes to pressure altitude – consider using manual cabin altitude controls to minimize rapid pressure changes while still lowering the cabin altitude to reduce the differential pressure.

Aircraft are designed to not ‘explode’ if there is a rupture in the fuselage – that’s why they tend to have a lot of smaller sections attached together. It makes the overall structure more resilient to the effects of an explosive decompression, aiming to keep it “localized”.

Reducing the differential pressure to around 1 PSI will also reduce the damage if an explosion does occur. Maintaining a slight differential will ensure the blast moves outwards, but the lower differential limits the force of air from the cabin outwards. 

1psi is the equivalent of about 2,500 feet difference, but flying at an altitude that allows you to manually reduce the differential will probably mean a much lower level and much higher fuel burn.

The Mogadishu bomb exploded at low altitude so differential pressure was lower

Where is your aircraft’s LRBL?

A Least Risk Bomb Location is an area where the least damage will occur should a bomb explode. This should be specified in your aircraft manual. These are often near aft doors or in washroom stowage areas. The area provides the least risk, in the event of an explosion, to flight critical structures and systems.

If the article is deemed unsafe to move, cover it in plastic to prevent any liquids getting in, and then pile blankets and pillows, seat cushions and soft clothing around it. We’re talking as big a pile as you can, and once done, saturate in water to minimize fire risk in case an explosion does occur. Don’t forget the plastic sheets first though –  liquid damage to electrical components is also a big risk.

If you can move it, and only if it is deemed essential to do so, then check that LRBL. Once in place, build up the barricade.

Always minimize movement to any article as much as possible, and don’t put anything directly on top of it. An igloo of saturated cushions around it and the gaps stuffed with blankets etc is good.  This ‘cushioning’ will help minimize the force if an explosion does occur. Never put inside an oven or trolley though as a sealed container will amplify the pressure and explosive force of a bomb.

Stack soft furnishings around the bomb and secure in place

Where to go

You will likely be accompanied by fighter jets to an airport with a designated bomb area – usually a remote apron away from buildings, fuel supplies and other aircraft.

EGSS/Stansted in the U.K. is the designated “emergency” airport because of its proximity to RAF bases, and the special apron for hijacking and bomb threat parking.

What next?

Getting your aircraft safely on the ground is Step One. Getting your aircraft to a safe point to disembark/evacuate your passengers and crew is Step Two and coordinating this with ATC and airport services is important. Knowing in advance where you will taxi to will get you there more quickly and safely. Landing, slamming on brakes and bursting tires will get you nowhere fast, so plan ahead and be prepared.

A bomb threat or bomb onboard situation is difficult to plan for because the ‘where you are and what will happen’ is not something we can prepare for, other than being ready to follow our procedures and remaining calm. Chances are this is not a situation many of us will (thankfully) find ourselves in, but understanding the resources you have to assist, and knowing the onboard procedures so you can coordinate passengers and crew will no doubt help if it ever does occur.

Ever been bamboozled when flying into airports you’ve never been to before? You’re on your approach and all looks good – straightforward, easy, no threats – and then, they cut 50nm off your arrival track and suddenly you’re high and fast and this is when your co-pilot (who has been there before) turns around and says – “Oh yeah, they always do that!”

Or what about that airport where they built a really big hanger in a really silly spot, and you don’t find out about the wind shear off it until you are there, at 30 feet, battling with it?

Calling All Pilots… 

• All pilots who operate into random, challenging or interesting airports.
• All pilots who do not operate into the same airports regularly.
• And all operators, ATC, anyone with a bit of knowledge about an airport for that matter.

Following on from our OpsChat where some of you raised the idea of briefings on specific airports, we have started to put these together…

What’s the idea?

The idea is a lot of pilots, particularly corporate folk (but this is still for everyone) might not have access to loads of shared information on specific airports. If you do not fly somewhere regularly, or do not work for a big airline, then the only information you will have on certain airports is what you can read off the charts and in the AOIs.

But we all know there are airports out there which have specific challenges you only discover when you operate in. The useful, practical, operational stuff. The threats, risks and gotchas that you discover with experience.

Introducing: Operational Lowdowns

Our Operational Lowdowns are our new way of trying to share this information between you all.

If you have experience going into an airport and spotted something unusual, odd, tricky or interesting then send in that Airport Spy report. Or even drop us an email with a full lowdown about it.

If you are operating into a new airport and want some additional info before you go, then check the airport on our Airport Spy app – there might already be a Lowdown Briefing in there. If there isn’t, let us know and we will do some digging and try and put one together for you.

Sharing is caring…

… and it is also safety!

Knowing about specific operational challenges, environmental threats and tricky procedures before you get there, so you can BRIEF about it and come up with a plan to mitigate any risks, is important.

So we hope you find these useful, and keep getting in touch with info you have to share, and what info you would like to know.

Take a look at the Operational Lowdown for KTEB if you want to see what we’re talking about 😃 ✈️

If you haven’t watched Worst Place To Be A Pilot then take a look. The series follows Susi Air pilots who fly into some of the most remote and dangerous airports around Indonesia, taking supplies to local tribes.

This post, however, is looking at some of the threats that might be present for larger commercial operations. Indonesia poses security, environmental, and operational risks to flights, and recently these risks have been increasing in severity.

What is the security situation?

Indonesia does not rate as a risk on our SafeAirspace site because the risks are ground based. However, there are threats to security risk of flight disruption which are worth considering.

Islamic State affiliated militants are active in the Surabaya region to the west of Bali, and attacks have been increasing since 2018. However, these are generally ‘low capability’ attacks with no immediate threat to flight operations. Security at the major international airports is good, and these groups are unlikely to present a serious threat.

From the UK FCO travel advice. Click on map to download hi-res version.

However, there has also been an increase in insurgency movements, particularly in the Papua Province to the east, with groups targeting security forces with the intention of disrupting flight operations. In April, a militant group attacked Aminggaru Airport in the Ilaga District and torched a private helicopter. Similar attempts have been occurring since January 2021 with increasing frequency.

Particularly in more rural regions, businesses rely on air transport to bring goods in, and by disrupting these through direct attacks on the airports, aircraft, or by targeting security groups, the insurgents intend to damage both the foreign businesses, and social stability.

If you are operating in you can expect heightened security measures and increased military and security personnel. Possible disruption is also likely so contact handling agents in advance to confirm any security or risk.

Security in airports is increasing response to attacks

What is their Infrastructure like?

Transport infrastructure is poor in Indonesia, especially in rural regions. Which brings us back to The Worst Places to be a Pilot – many rural villages, especially in mountainous areas, are extremely cut off. So they build runways, and Susi Air fly in food and supplies. Probably not the places you are planning to fly though.

Indonesia does have some major airports and the standard between these, and small domestic airports is marked. WIII/Soekarno-Hatta (formerly Jakarta) is a major international airport with three runway options, the longest being 07R/25L at 12,008’/3660m. However, they are only equipped to CAT I capability and during the monsoon rains, visibility can be seriously degraded.

The airspace here is also very congested, and reports suggest ground operations can be challenging with poor taxiway lighting and markings, and ATC often giving non-standard taxi routings.

Aside from Jakarta, you also have WIMM/Medan airport serving the Sumatra region in the north, WADD/Denpasar serving the Bali region and WARR/Juanda serving the Surabaya area.

Keep an eye on weather forecasts and take additional fuel during monsoon season. Pre-briefing the taxi routes and maintaining a high level of situational and traffic awareness on the ground is important.

Indonesia has some of the most remote and dangerous airports

Do I need to worry about poor Safety Standards?

Indonesia has had a very high number of serious air accidents. Since 2001, there were at least 40 accidents resulting in fatalities in Indonesian airspace, giving Indonesia one of the worst safety records in the region. In January 2021, a Swirijaya Air 737 crashed into the Java Sea – preliminary reports suggests poor maintenance and weather were primary factors.

Past accidents have been attributed to poor pilot training, mechanical failures, air traffic control issues and poor aircraft maintenance leading to 59 Indonesian airlines which are currently banned from flying in EU airspace.

IATA forecast it will become the sixth largest market for air travel over the next decade or two. Much of the issue with safety has been down to the rapid expansion of the industry with little oversight or quality control during the initial expansion. However, this has been improving recently with a focus now on licensing for operators, pilots and ATC within the country, along with better maintenance standards and technical skills.

So, if you are operating into the larger international airports, ATC, facilities and general standards at these is ok. However, if you are flying to smaller regional airports, watch out for below standard ATC and maintenance, and caution procedures of other aircraft in the area.

The FAA currently rates Indonesia as Category 2 in its International Aviation Safety Assessment program which includes areas such as inspection procedures and technical expertise. If you are operating in, it is still a good idea to use a handling agent and maintenance company who work with major airlines and have a proven work standard and reliability.

Soekarno-Hatto

Are there any Airspace Issues?

Back in 2019 we wrote this about Indonesian airspace. They are strict about overflight permits and if you are operating in the Singapore FIR and accidentally stray into Indonesian airspace they don’t like it. At best, they issue a fine, at worst you will be intercepted by Indonesian Air jets and forced to land to be detained in Indonesia. During the monsoon and storm season, early planning for weather avoidance is important to avoid this.

Indonesia has mandated ADS-B throughout its airspace. Overflight control is generally of a decent standard.

Keep an eye on volcanoes

Mount Sinabung (sounds sort of like Cinnabun) is one of the most active volcanoes in the ‘Ring of Fire’ region. It is currently on alert level 4, which means ‘highly dangerous’. There is a 7km exclusion zone around the volcano.

The volcano erupted in February 2021, sending ash up to FL400. The ash was blown over water so operations into nearby WIMM/Medan airport were not impacted.

The 2021 eruption

Keep two eyes on the Weather

Indonesia has a big monsoon season and is prone to abundant rain, which often leads to abundant flooding. Delays are likely and extra fuel should be carried. ATC are generally ok, but with congested airspace they may not be the most efficient or responsive in high workload, bad weather situations.

Summary

Improvements to Indonesia’s infrastructure continue, and they are paying attention to international concerns regarding their standards and safety.

If you are operating into a major airport, the biggest threats you will face are likely to be weather related. If you are operating into smaller airports, particularly in the Papua Province, then paying attention to local security situations is important, along with a caution with the general standards of operation and facilities.

The great battle of the skies! Pilots trying to fly wherever and however they like, free like birds, while mean old air traffic controllers tell them off and put a stop to the fun having…

OK, not quite. Our ATC colleagues are a vital part of the safety infrastructure and it is only with their support and services that operations remain safe and efficient. Which is why we should be asking how their pandemic situation is going as well. So, this is a look into the concerns, challenges and events that ATC are dealing with because of Covid, and some feedback on how pilots and ATC can work together to fix ‘em.

So, if you are all sitting comfortably…

Let’s take a look inside…

What’s been going on inside the towers?

• Challenge #1 Low workload, low arousal levels

ATC have seen reductions in traffic to as low as 20% pre-covid levels, but workload is not linear to traffic reduction, it is exponentially lower. So this is a challenge for ATC who thrive on dynamic, high workload environments. In one area of the UK, 7 sectors previously controlled by 7 individual controllers is now handled by just one to ensure the workload (and arousal levels) are at a level which can maintain skills and concentration.

• Challenge #2 Technical & Procedural changes

The risk of Covid has meant bit changes in how procedures are carried out, in an attempt to avoid ATC Zero events due rampantly spreading sickness. But this means ‘situational awareness’ handovers traditionally carried out face-to-face are now not leading to potential communication risk and lack of effectiveness. Safety management procedures have had to adapt, fast.

• Challenge #3 Different events requiring different mitigations

New events, previously not even thought of events are happening, and like our pilot CRM, ATC use TRM (team resource management) to debrief and learn from them. But unlike pre-Covid days they don’t have oodles of time to disseminate information across the operational audience – the learning and sharing has to happen fast to avoid repeats. So they are dealing with new situations, quickly.

We like this guy in Wellington, he looks fun

What events have been happening?

• Event Type #1 Altitude busts

Level deviations aren’t a new thing but apparently numbers have increased in some regions. The UK and parts of Europe have variable transition altitudes and these can be low, which means your level-off on departure could be a fairly low flight level. Add to this some low atmospheric pressures and it can get messy. For example, if you take off with 983hPa set and forget to change to standard, you’ll find yourself 900 feet higher than you should be.

• Event Type #2 CPDLC

Frequencies across Europe were at saturation level pre-Covid which is why CPDLC was getting popular. It is a great thing, we like it, and controllers are still encouraging the use of it now ready for when those traffic levels pick up and the frequencies get busy again. But they are also reporting a few issues with it.

First up, pilots are reverting to voice when CPDLC doesn’t give them the direct or the level they want. If you get a “negative” on CPDLC then it is going to be the same controller giving you the same “negative’ over the radio, only a little more irritatedly since they’ve already told you once.

Secondly, directs are causing issues (for once, not a pilot’s fault). When you receive a clearance by voice it usually goes something like “Route alpha then bravo”. When you receive it by CPDLC it might be formatted “Route Bravo via Alpha”… and when you receive this on certain systems the message might be truncated leaving the pilots thinking “we are cleared direct Bravo”. So check your CPDLC message carefully if in doubt, then double check.

• Event Type #3 Airspace Incursions

Empty airspace means more directs are possible, but it also means some GA pilots cutting corners into airspace where big planes are playing. ATC do their best to kick them out again before they get in your way, but keep a good watch out on your TCAS for errant traffic.

Maintain your own SA and keep a good look out

Unstable Approaches

This one gets a section of its own.

Let’s step back a few miles from the 300 knots, 6000 feet at 12 miles though, and ask how we got ourselves into that position in the first place? Was it the moment ATC offered us a shortcut? Was it at 15nm when, honestly, it was looking a little tight but they would have said something?

Feedback from ATC is that they are there to help, and they want to offer the most efficient approaches they can, cutting down our track miles wherever possible… and lower traffic levels mean this is much more possible at the moment. Problem is, back in pre-Covid days when traffic levels were higher and most approaches were kept “standard”, ATC knew what to look for. If an aircraft looked a bit high, a bit fast, compared to “normal”, they could give us a cheeky “do you need a few more miles?” prompt.

Fast forward to post-Covid times though and ATC have much less idea of what is “normal”. It might be ok for you, and your aircraft type, to do 300 knots at 12nm, but ATC do not necessarily know. So we cannot depend on ATC to say something when it doesn’t look right – the pilots need to do this. If you are too high, too fast, too close, speak up, you will get those track miles, but don’t rely on ATC to recognize it is all going a bit wrong.

The big point?

The big point is this – we are in it together. ATC and pilots, directly tackling the operational challenges that this pandemic has brought.

So next time you are out flying, have some of these points in mind when working with ATC. Talk to them, work with them, and above all support them because they are what are keeping us safe in the skies.

Chad’s long term President, Idriss Déby died this week, having spent more than three decades in power as one of Africa’s longest-serving leaders. So why did his death result in the temporary closure of the country, and what is the impact to aviation?

The background

Chad is a large landlocked country in Africa, bordered by Sudan, Libya, the CAR, Cameroon,Nigeria and Niger.

Déby was focused on building a more democratic society and he had strong allies in France and with other Western powers through his continued fighting against Jihadist groups. Provincial elections were already underway with projections suggesting he would be successful in winning a sixth term.

However, Chad is also one of the poorest nations in the world, with big problems around poverty, corruption and human rights, and with that came civil unrest.

What happened?

Déby was injured during a visit to troops who were battling against rebels belonging to a group called Fact (the Front for Change and Concord in Chad). The big concern now is who will become the next leader – Déby’s son has stepped in – but the government has been dissolved and conflict is escalating in the country as opposing parties fight for power.

The military elected initially to close land and maritime borders, but then closed all airports as well, whilst putting in a strict countrywide curfew.

The Impact for Aviation

Initially, a Notam was issued stating that FTTJ/Ndjamena airport was closed, and that Contingency Procedures were in effect across the FTTT/Ndjamena FIR. Then a couple of days later, on Apr 21, the Notam was cancelled and the US Embassy issued a Security Alert advising that FTTJ airport has reopened.

In the short term however, landings are not advised, and overflying aircraft should be familiar with Contingency Procedures. You can download the Contingency Plan from the Acesna AIP here.

This plan lays out the arrangements for situations where the Air Navigation Services are partially or totally disrupted, and aims to ensure overflights remain possible. Effectively, it aims to coordinate with neighboring ATS units so control of the N’Djamena UIR is temporarily assigned to them – Brazzaville ACC and Niamey ACC are the primary units being used.

Pilot operating procedures while Contingency Procedures are activated are shown under section 8.3 and the advises the following:

• Maintain contact with Brazzaville or Niamey control until entering, and contact the next control at least 10 minutes prior to exiting.
• Operate along the assigned contingency route (as listed in the table), although SLOP is recommended.
• Reach your assigned level at least 10 minutes prior to entering N’Djamena UIR and maintain throughout unless an emergency arises requiring you to diverge from it.
• Listen out on 12.6 and transmit position reports.

Contingency routes laid out in the ASECNA AIP ENR 1.8

What else do we know?

N’Djamena in the past was a popular fuel stop in central Africa, but multiple travel warnings now advise against travel here (see the UK advice here, and the US advice here). No official state Notams have been issued, but risk remains high. A state of emergency remains in place for the Lake Chad region. Overall there is a high threat for terrorism and it is strongly advised to avoid landings.

The airspace warnings for the Ukraine are on the rise again, and for good reason – Russia seem to be going on a renewed military offensive, focusing their efforts on the area of disputed airspace over Crimea.

Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014, the ATC Center in Simferopol has been run by Russia. Russia claims the airspace, and publishes Notams under the URFV code they invented for it. Ukraine refuses to recognise the change, and still controls the airspace under the internationally-recognised UKFV code.

So what jurisdiction do Russia have, and how much attention should we be paying to the Notams which they issue for an area of airspace that is not theirs to control?

What are Russia saying?

Russia have published a long series of URFV Notams advising of danger areas and limitations to airways across the Simferopol FIR. These run from April 20-30 – some only apply from FL350 upwards; others apply to all flights from SFC right up to altitudes higher than most aircraft can fly (we saw a FL670 thrown in there). These danger areas are most likely due to military activity, which may include live firing exercises.

The zone of restriction of flights includes some areas over the southern part of Crimea, from Sevastopol to Feodosia, the territorial waters adjacent to the Southern coast of Crimea, and part of the international waters of the Black Sea, and are possibly in relation to Russia’s plan to move warships into the area.

A long list of Notams from Russia

What are Ukraine saying?

Ukraine aren’t happy about it, and have issued a bunch of Notams for the same periods effectively establishing danger areas at all levels in the portions of the FIR that are over water – i.e big chunks of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov (to the northeast of Crimea).

All the Ukrainian UKFV Notams advising about these danger areas carry this note:

DUE ACTIVITY PUBLISHED BY RUSSIAN FEDERATION.
THE PUBLICATION BY RUSSIAN FEDERATION OF INFORMATION 
RELATED TO AIRSPACE UNDER RESPONSIBILITY OF UKRAINE 
DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ICAO 
AIR NAVIGATION PLAN - EUROPEAN REGION (DOC 7754) 
AND THE ICAO ANNEXES 11 AND 15.

In other words – although Russia do not have jurisdiction in this airspace, they have published a bunch of danger areas here, so we (Ukraine) had better do the same, to make the warning “official”.

A quick plot of the danger areas published by Ukraine under the UKFV code looks something like this

What are other authorities saying?

So far, none of the other state authorities around the world have published or updated their own warnings in response to this recent issue specific to the airspace over Crimea.

Just last week, the US FAA updated their airspace warning for Ukraine – but this was in relation to the UKDV/Dnipropetrovsk FIR in the east of the country along the border with Russia. The US warning to operators in this region was to exercise extreme caution within 100nm of the entire Russia-Ukraine border, due to risks associated with recent increased tensions between the two countries. They said that if hostilities escalate here, the airspace on both sides could be exposed to potential weapons activity posing a risk to civil aircraft from misidentification or miscalculation.

The most recent US advice for the UKFV/Simferopol FIR came in October 2020, when they actually removed their restrictions on overflights of this airspace. At that time, they said the security situation had sufficiently improved here – while Russia continued to assert territorial claims over the region, Ukraine had established appropriate risk management measures to ensure safe operations for aircraft along the Black Sea routes.

Several other states have existing warnings in place for Ukraine. Canada advise operators to avoid the UKFV/Simferopol and UKDV/Dnipropetrovsk FIRs entirely, whereas the UK and France say that overflights of eastern Ukraine should only be planned on airways over the Black Sea to the south of Crimea.

For more details on Ukraine and other airspace warnings, head to SafeAirspace.net

What are we saying?

Two major points –

1. Russia do not have jurisdiction over the Simferopol airspace, so the Notams to follow are those published by Ukraine under the UKFV code.
2. Regardless of what is out there, clearly extreme caution in this area is required. Russia are making all the moves to increase their military presence and potentially reignite the ongoing conflict.

Behold, Metroplex! The gigantic, towering Autobot warrior! The Walking City, capable of channeling awesome energies!

Wait, what? The Central Florida Metroplex, you say? Oh. Yeah, that’s different. Ok, let’s take a look…

The Central Florida Metroplex an area encompassing various airports including (but not limited to) these big ones –

• KMIA/Miami
• KMCO/Orlando
• KFLL/ Fort Lauderdale
• KTPA/Tampa

It also includes other sightly less big ones, executive ones and basically any airport in the area. Here is a map of said area:

The Metroplex area

Phase One

The reason we are hearing about it a lot is because there is a major project underway to improve the safety and efficiency of the airspace here, and Phase One is just about to be implemented.

The start of the project is all about improving climb and descent profiles, so on April 22 a whopping 54 new procedures are going to come into force, many of which will enable more direct routings of flights.

All this means arrivals and departures will be optimized. Fear not though, the new procedures have been developed to follow current flight tracks where possible, so you hopefully won’t see major, confusing changes – just changes to make it all more efficient.

And then…

ATC are going to get their own new procedures as well. 17 of them coming in around August time. The ATC facilities have been enhanced over the last few years and automation advancements will tie in with these procedures.

What are the new procedures?

Well, we will have to wait until April 22 to actually see them in action, but it is mainly going to be changes to routings of SIDs and STARs, as well as some changes to altitudes. There are also a bunch of amendments to SIAPs and associated takeoff minimums as well as obstacle departure procedures based on the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding of new obstacles, and general air traffic requirement changes.

The FAA published this list so you can take a look and see which are changing and when to check those charts for the correct and up to date version.

There will also be changes to routes – in particular the T routes. V routes will still be available but the plan is to phase these out over time so you are encouraged to file on Tangos.

And theeennnn…

The FAA have proposals in for an overhaul of the airspace across most of Florida, including changes to airspace boundaries around major Florida airports in order to more safely operate VFR and IFR traffic in close proximity.

Currently, the airspace surrounding KMIA/Miami is Class B, which is the most restrictive airspace around the busiest airports in the country. Miami’s Class B airspace extends to 20 nautical miles around the airport up to 7,000 feet in altitude. The FAA want to expand this out to 25 nautical miles east and west of the airport. The top will remain the same, while the bottom of the airspace gradually increases from the surface to 4000 feet as it extends out from the airport.

Class, B, C, D, Busy…

Then there is the airspace around KFLL/Fort Lauderdale. Another major, busy airport, they are surrounded by Class C airspace, which is less restrictive, but still highly controlled. Fort Lauderdale’s Class C airspace extends to 10 nautical miles up to 4,000 feet in altitude, and the proposal looks to extend this also out to 25 nautical miles to the east, and 20 nautical miles to the west, with its top and bottom following the same design as Miami’s class B.

There are also changes planned for the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Routes (NEC ACR).

7 new Q routes are being added and something called ZDC ultra-high sector 30 will go live in September. By the end of the upgrading there will be something like 40 new Q and Y routes which will replace the north-south high-altitude route structure over the East Coast.

The big plan here is the decrease in reliance in ground based navaids, and some fuel and time efficiency improvement for operators.

What can the pilots expect?

You can expect to see changes to charts and procedures – so keep an eye on them and make sure you are operating with the most up to date. You can also expect to see more efficient and safer airspace as the phases of this are implemented over the next year or two.

An airplane is circling over Seattle. Onboard, the Captain, Reece Roberts, is desperately trying to control it, but cannot – she is locked out from the flight control systems because the main computer has been hacked. It is a race against time for the crew to regain control before they run out of fuel. Dom Dom DOOOOMMMMM!!

Not real, just a movie, but…

This might sound like the plot from a terrible movie (it is), but how possible is this, and are there any mechanisms in place to prevent it?

Hack attack

Back in 2015, a cyber security expert, Chris Roberts, was detained by the FBI after making some claims on social media about hacking into an aircraft computer and briefly assuming control of it. According to Roberts he had hacked into several planes over a four year period, using the in-flight entertainment system as his way in.

On this particular occasion, Roberts claims he managed to overwrite some code and issued a “climb” command to the airplane which then caused one of the engines to increase thrust. His actual statement was that he made the airplane “fly sideways” (which possibly discredits the whole story just a little).

This is not the only claim of aircraft hacking though. In 2016, a Boeing 757’s system were also breached, and this one was slightly more disturbing because it actually, definitely happened. It was also less worrying because the aircraft was on the ground and the whole thing was carried out by the US Department of Homeland Security as an exercise to see how possible a hack attack actually would be.

The Aerospace sector is the fifth most targeted sector for cyber-attacks. A high level then, but while some of those attempts are aimed at aircraft flight control computers, and an equally small number at infiltrating airport infrastructure systems, the large majority are of the data gathering nature – attempts to steal sensitive passenger info, credit card data and that sort of thing.

Taken from a Thales report.

How serious are we talking?

Our aircraft are intelligent. The computer brains that run them are complex beasts made up of multiple data generating sensors, and just as many parts giving out orders to various aircraft systems. Take the FADEC on an engine – this is a self-monitoring, automated system. It controls the engine start, deciding when to open valves up, when to add fuel. It also monitors parameters and can stop a start, run a cooling cycle, and try all this again without pilot intervention. The system also controls inflight restarts.

Rolls-Royce launched an ‘intelligent engine’ concept in 2018 – an engine so connected that it has the basic AI algorithm “intelligence” to assess, analyse and learn from its experiences, as well as those of its “peers” (other engines that all share their data).

All this level of automation is great, but what if it is no longer in control, and is being controlled with the pilot effectively locked out?

Then there is the connectivity

Aircraft are increasingly digitalized and increasingly connected, and these connections might be less secure than we think. One highlighted “weakness” in aircraft onboard systems is the encryption levels within the comms and reporting systems. You might point out that aircraft are fairly visible on Flightradar, but this only gives general whereabouts, and transponder data is no longer shared. Being able to pinpoint exact locations in real time has far greater consequences if the wrong people are able to access this information.

There is growing speculation that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 may have been electronically hijacked, or at the very least had its position spoofed leading to the initial confusion over its whereabouts, and later the difficulty finding the crash site.

Aircraft are increasingly connected to the ‘open world’

The good news

The good news is there are protections within aircraft systems. First up, there is no way to access a critical system via a non-critical one. Network architecture prevents this and various experts have stated it is impossible to move from, for example, the in-flight communications system to the avionics.

Airbus incorporate a switch in the flight deck – the NSS (Network Server System) gatelink pushbutton is effectively an added ‘disconnect’ which separates all cockpit systems from the ‘open’ world, cutting off any potential link to the aircraft flight management systems should a threat be perceived.

Then there is the risk of “locking” the pilot out – gaining access of a system and sending commands to it is one thing, but pilots have the ability with most systems to disconnect and get back to basics. For a hacker to lock a pilot out – prevent them from disconnecting – this would require a command that is not currently in the system and this level of hacking and re-programming is not, most suggest, all that feasible.

The avionics bay

The bad news

There are other ways to disrupt operations.

 GPS jamming is not direct interference, but the impact it has on aircraft systems is a known one – with a jammed GPS, aircraft lose the ability to navigate with accuracy and must rely on dated radio navigation systems. Not such a big issue, but removing the capability for an aircraft to carry out an RNP or RNAV approach means they are reliant on older ILS equipment, or having to fly non-precision approaches.

ILS equipment relies on both ground and aircraft systems, meaning there are much more “parts” which can fail. These systems are also older and require more maintenance on the ground meaning the likelihood of one part malfunctioning is higher, and when it does, the level of safety redundancy for aircraft which have had GPS jamming problems is suddenly really reduced.

The risk of interference to GPS and radio signals also creates a vulnerability in UAV operations.  The controllability of an aircraft might not be in question, but the ability of a hacker to take over and control a UAV – and potentially “control” it into an aircraft – is a growing threat.

A report looking into potential airport weakness identified a large number of “weak spots” where targeted hack attacks might result in disruption. The airside points ranged from spoofed ILS signals to changing airplane signatures on docking system from larger to smaller aircraft, reducing the wingtip clearance margins and safety significantly.

What is being done?

Technologies to prevent UAVs in airports is well underway with systems in place already at many major airports, and the FAA trialling more this year. Solutions to GPS jamming are also a high priority with several conferences and work groups already taking place, identifying both the threat and the root cause of why jamming takes place.

As for the direct cyber security risk to aircraft, this is not a new “idea”. The FAA moved it in the right direction with their Aircraft Systems Information Security Protection (ASISP) initiative in 2015. This initiative asked the questions, and asked manufactures to start thinking up answers, and they are responding. Manufacturers of major avionics, entertainment systems, communication systems, and aircraft are all analyzing the risks, and upping the protections, securities and preventions.

We might not see them in our aircraft, but they are there, and until aircraft become completely secure we still have that last trick up our sleeve – the one where we just turn it off and get back to basics and fly it ourselves.

So ‘Cabin Pressure’ might just be collection of movie cliches surrounding a troubled plane that no-one takes seriously, but the threat of cyber terrorism in aviation is one that everyone else is taking very seriously indeed, and for good reason.

We took a look at the stats the FAA publish about on-time performance to find out what the most common causes of delays are, which airports are worst affected, and what we can do to manage it.

On your marks…

First up, what counts as a delay? Your airline or operator might be a bit stricter on this, but the FAA consider a flight delayed if it arrives more than 15 minutes late. Which is probably what your passengers really care about as well.

The FAA gather their info from a bunch of carriers, and break it all down into five basic categories of delay:

• Air Carrier: This is something under the airline’s control like crewing, maintenance type issues. So that time you wanted a Starbucks coffee and the queue was really long and you held the flight up.
• Extreme Weather: We are talking the big, bad stuff like hurricanes, blizzards, tornadoes… the things that shut airports for hours.
• National Aviation System: This is pretty broad and covers ATC, airport ops, high traffic volume sorts of situations. They also throw general weather into this (the stuff that airplanes and ATC should be able to deal with).
• Late-arriving aircraft: A knock on effect from a previous flight delay.
• Security: Broken X-ray machines, long queues because of that passenger who thought he could sneak a tiger on in his hand luggage type scenarios.

Security is surprisingly the least to blame for delays

Pick a month

Here come the statistics…

In January 2021, 89.16% of flights were on time – which ain’t bad, but ain’t great. So, of the remaining 10.84%, what were the reasons for the delay?

Air Carrier Delays are the big offender, checking in at 3.63%. The airlines only have themselves to blame…

Although, NAS came in a close second with 3.6%.

Then there was the knock-on effect of one late flight making the next flight late. This accounted for 1.94% of delays, with 1.17% because of previous cancellations and diversions.

Extreme weather came in at just 0.46%, while security delays only resulted in 0.04% (probably because those passengers were just left behind).

The Stats for Jan

Weathering the delays

Weather only accounts for 4% of delays, which might seem low, but remember we are talking ‘extreme weather’. Non-extreme weather should be manageable which is why “normal weather” causing delays falls under NAS.

If we dig a bit deeper and take a snapshot look at a random month (we picked May 2019 because everything was fairly normal back then), then weather was the reason for 65.62% of NAS delays. That is a whopping 27,864 delayed flights or 1,822,469 minutes.

Which airport is the worst?

Let’s take a look at the airports to look out for.

KDFW/Dallas Fort Worth in Texas. A check of all the 29 major US airports in Jan 2021, and Dallas was the only one coming in with an on time performance below 80%.

10.48% of KDFW’s delays were down to NAS. But let’s not be too quick to tell off ATC yet. Just under 21% was due to high volumes of traffic. Just under 31% was because of runway closures and a whopping 45% was due to nasty weather (major winter storms).

The runners-up for worst delays were KORD/Chicago and KFLL/Fort Lauderdale which came in at 84.58% and 86.44% respectively. Fort Lauderdale’s NAS accounted for just over 6% and 8% was because of traffic volume problems.

Dallas Fort Worth was hit by some major snow storms in early 2021

Stop boring me with statistics

OK, that is enough facts and figures. What are we really talking here? Well, the two biggies are the Air Carrier delays and delays from NAS (most of which seem to boil down to weather).

Bad weather means a backlog of traffic, often a lot of detour requests to manage, or diversions to support and this means a much higher workload for our ATC colleagues to try and deal with. Even when it is “just” rain, or a windy day, this leads to delays. We can’t change the weather, but we can plan for it.

Delays are not just a cost and customer service issue – they are also a big fuel consideration…

So what can we do about them?

• Check the forecasts. Planning for those delays in advance is a good idea because chances are they are going to result in some long holds, and long holds need fuel. Don’t just think about your destination weather – have a look at the alternates as well because when one airport shuts because of weather, others nearby probably will as well. If they don’t, then they are going to fill up fairly fast with diverting traffic.
• Check the peak times. If you are not a scheduled carrier then try to plan your flights to head in at non-peak times to avoid high traffic volume delays.
• En-route stuff. If you are delayed out of somewhere then you can try and make that time up en-route. Speeding up might seem like a good plan, but in reality unless you’re talking a mega long flight this probably isn’t going to make a huge difference to your time (but probably will to your fuel burn). Asking for directs however, is a good way to chop the time down.
• Check the schedule. If you depart late then check your schedule time. With a decent tailwind you might find your flight time still brings you in early in which you don’t want to go speeding up and then find yourself having to wait for a parking spot
• Winter planning. Winter (de-icing) is probably the biggest cause of delays out so get those calls in early if you need to de-ice and plan ahead.

On-time performance is great, but sometimes delays are just unavoidable. So while we can all “think on time” a bit more, thinking about safety (and not rushing) is still the best mentality any pilot can have.

Aviation is awesome.

• It connects – countries, cultures, people and ideas.
• It helps – allowing aid to reach people during natural disasters not to mention humanitarian, medical, peacekeeping and firefighting flights to name a few.
• It is dynamic – the progress in aviation is exciting. New developments, technologies and pioneering ideas.

But it easy to forget one other – it is supposed to be fun. Aviation leads to adventure, travel and discovery. In 2020 it seems the industry lost its way.

Here at OPSGROUP our mission is to make aviation more human-friendly – not just by trying to fix Notams and sharing safety critical information, but in other ways too.

So we want to try something new.

We don’t really know what it will become yet,  so we thought we’d dive right on in anyway.

It is a new way to build the OPSGROUP community that we know so many of you enjoy, while also connecting other members together. It’s about bringing the fun and adventure back to your day job.

Introducing Layover Lowdowns

Chances are you’ve spent much of the last year alone in hotel rooms with people hassling you to put a stick up your nose. The good news is that vaccines are here and we are beginning to see crew once again being allowed to roam free in the wild.

Layover Lowdowns is our new Instagram-based adventure – a place for insider reviews of the best things to do on layovers that you won’t find in any brochure. Think delicious food, epic drink spots and new experiences that are off the ‘beaten trail.’

Whether you are a seasoned crew member who has seen and done it all,  a corporate pilot who doesn’t visit the same place often and needs help finding the decent spots, or are just tired of hanging out with the same crew every flight we hope that this will help!

We know that sometimes layovers are rubbish. Lonely things that take you away from you home, family, friends, which take hours and hours to get to… so we hope these will help you find some little spark of excitement about having to do that flight for the fifth time this month.

Hop onto @layoverlowdowns and start looking at our first secret spots – 100% endorsed and tested by our awesome community of OPSGROUP-ers. See some photos and flick through a a wonderfully simple description of what makes them great. Then with a single click, you’ll get directions on how to find them.

We need you to help us build the page into something special for crews around the world!

If you like what you see, follow our page and help other members by sharing  your own favorite spots and secret finds in the comment sections or via direct message. Let us know what to include and what you like about them and we’ll do our best to feature as many as we can.

Feel free to talk to each other – you may even find yourself in the same place at the same time! All the more reason to meet up and help build the community even more.

Go on – have an adventure!

Don’t worry, we are talking about your airplane, not you. Looking at whether you can reduce your aircraft weight is a good idea though because less pounds = less £/$/€ spent on fuel.

But how can you go about reducing your aircraft weight? Well, here are a few quick ’n’ easy methods to consider, because whether the motivation to reduce your burn is down to the environment, or down to money, we reckon both are good reasons.

Bath time

First up, give your airplane a good scrub. Operators are focused on Cabin Covid Cleaning, but there is more to be saved if you really clean out the muck from all the nooks and crannies. We rarely think about the accumulation of dirt onboard in terms of weight build up, but it can be significant.

• The Outside: Your aircraft is designed to be clean and shiny so it can glide through the air with ease. Anything stuck to the airframe is going to disrupt airflow and increase drag which in turn increases your fuel burn. A study by Airbus suggested a clean airplane could save between 0.5 to 2% on fuel;
• The Inside: Seat pockets and headrests are filthy, but we aren’t here to talk about what is festering inside your furnishings, but rather to think about the added weight. Given a mattress apparently gains a good 5lbs in dirt and dust through its general lifetime, just think how much those seats filled with dropped food and all the other people debris might mean in added mass;
• The Cargo Bays: Giving your cargo bay a bit of an enema is also going to help reduce weight. The build up of dirt, ripped off luggage tags and probably a few mouse droppings is literally not worth its weight in fuel.

Scrub it down

The Rain in Planes

(I stole that title from this article, but it is a great one).

Condensation is a problem in aircraft. A 747 can find an extra 700kg added onto its weight through liquid alone. That is the equivalent of seven non fare-paying passengers every flight, using your fuel without paying a penny in compensation.

With the level of Covid cleaning and spraying of surfaces going on, the additional liquid content swamping up your airplane interior is going to be higher. Reducing this is not easy – much of it comes down to aircraft design and maintenance. However, there are options such as Sweden-based CTT Systems and their ‘Zonal Drying’ technology which feeds cabin air through a rotor filled with a desiccant of silica gel.

Boeing make some of their own recommendations too, so it is worth considering ways to reduce condensation and other unwanted fluid build-up because it not only helps reduce weight, but is good for general airframe lifespan too.

Condensation and vapor from AC units results in a big build up of unwanted moisture

Go paperless

In 2018, United Airlines started using thinner paper for their in-flight magazines, reducing their weight by 1oz per copy. That might sound like not a lot at all, but if you think of how many magazines are onboard each flight then that’s a fair few ounces – and ounces mean fuel. Turns out it saved them around $15 of fuel per flight, which worked out at about 170,000 gallons of fuel over the year.

Now, you aren’t going to see savings like that unless you have a large fleet, but even 1% of that saving will add up over time.

Cutting down on paper weight without cutting down on passenger service

And the paper savings don’t stop there – paperless cockpits can mean a big weight saving. Swapping from old school charts to a nice lightweight tablet, and digital flight plans instead of reams of Notam-riddled paper printouts can drop about 40lbs from your load.

It’s also so much better for the poor pilot’s back.

Water it down

The potable water tank is often overlooked as a potential saving spot. An A320 tank has around about 200 liters capacity but the amount you carry can be reduced based on the number of passengers.

Repaint

Paint weighs a lot. The coating and painting on an A380 weighs between 650kg and 1000kg. Ok, so your smaller jet won’t need quite that much, but there can still be a fairly hefty reduction for you if you opt to use lightweight paint.

Modern paint technology can also mean a lower drag profile, while using  new component coating technology can save 30 to 70% of the weight on 3-4m components.

Try and color within the lines

Update your interior

You probably can’t rebuild the outside of your airplane with a nice lightweight composite, but you can take a look at what you’ve got inside.

There are pretty strict regulations on aircraft trolley design. Who knew. But designers have managed to bring the weight down while still ticking the regulatory check boxes and nowadays an ultra lightweight trolley can weigh as little as 15kgs.

A decade or so ago regulators raised safety standards. Excellent. But this also meant a requirement for safer seats which suddenly added around 5 tonnes to the average weight of an aircraft. Well, seat design has also moved on since then and slim line, composite seats are available, potentially reducing their weight by up to 25%.

Thomas Cook (sadly no longer flying) reckoned they averaged at 300kg savings per flight by using lighter seats.

Seats, air conditioning systems, carpets, oxygen bottles… there are a lot of new technologies out there and while a full retrofit can be a pricey process, if the savings outweigh the costs then it might be time to take a look at where you can update your cabin.

The original onboard bar

Passenger weight

Although some airlines have adopted this measure, we don’t suggest charging passengers based on their weight – it doesn’t make them very happy. That said, using actual weight versus standard ones can be beneficial (it might also be necessary if your aircraft relies on accurate data for its weight and balance).

Check out this EASA report into standard passengers weights and how actual passengers compared.

Cut the fuel directly

We definitely don’t mean reducing flight plan fuel and carrying the bare minimum on every operation, but there are ways to help reduce your flight plan fuel requirements over time.

Let’s take a step back though and look at our contingency fuel. If you are using statcon fuel then you are taking a statistical amount based on analysis of previous flights. So we can reduce this by reducing the fuel burn on “previous” flights.

Flying economically means more than just best altitude or airspeed. It also means more direct routings, using free route airspace better and achieving constant descent approaches.

Using a robust fuel planning system that takes into account all factors will also help produce a planned fuel that is efficient and accurate.

Whack on some winglets

Winglets improve fuel burn. Improved fuel burn means you don’t have to carry as much in the first place.

Explains the winglet saving better than I can

Do the math

Carrying an extra squirt of fuel is going to burn more fuel. You can easily go down a rabbit hole here of saying “I need an extra tonne, but that means an extra 250kg burned, so I’ll take 1,250kg, but that will burn another…”

The logic here is actually fairly simple though. If you need a tonne at destination, then take the fuel needed to carry it so when you get destination, that 1000kg is still there ready for use. If you think you might need “a bit extra” for the journey then you don’t need to carry more to carry this because you are carrying it to burn en-route anyway.

The Hidden Savings

Of course all these measures have to be balanced – the cost of fuel savings versus the cost of implementing the changes. But don’t forget – there are hidden savings too. Lighter aircraft mean less wear and tear on their poor old undercarriages.

So, putting your aircraft on a diet can mean a lot of savings down the line.

On June 25 the UK’s current EGNOS working agreement comes to an end, and they are not renewing it. This means their access to EGNOS will stop – which means LPV approaches at UK airports will no longer be possible.

So let’s talk LPVs. What exactly are they? What on earth is EGNOS? And what has Brexit got to do with all of this?

What is an LPV approach?

If you read this and are thinking “That isn’t something I’ve ever flown” then you can probably stop reading (unless you’re interested in a bit of aviation geekery), because this probably won’t have much of an impact on you. If you do fly these, and fly them in the UK, then read on.

LPV means localizer performance with vertical guidance. It is a GPS based approach sort of like LNAV/VNAV but also, confusingly, sort of like an ILS.

More confused? Us to. Let’s dig deeper.

An LPV has vertical guidance but is not a precision approach (which your standard ILS of course is). Instead, it is classified as an ‘approach with vertical guidance’, or APV for short.

So an LPV is an APV? Yes, and the point of this distinction is that it’s a lot cheaper, quicker and easier to implement than an ILS because there is a lot less paperwork involved, but it still offers “nearly” the same precision as an ILS – meaning you get down low if you need to.

You might also see the term SBAS used in the same breath. SBAS stands for satelitte-based augmentation system, and is a generic term for the use of geostationary satellites which broadcast augmenting information.

What uses what and where

That’s the basics, but how does it actually work?

They provide lateral and guidance down to a DA, just like an ILS. And just like an ILS, they get more sensitive the closer to the runway you get, which is what allows you to operate down to lower minimas than, say, your less sensitive LNAV option.

There are a few things you also need to know – first up, you need a special receiver on your plane for it (which is probably why a lot of folk are scratching their chins and wondering what on earth as LPV is).

Secondly, if you’re planning on using an airport without an ILS or some sort of ground based navaid as your alternate, then the FAA wants you to plan on LNAV minimas.

Why do we like them?

Well, because they get us nice and low so we can see the runway in not so nice weather.

They also use GPS, so the equipment you need is on your plane. An ILS needs a whole bunch of ground and plane equipment meaning there is a lot more that can fail on us. RNP and SBAS approaches are the future.

The LPV minima is the same as the ILS Cat I minima

Okay, so what is EGNOS?

Not to be confused with the delicious Christmassy drink, EGNOS stands for ‘European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service’. It is basically a bunch of European satellites, (actually just 3 out of the Galileo GNSS system, and a network of 30 referencing stations), that improves positioning measurements and gives much better accuracy than GPS alone.

In fact, it has 95% accuracy, which translates into the locating of a position to 1-3 meters horizontal accuracy, and between 2-4 meters vertical accuracy.

So EGNOS is what gives LPVs their precision.

Brexit…

Yep, we’re pretty bored of it now too. Brexit means the leaving of the UK from the EU. Not to be confused with Europe the continent – the UK is still part of that. But leave the EU it has, which means leaving all EU related programs including EGNOS (even though the UK’s NATS was one of the founders of EGNOS…)

Anyway, the EGNOS working agreements are not going to be renewed, so as of 25 June 2021, the UK will not longer participate in the EGNOS program and their LPV approaches will no longer have the accuracy assurance that EGNOS provided.

EGNOS RIMS stations (Ranging Integrity Monitoring Stations)

How many airports are affected?

The UK has 125 licensed aerodromes and out of these 69 have at least one instrument approach (surprisingly low given how miserable the weather often is in the UK.)

Anyway, ILS is still the most popular in the UK with 81 runways having an ILS approach available on them. Only 45 runways use LPVs and 20 of those have an ILS as well anyway, but that does leave a few airports where the other option is your old school, much higher minima non-precision approach.

Like poor old EGPL/Benbecula for example, which only has a VOR. A very old VOR which they are really hoping to retire. Or EGHE/St Mary’s which has a timed NDB…

Benbecula airport out in the Outer Hebrides

The first LPV approach in the UK only went operational in 2014 at EGTE/Exeter airport, with Flyer magazine saying the country no longer needed to “hang its head in shame” because they had finally caught up with the rest of the modern aviation world…

The Impact

It isn’t huge – most airports have alternative approaches. However, there are a few points to think about:

• Where there is an ILS, the minima will be the same, but the redundancy for approaches is now reduced.
• Where this is only an LNAV, or non-precision approach, the minima will be higher so watch out for that poor weather.

The official word on it all

Here are the official FAQs on the UK leaving the EGNOS program.

The FAQs have the following statement in them –

• AOPA UK put out a great article explaining LPVs which you can find here.
• To find out which space programs the UK is still involved in, you can find the government website on it here.
• The UK CAA Skywise site promises to keep you up to date with all this UK aviation (although are yet to update their info on LPVs).
• The FAA probably explain all this better with their info on Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).

Snow might look lovely on a Christmas card, but on the wing of an airplane (especially if it is the wing of the airplane you’re about to go fly in, and especially if it is 3am and you’ve got a long flight ahead of you) then I think we can all agree it is less ‘pretty winter frosting’ and more ‘horrid winter frustration’.

Snow, ice, sleet, hail – basically anything made out of really, really cold water means one thing – delays! Sorry, I meant to write de-icing there.

Feeling frosty

There are a few reasons why folk feel frosty about de-icing. First, it is a bit annoying – it does often mean delays. It also means extra things to think about, work out, and worry over. De-icing is an extra, and often slippery step, in an otherwise nicely structured turn-around.

Secondly, it is pricey. De-icing and anti-icing fluids are expensive stuff. For a small private jet you are probably looking at about $1200 , and more like $15000 for a large airliner. The call out fee alone is generally a few hundred bucks, and although we all have safety as a priority, most of us have called the de-icing rig out only to watch them spray copious amount of fluid all over the place while we wonder whether that little patch of frost on the wing really wouldn’t have melted off as we taxied out.

Lastly, and maybe not one everyone worries about, but anything with glycol in it creates high level of biochemical oxygen demand. What does that mean? Well, just that it is a bit bad for fish or anything that lives in water and likes to breath oxygen. So it ain’t the friendliest stuff for the environment.

Let’s be honest though, point 2 (with a bit of 1 thrown in) are probably the main reasons why we sometimes wait, fingers crossed, and fuel pumps a-swilling in the hope it just melts off before we go.

That middle of the night 2 hour wait for de-icing

De-ice-iding to go

There is of course a big reason why we do need to de-ice. We are all fairly well aware of it – safety! Or more specifically – performance! Because a little bit of ice means a big bit of (lost) lift. (Don’t worry, not an icy accident movie, just a video of a poor de-icing decision).

Let’s re(snow)cap on it

Most airlines and operators apply something close to a “clean aircraft” policy, which means that all critical surfaces should be clear of contaminant.

Simple – see something on a bit of the airplane that’s used for getting the airplane up in the air? Get if off before you go. This rules applies to bits like the wings, the horizontal stabilizer, and don’t forget in the engines – ice shedding after a prolonged taxi in wintery weather is going to help shake off any chunks of ice clinging to them.

Ground ice-shedding might be necessary

Back to those critical surfaces though – if you see a bit of frost (less than 3mm thick and so you can see the paint markings through it) underneath the wings? That’s ok. 

Look out for clear ice – not always very visible (being clear and all).

So, step 1 in the “Do I need to de-ice?” decision making process is pretty straightforward:

• Is there ice or contaminant anywhere on the airplane?
• Is it more than a little bit of frost on the underside of the wing?
• Is it more than really thin layer that won’t melt once warmer fuel is added in, or with the airplane sat out in the sunshine?

If you answer ‘Yes’ to any of these than you probably need to de-ice. If you’re not sure, get a second opinion from your co-pilot or engineer.

Hard to say if this needs de-icing or not

Snow idea if you need to anti-ice?

De-icing is the process of getting any contaminant off. Sometimes blowing hot air is enough, sometimes a Type I fluid is used to melt it off. This one-step process is fairly quick and unless there is a big old queue you probably won’t delayed too much.

Anti-icing comes in when there is a chance ice and stuff will build up again. So if you send the FO out on the walk around and they return red nosed with icicles on their eyebrows then you probably need to anti-ice as well. Simple in theory: de-icing takes it off, anti-icng stops more getting on.

So what options do we have for this, aside from wrapping the airplane up in a giant woolly sock until it is time to take-off?

Well, you have four types of de-icing/anti-icing fluid options open to you. Not all airports will carry all options so if you think you need something specific, check with an agent before heading there. These four fluids are all typically made out of ethylene glycol or propylene glycol, with a bunch of thickening agents, wetting agents, corrosion inhibitors, colors and some UV-sensitive dye thrown in.

• Type I ain’t gonna give you much of a holdover time, but its useful for clearing stuff off. If applied heated it does provide some anti-icing protection as well. It is usually orange. The good thing with this stuff is it is thin and shears off easily so there is no restriction on your rotation speed.
• Type II is clear or strayed colored and needs at least 100knots rotation speed. Its pretty common to see this being used either 100% or diluted to 75%, and as part of a two step process.
• Type III is less common. This yellowy green fluid as a much lower rotation speed requirement – just 60 knots – so its good for smaller, slower aircraft.
• Type IV is your good ‘n’ thick stuff, great for longer hold over times, less great for aircraft that rotate slower than 100 knots.

Our top tip: Let your passengers know you’re going to de-ice. If they haven’t seen it before, having dinosaur like rigs pull up to the airplane, or seeing the windows fog up with thick smoky smoggy fluid has been known to panic one or two..

Larger aircraft use 2 or even 4 de-icing rigs at a time

HOT Stuff

Your HOT – ‘Holdover Time’ – is what we really worry about when we need to anti-ice. There is no definite “this fluid will last this long” calculation. Instead we have tables for checking how long you’re probably ok for, depending on a few factors:

• What sort of fluid was used.
• Whether it was diluted.
• What is going on outside.

The table is going to give you two times – a minimum and a maximum, and your best bet is to take the minimum one and if you reach it, take a look at your critical surfaces and see what is going on with the fluid. Actually, a pre-departure contamination inspection is mandatory in most cases. If its look ok (really looks ok) then you’re good to takeoff. Exceed that though and you’re going to need to taxi back, clear it off and start over.

In nasty conditions, keeping an eye on the fluid and the hold over times is super important. There are actually no published HOTs for anything more than light freezing rain. Snow pellets and hail also get messy because these sticky morsels and strong and like to stick to anti-icing fluid, instead of getting melted by it.

A generic Type II HOT Table

If you are looking at rain or light freezing rain on cold soaked wings then your HOT could be as low as 9 minutes. If you have snow pellets or snow grains bouncing off the windows, and it is colder than about -14°C (so anywhere in Canada, Russia etc in the midst of winter), then these blighters are going to reduce your HOT to as little as 1 to 2 minutes (good luck getting anywhere in that time!)

Hitting the hold over time might suck, but there isn’t much you can do about it except call the cabin for another, stronger coffee, and settle in for a long, cold flight.

Another top tip – check those HOTs and if they are unrealistic then wait for the weather to clear, ask for remote de-icing, go for a different fluid dilution… whatever you do don’t ignore it though and think it’ll all be ok.

Looks like this outside? Probably need to anti-ice

Messing with your schedule

Back to Point 1… or was it 2? The one about delays and messing up of your schedule. Winter weather is going to mean delays. There are no two ways about it. The extra steps added into our pre-flight process also raises the risk of forgetting bits we need to do. So here is a handy checklist of items to remember to remember:

• Flaps – we usually leave these up for the de-icing process, and to avoid picking up any chunks of ice during the taxi. Don’t forget to set them before you try to take-off.
• Control checks – often recommended that you do these after de-icing to make sure there are no sticky fluids gumming up your flight controls.
• The gear – if you are taxiing though slush and sludge then check that performance and if possible, leave the gear down just a little longer to let all the pieces drop off before retracting.

The future looks cold

So de-icing delays aren’t going away anytime soon, but there are some interesting technologies out there being trialled.

Our favorite is this one – originally developed as a de-frosting method for cars, it could eventually be applied to aircraft too. It works off the principle that ice actually has an electric charge, so the idea is if you pass a big charged-up electrode over a frosty surface, it will remove it.

This isn’t a totally new idea either, inflight de-icing technologies are also starting to look at using electromagnetic induction over traditional heating methods to prevent ice build up.

Until then, all we can do is buy a big cup of coffee from the airport, prepare for a long wait, and remember to “keep it clean” (and safe).

Fancy reading a bit more?

• International Airport Review have an interesting Winter Operations talking about the airport side of de-icing that is worth a read if you want to know what goes on on the other side of the windows when you’re getting de-iced.
• Canada and the US publish info each year on HOTs and de-icing guidance. You can find links to those here.
• OPSGROUP article: 5 Tips For Safer Winter Ops.
• OPSGROUP article: Fuel Facts: Let’s get to the (freezing) point.

In the brave new world of pilot training there is a new paradigm – evidence based training. But evidence of what? Well, of pilot competencies – a set of ‘tools’ for a pilot to quick draw out of their metaphorical tool belt in order to help them solve whatever situation flies their way.

Where does Decision Making fit into this tool belt?

It can be viewed as a sort of Swiss army knife of a competency because it is one which, when wielded well, helps build best outcomes, but when used badly will probably leave you with a few pieces of splintery wood and a nail through you hand.

The (badly metaphored) point trying to be made here is that the Decision Making & Problem Solving ‘competency’ is a big, multi-faceted one, and it turns out that making a decision is often easy, but making a good one is less so…

Decision Making is about using information to find a solution, not forcing it to fit what you already decided

Double E’s give us the ‘O’ factor

A good decision, or an ‘optimal’ one is going to be the one that leads you to the safest, most efficient and effective outcome.

Efficient because you’ve done the ‘best’ thing. Effective because you got there the ‘best’ way.

Reaching this optimal solution is easier said than done though. You, the pilot, want to be as safe as possible, but then you have authorities wanting you to tick every rule and regulation box, and you have your company wanting you to tick every commercial box, and before you know it you can find yourself heaped under a pile of “What Ifs?” and “Why didn’t you’s?”.

All of which can quickly incapacitate any common sense and airmanship. So what can you do about it?

Have you heard the story of the Nimrod?

Everyone knows the Hudson tale, and a great story it is too – a captain (and crew) showing a level of decision-making that saved the lives of all passengers onboard. Well, the story of the Nimrod is similar.

It took place back in 1995, over the coast of Scotland. XW666 was a BAE Nimrod R.1P operated by the RAF, en-route from EGQK/Forres-Kinloss RAF station. They were approximately 35 minutes into the flight when the crew had a No 4 engine fire warning illuminate. During the drill to deal with this the No 3 engine fire warning also illuminated.

The moment that makes this story worth telling was this – at just 4.5nm from EGQS/ RAF Lossiemouth (and its 9,068 feet of runway) the captain discontinued his attempt to put the aircraft onto a tempting piece of tarmac, and instead ditched into the cold water of the Moray Firth.

So why, with just 4.5nm to go between him and a much easier landing, did the captain do this?

A monument to a ‘crash’ worth celebrating

The captain had asked the rear crew member to watch through a window and to inform him if fire became visible through the aircraft structure. When this report was received, the captain ditched. When they dragged what was left of the poor Nimrod out of the water (actually, quite a lot of it was left and all the crew survived), the investigation confirmed that the structural integrity of the wing’s rear spar had deteriorated by over 25% in just 4 minutes.

In the time it would have taken to cover that last 4.5nm the wing would have failed, resulting in an uncontrolled crash.

The big learning point here though is that it wasn’t so much the ‘good decision’ (the “let’s land this thing quick” decision) that was the big save, but actually the captain’s ability to change his decision – to review the situation and say “yup, that ain’t gonna work anymore, let’s do this instead.”

When a good choice turns bad

Doesn’t this satsuma look fresh, fruity and delicious? Most people (who fancy a piece of fruit) would probably happily eat it.

I am hungry, I like fruit, this is a piece of fruit, I shall eat it – Problem diagnosed, options considered, decision made, action assigned… DODARing 101.

Yums

But what about now?

Less yums

Turns out it was made of liver paté.

The (rather odd) point to take away from this is that a decision, based on the information you have, can be great. The best. The optimal. The satsuma of choices. But if the information changes, or if it turns out to be incorrect, then so too might the decision be. So fitting information into what you have already decided does not work. Nor does sticking with a decision and not continuing to gather information.

The golden rule of Decision Making, and the one the Nimrod captain applied so well, is the importance of the review – being able to change a decision when it needs changing.

This can be a tough thing to do. As pilots, we are very goal orientated, but when that goal becomes too focused – the “must land now”, or the “it looked alright 5 minutes ago, I’m sure it still is” attitudes – these can lead to unstabilised approached, overruns, accidents (more on that here).

So, don’t be a Nimrod, be like the captain of one instead!

If you haven’t heard of the AUSOTS then it means the Australian Organised Track Structure, and is basically a bunch of Flex Tracks that are produced on a daily basis, aimed at helping aircraft benefit from the best wind conditions.

The inventors define it as – “A non-fixed ATS route calculated on a daily basis to provide the most efficient operational flight conditions between specific city pairs”.

Sounds familiar? That’s because it is basically the NAT OTS but over a different bit of big, not-much-out-there, airspace on the other side of the world.

Where exactly?

The AUSOTS are currently published for routes between Australia and the Middle East, Australia and South East Asia and for domestic routes between Brisbane and Perth. They pretty much cross the entire YBBB and YMMM FIRs and a few other parts too.

Opposite direction tracks are spaced by 50nm in Oceanic and 30nm in domestic, but with the introduction of ADS-B this is reducing. Again, probably all sounds quite familiar.

The User Preferred Routes are available in the YMMM/Melbourne, YBBB/Brisbane, AGGG/Honiara and ANAU/Nauru FIRs.

Your UPRs can be constructed between gates (entries and exits to FIRs), or by published waypoints (so long as time between them is not greater than 80mins), NAVAIDs or Lats/Longs (and you can use ones that are not whole degrees if you want).

You do need a reporting point on an FIR boundary (except for between AGGG-ANAU or YBBB-AGGG FIRs). 

Overlay of some of the daily tracks in SkyVector

What do I need?

In terms of equipment, your usual stuff giving you RNP10/ RNP4 type capabilities, Datalink (CPDLC), a couple of LRNS and bits to help you navigate accurately – all that sort of thing.

Unsurprisingly, what you put in your flight plan is much the same as well – if you are RNAV10 then write ‘GR’ and ‘I’ (if appropriate) in item 10 and PBN/A1 in item 18. If you are RNP4 then throw in a ‘GR’ and write PBN/L1 in item 18

You also need HF comms and ADS-B to fly on the UPRs.

Last but not least, pick your track and file for it

What if something goes wrong?

If you are on a track and lose your RNP capability then as long as you can still navigate the track you can stay on it. If you can’t, you probably will want to let ATC know fairly quickish so they can put you onto a fixed track.

If you lose all your comms then it is simple as well –  try other methods, squawk 7600, do some broadcasting on 121.5 and 123.45, put your lights on, and maintain your last assigned speed and level for 60mins (following failure to report over compulsory point), then follow your flight plan. Once you leave Oceanic, follow the procedures of the state you’ve gone into.

In general, if you are flying over Australian airspace they are going to want to know if your estimate over a reporting point changes by more than 2 minutes. They are also going to want to know if you are off your track by more than 20nm (small weather deviations).

Also know that Standard ICAO Contingency and Weather Deviation Procedures apply here.

SLOP?

Yep, they like it. Up to 2nm right of track is the way to go, and in 0.1nm increments if your airplane can do that. You don’t need a clearance for it, but remember you cannot use it in addition to offsets for wake, or weather avoidance.

Block Altitudes

Also allowed in this airspace, and given you are probably flying some mega miles through it, it might be a good idea. That way you can climb up when your weight will benefit, or avoid turbulence if there are reports of it without having to talk to ATC…

You mentioned talking?

We did, but to be honest there is not a huge amount of it going on in this area. Most comms are taken care of through CPDLC. They like a position report sent via CPDLC when you get to the boundary of the FIR (all position reporting procedures are in accordance with ICAO Doc 7030).

The Australian controllers really know how to control. They are great at it. But they also have some pretty high standards which means if you make a mistake they are going to get grumpy and report/fine you. It might seem obvious, but if you’re off track for weather avoidance, once clear, don’t assume you can head direct to the next point – they want to see you regain your original track.

What will I find out there?

A whole lot of empty space and open sea. 

The distance between Singapore and Brisbane is roughly 6,000km. The distance from Perth to Brisbane is over 3,500km. In between them? A lot of dry, dusty bush, and kangaroos.

Not much in the outback… although a fairly decent straight road for landing on

The middle of Australia is quite an empty place so if you’re looking for airports to use, we would recommend the ones around the edge of the country. YSSY/Sydney, YMEL/Melbourne, YBBN/Brisbane are the biggies on the eastern side and you’ll find nice long runways, decent approaches and good facilities at each of them. YPPH/Perth is the main south west one, while if you’re heading north-ish then YPDN/Darwin or YBCS/Cairns are probably your best bets.

You do have YBAS/Alice Springs in the middle if you really need it, and its a fairly decently equipped airport with a 7,999 ft/ 2438m runway and an ILS/RNAV approach.

Who can I ask for info on AUSOTS?

Should you need it, then you can email these folk with all your AUSOTS queries – uprs@airservicesaustralia.com

You can also try the Melbourne Center Operations Manager at Melbourne ACC on +61 3 9235 7420 or on AFTN: YMMMZRZS if you have specific questions about the published AUSOTS Flex Tracks.

Drones are big news. They are changing the way we can look at the world with their surveying and photography capabilities. They are changing the way we deliver things – offering services to previously unreachable areas, improving the carbon footprint of our McDonald’s home deliveries…

They are also changing the way we think about airborne hazards because it is no longer just large birds and escaped helium-birthday balloons we have to worry about. From nuisance traffic disruptions at airports, to attacks using ‘weapon laden’ UAVs – drones present a new and potentially growing problem to the aviation industry.

How big is this problem?

Back in 2018, EGKK/Gatwick (the second biggest London airport) closed for 33 hours, resulting in 1,000 flights cancelled and around 140,000 angry British people left standing in queues (ok, they probably weren’t all British, you do get some tourists who, for reasons unknown, actually choose the UK as a holiday destination).

Anyway, what ruined the travel plans of 140,000 people? Yep, a drone. It was spotted by an eagle-eyed security officer who was waiting at a bus stop for his ride home. He noticed two drones hovering around the perimeter fence and alerted airport operations.

The UK isn’t the only place that has suffered from pesky drones sneaking into airspaces they should not be a-sneaking into. The UAE has seen multiple airspace closures over the last few years, costing them a whopping 350,000AED a minute in disruption costs at OMDB/Dubai International alone (that’s about $95,000).

The US has also had its fair share of drone incidents. KEWR/Newark Airport was forced to briefly close in 2019 after two drones strayed too far into its airspace. One pilot reported spotting one less than 30 feet from the aircraft. A quick look at the FAA drone sightings report shows 366 across the country just in the October to December period. That is more than 100 a month.

In fact, there are close to a million  recreational and commercial drones registered in the US alone and those drone sighting reports received by the FAA are increasing by upwards of 50% each year.

In 2020, a 26kg drone went rogue in Latvia and was missing for several days resulting in Latvia having to restrict airspace below 19,000’ until it was relocated.

The mystery rocket man who made headlines last year after appearing thousands of feet in the air in KLAX’s airspace night not have been human at all, but instead a large drone made to look like a person…

What is the BIG problem?

Simply put – collisions!

But airspace is not closed every time a large vulture is spotted swooping about, so why are we so concerned about potentially hitting a little buzzing drone? 

Well, a small photography drone (your DJI Mavic type) weighs less than 1 kg (734g according to the online specs). A pigeon in comparison weighs between 300-615g depending on how much old chewing gum and fries it has chowed down in its greedy little life. So not too threatening, but is going to cause some damage to your engine if flies into it, but the difference between a drone and a bird is the bird probably doesn’t want to go into an engine and sort of tries not to. A drone (or rather the person controlling it) might want it to.

Drones can also be much bigger than a fat pigeon. Something like the Wing drone (which Amazon use) weighs about 5 kg, and can carry another 2-3 kg in cargo. It also has a 3 foot wingspan. The Whooper swan (Whooper, not whopper) variety, fully grown, weighs between 8-11kg and have a wingspan of around 2-2.8m. So, these are basically the same size as a teenage Whooper and I would not fancy one of them zooming into my engine.

If you still are not convinced, then check out this video

Bigger than a very small swan

But they are under control…

Yes, they are, and Amazon have gone through a lengthy process to get their approvals. We are not concerned about Amazon drones. What we are concerned about are the drones that anyone can generally get their hands on nowadays which are not registered, and which are being flown where they should not be flown.

We are also very, very worried about the sorts of drones being weaponsied and used to attack targets. Drone attacks seem to be a constant news item, particularly in Saudia Arabia where Yemeni rebel forces are regularly sending drones into OEAB/Abha Airport, throughout the southern Jeddah FIR and even as far as OERK/Riyadh airport.

We wrote about this a while ago. It is still going on, and these pose a big threat to aircraft operating in the area. 

So what can the industry do about it?

One of many drones intercepted by Saudi Air Defence Forces

Pest control

It turns out there are over 530 different commercially available technologies out there designed just for the purpose of drone spotting and ‘swatting’. Broadly speaking, anti-drone technologies have to achieve two things – finding a drone, doing something to it when they do.

In August 2020, the FAA announced they would start to evaluate technologies and systems that could detect and mitigate potential safety risks posed by unmanned aircraft. Basically, stuff to Spot and Stop ‘em.

Ten of these technologies have proven promising enough that they will now be trialled at several US airports over the coming months. These trials will take place at KACY/Atlantic City, KCMG/Columbus, KHSV/Huntsville, KSEA/Seattle-Tacoma and KSYR/Syracuse airports.

At EGLL/Heathrow a ‘Holographic Radar’ system called ‘The Gamechanger’ (developed by Alleviant) can detect UAS in 3 dimensions, up to 7.5km away, and can differentiate between drones, ‘friendly assets’ and birds. In case you are wondering, the difference between conventional radar and 3D holographic radar is that the holographic radar illuminates everything all the time – if a conventional radar is the equivalent of a torch scanning a dark room, then the 3D holographic radar is a light that illuminates the entire room.

The Gamechanger

Clearing the skies

‘Detect and Avoid’ systems use technologies like radar, radio-frequency, electro-optical, infrared and acoustics which can spot drones and identify the signals controlling them. The AUDS counter-UAV system, for example, can detect a drone up to six miles away using an electronic scanning radar, infrared and special precision video tracking software. It then uses an inhibitor to block the radio signals controlling the drone. All this can happen in less than 15 seconds, and in any weather condition, night or day, without disruption to the airport equipment and airplane pilot might prefer not to have disrupted.

Recreational drones rely on a radio signal which operate on common frequencies – usually 2.4Ghz or 5.8Ghz, and these are non-assigned public bands. These are east to deal with.

There are also other options like geo-fencing. This technology relies on manufactures programming limits based on GPS into the drone itself based on no fly zones and other flight restrictions. The issue here is savvy owners can bypass the system or just not update it. So a clever solution, but not an ultimate one.

Sadly none of the systems being trialled is just a huge static-charged tennis racket like you get for mosquitoes which is disappointing.

What can you do for now though?

Keep reporting them. Like the laser reporting of old, providing clear info on when and where you spot one, as soon as possible to ATC, means they can get the authorities out to search and stop ‘em.

Also keep an eye on Safeairspace conflict zones, and monitor alerts on drone attacks if you are likely to be operating in those airspaces.

Back in March 2020, Eurocontrol released something called ‘The FLY AI Report – Demystifying and Accelerating AI in Aviation/ATM’. 

Now, the minute most aviation folk hear ‘Artificial Intelligence’ they generally start imagining either a Matrix type world ruled by super computers, or they are a pilot and get angry at the thought of the most ‘know-it-all’ co-pilot possible sat next to them. 

But AI has actually been used in aviation for a while now, and its integration into the aviation operations environment might be rather disappointingly un sci-fi, but it is very NOT disappointingly impressive when you start to see the clever ways it is improving the safety and efficiency in our industry.

The First Law of Robotics

First, let’s establish what is actually meant by the term ‘AI’.

It is not so much Replicant as it is Roomba – ‘Artificial Intelligence’ is used to categorize systems that have the ability to independently gather information, assess it, and (here comes the AI bit) make a decision based on it.

So your Roomba with its camera sensors and ability to make the decision to turn around rather than smash into the wall in front of it means it is categorized as an AI. A basic AI, but still, an AI.

AI is categorized into 6 levels, starting with your Level 0 – Low Automation stuff which just supports a human operator by gathering info and analyzing it. Beef up its brain a little though, and it becomes a Level 1 – Decision Support which not only gathers and analyses, but can also select certain actions in relation to some basic tasks or functions. Like, don’t run into walls.

As the levels increase, so does the ability of the systems to analyse greater data inputs, and the independence of the system to “decide” and act without any human operator involvement at all. Highly complex system are even able to determine what might happen based on data patterns, and so pre-empt actions, making decisions based not on the direct data, but on forecasts and possible things that could happen.

Flying Roombas could help clear up the atmosphere from pollutants

We aren’t talking vacuuming though, we are talking flying…

Actually, for all you pilots out there, we aren’t really talking flying. Not yet. Some airplane manufacturers are toying with automated takeoffs and that sort of thing, but no AI is currently capable of the level of autonomy which would enable it to totally replace Captain McFleshy. What we are talking is systems that support other areas of aviation operations in parallel to human operators – by providing data acquisition, analysis, action selection and implementation.

That all suddenly sounds quite boring, but the functions of AI in aviation are anything but.

The Cat-AI-logue

The cat-ai-logue of uses is impressive

Most of the AI currently implemented in aviation is the “detect and avoid” type – systems that focus on precision navigation, or image detection. Sort of giant Roombas for the aviation world. Here are just a few of the current technologies that might be helping your flight without you even knowing it.

Traffic Prediction

Eurocontrol in Maastricht already use what they call a “learning machine” which can predict 4D trajectories – in other words aircraft position, altitude, speed and time. Being able to predict traffic flows means they can optimize the use of ATCOs and put the people brains where they are most needed.

The clever AI algorithms have a “what if?” function which lets them “tentatively probe” (Eurocontrol’s choice of phrase, not mine) the impact of certain airspace restrictions, or regulations, on traffic flow. It can monitor workload, spot probable bunching points, and also predict traffic one or two hours in advance to work out how the handover between different control sectors might affect the flow.

Maintenance Costs and Fuel Optimization

An AI system produced by Honeywell is being used to save airlines up to $200,000 per aircraft per year in fuel costs, and up to $40,000 per aircraft per year in maintenance costs. The system has data gathered from years and years of flight statistics, across a whole bunch of airlines, and it has swilled all this data about in its big brain and can now take specific flight plans and review where fuel has been wasted before.

The system can not only determine better routes, but can help make strategic decisions on things like flight path routings, the best direct path to landing to take, engine out taxi etc. While the pilot brain is thinking “If I turn an engine off now, will I have to use loadsa thrust on the other one to get it up that hill and around the corner? Maybe I should just keep ’em both running…” the AI brain is going “click, whirrr, yeah, turn the engine off now and you’re good!”

GNSS Monitoring

GNSS is great – it lets us operate the approach, landing, departure, ground stuff in low vis conditions. But there is a big issue with it –  propagation delay caused by the ionosphere. The current models for gathering data on this are pretty limited, but a new AI system can monitor and gather so much more data, and assess it so much more quickly because it has the ability to ‘learn’ – it is not just looking at data and spitting out figures. It is constantly updating its analysis.

Image recognition to detect runway vacation

Yep, there is an AI system that is used in conjunction with digital, remote, tower operations. It can speedily determine if the runway is clear, and calculate whether there is time for the next aircraft to land or not – it can do this a lot more efficiently than person eyeballs and brain, meaning airports can be a lot more efficient, and flight delays reduced, without reducing safety.

100 million actual flight hours of experience

A system developed by Thales – PureFlyt – has the ability to draw on aircraft and outside world data like weather information. It works inside the FMS and can predict aircraft trajectory, and can offer optimized flight paths to decrease fuel consumption and improve passenger comfort, as well as maintaining safe separation from other aircraft.

AI technologies have simulated 2 billion test cases. So this system basically will have the brain of a Captain who has flown 100 million flight hours (and all the knowledge that would go with that experience).

What are the risks?

Supplementing not replacing

Well, automation and AI taking over and forcing humans into pots of jelly where they sap our energy seems unlikely. But there is the risk of oversight, or rather lack thereof. An AI, no matter how “intelligent”, is a system which people have programmed and inputted data into. Poor data in = poor data out.

So the quality and reliability of systems must always be closely monitored. And there’s a thin line between it supplementing operations versus it becoming the single system that people rely on and no longer control. The trick will lie in the training, and in how people interact with the systems – ensuring they understand them, and that strong contingency procedures remain in place.

AI offers new safety and security indicators that can support the early detection and predictions of new risks. It can improve performance by assisting people areas like data gathering and analysis where an AI brain is far quicker than the human brain. But the purpose is not to remove the human operator from the process, but to combine the best of computational methods and human intelligence to create a collaborative service provision.

The full FLY AI report from Eurocontrol is available here.

Have you ever taken a look at a report listing the distribution of Accidents by Accident Category? There are apparently more than 40 possible ways an accident can be categorized, but there are 7 that seem to pop up way more often than any other.

Airbus took a look into all fatal and hull loss accidents which occurred between 2009 and 2019 and the results are shocking in that a lot of those accidents just should not have happened.

P is for…

Yep, pilots. We are a big problem. We mess up a lot. That is what seems to be said in the media anyway…

But, it isn’t always our fault, (sadly some of the time it also is), and we all know that the news reporter’s favorite phrase “pilot error” (or “human error” if they are feeling particularly generous about it) is rather meaningless, and very unfair.  It removes all the context of the why’s and the how’s of what led to a pilot making an error, and it is rarely ever as simple as “they just messed it up.”

There are usually countless small things that lead up to any incident, and many a CRM course has been spent discussing and brainstorming how we can better avoid all of these little things and so avoid it ending up in a “one big thing” event.

So, why are these big events still happening? And what can the pilot in the equation do to prevent them? (Because the vast majority of these definitely are preventable).

Taken from the Airbus report

1. Loss Of Control In Flight

This is the single biggest cause of fatal airplane accidents in this period, accounting for a scary 33%, and 12% of hull losses. We are not talking about situations where something major has broken or failed – we are talking about times where aircraft have somehow managed to get into a situation they shouldn’t be in, and the crew have not able to safely get them out of said situation.

Air France Flight 447 is one of the most discussed examples of this occurring.

All these accidents no doubt had other factors involved – it was not just the pilots not knowing how to fly. There were things like startle factor, bad weather, other warnings, other traffic…

But a large number of these could have and should have been recoverable.

So, what can we do about this? Well, ICAO took an in-depth look at why these kept happening, and they came up with a great and simple thing – UPRT. 

Upset Recovery and Prevention Training

When they say simple they really mean it – all you really need to know is PUSH, ROLL, POWER, STABILISE (and maybe have had a few practice goes in the sim).

This is the recovery though. It is the point when everything has gone wrong and all you have left is fixing it.

Luckily, we pilots do have a few other tools in our toolbox which we can pull out earlier at a time when prevention might still be possible. Things like good monitoring, situational awareness, an understanding of startle factor.

In fact, we have a post right here if you’re up for some more reading on the old startle thing.

There is also that Other thing we can do. It might be one that makes a few palms get a little sweaty at the thought of it – but we can disconnect the autopilot and actually hand-fly now and then.

Thanks for the photo, AIN. Not a nice sight to see, but rather in a sim than real life…

2. Controlled Flight Into Terrain

Second on the list of the ‘7 Deadly Things’ is Controlled Flight Into Terrain. Again, not because something has broken, but because a crew have just totally lost their situational awareness. These account for 18% of all fatal accidents, and 7% of all losses reviewed in the 20 year period.

The Korean Air Flight 801 accident report offers more insight into how these occur.

Again, other things factor into this – distractions, visual illusions, somatographic illusions – and these can be tough to handle because they are one of the few things a simulator cannot realistically simulate.

We have backups though. GPWS for one. Although this really is the final layer of the safety net. If this is going off then you’re out of the prevention and well into the recovery and mitigation part of the accident curve.

There is good old Situational Awareness again though – this is the stuff of heroes. It is something you can gain, or regain, with a simple briefing. A “What if… then what will we do?” chat. Briefing threats is important, but briefing how to avoid them is even better. Get a bit of CRM in and ask the other person next to you what they think you should be looking out for.

Situation Awareness is knowing where you have told your plane to go but, most importantly, it is knowing if it is actually going there (and this means vertically and laterally).

3. Runway Excursions

These account for 16% of fatal accidents, and a whomping great 36% of hull losses. No failed brakes or issues with steering involved, just big old “oops, didn’t check the performance properly” type situations. We have mentioned this before. It is one of the biggest “that just shouldn’t have happened” types of event.

Actually, the biggest thing that leads up to runway excursions is generally unstabilised approaches.  These are something we can definitely avoid and IATA has some great tips on how. Cut out the unstabilised approaches and you’ll probably cut out a big proportion of runway excursions right away.

There are a few things to help us here too – if you are flying an Airbus then lucky you, because these have a great system on them called ROW/ROP that squawks at you on the approach, and on the landing roll, if it reckons you’re going to go off the runway. But if you don’t have this, then checking your performance properly and managing that approach well are going to be what saves you from an embarrassing call to your chief pilot.

There is also a big change to runway friction reporting coming in on 4th November 2021 – The Global Reporting Format, or ‘GRF’ as he is known to his friends. Griff will standardize how runway surface conditions are reported worldwide and with better reporting will hopefully come better awareness of the risks.

Being aware of what you’re landing on is pretty important!

That was the Top 3. What about the others?

The other four are lumped together into ‘Other’ which makes up the remaining 33%. (Actually, 11% of that is ‘other’ others!) Combined, our final four account for 22% of all fatal accidents and 22% of hull losses.

These are:

• Fire
• Abnormal Runway Contact
• System/Componet Failure or Malfunction
• Undershoot/ Overshoot

Now, I know what you’re going to say – fire probably isn’t your fault (unless you dropped your phone under your pilot seat and then ran over it repeatedly with your chair trying to hook it out again).

But there are still things a pilot can do to help lower the impact of these.

How? Well, by knowing our fire procedures (the what to do if something Lithium Ion powered in the flight deck does start smoking), and by knowing the comms procedures needed to help support our cabin crew if there is something going on down the back. We can also prepare in flight – be ready with something in the secondary flight plan in case we need to suddenly divert.

As for system and component failures, well, the 737Max accidents of the last few years account for a big proportion of this, however, in all cases having a strong systems knowledge and preparing for those “what if?” situations might help save your life one day.

You might have noticed a shift in the training paradigm in the industry, and with good reason – the days of focusing on practicing specific failures in the sims are vanishing and in its place is Evidence Based Training – training that focuses on building the skills needed to handle any situation. If that all sounds newfangled to you then think of it this way – a pilot is there just not to push buttons, but to manage the flight, and these skills are the tools which will enable us to do that.

Fancy reading some more?

• A full report from IATA on LOC-I can be found right here

On 5th November 2020 the new ICAO PANS-ATM Doc 4444 sprung into action like a super hero in a paper cape. Doc 4444 is the Standard for Air Traffic Management. It is a big deal in the world of documents. It is what provides the worldwide recommendations on Procedures for Air Navigation Services, including those for Contingency and Weather Deviation situations.

But…

That does not mean states have to follow it. They really should. But if they don’t that is ok, they just need to let everyone know in their AIP what their different procedures are.

One Contingency Procedure to Rule them All

So, on 5th November the new recommended Contingency Procedures came into being. In fact, these were the procedures that had been in place in the North Atlantic Region since March 2019. But with the release of the new ICAO Doc 4444, the plan was for these procedures to now be rolled-out everywhere – so there would be one standard set of Contingency and Weather Deviation Procedures for all oceanic airspace worldwide.

The procedure is straightforward: Contingency offsets that previously were 15nm are basically now all 5nm offsets with a turn of at least 30 degrees.

Here’s how it works:

But you know this already, so why are we repeating it?

And that would be great. Pilots, no matter where they are, would know exactly what to do when something goes wrong. But…

Some places aren’t playing by the (new) rules

There are four named oceans on Earth – the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Arctic. They are quite big. So big they are often “broken” into North and South as well, and who rules the airspace above said oceans is a mishmash of who borders what bits.

This means while you might just be routing over the Indian Ocean, you might not just be under Indian control, which also means the contingency for each bit of airspace might vary since it is up to each State to decide whether to implement the standard procedure over their bit of the ocean. And not all of them have.

So which ones do we know of that you still need to look out for?

India

India control a big bit of Oceanic Airspace which falls under their VABF/Mumbai, VOMF/Chennai and VECF/Kolkata FIRs.

Until August 12 2021 India did not follow the standard ICAO contingency. From then, they do.

Here is a copy of the new AIP SUP updating their manuals.

China

The ZJSA/Sanya FIR includes an oceanic portion in the South China Sea. It is a “marginal sea” that is part of the Western Pacific Ocean (marginal meaning: would just be the ocean only a bunch of islands and archipelagoes sort of divide it off a bit).

China also do not follow ICAO standard contingencies and instead require you to turn 90 degrees right or left, offset by 25nm and then climb or descend 500ft.

China are pretty strict on deviations and detours. They even use different sized airways in some spots. So check their AIP and China specific Rules and Regs before a flight.

French Guiana

The SOOO/Cayenne FIR extends halfway across the South Atlantic Ocean towards Cape Verde and the West African coastline. The procedures here are also yet to be updated. The French AIP here has the info (ENR section 1.8.5) and tells you to turn left or right by 90 degrees, offset by 15nm and climb or descend 500ft. Nothing strange, but it ain’t your ICAO standard.

French Polynesia

The NTTT/Tahiti FIR in the Central Pacific ocean is another one that comes under the French AIP and still uses old procedures – the now familiar 90 degrees left or right and 15nm offset.

Cape Verde

In the GVSC/Sal Oceanic FIR you are also going to find the old procedures are still in force – the 90 degrees left or right and 15nm offset. You might also want to keep an eye on areas with only 30nm separation and avoid shooting through those 15nm offsets.

Malaysia

The WMFC/Kuala Lumpur FIR Oceanic Airspace requires a 90 degree left or right and 15nm offset

Maldives

They don’t refer to the VRMF/Male FIR as ‘Oceanic’, we think it is so we are not sure on this one. We do know that if you need to do an emergency descent, they want you to remain on away T456. If you are on airways Z653 or Z749 then you can leave the route.

Seychelles

There is a special procedure if you are in FSSS/Seychelles Oceanic FIR. It is in the Seychelles AIP SUP 02/2014. The procedure is a 45 degree turn and a 15nm offset. If you are able to maintain your flight level then once at 10nm, select a level 500′ different to assigned (if at or below FL410), or 1000′ different (if above FL410)

Where else? We need you to tell us!

If you are flying through a region and spot a non-standard contingency or “different to ICAO” note in the AIP then be a superhero and share it with us, and then we can share it with you all and help keep everyone safe and up to date. Email us at: news@ops.group

2019 seems so long a go. A golden age for aviation with airplanes swooshing happily through the skies, and none so happy as those crossing the NAT.

Or were they?

Well, now we can check because the NAT Systems Planning Group 2019 Annual Safety Report has just been released. 2019 might seem a fair old while ago, but the report speaks of a time before Covid when aviation was at normal levels and so offers good guidance on what’s up in the NAT world normally.

What is monitored?

If you were thinking the only things you’re monitored on are your competencies and KSAs in sim assessments, then think again. You are being watched all the time, and especially so in the NAT where 12 Safety Key Performance Indicators are watched like a hawk watches a juicy mouse in long grass.

Targets for reducing the number of errors in these areas are set using three year rolling data.

So, how did we all do?

Well, in 2019, six of the targets were met and there were notable improvements in these three areas:

• Percentage of long duration height deviations
• Rate of long duration height deviations where datalink was not in use
• Number of minutes spent at wrong fight level for aircraft not using datalink

So, pilots have got better at reading their altimeters and not flying at the wrong altitude.

The risk of vertical collision estimate saw an impressive 30% improvement, and they reckon with the use of SLOP this can be reduced another 77% making it… 30/100*77{equation stuff}#100[somethingbysomethingoversomethingelse]… a lot less likely we will fly into each other. Good job all.

Vertical events went down. Get it? Down… instead of up…

What is going less well?

Lateral collision risk estimates reduced, but there were still 80 reported lateral deviations. So we’re flying at the right altitude, but sometimes in the wrong place.

Flight plan versus what ATC actually cleared pilots to do are the top of the list, making up 30% of  the total. 49 of those were prevented by ATC. Not adhering to ATC clearances increased from 10% in 2018, to 13% in 2019, and weather was another biggie making up 17% of all lateral deviations.

ATC coordination errors were also in the top 5 (11%) so don’t congratulate them too much. ATC were also provided with conformance monitoring tools which highlighted cleared versus selected level differences, and route assignment monitoring tools to help them intervene and prevent deviations. With these in place, the performance in the second half of 2019 did improve a lot.

Ok, congratulate them a lot, they’ve made it much safer for us up there.

Overall, what’s the verdict?

No gold star because there were still 266 events reviewed in 2019 by the SPG. These included:

• 83 large height deviations
• 118 (actual) lateral deviations including
  • 42 GNEs
  • 44 ATC interventions where ATC prevented pilots making GNEs
• 73 prevented events where ATCOs stopped aircraft flying an uncoordinated flight profiles or entering the wrong airspace sort of things.

It isn’t always pilots going wrong though. Some of these were down to equipment issues, some down to ATC not responding quick enough. Here is the full breakdown – 

The complete kaboodle. If you had one of these events, you know who you are!

What else is going on up there?

Well, in 2019, when a normal number of aircraft were still flying, they were able to properly monitor the communication and surveillance side of things too, and a whopping 70% of core NAT traffic were using ADS-B. 83% of aircraft were making use of CPDLC over HF radio as well, and the use of these is a big factor in improving the safety and efficiency up there.

The report says this leads to a ‘greater focus on strategic rather than tactical techniques’ which sounds like ‘we are now planning aircraft not to fly near each other’ rather then ‘when aircraft get too close we move them out of each other’s way’.

As a reminder, you have until February 25 to get yourself Datalinkable – the NAT Datalink mandate comes in then.

What next?

2020 data might be a little skewed given a lot less traffic flew, (and many of those who did probably did so after a big gap of not flying), but the overall trend is big improvements. ADS-B is an excellent thing, ATC have a bunch of tools to help them make us safer, and pilot errors are reducing.

There is also a NAT2030 vision plan which is aiming for:

• more flexibility through ‘dynamic airborne rerouting”
• improved contingency procedures
• better comms and surveillance and new technologies
• a focus on improving the environmental impact
• and maybe even some new visitors to the region in the shape of unmanned aircraft supersonic aircraft and even balloons

Until then, get out your own balloons and have a little celebration because safety is improving on the NAT. Now put them away. There is still work to be done.

The full report can be checked out here

The Kosovo War took place several decades ago. It was a conflict between the Serbs (former Yugoslavia) who had controlled Kosovo before the war and considered the land sacred, and the Kosovan ethnic Albanian rebel group who wanted Kosovo to have their independence (and ethnicity) from Serbia recognized.

Following the war, the usual sort of reaction from all parties involved ensued – namely Serbia refusing to talk to their new neighbour, Kosovo. Despite the conflict having been resolved several decades ago, there has been an ongoing impact on aviation in the region because of the continued political tensions between the two countries.

Tell us something about Kosovo?

Kosovo is a landlocked country bordered by Serbia to the Northeast, Montenegro to the Northwest  and North Macedonia and Albania on the other sides.

It only has three airports –  two small domestic airports, and then BKPR/Pristina International.

Pristina International, also known as Adem Jashair, is a single runway airport. Runway 17/35 is 8,205’ (2501m) and has a CAT II ILS onto 17 and VOR DME onto 35. They have limited maintenance facilities and JET-A1 on prior request.

What was the airspace issue?

In short, Serbia refuses to allow Kosovan bound aircraft to route through Serbian airspace. This included upper and lower airspace. 

Since the bit where Serbia borders Kosovo makes up approximately half of Kosovo’s entire border, the overflight ban resulted in a major detour for any aircraft wanting to fly in or out Kosovo, and control and safety was limited.

What happened next?

In 2014, Hungarocontrol (Hungarian ATC) sorted the upper half the problem by assuming responsibility for all the upper airspace in the region. With them controlling all flights over FL205 (the lowest available flight level being FL210) this made it a lot easier for aircraft to route over some of Serbia. Aircraft still had to route around to Albania and North Macedonia in order to descend into Kosovo since SMATSA (Air Traffic Control of Serbia) continued to refuse aircraft to overfly the territory of Serbia below FL205.

The official re-opening of the upper airspace info can be found here. It is seven years old but still an interesting bit of historical Notamage.

This airspace falls under KFOR. Kosovo also has no designated RCC. Operations are under the control of the Combined Air Operations Centre Torrejón –  a military (NATO) command centre in Spain. Actually, they are kinda cool. They secure the skies, respond to crisis, protect territory and populations and do a bunch of other impressive peacekeeping stuff. So while Kosovo airspace is referred to under the Balkans airspace, it is still looked after by NATO.

But back to Kosovo – control for Pristina Airport was therefore from surface level to FL205, with Hungaro taking over from there. The only way in and out of the airport was via the southern border with Macedonia.

What has happened now?

XAXAN (in) and SARAX (out) are the main routes into Kosovo from North Macedonia

Newly formed south-west air routes in the lower airspace will allow more efficient routings into Kosovo for civilian aircraft.

The new lower airspace will be controlled by Iceland, organized by NATO under their Balkans Airspace Normalisation program. Iceland will offer safety oversight and also help support technical solutions to allow more airlines to launch flight to and from Pristina in the future.

This is the official NATO news on this news.

Airspace up to FL205 over Kosovo forms the Pristina ANSP. Everything in the CTR and CTA is Class D. Outride of that is Class G. General Air Traffic are not allowed in the Class G bits without prior permission (keep this in mind if you need to make weather deviations – it all has to be cleared by ATC unless a proper emergency).

General Aviation Traffic have the following routes available to them:

• From North Macedonia, you can plan to route inbound by XAXAN and out via SARAX.
• From Albania, you can route in via ARBER and then expect a direct to Pristina airport. Outbound will be via KUKAD.
• From Montenegro the waypoint is MEDUX – but this is for Military only.
• From Serbia flights along the L680/M867 routes (KUKES/JAKOV waypoints) are Military only.

Although this does not mean a major change for routings, the “normalisation” of control and airspace (high and low) is a step forward.

What next?

Well, that’s about it for now. There was apparently an agreement signed in 2020 between Serbia and Kosovo to start allowing flights between BKPR/Pristina and LYBE/Belgrade, but so far no sign anyone is planning on starting up this route.

The Kosovan CAA page is here (although much of it does not work). There are some old AIPS published so keep an eye out for the new ones showing the shiny new ATS routes.

Some planning info

If you are looking to fly into Kosovo then you are going to need a slot. You can email occpm@imakkosovo.aero, or call +383 38 501 502 2222

They want at least 3 days notice.

All the forms for requesting slots, and all the information on this can be found document entitled “Regulations for aircraft operating as General Air Traffic in the Balkans’ v4.0” which we have provided right here for you.