The skies over New York have been quieter over the past year or so, and it’s not hard to guess why. With lower traffic levels, there have been a number of operational changes at nearby KTEB/Teterboro. Here’s a rundown of what you might have missed recently…

Noise is a bigger issue than ever

It may seem ironic, but Covid hasn’t helped. With less airplanes in the skies, nearby residents have become more aware of Teterboro’s noise, and complaints have been on the rise.

If you’re headed to KTEB, be aware that there are extensive noise abatement procedures. There’s a handy summary of these available online, but here are some of the biggest gotchas to get you started.

If your ride is a jet and you’re new to KTEB, you’ll need permission first. There’s a form to fill out for that.

The most noise sensitive time is between 22:00 and 06:00LT, and it’s when you’re the most likely to get yourself into trouble. There’s a ‘voluntarily restraint’ in place after 23:00  – in other words if your flight isn’t essential, it should wait.

Sprinkled through the surrounding suburbs are noise monitoring devices, and there are strict decibel limits. The most restrictive is Runway 24 at night (only 80dB). Bust em’, and you can be served a violation – too many of those and you can say sayonara to operating there. And they take two years to expire.

Remote noise monitoring sites around Teterboro – be careful, strict decibel limits apply!

The least noise sensitive area is to the south of the airport. So if departing on the back of the clock and the weather is playing ball, try to use Runway 19 for departures and Runway 01 for arrivals.

Speaking of noise, the new RNAV X RWY 19

Back in July, an offset RNAV noise sensitive approach was introduced for Runway 19. It’s a quieter alternative to the straight-in ILS. It’s recommended for night ops at KTEB on request (and you may hear it mentioned on the ATIS). But there’s some important stuff you should know before you go ahead and shoot it.

If conditions are less than ‘tropical’, keep in mind the approach is significantly offset (13 degrees) and minimas are high. The visual descent point is almost three miles from the threshold. There’s also a big unfriendly radio antenna at the business end of the approach. At the VDP on the correct 3 degree path, you’ll be uncomfortably close to it – check out this article for just how close.

What’s the moral of the story? In marginal conditions, the approach can quickly become challenging – consider the ILS if in doubt.

Escape Routes

Tired of waiting at the hold? We don’t blame you!

There are new departure routes to help business jet operators get airborne out of KTEB when the weather is bad, or New York’s majors airports are especially busy. New York TRACON is responsible for co-ordinating those with the tower.

A head’s up though – they are designed with the performance of business jets in mind and may require steeper climb profiles than you’re used to.

You need to fly them from start to finish too. Don’t accept the clearance unless you are sure you can meet the requirements, and asking for track shortening after wheels up is a no-no.

Works

Construction and runway maintenance are ongoing. Single runway closures are common and can happen during the day. The good news is that full closures are pretty rare.

Something to look out for – if Runway 06/24 is closed in southerly conditions, extended delays are common at KTEB due to the flow at nearby KEWR/Newark, just 10nm to the South. You might need to carry some extra gas.

The Teterboro Users Group publish weekly Maintenance Bulletins for Runway and Taxiway closures which you can access here. Of course, if you prefer your info capitalised and abbreviated, you’ll find the information in  Notams too.

Covid

We’re all well over it. But there are some procedures to follow, especially if operating an international flight into KTEB.

US Customs and Border Protection are up and running at the airport, but will only accept international arrivals between 07:15 and 23:15 local. Don’t show up after hours. Standard CDC rules apply here including the pre-travel testing requirement for all pax.

For a full break down of these and other health protocols, you can view a full rundown here.

CBP can only process international flights between 07:15 and 23:15 local each day.

Have we missed something?

We’d love to hear from you! You can reach us at blog.team@ops.group.

Also check out our recent Airport Lowdown for KTEB/Teterboro – it’s the biggest threats all in one place, built by pilots who have been there.

Click to download PDF.

North Korea fired two short-range ballistic missiles across its east coast and into the Sea of Japan on Sep 15. It was North Korea’s second weapons test in recent days, after the launch of a new long-range cruise missile at the weekend, which state media claim has a range capable of hitting much of Japan.

North Korea has in the past tested intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) said to be capable of reaching nearly all of the US mainland and western Europe.

UN sanctions forbid North Korea from testing ballistic missiles (the ones that go up into space and then back down again, spraying debris all over international airways), but not cruise missiles (the ones that fly at low altitudes).

As usual, North Korea did not provide any warning prior to these recent tests – which is the key issue with regards to the airspace safety risk.

A quick history of developments in the last few years:

• Until around 2014, North Korea notified ICAO of all missile launches, so that aircraft could avoid the launch and splashdown areas.
• In 2015, they gradually stopped doing this, reaching a point where there could be no confidence in an alert being issued to airlines by North Korea.
• In 2016, airlines and aircraft operators started avoiding the Pyongyang FIR entirely, by the end of 2016 almost nobody was entering the airspace.
• In 2017, more and more of these missiles came down in the Sea of Japan, increasingly closer to the Japanese landmass. OPSGROUP researched the locations and produced a map of the risk area, together with the article: “Here’s why North Korean missiles are now a real threat to Civil Aviation”. In September 2017, the US announced a ban on flights across all North Korean airspace, including the oceanic part of the ZKKP/Pyongyang FIR over the Sea of Japan. That ban is still in effect today. Several other countries have airspace warnings in place which advise caution due to the risk posed by unannounced rocket launches.
• In 2018, following talks with the US, North Korea agreed with ICAO that it would provide adequate warning of all “activity hazardous to aviation” within its airspace.
• In May 2019, North Korea resumed its practice of launching missiles into the Sea of Japan without providing any warning by Notam.

Determining risk

The critical question for any aircraft operator is whether there is a clear risk from these missiles in the airspace through which we operate.

The chances of a missile, or part of it, striking the aircraft are not as low as they may initially appear – particularly given that all the missile re-entries in recent years are occurring in quite a focused area over the Sea of Japan. The risk to overflying traffic is arguably greater from ballistic missiles than cruise missiles, because these can break up on re-entry to the atmosphere (as happened with the 2017 tests) meaning that a debris field of missile fragments passes through the airspace, not just one complete missile.

Click for larger version.

Advice to operators

• Consider rerouting to remain over the Japanese landmass or east of it. It is unlikely that North Korea would risk or target a landing of any test launch onto actual Japanese land.
• Check routings carefully for arrivals/departures to Europe from Japan, especially if planning airways which connect with the UHHH/Khabarovsk FIR at waypoints IGROD and AVGOK.
• Read OPSGROUP’s Note To Members #30: Japan Missile Risk published in Aug 2017.
• Monitor safeairspace.net for latest updates to airspace warnings issued for North Korea.

The situation in Kabul remains dynamic. An update was issued today regarding ongoing changes within the OAKX/Kabul FIR and at OAKB/Kabul airport.

The full notice issued by ICAO following their most recent video-teleconference is available here.

The ongoing situation

Qatar and Turkey continue to work with the new Afghanistan government to help bring Kabul airport back to operational status, and to restore safe overflights. This includes the repair of damaged radar and other facilities, as well assisting in restructuring the CAA.

Qatar officials are coordinating with the Afghanistan CAA are conducting assessments on capacity and needs. They have apparently deployed a technical team to Kabul to carry out work. The DME has been re-established but notams suggest the VOR remains out of operation.

Turkey maintains a military presence at Kabul airport to assist and is apparently in discussions to help run the airport again – having done so for 6 years previously.

ICAO remain in contact with the Afghanistan Civil Aviation Authority who have provided updates confirming newly appointed members, and a designated point of contact.

Operational updates

• OAKB/Kabul airport and OAMS/Mazar-e-Sharif airport are both reported to now have limited ATS services. There is a limited tower service to support VFR operations at Kabul between 0330-1330 UTC. Mazar-e-Sharif has an FIS available, but the scope of this is unknown.
  • A shortage of ATC staff continues to reduce capability.
• Pakistan is assisting Afghanistan in the restoration of the Afghanistan NOTAM service. The service has been partially restored as of Sep 6, and is available via https://www.afgais.com/
  • Out of date Notams remain in the system so caution is advised using the site.
• The Kabul FIR remains effectively closed to overflights – the OAKX/Kabul FIR is uncontrolled.

Updated OAKX Notams

The following Notams are the up-to-date Notams issued by the restored office.

• A0721/21 address contingency procedures and advises that aircraft requiring emergency descent should follow ICAO Doc 4444 procedures, but rather than advising ATS, should broadcast on the relevant TIBA frequency. 
• A0720/21 advises flights will encounter delaying action prior to entering the Kabul FIR to ensure 15 minute separation. This is as per Notam A0715/21 which requires all traffic below FL280 to be spaced at 15 minutes prior to the FIR entry point.
• A0719/21 advises that the AIS services including Notam office is now operational 24/7.
• A0718/21 advises that all flight plans must be filed at least 24 hours prior to the flight. The contact email is permissions.acaa@gmail.com.
• A0717/21 advises PSR and SSR are now available at OAKB/Kabul, with an advisory information service only.
• A0716/21 advises that OAKB/Kabul is open for domestic and international flights. Operating hours are 0330-1330 UTC.

Our previous post covering the background to the situation can be read here.

The ICAO presentation from the recent video teleconference is available to view here.

IFALPA have updated their Safety Bulletin

Following the notice issued by ICAO, IFALPA updated their safety bulletin for the OAKX/Kabul FIR.

Here are the key changes:

• Unknown aircraft have been observed on random tracks between FL220 and FL250.
• There is limited ATS at OAKB/Kabul – radar services are advisory only.
• The ILS is working, but should be monitored closely.
• People and vehicles have been seen entering the runway.
• The status of other airports isn’t known.

Germany have changed their warning

EDWW has issued a new Notam B1244/21 valid from Sep 13. German operators are prohibited from entering the OAKX/Kabul FIR, except for overflights above FL330 on airways P500-G500. The only change is the exception of those airways which connect Pomir in Tajikistan to Peshawar for alternate routing from Europe to Pakistan and Asia.

Airway P500/G500 in the OAKX/Kabul FIR remain available.

The US has published some new background info

On Sep 14, the US FAA published a new Background Information note for Afghanistan, following their flight ban issued in August as per KICZ A0029/21.

Click to view PDF

The primary risk on the ground and at lower altitudes relates to the ongoing threat of weapons activity and terrorist attacks – and following the withdrawal of US and coalition forces there are no longer any risk mitigation capabilities available at OAKB/Kabul airport. Although it is unlikely that Taliban would target civil aviation now that they have assumed control of the country, ISIS and other militant group are still operating in Afghanistan outside of Taliban control.

The primary risk for overflights relates to the lack of ATC service, functioning CAA and air navigation service provider.

Bottom line, US operators are banned from the OAKX/Kabul FIR except for airway P500/G500.

To view all current published airspace warnings for Afghanistan, head to SafeAirspace.net.

SATVOICE. Easy peasy. Well, until until you’re routing from San Francisco to Tokyo for the first time in your shiny new G550 and its 2am, you’re passing  W177°, you think you filed M3 but aren’t sure if you’re actually M2, and there is a full moon and now you’re not so sure anymore…

Here is a look at some common questions about SATVOICE which we have seen come up.

Feel free to send us more. We aren’t experts but know one folk who are.

What is SATVOICE?

Satellite voice communications. Sometimes it is lumped in with SATCOM but this can include messaging systems as well (your Datalink type things). The ‘VOICE’ bit is the giveaway – we are specifically talking about talking.

An INMARSAT satellite

What is it used for?

Communicating. 

More specifically, communicating over big areas where there are not many ground stations (which you need for VHF comms). SATVOICE systems *can be (and note the asterix there) used as a Long Range Communications System (LRCS).

So, SATVOICE is talking, via satellites, and it can be used to do things like give voice position reports. It is also sometime used as a backup when HF is not functioning. What it is not (currently) is a replacement for HF. Just as CPDLC isn’t allowed as a replacement because it is not suitable for emergency of non-routine comms.

Where can I use it?

Anywhere where there is satellite coverage. And anywhere where ATC are using it as a means of LRCS. They may not be capable.

For example, the FAA provide Inmarsat and Iridium SATVOICE services for air-to-ground (and vice versa) calls directly with Oakland, NY and Anchorage ARTCCs, and New York and San Fran radio. These are, again, supplemental to HF which means they don’t expect you to use it unless there is some issue with HF. Times of bad HF propagation like HF blackouts would be a good time to give SATVOICE a go.

Right now, SATVOICE is not the primary means of communication in many spots. VHF and HF remain the main ones, with Datalink comms (CPDLC). So it is unlikely you will be using it all that much, unless something else is not working. When you are in CPDLC/ADS-C airspace, the controller is normally going to communicate via Datalink. They might elect to use SATVOICE, but it is not a replacement for ADS-C/CPDLC or HF/VHF.

So you also need to check out the airspace you’re flying into. The AICs will generally contain info on whether an airspace/ ATS has SATVOICE capability.

ICAO says – “Some ANSPs may allow the flight crew to use SATVOICE only for certain types of communications (e.g. of an urgent nature) or may place limitations on use of SATVOICE directly to the controller. Other ANSPs may allow its use only as an additional capability to existing radio equipment carriage requirements.” (Section 3.4, SVGM).

So, where CAN’T I use it?

Inmarsat satellites are geostationary and orbit around the equator which means above a latitude of 82° North (and South) you are in a satellite-less areas because of the (often debated, definitely real) curvature of the earth means a lack of line of sight which is required for your communications to be able to bounce back and forth from the satellites.

Some manuals suggest you might start to run into a bit of trouble from 70°N, and that trouble is most pronounced on the W120 longitude. It is also dependant on atmospheric conditions, where your antenna is and what services are contracted though.

An image of the satellite positions and coverage of the Iridium Network

Iridium satellites do not suffer the same SATCOM shadow because they operate in a low earth (as opposed to geostationary) orbit.

Oldie but still what you need to know

What do I need to do to use it then?

Go back up to our bit about having an approved system and it being in your MEL…

And read this bit as well.

So, you need it in your MEL/MMEL, and what that means is having a system which meets the requirements laid out by your authority.

The FAA put out this info on getting approved. AC 20-150B – ‘Airworthiness Approval of Satellite Voice (SATVOICE) Equipment Supporting Air Traffic Service (ATS) Communication.

It is an AIC about getting airworthiness approval for SATVOICE, and contains all the design considerations, software requirements, minimum performance requirements, CVR, and a lot of other things you probably need to know about.

ICAO recommend that Operators need to establish policy and procedures for crew involved in SATVOICE ops. This includes descriptions of the system operating procedures, limitations, flight planning requirements, what to do if it does’t work… Check out section 3.3.3 of the ICAO SVGM manual for more on this.

In summary – your system needs to be approved. To be approved it needs to meet certain standards and criteria. You also need to have procedures and policy in place for the operation of the system.

Where is all the official info on this?

In ICAO Doc 9869, also known as the PBCS manual, also known as the GOLD manual (because its full title is Global Operational Data Link). You can find the 2017 edition of this in our Doc Library if you want to take a look.

Here is the ICAO SVGM (Satellite Voice Guidance Manual) which we mentioned.

Then there is ICAO Doc 7030 which contains regional supplementary procedures and will contain some info on Datalink, for example, over the North Atlantic.

I have the system and the approval, but need to find a number?

Well, this is where it can get a little tricky. There are different systems. Inmarsat and Iridium.

There is also MTSAT, the Japanese geostationary satellite network.

If you have Inmarsat satellite compatible system then you can use those SATCOM short codes (the six digit ones starting with a 4). You can also dial the 10-digit PSTN phone number. The 6 digit numbers are converted to the PTSN number as they wiggle through the Inmarsat system.

PTSN, incase you’re going to ask, is the Public Switched Telephone Network which is what the aeronautical SATVOICE system uses. So these are what you want to call via your Iridium system.

Numbers are generally to be found in places like the AICs, in your Jeppesen, LIDO, or whatever other chart and manual provider you are signed up to.

One tip, when you do dial up – don’t be yakking away like you’re on a normal telephone. The operator the other end is going to expect standard radio etiquette. Callsigns, readbacks and all that.

What do I put in my flight plan?

You need to include your SATVOICE capability and you do this in Item 10 by inserting either:

• M1 for Inmarsat RTF capability;
• M2 for MTSAT RTF capability;
• And/or an M3 for Iridium RTF capability.

In Item 18 you insert the aircraft registration and also the indicator code and the aircraft address expressed in the form of an alphanumerical code of 6 characters.

If you are operating through airspace requiring HF and yours is broken, then you may be able to file with only your SATVOICE system as the LRCS if it is a flight to return the aircraft for HF maintenance.

Again, just having a system and whacking the info about it onto a flight plan does not qualify you to use it. It needs to be approved.

An HF MEL

What if I get a random SATVOICE call?

You should only act on the clearances or instructions given to you if a SATVOICE call has a priority level 2/High/Q12 or 1/EMG/Q15. You might have to disconnect and initiate a new call to get confirmation that it is something to act on, and not just some rogue person who has discovered a way to call you on it.

I am not signed up to any provider. Can I still just sort of call?

If you can answer this then please send us your info 🤷

ICAO’s new Global Reporting Format methodology comes in on November 4, 2021, but a few authorities have decided to implement it sooner than that.

So here is a quick rundown on what GRF is, and what the requirements are for implementing it.

Runway Excursions

We have talked about these before. So have ICAO. They are a big deal, but they shouldn’t be. Or rather, they shouldn’t still be happening.

Despite numerous incidents, accidents, reports, mitigation plans, you name it, runway excursions are still one of the most common (and often most dangerous) aviation events that are occurring.

A runway excursion is any lateral of longitudinal overrun (not due to any system or component failure of malfunction, or because of an abnormal runway contact).

The primary causes for runways excursions are pretty much an unstable approach was flown, or proper performance calculations weren’t done. Or a combination of both.

The arrestor system doing its job nicely here

A study of commercial aircraft accidents between 1999 and 2019 showed that 16% of all fatal accidents and 36% of all hull loss accidents were due to runway excursions.

So, if we can stop them from happening, a lot of aircraft and people will be saved.

What is GRF?

GRF stands for ‘Global Reporting Format’ and it is a new methodology which ICAO are implementing which aims to standardise how runway surface conditions assessments and reporting is done.

The issue in the past is that some places still give braking coefficients (not really handy because it means different things for different aircraft). Some places were not really assessing surface contamination properly, and some pilots were not really understanding the implications of what they were being told.

RCAM

So GRF will use RCAM – a runway condition assessment matrix – and this will give pilots a runway condition code.

1-6. Nice and easy.

The code is determined by an assessment of what it is contaminating the runway. Snow, ice, water, spilt tomato soup… and then a downgrade assessment criteria is applied. This looks at how the contaminant will impact the deceleration and the directional control of aeroplanes.

It is simplified. No more coefficients and frictions. Just simple “yep, that’s slippery and slide-y” assessments. Pilots will also give braking action reports, rating the action they experience from “Good” down to “Less than Poor”.

This matrix ties in with the new Snowtam reporting format which you can read about here.

ICAO 9981 PANS-ADR contains the RCAM info

Who does it impact?

It impacts a lot of people because it is not just a case of “here is a new format, go”.

Airport authorities will be required to train their staff to ensure they are aware of how to carry out the assessments and to ensure reporting is standardised.

Operators will need to ensure their staff (flight planners and pilots) are aware of the new format, and more importantly – that they are aware of why and how to use it!

Pilots will also need to familiarise themselves with it, and ensure they have a decent grip on what the assessments mean, how to apply them to their performance calculations, and also how they too can assist in the reporting.

What’s the official source?

ICAO Annex 14. Or rather amendment 13-B to Annex 14.

Here is the amendment letter.

Here is the main ICAO page for all things GRF.

The U.K. CAA GRF page has a nice summary of all the official references too.

November 4, 2021

This is the date to know because this is the implementation date. However, familiarising yourself with all the info on it before then might be a good idea because several authorities have already implemented this.

NAV CANADA and EASA have both brought it in on August 12, 2021

EASA have a bunch of handy info on it from how it was developed to Q&As.

And here is NAV CANADA’s page on it.

The FAA have their own project – TALPA – which has pretty much already implemented exactly this so you might not notice much of a change.

Bottom line

• Pilots should familiarise themselves with the new format and understand what it means and how to use it.
• Operators should ensure all their staff are trained on it (and throw in some additional unstable approach, excursion mitigation and performance calculation training and awareness too if you fancy).
• Airports and authorities should be ensuring they are implementing the new format, and training their staff on its use and importance.

Hopefully this helps reduce the number of runway excursions due contamination and performance issues. Of course, for this to work we need to make sure we are also flying a stabilised approach, and flying one to the runway we did the performance calculation for…

Update Oct 2025

OPSGROUP members can access an updated version of this guide, effective Oct 2025, on the members Dashboard here.

Original Article from Sep 2021

If you’re planning to operate a business jet into Singapore, there’s a good chance you won’t be bound for WSSS/Changi Airport at all. Instead you may be headed for the lesser known WSSL/Seletar – Singapore’s secondary commercial airport, and it can be a lot more challenging.

Here’s a basic rundown of just what to expect to keep you ahead of the game next time you are flying into Seletar.

The Basics

Seletar is a stone’s throw (8nm) northeast of WSSS/Changi. It has a single 6020ft/1840m long runway and serves predominantly turbo prop and corporate jet traffic. It has fuel and good facilities for business ops.

Just getting in there at all can be a pain – the airport is surrounded with prohibited and restricted airspace, noise abatement areas, training areas, military airports; as well as a bunch of buildings, cranes, boats, and other obstacles to the north of the airport on the Malaysian side – just across the Strait of Johor.

And since Malaysia effectively killed the plans for ILS at Seletar back at the start of 2019, there are no available instrument approaches at all, requiring visual approaches to be flown onto both runways.

The Airspace Picture

Operations at Seletar are difficult because of the complicated airspace that surrounds it, and it is the reason why there are no instrument approaches. There just isn’t enough room.

Seletar is literally boxed in by a variety of restricted airspace. To the west lies the Sembawang airbase, and to the east the Payar Lebar airbase. Both are strictly military.

Then just a smidge to the north is the boundary with Malaysian airspace, the WMFC/Kuala Lumpur FIR. South of the airport is highly noise sensitive, with three noise abatement areas where hefty fines await.

Throw these things together and you have the Seletar ‘Fish Bowl’ – a small bubble of airspace where there is precious little room to manoeuvre. Here’s a picture of what this all looks like.

The Seletar ‘Fish Bowl’

Arrival Procedures

To keep things simple, the end game is to join the circuit and fly a visual approach, without busting any airspace. To help you with this there are a number of visual arrivals that require you to be in VMC conditions. If you can’t get visual, you’ll need to hold or divert to nearby Changi.

There are essentially two arrival procedures – North and South. And all arriving aircraft will join them through one of three feeder points – Jaybee NDB (JB), Sinjon VOR (SJ) or Kong Kong NDB (KK). From there you will either join downwind, straight in or even overhead if you need the extra track miles.

You can view the current plates for those procedures in the Singapore AIP online. But to make it easy, here’s a couple of pictures.

Arrivals onto Runway 03

Arrivals onto Runway 21 – make sure you have the ‘steel towers and silo’ in sight for an earlier approach clearance.

Things to look out for

Day and night closures: The airport is closed every night between 22-07 local time except for medevac and SAR. And then during the daytime, there are several infuriating closures to accommodate training flights. So essentially, GA/BA flights can only operate to Seletar at these times : 0700-0930, 1030-1200, 1300-1500, 1600-1700, 1800-2200 local time.

The circuit is tight. It is always on the western side of the airport and you cannot fly your circuit wider than 1.5nm due to Sembawang’s airspace. Which means the turn onto final is also going to be tight.

The profile is steeper than normal. 3.2 degrees on Runway 03, and 3.5 degrees on Runway 21. Which means you will need higher rates of descent than a standard visual circuit ‘outta the book’.

You need to be visual. If you’re not VMC, you can’t land at Seletar. Thunderstorms are common in Singapore with heavy rain, and they tend to be slow moving. The worst times are afternoons and evenings.

‘Steel Structures and Silos’  – You’ll hear it on the ATIS, and you need to report you have them in sight if arriving on Runway 21. They’re on the Malaysian coastline north of Seletar. Spot them early and you’ll get an earlier approach clearance from ATC which will make your job easier.

Mistaken Identity: Both nearby Sembawang and Paya Lebar airports have similar runway orientations to Seletar and it is easy to line up with the wrong one. Tune up Seletar’s NDB (220) – the needle doesn’t lie!

Missed Approaches. Expect to re-enter the circuit for both runways – which means a prompt turn downwind and not above 1500ft.

Ops on the Ground

You’ll be pleased to know, pretty straight forward. Parking can become limited, and so it always pays to book a spot with your handling agent well in advance.

Departures

Both runways have noise abatement. Just the standard stuff here – NADP 1 or 2. Your call.

There are published visual departure procedures for both runways. Essentially they involve a climb straight ahead to 1000ft, followed by a turn onto a radar heading.

For departures downwind, the challenge is to stay within the ‘Fish Bowl.’ Which means keeping your turn tight, and your speed down. Ironically the noise abatement procedures help here.

Your Layover

Assuming Covid isn’t still ruining the party, Singapore is famous for food. Three words: Chilli Mud Crab. Jumbo Seafood Restaurant in Clarke Quay is the place to go. And if you’re beer inclined, Tiger is the perfect accompanying drop. For the time being, you may need to rely on Uber Eats. Don’t worry though, Jumbo also delivers.

Handling

 There’s a few good options to choose from. Here are some contacts:

• Wings Over Asia: Ph +65 9455 5615 Email: fltops@wingsoverasia.com
• Jet Aviation:  Ph +65 6335 7420 Email: sinfbo@jetaviation.com
• Universal Aviation: +65 6484 4848 Email: singapore@universalaviation.aero

Facilities and handling at Seletar are generally excellent.

Other options?

Technically, bizav operators are still allowed to go to WSSS/Changi, but will normally only be allowed quick turnarounds subject to runway/bay availability, and then you’ll have to go elsewhere for parking.

Another option is WMKJ/Johor Bahru, on the Malaysian side, around 25nm north of Singapore. It’s open from 06-00 local time, with extensions possible with prior notice. It has a separate FBO with its own VIP lounge and hangars with maintenance support, and has no slots or parking restrictions for bizav ops. Check out the brochure!

The only downside in WMKJ is that it can sometimes take a bit of time for immigration when you cross the road border heading south into Singapore – sometimes 2-3 hours during busy travel periods.

Opsgroup members can read reports on all these airports in Airport Spy.

Permits and stuff

If you’re operating as a private flight to either Changi or Seletar, things don’t get too complicated, as permits are not required for private flights. Just make sure you have parking arranged, and file your inbound ATC flight plan 12 hours in advance, being sure to copy in the Singapore ATC AFTN address WSJCZQZX.

If you’re doing a charter flight on the other hand, you’re going to need a landing permit, which means you’re going to have to jump through a few hoops.

For this, you’ll need to get an Operations Permit from Singapore CAA, which is basically a blanket approval to conduct revenue flights to Singapore, valid for up to one year. You’ll then need to get an Air Transport Permit, which is required for every individual charter schedule into Singapore (Changi or Seletar). Save yourself some hassle and get a local handler to help arrange these for you.

Airport Lowdowns

Have you heard of them? We make a bunch, especially if you ask for one! They’re what you need to know from crew who have been there. And they’re on one small, simple piece of paper. You can read more about them here.

We’ve got you covered. Check out Seletar’s here.

Click to download PDF.

A military coup took place in Guinea’s capital, Conakry, on Sep 5. Following hours of heavy gunfire near the presidential palace, the head of the country’s special forces announced that his soldiers had detained the president and seized power.

Initially, the coup leaders announced that the country’s land and air borders were closed, including the country’s international airport – GUCY/Conakry, where all flights were temporarily suspended.

However, on Sep 6, a military spokesman announced that land and air borders have now reopened. Local handling agent Astra Aviation have advised that the airport is open and operating normally again, with all services available, but they advise against overnight stops for the time being.

GUCY/Conakry airport has issued the following Notam:

A0095/21 - AD HOURS OF SERVICE ARE NOW 0400-2100 UTC. 
DAILY: 0400 - 2100 UTC, 07 SEP 04:00 2021 UNTIL 06 OCT 21:00 2021 ESTIMATED. 
CREATED: 07 SEP 14:40

A night curfew is now in place and there have been no signs of unrest in Conakry in response to the military takeover.

Where is Guinea?

Guinea is a country on the northwest coast of Africa, bordering Guinea-Bissau to the North, and Sierra Leone to the South.

While it has a long history of civil unrest, and crime remains a risk for visiting foreigners, Guinea is generally considered a safer option when compared to its neighbours. Which is why GUCY/Conakry is often used by civil aviation as a reasonable option for tech stops in West Africa.

What about overflights?

Guinea isn’t responsible for managing the overflights in the airspace above it. That job falls to the GLRB/Roberts FIR which collectively manages the upper level airspace of Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia together. It has yet to issue any warnings or restrictions for its airspace, but data from Flightradar shows that overflights through the airspace have continued today.

The GLRB/Roberts FIR manages overflights over three West African countries, including Guinea.

Where to from here?

The situation is evolving, and the ongoing impact to operations there is unpredictable at the moment. We will continue to update this article as more details become available.

The current situation in Afghanistan has led to the effective closure of the OAKX/Kabul FIR to overflights, which means that some traffic routing between Europe, India and the Far East may now need to plan routes which cross the northern Pakistan/India border.

This post will take a look at the additional operational threats and info to be considered here, particularly due to the ongoing dispute over the Kashmir region, and the airspace warnings in place for Pakistan because of this.

The conflict in brief.

This conflict is rooted in who controls the region, with both India and Pakistan laying territorial claim to it. In fact, this conflict has been ongoing since 1947 and shows no signs of resolving in the near future.

Currently India control around 55% of the area, Pakistan approximately 35% and China have a third party hand in the remaining 20%.

There is also a secondary focus on the region from both sides due to cross-border terrorism and security and safety issues. Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan on the other side poses a similar threat.

The India Pakistan border is fenced with around 750km of foodlit fencing, and is still being expanded

The route structure of the region.

Aircraft routing from Europe and across to India and beyond have historically had 3 general routing options available to them:

1. Via Saudi Arabia and then east direct to India. This avoids Pakistani airspace, or crosses just the most southerly portion of the airspace;
2. Via Turkey and down through Iraq/Iran and then east via southern Pakistani airspace and into India;
3. Across Eastern Europe via Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and then south east crossing Afghanistan’s central airspace, avoiding the northerly Kashmir region.

That third routing option which utilised Afghanistan’s airspace, bypassed Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq – all of which have airspace safety considerations. Overflights across Iran and Iraq, for instance, are prohibited to US operators.

While Afghanistan also had airspace safety risks associated with it, these were previously generally low level and not “all altitude” concerns. That has recently changed with the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. However, though the US and several other countries have since issued airspace bans and warnings for Afghanistan, overflights are still generally allowed on airways P500 and G500 which run along the eastern boundary of the Kabul FIR.

Aircraft now needing to re-route to avoid Afghanistan’s uncontrolled OAKB/Kabul FIR, and who do not wish, or are unable to utilise Saudi, Iran or Iraq airspace, may now be limited to this more northerly routing – via the G500/P500 airway in eastern Afghanistan, the northern portion of Pakistan and into India, potentially through the Kashmir region.

Airways are limited in the area, with no easy transfer between Pakistani and Indian ATC control.

What is the risk in this region?

Several countries have long-standing airspace warnings for Pakistan which advise against overflights below FL260, due the risk posed by small-arms fire and indirect weapons fire. There is also a potential anti-aircraft fire risk, and there have been previous attacks against airports.

What is the current situation?

An escalation in activity across the border has been seen of late, with the number of drone attacks and activity across the line of control increasing, including several attacks against Indian Air Bases since 2019.

India possess strong air defense systems and an active air force. Historically, they have employed both fighter jets and conventional SAM systems to mitigate attacks. With the increase in both drone size and capability, and the escalation in number of attacks, there is a risk they will resort to SAM systems and fighter jets once again. If this happens, this will lead to a higher risk at all altitudes for aircraft mis-identification.

A helicopter was shot down in the Srinagar region in 2019

General considerations for operating over or into Pakistan.

Operators to OPIS/Islamabad have been reporting an increase in security measures and crew procedures. Crew can expect more stringent security and ID checks. Pakistan are actively guarding against terror threats at the airport and passengers may experience stricter security and ID controls as well.

Pakistan is an ADIZ and requires crew to check-in prior to entry. Comms handover between India and Pakistan can also be difficult so an advance confirmation of next frequencies is advisable when routing across any part of the border.

There traffic levels in Pakistan’s airspace have also increased recently, and crew should be aware of potential separation and traffic conflict concerns.

Pakistan airspace closures.

Pakistan have previously closed sections of their airspace. In Feb 2019, conflict between India and Pakistan resulted in Pakistan closing its airspace to overflights. The conflict was a result of escalating clashes between the two countries in the disputed Kashmir region, with numerous airstrikes on both sides. The airspace slowly reopened, and only became fully open again in August 2019.

Diversion options.

Both India and Pakistan allow tech stops (up to 24 hours) and are accommodating of diverting and emergency aircraft, however, avoiding Indian Military Air Bases (unless a dire emergency) will save you a fair amount of extra security checks, paperwork and grief on the ground.

OPIS/Islamabad is a major Pakistani international airport close to the border, and is used as a southerly Himalayan diversion airport. It offers two well equipped CAT II/III runways of 12,001′.

OPST/Sialkot has a single runway, 11,811′, with an ILS and an RNP approach available.

VISR/Srinagar on the Indian side has s single 12,090′ runway.

VIAR/Amritsar also offers a single CAT II/III equipped 12,001′ runway.

There are also several other smaller airports which serve domestic routes.

The main airports in the region.

Permits and overflights

Both India and Pakistan require overflight and landing permits.

For India, the lead in time for overflights is 3 days, while for landing it is 7 days. All permit applications are sent to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MOCA) and then pass through several other government departments for security checks. You need your PPR overflight number available before reaching Indian airspace and they do often ask for it so have it handy.

India have fairly strict slot policies at several of their airports. During peak times they also might change your slot at short notice, or give you lengthy delays (2 hours+).

We recommend the use of an agent to assist with the permit process:

Freedom Air +91 11 2981 3311 / ops@freedomair.aero / freedomair@airtelmail.in

The CAA of India contact info is +91 11 2462 0784 / +91 11 2462 9221 / dgoffice.dgca@nic.in / irsec.dgca@nic.in

For Pakistan, overflight and landing permits are issued through the Pakistan CAA. These take around 96 hours for overflight and 6 days for landing.

An agent can also assist with the process:

Aircraft Aviation Services (ACAS) +92 213 468 0109 / ops@acas.com.pk / ops1@acas.com.pk

CAA of Pakistan contact info – +91 21 997 1111 extn: 2288/2289 / +91 21 9924 2004 / support@caapakistan.com.pk / AFTN: OPHQYAYX

In summary

With the exception of US operators, flights between Europe and India/the Far East generally opt for routings via Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq. While routings via Tajikistan are possible, the lack of coordination between Pakistani and Indian ATC, and with few established airways, presents a planning and potential safety risk.

Pakistan has airspace safety concerns, particularly in the northern airspace (OPLR/Lahore FIR). With the closure of Afghan airspace, flights routing from Europe to Pakistan may benefit from routing via Tajikistan. However, most international flights continue to use the southerly routing for overflights.

Most Europe-Asia flights continue to route south via Saudi, UAE, Oman.

Further Information

Information on Pakistan airspace can be found on the Pakistan CAA website.

If any operators or crew have experience of overflying this region please send us any insights you have on it so we can share the information team@ops.group.

US and allied forces have now pulled out of Afghanistan, and the Taliban have taken control of the country. Afghanistan’s airspace is now effectively closed to overflights – the OAKX/Kabul FIR is uncontrolled, and overflying traffic should route around the country.

Overflights

For overflights of the region, flights between Europe and parts of Asia will be those most affected by the effective closure of the OAKX/Kabul FIR. All major international airlines have now stopped using Afghanistan’s airspace for overflights, most electing to route south via the airspace over the United Arab Emirates and Arabian Sea off the south coast of Pakistan.

Map source: flightradar24.com

However, there are risk warnings to consider for the airspace here too. Several countries have warnings in place for Iran’s airspace (the OIIX/Tehran FIR), including a total flight ban by the US, which were issued following the shoot-down of Ukraine Int Airlines flight 752 over Tehran in Jan 2020. The southern part of Saudi Arabia’s airspace (the OEJD/Jeddah FIR) carries risk as well, with increasing Houthi drone and missile attacks over the past year.

To the north of Afghanistan, the options for overflights are fairly limited – via Kyrgyzstan, Kazhakstan, or even farther north via Russia. So these are not really practical unless operating from northern Europe to China, Hong Kong, Japan, etc.

Airspace Warnings

Following the Taliban takeover, several countries have updated their airspace warnings for Afghanistan. The FAA now bans US operators from Afghanistan’s airspace, only permitting overflights on airways P500 and G500 in the far east of the OAKX/Kabul FIR. EASA, along with authorities in several western countries, are now advising operators to avoid Afghanistan’s airspace entirely.

At SafeAirspace.net we are now listing Afghanistan as Level One: Do Not Fly. Check here for a full briefing.

On August 30, the FAA revised its Emergency Order for Afghanistan, with a new KICZ Notam.

Effective immediately, US operators and flight crew are prohibited from operating in the Kabul Flight Information Region (OAKX) at all levels. The FAA cites three specific risk factors: extremist/militant activity, limited risk mitigation capabilities, and disruptions to Air Traffic Services.

The main change is that flights to and from OAKB/Kabul airport are no longer exempt. 

Therefore the only exceptions are now as follows:

1. You can operate in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) if another US government agency authorizes it together with the FAA, or by way of “deviation, exemption, or other authorization” issued by the FAA Administrator. If you do plan to fly, you must call the FAA Operations Center in Washington.

2. You can overfly on one airway: Use of airway P500/G500 is authorized for transiting overflights. (That airway cross the sliver of Afghan airspace in the east of Afghanistan between Pakistan and Tajikistan)

3. If you are experiencing an emergency.

Airway P500/G500 in the OAKX/Kabul FIR is ok.

The NOTAM is issued with permanent validity, and is presented in full below.

For further on Afghanistan, pilot and local situation reports, procedures, and assistance:

• OPSGROUP ALL CALL: Information post.
• Share your updates in #flightops on Slack.
• Read our post from Aug 18 on airspace risk: Afghanistan: Do Not Fly
• Review the Safe Airspace risk summary for Afghanistan

Satellite image via Washington post, Maxar Technologies 2021.

KICZ Notam A0029/21
Issued Aug 30, 1955 UTC
Valid until: Permanent

SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FLIGHTS IN THE KABUL FLIGHT INFORMATION REGION (OAKX)

THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A (APPLICABILITY) BELOW ARE PROHIBITED FROM OPERATING AT ALL ALTITUDES IN THE KABUL FLIGHT INFORMATION REGION (FIR)(OAKX), EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH B (PERMITTED OPERATIONS) AND PARAGRAPH C (ALLOWANCES) BELOW, DUE TO THE RISK POSED BY EXTREMIST/MILITANT ACTIVITY, LACK OF RISK MITIGATION CAPABILITIES, AND DISRUPTIONS TO AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES.

A. APPLICABILITY. THIS NOTAM DOES NOT APPLY TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. IT DOES APPLY TO: ALL U.S. AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS; ALL PERSONS EXERCISING THE PRIVILEGES OF AN AIRMAN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FAA, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH PERSONS ARE OPERATING U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FOR A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER; AND ALL OPERATORS OF AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT WHEN THE OPERATOR OF SUCH AIRCRAFT IS A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER.

B. PERMITTED OPERATIONS. THIS NOTAM DOES NOT PROHIBIT PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A (APPLICABILITY) ABOVE FROM CONDUCTING FLIGHT OPERATIONS IN THE ABOVE-NAMED AREA WHEN SUCH OPERATIONS ARE AUTHORIZED EITHER BY ANOTHER AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE FAA OR BY A DEVIATION, EXEMPTION, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATION ISSUED BY THE FAA ADMINISTRATOR. OPERATORS MUST CALL THE FAA WASHINGTON OPERATIONS CENTER AT 202-267-3333 TO INITIATE COORDINATION FOR FAA AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS.

C. ALLOWANCES. USE OF JET ROUTES P500-G500 IS AUTHORIZED FOR TRANSITING OVERFLIGHTS.

D. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. IN AN EMERGENCY REQUIRING IMMEDIATE DECISION AND ACTION FOR THE SAFETY OF THE FLIGHT, THE PILOT IN COMMAND OF AN AIRCRAFT MAY DEVIATE FROM THIS NOTAM TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY THAT EMERGENCY.

THIS NOTAM IS AN EMERGENCY ORDER ISSUED UNDER 49 USC 40113(A), 44701(A)(5), AND 46105(C).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AT:

HTTPS://WWW.FAA.GOV/AIR_TRAFFIC/PUBLICATIONS/US_RESTRICTIONS/

SFC – FL999, 30 AUG 19:55 2021 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 30 AUG 19:59 2021

Aircraft sometimes fly too close to storms which means they sometimes get hit by lightning.

Here is a refresher on the signs you’re probably too close to a storm, things to do to prevent a lightning strike, and what the risks are if you do get struck.

Avoid the flash boomers.

Not flying too close to a storm is probably your best bet for avoiding a lightning strike.

Here is a quick recap. If it is big, growing bigger and has an anvil, avoid it.

If it has lightning come out of it, definitely avoid it.

If all you can see outside is this –

Then turn your weather radar on.

Once you have turned your weather radar on, it might look like this –

Avoid the red bits.

Keeping away is Plan A.

Avoiding smaller ones by a good 10 miles (preferably upwind so they don’t move towards you) will keep you clear of lumps and bumps, thus avoiding coffee spillages and puking passengers.

Big ones should be given at least a 20nm berth. If you want to route over the top, 5000’ seems to be a good recommendation, and never fly under the anvil. 

You might also want to avoid flying between large storms. They move, and sometimes they move together. They can also combine into mega super cell storms and you really don’t want to be caught in that sandwich, especially since lightning can move sideways!

Not just a storm in a teacup!

Let’s get back to the weather radar.

This is probably one of the most misused pieces of equipment on an aircraft. Reading the manual on it is the best place to start, but if you are like most pilots and prefer to learn through practice, then here is a quick guide on how best to twiddle them knobs.

In general, your standard aircraft weather radar is going to have some sort of a tilt function, an azimuth knob and a gain knob.

• Tilt – for the ups and downs. This is handy for seeing how high a storm might have grown. If it is particularly active, you are going to want to avoid flying too close above because there will be a lot of turbulence even over the cloud tops.
• Azimuth – for the side to side. If you need to go around one, it is probably wise to check there isn’t another one you might run into.
• Gain – to see inside. Well, sort of. It adjusts the sensitivity of the receiver. If you slowly turn it down, it will help identify the threatening bits a bit better.

If it is really rainy out, your radar might be saturated – reducing the gain will help show where there is the heaviest precipitation in a convective cloud. Heavy precipitation can also cause “storm shadows” – basically a black hole where the radar signal has been blocked. If you see a black hole on your display, be suspicious. There could be something lurking behind whatever the radar is bouncing off in front.

Now, weather radar can’t really “spot” lightning, but some do have predictive functions. If not, you’ll have to use your judgement when looking at the size of the red or magenta bit. And failing even that, your eyes are pretty handy instruments to use.

Airplane wing near a storm

Back to the point of this post…

Lightning. First up, what is it?

Lightning is electricity.

OK, that’s a bit of an over-simplication.

In more sciencey terms (but still very basic), it is negatively charged electrons in a storm which get attracted to the positive protons on the ground, and this all results in a big FLASH BOOM. 

The electricity part of a lightning ‘strike’ can actually go from the ground up. The ‘light’ part is everything in the air getting mega hot, and the thunder part is because of the rapid expansion of the air due to the sudden mega increase in temperature and pressure change.

Why are we talking about it?

Well, we all know the threats of flying into a storm. The bumps, the ice, the hail…

Here’s one that happened earlier

And we all know what lightning is.

The highest ever recorded thunderstorm power level came from a mega flash boomer in India. This behemoth of a storm had an electric potential of 1.3 billion volts. That’s 10 times the previous record holder. Generally household voltages are generally 100-240V so 1.3 billion is… a lot more.

We could all do with a bit of a refresher on what the RISK of lightning is.

Why?

Because aircraft keep getting hit by it so obviously folk aren’t avoiding it quite as well as they maybe could be.

A study estimated that an aircraft, on average, gets hit around once every 1,000 flight hours. So about once a year. Most of these are ‘self-triggered’ – meaning they occurred because the aeroplane was flying through a heavily charged cloud.

Lansa Flight 508, in 1971, is considered the worst crash due lightning of all time. Because of crashes like the Lansa flight, a lot of research has been done on improving aircraft resilience against lightning damage.

A deadly strike by lightning has not happened in years.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t still other risks.

June 19, 1971. There was one survivor and they walked away from the crash site.

The Risks (and the fixes).

The three most ‘explodable by’ or ‘mess up-able by’ lightning parts of your airplane are your fuel tanks, avionics and the skin.

STRIKE 1: Your fuel tanks are protected by the skin, which must be robust enough in the tank area not to easily burnt through by lightning. The design also protects from any possible arcing and static. Fuel developments have reduced vaporisation which reduces the changes of it combusting uncontrollably.

Pan Am Flight 214 in 1963 (possibly) crashed due fuel vapours igniting from lighting, but in recent decades there have not been any accidents attributed to lightning making fuel tanks explode.

One more thing – those little sticks poking out from your wings and tail are your static wicks. They help discharge static electricity. So during your walk-around, make sure they are attached!

STRIKE 2: Modern aircraft are filled with wires. Wires which control the aircraft, the avionics, the everything really. One thing wires don’t like is too much electricity zooming through them, and that is exactly what lightning is. So aircraft wires are shielded – conductive layers around them act like Faraday cages, and these help reduce transients (oscillations caused by the movement of the lightning across the exterior of the aircraft).

Systems also contain surge suppressants to help mitigate against big surges of voltage.

But equipment, particularly the avionics, can still be damaged by lightning strikes even with protections in place.

STRIKE 3: Older, aluminium framed aircraft were actually better at withstanding strikes because they are nice and conductive – the metal skin is like a slip ‘n’ slide for the lightning. Composite skins on the other hand are not, which makes them more susceptible to damage.

They generally contain a fine mesh of aluminium to help lightning flow by providing a continuous conductive path of low resistance across the aircraft exterior, but it isn’t uncommon for burn marks and even holes to be left as a result of a strike.

Holes in the skin , if big enough, can cause decompression. Unlikely but not impossible.

Here are a few other risks to think about:

STRIKE 4: You. Not because you’re in the airplane (you’re protected by it due that whole Faraday Cage thing again). But your eyes are not – if flying near a storm turn your storm lights in the flight deck up to full bright to help protect against flash blindness.

Startle is the second big risk. In 2019, a Russian aircraft crashed in Moscow following a severe lightning strike. However, it wasn’t the strike itself, or the subsequent loss of instruments which led to the crash, but the crews reaction and “rush” to land.

STRIKE 5: Ball lightning. You know how I said it travels across the external skin of the aeroplane? Well, sometimes it can also come inside the cabin or flight deck, in a big ball.

Fact or fiction? An analysis of ball lightning in aircraft was carried out in 2009. The researchers wanted to find out if this was just “lore” or “for reals”. They analysed reports from 1938 to 2007 discovered 87 occurrences of ball lightning being witnessed in or from aircraft.

It is described as a “metastable, rare lightning type” – basically, a horrifying ball of electricity around 25cm in size that can come swooshing through the cabin. The big mitigation here is, again, to just avoid storms.

There don’t seem to be any actual photos of this phenomena

How else to tell if you’re too close?

• Be on the look out, or rather sniff out, of an Ozone smell.
• If you start to experience strong static on frequencies this might be an indicator or electrical activity outside.
• St Elmo’s fire on windscreens occurs as static charge builds up – a sign you are in a highly charged area.

Impressive display of St Elmo’s Fire (Credit: Christiaan van Heijst).

What else can you do to avoid?

• Check your weather radar as you line up for departure. Request an early turn to avoid and if ATC cannot accommodate then delay your take-off. Most strikes occur between 8,000 ft and 14,000 ft so think about the departure routing too.
• Check up ahead and plan weather avoidance early – double check your planned route won’t lead you towards more weather, or into prohibited or unsafe airspace. Or too close to a volcano as an Air France flight accidentally did.
• Check the charts – see what is forecast before you get there.
• Certain areas, and certain times of year, get more storm activity. If you’re routing through the ICTZ then be ready! If you are heading into a known region, make sure that radar is on and you are looking out!
• Use sites that show live lightning activity when planning your flight. Eurocontrol provides cross border forecasting and recommends Lightning Maps as a top site for tracking storm activity.
• Blitzortung has worldwide lightning strike maps (and they look pretty cool).

A snapshot of live lightning strikes in the USA.

Struck by a need to read a bit more?

• This article on lightning protection in aircraft, by FlightSafety, is interesting.
• A handy piece by AOPA on using the weather radar (and deciphering what it is showing you).

Our SafeAirspace website contains all the current airspace warnings from major authorities for various airspace regions around the world.

If you are a US registered operator, then you can find info on the FAA warnings here too.

But we thought we would make a brief summary for you here, just as a refresher on what the current KICZ status is for each country.

A snapshot of SafeAirspace.

Where can I find them?

SafeAirspace pulls all the latest info from the US FAA’s dedicated webpage which contains all their ‘Prohibitions, Restrictions and Notices’. This is where you can find their International Security NOTAMs (KICZ) and Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFAR), plus information relating to the background of the situations and the prohibitions/restrictions.

A summary

Here is a summary of the countries with a US FAA airspace prohibition/restriction in force, and what it (very briefly) says for each one.

Afghanistan

US Operators are prohibited from operating in the OAKX/Kabul FIR. Overflights are still allowed on airways P500 and G500 which run alongside the eastern boundary of the Kabul FIR.

Why? There is a risk of direct and indirect fire targeting airports and from surface-to-air fire targeting aircraft operating at low altitudes. Additionally, the recent Taliban takeover has led to zero ATC control across the entire airspace and an extreme threat to aircraft and crew safety and security on the ground. Air defense forces in all neighboring states are likely at high alert status within respective border regions – target misidentification by military air defense operators remains a credible scenario.

Belarus

US operators are to exercise extra caution when operating over, within, in or out of the UMMV/Minsk FIR.

Why? Well, they recently “caused” a commercial aircraft to land and it is not entirely clear how secure the region is and if there are any safety implications for US operators at this time.

Egypt

US operators are to exercise extra caution when operating over, within, in or out of the Sinai Peninsula within the HECC/ Cairo FIR below FL260.

Why? There is ongoing fighting between military and extremist forces and they have anti-aircraft capable weapons.

Iran

US operators are prohibited from operating in the OIIX/Tehran FIR.

Why? There are signifiant security and safety issues in the region and the US and Iran are not on the best of terms. There was also an aircraft shoot-down due to mis-identification of their anti aircraft defence systems.

Iraq

US operators are prohibited from operating in the ORBB/Baghdad FIR.

Why? Similar to Iran, there are heightened military activities and increased tensions which present and inadvertent risk to US civil aircraft due potential for mis-identification.

Kenya

US operators are to exercise extra caution when operating over, within, in or out of Kenyan airspace east of 40 degrees East longitude (the border region with Somalia), at altitudes below FL260. The caution applies to the ground as well.

Why? Because there’s possible militant activity and with it a threat of damage to aircraft from mortars, rockets and anti-aircraft capable weapons.

North Korea

US operators are prohibited from operating in the ZKKP/Pyongyang FIR, including the oceanic part of the ZKKP/Pyongyang FIR over the Sea of Japan.

Why? Because there are hazards and risk to civil aircraft safety from North Korea due their military capabilities and activities, including unannounced missile and air defense weapons testing.

Libya

US operators are prohibited from overflying the HLLL/Tripoli FIR except for altitudes at or above FL300 “outside of Libyan territorial airspace” – which is basically the international airspace over the southern Mediterranean Sea that is managed by Libya.

Why? Because of ongoing conflict between the government and the Libyan National Army over territory, government control and resources – and all this means fighting, often with weapons which could damage aircraft.

Mali

US operators are to exercise extra caution when operating over, within, in or out of Mali below FL260.

Why? There is a risk of militant and extremist activity and mortars, rocket and anti aircraft fire.

Pakistan

US operators are to exercise extra caution when operating over, within, in or out of Pakistan.

Why? There is a risk of militant and extremist activity and mortars, rocket and anti aircraft fire.

Persian Gulf

Exercise caution operating in overwater airspace above the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman in the OKAC/Kuwait, OEJD/Jeddah, OBBB/Bahrain, OOMM/Muscat and OMAE/Emirates FIRs.

Why? There is a lot of military posturing and political tensions in the region and this bit is particularly close to the OIIX/Tehran FIR which is prohibited for US operators.

Somalia

US operators are prohibited operating below FL260 in the airspace of Somalia.

Why? There are active extremists in the region which pose a threat.

Syria

US operators are prohibited from entering the OSTT/Damascus FIR, and should exercise caution if within 200nm of Syrian airspace.

Why? It is a complex and ongoing conflict there, and it poses a risk to US operators.

Ukraine

US operators are prohibited from entering the UKDV/Dneptropetrovsk FIR (the UKFV/Simferepol FIR is ok).

Why? There is ongoing military action and the potential for aircraft misidentification there.

Venezuela

All operations below FL260 are prohibited unless specifically approved or they need to for an emergency.

Why? Mainly poor infrastructure, and political conflict between the two countries.

Yemen

US operators are basically prohibited from overflying the landmass of Yemen, but certain offshore routes within the OYSC/Sanaa FIR are allowed.

Why? Because of ongoing fighting, instability and possible terrorist activity.

An even briefer summary

US FAA KICZ and SFARs. Click to download PDF.

For further information on the situation in each country and to see the prohibitions and restrictions recommended by other authorities, visit the SafeAirspace site.

The concept of SafeAirspace is this: to have a single source for all risk warnings issued about an individual country, independent of any political or commercial motivation, so that a pilot, flight dispatcher, security department, or anyone responsible for flight safety can quickly and easily see the current risk picture.

Travel Advisories

Travel Advisories and Airspace Warnings are different things. But for US operators flying internationally, it’s worth checking out the latest country-specific Travel Advisories issued by the US Dept of State. Each country’s Travel Advisory also has a link to the local US Embassy website in that country – these will show announcements on all the latest security-related news and incidents there.

Who doesn’t appreciate a nice color-coded map.

Further reading

• US and allied forces have now pulled out of Afghanistan, and the Taliban have taken control of the country. Afghanistan’s airspace is now effectively closed to overflights – the OAKX/Kabul FIR is uncontrolled, and overflying traffic should route around the country. Here is our latest update on what is happening.
• The US reissued their Ukraine warnings in 2021. However, certain regions are Ukrainian airspace are now deemed safe for overflight.
• Information on the aircraft shootdown in Iran, and ongoing concerns with their airspace safety.
• Assessing the risk to routing over or into conflict zones is much more than just an “is there a weapon down there?” question. Gathering and sharing information on airspace risk is still one of the biggest barriers to safety. Are we actively seeking this information, or simply waiting for it to come our way? Read our article.

Aviation has always been a reactive industry – because it needs to be.

Over time, forces beyond our control have continued to influence the way the industry moves forward and the way we operate.

For the past eighteen months, our reactive energies have been focussed primarily on one thing – a global pandemic. But it is important that we continue to react to other changes too – particularly when it comes to security, and the types of threats that we face are evolving.

As the industry begins to recover from Covid and press on into the decade, here are some of the biggest security threats that it will face.

Operating Near Conflict Zones

While the lines between aviation and politics are often blurry, they undeniably intersect. The point is that regardless of which side we choose to take, we continue to operate aircraft over or in close proximity to active conflict zones. Which means risk.

The past eighteen months have shown that conflicts can erupt with very little warning in busy flight corridors and with significant dangers to the aircraft flying above them.

This was the case last year in Azerbaijan, where almost all west/east bound airways were closed by the conflict below. Only months ago, Israel’s Tel Aviv FIR was heavily affected by widespread rocket attacks while just this week, Afghanistan’s Kabul FIR has been left with no ATC services following an overwhelming Taliban offensive.

More than 3000 rockets affected Israeli airspace over an eight day period in May 2021. Aircraft were immediately under threat from not only them, but widespread use of high-tech air defence systems.

Things can change quickly and the problem isn’t going away in a hurry.

But perhaps more concerning is that the aviation system relies on the sharing of information to keep us safe up there (and ICAO Annex 17 demands it). But practically speaking, concerns remain over inadequate government intelligence sharing, especially in states involved with conflicts.

Your flight is tomorrow and you’re not familiar with the politics of Western Sahara. Here’s what the notams have to say. Is it safe to overfly?

Until things change, reliable risk assessments will remain a challenge firmly on the shoulder of operators – and these will rely on timely, unbiased and accurate information. As we have often seen, that can be very hard to get.

Terrorism

Unfortunately, aviation will continue to be a target for terrorism.

While security at airports remains tight, the challenges of breaching it have led terrorist groups to develop new ways of targeting aviation interests. While large-scale attacks the likes of 9/11 seem more far-fetched with today’s protocols, there is a renewed interest by terrorist groups in attacking so-called ‘soft targets’ – primarily aircraft in flight or airports with poor security infrastructure.

To make matters worse, non-state actors and large terrorist organisations (such as ISIS and Al Shabaab) are encouraging smaller groups or even just lone-wolf individuals to attack by proxy, which makes the threat difficult to prevent. These attacks don’t need obvious leadership, and can be accomplished by low-tech means. Weapons such as rockets, mortars and man portable air defence systems (MANPADS) are of particular concern.

Non-state actors with access to MANPADs are spread throughout the world. Courtesy: US Dept of State.

Recent events at ORBI/Baghdad Airport serve as a good example, where multiple rockets were found stashed on nearby rooftops overlooking the airport.

Civil Unrest

In the past eighteen months, we’ve seen countries around the world suddenly erupt into periods of civil unrest. While beyond the realm of airspace warnings and Notams, the effects on crew safety on the ground can be dramatic.

While strikes and peaceful demonstrations can cause little more than inconvenience on the airport commute, it is when things get violent that the danger emerges.

Two examples spring to mind this year where the security situation on the ground changed rapidly and without warning.

The first is Myanmar where in February a military coup saw nationwide protests. Clashes with military police eventually turned violent with mass civilian casualties in the capital, Yangon. Disruptions continue there to this day.

The second is South Africa last month where a political and legal dispute led to widespread rioting and looting and became the worst violence that South Africa had experienced in many years.

Violent clashes between protestors and military resulted in mass casualties in Myanmar earlier this year.

Given the abundance of uncertainty that seems to characterise the modern world, it seems naive to believe that civil unrest is going anywhere in a hurry. Recent events have shown that even away from airports, aviation professionals continue to be at risk.

Cyber Threats

While the aviation industry has developed a strong track record of security practices from physical threats, it has struggled to keep pace with digital ones.

Studies have revealed some alarming numbers. EASA for instance have reported an average of one thousand reported cyber on attacks on airports every single month, while systems at airports in Israel fend off up to three million attempted breaches per day.

Unlike other industries, aviation is particularly vulnerable to cyber-attacks because the consequences can be so catastrophic. Successful attacks could literally cost lives.

Only two things are needed to open the doors to a cyber attack: a vulnerability and a pathway. We’re heavily reliant on countless connected systems that have to operate in real-time and with super-high reliability. Many of them are safety-critical, and they have to be protected.

Have a ponder for a moment about just how far that rabbit hole can go. Here’s a few suggestions just to get you started: Primary radar, secondary radar, EFBs, ADS-B, GNSS, Datalink, ACARs, even Fly-By-Wire. Heavy, heavy hitters in the safety game. This is before we even go down the road of the pilotless aircraft.

Safety critical systems such as CPDLC could potentially be targeted by cyber criminals.

As technology continues to improve our efficiency and make our jobs easier, it is also opening gateways for those with malicious intent. Aircraft are becoming smarter and more connected, but arguably also more vulnerable to attack.

The challenge in years to come will be how to protect these critical systems, or at least limit the impact when they are attacked.

Human Trafficking

The unlawful act of transporting people around the world in order to benefit from their labour or exploit them in other ways continues to be a global phenomenon. Particularly when they are suffering from economic hardship.

Recent studies have shown that as many as 700,000 people become the subjects of human trafficking every year, with reports from over 127 countries worldwide. It is aviation that is often the vehicle for this malicious trade. These unfortunate people are often travelling with forged or stolen documents, and may be under duress from the people they are travelling with.

It’s an ongoing problem. ICAO itself is directly involved in efforts to address it through better training and an understanding of where in the world the worst hotspots are. However it is likely to remain a threat to aviation security for many years to come.

Threats to aviation security aren’t new, but our reaction to them needs to be.

Moving forward our response to security in the industry must continue to evolve to meet the threat, regardless of what other industry pressures we find ourselves under. Undeniably, our safety and that of our passengers will depend on it.

Plans are underway to establish a new flight information region in a busy air corridor over the Middle East.

Since 2018, Qatar has been campaigning to control its own airspace by establishing the Doha FIR  – a process that would involve cutting the existing OBBB/Bahrain FIR in half.

For the first time, an improving political environment has led ICAO to give Qatar the go-ahead, as long as it can work directly with Bahrain to sort out all of the technical side of things. When established, over thirty percent of traffic in and out of the UAE will pass through the new airspace and so it is worth taking a closer look.

A little background.

With the exception of terminal airspace at OTHH/Doha, Qatar’s air traffic is controlled by Bahrain in a long standing agreement. Qatar first proposed to assume control over its own airspace three years back – a suggestion that was opposed by several countries including the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Why?

Primarily because it came at a politically sensitive time.

Just the year before a diplomatic crisis led to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt (among others) cutting ties with Qatar. From an aviation perspective, a blockade was formed which prevented Qatari registered aircraft from using their airspace and vice versa. From an operational perspective there was likely little regional appetite to release a large chunk of Middle Eastern airspace into a political road block.

Thus criticisms were quickly tabled. The primary feedback was this:

• Qatar hadn’t provided operational justification for the change.
• An additional ANSP in this busy piece of airspace would make co-ordination more complicated.
• Safety may be compromised, while cost would go up for operators.
• Bahraini air traffic control had done a great job of safe and efficient flow of traffic for decades, why change?
• Capacity would tank.

Qatar on the other hand argued that the proposal would improve safety while providing some economic award for the industry too.

Then things changed.

Earlier this year while the world continued to revel in the ‘delights’ of a certain pandemic, the political situation for aviation in the Middle East changed for the better. Following a successful GCC summit, the blockade was lifted. Meaning all parties could once again use each other’s airspace. Tensions subsided and it was good news for fuel burns and flight times.

A successful GCC Summit this year saw the Qatar Blockade lifted.

Enter the Chicago Convention.

The what? Spoiler alert: It has nothing to do with the Cubs. It’s basically the landmark agreement among all ICAO member states that establishes the core principles for international ops. It’s a big deal. Buried within its many hallowed pages is this: each state has ‘complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory’. And ICAO have agreed that in this case, the principle applies.

So what is the proposed airspace going to look like?

 Pictures are always better than words. So here are some pictures:

Why do ICAO only agree ‘provisionally’?

Because quite a bit of work needs to happen behind the scenes to make the proposal a reality.

Essentially Qatar has to do two things:

1. Prove that safe and efficient systems and infrastructure are in place in their airspace to be.
2. They need to work directly with Bahrain to report back on all of the technical arrangements that will make the proposal real. It is not the easiest task for either side given diplomatic histories but in promising signs for the region, work is under way.

What happens now?

Qatar and Bahrain are due to report back to ICAO later this year, likely November or December. How long after that meeting the changes may be implemented is still up in the air (bad pun not intended).

But keep an eye out for updates on the change which appears to now be well on its way to altering the skies over the Middle East.

Two South African airports have recently had their licences revoked.

Why has this happened and does it mean anything bigger for aviation, particularly commercial aviation, in South Africa?

FAPP/Polokwane

Polokwane International Airport in the Limpopo Province had their airport status downgraded in April 2021, moving it from a Category 7 to Category 2 after the SACAA determined they were non-compliant in safety standards.

Category 2 means it is unable to provide the minimum level of emergency services required for commercial aircraft. FALA/Lanseria and FAOR/Johannesburg are now the closest major airports for this province.

Main international airports and the affected airports.

FAPG/Plettenberg Bay

Plettenburg airport had their licence revoked August 2021, following a downgrade from category 4 to category 2, also due non-compliance with safety standards.

FARB/Richard’s Bay

The municipal airport in Richard’s Bay lost its status in 2020 as the airport management company were unable to finance the necessary emergency and fire services to support commercial operations.

FAUT/Mthatha

Mthatha airport (formerly Umtata) was downgraded in 2019 due a lack of emergency services and emergency systems which need technology upgrades.

What are the regulations?

The SACAA applies standard ICAO licensing requirements to their aerodromes. These are laid out in ICAO Annex 14 (Aerodrome Design and Operations), Doc 9774 (Manual on Certification of Aerodromes) and ICAO Annex 19 (Safety Management).

The oversight and ability of the authority to monitor is also monitored.

ICAO audit countries through the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP). It is a little less in-depth than the FAA’s IASA program (which recently saw Mexico downgraded) but looks at the “effective implementation of the critical elements of a safety oversight system and conducts a systematic and objective review of the State’s safety overs…. something something… implementation of ICAO SARPS, procedures and aviation safety best practices.”

Basically, is the authority checking everything is up to scratch in their region of jurisdiction, and if not, do they do something about it.

ICAO only have 8 countries red flagged. South Africa comes out pretty well in it.

SACAA compared to FAA and UK CAA oversight

So the downgrades are necessary?

Unfortunately, yes, but it means a Catch 22 situation for these aerodromes because without traffic, they do not have the finances to improve their capability.

Aviation is a major contributor to the South African economy.

IATA published a report on aviation’s contribution to the South African economy (it is not clear when this was published). What is evident is South Africa is, like many countries, struggling with the Covid pandemic. The South African variant has seen them cut off to most of the rest of the world, and this is having a longer term impact on their aviation infrastructure.

Nice infographic on the aviation contribution to their economy

The downgrading of airports unfortunately points at a lack of funding within the country. There are also questions of corruption within the government and the airport management companies. Whatever the reason, funds are not reaching (or are not available) to the airports which need investment, particularly those which do not not benefit from cash flow from international flight operations and so facilities and services are not being maintained.

In 2020, the SACAA released this (rather odd) statement regarding rumoured ILS issues across the country. It isn’t immediately clear why or where the rumour started from.

A NOTAM check actually shows surprisingly few issues at the major airports.

Durban King Shaka is currently RFF7 – adequate for most narrow body, medium jet aircraft

Cape Town’s RCLLs could apparently do with a clean…

Political problems

The country is undergoing moderate levels of civil unrest and political divide. King Shaka airport was targeted in attacks in July 2021, and there do not seem to be signs of it improving in the near future.

Power problems

South Africa is undergoing continuous load shedding due issues with their power supplier, ESKOM. The Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) confirmed however that all nine of its airports have the ability to operate on diesel generators covering essential loads for between 18 and 72 house – so load shedding should not impact their operations.

Fuel problems

A NOTAM search brings up fuel issues at several airports, however, they are all small domestic ones –  FAEL, FAUT, FABE and FAUP

The Big Picture

South Africa is, like many countries, struggling with the long term impact of the Covid pandemic. However, the standards at the major international airports remain good and the aviation infrastructure is still more than able to support international flight operations.

Additionally, reports suggest general aviation is going strong within the country.

Cape Town was the top tourist destination for UK travellers in 2016, and regularly tops the top tourism destinations lists.

As the world reopens, hopefully the situation will improve. For now, all the global aviation industry can do is look to support countries like South Africa once they are able to again.

In 2016, an RJ85 operating a charter flight ran out of fuel in a holding pattern while waiting for another aircraft to land. The crew knew they were critically low on fuel but seemed reluctant or unwilling to tell ATC they were in trouble and get back on the ground.

This tragic accident highlights a dangerous mindset that continues to expose pilots to risk the world over: reluctance to declare an emergency.

Accident reports reveal that the RJ85 crew were certainly not an isolated case either. So, what’s going wrong up there? Why are we asking for help far too late or not at all?

The real world may offer up some answers.

The accident of this RJ85 teaches us some important lessons.

For starters, what is an emergency?

Have a go at defining one in your own words. As I discovered, it’s not actually as black and white as it seems.

The US FAA tells us they come in two flavours:

Distress. These are things that need you to act on immediately. Engine failures, a fire on-board, structural failures. In other words, you have to do something about it now. Crew are good at declaring emergencies in these cases because it is an easy decision.

Urgency. The smoking gun here. These are emergencies that often develop through a set of deteriorating circumstances which become increasingly critical as time and options run out. You may not have an emergency to begin with, but through failure to act earlier it has developed into one.

It seems that in these cases crew are waiting until they have few or no options left before declaring an emergency, far too late.

So why not just declare earlier?

There are a few factors at play here, and the first is this – fear of the fall out. Or in other words, ‘what will happen once we’re back on the ground?’

It’s not hard to imagine mountains of paperwork awaiting your arrival, but this often isn’t the case. In most cases it is very limited and sometimes non-existent. Generally, aviation authorities just want to know if you have broken the law in dealing with the emergency, which the regs say you’re allowed to do.

This is often not what awaits you on the ground.

Of course, operators will have their own reporting practices, but crew should never face disciplinary action for declaring an emergency – it is a safe response to an unsafe condition.

Enter Just Culture – if you haven’t heard of it, it’s worth googling and it’s part of a revolution in making the industry safer by enabling crew to act and report without fear of the repercussions.

It’s no secret that pilots tend to be mission orientated. In other words, we want to complete our flight as planned. We hang our professional hats on being able to navigate operational challenges on a daily basis and find ways to make it all work with our safety margins intact at the other end. You know the ones – weather, delays, MELs. They all make for long days and grey hairs, but we make it work.

The problem is that in this belief and dedication to ‘make it work’ that we can begin to fixate on completing the task, rather than taking notice of early warning signs that those safety margins are being steadily eroded while we still have options.

This is when declaring an emergency early really makes a difference. Here’s why…

‘The Emergency Mindset.’

By telling ATC you have an emergency you are sending yourself a powerful psychological message. You’re essentially flicking a switch in your brain from ‘complete the mission’ to the realisation and acceptance that there is a threat to your survival. Your training is essentially triggered.

Your new mission now becomes to do what you need to do to get back on the ground safely and as quickly as possible. You essentially put yourself onto a new script. This is the emergency mindset, and it is a powerful call-to-action.

But it’s not just our headspace that matters here. It’s also important to weigh up what you gain from ATC by declaring an emergency, against the perceived pitfalls of doing so.

By declaring an emergency to ATC, you are activating a huge resource and will have their undivided attention. While they’ll continue to control other aircraft around you, their priority will be your safety. They may even give you your own discrete frequency or controller. It is then up to the pilot-in-command to advise what help they need and their intentions. It is basically your call, and they’ll facilitate it – even if it means breaking the rules.

They’re also a wealth of knowledge. At a time where you’re likely busy managing the aircraft they can tell you what you need to know and quickly. They can help you find suitable airports for landing and begin co-ordinating with those control facilities.

While they’re giving you priority handling, they’ll also be facilitating a chain of events behind the scenes including organising rescue services both on and off the airport (all without you even having to ask).

Declaring an emergency activates a massive resource that wants to help you.

According to FAR 91.3 pilots can deviate from the rules to the extent required by the emergency. Which means you can kiss goodbye to speed restrictions, clearance limits and other workload increasing airspace procedures.

There’s a lot you can do once you’ve declared one. On a side note, you don’t have to have physically declared an emergency for this to apply, but it certainly helps. Especially if you need an immediate change of course, speed or level.

When to declare?

The intent of declaring an emergency is to mobilise all the resources available to you while you still have options. Which means the earlier you do it, the better. Waiting until you have none left before you advise ATC is already too late.

In the simplest of sense, if you feel apprehensive for you or your passengers’ safety for any reason, you are likely already experiencing some type of emergency. The safest course of action is always to make the decision, and inform ATC sooner rather than later.

Ask a pilot what their worst fear is and one of the responses you will probably hear the most is FIRE! Ironically, an aircraft’s engines only actually work when they are “on fire” so not having a fire “onboard” could be problematic…

But a fire in the cabin or cargo hold is a rather different deal. So, here is a look at what many consider to be one of the most challenging and concerning problems they could encounter in-flight.

For those who don’t think it is that scary.

A CAA study back in 2002 looked at aircraft crashes due to fires onboard and discovered a rather fearsome statistic – the average time it took for an aircraft to become catastrophically uncontrollable was under 20 minutes. Various fire tests saw that a fire allowed to spread through the aircraft’s overhead area could become uncontrollable in just 8-10 minutes.

The average time for a crew to get their aircraft onto the ground was around the 17 minute mark.

So, not much time to spare.

The infamous Nimrod ditching (a favourite CRM example of decision making) shows how quickly a fire can disable an aircraft.

The problem is aircraft are built to burn.

Aircraft skin is thin and can burn fairly rapidly with high temperatures

Well, not literally, but there is a significant amount of flammable, combustible and generally burnable bits onboard. Add in the fact there are very hot bits (the engines) linked to big chambers full of fuel and the risk of an un-contained fire suddenly seems a lot worse.

Un-contained being the important word here.

Engines have fire identification and protection systems in them. So do cargo bays. So do cabins for that matter (Cabin Crew make wonderful fire detection and fire suppression systems). Aircraft interiors, and cabin fire fighting procedures, and the monitoring of Dangerous Goods transit have also developed significantly over the last decade or two.

So, the means to prevent or control fires before they become uncontrollable have increased.

Unfortunately, though, so have the number of devices coming onboard which could start a fire in the first place.

Lithium Ion batteries burn hot. They are hard to put out, and every passenger on your flight probably has at least one, probably nearer three of them (phone, second phone, computer, tablet, smart luggage, spare power banks, watches, electric toothbrushes…)

And of course phones are not the only potential fire hazard onboard. There are ovens (hot), hydraulic fluid (thankfully not in the cabin, but very flammable), electrical things (seats, tvs, lights), waste bins (in toilets for hiding illegally smoked cigarettes in), oxygen systems (a food delicacy for fires) and a multitude of wires.

Interior from the Swissair 111 accident in 1998 – caused by faulty wiring

An FAA study from 1995 to 2002 found reports of nearly 400 wiring failures. 84% of these were burned, loose, damaged, shorted, failed, chafed or broken. And this is probably not a representative number given how many might go unreported.

The Swissair accident was due to faulty wiring, with a secondary prominent factor being the flammability of materials that ignited and propagated the fire. The crash occurred just 16 minutes after the first alert message.

Let’s take a look at what can burn in the cabin.

Seat coverings, blankets, cushions, other furnishings, clothes… basically everything inside the cabin can burn.

In 1993 a Northwest Airlines B727 had a fire in the cabin and it turned out they were using 100% polyester blankets. Polyester actually melts more than burns, but it gets really hot when it does and tends to set alight to everything else around it. The incident led to the FAA developing new fire performance test methods and criterion for all blankets.

Interesting fact: Emirates actually make their economy blankets out of recycled plastic bottles. 28 of them per blanket.

Her hairspray is the most flammable thing, closely followed by the 1970s fabric

Actually, the burning ability of everything onboard is now monitored.

Since 1990, aircraft interiors have had to comply with a maximum total heat release of 65 kilowatt minutes per square meter, and specific optical smoke density of 200. Basically burn less, burn less hot, and put out less smoke if they do burn.

The current rules for what everything should be made of, and how burny/smoky/toxic they can be are contained in FAR/JAR/CS 25.853.

An FAA fire test with 5000 lithium ion cells

Crew training is important as well.

The training and ability of the crew to both fight the fire, and evacuate the aircraft is strictly monitored. The FAA require that an airplane can be evacuated in 90 seconds. For big commercial aircraft (these are Boeing stats) this means the slides have to be able to inflate within 10 seconds (15 if it is a big wing slide), and they need to be able to support 60 people sliding down at once.

It doesn’t take into account the huge heap of people at the bottom of the slide, but once they are out and away from the fire all bets are off.

90 seconds to evacuate 500+ people

But accidents still happen.

Between 1990 and 2010 there have been 18 major accidents involving in-flight fires which resulted in fatalities. During the 1990’s, the US saw, on average, one flight a day diverting due to smoke; and a report by IATA suggests there are more than 1,000 smoke related events annually.

That’s about 1 in 5,000 flights which is a pretty big number when you consider how many flight you will do in your career, or how many movements there are worldwide every day.

In 2010, a UPS B747 freighter crashed in Dubai following a main cargo deck fire which ultimately led to loss of control of the aircraft. The pilots were incapacitated earlier however due to the rapid build up of smoke in the flight deck.

What to do. The important bit.

1. Troubleshoot.

Finding the source should be a top priority. That means working out where the smoke is coming from.

If it is coming from something avionics related then you are going to want to switch it off. If it is something in the cabin then it might be locatable, reachable and extinguishable. Don’t forget to get your crew to check the lavs.

The terror…

2. Communicate.

One of the biggest challenges in dealing with a fire in the cabin is the communication between the cabin and the flight deck.

• Ensure there is a communicator in place who can pass messages to you and keep you updated.
• If you are trying to establish the severity of the situation, ask open, non-leading questions:
  • “How much smoke?” could lead to “lots/loads/not as much as you’d see at a rock concert in the 60s…” . Instead, try “How many rows of seats can you see?”
• Establish whether they can see where the smoke is coming from, if they can get to the source, and if they can put it out:
  • Ask about the colour, the smell, and while troubleshooting make sure you leave enough time for them to identify a change (after turning stuff off or on).

3. Keep flying!

Don’t forget to keep flying – one pilot should focus on the fire procedures (or on the comms with the cabin) while the other flies the aircraft! This probably means aiming for an airport.

Declare an emergency – this can be downgraded later if the situation improves, but get the support you need early on.

If there is an autoland option you might want to set up and plan for that in case the smoke in the flight deck builds up too much.

4. Don’t forget…

You have two procedures – one for sourcing and “fighting” the fire, and one for dealing with smoke (and fumes). If you need to, suck that smoke out!

On the ground.

Your Ops Manual will have a required RFF category for airports. However, this is based off the equipment available at an airport (and the response time). A Captain can chose to disregard this if the only option does not meet their RFF requirement.

The emergency isn’t over until you and the passengers are safely off. If the cabin is filling with smoke then a top priority is getting those engines switched off so your cabin crew can evacuate. If in doubt, evacuate!

Depending on where the fire is (and how the wind is blowing) you might need to avoid evacuating through certain doors. Getting folk away from the aircraft is critical. The main injuries resulting from the Emirates B777 accident in Dubai were some inhalation from passengers and crew, and heat stroke from the firefighters – it took 16 hours for them to bring the fire under control.

What to do earlier…

1. Have a plan

This means knowing what airports are around that you could go to if you suddenly, urgently need to. 

• Check the weather and Notams en-route.
• Have something in the box ready (if it is a difficult airport to route to, or there is airspace to avoid, or if a straight in visual might not be an option).

2. Know what equipment you have onboard.

Know what it is, where it is, and how to use it:

• Halon: Great for electrical fires, not so good for you. If you are using this in the flight deck, get a smoke hood or oxygen on first.
  • Remember PASS: Pull the pin, Aim at the base of the fire, Squeeze the handle or lever, Sweep it about from side to side like an aggressive elephant.
  • EASA are recommending the removal and substitute of Halon Extinguishers because of their mean effect on the environment, and also on people.
• Oxygen masks: If there is smoke in the cabin, don’t drop these thinking it will help your passengers breathe better. Oxygen + Fire = not a good result, and their masks are not designed to keep smoke and fumes out anyway.
• Smoke hood: You look like a weird spaceman in it, and sound like Darth Vader, but this is a very important bit of equipment.
  • If you are on the ground and evacuating, use this before doing the cabin checks.
• Fire Sock: For putting things in. Usually has some gloves nearby for picking the hot burning thing up with.

Fires can burn through aircraft skin, control surfaces and control cables and wires.

False Alarms

These do happen.

An IATA study saw 2,596 reports of fire/sparks/smoke or fume occurrences. Of these, 20% were false warnings, which meant 11% of the in-flight diversions were due to false warnings. 50% of cargo compartment fire warnings were also false.

Air spray is a common culprit for causing false alarms in toilets.

But – if you get a fire warning, treat it as real unless there is some very, very obvious something to suggest it is not. 

FIRE!

They critical thing is to be prepared. Have that airport option in mind, know where to find the procedures (and familiarise yourself with them), and make sure that if it does happen, you and your team are ready.

A fire onboard is a time issue. Being prepared and ready will hopefully give you those extra minutes that could make a big difference.

Burning desire to read some more?

• The RAeS have two papers entitled ‘Smoke, Fire and Fumes in Transport Aircraft’. Part 1 is a reference paper with a lot of scary accidents discussed in it. Part 2 covers training recommendations. If you never read anything else on this subject, at least read these – most of the reports referenced in this article are pulled from these.
• Boeing’s Evolution of Airplane Interiors  is quite an interesting read on the testing and cabin interior requirements.
• A briefing on Bad Air, Fumes and Contamination takes a look at other dangerous fumes that might be swilling about in your aircraft.

Even with today’s levels of planning, monitoring and onboard safety systems, aircraft are still managing to land at the wrong airports, crew are still mistaking one runway for another, and even (occasionally) heading to the wrong country entirely.

Here is a look how and why these rather embarrassing, and potentially dangerous mistakes happen, and how to avoid them.

Wrong Runway.

Landing on the wrong runway is a hazardous event which poses a major traffic collision risk. It also has potentially big performance implications and by that we mean the chance of a runway excursion.

EASA Safety Information Bulletin 2018-06 looked at reports filed by European operators between 2007 and 2017 and found 82 occurrences of aircraft landing on the wrong runway. An average of 8 a year might not seem high, but the consequences of an aircraft landing on the wrong runway could be catastrophic so even one is really one to many.

An Air India A320 landed on a runway still under construction at VRMM/Male in 2019

*Thankfully* the majority of incidences occur in visual flight conditions and are a result of visual illusions or misidentification during visual approaches and side step manoeuvres. So, instances of crew just aiming at the wrong runway.

While ‘being visual’ might mean a traffic collision risk is lower, the risk of performance issues and runway excursions remains high.

There are numerous airports worldwide which present a risk due to their runway orientation, approaches and prevailing conditions. KJFK/New York’s Carnasie approach has seen several an aircraft incorrectly establish inbound for runway 13R instead of 13L following the inbound turn, particularly when there are crosswinds which affect the “picture” (the runway doesn’t appear in the window where you expect it to).

There are also instances of mistaken clearances. Like the one that took place in July 2020.

United Airlines flight UA57 was on finals for runway 09L at LFPG/Paris Charles de Gaulle when ATC incorrectly cleared them to land runway 09R. The crew, used to sidestep procedures in the USA, failed to query the clearance which was unusual for Paris and instead commenced a low level turn to runway 09R. An EasyJet aircraft already lining up on 09R for departure reported the conflict on the radio and the United Airlines flight initiated a go-around from 260 feet AGL. 

While an initial investigation into this has raised probable causes primarily resulting from the ATC mental slip, a sidestep at that altitude should be a visual manoeuvre. The crew of the United Airlines should have spotted the aircraft already on a runway which they were turning towards at 300 feet. The FAA have released a new SAFO related to this.

So being visual does not always reduce the traffic collision risk after all.

That would be a roof not a runway

Then there are the more concerning ‘not aiming for a runway at all’ events.

The KSFO/San Francisco Air Canada incident in 2017 is a serious example of visual cues going wrong. The Air Canada A320 was cleared to land runway 28R. However, they had missed a Notam advising that runway 28L was closed and, expecting to see an open runway to their left, mistook 28R for 28L and aligned themselves with an active taxiway.

The aircraft missed traffic on the taxiway by between 10-20 feet during their go-around.

In 2007, an MD-83 routing from Lisbon to Dublin was carrying out an approach at night to Dublin runway 34. There was a prevailing wind of 260/12 which orientated the aircraft heading to 336° in order to maintain the inbound track of 342°. The crew mistook a 16 storey lit building for the runway and aimed for it, carrying out a missed approach from 1700 feet (around 200 feet above the building).

5.5nm to runway 34, with the hotel on the left

TNCM/Princess Juliana airport in Sint Maarten is known for a large hotel to the left of runway which, in hazy or rainy conditions, can be mistaken for the runway due to it being more conspicuous than the runway.

Then there was the KLM crew who managed to mistake taxiway B for a runway on takeoff from EHAM/Schiphol…

So how to avoid making this mistake?

The recurring factor throughout all of these is visual illusions and incorrectly interpreted visual clues. Not looking at stuff, or not looking at stuff right. 

Of course, it is easy to say that from the comfort of a chair, on the ground.

Sat in the pilot seat, barrelling towards said ground at several hundred feet per minute with everything else going on around you as well… less easy. But there are some fairly common sense methods of identifying threats and errors before they become a problem.

The FAA released SAFO 17010 following the KSFO incident. It provides some ‘best practices’ for accomplishing an approach and landing on the correct airport surface:

• Any visual approach, or visual segment of an approach, should be well briefed and monitored.
• Known risks (such as hotels that somehow look more like the runway than the runway) should be talked about. If there is a chance of visual illusions, talk about them and talk about what you expect to see.
• Think about the wind and where you will actually need to be looking in order to see the runway. It might not be straight ahead.
• Fly a stabilised approach.
• Monitor things like height, heading, to make sure they make sense. And back it all up with Navaids and other information if that is available.

A C-17 Globemaster “accidentally” landed at KTPF/Peter O. Knight in 2012

Wrong Airport.

Landing at the wrong airport also happens!

One analysis found at least 150 flights by US carriers landed (or almost landed) in the wrong airport between the 1990s and 2014. Not including totally valid diversions of course.

The most common reason for wrong airport landings is down to pilot error once again – both visual and procedural.

In 2017, a Delta flight 2845 landed at the wrong Minneapolis airport. They were due to touchdown in KRAP/Rapid City, but mistook nearly Ellsworth air force base for their intended airport. Both have the similar runway orientations (although that’s really the only similarity – Rapid City has two runways which possibly should have been a giveaway).

In 2006, a Ryanair flight aiming for EGAE/Londonderry-Eglinton ended up landing at a military base in Ballykelly 5 miles away, again just due to a misidentification of the airport.

Ethiopian airlines suffered two near embarrassments when two of their airplanes both tried to land at the wrong airport in Zambia. Actually, one of them did. Destined for Ndola, both mistook the new (and unopened) Copperbelt for their destination airport.

The fix remains the same:

• Brief what you expect to see.
• Brief how you expect to get there.
• Check and monitor that other clues – navaids, waypoints, airport layout – make sense!
• A lot of airport charts also have warnings on them when there is another airport nearby which has been known to trick pilots in the past. Look out for these.
• Many aircraft have systems which monitor their position in relation to what you told it (in the box) you were going to fly it. If your airplane is beeping, blaring or swearing at you then it is trying to tell you something – don’t ignore it!

Close enough to get confusing on a visual approach

Are these just embarrassing stories?

Unfortunately, there is a much more serious side. The wrong airport might be a commercial, logistical problem, but the real big risk comes down to that runway performance again.

Of the 150 or so near/actual landings at wrong airports which took place in the US since the 1990s, there were 35 actual landings and 23 of these occurred at airports where the runways were shorter than those at the intended destination.

In 2014, Southwest flight 4013 aiming for KBBG/Branson airport accidentally touched down at KPLK/Clark Downtown airport instead. Branson’s runway is 7140’. Clark’s is 3738’.

A Boeing Dreamlifter made a similar error when routing to McConnell Air Base but instead touched down at Jabara airport, on a runway only 6,101 feet long.

The critical safety issue here is the performance – the fact it hasn’t been checked and that it might not therefore be, well, ok.

And if it is happily ok, then you might still be looking at a bit of an issue getting the airplane back out again. Much like our Dreamlifter friends found out.

Rather hard to hide given its size (Credit: Brett Deering)

Wrong Country.

Finally, wrong countries. A much rarer occurrence but possibly the most embarrassing should it happen.

A British Airways flight (in all fairness it was actually a German aviation business operating on behalf of BA) managed to fly to EGPH/Edinburgh instead of EDDL/Düsseldorf after a paper work mix up had the crew sent totally the wrong flight plan.

However, since the flight was planned and fuelled for Edinburgh this only really impacted the rather put-out passengers. 

A potentially more serious incident happened in 2015 when an Air Asia crew had to divert back to Melbourne, Australia, after the pilot incorrectly input the route from Sydney to South Africa instead of WMKK/Kuala Lumpur.

Given the fairly different direction you have to wonder how far they got before they, or ATC, spotted something was up?

Next time: How to avoid picking up the wrong plane

Fancy a bit more reading?

NASA have a handy analysis on visual traps that is worth a read.

Check out the FAA’s project on ‘runway surface events’ here – including some info on the ASDE-X project which uses surface radar to detect when an aircraft might be lining up on a taxiway for departure.

Summer has hit the Northern Hemisphere with a vengeance.

In the US, heat alerts have been issued from the Pacific Northwest to the Louisiana Gulf Coast with temps in some areas hitting the triple digits.

Over in Europe, southern and eastern regions are currently sweltering while in the Middle East several countries are currently the hottest places on earth. Kuwait hit 50 degrees Celsius the other day – that’s 122 if you prefer your temps in Fahrenheit.

Chances are if you’re operating in the Northern Hemisphere right now you are running into hot weather ops.

While you may be discovering that those board shorts you bought on layover pre-Covid are now a frightening three sizes too small, the hot weather presents some other unique operational challenges that are worth reviewing.

Flight Planning.

Make sure you check the books. If it’s getting really hot out there, keep an eye on your manuals. Most commercial aircraft have an operating envelope for ambient temperature. When the heat becomes extreme it can actually ground you, as happened to a number of CRJs in Arizona back in 2017.

Watch those MELs – You may be allowed to dispatch but have a think about whether it is appropriate to. Passenger comfort can become a problem here. Look out for anything that affects cabin cooling – bleed faults are a classic. A 30-minute taxi on a hot day running on a single bleed may see you unable to keep the cabin cool.

It’s nudging 110 out there and there’s no ground equipment. The book says go, would you?

If you have an extended turn-around without ground equipment you may need to factor in a little extra fuel for APU burn to keep the AC flowing.

Pre-flight.

First things first, get that cabin cool. High cabin temperatures are not only uncomfortable but can lead to medicals. The challenge on the ground is to control cabin temps – it is easier to keep them down than bring them down.

Consider using ground equipment if it’s available and keeping the aircraft’s window shades and door(s) closed. Random fact for the day: adult humans produce about as much heat energy per hour as a 100w light bulb – you may need to delay boarding until things cool off.

It’s not just ground air either. Some manufacturers think ground power helps too, as it takes some load off the APU.

Think about using ground equipment for cooling.

Also, don’t forget to look after the bleed system – they have a tendency to overheat. In some aircraft types it can help to partially extend the slats and flaps to improve cooling while on the ground.

Start Up.

Whether you use ITT, TIT, EGT or some other type of -T you will need to keep your eyes glued on limits, both during start and take-off.

Starting can be particularly problematic if your engines are already warm. Each aircraft type will have a specific procedure to follow to avoid hot-starts but more often than not they will include a dry crank cycle and a manual start.

By manual, we mean no fanciness like FADEC. Which means it’s on you to get rid of the fuel (quickly) before you roast one. Over-temps can happen very quickly. Pay close attention to the rate at which temps are rising. You don’t have to hit the limit to cut the fuel.

On that note – use every advantage you can. If there’s wind you want as much down the core as possible. You may need to tow into a better position for start – avoid tailwinds!

Starting a hot engine in high temps needs special care – keep an eye on those limits!

The Taxi Out.

The issue here is brake temps. Large aircraft usually use carbon brakes. They’re designed to absorb energy by converting it to heat. Aircraft have brake temp limits for departure – on a sidenote, any guesses why? It’s due to the flash point of hydraulic fluid – they don’t want you to have superhot brakes in a wheel well near potential leaks.

The point is you have to keep your brakes cool and hot weather makes that difficult. It helps if you’re lucky enough to have brake fans and some airports are equipped with portable ones if you ask engineering nicely.

Otherwise, a little planning ahead helps here. If you expect a long taxi, give yourself a ‘build up’ margin so that you don’t hit your limit the second you get to the holding point, and use them as sparingly as you can.

It’s also worth considering that a longer single application of brakes is better than a bunch of them – let that speed build up before you brake again.

Departure and (lack of) performance.

Chances are you already know that as temperature rises, air becomes less dense. Our engines and wings have to work harder to get the job done and the penalty is performance.

If we really want to know how our aircraft will perform on a given day, we need to think about density altitude – pressure altitude corrected for how hot it is out. And correct we must, because for every degree outside above ISA, an airplane will perform like it is 120 feet higher. In extreme heat this can push up into the thousands.

So, when it gets super warm out there you can expect longer take-off distances and decreased climb rates. You might find yourself unable to lift weights off runways that you usually can either because there isn’t enough of the hard stuff in front of you or because of climb gradients.

Even if you can lift it all, don’t get caught out by restrictions on your SID down the track (at or aboves). Make sure you check them ahead of time in your FMS with a healthy buffer to avoid getting some egg on your face. Consider asking for a waiver or a different SID.

Check those climb requirements – Salt Lake for instance recently recorded density altitudes close to 8000′.

Dodge that weather

High temps produce convection – or in other words, it makes air rise. In humid climates you’re likely to run into build-ups and thunderstorms, especially in the late afternoon and evening. Visibility can also be severely limited by haze and poor air quality.

The Approach.

There are a few things to think about. The first is the approach you’re about to fly. Make sure there are no temperature limitations – RNAV approaches publish them for the use of LNAV/VNAV minima while in other cases, such as RNP (AR), the whole procedure may not be usable.

Beware the fine print!

Expect mechanical turbulence near the ground, especially in dry climates. It can do a great job of destabilising an approach right when you have it on rails.

And don’t forget the missed approach either, especially if they require a steep climb gradient. Performance may once again become a problem.

Landing.

Runways surfaces get hot – expect some thermal lift in the flare.

Once again, look after those brakes! Especially if you’re headed out again. Consider using reverse or exiting the runway further down the track. Any extra heat energy you put into them can turn into extended delays for cooling.

Expect low level turbulence and thermals.

Parking Up.

Get that APU fired up pronto, close the shades and keep things cool.

Carbon brakes cool a lot faster with the park brake released. Once you’re on chocks, think about releasing – just don’t forget the chocked bit.

There’s more hot weather to come.

It’s not surprising to hear that the earth is warming up. 2020 saw the second hottest global temperature on record, and the figures show that that the rate of warming is accelerating.

From an operational perspective we are increasingly likely to encounter periods of ‘extreme heat’ on the line – when temperatures are six degrees Celsius or higher than average temperatures for an extended period of time.

In summer months more and more often we are going to have to deal with operating our aircraft at the high end of what they were designed for, so it’s important to remember how to keep things cool out there… literally.

Al-Shabab poses a significant threat to aviation in Somalia, but the threat extends beyond the nation’s borders. This briefing will take a closer look at the background and nature of the threat, and will provide a brief overview of Somalia’s aviation infrastructure to help enable operators and pilots to carry out a full risk assessment.

The root of it.

Somalia sits on the Horn of Africa, bordered by Ethiopia to the west, Djibouti to the Northwest, Kenya to the southwest and the India Ocean to the east. The capital is Mogadishu and the primary international airport is HCMM/Aden Adde International.

It is an extremely volatile region of the world. It is also a pretty important airspace because it is one of the primary routes for aircraft routing from the Middle East and Asia into Africa.

Somalia and the Mogadishu FIR

Al-Shabab

Al-Shabab are an insurgent group seeking to establish an Islamic State in Somalia. They are active across Somalia, as well as Kenya and Yemen.

In 2006, Ethiopia supported the transitioning Somalian government to push Al-Shabab out of Mogadishu. In recent years, an African Union-led military campaign has been in force against them. The group retreated from Mogadishu, but still frequently target HCMM/Aden Adde airport, and the capital city, using small arms fire and vehicle-borne IEDs.

They also potentially have access to anti-aircraft capable weapons.

Showing the primary area of control by Al-Shabab in Somalia (Credit: Council of Foreign Relations)

Which is why there are some big warnings for the region.

In our SafeAirspace risk assessment, Somalia is a Risk Level Two – Danger Exists. The reason for the Level Two rating comes down to the fact the risk is predominantly limited to certain levels. The threat to aircraft is generally low level, with high altitude overflights less at risk.

Most authorities have therefore issued AICs which advise against flights below FL260 across the HCSM/Mogadishu FIR, or operations into Somalian airports. Certain airways such as UR401 SIHIL – AXINA only route over the oceanic airspace and so are exempt from the “Don’t Fly” warnings.

The USA have KICZ Notam A0005/21 in place warning against flights below FL260, along the region bordering Somalia (40°E).

The region and the airways providing a major into Africa

The threat within Somalia.

The main threat comes directly from Al-Shabab who may have access to anti-aircraft weaponry. They pose a threat to low level aircraft and to security and safety on the ground as they frequently target Aden Adde airport with mortar attacks.

There is an additional threat from the Ethiopian military forces – the possibility of misidentification of civilian aircraft by them.

In 2020, a Kenyan cargo plane was inadvertently shot down following a misidentification. The cargo aircraft was routing from HCMM/Mogadishu to HCMB/Baidoa.

The threat beyond Somalia.

Al-Shabab have also targeted neighbouring countries. While the infrastructure and security in these countries is stronger than Somalia, which reduces the hazards and disruptions to airborne aircraft, it still presents a high security risk on the ground.

The group have attempted to attack aviation infrastructure and facilities, and have attempted to use aviation to launch other attacks on countries.

In early 2020, a complex attack was carried out against a Kenyan military base which houses US troops. Similar targets in Djibouti were also identified.

In 2016 , an Airbus 321 was targeted with a bomb on board which exploded shortly after takeoff, earlier than intended. The aircraft was able to land safely at Mogadishu.

Some arrests of Al-Shabab operatives were made in December 2020. A Kenyan man and member of the group was planning a “9-11 style attack”, and had enrolled in a flight school in the Philippines, intending to obtain a pilots licence with the purpose of gaining access to a flight and using this as a means to carry out the plan.

In 2019, a major attack on a hotel in Nairobi, Kenyan took place. Operators should be aware of the ground threats, particularly the security issues for their crew if they are staying in major hotels in regions Al-Shabab have targeted previously.

Kenya had its airspace threat level downgraded in 2018. There remains a ground based risk to security.

Sites such as International SOS provide good, up to date information on ground security threats.

Known Al-Shabab attacks (Credit: Council of Foreign Relations)

Additional risks to aircraft operating through the region.

HCMM/Aden Adde is the only major airport in Somalia. Aircraft routing down the east coast of Africa are limited in their emergency and diversion options. HDAM/Djibouti to the north, HKMO/Mombasa to the south or FSIA/Seychelles to the east are the only relatively close ones.

In the event of a time critical emergency, if crew use HCMM, security and safety on the ground must be considered. In the event of a diversion, with limited options, careful and regular checks of the weather (due to common storm build ups during summer months) will be critical to ensure the aircraft is not committed (fuel wise) to an airport which then becomes unsuitable.

A closer look at Somalia.

The Airport:

Aden Adde International airport is the primary airport for Somalia. It has a single runway 05/23, which is 10,446 feet (3184 meters). The only published approaches are RNAV (GNSS) or RNAV (RNP) for runway 05.

There is minimal apron space and parking, and only a single taxiway midway down the runway meaning backtrack and 180 degree turns are required.

There is a ‘Do Not Descent below FL100’ sector north and northwest of the airport, and the RNAV approaches descends and routes aircraft over the sea to avoid aircraft flying over the land low level, where risk of attacks would be significantly increased.

Despite the potential risks, several international airlines do operate into Aden Adde.

A photo taken in 2015 suggests the airport conditions are below standard (Credit: Axmadyare)

Routings and Airspace:

Because of the position of Yemen, which is a ‘no fly’ country, and Eritrea and Ethiopia where the Tigray region is also a ‘no fly’ area, aircraft are limited in the connecting routes to and from Africa. Routing via Egypt and through Sudan and South Sudan is longer, and has other challenges and airspace risks associated with it.

Routing along the east coast oceanic section of Mogadishu airspace is significantly shorter.

All of the Mogadishu FIR is Class G airspace, with only an FIS.

Communications:

The infrastructure in Somalia is limited. The minimum radio and navigation equipment requirements for overflights are:

• HF Radio
• VHF radio
• GPS received (ATS routes)
• TCAS

There is a H24 flight information service and alerting service in the Mogadishu FIR, callsign “Mogadishu Information”.

The primary VHF frequency is 132.500, with primary HF 11300/5517

Mogadishu also has a (relatively responsive) SATCOM number you can call – 466601 (Inmarsat) or +252 185 7392/7393

Aircraft need to check in at least 10 minutes prior to the ETA for the FIR entry point.

Routing through the airspace, aircraft are required to maintain a listening watch on the IFBP frequency 126.9. If aircraft experience an HF failure, they should attempt to contact Mogadishu FIC via SATCOM, or request relays via other aircraft.

Summary

Al-Shabab present a risk both directly to flight operations, and to operations and ground security in neighbouring countries:

• Flight operations below FL260 are at risk
• Since 2020, the group has issued new warnings suggesting they are increasing their anti-aircraft weapon capabilities, with intentions to target US aircraft specifically
• Crew and aircraft security on the ground is a risk
• Crew should be aware of security and safety in neighbouring countries, particularly at tourist spots and in major hotels which may be targeted
• Infrastructure and security in neighbouring countries may be at risk
• Regional stability is threatened by ongoing conflict

Aviation & Humanitarian support.

Somalia has its own CAA. The need for better infrastructure and equipment because of the importance of overflights through the Mogadishu FIR has led to other State’s funding and supporting the CAA.

The UN work with Kenya to organise humanitarian air services and missions into Somalia. More information can be found on that here.

How much radiation are we getting zapped with as crew, and what sort of levels should we be concerned about?

The Airport Security Scanner

Most pilots have probably experienced rather overzealous security scanners in an airport. You know the ones – when you go through, it beeps. You remove the watch you forgot to take off. It beeps again. You take your jacket, shoes, tie off. It still beeps. Now you’re wondering if you’ll need to strip down like this South African Airways pilot did…

More concerning than any radiation levels

Anyway, it is frustrating, but it is not really a big deal radiation-wise. One dose of the airport scanner is 100,000 times lower than the average annual dose we get from natural background radiation and medical sources. It actually delivers around 0.1 microsieverts per scan which is 100th what a standard chest x-ray delivers.

For comparison, every banana you eat contains around half a gram of potassium-40 (an ionising radiation source) which means eating it is the equivalent of 1000th of a chest X-ray in terms of the radiation dosage. The granite counter top you prepared your lunch on is also dosing you. While if you live in the UK you are getting about 2.7 millisieverts of radiation annually just by being there because it is one giant granite counter top under your feet.

Bananas are a great source of (radioactive) energy

So, no, we shouldn’t be worried about radiation from airport scanners. But given that every minute on an airplane is equivalent to one airport scan, should we be worried about that?

Flight Risk

When you fly you are exposed to low levels of radiation – from some of the onboard equipment, to the fact you are way nearer space and all the cosmic and UV rays swilling about up there. 

UV radiation is what we protect ourselves against by not destroying our friend, the Ozone Layer, and with all the SPF suncream we slather upon ourselves. The ozone layer sits around 10-15 miles above the ground (so our airplanes stay below it), and it blocks out a good whack of UV-B, all of UV-C and some UV-A.

Now, that *some is the reason why we should be slathering more sunblock on ourselves when we fly, because the ozone layer and our windscreens help, but not enough. A study showed that the amount of UV radiation the pilot seat (and you in it, presumably) gets smacked with when flying for under an hour at 30,000 feet is equivalent to a 20 minute tanning bed session.

Studies also show the rates of skin cancer in pilots and cabin crew are significantly higher than the general population. So, you need to be careful. Plus it makes you wrinkle more.

• Wear sunblock (decent UV-A and UV-B ones)
• Get decent sunglasses with UV protection lenses because your eyeballs are damaged by it too! Polarized sunglasses help reduce glare, but don’t necessarily provide more UV protection (and they mess with the screens).
• Check them moles (if you’re a moley sort of person) – it isn’t just areas exposed to direct sunlight which can be at risk.

In fact, going back to the sunglasses point, IFALPA have a very handy handout on the ‘Ocular Hazards of UV Exposure’. It is basically ‘scary stuff, bad stuff, scary stuff’ and then a “get sunglasses that have a UV absorption up to 400nm/ 100% absorption’.

There is no evidence of people sunburning in airplanes

Cosmic Vibes

Cosmic radiation is high-energy charged particles – x-rays and gamma rays which come from stars, like our very own sun. It differs to UV radiation in that it is higher energy and ionising.

We don’t like ionising radiation because it causes damage to our squidgy little insides.

The closer to space we get, the more cosmic radiation we are exposed to, and the higher the latitude the more we get as well, which means those high altitude, Polar flights are the ones to really monitor.

The Northern Lights displays we see, despite their “radioactive” green colour actually do not emit any radiation that reaches us. Although, if you were up there, in it, it probably wouldn’t be great for you.

What are the numbers looking like?

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) basically classify aircrew as ‘Radiation Workers’ and recommend a maximum of 20mSv a year averaged over 5 years. So a maximum of 100 mSv in 5 years. 

The average person in the US receives up to 3mSv, with a recommended dose of 1mSv per year. Anything between 3 and 20mSv is considered moderate.

So, how much are we getting?

Well, heading from the east to the west coast of the USA you probably get about 0.035mSv. Not a tremendous amount if you’re a passenger, but what about if you are doing flights several times a week?

2 sectors a day, 3 times a week, plus or minus a few for holidays, and you could be heading towards something in the region of 10mSv which is higher than normal but still in the moderate (and acceptable) range.

If you are flying from Athens to New York – a flight likely to take you along a relatively northerly route and at a flight level of 41,000ft or higher, then the 9 to 10 hours airborne are going to dose you up another 0.063mSv – 0.63mSv per 100 block hours.

A study carried out in 1998 suggested the average crew member flies around 673 block hours, getting an average cosmic ray dose of 2.27mSv, while the annual cosmic ray dose for a long haul Captain was calculated at around 2.19mSv.

Ok, that was back in 1998, but as far as we know the levels of cosmic rays haven’t increased. Our block time might be a few hundred higher, but still well within limits on the radiation dose front.

Sunglasses always necessary

How can you monitor it?

Airlines and operators should monitor this for you, but if you want to keep an eye on it you can via various apps out there in the mobile phone world. 

CRAYFIS is an app developed by scientists to help monitor the amount received via the pixels in your smartphone screen.

Apps like  TrackYourDose have options to plug in a route and uses average flight paths to help you monitor your dose on specific flights and days.

Or you can work it all out yourself using this handy little formula.

Maybe just use the app

So, should we be worried?

The figures suggest no.

A study of 10,211 pilots carried out in 2003 also supported this, with skin cancer showing slightly higher incidences.

So unless you are flying an excessive number of long haul Polar Flights, the overall the radiation dosage received by air crew is higher than the average ground dweller, but remains within acceptable limits.

That space weather is likely to have more of an impact on your HF than it is you.

Want to read some more (official) stuff?

The CDC offer some good guidance.

As do the FAA in this useful booklet for air crew.

The FAA has issued an emergency order for Afghanistan’s airspace which bans all US operators below FL260 throughout the OAKX/Kabul FIR.

KICZ Notam A0020/21 has the details but essentially there are only three exceptions:

• Flights in and out of OAKB/Kabul are allowed to continue.
• If a flight has a special approval from either the FAA or the state.
• If you have an emergency and have to land.

What’s the risk?

Due to increased extremist activity on the ground, civil aircraft are increasingly exposed to a number of threats. Aircraft at low levels and those taking-off and landing are especially vulnerable.

The first is indirect fire caused by militant groups targeting airports with mortars and rockets. OAKB/Kabul was attacked in December last year by ballistic weapons which damaged a parked aircraft.

The second is direct fire from a variety of sources. Militia are known to have access to multiple weapons that can be used to target low level aircraft. These include rocket propelled grenades and man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) which are capable of reaching aircraft as high as FL250. Even small arms fire has been actively used to target aircraft.

In recent years there have been several reports of anti-aircraft fire incidents from both military and civilian traffic. Tragically in two cases, military aircraft were actually shot down.

So why now? What’s changed?

While the threat from militant activity in Afghanistan isn’t new, the FAA has been closely monitoring the situation there for changes in safety and security. And things are changing…

As US forces begin to withdraw, two groups are now engaged in an escalating conflict there – the Taliban and Afghanistan’s own military, which may lead to a civil war if no agreement can be met. Essentially the Taliban seek to regain power, while the existing government is defending itself.

For aviation this means an increase in exposure to known risks. The situation is volatile, and no one really knows where the conflict is headed. But with increasing extremist activity on the ground and a possible intention to make an international statement, the FAA appears to have decided that a simple caution is no longer enough.

What about above FL260?

US operators can continue to overfly the OAKX/Kabul FIR above FL260 but is recommended you stay on established airways. It’s also important you continue to monitor the situation on the ground which may change with little warning.

What are other countries saying?

Several long running airspace warnings remain in place, and it is likely we will see these changed in the near term as the situation in Afghanistan continues to evolve.

France follows similar rules and requires all operators to remain at or above FL260 throughout the Kabul FIR. Both German and UK operators are advised to consider the risks of operating below FL330 and FL250 respectively.

Stay safe up there.

As US troops withdraw the real question now is whether the Afghan Government (or another international force) can put the brakes on a resurgent Taliban.

Until that happens, the situation remains unpredictable. You can keep up to date with airspace risk changes as they happen over at SafeAirspace.net – our conflict zone & risk database.

Click here for a full global briefing.

Hi members!

First, thanks to all the group members who were part of making this. We sat down from scratch and wanted to build the best possible NAT chart we could. A lot of work went into this, and we’re grateful to you all! With this format and structure, we’re also looking at making useful plotting charts for other areas like the Pacific, Africa, etc. – but for now, enjoy this completely updated NAT map for 2021.

So .. It’s ready! You can grab it in Slack, or in your Dashboard. View it on your iPad or Laptop etc. as a PDF, or print it out as a giant wall map! It prints really well up to 15 feet wide – but you can also just put it onto A3 or A2 size paper.

If you’re not a member, read on for how to get a copy.

About the 2021 NAT Chart

This chart is completely new – we started from scratch, expanded the coverage area, and then worked as a group to add all the useful things we could think of that a pilot or dispatcher crossing the North Atlantic might need.

New on this chart – effective July 2021:

• FULLY UDPATED for 2021 post-COVID flying!
• EXPANDED coverage area – much further down into the Atlantic, and further west.
• NEW! NAT Tips – using NAT Tracks, SLOP, filing an Oceanic Flight Plan, and helpful tips
• NEW! Quick reference for contingency, weather, and comms failure with easy graphics.
• Updated: NAT Airspace Circle of Entry 2021 – easily check what you need for Nav, Comms and ATC Surveillance depending on which bit of the NAT you will be flying through.
• Additional diversion airports, now 16 total primary NAT alternates with runway, approach, length, RFF, and hours
• Easy view of boundaries for HLA and DLM/Datalink mandated airspace
• Updated NAT FPL codes, clearance frequencies, Satcom, and HF
• Fully updated “South East Corner” with new Tango routes
• and … Treasure Boxes!

Other chart features:

:: Requirements for NAT tracks, PBCS tracks, datalink mandate.
:: Common NAT Diversion Airports.
:: Runway Orientation, Length, best IFR Approach.
:: RFF Category and Opening hours.
:: NAT FPL Codes and sample FPL.
:: Blue Spruce routes and equipment requirements.
:: All NAT Entry/Exit points with associated required landfall fixes.

How to get the new chart, if you’re not a member?

• Option 1:  Buy the chart in the store ($35)
• Option 2:  Join OPSGROUP, and get it for free!

OPSGROUP members get this and other publications free of charge, all available through your member dashboard.

There have been many changes on the North Atlantic since we published our previous chart in 2019.  Here’s a few things to read up on:

• Feb 2021 changes here
• July 2021 changes here
• The full NAT timeline of all changes going back to 2015

We hope you find it super useful, but also have fun using it!

How often do you think about who you have down the back? The recent Belarus incident might be prompting you to think a little more about who you have onboard and whether there are any political or operational considerations their presence might lead to.

So, here are some things to think about – from the political considerations of country politics, to what to do if the troublemaking is taking place onboard.

The Politics.

It would nice to stay above this, but unfortunately even at 40,000 feet we seem unable to escape the (often messy) world of politics, which means some consideration of who you have onboard, where your aircraft is registered, and where you are heading to and from, should form part of your overall risk assessment.

Israel is a fairly obvious example. They have a long history of strained relationships with neighbouring countries. It was only in 2020 that several of their closest neighbours renewed ties with Israel and allowed operations and overflights to re-start. 

This has not happened with all their neighbours though. If you are routing to or from Lebanon then LLBG/Tel Aviv is unlikely to accept you in a diversion. Likewise, if you divert to OLBA/Beirut with Israeli passengers onboard, this could pose some serious issues for them. Checking Country Rules and Restrictions for notes on Israeli flights (originating from or routing to) will bring up a fair few places that you need to be aware of – such as Pakistan – who still will not accept overflights or diversions to aircraft coming from, going to, or registered in Israel.

Israel itself is allowing aircraft in, but read the small print on this because in order to land in Israel you must be departing from one of their approved airports, and your crew and passengers must be nationals of countries that have diplomatic relations with Israel.

A major improvement in relationships between Saudi Arabia and Israel

India/Pakistan have an ongoing feud that has led to huge fence being erected along much of their border. The countries allow over flights from each other, but if you are operating into one, a diversion to the other may cause some consternation. OPLA/Lahore in particular is one to look out for because of its proximity to the Indian border.

If you divert into India with a technical issue that sees you grounded, and you are carrying Pakistani passengers there may be issues with them overnighting in the country.

The border fence is an impressive ‘monument’ to conflict

It isn’t always political though.

Sometimes the folk causing problems are the troublemakers onboard.

If you can spot them before takeoff then all the better. Cabin Crew are your last line of defense for ensuring anyone under the influence of alcohol (or just being generally offensive) is offloaded before they have a chance to cause issues. Remember, the law is on your side here – most countries specify that it is a criminal offense to be drunk onboard an aircraft.

The FAA have just made it a whole lot easier to handle disruptive passengers. In January 2021 they announced a zero tolerance policy for bad behavior, and they have a hefty 57 different civil penalty actions available to them. So far for 2021, they have received around 3,100 reports of unruliness and these have led to open investigations for 465 incidents – a sizable increase on the 146 seen in 2019.

What counts as disruptive?

Anything that is disrupting the flight, causing a nuisance to other passengers, or impacting the safety onboard really.

• Being intoxicated with drugs or alcohol
• Refusing security checks
• Disobeying instructions
• Threatening, abusive or insulting words

ICAO put out a list of the top reasons for unruliness and unsurprisingly, alcohol topped it, with compliance with regulations (smoking, seatbelt signs etc) not far behind. In the top 16 there were also pet/emotional support animal related reasons, along with seat reclining disputes.

What actions do you have available onboard?

A PA from the Captain telling all the other passengers that “The Annoying Person in Seat 45B  is going to delay everyones’ holidays unless they sit down!” might do the trick for passengers who are just a bit of a nuisance (although your company might frown on this). But for those passengers that are posing an actual danger, the Tokyo Convention is your go-to convention here.

First written in 1963, it focuses on security and lays out what the rules and rights are.

The convention gives any passenger the right to take “reasonable preventative measures” to maintain their own safety (without having to ask permission first), but also makes it pretty clear that only the Captain has the right to order a passenger be restrained, and this requires some thought because it does need to be justified – a “high burden of proof” will be needed.

And justified means it really is the only remaining option available to prevent the person from endangering the safety of themself, passengers, crew or the aircraft. What you deem “endangering safety” is up to you but bear in mind there will be a bunch of witnesses on board.

Following on from Tokyo came the 1970 Hague hijacking definition and then the 1971 Montreal convention that deals with sabotage, and the criminalization of anything being brought onboard to jeopardize safety. In 1974 they revisited the good old Chicago convention and aviation security standards were developed. History lesson over, but it is worth having a vague understanding on what these contain in case you ever need to call on one.

Cellphones mean a lot of witnesses…

Aside from these there always remains the option to divert.

In 2015, a flight from Las Vegas to Germany was forced to divert after a passenger became unruly over a cat. The woman had managed to board with the cat in her purse, rather than an official carrier, leading crew to storing the offending feline in a bathroom. This upset the lady and she threatened to “bring the aircraft” down if her pet was not released from its prison. Purr-ison if you like.

Diversions due unruly passengers are alarming not uncommon because while a passenger can be restrained, the implications of doing so for a substantially long flight need to be considered, as does the ongoing stress for other passengers onboard.

The UK CAA suggest that a diversion typically costs from around £10,000 – £80,000 depending on aircraft size.

Back on the ground

OK, so you’ve called the cops. Before they get there you might want to do a PA ensuring the other passengers know to remain in their seats and not get in the way of the police or that bad passenger might just slip out with the rest of the herd. But when they are arrested, who actually has the right to prosecute?

The Tokyo Convention give explicit jurisdiction rights to the airline’s country of registration when it comes to court. However, there are some doors left open there for other countries to seek extradition as well. These were brought in following a case in 1949 where a passenger sunk their teeth into the ear of the pilot. Alas, the US had no laws at that time which could apply to crimes committed while flying over an ocean, so the biter went free.

In 2014, the Montreal Protocol was also issued. This extends automatic jurisdiction over the crime to the destination. Important because it stops criminals sneaking off free because they were clever enough to commit the crime while heading into a country that the airplane was not registered in.

This rather ugly slide by ICAO gives an ‘Example of the problem’.

This was made in 2016 so no excuses for the lack of decent Powerpoint skills

So, for now, the crime is punishable by the country of registration, but the Montreal Protocol sort of extends the right of police in destination country to basically help in arresting the passenger.

In-ads/ Prisoners

An inadmissible passengers is not a prisoner.

Generally, it is some poor person who forgot to get a visa in their passport and have been turned away at destination. Usually it is on the carrier that brought them in (and didn’t check them at the departure airport properly) to take them home again, and as the Captain, you can expect to be handed the documents and passport for the in-ad at departure. However, you cannot detain an in-ad onboard when you land back wherever you are going. So alert the authorities and make sure they are there to meet the passenger. If not, you pretty much have to let them go.

Prisoners will always be escorted. For any “unusual” passenger, it is best to board them first and disembark them last. They must not seated at an emergency exit and preferably should be near the back of the aircraft and away from the aisle.

Emotional Support Animals

The rules for these recently changed and no more bizarre creatures have to be accepted. The UK do not allow any animals that are not service animals with full documentation. The US is the same, and only classify dogs as bone-afide service animals.

Cool sweater. But still not allowed onboard.

So, have a think about who is down the back.

Having an awareness of the nationalities of your passengers and considerations as to the countries you are overflying and their political relationships with other countries can be useful.

Knowing what the Tokyo Convention does and does not allow you to do with unruly passengers is also a good one to read up on. Your power as Captain only really extends to when the doors open.

If want to read more on unruly passengers then IATA put out some handy info here.

If it’s the Tokyo Convention then ICAO have it published here (although it makes for some dull legal reading).

And if you’d like to read about the emotional support pet rulings (for the US) then here you are.

IFALPA have a very useful paper on carrying in-ad, deportee and other non-revenue passengers.

Article photo courtesy @surachetsh.

What are you practicing with your crew in the sim nowadays? An engine failure on take-off? A few technical malfunctions? An assessment of their competencies and then send them on their way for another year?

Well, we thought we might suggest a slightly different sim scenario for you to think about…

What else should you be throwing at your crew?

There have been a bunch of recommendations out from the authorities suggesting crew swot up on their Unreliable Speed procedures because the number of these occurring have increased a lot recently. Something to do with aircraft coming out of long term storage with bugs nesting in their probes…

However, an ‘Oracle of the NAT’ recently pointed out to us that many crew have not been doing anywhere near as many NAT routings, which means their NAT procedures probably need as much attention as their airplane’s pitot ports do.

What are we talking?

Incorrectly flown contingency procedures (not to do with weather) were one of the top reasons for lateral deviation events in the NAT in 2020. Now it was admittedly only 6% but that is still one of the Top Ten mess ups, and a mess up easily prevented with practice.

There were also a few incorrectly flown weather deviations. These procedures are not hard to do, but they do need thinking about once in while (preferably before you’re actually up there needing to know them) which is why the sim suggestion was presumably made. 

Left, right, up, down. Quick, whaddya do? (Credit: Ramon Stalenhoef)

Now, you could just email everyone a reminder of how to do it. A bit of text and a diagram. But a handier way to recap (and in a way that properly puts the info into their heads) would be to really put crew up there, throw some “fun” failures at them, and let them practice “for real” in the sim.

So, what’s the recommendation?

Well, we ain’t no trainers, but between us we have seen a few sims ourselves in our time. So here is what we suggest you might want to throw into a sim session if you think your crew could do with a refresher…

FFS for Full Flight Sim. Not for what all pilots think when they see ‘SIM Check’ on the roster.

The Opsgroup Ops on the NAT Sim Scenario Storyline Suggestion.

Let’s set the scene. It is the middle of the night, the flight is somewhere over the North Atlantic, dark, lonely and quiet, when…

KABOOM! Rapid decompression.

This throws in a nice bit of startle factor (which is also something pilots need practice in dealing with.)

Now those contingencies will be put to the test – how much to turn, how much to offset, what else do they need to do and say?

There is also that good old Situational Awareness thing to look at as well.

Do they, for example, identify where other traffic is, think about the NAT tracks and their proximity to the next parallel one, and think about whether they were SLOPing already or not?

Let’s get really mean.

A big thing to consider with NAT flights is just how remote and far from land you often are. So Big Picture proactive planning is a good habit to get into.

This means setting up for emergency diversions before you find yourself suddenly having to do one. An awareness of where the closest and most suitable spot for a landing is in advance might really save the day. Or at least a few panicked minutes of trying to work it out.

This is important anywhere, but particularly so when flying in the NAT because something like a rapid decompression is going to have you zooming down to FL95.

Fuel can become a big problemo quickly, but so can separation to other traffic if you start diving down and crossing tracks.

The fun seat.

Where we would do it.

We would be mean trainers. The ones that people always call sick for. Power-crazed with the fun of coming up with mean scenarios to inflict on our poor pilots!

We would definitely make sure it was remote, with a massive headwind making the “nearest” in distance the furthest in time. We would probably throw in some bad weather at one to see if the crew fly themselves into a corner, and maybe an HF blackout or ATC Zero just to make those radio procedures a bit more fun.

Then we would sit back and enjoy watching it unfold while rubbing our hands together gleefully.

You might be nicer than us though.

If you are then you could always share the following with your crew before the sim session:

• The latest changes to ICAO NAT Doc 007
• Contingency Procedures for the NAT

Skills Fade.

The real point of this is that recent surveys of pilots returning to work (after prolonged periods) have shown that it isn’t the hand flying that gets rusty (well, it does, but comes back pretty fast).

It is the Procedures and the Workload Management which really suffer.

Unusual or unused (or not regularly used) contingencies and SOPs will need refreshing. The NAT is a prime spot where additional threats and challenges make it all the more important to not be rusty when you route through.

So sims to get your pilots’ flying skills up to scratch are critical. Practicing those engine-out procedures, crosswind landing techniques and general “How do I make actually it move?” hand-flying sessions will definitely help with confidence levels.

But opportunities to (re) consolidate those procedures, particularly those ones in challenging airspace like the NAT which are likely to be required on a standard flight could make a very big difference to safety in a practical way.