The other day, before another oceanic crossing, I settled in to brief myself on that afternoon’s flight plan.

As I scalded my mouth with a hastily purchased airport coffee and began to peruse the carefully collated collection of fuel burns and leg times, my eyes fell upon the dispatcher’s remarks. As I stared, the following note stared right back at me…

“Sorry guys, unavoidable EDR 60 at TOC…”

Apology accepted. But what on earth is EDR 60?

With the weight of the braid on my shoulder, multiplied by a factor of my stupidity as a proficient but highly ‘human’ aviator, I realised I needed to call in the big guns – this was a job for Google.

A powerful blankness ensued as I surveyed the answer… Eddy Dissipation Rate. The official metric of ICAO and World Met Organization turbulence reporting since I was in high school. Had I been living in a cave?

This thing mattered, and so I needed to dig deeper.

Here’s what I found out:

…it’s an aircraft-independent meteorological field expressed in meters squared per second cubed…

Not helpful. I read on…

…the cube root of the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy…

I took another sip of coffee. I didn’t have time for this.

Sign-on was approaching, along with hundreds of passengers expecting me to protect them from this ‘EDR 60′ with my big fancy license. All I knew was that it meant bumps. Clearly, I needed to get a better grasp on this.

If you already know what EDR is, and could explain it to me on a napkin, there’s no need to read on. If you’re ‘asking for a friend,’ here is a crash course, written in human.

The Simplest Answer

You don’t need to cube anything. Except maybe the confidence you lost (like me) in not knowing what an EDR is. It’s pretty simple (ignoring the arithmetic of measuring it).

The higher the number, the more intense clear air turbulence may be…if you encounter it.  Anything over 50 may result in moderate to severe CAT.

But that interpretation also depends on the type of aircraft you are flying.

So, there may be some nasty stuff around. But if you want to get your head around it, you’ll need to dig a little deeper.

So, let’s dig…

When we talk about turbulence, we refer to light, moderate, severe, and extreme. We attempt to categorise these with useful definitions like ‘loss of control.’

The problem is that it is quite challenging to quantify the severity of CAT concerning different aircraft types – what’s bad in a 152, may not be as bad in a Gulfstream. It varies from aeroplane to aeroplane, and forecasters don’t know what equipment you operate.

This is where EDR comes into it – it doesn’t cares about what aircraft you fly. It is just a measure of something.

An eddy is simply the swirling of fluid. And air behaves like a fluid. A turbulent atmosphere will make these eddies disappear quicker. A calmer one will allow them to persist.

So, if we know what is happening to these eddies, it can give us an indication of how ‘churny’ the atmosphere is, along with a healthy dose of mathematics, of course.

Eddies dissipate quickly = a turbulent atmosphere.

An EDR is measured with a value of between 0 and 1. But seeing a value of 0.4 for instance, doesn’t exactly leap off the page of your flight plan.

So, we multiply it by a factor of 100 to make it easier to use.

Cool, we’re almost there…

One size doesn’t fit all

Once we have an EDR, we must know what to do with it.

As mentioned, every aircraft is different and will respond differently to turbulence. This is where weight begins to matter.

An EDR of 20 might produce moderate turbulence for a King Air, but gently shake the champagne glasses of an A380 and nothing more.

The clever folk at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, therefore did a study and came up with three weight classes to help you understand an EDR:

Where do I find this EDR?

Many non-airline folk don’t have the luxury of a friendly dispatcher like I had.

But you can quickly look it up. Better yet, it is as simple as paint by numbers (if you know what to do with the answer).

It would help if you had GTG (graphical turbulence guidance) like the one below. And the colours change depending on how heavy your aeroplane is.

The NOAA’s example of a GTG chart (graphical turbulence guidance).

Better yet, the way EDRs are presented can be changed. For instance, cross-sections of a route can also give pilots a good indication of the smoothest levels.

Check out the NOAA website here.

Japan has announced changes (in Japanese) to ATC protocols at airports throughout the country. This follows the tragic collision of an Airbus A350 and Dash 8 on an active runway at RJTT/Haneda on Jan 2.

While we wait for more answers, authorities have been quick to implement new procedures. Here’s what you need to know (translated), if you’re headed to Japan tomorrow.

Visually Clear

Authorities are urging operators to mandate a check by aircrew that the runway is visually clear before landing or entering. In other words – don’t rely on a clearance alone.

You may need to take this one with a grain of salt. For a myriad of reasons, it may not be practical or possible for pilots to make an accurate assessment that a runway is vacant. Take the example below – how would you fare?

Cleared for immediate take-off, with one landing behind. Is the runway clear, or is that a vehicle ahead?

But from an airmanship perspective, the intention is that our eyeballs may become the last line of defense.

Forget your place in the queue

Early indications from the accident transcript indicate that the crew of the Dash 8 may have misinterpreted the use of the phrase ‘number 1’ when cleared to the runway’s holding point.

To a fluent English speaker, the implication may appear quite simple – you are number one in the queue to depart.

But to the crew of the Dash, it may have meant you are number one for the runway.

So, from now on ATC will no longer advise aircraft of their place in the sequence for departure.

Their official note says there are now only four phrases that will be used to imply an aircraft can enter a runway. These are:

• Cleared for take-off.
• Line up and wait.
• Cross runway.
• Taxi via runway.

If you hear anything else, it is non-standard. Stop and make sure you clarify the clearance.

Behind the Scenes

There are changes happening in the tower too. While they have no operational impact for pilots, it may be reassuring to know about them.

Essentially the bulletin reinforces there will be more staff on hand to constantly monitor ground radar for early detection of potential runway incursions.

And work is underway to improve the visibility of paint and signage at runway holding points, especially where no stop-bars are installed or working.

As a collective, the industry needs to do more

Can I address an elephant in the room?

Having read the above bulletin, I find myself flipping the page over to see what’s on the other side.  I can’t help but ask myself… is that it? 

Japan’s bulletin is, for all intents and purposes a reminder of what should be happening anyway.

In my opinion, it seems to offer little more than a gesture of reassurance that authorities have been seen to act in the face of another tragedy.

The reality is that this wasn’t just a Japan problem. All the warning signs were there before Haneda, around the world.

Have you seen this report? Back in November it was assembled by a team of specialists who cast doubt over the future safety of the US NAS.

In a six-week period, there had been no less than five near-miss incidents involving runway incursions and passenger jets at major US airports. Five, in six weeks – the highest rate in over half a decade.

In the report they identified risk factors (such as staff shortages, aging infrastructure and inconsistent funding) as issues endemic to these near-misses. No amount of bulletin-writing can fix these problems.

With the news that traffic levels will soon surpass those seen before the pandemic, I feel unsettled that the bullish outlook for global aviation is quickly outgrowing the safety infrastructure that protects us.

Perhaps it’s time for us to collectively tap the brakes and put safety ahead of profit, lest Haneda be the first of a number of lessons.

As a parting shot, it’s important to note that technologies already exist to solidly improve runway safety far beyond bulletins like the one above. Take for instance, the final approach runway occupancy signal (FAROS).

This independent and fully automatic safety addition to runway status lights warn pilots on final approach in real time that a runway is occupied. Consider the impact this may have had that evening in the darkness of Haneda’s Runway 34R.

What’s needed is the time, money and willingness of industry stakeholders to implement them. We need to do more to prevent accidents like Haneda, rather than react to them. At the very least, Haneda is a wake-up call that the time to act on truly preventing runway incursions at busy airports is now, and not next time.

An OPSGROUP member recently reported they experienced extended interference on Santa Maria Radio (HF frequency 11309). They were unable to use it for nearly ten minutes due to a continuous broadcast in a foreign language.

This was reported directly to Nav Portugal, and the member was kind enough to share their response with the group. Here is what they had to say.

Unknown Broadcasts

The Radio Supervisor did report significant voice interference on the same day for a period of nearly twenty minutes. It didn’t coincide with the time the member’s aircraft was inside the Santa Maria FIR, but they were quick to point out this may mean it hadn’t been reported yet.

In other words, this is likely not an isolated issue.

Nav Portugal advised that in the past twenty-four months, they’ve observed increasing levels of interference on the HF frequencies assigned by Santa Maria. These are often caused by voice transmissions, but have also included radar signals – essentially ‘pinging.’

These have been confirmed to originate from Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

There is no evidence the broadcasts are malicious

While they seem to emanate from regions of high political tension, there are no indications the broadcasts are an attempt to impede the communication of air traffic.

They are simply an inconvenience. Nevertheless, they are occurring in one of the largest FIRs on the planet serving hundreds of flights per day, a number of NAT tracks, and traffic in and out of the Azores.

So, it is important to know what to do if you encounter this on your next crossing.

I don’t care, I have CPDLC

It’s true that CPDLC services are available to all FANS 1/A equipped aircraft in the Santa Maria FIR (logon LPPO).

But look out for this chestnut, from Santa Maria themselves…

…attention is called to flight crew that the use of data link services do not exempt the requirement of establishing voice communications with Santa Maria Radio at or before the FIR Boundary, whether on HF or VHF, even if a CPDLC connection is established…

So HF interference begins to matter for everyone, when outside of VHF coverage.

Try the other line

Your next option is the ol’ sat phone.

Santa Maria’s contact information is listed in NAT Doc 003, but to save you some time, their Inmarsat short code is 426305, and the direct dial for the supervisor is +351 296 820 401.

There are also alternative HF frequencies listed in the attached document. As a general rule, lower frequencies work better at night, and higher during the day.

If ionospheric propagation floats your boat, we’re not here to judge. You can read more about it here.

Phone a Friend

If you’re not satvoice equipped, and you can’t reach Santa Maria Radio directly – what then?

In the first instance, attempt to raise a nearby aircraft on 121.5 or 123.45 who can relay your position report for you.

Or you can try and contact adjacent ATC oceanic sectors – namely Shanwick, Gander, New York Oceanic or Piarco. Nearby radar units may also be able to assist too – Lisboa, Canarias, Sal or Madrid Controls.

Failing that, you’re into the lost comms procedure. You can find that here.

Here’s a quick sheet the team previously put together…

OPSGROUP members: click to download PDF.

Keep Reporting

If you encounter HF frequency interference, it is important that you report it. The more detail the better – including the UTC time, position, altitude, duration and any other identifying details. It’s likely you’re not the only one who will encounter the problem.

We’d also love to hear from you too – you can reach us on team@ops.group

While operational news has been quiet for the start of 2024, some important changes to airspace risk have been gracing the OPSGROUP news feed in recent days. Here’s a brief summary of what you may have missed…

Syria

The FAA has extended its ban on US operators entering Syrian airspace (the OSTT/Damascus FIR) by a full five years. The new SFAR expires in 2028.

And with good reason – it is an active conflict zone. There are multiple risks to civil aviation there at all levels, including the very real threat of coming under fire from Syrian air defenses.

In addition to the US flight ban, several other states maintain active airspace warnings for the region. Almost no traffic overflies Syria – give it a wide berth. The updated SFAR 114 provides some updated background info on the airspace. Safeairspace.net also has a useful briefing.

Egypt

EASA has withdrawn its Conflict Zone Information Bulletin (CZIB) for Egypt – and we’re not really sure why. These CZIBs are largely based on what airspace warnings other countries have issued, and the UK and Germany still have active airspace warnings for Egypt – both countries advise against overflights below FL260 in the northern part of the Sinai region.

HEAR/Al Arish airport in particular near the Egypt/Gaza border has been identified as a potential terrorist target due to its use in humanitarian efforts. And since November 2023, the UK has been warning of risks to aircraft operating over the Red Sea due to military activity (more on that below).

Bottom line, we’re not seeing a reduction in risk. If anything, the threat to aircraft has likely escalated.

The Red Sea

Sporadic drones and missiles continue to be intercepted in the Southern Red Sea by foreign militaries. On January 9, the largest single attack yet happened with over twenty-four shot down by US forces in the area. This represents a significant increase in risk for civil aviation. The culprits are Houthi rebels in Yemen who are typically targeting western vessels, or Israel itself.

The situation in the Red Sea continues to escalate with military air defence systems seeing frequent use in open airspace.

Back in November, the UK issued a new airspace warning due to these types of events. The threat is typically low level (below FL160) but the frequency of these occurrences is a major concern. Some OPSGROUP members have already reported flying longer, alternative routes to avoid the area.

The primary risks to overflights are from misidentification or mis-targeting. The military air defence equipment present is advanced, and capable of reaching all levels.

New UK airspace warning issued November 1 for the Red Sea (and Gulf of Aqaba).

The Middle East

Iran has published a whole bunch of Notams under the OIIX/Tehran FIR code warning of ‘gun firing and military exercises’ between Jan 8-12 in the Strait of Hormuz. This is the sea just north of Dubai.

The areas where this will be happening are very close to overwater airways in the adjoining OMAE/Emirates FIR which get heavily used by flights heading from Europe to Dubai airports.

The yellow area isn’t exactly right – there are several different gun firing exercises within this area from Jan 8-12.

The US has a longstanding warning to avoid these airways nearest to the OIIX/Tehran FIR whenever possible, to reduce the risk of miscalculation or misidentification by air defence systems – good advice, especially for this period of time.

Taiwan

There was some panic on January 9 when a presidential missile warning was issued by authorities for Taiwanese airspace. It was the first time this has happened.

On Jan 9, this alarming missile warning was issued across Taiwan.

It was later clarified that this was due to the launch of a Chinese satellite (not a missile) and posed a minor debris risk. Taiwan is on the eve of a major presidential election – and tensions with China are high.

There appears to be a renewed level of military posturing from both sides which can increase the risk of mistaken identity – especially in the Taiwanese air defence identification zone (ADIZ) if proper procedures are not followed.

These are known risks but are worth reviewing. Some sources are suggesting an escalation is possible this year, which carries the risk of a new and dangerous conflict. In this case, regional overflights would be heavily affected. We’ll continue to monitor the situation closely.

GPS Spoofing in the Black Sea

We’re continuing to receive frequent pilot reports of significant GPS spoofing events in the busy southwestern corner of the Black Sea.

In some cases, this has carried the threat of an unintentional deviation into Russian or Turkish airspace without a clearance.

Reports have been received from various aircraft types on different airways, and have included a complete loss of all navigation capability, transponder functions or nuisance EGPWS warnings.

So far manufacturers and aviation authorities have been slow to react to this emerging threat. Although some type-specific guidance has been issued, the universal mitigator remains disabling GPS before entering an area of known spoofing.

An important reminder – IRS systems are not immune to GPS interference. By the time you identify spoofing, it may be too late to rely on them alone. We’ve written about this topic extensively – read all about it here.

Updates

We continue to monitor for signs of changing airspace risk. We report these changes on safeairspace.net and via alerts issued to OPSGROUP members.

If you know or hear something, please share it with us. You can reach us at team@ops.group. We’d love to hear from you.

“The only constant in life is change” – once said a Greek philosopher… or maybe Russel Crowe in Gladiator.

Either way, it’s been another busy year of change in the world of international flight ops! Here are some of the big’uns from 2023…

January

• Beirut Gunfire Damage: At OLBA/Beirut, two jets (and almost a person) were hit by falling bullets. Celebratory gun fire is common in Lebanon – including on New Years. Read
• FAA Equipment Codes: Addition of new equipment codes for Field 18 in international flight plans. Read
• US Flight Grounding: FAA grounded all flights due to a Notam system glitch. Read
• Somalia Airspace: US reg aircraft remain banned but now allowed to transit for flights to HDAM/Djibouti. Read
• ICAO Doc 007: New ICAO Doc 007 for the North Atlantic with significant changes. Read
  

February

• More ICAO Doc Updates: ICAO updated more of their North Atlantic Docs, not just 007! Both NAT Doc 006 (the one about Contingency Situations) and NAT Doc 008 (the one about Separation Minima) too. Read.
• Africa Airspace Risk: Alert regarding border airspace between Rwanda and Congo DRC, after a military jet was shot at near FZNA/Goma. Read
• US Arrivals: The US FAA introduced continuous descent arrivals into eleven airports in Florida, Kansas City, Omaha and Reno. Read
• Big Fuss Over Big Balloons: And then other unidentified objects in the upper levels of North American airspace. Read
• Ops Differences: Comparison between ops in Europe and the US. Read
• Haneda Airport Update: Publication of a runway incursion hazard map for RJTT/Tokyo Haneda airport. Read

March

• Mali Warning: Expanded airspace warning for Mali by the US FAA. Read
• Oman’s Open Skies: Oman allows flights to overfly its territory, easing routes between Israel and Asia. Read
• Private Flights to US: Deeper insights for private operators to the US. Read
• Aviation Safety in Indonesia: Deteriorating security in Indonesia’s Papua region and incidents targeting aircraft. Read
• Global Reporting Format: Insights on the Global Reporting Format for runway surface conditions. Read
• China Reopens: China reopened its doors to tourists after three years of border restrictions.
• MAYDAYs: Danger Club looked at why pilots are getting MAYDAYs wrong. Between us all, we did some figuring out. Read

April

• NAT Datalink Exempt Airspace: North Atlantic datalink exempt airspace boundaries changed – airspace over Greenland now requires it. Read
• US Aviation Rules: New rules for foreign operators doing P135 charter flights to the US. Read
• Updated Risks on the South China Sea: Recent incidents involving civil aircraft and military warships. Read
• European Flight Planning: Insights on planning flights in Europe without alternate routes. Read
• Sudan Airspace Closure: Sudan’s airspace was closed following a military coup. Read

May

• Circling Approaches: We wrote about the dangers of circling approaches, and the difference between PANS OPS and TERPS. Read
• Formidable Shield 2023: North Atlantic airspace closures for Formidable Shield exercises. Read
• FAA’s Northeast Improvements: The FAA finally finished its big North-East Corridor Improvement Project. Operators need to file preferred routes to avoid delays. Read
• NOTAMs Fixed: We hosted the Great Notam Sprint. Three hundred volunteers found an AI-based solution that fixes the Notam problem – a working model that ingests all NOTAMs for a flight, and outputs a simple, colourful, ranked and pilot-friendly briefing the way we want it. Read
• US Airport CBP Fact Sheets: With help from the NBAA, we built a collection of handy CBP cheat sheets. Read
• NOPAC Routes Redesign: Redesign of the North Pacific NOPAC routes by the FAA. Read
• North Korea’s Satellite Launch: Potential risks to aircraft due to North Korea’s recent satellite launch. Read

June

• TCAS in North Atlantic: We talked to Shanwick and Gander about whether TCAS was essential to cross the NAT. Read
• 5G Retrofit Deadline: FAA’s decision not to delay the 5G aircraft retrofit deadline. Read
• Mexico Challenges: Overview of challenges affecting bizav ops to Mexico. Read
• ADS-B Mandates: Changes and mandates for ADS-B globally. Read
• China’s Limits Lifted: China’s removal of domestic sector limits for foreign bizav flights. Read
• ATC Short Codes: Inmarsat published an updated list of Short Codes for getting hold of various ATC & ACC centres worldwide. Read

July

• NAT Region Changes SSR Transponder Procedures: EGGX/Shanwick FIR updated, with other NAT FIRs to follow. Read
• US Operators Can Overfly Venezuelan Airspace Below FL260: Long-standing Notam cancelled, allowing overflight. Read
• INMARSAT Device Registration for China: You might need to register your INMARSAT device if headed to China.
• Tightened Passport Control in Iceland: Increased scrutiny during tech-stops. Expect to have to get off the plane for passport checks, even in grotty weather. Read
• Air Traffic Controller Shortage in Australia: Uncontrolled airspace due to staff shortage. Read
• Portugal’s New Punishment Tax: New tax in Portugal, targeting business aviation and small aircraft. Similar costs can be expected for an Azores (LPAZ, LPLA for example) tech stop. Read
• Mexico City Airport Safety Alert: Several reports of loss of GNSS signal in the terminal area. Read
• New Datalink Mandate in France: If you’re flying in France above FL195 and you have ATN CPDLC – you must use it! Read

August

• US Operators Can Overfly Afghanistan at FL320: Contingency routes in place, but risks persist. Read
• Niger Airspace Closure Due to Coup: Significant impact on Central Africa traffic. Read
• ZSSS/Shanghai Off-Limits: Bizjets had to re-route to ZSPD/Pudong for a few months. Read
• Libya: Aircraft Evacuation Due to Clashes: Reminder of ongoing risks here. Avoid! Read
• Navigating NO FIR Airspace in Eastern Pacific – Procedures for uncontrolled oceanic airspace. Read
• Approved Airports for Flights to Israel: Our guide on all things “ops to Israel” related. Read
• CPDLC Gotcha – Clearance Busts: In 2022, the FAA recorded 20 aircraft deviations due to issues with CPDLC and partial reroute messages. Here’s what not to do! Read

September

• Canada Mandates ADS-B Above FL180: Flight plan requirements, exemptions, and application process. Read
• Niger Airspace Reopens After Coup: Major airlines resume traffic, but security concerns persist. Read
• EU Temporary Admission of Aircraft: OPMAS debunks myths about EU aircraft admission. Read
• Armenia-Azerbaijan Airspace Risk: Brief flare-up in the conflict, closure of cross-border waypoints, most East-West flights started avoiding the region and routed via Georgia’s UGGG/Tbilisi FIR instead. Read
• WATRS Renamed: The US FAA officially renamed WATRS airspace to WAT. Existing B050 authorizations will be re-issued within 24 months. Read
• GPS Spoofing in Iraq: We several reports of enroute aircraft being targeted with fake GPS signals, leading to complete nav failures. Read

October

• OPSGROUP Goes To Vegas: We had the pleasure of meeting up with OPSGROUP members at NBAA-BACE 23 in Las Vegas! Read
• New Rules for Outbound US Private Flights: APIS updates for passenger changes and ETD. Read
• EU-LISA Screening System Postponed: The EES bit will be delayed to some time towards the end of 2024, and the ETIAS bit will start no earlier than 2025. Read
• Tel Aviv Airspace Risk: Israel is now an active war zone. The Safe Airspace assessment is at Level 1 – Do Not Fly. Operators should especially avoid LLBG/Tel Aviv, despite assurances from the authorities that the airspace is “safe”. It isn’t! Read
• Bizav Clampdown at Amsterdam Airport: Reduction in slots with potential future ban for bizav. Read
• NAT Changes 2024 Announced: No more Oceanic Clearances, simplified procedures, squawking changes. Read
• US Border Overflight Exemptions: We made a super simple How-to Guide. Read
• More GPS Spoofing: Watch out if you’re in the Cairo, Nicosia, or Amman FIRs – at some point, your GPS sensor inputs may try to tell you you’re overhead LLBG/Tel Aviv airport. Read

November

• Bizav Roadblock: Turkey and Armenia: Turkey blocks bizav overflights to/from Armenia. Read
• GPS Spoofing Update and Types Identified: GPS spoofing incidents detailed, including the Beirut scenario. Read
• The Annual Shanghai Airports Meltdown: Restrictions in November for bizav flights. Read
• UK Airspace Warning for Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba: Caution urged due to increased military activity. Read
• North Atlantic Volcanic Threat: Iceland impending eruption may impact NAT traffic. Read
• US Visual Approaches: Ooh, people got angry about this one! A cautionary tale involving a crew of an a A350 inbound to KSFO who found themselves in a seemingly unnecessary last-minute diversion to Oakland after a long-haul flight. The incident highlighted issues with visual approaches in the US, particularly during late-night arrivals. Read
• New GPS Spoofing Scenario – The Black Sea: Several reports from members of GPS spoofing over the Black Sea in Turkish airspace. Read
• Datalink Rules in Europe: All your European Datalink questions answered! Plus there are now some additional places where Datalink logon will soon be mandatory. Read

December

• UK Implements ETA for Passengers: Electronic Travel Authorisation scheme for passengers. Read
• US Domestic Enroute CPDLC Update: CPDLC available with specific avionics. Read
• New Approaches at KDEN/Denver: RNAV/RNP Approaches introduced to mitigate TCAS RA events. Read
• Niger Overflights: Several reports of aircraft being denied entry into Niger airspace at short notice, even though a valid overflight permit was in place.
• Anti-Aviation Protests: Some anti-aviation protestors targeted a couple of airports in Belgium. Here’s a look at some of the most notable incidents over the past few years. Read

As the year draws to a close, we wanted to say a big “thank you” to everyone in OPSGROUP for showing up, sharing stories, experiences, and information, and in turn keeping us all safe and up to date.

We’ll be taking some time off from the Daily Brief and Bulletin emails over the holiday period. It’s all fairly straightforward this year dates-wise, we’ll basically be closed from Mon 25 to Fri 29 Dec – as this tasteful, festive postcard points out.

Happy Holidays everyone, and see you in 2024! ❤️⚡✈️🧑‍✈️

An OPSGROUP member recently received the following message after their N-Reg flight plan was rejected by Eurocontrol:

Or in other words ‘computer says no – it seems you’re not RVSM approved…’

The issue stemmed from something called NAARMO – the North American Approvals Registry and Monitoring Organisation.

This is the agency responsible for monitoring the safe and proper use of RVSM throughout North American airspace including the US, Canada and Mexico. They maintain a list of every US-registered commercial and turbine GA aircraft approved to operate in RVSM airspace.

It may come as a surprise, but this same list is used across the pond by Eurocontrol (and its monitoring agency).

OPSGROUP has been advised that every three months, Eurocontrol carry out a flight plan audit using the FAA NAARMO list to identify non-approved aircraft operating in RVSM airspace.

If a registration is flagged, after further consultation, it may be added to a list of aircraft which will have their flight plans rejected. This was the case above.

Herein lies the problem: if your aircraft’s RVSM-status is recorded incorrectly on the US NAARMO list, you may find your flight plans getting bounced over in Europe.

If this happens to you, here’s how to fix it.

Contact NAARMO directly.

Yep, even though it’s a problem in European airspace the solution rests with NAARMO back in the US.

You’ll need to figure out why your aircraft doesn’t appear on the FAA’s database, and get that corrected first, before Eurocontrol can remove your aircraft from their naughty list. Once you get it corrected on the NAARMO database, they are apparently pretty good at sending Eurocontrol a specific notification so they can remove it from their list too (the day they receive the update, or the next working day).

You may not have been intentionally naughty either. There are some quite innocent reasons why this may be case – usually missing information related to airworthiness or other overlooked details.

To get in touch with NAARMO directly, use this form and email it to naarmo@faa.gov.

Back in 2022, the FAA issued a Safety Alert (SAFO) for KDEN/Denver, after a high number of TCAS RA events were recorded between aircraft landing on the parallel runways (16L/16R).

This was compounded by a number of factors:

• High elevation
• Reduced separation
• Controller workload
• Possible complacency caused by regular nuisance TAs.

It was a moody brew leading to the FAA becoming concerned about potential for a midair collision. If you’re like to know more, here’s an article we wrote at the time.

The trouble runways.

The good news is that last month, new approaches were introduced to alleviate the risk. Here’s an update on what has changed.

Offset Approaches

On November 30, Runway 16R received two new approaches (offset by 3 degrees) – the RNAV (Y) and RNP (Z).

The two new offset approaches to Runway 16R

It was previously determined that 3-degrees would be enough to mitigate nuisance TCAS activations and allow operators to continue using full TA/RA mode throughout their approach and landing.

Along with these offset approaches, the FAA has published new procedures for their use found in this Information Note for Operators.

The procedures will be in use anytime Runways 16L and R are operating simultaneously, and visual approaches are in use on at least one of the runways.

New Procedures

Listen out for the following phrase on the ATIS:

If you’re landing on 16R, there are effectively now two scenarios:

Instrument Approach – Follow the RNAV (Y) or RNP (Z) charted procedure. Easy.

or

Visual Approach – Here’s where things get a little more complicated. Even though the FAA regs say that an aircraft on a visual approach does not need to follow a specific track or vertical profile, in the case of KDEN, the FAA strongly suggests you do.

Aside from assuring you stay inside Class B airspace, it will also mitigate nuisance TCAS RA’s that can lead to unstable approaches, go-arounds and level busts.

In their Info Note the FAA goes even further and says don’t fly a straight-in approach to 16R (including via the existing ILS) unless specifically cleared to do so.

So when can we line up with the runway?

Whether you are on an instrument approach, or a visual, the FAA says don’t break off the offset until you can see the runway and have crossed the FAF.

Look out for these chart notes…

Because the above procedure will only be used when conditions permit a visual approach on at least one of the two parallel runways, technically the whole deal doesn’t fall within the realm of ‘simultaneous IFR operations.’

So, you can disregard the following two chart notes:

…although the last one is still recommended by the FAA.

Still have questions?

You can get in touch with the folk at the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division at 9-AWA-AVS-AFS-400-Flight-Technologies-Procedures@faa.gov (yes, that’s the real address) or on the phone via (202) 267- 8790.

Or talk to us! team@ops.group. We’d love to hear from you.

An OPSGROUP member recently reported some confusion with ATC during their eastbound crossing of the NAT, related to the CDPLC-issued instruction: RESUME NORMAL SPEED.

After increasing their cruise speed by M0.02, they advised ATC as per ICAO procedures and received the following message from a controller who appeared to believe that they had just busted their clearance…

No paperwork was filed, but the crew involved were left scratching their heads as to what exactly they’d done wrong.

In the absence of any obvious explanation, we reached out to Gander directly who quickly replied. The answer was nothing – in this case, it was the controller who misinterpreted the rule.

Turns out the RESUME NORMAL SPEED instruction implies some pretty specific things. Here is exactly what you need to know next time you get this message on your NAT crossing.

Operations Without a Fixed Speed

OWAFS been happening over the NAT since 2019. O-WTF, you might be saying. But it stands for Operations Without An Assigned Fixed Speed.

It works like this. You get a normal oceanic clearance, with a fixed mach number, like you always did. But then somewhere after the Oceanic Entry Point, you may get a CPDLC message saying RESUME NORMAL SPEED.

Just reply with WILCO. Happy days.

But what this actually means is this – fly ECON, or a cost index with variable mach. You can fly within 0.01 up or down of your cleared Mach number without saying a word. But if it varies by 0.02 or more, you must advise ATC.

The big thing to note here is advise. No clearance is needed, you just need to tell them what you’re doing.

If you’re looking for a reference, ICAO DOC 007 section 5.1.12 is where you’ll find it.

As long as ATC are in the know, the gas pedal is now yours for the pressing.

Keep Reporting

If a clearance has you scratching your head, please let us know. Chances are if you’re confused, a lot of us will be too.

As this event illustrates, this can also help ATC who are human – just like us pilots. Misunderstanding between pilots and controllers, especially with respect to oceanic re-clearances, is one of the leading causes of procedural errors on the NAT.

You can reach us on team@ops.group, or if you’re an OPSGROUP member, via the Crew Room.

Key Points

• One of Iceland’s volcanoes (10nm southwest of BIKF/Keflavik) is showing signs it’s about to erupt.
• If it does, NAT crossing traffic is likely to be affected at short notice.
• ICAO have a Contingency Plan ready to go if it does erupt (PDF below).
• Pilots and Operators: There is a list of things to watch out for if you do fly through volcanic ash, and a recommended procedure to follow.

Iceland is on high alert for an imminent eruption at one of the volcanoes on the Reykjanes Peninsula – a stone’s throw southwest of Keflavik. If it does erupt, it has potential to seriously impact North Atlantic traffic.

The last time this happened in 2010, the (try pronouncing this one) Eyjafjallajökull volcano closed almost every country’s airspace in Western Europe in the weeks that followed. Nearly 100,000 commercial flights were grounded.

One of the few flights not to be impacted by the volcanic ash in 2010.

Where are we talking about?

What happens if it erupts?

So far, it’s just a warning. But it’s credible enough for Iceland to declare a state of emergency. Recent earthquakes in the area are an ominous sign. If it does erupt, there are several possible scenarios that could affect air traffic.

• BIKF/Keflavik may close. Unlike previous eruptions, this one is just 10nm away from the airport and a little further from the Icelandic capital, Reykjavik. Aside from being a major airport in its own right, BIKF is a commonly used ETOPS/EDTO alternate for traffic crossing the NAT.
• Part of the NAT HLA may become unusable depending on the spread of ash. More southerly routes than usual may become a requirement which means extended flight times and more fuel.
• Major airspace closures could occur for an extended period of time.  The European mainland may once again be in the firing line, thanks to the mid-latitude westerlies.

Yeah but what ACTUALLY happens?

If the volcano warning goes to code RED (it’s currently code ORANGE), that basically means an eruption has started. In this case, the airspace within a 120nm radius will close, until they confirm there’s no ash cloud. They currently think there is a 15km long line where magma is flowing and moving towards the surface – an eruption could happen anywhere close to that line.

120nm of closed airspace around BIKF/Keflavik airport (remember, the volcano is just up the road) would look something like this:

There’s also a thing called the Volcanic Ash Contingency Plan that ICAO put together. This doc is the one you want to read – there are a few more scattered around online, but they’re all older versions of this one.

Where was ICAO when the Westfold fell?

This doc sprang from the misery caused by the eruption in 2010, and aims to set out what actually happens if a big volcano erupts.

Essentially, it goes like this:

1. Volcano erupts. There’s ash all over the place.
2. Volcanic ash people issue a volcanic ash warning.
3. Notam people issue a Notam.
4. Pilots/Operators read the Notam and don’t fly into the ash. ATC help them.

All volcano walking tours are cancelled.

What should I do if I fly through ash?

Don’t fly through ash.

But if you do, then do this:

1. Reduce thrust.
2. Do a 180 degree turnback.
3. Put masks on.
4. Declare MAYDAY.
5. Panic a bit as you do whatever emergency tasks you need to do.
6. Divert somewhere pronto.

Or as it says in more official language in the Contingency Plan:

If I do fly through ash, how scary will it be?

Very scary. Don’t do it. Here’s a list of nightmarish things that will probably happen if you do:

1. Smoke, fumes or dust may appear in the cockpit. Get those masks on.
2. Engine malfunctions, stalls, over-temperature, thrust loss, engine failure.
3. Reduced visibility due to the abrasive effects of ash on windshields and landing lights.
4. Pitot tubes may become blocked, so airspeed indications may become unreliable.

Advice: disconnect the autopilot, set engine thrust to an appropriate value and maintain the aircraft’s pitch attitude manually. This will keep the aircraft at a safe speed, but will probably result in difficulty to maintain the assigned altitude. Increased separation is required (above and below).

Another thing that might happen – SPIDERS.

Advisories and Warnings

The London Volcanic Ash Advisory Center (VAAC) is responsible for issuing any ash advisories for this region. You can access those here.

Senior staff meeting at the London Volcanic Ash Advisory Center.

The current alert level is Orange. Verbatim, this means that the volcano is ‘exhibiting heightened unrest with increased likelihood of eruption; or that an eruption is underway with minor ash emission…’ Or in other words, it may be about to erupt.

If you’re not familiar with the volcanic alert scale, here’s how it works:

All traffic crossing the NAT or operating over Western Europe right now should be keeping a close eye on this one.

What’s the latest at BIKF/Keflavik Airport?

We’ve had a couple of reports from members who have been through there recently. If you’ve got anything to add, please file a report at Airport Spy! For info from the airport, you can contact the local handlers at jetcenter@icelandair.is or ops@southair.is.

Click image for full reports at Airport Spy homepage.

With the Israel-Gaza conflict ongoing, a lot of traffic is re-routing well clear of the LLLL/Tel Aviv FIR via parts of the Sinai Peninsula, the Red Sea and into Saudi Arabia via the Gulf of Aqaba. Especially those flights bound for Amman, Jordan.

The problem is that spill-over risks from the conflict are now extending beyond the boundaries of Israeli airspace and into this busy corridor. We’ve reported a number of these instances in the past few weeks.

On Nov 1, the UK CAA published a new airspace warning via Notam:

Airspace warnings aren’t new for the Sinai Peninsula – but are for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba. So, what has made the UK issue this one now?

The UK’s new airspace warning lies within or close to busy routes being flown by major carriers.

Recent Events

• Oct 27 – a weaponised drone struck a town near Egypt’s border with Israel near Taba. This was likely launched by Yemen’s Houthi group from Yemen, or the Red Sea itself.
• Oct 24 – Several OPSGROUP members reported GPS spoofing events resulting in the aircraft showing its position over Tel Aviv, Israel. Several hotspots were identified, including over the Sinai Peninsula and Red Sea. You can read more about those here.
• Oct 19 – At least one cruise missile or drone was shot down by a US Naval vessel over the Red Sea, reportedly launched from militants in Yemen and targeting Israel.

While militant activity on the Sinai Peninsula and adjacent regions is a known threat, the conflict in Israel has changed the risk picture. These groups have suddenly become more active and their attacks more sporadic. This may not be evident in existing airspace warnings issued by Germany and the US FAA – the latter having been around for years.

Is it safe enough to overfly?

There is no definitive answer to this question – as the UK Notam above alludes to, potential risks need to be taken into account and the appetite for those will vary from operator-to-operator.

Here’s what we do know though:

It is better to fly higher. All existing warnings for the Sinai Peninsula (and now adjacent regions including the Red Sea) advise operators to stay above FL250/260. This is likely due to the risk of militant groups with access to anti-aircraft weaponry such as man portable air defence systems (MANPADS).

The chance of misidentification by the military is low, but not zero. Military vessels active in the Red Sea are equipped with sophisticated and long-range air defence systems capable of reaching all levels. It is extremely unlikely that a civil aircraft would be misidentified – but history has shown that accidents can happen.

Know what to do if you are spoofed. As opposed to GPS jamming, spoofing is insidious and potentially confusing. Your aircraft may not even alert you that something has gone wrong. We have a Briefing, Guide and Map on GPS spoofing which you can access here. In the worst cases, the impact has been severe: complete loss of on-board nav requiring ATC vectors, IRS failure, and unnoticed off-track navigation towards danger areas and hostile airspace.

Think about diversions. If you need to land in a hurry (especially in Sinai), you are exposing yourself to increased risk of anti-aircraft fire, small arms fire and mortar attacks by groups with a known intent to attack civilian interests, possibly motivated by current events.

Alternative Routes?

Flight tracking shows major airlines are still overflying Southern Sinai and the Red Sea. The only option to avoid the region completely involves a long diversion south.

Unfortunately for those bound for Jordan and perhaps Kuwait, this means extended flight times. If you do decide to overfly the Sinai and Red Sea region, know that just because airways are open (and well used) doesn’t mean they are completely safe.

Updates

For more info and updates, check Safeairspace.net – our Conflict Zone & Risk Database.

From March 2024, the number of slots available for GA/BA at EHAM/Amsterdam Schiphol will almost halve. And apparently, it’s just the tip of the iceberg – the ultimate goal is for them to be banned altogether.

Just like with Portugal’s new Bizav Punishment Tax, the small jets are getting the big heat – often unfairly.

Go Away, GA…

The news came out in the airport’s latest capacity declaration – the maximum number of ‘small business aviation’ flights will be capped at 12,000 next year (down from 17,000).

It’s all part of a master plan that Schiphol announced back in April to make the airport ‘quieter, cleaner and better.’

The biggest news is that a complete ban on business aviation is planned from 2025. And until then, GA/BA will increasingly feel the squeeze.

So, what happens after the ban?

With no more slots available to business jets, operators will need to look elsewhere. Here are the current closest alternatives with customs:

• EHRD/Rotterdam (24nm) – For handling, contact: Jet Aviation FBO, rtmfbo@jetaviation.com
• EHEH/Eindhoven (56nm) – For handling, contact: Viggo Eindhoven, info@viggo.eu
• EHGG/Groningen (82nm) – For handling, contact:  Ground Ace, info@groundace.eu

Across the border, don’t forget about EBBR/Brussels either.

Look out for other restrictions too

1. Night curfew: The same plan includes banning all aircraft movements between midnight and 6am (5am for departures). This will severely restrict available slots for late evenings and early mornings.

A night curfew is coming to Schiphol soon too.

2. No new runway: The airport has decided that the existing six runways should just about cover it. Plans have officially been scrapped for lucky number seven – a twin sister for Kaagbaan (yes, the runways have names!)

3. Noisy rides: From this coming Summer, Schiphol has announced that eighty-seven aircraft types will no longer be welcome. The good news is most of them are old.

A large number of older, noisier aircraft will be banned from Schiphol next year.

4. Airport fees: The quieter and cleaner your ride, the cheaper the airport fees will be moving forward. Operators using louder and more polluting aircraft will pay up to five times as much.

I want to go to Schiphol anyway

The doors haven’t quite closed on business aviation just yet. But with the new capacity restrictions, slots are going to be hard to come by – so get in early.

The latest guidance of how it all works, along with fees and charges can be found in Schiphol’s latest charges and conditions doc.

It’s been a big week for US politics. On September 30, a Federal Government shutdown was narrowly avoided by a last-minute funding stopgap that has delayed the problem until November 17.

The situation was front page news across several aviation websites – but you might still be wondering, why?

As is often the case, politics and aviation don’t mix. Until they do. And then we’re forced to take notice – this one of those times. There was widespread concern for what a shutdown might mean for the US aviation sector, and some of those problems could cause a real hangover.

With the problem delayed, but not gone, we may find ourselves in the exact same position again come November. Here’s a look at what is giving the issues wings (pun only slightly intended).

How can the Federal government just ‘shut down?’

A shutdown happens when Congress doesn’t approve funding for the Federal Government by the time the new fiscal year kicks off on October 1.

The crisis can temporarily be averted by a short-term funding bill which is what has just happened. But it only buys more time.

If a shut-down goes ahead, various government operations grind to a screeching halt. The world won’t end (essential services continue) but federal agencies (including the FAA) are left scrambling without funding. They need to rely on contingency procedures including furloughing staff or relying on them to work for a period of time with no pay.

Congress now have until November 17 reach a funding agreement.

Staffing

The impact on of a shut-down would primarily impact two large groups of aviation professionals – TSA staff and Air Traffic Controllers. Then of course, there’s the FAA itself…

TSA

TSA workers are federal employees, and work for the Department of Homeland Security. There’s 47,000 of them and they’re responsible for screening passengers and baggage at 450 of the nation’s airports along with other essential functions such as air marshals.

During a shutdown, they won’t get paid. There is fear of what the impact will be on the US NAS, if they (understandably) don’t want to work.

The TSA itself has allayed some fears with a recent statement. Essentially a commitment that their staff will continue working. While admirable, they are human – one shutdown once lasted well over a month . If similar occurred, how long we can rely on this promise isn’t known as the strain grows.

TSA workers would face working for a period of time without pay if a shutdown occurs.

ATC

The majority of 14,000 controllers in the US work for the FAA, and so are also federal employees.

The impact of an extended period without pay could be significant – not to mention contributing greatly to a system known to be heavily burdened by staff shortages already.

Planes aren’t about to start flying into each other. But a major consequence of a shutdown is that the FAA would send home 1,000 controllers currently in training.

And we need them. Right now, the US is about 3000 controllers short of the mark. And the goal of recruiting an extra 1800 in the next year and half could become extremely optimistic. This shortage has been well publicized, and a shutdown would like exacerbate the problem.

A shutdown threatens to postpone the training of more than a thousand controllers that are sorely needed.

Don’t forget about the FAA, either.

It never rains, but it pours.

The FAA has been dealing with a double whammy. Asides from the uncertainty of a Federal Government hiatus, it’s five-year funding bill has also expired.

A temporary re-authorization has scared the wolf away from the door, but it cannot operate properly without cashflow. And various disputes over pilot retirement age and minimum experience requirements has tapped the brakes on the entire process.

It’s a very complex agency and a suspension of its functions will take a long time to recover from for all of us.

Lessons Learnt

Federal Government Shutdowns have happened before – the most recent was in 2018 and lasted for 35 days.

There were several impacts on aviation that the NBAA usefully summarized in their article here. It likely serves as a preview of what we can expect again should a funding agreement not be reached in the new deadline in November.

Key Points

• The US FAA has officially renamed WATRS airspace in the West Atlantic, to simply WAT.
• Part 91K, 121, 125 and 135 operators will all be affected by the change. Existing B050 authorizations will be re-issued within 24 months.

If you’re not familiar with WATRS, it is a large chunk of airspace off the US East Coast comprised of fixed routes that provide huge volumes of oceanic traffic to and from the NAT HLA with lateral separation. From 7 Sep 2023, it’s been renamed WAT.

What was wrong with the old name?

The FAA dig into this in their recent notice. Essentially back in 2020, New York ATC asked users to stop using the term ‘WATRS airspace’ because it was causing some confusion.

Apparently, some users were associating it simply with the New York West Oceanic CTA. When, in reality it also spans the San Juan CTA and the Atlantic portion of the Miami Oceanic CTA too.

It is purely an issue of semantics. Now we need to call it WAT instead so that it better aligns with ICAO regions.

Has the physical boundary changed?

Nope. It is a name change only, and the existing set up remains the same.

Then why do we need to know?

If you traverse the NAT a lot, no doubt you are quite familiar with the term WATRS. But you are unlikely to hear it anymore.

It will be progressively replaced with the unfamiliar term WAT in charts, reference material and approvals. And so, a little background helps.

A number of important FAA documents will need to be updated. The most significant is LOA B050 which will be re-issued to all operators over the next 24 months.

LOA B045 (Extended Overwater Operations Using a Single Long-Range Communication System) will also be revised when some extra paper-pushing gets done behind the scenes.

Your company’s internal manuals and guidance will also need to be changed to avoid ‘reverse training’ the older, obsolete name.

WAT about other NAT changes?

While we have you, there’s been another small change to NAT ops to report.

On September 18, ICAO revised the ‘Oceanic Errors’ NAT Ops Bulletin – the doc which has all the advice for operators on how to avoid the most common mistakes when flying the North Atlantic.

These include: Gross Nav Errors, Large Height Deviations, and Longitudinal Separation busts. There’s also some advice on Flight Planning, SLOP, and some CPDLC things to watch out for.

You can download it here.

Looks like there are no significant changes in terms of content for this updated version when compared with the old one – they’ve just tidied it up a bit.

But if you operate over the North Atlantic it’s still worth a read, as there’s lots of top tips on how to avoid the most common “gotchas”!

Contingency and Weather Deviation Procedures were updated back in 19’, and rolled out to all oceanic airspace worldwide in November 2020. We produced this chart at the time:

Do You Have a NAT Conundrum?

Ah, NAT conundrums! We love them so much, we’ve published three entire Volumes already!

Volume I covered the following three conundrums:

1. To SLOP, or not to SLOP?
2. What’s the difference between the NAT Region and the NAT HLA?
3. Can I fly across the North Atlantic without Datalink?

Volume II covered these additional three:

4. Do you need to plot on Blue Spruce Routes?
5. Do we still fly Weather Contingency Procedures on Blue Spruce routes?
6. When can we disregard an ATC clearance and follow the contingency procedure instead?

Volume III was solely dedicated to:

7. GOTA airspace datalink and ADS-B requirements.

We’re always on the lookout for more conundrums, so please get in touch with the team on team@ops.group with any NAT related questions or queries. We’ll do our best to answer them, or put you in touch with someone who can.

Key Points

• The FAA has published a new Safety Alert for CPDLC and partial route re-clearances.
• Make sure you load your full SID manually into the FMS after you receive a partial reroute message (UM79).
• Also, don’t mistake these partial reroute messages as being cleared to fly directly to the waypoint (a direct clearance would be a UM74 message).

Lessons from Teterboro

In 2022, the FAA recorded 20 aircraft deviations at KTEB/Teterboro Airport due to issues with CPDLC and partial reroute messages.

These incidents resulted from failure to reload SIDs after receiving a partial reroute UM79 message (where you are cleared to a particular waypoint via other waypoints en-route), requiring swift coordination with ATC to avoid traffic.

But the issue isn’t limited just to Teterboro – it could happen at any US airport, to any aircraft type receiving a clearance in this way.

Another thing to watch out for

Due to limitations in the formatting of CPDLC DCLs, they can be easy to misread or misunderstand. Take the following for example, courtesy of an OPSGROUP member.

A change to a clearance was received by a B777 at KJFK/New York during taxi and under considerable pressure to get underway or out of the way:

Unfortunately, in this instance the crew mis-interpreted their clearance as direct to the waypoint YNKEE. This was further compounded by the issue above – when the new route was loaded, their SID was dropped from the flight plan.

When they got airborne, ATC immediately began asking why they weren’t following the assigned SID – the result was a clearance bust. To their surprise, further down the clearance was indeed an assigned SID – the SKORR4. It was an understandable and easy miss.

The question remained though: what then is the intention of the top part of this clearance if not to clear the aircraft direct to YNKEE? We put this to the group, and received some useful feedback.

It maybe comes down to a machine readability issue. The section above the plus signs is required because of the way the clearance is written, and is related to the same issues as above. It will not contain a SID when you insert it.

In fact, some newer CPDLC systems don’t even show that section to the crew – only the information below the plus signs which contains the assigned SID. The full version is a confusing, and seemingly contradictory set up.

What about PDCs?

It’s probably worth a mention that these issues don’t affect PDC clearances. PDCs are different and are sent by a service provider via VHF datalink. No log on is needed, and only one can be issued for a flight number at specific airport over a 24 hour period. They also have to be read back via voice. PDC’s cannot be used to notify pilots of a change to the filed route. So it’s smooth sailing in that regard.

Further reading.

You can read the FAA’s new Safety Alert for CPDLC and partial route re-clearances here.

The FAA also has a handy guide on how to use CPDLC in US airspace. It covers the basics, along with departure clearances (DCLs), en route ops, speed/time restrictions, emergency use and free text.

Key Points

• ‘NO FIR’ is a section of uncontrolled oceanic airspace in the eastern Pacific.
• Class G rules apply – no services are provided here (Traffic Separation, SAR, Weather Reporting, Notams).
• There are some ICAO Recommended Procedures: Contact ATC, use TIBA Procedures, turn on all lights, keep squawking, SLOP, and fly standard levels.
• Download the OPSICLE below for a summary of the procedures.

OPSGROUP Members: Click to download PDF.

‘NO FIR’ at the edge of the world

Well off the coast of Peru in the Eastern Pacific sits a large chunk of oceanic airspace known simply as ‘NO FIR.’ As the name suggests – it is completely unassigned. No ATC agency is responsible for it.

You may not have heard of it, because in almost all cases operators simply avoid it. There are just no procedures out there. And when attempting to find some, more questions are raised than answered.

The problem is that avoidance is beginning to cost time and money. With the establishment of ultra-long-haul routes, and aircraft capable of flying them, fuel is becoming increasingly critical. Especially when you consider that in some case ETOPS certification has now reached a whopping 370 minutes – that’s six hours.

And so OPSGROUP is often asked – how exactly can we operate directly across it? We didn’t know either, so we reached out to ICAO for some answers.

Where can I find the procedures?

This may come as a surprise, but there are none. Because no state is responsible for the NO FIR airspace (yet), there is no AIP to reference.

Until ICAO can successfully delegate this laborious task to adjacent countries, the standard ‘rules of the road’ apply – and none of them are specific to this particular piece of the high seas.

There is some provisional guidance out there, but it is just that – provisional. It is based on a 2019 project to subdivide the NO FIR airspace into pieces managed by Peru, Ecuador, Tahiti and the COCESNA states. This has yet to happen, and was stalled by Covid. ICAO advise the project has been revised but will take more time to implement. Until then, no one is home.

Best practice

So, how do we cross the NO FIR airspace without procedures? We need to rely on best practices instead. Here is what ICAO suggested to OPSGROUP, and it begins with a caution:

No one is responsible for it. It is important to understand the impact of this. There will be no traffic separation, SAR services, weather forecasting or even Notams. You will also need to make sure your insurer is happy for you to traverse this kind of airspace.

There’s a lot of ocean out there – careful contingency planning is needed to mitigate the risks of crossing NO FIR airspace.

Having made the decision to enter however, ICAO recommends the following:

• Use the information available to you. Before you enter the NO FIR airspace, ask controlling ATC the following question (keeping in mind that English may not be their first language)…
  “Is there any known, or observed traffic?”
  It is possible they’re aware of preceding traffic ahead, or are expecting some to exit. Even partial info, is better than none at all.
• Use TIBA procedures. Yes, they’re technically for ‘contingencies,’ but the principle remains the same – hear and be heard. You can find those procedures in ICAO Annex 11. What frequency? There isn’t one published for the NO FIR airspace and so ICAO suggests using chat (123.45) or guard (121.5).
• Be Seen. Turn on all anti-collision and navigation lights, just in case.
• Keep Squawking. Use your transponder and TCAS TA/RA function at all times.
• SLOP. Follow Strategic Lateral Offset Procedures to further separate you from oncoming traffic. In other words, intentionally deviate up to 2nm right of your airway. You can find those procedures in ICAO PANS ATM, or ICAO Circular 354.
• Fly Standard Levels. Stick to even levels heading west, and odd levels heading east. Also avoid changing levels inside the uncontrolled airspace unless it is dangerous not to do so.
• Call Ahead. At least ten minutes before exiting the NO FIR airspace, call ahead and give the next ATC sector a head’s up you’re coming.

What not to do

Rely on adjacent agencies to take care of you anyway.

The most common misconception out there seems to be that the KZAK/Oakland Oceanic FIR will provide some emergency assistance via CPDLC.

When we reached out to them directly they advised this may be the case for some aircraft transiting the adjacent MMFO/Mazatlan FIR, but this is not the case for the NO FIR airspace – as far as they are concerned, there is no log-on available or any other services available.

Operator reports

So that’s what written on the back of the packet, but what about intel from pilots who have recently flown through it? OPSGROUP reached out to members, and received these reports on what to expect:

OPSGROUP Member: …we were advised to contact the next ATC sector via CPDLC at a specific lat/long before entering the NO FIR. We transmitted position reports in the blind on 123.45. Mazatlan was very difficult to raise on HF, however the aircraft SAT phone continued to work well. Alternate planning was critical. We flew through in day visual conditions, and so weather was easy to see and avoid…

OPSGROUP Member: …when we entered, we were simply told ‘frequency change approved,’ with no further instructions. We tried to raise a bunch of frequencies and eventually got in touch with NY Oceanic (randomly). We just informed them of our intentions along with position reports every 30 minutes until we entered the Guayaquil FIR. I’ve never been able to find further instructions on how to operate in this airspace…

There is no magic bullet

The Pacific’s NO FIR airspace is useable but with careful consideration. The challenges of crossing it can be mitigated, but only with solid contingencies in place.

ICAO’s guidance above is a solid starting point, however it is up to individual operators to decide whether the commercial reward outweighs the potential risks.

Key Points

• You won’t find it in the Notams, but ZSSS/Hongqiao (one of Shanghai’s two international airports) will not accept non-scheduled international flights for the next four to six months.
• This includes both private and commercial operators, and is due to FBO renovations.
• Operators looking to clear customs will need to use ZSPD/Pudong instead.

FBO Works at Honqiao

On August 1, official notification was published that the Hongqiao FBO would be closed for major renovation – including the customs channel. You can read that here (in Mandarin).

All non-scheduled international flights now need to use the other Shanghai airport, ZSPD/Pudong.

No dates are provided for when things at ZSSS will get back to normal. We reached out and have been advised that it could be up to six months before non-scheduled international flights will be welcome again. You can contact them directly on fbo@fboshanghai.com for updates on that.

Pudong will become Shanghai’s only option for international GA/BA flights for the next 4 – 6 months.

What about domestic flights?

The news is a little better. They can still land at ZSSS. Asides from the FBO being shut, there is little impact. Instead, a VIP room is being used as a replacement facility. Obviously, there will be no customs available.

Local agents advise there is no change to existing procedures or parking.

ZSPD/Pudong

For international non-scheduled flights then, ZSPD/Pudong will be the only Shanghai option for the next few months.

This maybe especially unusual for operators who commonly arrive over the city from the west.

A browse of the Airport Spy reports submitted by OPSGROUP members are mostly positive. We’d welcome some new ones though, and so if you have been there lately, we’d love to hear from you. You can submit yours here.

International arrivals at ZSPD can expect to be processed via VIPP-H on the chart below. Crew will need to clear customs through the regular customs channel, aka the passenger terminal.

VIDP/Pudong – Expect to use VIPP H for international ops.

A big heads-up – Universal advise a general parking restriction of max 48 hours still applies without a special extension. Which means for longer stays, you may be looking at a re-position to ZSSS and back.

You can reach Universal for handling and other enquiries on chinaoperations@universalaviation.aero

We’ll keep you updated.

If international non-scheduled flights resume at ZSSS earlier than expected, we’ll let you know. Also keep an eye out for new (and potentially better) procedures and facilities when the FBO re-opens its doors.

Update

This article has been updated to reflect the current status as of Aug 14, 2023.

Key Points

• Following a military coup in April 2023, Sudan airspace remains closed to all civilian flights.
• In South Sudan, air navigation services remain suspended above FL245.
• HSSK/Khartoum airport is closed, but no Notams are being issued.
• There is a Contingency Plan available with published routes for ops in and out of HSPN/Port Sudan airport.
• For overflights, there are some north-south routes available via Egypt and Saudi, and some east-west contingency routes available over South Sudan.
• If routing via nearby airspace, be aware of other active warnings in close proximity.

The Coup

News first emerged on April 15. Sudan’s paramilitary group ‘Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) became engaged in active fighting with the state military in Khartoum in an apparent coup attempt. While the details were scarce, they reportedly seized control of several important assets, including HSSK/Khartoum Airport.

This has been brewing for some time. There has been a power struggle between the two rival military forces since an overthrow of the government back in 2019.  A failure for the existing government to successfully transition Sudan to a freely elected one has fanned the flames. Along with this is strong public demand for the RSF to be merged with the regular armed forces. This now looks pretty unlikely.

Closed Airspace

On April 15, the HECC/Cairo FIR advised Eurocontrol that Sudanese airspace had closed, and that local authorities were unable to issue any Notams to that effect.

At the same time, videos began to emerge of large passenger jets on fire on the tarmac at HSSK/Khartoum Airport. This included reports that an A330 was shot at multiple times while preparing to depart. The pax and crew evacuated, and were transported to safety at a local embassy.

Satellite imagery taken on April 17 over HSSK/Khartoum airport shows damage from the fighting. (Image credit: Maxar Technologies)

As of June 2023, the HSSS/Khartoum FIR is now publishing Notams again, and they have said once again that the airspace over Sudan is closed to all flights except for humanitarian and evacuation flights. And in South Sudan, air navigation services remain suspended above FL245.

Air navigation services have been suspended in Sudan’s airspace, including above FL245 in South Sudan.

For overflights, there are some north-south routes available via Egypt and Saudi, and some east-west contingency routes available over South Sudan. Check the HSSS Notams and the Contingency Plan for details.

North-South routes via Egypt and Saudi.

East-West Contingency Routes available in South Sudan above FL245.

Adjacent Airspace Warnings

The HSSS/Khartoum is a big piece of airspace. The scramble now will be how to avoid it. Unfortunately, several adjacent countries have their own airspace warnings in place and so it is important to take these into careful consideration. Here’s a summary:

South Sudan

You may be tempted to fly below FL245 through South Sudanese airspace to ensure air traffic control services. However these have been the focus of recent scrutiny. The primary risk there is poor levels of ATC provision, especially for aircraft operating in and out of HSSJ/Juba. Back in 2021, ICAO issued a letter warning of disruptions, a lack of qualified controllers, communication issues and coordination issues with adjacent airspace. There have also been reports of navaids being withdrawn from service and other changes without proper notification to crew. We’ve received no further reports of these problems since.

Chad

There are no active airspace warnings for the FTTT/N’Djamena FIR, although several states (including the US) advise against travel here. The main issue seems to be the risk of crime, kidnapping and terrorism. The general advice is to avoid landing here. We haven’t heard of any issues for overflying aircraft, but keep safety during diversions in mind.

Ethiopia

Special attention needs to be paid to the Northern Tigray Region, near the border with Eritrea. A long running conflict there has recently come under ceasefire, but there may still be some resistance to this amongst militant groups with access to portable air defence systems. These can pose a risk to low level aircraft (below FL250).

Several states including Germany, the UK, France and Canada still have airspace warnings in place. Although they are due for review, they should still be considered active in the meantime. The US warning has previously been lifted. You can view all active advisories here.

Egypt

To the north of Sudan lies the HECC/Cairo FIR. There is still a reported threat of terrorism in Egypt, particularly in the Sinai Peninsular. Only the UK and Germany still have active airspace warnings here – both countries essentially advise against overflights below FL260 in the northern part of the Sinai region. The US had a similar warning in place until it was rescinded in March 2022.

Central African Republic

The news isn’t great here. The security situation on the ground in the Central African Republic is fairly dire. There have been numerous attacks on civilians and peacekeeping troops in recent years. FEFF/Bangui airport is operating under UN control, and is subject to regular power outages. The US and UK advise against all travel to the entire country due to violent crime, civil unrest, and the presence of armed groups who control large areas of the country. There are no official airspace warnings in place for the CAR, but the general advice is to avoid landings here completely.

What will happen next?

It is a developing situation and Sudan should be avoided until things stabilise. We’ll continue to publish updates as they become available, both to OPSGROUP members, and also via Safeairspace.net – our conflict zone risk database.

Last week, a fleet of jet aircraft were grounded in Nigeria after significant volumes of water were found in their fuel tanks. One became airborne and suffered malfunctions in flight.

The Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) confirmed the issue was not confined to that one airline, describing the situation as ‘dire.’ Anyone uplifting fuel there right now should be seriously concerned.

Max Air identified Octavus Petroleum as the source of the contaminated fuel which led to the grounding of its 737 fleet.

The NCAA has issued an urgent All Operators Letter to refuelers and operators to follow the proper procedures – but with sixty days to comply. That’s over two months of potentially contaminated fuel still being used at airports in Lagos, Abuja, and Kano – without mandatory procedures in place to check it.

What do pilots have to do?

The NCAA note requires a thorough inspection of refuelling equipment, and testing of the fuel it carries or pumps. More notably, there will also be a mandatory requirement to take samples from fuel tanks before and after refuelling too. This will apply to anyone operating an aircraft in Nigeria.

It is becoming mandatory to test fuel samples both before and after refuelling.

The advice is sound though – be hyper vigilant of anything going into your tanks there at the moment. Of course, perhaps the best mitigator right now is not to refuel at all, and to tanker instead. 

Where is the water coming from?

Problems with infrastructure and how it is stored is likely to blame. Aside from particulates and fuel-loving microbes, there are multiple opportunities for water to accumulate. This can include water that gathers in low spots within pipelines, rain-water contamination, changes in temperature during storage or while being pumped and even the moisture content of air when tanks are unsealed to add or remove fuel.

There are plenty of opportunities for water to contaminate jet fuel in storage and transfer, especially if proper procedures aren’t followed.

A Little Vs A Lot

If you suspect contamination while airborne you should land immediately.

The impact depends on how much water is actually in your tanks. In small amounts, it can rust and corrode important components of your fuel system including fuel nozzles that can eventually fail. Water can also wear out fuel pumps that rely on fuel to stay slippery and cool.

You may also notice unusual engine operating temperatures, surging, and technical faults with your aircraft’s fuel system.

In larger quantities the issues become critical. Icing can restrict or stop the flow of fuel to your engines leading to flame outs (remember water freezes at just 0 degrees C, while pure Jet A1 can remain liquid in temps as low as -47 degrees C).

Icing can clog filters and prevent fuel from reaching your engines.

Also, water doesn’t burn, so if it reaches your combustion chambers in any significant quantities you can say sayonara to your engines producing thrust – in other words you could have a multiple engine failure on your hands.

Make Sure You Report

If you do detect fuel contamination in Nigeria, it must be reported to the NCAA. Their contact details are found in the above letter.

And make sure you let us know too so we can help spread the word, and keep everyone safe. You can reach us on team@ops.group or by submitting an Airport Spy report.

There have been several recent reports of loss of GNSS signal in the terminal area at MMMX/Mexico City Airport. This can lead to navigational errors, and a raft of related system failures all of which have potential to ruin your day.

GNSS interference is hardly new. The issue with MMMX is that the vast majority of procedures became RNAV based back in 2021. Add to that high altitude operations with a healthy dose of terrain and you begin to get the picture.

IFALPA have just published a new safety bulletin for MMMX/Mexico City Airport, which you can read here. But strangely, at the time of writing there has been radio silence on the issue from both Navigation Services for Mexican Airspace (SENEAM), and the Mexican Federal Civil Aviation Agency (AFAC).

Let’s dig a little deeper.

The Specifics

The first problem relates to the terminal area itself. All SIDs and STARs are RNAV 1. This means that to ensure terrain protection your aircraft must not exceed a track error of 1nm.

One look at the Jepps and you can see why. 25nm MSA towers as high as 19,400′ to the east of the field, and 14,800′ to the west. Mount PopocatEpetl – an 18,000’ volcano is just 35nm away from the field. It’s easy to see why GNSS interference could become a major safety issue.

Mexico City Airport is surrounded by high terrain.

The second problem relates to the approaches. Only one of the two runways has ILS approaches available (05R/23L). The other runway relies entirely on RNP approaches – where the eye of the needle narrows to just 0.3nm in the final approach segment.

What could go wrong?

Aside from the obvious, a loss of GNSS can affect other safety critical systems too. IATA has also written about this, and it turns out losing the signal can open up a whole can of worms.

At the simpler end of the scale, a crew may receive a message that their navigational ability has been downgraded. And at worse, they may lose GNSS navigation completely including functions as simple as direct-to.

Depending on your aircraft type, you may find your aircraft reverting entirely to ground based and inertial navigation. Your nav display may tell you lies too, including nasty things like map shift.

EGPWS can also be affected – the system that has your back around terrain when you can’t simply look out the window. Its predictive functions can be disabled, or spurious warnings triggered. Additionally the position reporting function of ADS-B can become corrupt, which is bound to upset ATC.

If your aircraft has them, runway alerting systems can also stop working properly. Things like runway overrun protection may simply now be redundant.

There’s more to it than meets the eye.

Be alert for signs that your GNSS signal has been lost.

So, I’ve lost signal at Mexico City. What should I do?

Put extra attention towards monitoring the performance of GNSS during operations at MMMX, because it really matters. A sterile cockpit is also important here as distractions can help mask some of the more insidious symptoms of an interrupted signal.

If GNSS signal is lost, be prepared to fly alternative procedures.

What are those you say?

There are no SIDs or STARs which use ground-based aids anymore at MMMX.

There are two options, radar vectors or the MEX VOR. The former is likely the easiest. Otherwise, it is back to raw data – the likely outcome being a descent in a hold or a procedure turn. Either way, you’ll need to let ATC know.

Without GNSS, you are effectively down to one runway (unless of course you are flying the visual). 23R/05L has no ground-based approach option – it is all RNP.

That leaves 23L/05R where the news is better. There is an ILS at each end, and even a VOR approach on 23L in a real pinch.

If you need an instrument approach, and you don’t have GNSS, you are runway limited.

Whichever option you choose, if you are in cloud you need to be sure of your terrain clearance reference something that’s not RNAV specific – whether it be the controller, or the MSA sectors on your chart.

Do you have info to share?

If you’ve been to Mexico City (or anywhere else, for that matter) and can share some info on how the trip went, please file an Airport Spy report!

OPSGROUP members can see all the Airport Spy reports filed for airports around the world on the members Dashboard here.

The US FAA has cancelled a long standing Notam which prevented US operators from overflying Venezuelan airspace below FL260.

KICZ Notam A0013/19 expired in June, and hasn’t been renewed. This effectively means that there are no longer any restrictions on the enroute use of the SVZM/Maiquetia FIR.

In fact, there are no active airspace warnings issued by any other states either. Here’s a closer look at the airspace, why there was a restriction in the first place and what you should know now if you want to use it.

The Maiquetia FIR

Venezuela controls its own skies – the SVZM/Maiquetia FIR. It’s a large chunk of Class C airspace that sits squarely on top of South America.

From a geographical perspective it provides a handy gateway between the US, Caribbean and destinations further south down the continent – especially Brazil.

It is also home to the country’s largest airport, SVMI/Caracas. Here’s what that all looks like on a map:

If you’d like to know more about Venezuela’s airspace, here is a link to the online AIP.

Why was there a US restriction in the first place?

Back in 2019, the US FAA issued the above Notam which banned US operators from overflying Venezuelan airspace below FL260, citing political instability.

The (extremely) short story was that after years of steady decline, a political power struggle led to an attempted uprising. Widespread civil unrest followed while people suffered from economic collapse, inflation and shortages of food and medicine. This has continued to the current day. Here is what we had to say at the time.

The FAA had multiple concerns for the traffic above.

There were two major worries. The first was that the military may fracture and begin fighting against each other. Additionally, there was the known presence of mercenaries who had been employed to augment the military and police force.

It was known that the Venezuelan armed forces had large stockpiles of advanced man portable air defence systems (MANPADS) capable of targeting aircraft as high as FL250.

While there was no obvious intent to target civil aircraft, the FAA were worried that extremely high tensions may lead to inadvertent firing which could endanger them indirectly. They were also concerned that some of the MANPADS may find their way into the hands of non-state actors who were less predictable, and had less training.

There were FAA concerns about military rivalries and an abundance of surface-to-air weapons.

As such US operators were banned at lower levels out of an abundance of caution while the situation evolved.

If you’d like to know more, here is a copy of the Background Information note the FAA published at the time.

So, have things improved?

It would be a logical assumption given that the flight restriction has been lifted, but the short answer is that we don’t know. And the FAA hasn’t (yet) provided any explanation as to why the Notam has been cancelled.

The situation in Venezuela is at a standstill. It remains in the middle of an unprecedented social and humanitarian collapse. Although there’s news lately of high-level talks to try and improve the situation, right now, it’s just that – talk.

It’s possible that the immediate threat of active fighting and the intentions behind the issue of the original Notam have subsided sufficiently that the risk to civil aircraft from anti-aircraft fire is now considered extremely remote. Although this is purely speculation.

The safest course of action until we know more would be to remain above FL260 – although this is no longer mandated.

Beware the diversion

If you do overfly Venezuelan airspace, the most important consideration is crew and passenger safety in the event of a diversion. The security situation on the ground in Venezuela isn’t great – in fact it is among the twenty most dangerous countries in the world, while Caracas itself has previously been ranked as the most dangerous city of all.

The US Department of State maintains a ‘Do Not Travel’ warning (its highest alert) for Venezuela citing risk of kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, terrorism and unlawful imprisonment. All to be avoided. If you’re looking for the latest information, the US Embassy website is a good place to check – keep an eye out for any new security alerts.

Does this mean I can now fly between Venezuela and the US?

At this stage, no. The FAA restriction was purely to protect traffic transiting Venezuelan airspace below FL260. Another (more political) restriction remains in place, issued by the Department of Transport. It’s a heavy read, but basically the commercial transport of passengers or cargo between airports in Venezuela and the US remains banned.

We’re unsure at this stage whether there is an intention to drop this rule too, and have reached out to both the FAA and the DOT for more feedback. We’ll keep this article updated as more info comes to hand.

In 2020, the industry fell off a cliff as the world went into hiding. Things in 2021 weren’t much better. Then finally last year the wheels started to turn properly again – albeit while still pushing against outdated travel restrictions, quarantine and covid testing.

It is really only this year that the brakes have well and truly been released and the industry has been allowed to return to a full gallop. So with peak summer season coming up, EASA has issued a new Safety Information Bulletin on the emerging new safety risks in Europe.

Here’s a look at some of the main ones…

The Speed of the Recovery

Business is booming, the world is travelling again, and operators are making up for lost time – cash flow has never been more welcome.

But herein lies the problem. The sheer speed at which things have started up again is a threat. The primary issue EASA identifies is that the industry just isn’t keeping up with the pace of change. We’re not managing things as well as we should. And they smell risk – with a delayed fuse…

Shortages of People and Things

There is currently a lack of qualified operational staff across the board. This isn’t just limited to pilots either – cabin crew, engineers and air traffic controllers to name a few are all in hot demand. And for the ones already employed and working, fatigue is becoming a major concern.

For new ones, lack of experience is likely to emerge more often in incident and accident reports. EASA are worried about the lack of time and resources to train them all at the pace the industry is demanding of them. The problem with this is that the safety impact may not be immediately obvious but could emerge later.

Is there a risk that new pilots aren’t receiving enough training in the skills that the industry knows they must have and need?

But it isn’t just people. It is the tools they use – there is a significant shortage of aircraft and the parts needed to fix them. Supply chain problems are leading to cancelled flights and maintenance delays. Carriers are increasingly turning to old and retired aircraft in storage to fill the void as order lists for new ones fill up.

Cyber Attacks

A busy and overloaded system is a vulnerable one, and this leaves aviation at risk from those who want to harm it. There have been several instances of this reported in the past months. EASA are concerned that the busy peak season may put aviation in the firing line for digital criminals who are capable of wreaking havoc on Europe’s skies.

Lack of Capacity

All of those aircraft need room in the sky and the airways system will be pushed to capacity. That means delays and difficulty securing slots, further exacerbating two major safety elephants in the room – commercial pressure, and fatigue.

Disruptive Passengers

It’s not just operational staff who feel the heat. Passengers dealing with delays, strikes or other inconveniences to their travel plans may act up.

In fact, it is a becoming a major problem worldwide. Just weeks ago IATA put out a new report showing that the number of cases of unruly pax had almost doubled year-on-year after the pandemic.

Disruptive passengers are becoming more and more of an issue.

It’s Not Just Europe

EASA may have concerns for Europe, but the lessons in their bulletin apply broadly as the industry accelerates away from the nastiness of the past few years. In our enthusiasm to see better times, we need to be aware of the threats that we may be steadily introducing. And this simple document is a good place to start.

Inside it has important suggestions for what a bunch of stakeholders (including operators!) can do to start mitigating these threats now, to avoid the fallout later.

Summer is coming in the Northern Hemisphere and so is the next Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June to November.

But for the first time in eight years, experts in the US are saying it’s not going to be too bad this year – or rather, they are predicting a “near-average” hurricane season…

Everything will be fine.

The 2022 season saw 14 named storms, eight hurricanes and two major hurricanes – which is actually pretty near average.

The worst of these was Hurricane Ian, which hit Florida at the end of September as a Category 4 major hurricane, tracking right across Florida before making a second landfall in South Carolina.

The two surprising things about the 2022 season were the lack of any storm in August (a time when Atlantic storm activity normally starts to increase), and the formation of three hurricanes in November (Lisa, Martin and Nicole) – right at the end of the hurricane season.

Here’s an animation of last year’s season’s highlights, thanks to the NOAA:

What does 2023 have in store?

CSU Tropical Weather & Climate Research have released their prediction for this season. Here’s the lowdown:

• Good news: “El Niño is virtually assured in the next couple of months” – meaning that increased winds from the Pacific will blast across into the Caribbean and Atlantic and help tear apart hurricanes as they try to form.
• Bad news: Warm waters in the tropical Atlantic are at “record levels in the eastern part of the basin” – meaning that ideal hurricane conditions are in place which will counteract some of the El Niño effect.

So although they say to expect a “near average” season, they really don’t know yet which way it will go. Or to put in proper met speak: “Given the conflicting signals between a potentially robust El Niño and a much warmer-than normal tropical and subtropical Atlantic, the team stresses that there is more uncertainty than normal with this outlook.”

Southwest hurricane season

This isn’t specifically a “northern hemisphere” thing because it affects countries both sides of the equator. Similar to the Atlantic season, it generally runs from June through September.

India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam are generally the most affected, although some of the nastier storms can track pretty far south.

Tropical systems bringing nasty weather, heavy rain and often strong winds are also associated with the season. You’ll find these forming in spots like the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal, and northern Indian Ocean.

The main impacts?

• Airport operations can often become the biggest nightmare for a pilot. Weather conditions will often shift as the storm moves through, so there may be windows where the wind is aligned with the runway, but don’t let the lack of crosswind fool you, as the turbulence and wind shear caused by the high winds will still present a considerable problem for your approach.
• Airports near the storm will often become full due to diversion traffic – so be on the lookout for Notams which often prevent their use as a planned alternative. Some regional airports might close to arrival traffic when they are filling up, so having fuel for an alternate some distance from the storm is handy.
• Be on the lookout for Notams affecting entire airways. In addition, there are often LSWDs (Large Scale Weather Deviations), and FIRs will modify route availability to assist their aircraft management.
• Carry extra fuel. This is especially true for those ultra long range flights. Weather at the time of your departure may be forecast OK. However, 12 hours is a lifetime for these storms, and the airport, which you thought would be OK, could be the storm’s firing line. Fuel will give you options.
• Be mindful of aircraft limitations and aware that ATC may not pass on info if they’re busy. Ask the approach controller how many aircraft have made successful landings in the past 30 min, just to help create a picture of how things are on the ground.
• After storms pass, the local region can be isolated due to flooding and damage. Power and water are often cut off, and essential services may be limited. For airports, manpower and fuel could be an issue, so FBOs/handlers may not be able to assist with your arrival for days after the storm has passed.

Understanding the forecasts

During hurricane season, some terms get thrown around that aren’t always that clear.

Especially:

• The difference between a storm and a hurricane.
• What categories actually mean.
• The actual effect of these categories on the ground.

Hurricanes are measured on a 5-point scale. The bigger the number, the more destructive it will be. Here’s a handy little graphic, courtesy of the National Hurricane Center:

https://ops.group/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SSHWS_animaton.mp4

Getting good intel

Keep an eye on the FAA OIS website and NOAA website.  When new storms form, daily telcons are activated that anyone can dial into. They provide up-to-the-minute operational updates on airports and airspace.

Prepare to help!

After a disaster, we know that knowledge is critical. Getting good information to relief workers literally saves lives – which is why OPSGROUP established Relief Air Wing. It is a team of OPSGROUP volunteers who come together in the aftermath of these storms to help share information to relief agencies so that help can get through to where it is needed the most.

Our community contains thousands of skilled pilots, air traffic controllers, dispatchers and other professionals and together we can make a real difference. Head on over to the Relief Air Wing website for more info on our mission and how you can help.

**Update: June 2, 07:35z **

South Korea, the Philippines and Japan have all issued new airspace warnings by Notam due to the risk caused by falling debris. Japan’s in particular is worth noting as it also suggests an ‘anti-ballistic missile’ may be launched from several potential locations within the RJJJ/Fukuoka FIR to shoot down the craft if it enters Japanese airspace during launch.

The Notams to be aware of are:

South Korea: 
RKRR Z0298/23 - ROCKET LAUNCH WILL TAKE PLACE FROM NORTH KOREA. 
IN THE INTEREST OF AVIATION SAFETY, WI INCHEON FIR ALL ACFT ARE
STRONGLY ADVISED TO KEEP LISTENING TO THE FREQUENCY AND FOLLOW 
THE INSTRUCTION OF ATC.
EXPECT FALLING AREAS ARE AS BLW :
1. 360656N 1233307E-352431N 1232247E-352001N 1234837E-360226N 1235911E
2. 340554N 1230159E-332328N 1225153E-331632N 1232940E-335858N 1234004E
3. 145410N 1284006E-111918N 1291050E-112649N 1295408E-150142N 1292403E. 
31 MAY 08:38 2023 UNTIL 10 JUN 15:00 2023. CREATED: 31 MAY 08:38 2023

Japan: 
RJJJ P2445/23 - ALL ACFT INTENDING TO FLY WI FUKUOKA FIR ARE ADVISED TO PAY
SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION.
A ROCKET IS EXPECTED TO BE LAUNCHED FROM NORTH KOREA AND THE
ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILES MAY BE LAUNCHED FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
ROCKET.

1.ROCKET LAUNCHED FROM NORTH KOREA
(1)LAUNCH SITE: NORTH KOREA
(2)FALLING AREAS COORDINATES:
FIRST STAGE
360656N1233307E 352431N1232247E 352001N1234837E 360226N1235911E
SECOND STAGE
340554N1230159E 332328N1225153E 331632N1232940E 335858N1234004E
THIRD STAGE
145410N1284006E 111918N1291050E 112649N1295408E 150142N1292403E

2.IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 82-3 OF JAPAN SELF DEFENSE FORCE LAW,
THE ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILES ARE DEPLOYED AT POSITIONS BLW,
(1)NAHA-SHI : 261219N1273929E
(2)MIYAKOJIMA : 244602N1251930E
(3)ISHIGAKIJIMA : 241953N1240828E
(4)YONAGUNIJIMA : 245838N1225716E. SFC - UNL
30 MAY 15:00 2023 UNTIL 10 JUN 15:00 2023. CREATED: 30 MAY 13:57 2023

Philippines: 
RPHI B1867/23 - SPECIAL OPS (SATELLITE LAUNCH ACT) WILL TAKE PLACE WI:
145410N 1284006E -
111918N 1291050E -
112649N 1295408E -
150142N 1292403E -
145410N 1284006E. 
SFC - UNL, 30 MAY 15:00 2023 UNTIL 10 JUN 15:00 2023. CREATED: 30 MAY 02:31 2023

**********

It has been a busy week for the aspiring North Korean space program.

In an unusual turn of events, on May 29 they actually provided prior notice of an impending launch of a (suspected) surveillance satellite into orbit. Then on May 30 it actually lifted off, although unsuccessfully. Alarms were briefly triggered in South Korea and Japan. No sooner had the dust settled than Pyongyang announced their intention to try again – sometime before June 11.

Similar attempts in the past have turned out to be yet more thinly veiled missile tests. Nevertheless, the global community is taking these warnings seriously, and word is being spread by Notam.

Unlike conventional missile tests which we have frequently reported, an attempt to put something into orbit not only uses UN-sanctioned technology, but creates far broader hazard areas for civil aviation – well beyond the ZKKP/Pyongyang FIR where traditional missile tests lie. Which is why we’re collectively sitting up a little straighter.

Not all of the beans are being spilt though. Only some of them. Which is why this week’s launch window was notably broad – extending for a full ten days. Subsequent launches are likely to be same.

The risk for aircraft was from falling debris from rocket staging, or even a complete failure of the craft.

The Notam…

On May 29, South Korea (the RKRR/Incheon FIR) published the following Notam (which has since been cancelled):

There were three major hazard areas – portions of the Yellow Sea, East China Sea and the Philippine Sea.

Don’t think in capitalised type-written coordinates? Neither do we. Here’s what that looked like on a map:

The official advice was avoid them completely, if practical. Otherwise, to listen out to ATC for potential updates.

The Plot Thickens…

Given the current state of affairs, any launch is politically sensitive and risks far greater political fallout. Japan has been especially vocal in denouncing them saying that they ‘threaten the peace and safety of Japan, the region and international community…’ They have vowed to shoot down any satellite or debris if it enters Japanese territory – important note: there are currently no airspace warnings for air defence activity anywhere in the RJJJ/Fukuoka FIR. With the best intentions, history has shown this type of activity can inadvertently put civilian aircraft at risk.

It’s no wonder too – there is a well publicised record of North Korean missile launches coming uncomfortably close to Japanese territory, often landing well into  the Sea of Japan.

Political Posturing

It’s unclear whether these are genuine attempts to put a craft into orbit, or more simply a political statement to flex North Korea’s ballistic missile capabilities. If subsequent launches were successful it would be North Korea’s first foray into space ops. However, it comes at a time when there have been large scale live-firing military exercises near the North Korean border by South Korea – part of a seemingly constant cycle of diplomatic muscle flexing that seems to characterise to the region – and as such we may need to take things with a grain of salt.

From an airspace perspective though, these launches should be treated as real hazards. At the very least because it is better to be safe than sorry.

We’ll continue to report on any changes as they emerge. Many of these risks are well publicised, and safeairspace.net is a great place to start for that info.

The sun’s back out in Southern France, and so are the high rollers, race car drivers and movie stars.

That’s right – it’s that time of year again, with two major events stacked back-to-back – the Cannes Film Festival (May 16 – 27) and Monaco Grand Prix. It’s the jewel of the F1 calendar (May 25-28).

This means an influx of business jet traffic to two major airports – LFMD/Cannes and LFMN/Nice, where some of the world’s wealthiest will come out to play.

It’s not all caviar and roulette though – you’ll still need to be able to land there first. Three AIP SUPs have been published to help that happen. Here’s what you need to know about them.

LFMD/Cannes

AIP SUP 30/23 has the deets here.

The airport itself isn’t normally co-ordinated, but you’ll need a slot to go there between May 16 – 29. That info is found on this website. The apron is going to be chock-a-block too – a word of warning, you won’t be allocated a slot unless you have confirmed parking too.

If you like to manage things yourself on the ground, you’re out of luck. Handling services will be mandatory during this period, and it seems there’s only port-of-call:

AEROPORT CANNES MANDELIEU / SKY VALET
https://cy.myhandlingsoftware.com
E-mail: operations-acm@cote-azur.aeroport.fr
Phone : +33 (0) 4 93 90 41 10

You may not get your requested slot, so a little flexibility may help here. When you get an authorisation number, this will need to go into Item 18 of your flight plan. Without it, EUROCONTROL will likely refuse it.

Don’t be tempted to fly the hop between Cannes and Nice either, in either direction. These flights will be banned between May 26 – 29.

LFMN/Nice

AIP SUP 27/23 is the one to check out here.

Nice is co-ordinated year-round, so there’s less of a surprise. As above, you’ll need to co-ordinate a slot to arrive or depart.

Once again, hiring ground handling services will be mandatory. This time there is a little more choice though. According to the AIP SUP, roll the dice and pick between:

AVIAPARTNER EXECUTIVE
https://www.aviapartnerexecutive.com/nice
E-mail: nce.executive@aviapartner.aero
Phone: + 33 (0) 4 93 21 37 37

DC AVIATION G-OPS
https://www.dca-gops.com/
E-mail : nice.ops@dca-gops.com
Phone: +33 4 93 21 58 12

Monaco

Monaco itself doesn’t have an airport. In fact, it is the second smallest country in the world and is found on France’s Côte d’Azur – its south-eastern coast. Inside Monaco is the district of Monte Carlo, where the F1 race is taking place. Most fans and participants will enter via Nice.

If you’re looking for crew accommodation there, book early. Things fill up, and it becomes astronomically expensive – if it isn’t already.

Restricted Airspace

Info on this is published in yet another SUP – this one: AIP SUP 076/23.

From May 16 – 28, unless you are special traffic you will not be able to overfly the city of Cannes at low level.

Flights over the city of Cannes are restricted throughout the film festival.

Keep an eye out for intensive helicopter traffic. For IFR traffic departing on a SID, it is important to follow published climb gradients and altitude requirements. If you don’t think you’ll make it – let ATC know with your start request. You may get hit with a delay, but it’s better than the alternative..

We’re expecting another AIP SUP to be published closer to the F1 Grand Prix which may be more restrictive, and so we’ll keep this article updated.

It’s finally done. On April 20, the last phase of the FAA’s Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Routes Project crossed the finish line, officially ending (well almost) the biggest change to the US NAS in decades.

And April was perhaps the largest update yet – here’s a summary of exactly what went down.

Wait, the what?

If you haven’t heard of it, our previous article may be a good place to start. But in a nutshell, over the past few years the FAA has been introducing new and amended Q and Y-routes to replace the high-altitude route structure running north and south along the US East Coast.

….Asking for a friend, what are J, Q and Y routes again?

J-routes (or jet routes) are high altitude airways (FL180 – 450) that rely on VOR or VORTAC fixes back on ol’ terra firma. Q and Y-routes are based off RNAV (GPS) navigation.

It’s not that the existing airways were broken, but they were showing their age. The project has been part of a larger transition away from ground based NAVAIDs and towards PBN-centric US skies – i.e. satellite based navigation, the good stuff.

The legacy J-Routes are far less efficient than satellite based ones. Courtesy: FAA

Rome wasn’t built in a day – and neither was this project it seems. In fact, changes first appeared back in October 2019 – then the world caught the flu. Since then the roll-out has been delayed several times with staggered changes spanning the past three years.

If you’d like to see a complete list of those 160+ changes, the FAA has produced this handy slide. For the ones that came into effect on April 20, read on…

The April 20 Update

The final seven J-routes on the chopping block were axed (J37, J55, J79, J121, J174, J191, and J209), along with a number of their associated fixes. In their place twenty Q-routes were either introduced or amended.

To make sure all these new routes were set up and ready to use, most were published last year. However there were a stack of ‘not authorised’ Notams in the system that have now been removed – essentially raising the barrier for traffic to actually use them.

A bunch of ‘not authorized’ Notams have now been cancelled.

On the East Coast, STARs at three major airports were amended to remove ground-based transitions. At KPHL/Philadelphia, look out for new ones on the JIIMS 4 and PAATS 4 arrivals. At KEWR/Newark, the PHLBO 4 has been updated along with the JAIKE 4 over at KTEB/Teterboro. The good folk over at the Teterboro User’s Group have published some additional information on the latter.

The Goal Posts

Let’s address an elephant in the room. There’s a small chance someone will call us on the ‘finish line’ statement – fair game. There are some small changes still to come on June 15 – one more Q-route is being updated (Q101). There will also be a new STAR at KCLT/Charlotte along with some deletions. But the big changes are now done and dusted.

There’s Been A Little Trouble

Since the changes on April 20, news from the Boston ARTCC has been that foreign operators inbound from the NAT have not always been filing the new preferred IFR routes. This is causing a bit of headache at the boundary for pilots and controllers while traffic is ‘re-jigged.’ To see the preferred ones, click here.

The worst is likely over already, but the FAA has also advised airborne delays are possible while the system gets used to the changes. ATC may apply traffic management procedures to help keep the flow orderly. Consider a little more contingency fuel while things settle down.

Still have questions?

There are couple of FAA contacts provided in the official briefing:

Reggie Davis FAA Management Co-Lead reginald.e.davis@faa.gov
Joey Tinsley NATCA Co-Lead joseph.b.tinsley@faa.gov