The EU had some changes planned for Ramp Checks and Pilot Mental Health which were due to take place on 14 Aug 2020, but these have now been delayed to 14 Feb 2021.

The three big changes

1. EASA regulations will be updated requiring alcohol testing during ramp checks. This will take effect across all SAFA participating countries. However, a lot of countries have already started doing this anyway: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK, and Singapore. In most places, local authorities have the power to carry out breathalyzer tests at any time – not as part of ramp checks. For more on SAFA ramp checks, see our article.
2. All pilots working for European airlines will have access to mental health support programs.
3. European airlines will perform a psychological assessment of pilots before the start of employment.

Despite the delay to the implementation date, it’s still something worth looking at now. The UK CAA has published a Safety Alert with the following recommendations:

1. Operators are strongly recommended to continue to introduce Flight Crew Support
Programmes as required by the Regulation and to maintain existing programmes despite the deferred implementation date.

2. Operators should also consider the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on cabin crew and other safety-sensitive personnel as well as flight crew. It remains essential that senior management of operators, mental health professionals, trained peers and staff representatives work together to enable self-declaration, referral, advice, counselling and/or treatment, where necessary, in cases where there may be a potential safety issue resulting from a decrease in medical fitness.

3. Additionally, operators are encouraged to use this delay to develop their policies on the prevention and detection of the misuse of psychoactive substances and on the psychological assessment of flight crew.

There are new rules for all crew and passengers from August 19 regarding Covid testing on arrival.

The rules for crew have not been officially published yet, but local handlers have confirmed that if crew stay for more than 24 hours they will need to take a Covid test.

The process is different for passengers – all arriving pax will be able to choose between 14 days of self-quarantine, or a Covid test at the airport. However, those who choose to be tested will still have to enter self-isolation and be retested again 4-5 days later before they can be released. This was not previously the case. The rule applies regardless of whether or not their first test was negative.

All passengers must also complete a pre-registration form before travelling at covid.is. Iceland’s borders are currently open to all EU/Schengen States in addition to those countries on the EU’s “safe list.”

Bamako Airport has reopened following last week’s military coup which overthrew the government, though monitor GOOO/Dakar FIR and GABS/Bamako Airport Notams for further – it may change.

The Bamako TMA (which sits under the GOOO/Dakar FIR) remains operational with overflights unaffected.

ICAO is actively monitoring and ensuring that there is a timely flow of information on continued airspace/ATC service availability. MedAire have given us a local situation update: with the continuing uncertainty they recommend against overnights until things settle. There is likely to be a high demand for emergency/evac flights in the coming days, and they recommend those to be quick in and outs for now.

Meanwhile, the Northern Mali conflict continues, and there have been no improvements in stability. The US, Germany, France and the UK all have airspace warnings in place, advising to operate FL250/260 or higher, and avoiding GATB, GAGO, and GAKL airports. We would suggest, as usual, that a higher level closer to FL300 is more sensible.

Senegal and Niger control the airspace over Mali, and they have long-standing Notams (published under the GOOO/Dakar and DRRR/Niamey FIRs) warning that you can only fly between FL320-400 through the entire airspace in Mali north of the GABS/Bamako TMA due to military ops across the region. Here’s what that looks like:

The UK recommend against all travel to northern Mali, and against all but essential travel to the south of the country, including Bamako. The US advice is more straight-forward: do not travel to Mali due to COVID-19, crime, terrorism, and kidnapping.

For more info on operating in this region, check out SafeAirspace.net

If you are a non-EU operator, you are probably already using the Temporary Admission customs regulation when flying to the European Union – whether you know it or not!

It’s always been generally accepted that you trigger the use of this regulation just by filing a flight plan and crossing the external border into the EU, but in July 2020 the EU Customs Code was updated to explicitly ratify this practice.

As we were looking into this latest change and what it meant for operators, we quickly got that sinking feeling you get when you realise you’re about to be engulfed by a world of bafflement and overwhelming complexity. EU customs rules and regulations will do that to you.

So we asked our pals over at OPMAS to break it down for us. What is the Temporary Admission? How does it work? Who does it apply to? What follows below is their quick overview, giving you the essentials of what you need to know in less than 10 minutes.

To start, watch their quick explainer video, and to continue your journey check out their more detailed info below.

The Basic Rule: Any aircraft must come under customs control
Any aircraft flying into the EU will fly under EU customs control either using the Temporary Admission (TA) regulation or full importation. There are no other options. If the aircraft is not already fully imported, the aircraft will automatically be considered as flying under the TA regulation even though the owner or operator have not themselves taken any action to activate the TA regulation or realize that their aircraft is actually flying under the TA regulation. Non-compliance with the TA regulation will most likely activate a direct payment of the VAT (ranging 15-27%) and customs duty (7.7%).
KNOW MORE: See what is actually needed when arriving within the EU?

Who can use Temporary Admission?
Temporary Admission (hereafter TA) is meant to allow EU outsiders, which means that the aircraft is both owned/registered/operated/based outside the EU (all criteria must be fulfilled), to be able to roam freely within the EU for a certain period. TA cannot be used by EU insiders where the aircraft is either owned/registered/operated/based and mainly used inside the EU (just one criterion must be fulfilled). Mandatorily, EU insiders must use full importation.

Advantages
Most EU outsiders will practically have the same flying privileges as given under full importation as the few limitations do not influence the typical flight and will even give the typical operator more flexibility and extra advantages, such as: unrestricted personal/family/guest use without consequences; and no tax, VAT (Value Added Tax)or duty liability anywhere. Many of these points are often a problem and burden when using full importation.
KNOW MORE: See the quick overview: What you can and cannot do

Disadvantages
There are a few limitations:
1. Flights where the aircraft will be used for passenger transport subject to an individual and personal ticket fee or direct payment
2. Commercial freight items are not allowed
The below descriptions also include other matters that must be handled the correct way.

The basic preconditions for EU outsiders
TA can only be used if the aircraft is owned by and registered to a non-EU entity and further operated by a non-EU operator. The aircraft must also have its normal fixed base outside the EU. The term ‘non-EU’ relates to anything other than the 27 EU member states and related customs areas as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (at least until Brexit has become a reality).
KNOW MORE: The 27 European Union member states and special member state territories

Private or commercial use
The TA regulation distinguishes between private use and commercial use; where private use in general offers more privileges and flexibility than commercial use. There has been some earlier confusion about these forms of usage under TA, but the 2014 working paper from EU Customs Code Committee gave some clarification of these definitions where upon the modern use of TA is based. This description only describes private use of an aircraft.
KNOW MORE: See the quick overview: Private or commercial use of aircraft

When do the restrictions start?
Any EU outsider can fly to one EU destination without any consequences, if the next following flight is to a destination outside the EU. The restrictions are only related to internal flights within the EU.

What about the VAT and the customs duty?
Both the VAT and the customs duty is suspended as long the preconditions for TA is fulfilled. A violation will activate a full payment of these taxes.
KNOW MORE: See the quick overview: Customs duty and end-use exemption

When is TA used?
Any aircraft flying within the EU must somehow come under EU customs control using either TA or full importation, there are no other options. So, if the aircraft is not already fully imported, the aircraft will automatically be considered as flying under TA.
KNOW MORE: See the quick overview: What to do?

When is TA activated?
The use of TA regulation is activated (knowingly or not) every time an un-imported aircraft crosses EU’s external border on an entry and is terminated again when the same aircraft is crossing the EU’s external border on the way to a non-EU destination.

The grey zones – owned by?
Most aircraft used or indirectly owned by a high net-worth individual are directly owned by non-EU SPV. This is basically fine as long as this individual does not have their official place of residence or their centre d’affaires within the EU or is registered as a tax resident.

The grey zones – EU entities involved?
We recommend that no EU entities are part-owners or a part of a leasing structure (like a sublessee) for an aircraft using TA.

The grey zones – EU base, long-term parking or not?
The aircraft must have its fixed base outside the EU and spend the majority of time outside the EU, but certain facts can indicate that the operator or aircraft has become ‘resident/domiciled’ in an EU airport even though an official home base is established outside the EU. The TA regulation cannot be used as a circumvention of the import for free circulation by predominately using the aircraft within EU as opposite to outside the EU.
KNOW MORE: What is the limit for multiple continuous stays at the same place?

Which entity is actually ‘using’ the aircraft?
The users of the aircraft are actually the pilots (read: the operator of the aircraft) according to the 2014 working paper from EU Customs Code Committee. Most lay persons would probably think that the user of an aircraft would be the owner entity or the passengers, but the pilots are actually considered to be the users in a customs context.

Which entity must be the declarant?
The declarant must always be the entity who is truly operating (physically piloting) the aircraft. No other entities are allowed to be the declarant. If the aircraft is managed, the management company is normally considered to be the correct declarant in customs terms. Please be aware, that the ‘operational control’ definition related to the use of TA in the EU is not the same as the FAA’s definition which means that the typical entity with the FAA’s understanding of operational control is often not the correct declarant when using TA in the EU.
KNOW MORE: See the quick overview: Entity responsible for flight in the European Union
KNOW MORE: Which entity is allowed to be the declarant?

How can the aircraft be used?
The aircraft can be used for any business or non-business purposes (as Part 91) according to the 2014 working paper from the EU Customs Code Committee.
KNOW MORE: See the quick overview: Aircraft usage

EU resident passengers on flights within the EU
EU resident passengers are allowed according to the 2014 working paper from the EU Customs Code Committee.

EU resident pilots on flights within the EU
EU resident pilots are allowed according to the 2014 working paper from the EU Customs Code Committee but only if the pilots are directly employed by the declarant.

Non-EU resident passengers and pilots on flights within the EU
There are no restrictions.

Does the owner of the aircraft have to be on board or present in the EU?
According to Danish interpretation and the 2014 working paper from the EU Customs Code Committee, an aircraft under TA is used by the person who acts as the pilot and not by the passengers. Accordingly, the presence of the aircraft owner/registered party is not needed in most cases unless the aircraft is occasionally borrowed and used by an EU-resident person, who acts as the pilot. This rule is meant for smaller aircraft without hired pilots. Furthermore, the EU Customs Code Committee have also confirmed in one of its earlier minutes/summary records that any restrictions for EU residents only refers to the pilots on board.

What is a non-EU aircraft registration?
Aircraft registered in the 27 EU member states and related customs areas are not eligible for TA, but any other aircraft registration will work. This disqualifies aircraft registrations from the Isle of Man (M) and the Channel Islands (2/ZJ) at least until Brexit has become a reality.
KNOW MORE: See the quick overview: Aircraft registration
KNOW MORE: SURVEY 5: Does the nationality of the aircraft registration matter?

Period of stay within the EU
A stay is limited to a maximum of 6 months per entry. Multiple continuous stays are allowed as long as the aircraft is roaming around within the EU. We will advise any operator to check whether or not the preconditions for TA are still fulfilled, if the aircraft often tends to stay at the same location – or stay close to or more than 50% of the time within the EU. Please also see the above paragraphs about grey zones for owner entity and base.
KNOW MORE: See the quick overview: Period of stay in the European Union
KNOW MORE: SURVEY 7: How is the 6 months period of stay practically interpreted?

Demand for documentation?
The operator must always be able to document the flight pattern within the EU.

How to document a flight?
A form called the ‘Supporting document for an oral customs declaration’ can be used to document the entry and the exit. The operator should also document the flight pattern within the EU with EUROCONTROL records and the operator’s own flight records. Furthermore, the operator should always have records of all relevant EUROCONTROL charges and a total flight list. The use of the ‘Supporting Document’ can be beneficial but is not mandatory.
KNOW MORE: BREAKING NEWS: See what is actually needed when arriving within the EU?

What is the function of the ‘Supporting Document’?
A customs stamp on the ‘Supporting Document’ only serves to acknowledge that the aircraft has arrived and/or eventually exited the EU. The stamp does not mean that customs have accepted any use or the aircraft set-up as TA compliant. It is a common misunderstanding that the use of this form gives the operator/aircraft some kind of free circulation status for the next 6 months or a carte blanche to fly freely within the EU without meeting any preconditions. Even though the form is used, the operator is still obligated to comply to the TA regulation continuously when flying within the EU.

What is the validity of the ‘Supporting Document’?
The form is only valid as long as the aircraft has not left the EU, and for a maximum of 6 months. A new form must be stamped upon the next entry (even though there is still some time left within the 6 month period). The 6 months mentioned here is the maximum stay of the specific entry whereupon the form is stamped (in customs terms = period for discharge). Again, it is a common misunderstanding that any future entries into the EU can be endorsed in advance by using this form.
KNOW MORE: Is a Supporting Document valid for one EU-trip or multiple EU-trips within 6 months?

Commercial group charters
This is allowed according to the 2014 working paper from the EU Customs Code Committee as long as the aircraft is used in the EU for passenger transportation without a ticket fee/direct payment. This means that a commercial group charter (as Part 135) is treated in customs terms as private use as long as the mentioned preconditions are met, even though the same flight is treated as commercial use according to the aviation regulators.

Traffic rights
Commercial non-EU operators will still need traffic rights where they are normally needed. A customs handling like an importation/admission will not influence any of the demands for traffic rights anywhere in the aviation regulation.

How to be ready to use TA?
Here’s what to do:

1. Check that the basic preconditions are fulfilled
2. Understand the limitations and subjects that must be handled correctly
3. Have the relevant paperwork ready on board the aircraft in order to document the correct use of TA
4. Instruct the pilots so that they are ready to handle a customs ramp check

How can an operator secure all positions?
OPMAS can help non-EU operators to check whether or not an aircraft operation is complying to the TA regulation. The important matters are simply to secure compliance and thereafter set-up a system to document that the preconditions for the TA regulation are fulfilled continuously and that the pilots have the correct paperwork ready for a customs ramp check.

Always ask first
Our advice has always been to ask the local tax authorities for a binding advance tax ruling prior to any importation/admission in order to eliminate any doubt about the outcome. All cases have different details and a binding advance tax ruling will also consider all new European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgements. Even if you have a fully working set-up, we believe, an importation/admission without a binding advance tax ruling from the EU member state into which the aircraft is to be imported, is too great a risk to take. Many of the above-mentioned points/uncertainties could easily be covered by simply asking and you should walk away from any service provider that refuses to provide a binding advance tax ruling.

Tax havens and the Paradise Papers
A few EU member states handle aircraft admission/importation differently. These states do not follow the EU standards or guidelines, and this is often sanctioned by their local tax/customs authorities in order to offer a better business environment or to create local gateways for certain industries. These jurisdictions are known to bend the rules in favor of local companies often by only implementing a light version of any new regulation or by simply ignoring or delaying the required implementation. The Paradise Papers have highlighted some of these EU tax havens. These jurisdictions and related industries will without any doubt have the full attention of several national and EU authorities in the future. We will see many changes and audits of the regulation in the future, thus no one should import an aircraft without a binding advance tax ruling.

Denmark as a jurisdiction
Denmark has the very best reputation both within the EU and worldwide and is the number one on the Transparency List over the least corrupt nations in the world. We are known always to implement all EU-directives promptly and 100% by the book without any bending of the rules in favor of local companies. Denmark is the only EU member state that is known to facilitate aircraft importation and admission for non-EU operators where the member state is not considered a tax haven.

Thanks to Frank Hansen at OPMAS for this post. To get in touch with OPMAS for more info on any of the above, contact: info@opmas.dk

You’re halfway across the Atlantic when ATC declares that they are suspending all services. TIBA procedures are now in effect. Would you know what to do next? As Covid infections impact ATC facilities, short notice closures are currently a constant risk. With the possibility of an entire oceanic ATC area being shut down due to Covid, there are some big questions to consider, and to factor in to your planning: Are you tankering enough fuel if you suddenly have to fly around large sections of oceanic airspace? Where are your ETPs? Do you have a wet footprint?

Back in 2011, there was an incident where transatlantic flights were not allowed to enter CYQX/Gander oceanic airspace due to a smoke situation in ATC control centre which meant that controllers had to be evacuated. They issued a Notam, but that wasn’t much use to the traffic en-route at the time, which all had to be re-routed around the CYQX/Gander Oceanic FIR – a vast portion of oceanic airspace.

Fast forward to March of this year, where New York Air Route Traffic Control Center was forced to temporarily close due to a controller testing positive for Covid-19. The affected airspace restricted flights into New York area airports, with aircraft having to take longer routes in order to avoid closed sectors, as well as Oceanic airspace which stretches from New York past Bermuda and services flights heading to the Caribbean, Europe, South America, and Africa.

The New York ARTCC is not the only ATC center that has been affected over the past few months due to controllers coming down sick with coronavirus. Eleven sites across the US, including at major airports in New York, Chicago, and Las Vegas, have been temporarily closed for cleaning, affected flight operations. Some facilities have been closed for several days leaving inbound and departing aircraft left to their own devices for taxi, take-off, and landing.

NAT Doc 006 is the official go-to manual to check what happens during these “ATC Zero” events on the North Atlantic, but the spate of recent ATC shutdowns in the US led the FAA to re-examine the increased potential for these situations occurring during the Covid crisis, and in early July they published a SAFO as a result.

The NAT Doc 006 and the US SAFO are great resources, but here are two more which you might not know about!

Code7700.com has published an excellent 2-page crib sheet with clear guidance for pilots on what to do in these situations. You can download it here:

And 30WestIP.com have recorded a video webinar discussing this topic in more detail, which you can view here:

July 2020: There’s a bunch of new things to tell you about the North Atlantic this month! Here’s a summary:
– Two new ICAO NAT Ops Bulletins
– An updated NAT Doc 007 from ICAO (aka the North Atlantic “Ops Bible”)
– A guide for pilots from the FAA about what to do if ATC suddenly has to suspend services
– Some juicy Notams from all the NAT FIRs extending the relaxation of the North Atlantic datalink mandate rules until the end of September.

ICAO NAT Ops Bulletins

Two new ICAO NAT Ops Bulletins have been published this week, but it looks like there’s no need to panic.

First up, there’s 2019_003 Rev 2: Data Link Performance Improvement Options, which is just an updated list of common datalink errors and what to do about them.

Second, there’s a new Bulletin called 2020_002: Surveillance Service in the NAT Region / Flight Crew Operating Procedures. This is a strange one. The message seems to be this: back in the old days, you used to get a call from ATC saying “radar service is terminated” or “surveillance service is terminated” when heading out into the NAT, or when crossing from one oceanic control centre to the next. But nowadays, with improved SSR equipment and ADS-B more widely implemented, you might not get this message anymore.

ICAO NAT Doc 007 (2020, Version 2)

ICAO has published an updated version of the NAT Doc 007, applicable from July 2020. There are only some minor changes from the previous version, concerning the Tango Routes:

• There’s now a specific note saying that state approval is required to operate on these.
• There’s also a change to the transponder procedures when using T9 or T290: normally you change transponder code to 2000 30mins after NAT entry, but because of the limited time spent in the NAT HLA when flying on T9 and T290 you should instead make this change 10mins after joining either of those routes.

T9 is southbound only, even levels between FL300-400. T290 is northbound only, odd levels from FL290-410. For more info on the Tango Routes, check out our article here.

What to do during “ATC Zero” events

You’re halfway across the Atlantic when ATC declares that they are suspending all services. TIBA procedures are now in effect. Would you know what to do next? As Covid infections impact ATC facilities, short notice closures are currently a constant risk.

The FAA has published a safety alert for international flight crew with contingency procedures in the event of loss of ATC services in Oceanic airspace. It’s a good one to have in your flight bag. Dispatchers and flight crew are reminded to be thoroughly familiar with AIP specific procedures and traffic management contingency plans for the regions they are operating in. You can read the FAA’s alert here.

They have also published another one for ATC Zero events in Terminal airspace, which you can read here. There have been multiple ‘ATC Zero’ events at major air traffic control centres due to Covid prevention and the subsequent cleaning required. The alert contains important information regarding instrument approach selection, TCAS use, alternate minima, aerodrome lighting and other CTAF procedures at unattended airports. There are also important considerations applicable to Part 121 operations discussed.

NAT Datalink Mandate

EGGX/Shanwick, BIRD/Reykjavik, CZQX/Gander, KZWY/New York Oceanic West and LPPO/Santa Maria have all published Notams extending the relaxation of the North Atlantic datalink mandate rules until the end of September. This is due to the fact that there’s still significantly less traffic because of all the Covid restrictions. Non-datalink mandate compliant aircraft may therefore continue to flight plan and operate across the North Atlantic between FL290-410 until Sept 30. For more info on the NAT Datalink Mandate, check out our article here.

In addition, ICAO are saying that due to the decrease in traffic, there is a significantly higher chance of flights being cleared as requested, and are encouraging operators to file and request their optimal profiles at all stages of the flight. Read ICAO’s guidance here.

For a brief history of the most significant North Atlantic-related ops changes, check out our dedicated article here.

Iran has released its first official report into the shoot-down of UIA flight 752 in Tehran on Jan 9. They blame a misaligned missile battery, miscommunication between troops and their commanders, and a decision to fire without authorization as the major factors which led to the shoot-down of the plane by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

All 176 people on board were killed when the plane was hit by two missiles shortly after take-off in Tehran.

Iran initially denied responsibility for the incident, only admitting fault days later after Western nations presented extensive evidence that Iran had shot down the plane.

Iran’s air defences had been on high alert at the time. Just hours prior to the shoot-down, the US FAA issued “Emergency Order” Notams banning all US operators from overflying the airspace of Iraq and Iran. This was in response to an Iranian missile strike on US military bases in Iraq, which had just occurred the same night.

A full version of the report has not been made publicly available, but excerpts have been published by state news agency Fars. It places the blame entirely on those manning the missile system, and details a series of key moments where the shoot-down could have been avoided, the main two being:

• The surface-to-air missile system had recently been relocated and was not properly calibrated. As a result, it misidentified the civilian plane as a hostile object.
• Those manning the system could not communicate with their command centre, and fired on the plane without receiving official approval.

“If each had not arisen, the aircraft would not have been targeted,” the report said.

It also notes that the flight had done nothing unusual prior to the missile launch, with its transponder and other data being broadcast. It claims that the troops manning the missile system tried to contact the Coordination Centre with details of a potential target but they did not manage to get through, and that firing on the aircraft under these circumstances was against approved protocol:

“The system operator began analysing the observable information and categorised the detected target as a threat… At 02:44:41, without receiving any response from the Coordination Centre, the air defence unit operator fired a missile at the threatening target he had detected… Under the applicable procedures, if the defence system operator cannot establish communication with the Coordination Centre and does not receive the fire command, they are not authorised to fire.”

After repeated delays, Iran has said it will release the aircraft’s black box to officials in France on July 20, where Ukrainian and French experts are expected to examine it.

Airspace warnings

In the days and weeks following the shoot-down, several other countries followed the US in issuing airspace warnings of their own for Iran, including: the UK, Ukraine, Canada, Germany, and France. The US and Ukraine are the only countries to have issued outright flight bans on Iranian airspace, but all the others advise against landing or overflying the country at the lower flight levels. Check SafeAirspace.net for a full summary.

Traffic flows

It’s worth considering that most airlines other than Middle Eastern carriers are still avoiding Iran. For traffic that normally operates through the Tehran FIR, a predominant alternative for east-west flights into the Dubai area is a southerly routing via Saudi Arabia and Egypt. There are warnings for both of these airspaces as well. Northerly reroutes for Europe-Asia flights are predominantly using a Turkey-Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkmenistan routing. If entering Afghanistan airspace, note the current warnings there too.

Unfamiliar routes

For many operators wanting to avoid Iran, you may be using routes that are unfamiliar. Take the time to ensure you have the full package of charts, are aware of the risks in each FIR, are aware of the potential for GPS outages en-route (especially in the Turkish, Tel Aviv, Amman, and Jeddah FIRs), and have considered drift down over mountainous areas on the northerly routes.

Advice

Every air operation different. We know OPSGROUP has a huge variety of members – some conducting routine airline flights, some business aviation, charter flights, private ops, military, government flights. Therefore, offering blanket advice is difficult. You must undertake you own risk assessment, but paying close attention to the international warnings as well as what other carriers are doing is a good place to start.

On SafeAirspace.net, we continue to list Iran as Level One: Do Not Fly. The same goes for Iraq. Outside those two countries, just consider carefully what connections to the current situation there may be. Nowhere in the Middle East is without some level of risk.

July 2020

ICAO have published a new NAT Doc 007 too. Download it here!

The only changes in this edition are to do with the rules and guidance relating to the Datalink Mandate.

Despite the expanded mandate, there are still some places where you won’t need datalink:

• Everything north of 80° North
• New York Oceanic East FIR
• ATS Surveillance airspace These are areas where surveillance is provided either by: Radar, VHF, or ADS-B – which is basically the airspace over Iceland, the southern half of Greenland, and a big fish shape of airspace over the Azores (see image below)
• Tango Routes T9 and new route T290 that was also introduced today (the other Tango routes T213, T13, and T16, will all require datalink).

The FAA has agreed to extend the regulatory relief packages for both Part 91 and Part 135 operators beyond the original end date of June 30. Here’s the lowdown:

Part 135

• Back in March, the FAA announced a 3-month extension to the grace period for recurrent training requirements for Part 135 operators. They’re now saying that operators who have training due in July will have until the end of October to get this done. Read the FAA letter here.
• In addition, the FAA has provided two additional months of flexibility on the protective breathing equipment requirements, extending that exemption until the end of July.
• Note that you still have to tell the FAA if you’re planning on using these exemptions.

Part 91

• Pilot medical certificates which expired in March do not have any extra time beyond June 30; but for those expiring between April 30 and Sept 30, these will all get three months extensions to their validity.
• Validity of flight reviews, instrument currency, and knowledge tests have also been extended to September.
• Read the updated SFAR in full here.

For US pilots keen to know if the SFAR on Part 91 regulatory relief applies to your individual situation, check out these easy-to-follow flowcharts to help you work it out! (No need to squint – just click on the image and get whisked away to a magical place where these flowcharts will all make perfect sense 😊)

The FAA has launched “Operation: Paperwork Misery” – a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which will require operators to submit a whole bunch of additional pilot data to the agency via a new Pilot Records Database.

Here’s the plan, according to the FAA:

The FAA is proposing to require the use of an electronic Pilot Records Database (PRD) and implement statutory requirements. The PRD would be used to facilitate the sharing of pilot records among air carriers and other operators in an electronic data system managed by the FAA. Air carriers, specific operators holding out to the public, entities conducting public aircraft operations, air tour operators, fractional ownerships, and corporate flight departments would be required to enter relevant data on individuals employed as pilots into the PRD, and this would be available electronically to those entities. In addition, this proposal identifies all air carriers, fractional ownerships, and some other operators or entities that would be required to access the PRD and evaluate the available data for each pilot candidate prior to making a hiring decision.

Here’s a translation of how that may work in real life, from the NBAA:

The FAA’s PRD proposal would subject many business aviation operators to a substantial pilot-data reporting burden not previously applied to non-commercial operations. This proposed rule also amounts to a complete overhaul in the way commercial operators access information about a pilot before hiring and the way certificate holders will provide FAA historical and future records. It expands the types of operations required to give the FAA records documenting an individual’s compliance with FAA or employer required training, checking, testing, currency, proficiency, or other events related to pilot performance, including check pilot comments. Due to the extensive nature of the reporting requirements, the proposed rule has the potential to impose significant new burdens on Part 91 operators of all sizes.

“This is really regulatory overreach at its worst,” said Doug Carr, NBAA’s vice president for regulatory and international affairs. “We have a situation where our community will see no safety benefits as a result of compliance with this program, and the creation of a definition solely for the purpose of satisfying paperwork is not in the best interest of our community.”

Although the FAA’s new rule was issued on March 30, they have so far resisted calls from the industry to extend the comment period beyond June 29 – meaning many operators now don’t have enough time to trawl through the 200-page NPRM document to work out just how brutal the onerous new requirements are going to be, nor get much of a chance to provide any objections to the plan.

“It is exasperating that the FAA has given industry just 90 days to unpack a complicated plan amassed over nine years, and released as the aviation community fights for its survival during COVID-19,” said Koester. “It would not seem unreasonable to allow another 30 days for discussion, so we are pursuing other means to encourage the FAA to provide for this minimal, reasonable accommodation.

The NBAA are now encouraging affected operators to review the NPRM and submit comments providing as much detail as possible about the impact of these proposed changes to their operations. To do that, click here:

Alternatively, you can submit your comments via the tool NBAA has launched to assist with this. Click here for that.

For more info on the specific impact of this proposed NPRM, here is what the NBAA have compiled, which we’re sharing here with their permission:

Concerns for all operators

Check pilot comments
The NPRM would require operators to include check pilot comments from training events in the pilot record database. As unflattering comments may cost pilots future job opportunities, this may leave check pilots or their employers open to liability and diminish the opportunity to improve safety by focusing additional training on check pilot comments.

Overly burdensome and inconsistent reporting requirements
Both the draft advisory circular and the NPRM contain language requiring operators to report a pilot’s aeronautical experience, flight time, and flight maneuvers performed to maintain privileges of their certificate. These burdensome reporting requirements could reasonably result in a need for certificate holders to log every flight hour, instrument approach, and landing in the pilot record database.

Language within the NPRM also contains many contradictory statements leaving operators unclear on the intent of the proposal and the actions required by the rule. Most notably, 111.220(b)(3) states no person may report records documenting aeronautical experience, yet 111.220(a)(2) requires air carriers to report records related to currency and proficiency.

Concerns for Part 91 operators

Definition of Corporate Flight Department
For the first time, this NPRM would codify a definition of a “corporate flight department”. The definition crafted solely for compliance with record keeping requirements does nothing to enhance other elements of our industry and excludes a substantial portion of business aviation that considers itself part of the community.

New recordkeeping and reporting requirements
This NPRM results from Public Law 111-216 (Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010), which indicates operators must report training and employment records already maintained by operators. The proposed rule would require Part 91 operators to undertake new record keeping and reporting burdens. Some operators already use sophisticated software systems for managing and tracking pilot training, checking, testing, currency, and proficiency. However, many operators use simple tracking systems that will require manually reporting these records to the FAA.

Concerns for Part 125 and Part 135 operators

The FAA will charge operators a $110 fee any time they pull records for a pilot candidate.

Part 125
The NPRM requires Part 125 operators to report historical records dating back to August 1, 2010. Operators will be required to upload employment, training, checking, testing, currency, proficiency, and disciplinary records for every pilot under their employment over the last ten years. Operators will be able to upload records in XML or manually.

Part 135
The NPRM requires Part 135 and 121 operators to report historical records dating back to August 1, 2005. Operators will be required to upload employment, training, checking, testing, currency, proficiency, and disciplinary records for every pilot under their employment over the last 15 years. Operators will be able to upload records in XML or manually.

NBAA’s Perspectives

While the NPRM contains some potential efficiency improvements for the Part 125 and Part 135 communities, we believe that a substantial number of these proposals would burden the part 91 community far beyond the intent of Congress. For certificated operators currently required to comply with the Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA), the NPRM may streamline record reporting and requesting processes, expedite response times, and allow for more informed hiring decisions.

The NPRM would also require reporting more information than under PRIA by more segments of the aviation community, including corporate flight departments and 91.147 air tour operators. The proposal would require these constituencies to report not just training and checking events, but also any event that leads to proficiency or maintains currency, such as day or night landings, flight hours, and instrument approaches. This process will be burdensome and provide little information that enhances hiring decision making abilities.

NBAA encourages affected members to review the NPRM and submit comments to the public docket providing as much detail as possible about the impact of these proposed changes to their operations.

Read the NPRM on the regulations.gov website.

Download the NPRM (PDF)

Comments should be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 29, 2020.

Submit comments

Let’s start here:

Notwithstanding the 6 calendar month period specified in paragraph 2 of SFAR No. 100-2 of this chapter, a person may exercise the relief specified in paragraph 1 of SFAR No. 100-2 of this chapter for a duration of 9 calendar months after returning to the United States, provided the person is eligible in accordance with paragraph 2 of SFAR No. 100-2 of this chapter, complies with the documentation requirements specified in paragraph 3 of SFAR No. 100-2 of this chapter; and … 

Ugh. Ok, how about this:

Notwithstanding the period specified in § 61.55(c), a person who is required to complete the second-in-command familiarization and currency requirements under § 61.55(b)(1) and (2) between March 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020 for purposes of maintaining second-in-command privileges may complete the requirements of § 61.55(b)(1) and (2) in the month before or three months after the month in which they are required, provided the pilot meets the requirements of paragraph 2.(b)(1)(ii) of this SFAR. A pilot who meets the requirements of § 61.55(b)(1) and (2) within the period prescribed by this paragraph 2.(b)(1)(i) will be considered

If you find all of this perfectly readable, then continue your adventures here with the official document, and you’re done.

For the rest of us humans, the FAA relief rules, although welcome, are classic federal robot-speak.

On 5th May 2020, the FAA issued a Special Federal Aviation Regulation which provides regulatory relief to Part 91 operators who have been unable to comply with certain training and testing requirements due to the coronavirus outbreak. Essentially, they extended the validity of medical certificates, flight reviews, knowledge tests, and recency of experience requirements – in most cases until June 30.

The FAA had already issued a series of extensions for certain Part 135 training requirements back in March – essentially adding a grace period for recurrent training by an additional two months to May 31. More on that here.

But for pilots keen to know if the SFAR on Part 91 regulatory relief applies to their individual situation, thankfully AOPA has created easy-to-follow flowcharts to help you determine if the provisions in the SFAR apply to you …

Let’s try again, in plain English …

Has your medical certificate, flight review, or instrument currency expired? If so, read this to determine whether you can fly.
– Thanks to Dan Namowitz, Associate Web Editor at AOPA!

The FAA’s 94-page special federal aviation regulation on flying during the coronavirus pandemic is complicated, and pilots need to read it carefully to determine what does and does not apply to their individual situations.

The flowcharts and decision guide below are offered to help you avoid getting crosswise with the rules—or safety—and to steer you clear of bad advice you might get by word of mouth or from other informal sources. Some of the provisions, especially those related to flight reviews and instrument proficiency, apply only to those who plan to fly five types of specific operations for which the FAA has determined relief is appropriate under the SFAR. However, medical certificate extensions have a different set of qualifications that depend on dates, not the type of flight operation. Confusing, isn’t it.

Your first step is to figure out whether the SFAR’s provisions concerning flight review or instrument currency apply to your case. If they do, proceed to page two of the flow chart and follow the “yes” column. If you end up in the “no” column, it means the SFAR doesn’t apply to you and you must comply with the same flight-review and instrument currency rules that you have followed before.

Has your flight review expired, and does the SFAR’s provisions apply to your case?

The first question to ask yourself is, “Were you current to act as pilot in command in March 2020?” If the answer is yes, the next step is to check your flight review expiration date. If the expiration date falls between March 2020 and June 2020, next determine whether you have flown 10 hours as PIC in an aircraft for which you are rated in the 12 calendar months prior to the month when your flight review was due. (Again, a “no” answer means you would continue with your usual flight review schedule.)

If the answer is yes, here’s your next question: Have you completed at least three credits under the FAA’s Wings Pilot Proficiency Program?

Don’t despair if the answer is no. In this case, you can still acquire the credits, which would put you back in the “yes” group. In that case, the SFAR allows you to act as PIC for three additional months after the month in which your flight review is due.

Reminder: This regulatory relief “applies only to persons conducting specific operations for which the FAA has determined relief is appropriate” in the SFAR. (Before flying in that fourth month after the month when your flight review was due, you must have a new flight review.) So, a private pilot with a flight review that expires in April who meets the qualifying criteria can use this SFAR to fly one of the five permitted types of flight operations, but not for other types of flight operations not listed in the SFAR.

Has your instrument currency expired?

Instrument pilots who plan to exercise their privileges to conduct “specific operations for which the FAA has determined relief is appropriate” under the SFAR must also verify their recency of experience. Again, the steps can be tracked on the flow chart, and if at any time you find yourself in the “no” column, it means you must get an instrument proficiency check as would usually be the case at this point in your recency-of-experience cycle.

However, if you are among instrument pilots who have logged at least three instrument approaches (actual or simulated) within the six calendar months preceding the month of the (planned) flight, read on: Next you would check whether you have performed and logged all tasks required by FAR 61.57(c)(1) within the nine calendar months preceding the month of the flight.

No? Thank you for playing.

Yes? Then the SFAR applies and you may continue to act as PIC of an aircraft under IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR until June 30, 2020—for those five types of operations outlined in the SFAR. After June 30, you must meet all requirements of FAR 61.57(c). Note that this “grace period,” as the FAA calls it, does not extend the additional six-month timeframe to regain your currency.

Has your first, second, or third class medical certificate expired?

If you have navigated one or more of the scenarios posed above, this one will be a cinch.

If your first, second, or third class medical expired or expires between March 31 and May 31, its validity is extended to June 30—no matter what type of flying you do.

If your medical’s expiration date as issued is outside the March 31 to May 31 date range, your usual renewal timetable applies and no action is needed.

BasicMed? It will be 2021 before the first pilots to have begun flying under BasicMed will need to see their issuing doctor again, so the SFAR does not address BasicMed. BasicMed pilots who need to complete the online course that is required every 24 months can do so on AOPA’s website.

Now that you have followed these steps and have kept yourself on the good side of the SFAR, two tasks remain: One is to contact your insurance representative and get written confirmation that your coverage remains in force if you fly under the SFAR.

For those pilots who live in states or municipalities that have stay-at-home orders in effect for health reasons, the final step is to check the status of those orders so you don’t get a ticket for being on the road for the wrong reason as you drive to the airport.

Thanks to AOPA for sharing this article, which first appeared on their website here.

Confused about whether you’re allowed to fly to Italy at the moment? You’re not the only one!

A Eurowings (Lufthansa’s European low-cost subsidiary) flight from EDDL/Dusseldorf to LIEO/Olbia ended up diverting back to Germany this week, after discovering the airport was actually closed to commercial traffic.

Yes, there was a Notam, and yes, it looks like they missed it – though that’s maybe not surprising given the Notams being pumped out on the national LIBB/LIMM/LIRR codes at the moment saying how pretty much all airports across the country have now reopened – including LIEO!

So let’s play a game of ‘spot the difference’. Here’s the National one, published on May 19:

A3028/20 (Issued for LIBB LIMM LIRR) COVID-19:
ALL FLIGHTS ARRIVING/DEPARTING TO/FM ITALY MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE MINISTERIAL COUNCIL OF 17 MAY 2020 ON FOLLOWING AIRPORTS: LIPY, LIBD, LIME, LIPE, LIEE, LICC, LIRQ, LIMJ, LICA, LICD, LIMC, LIRN, LIEO, LICJ, LICG, LIBP, LIRP, LIRA, LIRF, LIMF AND LIPZ, COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS, COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS ON DEMAND (AEROTAXI) AND GENERAL AVIATION FLIGHTS ARE ALLOWED.
GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY AND COMMERCIAL AVIATION ACTIVITY ON DEMAND (AEROTAXI) WITH AIRCRAFT HAVING MAXIMUM APPROVED CABIN CONFIGURATION EQUAL OR LESS THAN 19 SEATS, CARGO FLIGHTS AND POSTAL SERVICE ARE ALLOWED ON ALL REMAINING AIRPORTS.
GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY, COMMERCIAL AVIATION ACTIVITY ON DEMAND (AEROTAXI)WITH AIRCRAFT HAVING MAXIMUM APPROVED CABIN CONFIGURATION EQUAL OR LESS THAN 19 SEATS ARE ALLOWED ON AIRFIELDS/HELISURFACES/HYDROSURFACES MANAGED/AUTHORIZED/OCCASIONALS, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF APPLICABLE AUTHORIZATIONS IN COMPLANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF 17 MAY 2020
RMK: GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY AND A COMMERCIAL AVIATION FLIGHT ON DEMAND ON LIRF IS NOT PERMITTED.
19 MAY 11:16 2020 UNTIL 02 JUN 22:00 2020 ESTIMATED.
CREATED: 19 MAY 11:27 2020

And here’s the one for LIEO/Olbia, published two days later on May 21:

B2520/20 – COVID-19.
AERODROME CLOSED TO COMMERCIAL AVIATION TRAFFIC IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGIONE SARDEGNA DECREE 23 OF 17TH MAY 2020.
RMK: GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY AND COMMERCIAL AVIATION ACTIVITY ON DEMAND (AEROTAXI) WITH AIRCRAFT HAVING MAXIMUM CABIN CONFIGURATION EQUAL OR LESS THAN 19 SEATS ARE APPROVED IN COMPLIANCE WITH MINISTRY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION DECREE 207/2020 AND REGIONE SARDEGNA DECREE 23 OF 17TH MAY 2020.
REF AIP AD 2 LIEO 1-1. 21 MAY 15:14 2020 UNTIL 02 JUN 22:00 2020 ESTIMATED.
CREATED: 21 MAY 15:14 2020

The national one says the airport is open, the local one says the airport is closed – a classic case of Notamisery. 

A number of news reports on this incident have been quick to criticise the operator — and also the crew — for this oversight. We’re not sure we really feel like jumping on that particular bandwagon. We could talk at length about The Notam Problem (indeed, we have done so, here, here, here, and here, and also here).

The Notam problem is clear: we have an antiquated, cumbersome, ineffective, frustrating, dangerous system. Pilots are missing the essential few pieces of information, unable to hear the call of criticality in a cacophony of irrelevant noise. And it obviously doesn’t help when one Italian sends you a Notam saying an airport is open, and another Italian sends you one saying it’s closed.

These are also “unusual times” – we keep hearing those words in the news, but it’s true. Two months in to the Covid-19 pandemic, it feels like “ops : normal” is still a long way off for most of us – whatever job we do in aviation, wherever we fly. People are tired. The changes are constant. A spokesperson for Eurowings summed this up pretty well in a statement released after this incident at Olbia: “Against the background of the current corona crisis, the situation at numerous airports in Europe is very dynamic, which is manifested in the large amount of information provided on operating hours or airport closures that are often changed at short notice as well as daily changes in entry regulations in the various countries.” 

As this incident shows, wherever you’re headed, whatever you read in a Notam, it’s always worth double-checking exactly what’s allowed at the airport you’re flying to. Don’t be afraid to give them a call. If you need to find some local airport contacts, the Flock website is one of the best free contact databases we’ve seen so far (and no, they don’t pay us to say that!)

In related news – Italy has said it will start allowing unrestricted travel to and from European countries, with no quarantine requirement, from June 3. No official word yet on when restrictions will be lifted on flights to and from countries outside of Europe – but the external borders of the EU remain closed to non-essential travel until June 15 at the earliest. More on that here.

Italy has said it will start allowing unrestricted travel to and from European countries, with no quarantine requirement, from June 3. No official word yet on when restrictions will be lifted on flights to and from countries outside of Europe – but the external borders of the EU remain closed to non-essential travel until June 15 at the earliest.

So until June 3, only certain people are allowed in – Italian citizens and residents, flight crew too, and citizens/residents of other European countries needing to pass through Italy to go home. Here’s the Notam:

After June 3, people will be allowed to travel freely from and to the following States:

• EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the Czech Republic;
• Schengen countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland;
• United Kingdom and Northern Ireland;
• Other weird places: Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City.

Check out the Italian Government’s official webpage for more details on this, plus what is actually a pretty decent breakdown of the general rules on travel to Italy.

Ultimately, all permitted inbound travellers headed to Italy before June 3 must sign a form confirming their travel is essential. Flight crew must self-isolate at the hotel, although they can leave for their outbound flight at any time. After June 3, all this goes away.

Meanwhile, across the border in France…

https://www.facebook.com/weareopsgroup/photos/a.1050965864916787/3416584591688224

Update: Ethiopia has confirmed that this was a shoot-down event. The Ethopian Army misidentified the aircraft – or at least its intentions. 

Somalia is investigating how an Embraer EMB-120 aircraft crashed while on approach to Bardale airstrip in Somalia, killing all six people on board. Local officials say the cause of the crash is not yet clear but there has been speculation it might have been shot down.

The Kenyan private cargo plane, operated by African Express, was operating a humanitarian mission with coronavirus medical supplies when it crashed on Monday afternoon in southern Somalia, about 300km northwest of Somalia’s capital Mogadishu.

According to local security officials, a rocket-propelled grenade brought down a light Kenyan-registered aircraft with 6 crew while landing in Bardaale town in Bay region #Somalia.
2 Kenyan pilots & 4 #Somali nationals are dead. #Ethiopian forces hit the plane mistakenly. pic.twitter.com/zbai0gyMI8

— Abdalle Ahmed Mumin (@Cabdalleaxmed) May 4, 2020

Bardale airstrip is a base for the Ethiopian military under the multinational African Union mission, which is combating the al-Shabab terrorist group in the region.

The Kenyan Civil Aviation Authority on Tuesday said the plane crashed on approach to Bardale “under circumstances we are yet to confirm.” However, the Associated Press are quoting local state officials who have told them that a projectile fired from the ground hit the plane as it approached the airstrip.

If that is the case, and the aircraft was in fact shot down, it’s not yet clear whether this was an intentional attack carried out by al-Shabab militants, or an accidental shoot-down by Ethiopian forces stationed in the region.

The plane had left HCMM/Mogadishu, and stopped in HCMB/Baidoa before going on toward Bardale airstrip. Kenyan authorities said they were in contact with the Somali CAA – who called the crash “a terrible accident” and said the government was investigating.

Multiple countries have long-standing airspace safety warnings in place for Somalia. The advice from all sources is similar – do not operate below a minimum of FL260 in the airspace of Somalia due to a high risk to overflying aircraft from anti aviation weaponry. The FAA completely prohibit US operators from flying below FL260, as per the guidance in the Special Federal Aviation Regulation issued in Dec 2019, which reads as follows:

“The FAA continues to assess the situation in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 as being hazardous for U.S. civil aviation operations due to the poor security environment and fragile governance structure in Somalia, as well as the threat posed by al-Shabaab, an al-Qa’ida-aligned extremist group, and other extremists/militants.

Al-Shabaab has demonstrated an intent and capabilities to target civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia through a variety of means, including the use of an insider to smuggle a concealed IED onto a civil aircraft, use of anti-aircraft-capable weapons, and direct and indirect attacks on Somali airports.

Al-Shabaab has frequently targeted Aden Adde International Airport (HCMM) with attacks using indirect fire, small arms fire and vehicle-borne IEDs. Al-Shabaab has conducted multiple mortar attacks targeting the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) at Aden Adde International Airport (HCMM), and has done so as recently as January 1, 2019. Al-Shabaab frequently conducts vehicle-borne IED attacks targeting Western interests and public venues in Mogadishu, including detonating vehicle-borne IEDs near malls (February 2019), hotels (November 2018) and near a security check point close to Aden Adde International Airport (HCMM) (June 2019).

In addition, al-Shabaab is assessed to have access to anti-aircraft-capable weapons presenting a risk to U.S. civil aviation operations at altitudes below FL260.”

Our recommendation is to avoid the airspace of Somalia entirely. The situation on the ground is highly unstable and there is an inherent risk to civilians and aircraft. The central government has little control of the major cities and ports with ongoing attacks from extremist militants targeting civilians. For more information, check Somalia’s dedicated page on SafeAirspace.net

There was supposed to be a European ADS-B mandate coming in June 2020, but the deadlines are being pushed back.

Here’s the nutshell version of the amended requirements:

• Any aircraft with a CofA from between 1995-2020 (i.e. pretty much everyone) won’t have to be fitted with ADS-B until 7th June 2023, but they will need to have a “retrofit program” established before 7th Dec 2020 (more on that below).
• EXEMPT: Aircraft with a CofA before 1995; aircraft ceasing operations within the EU airspace prior to Oct 2025; aircraft doing maintenance or export/delivery flights.
• One requirement that’s staying – all aircraft need to be equipped with Mode S ELS before 7th Dec 2020.

All of this has been published on the SESAR ADS-B webpage as one nice, neat little image:

On 29th April 2020, the EU approved and published these measures as Regulation 1207/2011 – the full text is available here.

And for guidance on exactly what your retrofit program should look like, check out the guidance here, as well as the FAQs here.

The FAA has published a list of 93 airports which will be getting their tower operating hours cut due to the reduction in traffic caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

Here’s the list of airports, with the new planned tower operating times:

The NBAA say these extended night closures will start to be implemented next week, beginning May 4.

In announcing its plans, the FAA said the following – “These facilities have seen a significant reduction in flights, especially during the evening and nighttime hours, since the pandemic began. Adjusting the operating hours will further protect our employees and reduce the possibility of temporary tower closures from COVID-19 exposures by ensuring enough controllers are available to staff the facilities during peak hours. It also will enable us to allocate difficult-to-source supplies where they are most needed.”

When the towers at these airports are closed overnight, the radar facility with oversight controls the airspace – the FAA plans to begin adjusting the operating hours of some of these facilities later this month. More info is available on the FAA page here.

Please note: This article refers to the airspace warnings for Iran and Iraq following the shootdown of UIA flight 752 in Tehran in Jan 2020. We are keeping the article here for reference purposes only. For updated airspace warnings, check safeairspace.net

Following the events of Jan 8, when an Iranian missile strike on US military bases in Iraq was quickly followed by the shooting down of Ukraine Int Airlines flight 752 in Tehran by the Iranian Armed Forces, multiple western countries issued warnings to avoid the airspace of Iraq and Iran completely.

But in the weeks that followed, some of these countries issued updated advice, allowing overflights to resume at the higher flight levels.

Here’s a summary of what the main countries/agencies who regularly publish airspace warnings have said with regards to Iraq and Iran:

The US
As of Mar 12, the US prohibit all flights in the airspace of Iraq and Iran, but allow flights in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Here are the details for each:

On Feb 27, the US loosened its restrictions on Iraq, issuing an updated Notam and Background Notice document which advised that US operators were now permitted to overfly Iraq at FL320 or above. They said there has been a de-escalation in military activity and diminishing political tensions in the region, but there was still a risk at the lower flight levels from armed militias who are likely responsible for multiple recent attacks on US armed forces in Iraq, as well as rocket attacks targeting the US Embassy and ORBI/Baghdad International Airport.

Then on Mar 12, the US issued an emergency order that once again banned US operators from overflying Iraq with immediate effect. This came after US warplanes hit militia weapons storage facilities in southern Iraq in a strike designed to destroy rockets like those fired at US troops earlier this week.

The US downgraded its airspace warning for the overwater airspace in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman on Feb 17 – the new guidance now just advises caution in this region, and recommends to avoid the airways nearest to the OIIX/Tehran FIR whenever possible, to reduce the risk of miscalculation or misidentification by air defence systems. The crucial change with this new warning is that overflights in this region are now permitted. So for US operators wanting to transit the OKAC/Kuwait, OBBB/Bahrain, OMAE/Emirates and OOMM/Muscat FIRs – you can now do so.

The US ban on the airspace of Iran is still in place – US operators are prohibited from entering the OIIX/Tehran FIR.

Germany
Germany just advises caution for both Iraq and Iran overflights – at no point since the events of Jan 8 have they issued outright bans on the airspace of these two countries.

France
France initially issued a Notam on Jan 9 advising operators to avoid the airspace of Iraq and Iran. Then on Feb 14, they changed their advice for Iran, saying that the only chunk of airspace which should be avoided is the western half of the country (everywhere west of 54 Degrees East longitude); they recommended that overflights of the eastern half should be at or above FL320. This guidance was then incorporated into AIC 14/20. The French Notam for Iraq lapsed on Feb 12, and was not renewed – therefore the French advice for Iraq has reverted back to that contained in AIC 14/20 which says that overflights should be at or above FL320, and only on certain airways.

The UK
The UK published Notams on Jan 9 prohibiting operators from entering the airspace of both Iraq and Iran. Then on Jan 17, they issued a new Notam for Iran, and cancelled the one for Iraq, advising operators to revert back to the guidance contained in the AIP ENR 1.1 (1.4.5). Bottom line, the UK advice for both countries is now this: do not overfly below 25,000ft AGL.

EASA
EASA published a notice on Jan 11 specifically warning operators against overflying Iraq and Iran. They said this should be taken as a precautionary measure, following the events of Jan 8. EASA don’t normally issue blanket warnings/recommendations like this. Then on Jan 29, they withdrew that advice, and reaffirmed the position previously stated in their Conflict Zone Information Bulletins (CZIB) – Iraq overflights should be avoided except on two specific airways (UM688 and UM860), and Iran overflights should be avoided below FL250.

Further discussion

• The #FlightOps channel on Slack is open for Iran/Iraq discussion
• Email team@ops.group with any intel or analysis you can share

Following months of disruption in Hong Kong due to anti-government protests and then the coronavirus outbreak, the airport has decided to relax its “use-it-or-lose-it” rule for slots until the end of October 2020. This means airlines are allowed to keep their slots even if they don’t use them.

The decision follows calls for a relaxation of the policy to prevent carriers from flying empty planes between destinations to maintain the rights.

“Given the latest development of Covid-19, and in line with the recommendation made by IATA, it has been decided that alleviation of slot usage requirement at Hong Kong International Airport will be effective for the whole of the Summer 2020 Season,” a Civil Aviation Department spokeswoman said.

This means the airlines (particularly Cathay Pacific!) will now be able to announce cuts to their schedules through to October this year. So, good news for them, but also good news for GA/BA operators, as the overall reduction in traffic will mean that a lot more slots will now become available.

Since Oct 2018, Hong Kong Airport has been providing six slots to GA/BA each night between 1600-2059z, which you can apply for up to 14 days in advance online using the OCS system. You can also use the system to request any unused or cancelled daytime slots up to 2 days in advance. Getting your own access to this system can be a pain – but your trip support provider or local handler should have access, and can obtain airport slots for you. 

So it appears that ops to Hong Kong are getting easier for GA/BA – although it’s still challenging. 

To go here, you need all of the following to be confirmed in advance: landing permit, parking, ground handling, and slots. All of these need to be applied for individually. We recommend applying in this order. Here’s how to do it…

Landing Permit

This can be done whenever, but should probably be done first.

Apply here: www.cad.gov.hk/english/efiling_home.html

Contact: Civil Aviation Department (CAD)
Email: asd@cad.gov.hk, gcmtse@cad.gov.hk
Phone: +852 2910-6648, -6629

Parking

Parking is confirmed on a first-come-first-served basis, and can be applied for up to 30 days in advance. Ultimately, the earlier you apply the better. However, parking requests for 5 days or more can sometimes be rejected, and overnight parking is often denied during busy periods. If this happens, unfortunately the best strategy is still to just keep making new applications until you get accepted! Once your parking is approved, you’ll receive a confirmation, and this must be given to your ground handler.

Apply here: https://extranet.hongkongairport.com/baps/

Contact: Hong Kong Airport Authority (HKAA)
Email: bjetslot@hkairport.com

Ground Handling

There are plenty of agents and handlers at VHHH, but only one dedicated FBO for BA/GA flights – HKBAC. Send them an email to confirm your ground handling in advance.

Contact: Hong Kong Business Aviation Centre (HKBAC) https://www.hkbac.com
Email: hkbac@hkbac.com
Phone: +852 2949 9000

Slots

Applications will only be considered 14 days prior to flight (unless you’re applying for a last-minute cancelled or unused slot). Authorities monitor the slot system for intentional misuse – which could lead to operators being banned from using the system altogether. Other violations include any cancellations of outbound flights less than 72 hours before departure, and delays on the day by more than 2 hours – although any off-slot operations outside a tolerance of +/-20 minutes can still flag up for potential slot misuse.

Apply here: http://www.hkgslot.gov.hk/Online_Coordination.html

Contact: Hong Kong Schedule Coordination Office (HKSCO)
Email: hkgslot@cad.gov.hk
Phone: +852 2910 6898

Other things worth knowing:

• Feb 2020: Revised ILS approach procedures for RWY 07L and RWY 07R based on PBN transition to connect the existing PBN STARs to ILS final for RWY 07L and RWY 07R without reliance on ground-based navigation aids guidance.
• Jan 2020: A reminder that ramp checks can be carried out at any time, with no warning. Here’s what they check for.
• Feb 2019: Hong Kong ATC started reducing separation from 3.5 NM to 3.0 NM – that means more chance of wake turbulence. In summary, the new advice is this: do NOT slow to less than 125kts on final approach speed to ensure that following traffic does not have to execute a go-around; and when landing on RWY 07L, make sure you get off the runway at taxiway A7 within 50 seconds.
• Dec 2018: Hong Kong published an AIC saying that GA/BA aircraft are taking too long vacating the runway after landing. They want pilots to “consider minimizing braking to reduce the deceleration rate on the landing roll so as to be able to vacate runway expeditiously via the first available RET.”
• Oct 2018: Following lobbying by AsBAA, the trial to increase the number of night-time slots available to GA/BA was extended until the end of March 2019, with 6 slots available instead of 4 as before.
• Sep 2018: Chinese authorities launched the Bullet Train rail link between Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Travel time between the two cities is now approximately only 40 minutes (previously crews needed to take a ferry, or else face a long car journey!)
• Jun 2018: Airport issued Notam A1792/18 prohibiting reduced or single engine taxi out – all engines must be started before commencement of taxi for takeoff.
• Jun 2018: Hong Kong issued AIC 13/18 to remind operators to stick closely to ILS procedures for Runway 07/25.
• Apr 2016: You now need RNP1 to operate to Hong Kong. 

Have you been through Hong Kong recently? We’d love to hear how it went! Drop us an email, or Opsgroup members can file a quick report on Airport Spy.

The FAA has downgraded its airspace warning for the overwater airspace in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.

They previously said that US operators should avoid this airspace except when flying to/from the main airports in Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia.

The new guidance now just advises caution in this region, and recommends to avoid the airways nearest to the OIIX/Tehran FIR whenever possible, to reduce the risk of miscalculation or misidentification by air defence systems (remember, the US ban on Iran overflights is still in place).

The crucial change with this new warning is that overflights in this region are now permitted. So for US operators wanting to transit the OKAC/Kuwait, OBBB/Bahrain, OMAE/Emirates and OOMM/Muscat FIRs – you can now do so.

This new Notam represents a further loosening of the total airspace ban on the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman initially applied by the FAA shortly after the Iranian missile strike on US military bases in Iraq on Jan 8, which was quickly followed by the shooting down of Ukraine Int Airlines flight 752 in Tehran by the Iranian Armed Forces, having mistaken the aircraft radar return for an inbound missile.

The FAA cited Iranian military de-escalation as the reason for the change. “The FAA assesses there is sufficiently reduced risk of Iranian military miscalculation or misidentification that could affect U.S. civil aviation operations in the overwater airspace above the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman,” the agency said in their Background Information statement, issued on 18th Feb 2020.

Here’s the Background Information statement in full:

Iran has de-escalated its military posture in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman as of early February 2020. Given this de-escalation, the FAA assesses there is sufficiently reduced risk of Iranian military miscalculation or misidentification that could affect U.S. civil aviation operations in the overwater airspace above the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman in the Kuwait Flight Information Region (FIR) (OKAC), Jeddah FIR (OEJD), Bahrain FIR (OBBB), Emirates FIR (OMAE), and Muscat FIR (OOMM) to permit U.S. civil flight operations to resume.

While the risk to U.S. civil aviation operations in the above-named area has decreased, military posturing and political tensions in the region remain elevated, and there remains some inadvertent risk to U.S. civil aviation operations due to the potential for miscalculation or misidentification. As a result, on 14 Feb 2020, the FAA issued Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) KICZ A0014/20 (reissued on 17 Feb as A0016/20) permitting U.S. civil flight operations to resume in the above-named area while advising operators to exercise caution and to avoid operating on air routes nearest to the Tehran FIR (OIIX) boundary whenever possible. The situation in the region remains fluid and could quickly escalate if circumstances change.

The 8 January 2020 accidental shoot down of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 shortly after takeoff from Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport (OIIE)tragically highlights the airspace deconfliction concerns, which pose an inadvertent risk to civil aviation from air defense engagements during periods of heightened tensions and associated military activity. Following the accidental shoot down, the region has seen a lowering of tensions, despite Iran’s continued air defense coverage along its southern coast. In June 2019, there were two incidents of surface-to-air missile fire from the southern coast of Iran targeting U.S. unmanned aircraft systems operating in the Gulf of Oman.

Iran possesses a wide variety of anti-aircraft-capable weapons, including surface-to-air missile systems (SAMs), man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and fighter aircraft capable of conducting aircraft interception operations. Some of the anti-aircraft-capable weapons have ranges that encompass key international air routes over the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Although Iran likely has no intention to target civil aircraft, the presence of multiple long-range, advanced anti-aircraft-capable weapons in a tense environment poses a risk of miscalculation or misidentification, especially during periods of heightened political tension and military activity.

There is also the potential for Iran to use Global Positioning System (GPS) jammers and other communications jamming capabilities, which may inadvertently affect their command and control capabilities and potentially pose a risk to U.S. civil aviation operating in the above-named area.

The FAA will continue to monitor the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation operating in the region and make adjustments, as appropriate, to safeguard U.S. civil aviation.

Here’s the new Notam in full:

A0016/20 (Issued for KICZ)
SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ADVISORY FOR OVERWATER AIRSPACE ABOVE THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE GULF OF OMAN.

THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A BELOW SHOULD EXERCISE CAUTION WHEN OPERATING IN OVERWATER AIRSPACE ABOVE THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE GULF OF OMAN IN THE KUWAIT FLIGHT INFORMATION REGION (FIR) (OKAC), JEDDAH FIR (OEJD) , BAHRAIN FIR (OBBB), EMIRATES FIR (OMAE), AND MUSCAT FIR (OOMM) DUE TO CONTINUED ELEVATED MILITARY POSTURING AND POLITICAL TENSIONS IN THE REGION.

NOTAM KICZ A0002/20, WHICH PROHIBITS U.S. CIVIL AVIATION OPERATIONS IN THE TEHRAN FIR (OIIX), REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

A. APPLICABILITY. THIS NOTAM APPLIES TO: ALL U.S. AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS; ALL PERSONS EXERCISING THE PRIVILEGES OF AN AIRMAN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FAA, EXCEPT SUCH PERSONS OPERATING U.S. REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FOR A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER; AND ALL OPERATORS OF AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE OPERATOR OF SUCH AIRCRAFT IS A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER.

B. PLANNING. THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A PLANNING TO OPERATE IN THE ABOVE-NAMED AREA MUST REVIEW CURRENT SECURITY/THREAT INFORMATION AND NOTAMS AND COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE FAA REGULATIONS, OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS, MANAGEMENT SPECIFICATIONS, AND LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION, INCLUDING UPDATING B450.

C. OPERATIONS. AVOID AIR ROUTES NEAREST TO THE TEHRAN FIR (OIIX) BOUNDARY, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, TO REDUCE THE RISK OF MISCALCULATION OR MISIDENTIFICATION BY AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS. ADDITIONALLY, AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN THE ABOVE-NAMED AREA MAY ENCOUNTER INADVERTENT GPS INTERFERENCE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS JAMMING, WHICH COULD OCCUR WITH LITTLE OR NO WARNING.

THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A MUST REPORT SAFETY AND/OR SECURITY INCIDENTS TO THE FAA AT +1 202-267-3333. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AT: HTTPS://WWW.FAA.GOV/AIR_TRAFFIC/PUBLICATIONS/US_RESTRICTIONS/.

SFC – UNL, 17 FEB 19:54 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 17 FEB 20:00 2020

For more on these, and for a full list of current warnings about Iran and Iraq from other states, see SafeAirspace.net

In the early hours of Feb 6, a commercial flight en-route to Damascus was forced to divert to Russia-controlled Khmeimim air base after coming under fire from Syrian air defences.

The Cham Wings A320, with 172 people on board, was flying from ORNI/Najaf to OSDI/Damascus when the incident took place. According to The New York Times, Syrian air defences directed anti-aircraft gun and missile fire against the Airbus, but failed to hit the aircraft.

Russia’s Ministry of Defense has since blamed Israel for the near-miss – at the time the incident occurred, the Syrian air defence systems had engaged four Israeli F-16s, and Russia claims that these fighter jets were using civilian aircraft as “cover” while conducting air strikes.

Russia has accused the Israeli military of putting commercial flights like this at risk in the past, by timing their airstrikes on Syria too close to flights arriving at Beirut and Damascus airports. In the past few months there have been a number of air strikes by Israel against military targets in Syria, including OSDI/Damascus airport, with the Syrian government firing its own missiles over Syrian airspace and along the Lebanese border to repel the attacks.

This latest incident comes just a month after a Ukraine International Airlines passenger plane was shot down shortly after take-off from Tehran, killing all 176 people on board. Iran later said its forces had shot it down unintentionally, having mistaken the aircraft radar return for an inbound missile to Tehran.

In the days following, many countries issued warnings to avoid the airspace of Iran and Iraq, and most airlines other than Middle Eastern carriers have now stopped overflying these countries entirely.

The same is true of Syria – there are multiple airspace warnings in place, including a total flight ban by the US and German authorities. Some countries add the additional warning to exercise caution when operating anywhere within 200 nautical miles of the country – advice that came into sharp focus in September 2018, when Syrian forces shot down a Russian IL-20M transport category aircraft over international waters 20nm off the coast, mistaking it for an Israeli fighter.

That event significantly changed the risk picture for civil aircraft operating in the vicinity of Syria. We wrote about it here, and the advice still stands – there is a clear risk to civil aircraft operating over Syria, as well as in the overwater airspace east of Cyprus. The risk picture is two-fold: misidentifcation of your aircraft as a military one, and an errant missile launched at another aircraft that locks onto you instead.

Further reading:

Safeairspace – Managed by OpsGroup, this is our public repository and first point of warning for Airspace Risk for airlines, pilots, dispatchers, and aircraft operators.

Why are we still flying airline passengers over war zones? – OpsGroup article from Sept 2018, following the shoot-down of the Russian IL-20M off the coast of Syria, with a new note to members on the airspace risk in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Europe’s datalink mandate takes effect today – 5th Feb 2020!

The original plan was that datalink would be required for all aircraft operating in Europe above FL285 from this date, but then the EU announced that this would not be required for several categories of aircraft, the main two being:

• Aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness first issued before 1 Jan 2018 and fitted prior to this date with FANS 1/A.
• Aircraft with 19 seats or less and a MTOW of 45359 kg (100000 lbs) or less, with a first individual certificate of airworthiness issued before 5 Feb 2020.

In other words – most GA/BA aircraft! (You can read the rule here – latest version in 2023).

Added to that, in early Decemebr 2019 the EU Commission approved plans to pass an additional resolution that makes a bunch of other aircraft exempt too:

Aircraft permanently exempt:

• Aircraft in Annex I
• Aircraft in Annex II with a CofA issued before 5 Feb 2020

Aircraft which have up to 5 Feb 2022 to do the avionics retrofit:

• Aircraft in Annex II with a CofA issued after 5 Feb 2020
• Aircraft in Annex III

On Feb 3, EASA issued a Bulletin which says that operators who are exempt from the mandate should include the letter “Z” in Field 10 and the indicator “DAT/CPDLCX” in Field 18 of their flight plan. If you don’t, ATC won’t know you’re exempt, and you may struggle to fly above FL285!

Bottom line, for operators who are exempt from the mandate, these flights should not be restricted to the lower flight levels below FL285. Logged-on traffic might just get better directs and faster climbs, that’s all.

It should be noted that the Datalink Mandate is not the same thing as the Logon List. The Logon List is the thing you need to get registered on if you want to get CPDLC when flying in Maastricht, France, Switzerland and Portugal. And it only applies to ATN CPDLC aircraft. If you’ve only got FANS1/A, Maastricht will let you log on, but France, Switzerland and Portugal will not.

The Backstory…

This mandate was actually supposed to come into force back in Feb 2015, but got delayed to Feb 2020 due to technical issues with the system, particularly disconnections, known as ‘provider aborts’ – which is where an aircraft loses datalink connection with the ground for more than six minutes.

The high amount of these provider aborts has led some sectors (Maastricht UAC, France, Switzerland, and Portugal) to implement the Logon List (formerly known as the “White List”), which effectively means that CPDLC is only provided to those aircraft with avionics that are known to suffer a lower provider abort rate. The Logon List only applies to ATN B1 equipped aircraft, not those with FANS1/A – Maastricht are planning to introduce a similar list for FANS1/A aircraft at some point in the future, to ensure that only aircraft that have the latency timer feature will be able to log on.

In their original postponement of the mandate back in 2015, the EU said the following:

“This excessive rate of random provider aborts causes a degradation in the network performance potentially presenting aviation safety risks by increasing the pilots and controllers’ workload and creating confusion leading to a loss of situational awareness.”

Their goal was to get the number of provider aborts down to 1 per 100 flight hours. By mid-2018, the number had dropped to a rate of 4.4 per 100 flight hours, and data from this year has that figure down to 3.9 per 100.

Added to that, they wanted to get at least 75% of flights across the network filing with datalink. Current data suggests this is still lingering at around the 40% mark. So if the datalink mandate had been implemented as planned in Feb 2020 without these new exemptions, that would have meant that approximately 60% of the traffic would have been restricted to below FL290!

As the EU make clear in their new ruling, that is ultimately why the new raft of exemptions has now been brought in, ahead of the Feb 2020 mandate:

“Acknowledging the ongoing data link implementation issues and corrective actions taken and recognising the objective that at least 75 % of the flights should be equipped with data link capability, the criteria for exemptions should be amended. Those criteria should remain effective, without placing an undue economic burden on specific operator categories which contribute significantly less to the overall number of flights. Such categories should include operators of aircraft with Future Air Navigation Systems (FANS) 1/A systems installed, operators of older aircraft, and of aircraft designed to carry 19 passengers or less.”

Ultimately, when the datalink mandate comes in on 5 Feb 2020, it now looks like most GA/BA aircraft will be exempt from this, meaning that those without CPDLC will be able to continue to operate above FL285.

Thanks to the European Business Aviation Association for their help with this article!

Article header photo by @Zelgomat

Transport Canada has said that all old NAT MNPS authorizations are no longer valid for flights operating across the North Atlantic as of 31st Jan 2020 in NAT HLA airspace between FL290-410. In its place, a new special authorization called NAT HLA MNPS will have to be added to the operator’s PORD or AOC in order to fly in this airspace, which includes the NAT Tracks and Blue Spruce Routes. Airspace above FL410 or below FL290 is not affected by this.

Transport Canada did issue a Civil Aviation Safety Alert (CASA) about this back on 10th Jan 2020, but later admitted it was too vague and difficult to understand – therefore they will reissue the CASA. But in the meantime, the requirement to get this new special authorization still stands. Here’s how it works:

How do you apply for this new SA?

It appears to be fairly simple. The operator emails TC applying for the NAT HLA MNPS special authorization. TC will reply by email including a compliance guide to verify equipment and training requirements.

If you wish to operate in the Organized Track System, there are 4 Special Authorizations that Canadian operators must hold:

1. NAT HLA MNPS;
2. RVSM;
3. RNP 4 or RNP 10; and
4. PBCS (ADS-C with proof of contract)

What if you don’t have PBCS? Where can you operate?

If you hold the first 3 SAs listed above and the ADS-B SA you may operate on the Blue Spruce Routes only. That’s ADS-B for Broadcast.

So to summarize…

Scenario one is that you already possess RVSM, RNP 4 & 10, and PBCS (ADS-C with proof of contract). Your process is to to e-mail TC for the application for the NAT HLA MNPS special authorization. A compliance guide will be sent out to verify equipment and training requirements. Once it has been returned and reviewed, a new PORD or AOC will be issued which will contain the new NAT HLA MNPS special authorization.

Scenario two is you do not possess PBCS with ADS-C, but you are either ADS-B capable or already hold a special authorization for ADS-B. In this case the process will be to apply for the NAT HLA MNPS vis email and a similar compliance guide will be sent out to verify equipment and training requirements. The difference is that your special authorization will be restricted to the Blue Spruce Routes only. You can request the ADS-B special authorization in the email if you don’t have it already. Simply note that in your e-mail request.

Further reading

CBAA new forum information, with login credentials: https://www.cbaa-acaa.ca

CASA links can found here: https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation/reference-centre/safety-alerts.html

Original CASA 2019-10 Issue 01 that will be replaced: https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation/documents/CASA-2019-10.pdf

Thanks to the Canadian Business Aviation Association who helped provide the information in this post.

ADS-B has come to the US and many parts of the world. What do you need to know?

Firstly, what is ADS-B? Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast uses the aircraft’s GPS position information and provides it to the mode S transponder allowing ATC to track the aircraft more accurately than radar does.

As of January 1, 2020, all aircraft operating within most US airspace are required to transmit certain information using ADS−B OUT avionics.

Briefly, ADS-B OUT transmits information from the aircraft to ground stations or satellites whereas as ADS-B IN avionics receives information from ground stations or satellite based systems.

The ADS-B required airspace in the US includes everywhere Mode C is required AND:

• Class A, B and C airspace, Class E at or above 10,000’ MSL (but not below 2,500’ AGL).
• Within 30nm of Class B (Mode C veil).
• Above the ceiling and within lateral boundaries of Class B and C up to 10,000’.
• Class E over Gulf of Mexico, at and above 3000’ MSL within 12 nm of US coast. The non-contiguous US is also included: Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico and Alaska.

Also, according to the US AIM, operators flying at 18,000 feet and above will require equipment which uses 1090 ES (extended squitter). Those that do not fly above 18,000 may use either UAT (Universal Access Transceiver) or 1090ES equipment. For international operations 1090ES is by far the most accepted system.

Here’s the operational stuff…

For the most part you may notice very little change from radar controlled airspace and there may be no ADS-B specific controls in your cockpit.

During flight you may encounter ADS-B specific phraseology. Instead of the word ‘radar’ you may hear ‘surveillance’ as in ‘Surveillance service is terminated’. Another example would be ‘Pressure altitude is invalid’ instead of the previous ‘Mode Charlie is invalid’.

Failures may be dealt with differently depending upon avionics installations so check your manuals for any specific procedures. One example is if your left side GPS fails and you are using your number 1 transponder then ADS-B may loose data input therefore select transponder number 2 to continue ADS-B data transmission. There may be no indication of the ADS-B failure in the cockpit.

In the US, the operator is required to fly a route that has ADS-B service availability so the FAA has provided an ADS-B Service Availability Prediction Tool (SAPT) which should be used not more than 24 hours prior to the planned departure to ensure the planned route has ADS-B coverage. If there is an ADS-B outage along your planned route you must plan another route. Make sure your flight planning provider is doing this!

Flight planning codes are important as this is the only way that ATC knows you are properly equipped and authorized. The FAA’s InFO 15015 has good information on filing correctly. There are numerous codes for ADS-B equipment based on your specific installation of 1090MHz ES, UAT and/or VDL mode 4.

The FAA encourages the reporting of ADS-B surveillance malfunctions (AIM 4-5-7 f.). You can do this by phone or radio to the nearest Flight Service Station.

What if I don’t have ADS-B installed right now?

If you still don’t have ADS-B, your options aren’t great. The FAA spells it out in the Federal Register, but simply put, you must receive authorization from ATC to fly before every flight that is planned in ADS-B required airspace.

To do that, you have to use the new ADS-B Deviation Authorization Preflight Tool (ADAPT) that the FAA has developed – which allows you to request authorisation to fly from ATC. Do this online, at least one hour but not more than 24 hours before your flight. AOPA give this advice: “Don’t call the ATC facility to ask, and don’t request access from a controller over the radio – the answer will be no. Only if your ADS-B Out hardware fails in flight will controllers be able to issue an airspace authorization to an airborne aircraft.”

The word from the NBAA is that there is no planned relaxation of the ADS-B rules, so operators who have not equipped will be at the mercy of ATC for every single flight planned through ADS-B airspace. ATC might not be able to grant authorizations for a variety of reasons, including workload, runway configurations, air traffic flows, and weather conditions.

What are the ADS-B rules in the rest of the world?

ADS-B usage is expanding in many countries at different rates. We have compiled a list below of countries and requirements.

Mandates now in effect…

Australia: Requires ADS-B for operations at or above Flight Level 290. Foreign aircraft can operate without ADS-B below FL290 until June 2020. Check AC 21-45 for more info.

Hong Kong: The AIP GEN 1.5.3 states: All aircraft flying within Hong Kong FIR at or above F290 shall be installed with ADS-B. This requirement has been in place since December 2014!

Taiwan: In Jan 2020, ADS-B became mandatory for all aircraft operating within the Taipei FIR, at or above FL 290. Check our article for more info.

Vietnam: Since July 2018, Vietnam has required aircraft over MTOW 15,000kg to have ADS-B. But from 1st Jan 2020, this limit was brought down to apply to all aircraft over 5,700kg. Aircraft without ADS-B can still operate through Vietnam’s airspace, but are restricted to the lower levels. AIC 08/16 has all the details.

India: The ADS-B mandate across Indian airspace outlined in AIP SUP 148/2018 was due to take effect on 1st Jan 2019, has got delayed to 1st Jan 2020 (as advised by Notam). This AIP supplement states that all aircraft flying on PBN Routes pretty much everywhere in Indian continental airspace at or above FL290 must carry serviceable 1090 MHz ES ADS-B transmitting equipment that has been certified as meeting the requirements.

United Arab Emirates: AIC 13/2019 published in Nov 2019 says “Operators are made aware that ADS-B OUT will be mandated from 01 January 2020 within UAE airspace.” That means you need ADS-B everywhere, at all flight levels!

Malaysia: As per AIC 03/2017, from 31 December 2019 you need ADS-B to be able to operate on airways N571, P628, L510, P627, L645 and P574 between FL 290 to FL 410.

Singapore: Since May 2018, ADS-B has been required for ops at or above FL290 on airways L642, L644, M753, M771, M904, N891, N892, Q801, Q802, Q803 and T611. Check the AIP ENR 1.8 Section 7 for details.

Indonesia: Since the start of Jan 2018, all aircraft flying in Indonesian airspace at or above FL290 needed to be equipped with ADS-B. Check our article for more info.

French Polynesia/Tahiti: The AIC PAC-P A 06/19 says that from 1 January 2019, aircraft flying above flight level 195 need ADS-B. Then from 1 January 2022, this will be required for all flight levels!

Upcoming mandates…

Europe: ADS-B will be required after 7 June 2020 for aircraft over 5700kg and flying faster than 250 knots and on an IFR flight plan. There will be some exemptions for older aircraft in Europe. Check this EASA doc for more info.

Seychelles: From 7 June 2020, you’ll need ADS-B to fly through the FSSS/Seychelles FIR. AIC 1/2019 applies.

New Zealand: The CAA proposed rule change would make ADS-B mandatory for all aircraft in controlled airspace below Flight Level 245 from 31 Dec 2021.

Saudi Arabia: ADS-B will be required in Class A and B airspace starting 1 Jan 2021. The way they’ve published this is confusing: the requirements are laid out in this GACAR Part 91 document, backed up by this Notam issued for the OEJD/Jeddah FIR:
A1871/19 – ADS-B OUT REQUIREMENT ENFORCEMENT DATE IN CLASS A AND B AIRSPACE AS PER GACAR PART 91.303 IN KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA HAD BEEN CHANGED TO 1 JANUARY 2021 INSTEAD OF 1 JANUARY 2020. 31 DEC 19:15 2019 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 31 DEC 19:30 2019

Mongolia: This one straight from the AIP SUP: From 17 June 2021 at 0000 UTC, all aircraft flying within the airspace of Mongolia above flight level 6150m must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment (Mode S Transponder and GNSS source position)… Whilst aircraft flying below flight level 6150m, the carriage of ADS-B equipment remain optional.

Mexico: A Circular issued by the Mexican CAA in Dec 2019 advises that the ADS-B requirement over airspace of Mexico has been delayed until 1 Jan 2022.

South Africa: The plan was to mandate ADS-B at or above FL290 from April 2020, but they have recently issued a draft AIC that says this will be delayed to 15 June 2023.

Canada: In Nov 2019, Nav Canada announced it was delaying its 2021 ADS-B mandate. No new date has been set yet. So although ADS-B will be used for surveillance in Class A airspace (i.e. above FL180) from 25 Feb 2021 onwards, it won’t be mandatory for aircraft to be equipped.

Sri Lanka: Not mandated yet, but something’s in the pipeline. The CAA states on their website: “This is to inform all aircraft operators operating in Sri Lanka airspace (Colombo FIR) that ADS-B trial operations have been commenced and in the near future it will be fully operational covering the entire Sri Lanka sovereign airspace and extending the surveillance coverage of Colombo FIR further.”

Any countries we missed? Let us know!

There are some new route requirements for flights to BIKF/Keflavik and BIRK/Reykjavik. 

These can be found in the updated version of AIP ENR 1.8.4.1.3.7 which explains exactly how you should file your flight plans to/from both BIKF and BIRK. But to make all this blurb easier to understand, the good folks at Isavia have published some handy graphic presentations of the requirements:

If you follow the guidance and flight plan accordingly, you should avoid any nasty last-minute “FPL REJ” messages!

Further reading:

• You can check the full Iceland AIP online here.
• For a summary of all the NAT changes, including EGGX/Shanwick, CZQX/Gander, BIRD/Iceland, ENOB/Bodo, LPPO/Santa Maria, and KZWY/New York Oceanic East, click here.