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.

Industry heavyweight Airbus is currently running an innovative new trial over the North Atlantic that has potential to change the way we fly in oceanic airspace – and ANSPs Eurocontrol, NAT, DNSA and Navcanada are all on board. It’s called wake harnessing, and it was invented by geese. Okay maybe not ‘invented’ – but certainly provided by nature.

Geese, you say?

Geese have already left their mark on aviation history in ways that that we’d probably like to forget. So, it seems only fair that they do something positive for the industry too.

And now it seems that they are (unintentionally, but we’ll still take it). When a flock of Canada Geese infamously downed an airliner over New York back in 2009, they were flying in formation.

They were doing that because they were going somewhere and using each other to make things easier. Geese are known fly 1500 miles in a single day. That’s only possible because they use very little energy doing it.

So why do we care?

One word: biomimicry. Or in more simple terms – copying nature. When we want to figure out how to do something that we don’t know how to do, it’s often worth looking out the window. Nature, it seems, always finds a way.

Copying nature – look familiar?

Enter aviation. When it comes to fuel, it is facing a couple of big problems. The first is that ICAO have set some seriously lofty goals for improving fuel efficiency and carbon emissions. While the other issue is dosh. Jet fuel is expensive and modern aircraft use a lot of it. Reducing fuel burn is big business, especially in an environment where profit margins are tiny.

There are solutions coming. Sustainable aviation fuel and next-gen turbine engine design have been making headlines recently. But behind the scenes Airbus has been turning to nature to help solve the problem using existing technologies we have today and by changing the way we fly – and it’s all thanks to geese.

The Flying-V

Geese fly long distances in formation. Have you ever wondered why?

It’s because they are using something called wake energy retrieval. It’s a really fancy term for riding each other’s wave. It’s the result of countless years of evolution and it may have big implications for airplanes.

Here’s how it works: When a bird flaps its wings its tips creates vortices. In the same way that our man-made wings do. These vortices create a horizontal swirl of air – an outer upward component and an inner downward one.

The reason why birds fly in a V is because if they position themselves in such a way that their wings stay in upward-moving air from the bird in front, they can effectively fly in an updraft, constantly. Which means they flap less and travel further.

Each bird harnesses the energy lost from the wake of the bird in front. Courtesy: Airbus

What if airplanes did the same thing (but with less flapping)?

Airbus thinks that’s a good question. Since 2016 they have been copying geese by flying large jets in formation so that the trailing aircraft ‘rides the wake’ of the one in front.

It turns out that if you find just the right spot, not only is it smooth for the passengers, but also very fuel efficient. Get this – Airbus have shown fuel savings of five to ten percent simply due to the effects of this phenomenon, and potential to reduce overall climate impact by twenty-five percent.

Copying nature: Riding the smooth updraft from the aircraft in front. Courtesy: DLR Aerospace

They’re heavyweight numbers. That’s because by flying in the upward component of the wake from the aircraft in front, we are essentially getting free lift. Or in other words, ‘harnessing’ energy we’d otherwise lose – which is why the concept is also known as ‘wake harnessing’.

It’s almost as though the trailing aircraft is flying in a gentle descent while level. That means less thrust, less fuel and less emissions.

But here’s the kicker – you have to get close. Like real close. Airbus have found the optimum distance between aircraft is only 1.5nm. That’s a fraction of the spacing applied by ATC. But with existing technologies like TCAS and ADS-C it’s not unreasonable to think that this can be achieved safely.

Something we’re not used to in the sky…

Airbus have called the project Fello’fly.

And here’s how it works.

ETAs would be used by ATC at feeder waypoints to set aircraft up for their ‘wake energy retrieval pairing’- i.e. formation. The aircraft will still be separated both horizontally and vertically, but close enough for the pairing process to begin.

Responsibility for separation will then be handed to the two aircraft. Using newly developed FMS software, the trailing airplane will slowly close in on the leading one until it is positioned in the optimum spot for wake harnessing. There it will stay until the two aircraft part ways again. The lead aircraft will be responsible for talking to ATC while in formation.

But it’s not all smooth sailing.

 While the idea has some serious potential there are some fairly obvious hurdles that would need to be overcome:

Wasting energy. The idea only works if aircraft don’t waste energy flying at sub-optimal speeds to make it happen. In other words, loitering or playing catch up. Which means it will be difficult to achieve for aircraft departing the same airport.

Instead the answer may lie in new software. For instance, German researchers have developed ‘MultiFly’ – a system that identifies jets that can be paired together based on type, location and how long they will be on the same route.

Different aircraft. Unlike a flock of geese, all aircraft types are different. 1.5nm may be optimal for a pair of A350s, but more testing needs to be done to find the sweet spot for all possible combinations of jets. Both aircraft would also need to have the same optimal cruise speed – otherwise all the gains would be pointless.

Then there is the raft of regulatory changes that would be required to make sure this can all happen safely.

There are some challenges to flying in formation.

Full Speed Ahead

Despite the obvious challenges that wake harnessing presents, if they can be overcome the potential benefits are obvious. Airbus is pressing ahead with the project and hope to make it reality in oceanic airspace by the middle of the decade.

Considering the growth potential of the industry in a post-Covid world, formation flight may be the next big step in cleaner and more efficient flying.

Who’d have ever thought we get there with the help of geese?

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water…

Yep. Barely five months since the last version of the NAT Doc 007 was published, we now have a new one.

First things first – links…

To see just the new changes, click here.

To see the new NAT Doc 007 in its entirety, click here.

To see the old NAT Doc 007, and painstakingly cross-check all the changes compared to the new version (i.e. what we did so we could write this post), click here.

Here’s the lowdown of what’s changed…

The Datalink Mandate

No changes to the rules here. The old NAT Ops Bulletin 2017_001 which contained all the info about the Datalink Mandate has been discontinued, and the essential info incorporated into the NAT Doc 007.

Key points:

• Aircraft without datalink can request to climb/descend through datalink mandated airspace, but will only be considered on a tactical basis by ATC.
• Flights without datalink that file STS/FFR, HOSP, HUM, MEDEVAC SAR, or STATE in Field 18 of the FPL, may be permitted to flight plan and fly through datalink mandated airspace, but may not get their requested flight levels.
• For datalink failure before departure, you should re-file your FPL to stay clear of NAT DLM airspace. If it fails after departure or whilst in NAT DLM airspace, ATC may let you continue based on “tactical considerations” (i.e. how much other traffic is around).

Which brings us neatly on to…

ATS Surveillance Airspace

This one has had us scratching our heads for a while now…

So, there is an updated chart showing the areas of ATS Surveillance Airspace in the NAT:

Blob-fest

We have to say, we really don’t like this chart very much. The green blobs are misleading. Here’s what we mean…

Essentially, the NAT Doc 007 says that these are the datalink-exempt bits within the NAT Region:

1. Everything north of 80°North.
2. New York Oceanic East FIR.
3. Tango Routes T9 and T290.
4. ATS Surveillance Airspace, where surveillance service is provided by means of radar and/or ADS-B, coupled with VHF.

So these green blobs give a rough idea of where ATS surveillance service is provided by radar and/or ADS-B within VHF range. But rough ideas don’t win prizes, and neither do they explicitly tell you what the rules are. Where is this mythical ATS Surveillance airspace in reality? Give me some hard coordinates!

Thing is, they actually do, right there in the NAT Doc 007, they just don’t say it very clearly.

Here’s the answer (we had to get in contact with Gander and Reykjavik ATC to confirm this): ATS Surveillance Airspace is the area over Greenland and Iceland shown in this picture below. This is where you’re allowed to fly above FL290 if you don’t have datalink.

There is no special datalink exemption for the Blue Spruce routes. That’s another key point here.

The southerly Blue Spruce routes are not fully contained in the exempted airspace. So if you’re flying these routes you will have to meet the NAT DLM requirements or fly below FL290 or above FL410.

The northerly Blue Spruce routes are different (i.e the ones going overhead BGSF/Sondrestrom airport). These do fall within the exempted area of airspace – so datalink is not mandatory if you’re flying here.

Confused? We don’t blame you. Here’s something that might alleviate some misery though – our NAT Airspace Circle of Entry. OPSGROUP members can download the full hi-res PDF version here. The Circle shows you what equipment you need – like CPDLC, ADS-C, HF – for each different type of airspace in the North Atlantic. With the datalink requirement effective Feb 2021, and the introduction of new requirements for the Tango Routes on the eastern side of the Shanwick OCA (T9 & T290), there are some important changes.

This NAT Airspace Circle of Entry will also appear on the new NAT Plotting/Planning chart that we are finalizing at the moment, and we’ll send you that when it’s ready.

Our in-house bakers perfecting the recipe for a new version of our NAT Plotting & Planning chart, coming soon…

“SET MAX UPLINK DELAY VALUE TO 300 SECONDS”

This thing started back in 2018 – a new procedure designed to prevent pilots from acting on any old CPDLC messages that might have been delayed in the network.

So, we have CPDLC where ATC can basically ‘text’ you some sort of message. Usually a clearance to do something. There is a risk though that the message is latent meaning ‘existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden or concealed’. Basically lost for a longish time in the digital void and it means there is a risk pilots might get a message to do something way after they were supposed to do it, and it is no longer valid (or safe to) anymore.

The old NAT Ops Bulletin 2018_002 about CPDLC Uplink Message Latency Monitor Function has been discontinued, and the essential info is now incorporated into the NAT Doc 007. But there is some new info to be aware of.

The key change here is that all the NAT ANSPs have agreed on 300 seconds as the period of time all aircraft should set their uplink timers to (any message that takes longer than that to reach you will be deemed ‘latent’). Also, they will be sending this to all CPDLC connected aircraft immediately after they enter each control area – so you might receive the message a bunch of times (a bit annoying) but the procedure is the same regardless of whether you’ve “done it already” or not.

This procedure is covered in section 8.50.20 of the new NAT Doc 007, and it works like this:

• When you receive the message to set your max uplink delay to 300 seconds, acknowledge it with a Roger [ACCEPT].
• If you don’t have a message latency monitoring function available then you still have to acknowledge the message but say ‘TIMER NOT AVAILABLE’.
• Now, if you do have the function available then change the max uplink delay to 300 seconds and you’re done.

If the system gives you an indication that a message has been delayed over 300 seconds then don’t follow what it says but get in touch with ATC (by voice) and let them know so they can confirm whether they still want you to do carry out whatever the clearance told you to do. They will also close the message out of the system.

Bottom line: don’t act on a delayed uplink message until you’ve checked with ATC.

Weather Deviation Procedures

No new rules here, they’ve just made a nice little graphic to help understand the Procedures.

Funky! If you prefer a slightly simpler version, check out this one we made earlier:

Click to download hi-res version.

Almost finished now. That’s the big stuff done…

Climbs in Gander and Shanwick airspace

Gander and Shanwick have decided that they will advise crew in their OCA when a higher flight level becomes available. Basically, they have a function in their ATM system which lets them interrogate the flight’s vertical profile to determine when a higher level is available. They will then check there is no separation issue and if not, will offer the new level.

What did it used to say?

It used to say that clearances tend to specify a single flight level, but that sometimes there might be ‘scope’ for higher climb. It had some stuff about how, if you got a re-clearance you should climb without delay. It also said that if you aren’t CPDLC equipped you should tell ATC as soon as you’ve left your old level and when you reach the new level.

Actually it still says that in the new document but now it has a new bit about how Shanwick and Gander will be a bit more proactive about letting you know when the levels become available.

PBCS operations

The only changes in this section are wording changes. Separation minima is no longer “as low as” – it is now “as small as”. “How small can you go” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it…

And that’s it!! That’s all the changes!! At least, we think so. If you have spotted any biggies not listed here, send us an email at: news@ops.group

And if all this is not enough for you, and you want a comprehensive timeline of all the old significant changes on the North Atlantic stretching back to the dawn of time (actually, just to 2015), then click here.

There is a new airport in Ulaanbatar so we thought we would tell you a bit about it. But then we thought “How many people operate to Ulaanbaatar?” so we figured we’d throw in some information about Mongolia and a history lesson on Genghis Khan too because it’s all quite interesting.

So, Ulaanbaatar is in Mongolia.

Yep, it is the capital in fact. Mongolia itself is a country landlocked between China and Russia. 

Mongolia has some tough terrain which means roads and railways aren’t so big there, but aviation has also remained relatively underdeveloped as well. The country only boasted 46 airports (this was back in 2010 so there might be a couple more now). Of these, only 14 were actually paved and the original Ulaanbaatar airport was the only one with a runway over 3047m long.

So aviation in Mongolia is mainly domestic, small traffic moving necessities and cargo from remote regions. Mongolia does have its own Aviation Authority (MCAA) which also oversees the air traffic services in the country.

Do they need another airport?

ZMUB/Buyant-Ukhaa International Airport is the original one, built in 1957, and it sits just 18km away from the capital city. It sees around 18,000 traffic movements a year and about 5,500 tonnes of cargo. That’s just under 1.6 million passengers a year. Beijing sees just over 100 million for comparison.

It isn’t a huge industry, Mongolia is relatively quiet in terms of tourism, and the Mongolian diasporas around the world are fairly limited too. The majority of flights come in from Russia and China, with some South Korean, Hong Kong and Turkish operators also routing there.

Buyant-Ukhaa has one main runway 14/32 which is 10,170 feet (3,100m) and sits at an elevation of 4,634 feet. There is an ILS CAT I approach to runway 14, and no approach to runway 32 at all actually. I suppose you could do a visual.

The new terminal will be able to handle double the capacity

The New Airport.

The new Ulaanbatar airport ZMCK/New Ulaanbaatar is officially called Chinggis Khan International (named after Ghengis Khan*).

*Quick aside: yes, Ghengis Khan was a bit of a mean one. They reckon around 16 million men carry his DNA (that’s 1 in 200!). But aside from his prodigious wife taking, he was also an amazing military strategist who helped unite much of Asia (and not by using religion). In fact, he banned torture, outlawed slavery, and established a universal law across his empire. He also developed what is considered one of the earliest universal writing systems and brought the early version of a postal system to Europe.

1 in 200 men are distantly related to old Genghis

So Mongolia feel he is worth celebrating with his name on their new airport.

Anyway, this has been built in collaboration between the Mongolian and Japanese government, and it looks good. The airport is 50km south of the main city, so less accessible, but will enable a much greater capacity.

It provides RFF Category 9, operates H24 and has an 11,811 ft (3600m) runway with both ILS CAT I and RNAV capability. A second runway is expected to be added to further improve capability, particularly in poor weather.

As with Ulaanbaatar the old, it also sits at a rather high elevation of 4,485 ft and has some challenging terrain around it with a highest MSA of 9,900 ft.

The new airport facilities

A bit more info.

Airport Admin are available on +976 71 287 300

The airport also has its own website – https://en.ulaanbaatar-airport.mn

You need permits to operate to Mongolia. The Mongolian CAA are pretty good to deal with. Call +976 1282101 / +976 71282016 or try their email fpd@mcaa.gov.mn

It is easier to use an agent for landing permits and we recommendAlpha One Mongolia on +976 9595 0212 or via email ops@alpha-one.mn

But why fly to Mongolia?

Well, it is a pretty safe place to go and has some interesting stuff to see and do. There are a lot of Buddhist monastery ruins if you like your cultural history. There are some awesome national parks with hot springs if you like your nature.

They are also big into their bars – the drink of choice (for Genghis Khan) was fermented milk if you fancy trying it.

So, there you have it. Lots of reasons to visit Mongolia, the top one being they have a shiny new airport for you to fly into.

Summer in the Northern Hemisphere means a few additional challenges for aviation, particularly in the USA – Hurricanes (which we wrote about here) and Wildfires.

You probably read ‘Hurricanes’ and think yeah, I get that, but fires?

Wildfires do pose a fairly major risk to aviation though, so we thought we’d take a quick look at what those risks might be and what the forecast is for the 2021 Wildfire season.

Too hot to handle.

Wildfires are prevalent across the US during the hotter summer months, typically running from May through October.

Looking back to previous years, California saw 13 fires in 2019, but over 30 major ones in both 2018 and 2017. The 2018 fires led to over 1.8 million acres of land being burned. 2020 saw the first ‘rain free’ February (in San Francisco) since 1864 and the drier months, and warmer spring resulted in some of the worst wildfires in California’s history. 

The outlook for 2021 is not much better. 

There have been extended dry periods with over 90% of the West now in drought conditions. There have also been record high temperatures in the Pacific Northwest, Northern Rockies and northern Great Basin with warmer than normal conditions forecast for the summer. Add to that an increase in lightening activity and you are left with a recipe for significant wildfire risk.

In fact, the figures so far for 2021 are already at a ten year high.

Where can you monitor the fires?

There are multiple sites which track and monitor wildfires. This is a particularly good one and will link to specific info on the major fires.

Map of fires as of July 5 2020

But the risk to aviation is often not from the fires themselves. The big hazards comes from:

• Smoke
• Increased traffic levels, diversions and ATC capacity
• Changes to localized weather conditions.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Major airports generally have good protection from wildfires, and are a distance away from areas which will readily burn. However, smaller and more remote airports may not and damage to infrastructure, or disruptions to ground transport has a knock on effect. Fires also lead to power outages which impact services at the airports.

The major hazard comes from smoke though, and this can cause significant disruptions through reduced visibility.

Orange smoke haze at KSFO

Smoke has been known to reduce visibility to around 200m. In 2005 all four major airports in Honduras closed because of limited visibility from wildfires. In 2010, the visibility at KBOI/Boise Municipal Airport reduced from 10 miles down to 1 3/4 miles in just 9 minutes after a shift in wind direction carried smoke from nearby wildfires into the airport vicinity.

KSFO/San Francisco has also experienced delays and cancellations due to smoke from nearby Butte Country wildfires.

While Sonoma Country airports faced multiple closures in 2019.

Then there is the reduced Air Quality.

The health hazard this poses to ground workers means airports may find themselves understaffed and reduced resources lead to reduced services, which lead to more disruptions for aircraft and operations.

The smoke hazard isn’t just at ground level.

In 2013, a NASA satellite captured images of smoke from Canadian and Colorado wildfires which extended over the North Atlantic, and in 2020 an aircraft diverted into CYYT/St John’s after smelling fumes in the flight deck which were attributed to wildfires (again in Colorado).

Jetstreams carried smoke from wildfires past Newfoundland

What’s cooking.

Disruptions at airports lead to increased traffic levels requiring ATC support for diversions.

Smaller, regional airports have less capability for dealing with the impact of nearby wildfires, and when small regional airports in areas like Oakland, San Jose, Silicon Valley which have a high density of private jet traffic close, this can mean a lot of diversions happening very suddenly, and where they go can becomes an issue.

In addition to diverting aircraft, there is the firefighting aircraft to factor in as well. They might operate low-level, but they are not small and they need to operate from somewhere and this is added pressure for ATC.

MD-10s and BAE 146s are commonly used. The world’s largest is a B747 Supertanker which can carry up to 19,600 US gallons of fire retardant or water.

TFR zones are set up for major fire zone areas to allow for safe movement of the firefighting aircraft. You can check these here.

Where there are fires, the risks of incidents increases and between 2000 and 2013 there were 298 wildfire firefighter fatalities in the US. 26% of these were caused by ‘aviation associated’ activities which occurred across 41 separate events involving 42 firefighting aircraft. Three of these were midair collisions.

B747 Supertanker (Photo by Josh Edelson)

Pyromania.

Wildfires can impact the weather environment as well.

When large enough, Pyrocumulus cloud (also called Flammegenitus clouds) filled with rising ash and aerosols can build. These aerosols often carry a charge that increases the likelihood of lightning and with that an increased chance of fires spreading rapidly.

The “Station Fire’ of 2009, which burned more than 160,000 acres just outside of Los Angeles, also produced a convective column estimated to reach around 23,000 ft. Other majors fires have produced ones reaching as high as 40,000 ft.

These huge clouds are similar to cumulonimbus, only without rain. But they still contain significant up and downdrafts and can result in localized wind shear from gust fronts. The change in ground temperatures can result in significant thermals and large temperature gradients can result in significant localized vertical and horizontal winds.

Willow Fire near Payson, Arizona in July 2004. (Photo by Eric Neitzel)

There are ways to help.

Check those TFRs and check the wildfire maps. If you are operating into an area showing significant activity, consider how much busier ATC might be, and remember to check the capacity at your airport destination.

Report fires when you see them. Early notification of developing fires means the authorities can deal with them quicker, before they grow out of control.

Consider other ways to help. If you have an aircraft available, consider using it to help with evacuation flights. Airlines pulled together in 2016 following some major fires in Canada, and helped evacuate more than 80,000 residents. They also helped them bring their pets out safely. Be warned – you will have a tear in your eye after reading this one so open at your own risk!

Santa Paula Airport, 2020

The Forecast

There is a full seasonal outlook published here. But for a quicker summary of the 2021 Wildfire Forecast:

• Alaska has ‘normal’ fire potential through summer and into the fall.
• The Northwest is expected to experience significant and above average fire potential into September.
• Northern California and Hawaii also have above normal significant fire potential expected.
• Southern California will be at high risk through September (although this is ‘normal’ for the region).
• The Northern Rockies region is expected to be above normal through August and September.
• The Great Basin is expected to see increasing fire potential through August and possibly into September
• The Southwest is expected to remain normal.
• The Eastern Area is expected to be normal.
• The Southern Area is expected to be below normal.

Wildfires pose a significant risk to aviation operations. They also pose a huge risk to those living there, the infrastructure and the economy. The Fire Fighter pilots are an extraordinary bunch of aviators and we wish them the best for this year.

There is a very interesting podcast available here if anyone wants to hear more about what their ‘Day at Work’ involves.

There have been some welcome headlines in the news lately.

In the US at least, people seem to be taking to the skies again. One US major almost tripled its scheduled flights in June when compared to the lowest points of the Covid pandemic.

When it comes to airplanes in storage and furloughed pilots, as we’ve mentioned before, the industry has inertia. For a bunch of reasons, that big ol’ wheel can’t just start turning the minute we can get bums on seats. And the cracks are already beginning to show (no pun intended).

That same US major also had to cancel nearly one thousand flights recently due to staff shortages. Part of the problem was that a number of its pilots were still dusting off their stripes in post-furlough training.

The point is that renewed desire for travel is likely to (hopefully) one day soon outpace how quickly employers can get their pilots back in the sky. Is it possible that in this eagerness to get us flying again employers may overlook the mental health and wellbeing of their pilots?

Or in other words, even if they are ready for us to return to the flight deck, are we?

Aviation workers were among the hardest hit during the pandemic. And it wasn’t just pilots – cabin crew, air traffic controllers, engineers and other aviation professionals were left facing redundancy, loss of livelihood and financial stress. This was then combined with all of the other sufferings that Covid created in our lives.

It’s no surprise then, that one study found they suffered substantially more during the pandemic than the general population did. Is it then naive to think then that we’re all mentally match-fit to get back in the game?

When you combine that with an immediate need to be employed again along with reluctance to speak out about mental health for fear of loss of medical is it time that employers take a moment to make sure their staff are fit to fly in other ways?

And it’s not just about pilots who lost their jobs either – those who kept theirs faced pay cuts, downgrades and constant anxiety about job security. Then there is the constant testing, fear of catching Covid, and time away from family in isolation. In fact it’s a fairly safe bet that almost all pilots have had a lot on their minds over the past eighteen months.

In Aug 2020, BA pilots voted to accept a deal that included job losses and pay cuts to avoid a larger number of redundancies.

It’s a stressful business.

And it’s no secret. In fact, another study recently found that airline pilots have the third most stressful job in the US. And that was before Covid…

When it comes to what causes stress, there’s actually a widely accepted measure. Just google Holmes-Rahe – according to it, here are some of the biggest things that stress us out the most (and we’re talking life-changing here): loss of employment, change in financial state and default on debt all feature in the top twenty, and that’s ignoring the more personal problems that those issues have a tendency to create. Covid pandemic anyone?

The point is that by the time we get back to the skies, we’ve already been through a number of factors that cause chronic and prolonged stress. Unlike short term stress, it’s just not that easy to shake off. Even the toughest and most resilient among us will in some way carry that with them into the flight deck.

Here’s the bottom line: All of the hazards that were there before Covid will still be there. But our resilience to deal with them will be reduced. And that means risk.

The problem of stress in the cockpit.

Although a little stress can be beneficial by making us more alert and task-orientated, the human body isn’t designed to cope with chronic stress. For pilots it is well known to negatively affect our cockpit performance and increase our proneness to poor decision making, bad judgement, loss of situational awareness and confusion – all of which can be dangerous up there.

At its most basic level it can make us us feel irritable, fatigued and disengaged which can lead to a break down in monitoring or communication with other crew members.

Although the effects of stress may not be obvious when things are ops normal, they can greatly reduce our capacity to deal with whatever might be thrown at us when something goes wrong. This accident serves as a good example.

If not dealt with, chronic stress can also lead to more serious mental health problems such as anxiety and depression.

So, what needs to be done?

Because of the ongoing pandemic, pilot mental health and wellbeing is arguably more of an issue now than ever before. We need to prioritise wellbeing as part of our recovery plan and it really is a shared responsibility.

Employers need to do provide more support to their staff. Mental health awareness training, access to counselling and peer support programs should become common place. The positive impact of other lifestyle changes on the job such as flexible rostering, better crew pairing options and more time off shouldn’t be overlooked either.

And most importantly the inconvenience and cost of these things should not be prioritised over safety.

From an industry perspective we need to continue to de-stigmatise mental health problems and encourage openness so that pilots with wellbeing issues have the confidence to step forward and acknowledge their problems without fear of loss of job or medical. Regulations need to be improved to allow this.

Pilots themselves have a role to play too, particularly not to underestimate how much underlying stress can affect your performance at the controls and how you interact with your other crew. It’s important to self-diagnose and recognise the signs. There are a bunch of steps you can take both physically and mentally that can help you overcome it.

Getting back to a ‘new’ normal. 

As people take to the skies again and borders begin to reopen it’s important to remember that pilot mental health can have a big effect on safety. And considering what we’ve all been through it’s worth taking a moment to make sure the industry is doing enough to address it.

In that way we have a chance to use Covid as a catalyst for positive change even when the pandemic is one day far behind us.

More places to look.

ICAO Mental Health Working Group . They’ve been active throughout the pandemic and are doing a lot of work on the psychological effects that Covid is having on pilots.

Cleared for Takeoff. A handy and easy to read guide on how you can prepare mentally and physically for return to flying.

Article photo courtesy @vlkvojtech

Aviation is full of procedures. We fly by them, sometimes we kind of live by them. But other times there are situations where we need to disregard them. So when is it ok to throw the rule book out the window? 

In an airplane, never.

In the literal sense anyway, given the risk of opening a window mid-flight and getting sucked out. But what about in the less literal sense?

Procedures are not there to stop us just doing whatever we want. They are there to keep us safe, to make sure everyone is operating to the same standards and to provide pilots with a guideline of what they should do in *most situations.

Why the asterix? 

I will come back to that. But for now, that reasoning makes sense. If every airplane did what it wanted, flew how and where it wanted, the sky would be a messy mass of chaos. So, we have procedures and we have them so we know what to do, when to do it and how to do it.

More importantly, everyone else knows as well. Which brings us back to the “most situations” comment. 

We cannot expect there to be a procedure in place for every possible event. They are there to offer guidelines and standards, but they are not designed to cover everything.

And they are definitely not supposed to remove the need to think.

So what should we think?

Well, thinking about situations where we might be without a procedure, or where there is a procedure but it no longer leads to a safe outcome is a good place to start.

Let’s take a look at ICAO Doc 007 – the “bible” for the North Atlantic. It is quite clear on a lot of things – for example, what the contingency procedures are if you experience some sort of emergency while flying in the NAT.

We are talking some busy airspace out there, with a lot of aircraft flying on specific tracks, and so the last thing you want is aircraft barreling across them setting off TCAS warnings as they zoom off on a diversion.

So NAT Doc 007 lays out some procedures to follow. Things like turning 30 degrees off track and offsetting 5nm. And one that says – 

“When below FL290, establish and maintain 500’ vertical offset when able and proceed as required”.

Ok, great, it is pretty clear. Get yourself down to below FL290, establish on your offset, and now go where you need to go.

But…

What if our emergency is a decompression, and we are right out in the middle of the NAT where routing at 10,000ft the whole way to an airport might turn into a fuel problem?

Do we still need to get to FL95 before starting a diversion?

There might not be a black and white, right or wrong answer, but this is the point – there are situations where there isn’t necessarily a procedure telling us what to do, or when to follow another procedure.

So this is something we should probably be thinking about a bit more. The “What If?” things that could happen.

So, what is the rule for breaking procedures?

Is there sort of a checklist for when we can, can’t, ought to or must? Why isn’t there a rule for every time you are allowed to break a rule? 

Well, the reason is no-one can think through every situation, and more importantly they shouldn’t try to! 

The day pilots can only do something if a procedure tells them to is the day you might as well replace them with a computer. We need to retain the skill of weighing up risk and reward, consequence of actions, because there are so many situations out there which are not going to be black and white. 

NAT Doc 007 document actually states quite clearly several times –

“The pilot shall take action as necessary to ensure the safety of the aircraft…”

And this goes for any procedure, any rule, anytime you are flying. 

Just because the book says “No, don’t do that!” never means you cannot do it if it is what you need to do to maintain safety.

The tragic Swissair Flight 111 accident is often raised in CRM discussions as an example of when following procedures to the book might not lead to a safe outcome.

But…

Not following procedures because you think there is a quicker, better, easier way to do something is probably not the best idea either.

A Qantas pilot experienced “incapacitating” symptoms after a technical malfunction where they decided to cary out their own troubleshooting, rather than following the checklist.

So, having a good reason to not follow a procedure is important because you are going to have to justify why you broke the rule. If you need to break it for safety then break it, but the key seems to be having a valid, justifiable and safety related reason.

That is airmanship, and that is why the Commander has final authority. It is also a cornerstone of our pilot licence that we “agree” to accept the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the flight.

It doesn’t mean the Captain can do whatever they like…

Why are we even having this discussion?

Possibly because we sometimes forget why we have procedures in the first place.

Unfortunately none of us are immune to this. I can remember several times in my career when procedure-following took over from common sense. The time when we shut down an engine with 10 meters of taxi left, ran out of steam, and had to be towed the last 9… But hey, we still ticked the one engine out taxi box.

So, all of us stepping back and considering why the procedures are there, and then what we might do when we find ourselves potentially having to operate outside of them, is important.

Which brings us back to the debate about FL95 over the NAT. 

Different folk might answer this question differently. It is going to depend on the day, on you and on the situation, and there probably isn’t a definitive answer to be given.

What is clear is that at some point in our flying career we will all probably find ourselves in a situation where there is no procedure, no clear cut answer, no simple solution, and this is where our experience, airmanship and judgement will really be put to the test.

When we end up in that situation we should’t be asking “What is the risk of me getting into trouble if I do?” but rather “What is the risk to my safety if I don’t?” because all the procedures we fall back on were not put there to be blindly followed, and were not written into stone to keep you out of trouble – they are there to be thoughtfully followed when they keep your aircraft out of trouble. 

Communications in aviation are meant to be standard. Everyone speaking the same language, in the same way. Alas, alack, and unglücklicherweise, we all know this ain’t always the case. Some areas have their own ways of doing things, others just seem to be difficult on purpose. 

So here is a rundown of some of the places you might want to listen out for on your international adventures.

Er-can’t hear you

If you are routing between the Ankara FIR and Nicosia FIR then you are going to need to look out for Ercan Control.

Ercan want to control an area over Northern Cyprus, but ICAO don’t recognise their authority. So you’ll probably have to call each centre separately as they don’t like to talk to each other directly.

Ercan is that yellow bit (it isn’t yellow in real life)

To make matters worse, you need to coordinate with Ankara and Nicosia ten minutes before reaching their respective FIR boundaries, which often means relaying via Ercan because Ankara can’t hear you.

The waypoints to look out for are TOMBI (125.5) or DOREN or VESAR (126.3). Call the next FIR 10 minutes before you reach these.

Where the handover happens… or sometimes doesn’t

Southbound is the messiest – make sure you keep following the instructions from Ankara, (or relayed by Ercan 126.7/ 126.9) until you reach these points. Once you do, there is a chance they will tell you you are now under Ercan control, which you should politely acknowledge and then ignore.

At this point, talk to Nicosia, do what they instruct, and once that’s all sorted, then call Ercan as a courtesy to let them know what you’re doing.

In Brief:

• North of TOMBI/DOREN/VESAR = Ankara controls you.
• South of TOMBI/DOREN/VESAR = Nicosia controls you.

You might have to relay info to Ankara via Ercan, and you might have to tell Ercan what you’re doing in Nicosia airspace, but remember – Ercan don’t have control!

Asia old politics

This is just a plain old case of political rivals. Pakistan and India don’t like talking to each other, which often means they won’t hand over to each other between their airspace. So be sure to have the frequency ready – and a call to let the previous know that you’re changing over at boundary is a good idea.

Pakistan Air Defence need to hear from you at least 15 minutes before you enter their airspace, and often ask for your ADC number.

There are different frequencies depending on where you’re entering, but the main ones are Karachi 128.350 and Lahore 124.100.

A run in with Iran

Tehran are another strict “call us first” airspace, and they take it pretty seriously if you don’t get in touch.

The Air Defence want a 10 minutes heads-up. If you are departing out of a UAE airport, this probably means calling as soon as you pass 10,000ft.

ADIZ can be found on 127.900 and they’re going to want to hear:

• Who you are
• Where you are going 
• When you’ll be reaching them 
• What altitude you reckon you’ll be at when you do 
• Your squawk code

After relaying all this info to them you will probably get a cursory “call xxx”, and that’s that.

IFBPolite

Over some parts of Africa, there are more giraffes than there is radar coverage. Big swathes of Africa have little control, so you are going to need to do some in-flight broadcasting here.

The areas where you need to be IFB-ing

It might sound like a chore, but numerous heavy and super jets route through here, and not hitting their wake is probably one the best reasons to work out where they are and when. (And if you’re one of the big ‘uns, then thinking of the little ones is a nice thing to do as well!)

Generally, one IFBP seems to wake everyone else up and triggers a bunch of others, and then you can get a good idea of where everyone is routing.

More info can be found in IATA’s IFBP document, but here is a little IFBP script in case you need it:

A handy print-it-out-and-take-it-with-you thing

Mumbai, Mumbai HF etiquette

The HF radio over Mumbai airspace is the bane of many a pilot’s long-haul life. It often seems to defy all logic of night versus day frequencies, and is usually a trial and error situation to try and work out which one is working.

We found 10018 / 8879 / 5658 tend to have the best reception.

You will know when you do find the golden frequency, because you will hear the ear-aching scratchy hissing, overlaid with a dozen airplanes all calling at once and not listening out for each other.

So try to avoid talking over another aircraft, but be ready with your finger on the mic trigger for when a tiny pause occurs and you get your call in. The radio is rarely good at the best of times so headsets are recommended. 

Mumbai also have CPDLC. The logon is VABF. But they only use it for specific routes. If you cannot get a hold of them, give their SATCOM a go on 441901 or 441920.

The lingo Down Under

Australia are like teenagers – happy to text, but rarely do they actually want to talk to you. Nearly all of the Upper Preferred Routes in Australian airspace use CPDLC.  Which is actually great. But only if you’ve got it, and only if you get it right (you do need RNP10 and ADS-C/CPDLC to route along these).

You can logon to YMMM/Melbourne or YBBB/Brisbane (15-45 minutes before) and when you enter, they like to receive a position report. From then on its very straightforward.

A593: The Akara Corridor

There’s a bit of airspace off the coast from ZSPD/Shanghai known as the ‘Akara Corridor’, where different ATC centres are responsible for the control of aircraft at various different crossing points. South Korea (RKRR/Incheon) controls north-south flights here, while Japan (RJJJ/Fukuoka) controls east-west flights.

The Akarridor…

This area has always been unusual in that more than one center has had responsibility for controlling aircraft at different waypoints.

But on 11 Jan, 2021, ATC authorities in Japan, China and South Korea agreed to implement a proposal from ICAO regarding ATC management in this area – so from 25 March, 2021, South Korea will control all flights in this area.

Wild comms in Idlewild (JFK)

No briefing on ‘The Comms Hot-Spots to Look Out For’ would be complete without a mention of KJFK/New York controllers.

Granted, this is a busy airport, in busy airspace, but operating into JFK is not for the faint-hearted. Controllers speak fast, only say what they need to say once, and get very mean very fast if you mess up. 

Expect multiple runway changes for landing, and on departure keep an eye on the ATIS because they won’t always tell you if your departure runway changes, you’ll just find out on the taxi.

There are quite specific when’s and where’s to call on the ground as well – once clear of the runway, check in with ground, but also apron to find out your gate and entry to the apron, because ground will probably want to know this, and sometimes the two don’t seem to talk to each other.

JFKrazy taxiways

Lost Comms

ICAO Doc 4444 contains the standard lost comms procedure. Some countries have their own versions too.

If you’re in IMC:

• Maintain last assigned speed and level (or minimum flight altitude if higher) for 20 minutes after the point you failed to report at.
• Then follow your flight plan.

If you’re in IMC and in an area with ATS surveillance:

• Maintain your last assigned clearance (minimum flight altitude if higher) for 7 minutes. The 7 minutes runs from when you first reach the last assigned altitude (because you lost your comms in the climb), from when you set 7600 (because you realised you’d lost comms while cruising), or from when you were unable to report at a compulsory point (you tried and it didn’t work because your comms aren’t working…)
• Then follow your flight plan.

The eighth Annual Safety Report for the North Atlantic Region is out, and it looks good. A solid B+ for pilots and ATC alike.

But there is still room for performance improvement, so here are the highlights from the report to focus on.

Did anyone fly in 2020?

The number of flight hours in the NAT HLA through 2020 was 892,137 which was unsurprisingly a decrease on the 2019 hours (2,063,908 in case you’re wondering).

The peak week was July 15-21 when it saw 5,621 flights crossing, compared to 13,733 for the peak week of 2019.

If you want to check and compare all the stats to 2019 then here is our post on that.

What have they been monitoring?

Safety Performance in the NAT HLA is monitored and measured in 12 areas. The targets for 6 of these were achieved in 2019, while 2020 achieved an impressive 8.

The biggest improvements seem to be:

• Less Large Height Deviations where Datalink was not in use
• A reduction in the amount of time aircraft with datalink spent at the wrong flight level
• A reduction in the number of GNE events involving aircraft with datalink

How likely are you to fly into someone else?

Much of the safety focus in the NAT really boils down to this – it is an area of reduced separation and high density traffic. So, they also worked out the risk of collision and in 2020 it reduced by 74%, which is probably down to less aircraft but also to less mess-ups. 

SLOP is one of the main factors in reducing this number. And it doesn’t just reduce the risk of collision, it reduces your risk of running into wake turbulence as well. So keep up that slopping, up to 2nm right (and 0.1nm increments).

Who’s to blame for the times it did go wrong?

Ok, ok, the purpose of the report is not to point fingers, but to understand where improvements can be made.

The Top 10 factors in errors haven’t really changed – ATC coordination errors are top, closely followed by “crew other” (which pretty much means crew not doing what they’re told, messing up etc) and then interestingly application of contingency (other than weather).

So here is a quick recap on those Contingency Procedures to follow

Follow it!

Some facts and figures

Since 2019, 70% of core NAT traffic has been using ADS-B.

There have been no accidents in the NAT since at least 2017. 2020 also saw no losses of lateral separation for the first time since 2017.

They did see 47 LHDs, 57 Lateral Deviations (15 were GNEs, the other 13 were caught and corrected by ATC), 26 coordination events, 1 longitudinal loss of separation and 30 events they prevented where someone was basically just flying the wrong flight profile.

18% of events were down to ATC coordination between different ATC sectors.

18% also came down to fight plan versus clearance issues.

11% were weather related. 

Issues with dispatch contributed another 8% and everything else was down to, well, lots of other things.

How can we improve?

Follow the Golden Rules of operating in the NAT HLA:

• Have the Right Equipment: If you ain’t sure then check out our Circle of Entry.
• Have a Clearance: If you can’t get it on CPDLC then have those HF or VHF frequencies ready for a voice clearance, and make sure you read it back and confirm it correctly.
• Check your Route: This means flying what you’ve actually been told to fly which means checking what is in the airplane box matches what is in the clearance. It probably should say ‘flight profile’ because it means route, altitude and speed.
• Know your Contingencies: We added the picture above to help. Read more about this here.

And don’t forget to SLOP.

Keep up to date on NAT info

• Here is your link to the full report for 2020.
• ICAO Doc 007 is your go to guide.
• We also try to keep you up to date with changes on the NAT. See our latest update here from Feb 2021.

Photo @Algkalv from Wikimedia Commons

There is a new threat to flight ops security, and it might not come from where you think it would.

The Hack Attack

We talked about the threats of airplanes and control towers being hacked before. But now we want to talk about cybersecurity.

Anyone who works for a big company has probably had to do their cybersecurity training at some point. If you haven’t, here is an example. Answers at the bottom of the page.

The answer is 3. And no, it isn’t my actual password.

The trouble is, the scams we have been seeing are getting more and more, well, smart.

The Nigerian Prince

The good old Nigerian Prince who wants to give you One Hundred Million Gazillion Dollars scam. As old as the internet itself.

How does it work? (And yes, these do still work. Apparently they rake in over $700,000 a year from unwitting victims).

In a Kola nutshell, you receive an email from someone overseas (and there are different iterations of this now but it is always along the same lines) – a royal prince is wanting to give you money, or a disgustingly rich recluse of a distant uncle has passed away and mentioned you in their will.

Whichever they use, the trick is the same – they supposedly have money for you, and all you need to do is provide your bank account details and they will transfer it all over, for a small fee.

Only here is the catch (sorry to break it to you) – There is no Prince, there is no money, and now they have your bank details and maybe even a payment you have sent them.

This doesn’t affect Flight Ops though?

No, it doesn’t. Not really. Unless you count the Nigerian Astronaut stuck in space one.

They are reposing a lot of trust on you…

There is also the recent one which the NBAA warned about involving Imposter CBP Agents who call private residences and businesses and attempt to gain banking information.

And then there are the fake websites offering free tickets or special deals, and steal “passenger” information which they freely provide. [https://deltaairlines-flights.com] is not a legit website. Don’t buy tickets from there.

The ones that we want to bring up though are Phishing scams and Malware emails.

So, what do you need to be on the look out for, and how do these even impact Flight Ops and Security?

Be Wary of Malicious Phish

This is when an email is sent which looks legit. You open it, maybe it tells you there is an iTunes bill you need to pay. You wonder what you bought on iTunes, you can’t remember, so you open the attachment and BAM! 

Malware is sophisticated nowadays. It doesn’t always just shut your computer down, or flash up a retro laughing skull icon. It might destroy data, it might steal data. It might install ransomware on your systems.

Great. And now the TRex has got out.

Hackers recently took hold of an oil pipeline in the USA.

The Colonial Pipeline supplies half of the east coast’s fuel supply. Hackers managed to shut it off, probably via an email. The impact was no fuel supply from Houston to New Jersey and this affected all the airports along that route. It also led to increased fuel prices and ongoing impacts even after the fuel supply was re-established.

Cyber attacks are as common as physical ones

Phishing is a similar scam.

An email, or a phone call from a “trusted source” appears in your inbox and somehow cons you into into giving login data, passwords, user info. Once access has been “granted” the hacker can do a lot of damage. From stealing confidential information, to taking control of systems.

I.T. Operator SITA which serves major Star Alliance airlines such as Lufthansa and Singapore suffered a data breach in Q1 2021 with hackers gaining access to ticketing and baggage control systems which led to the information of thousands of passengers being stolen.

In 2020, major European regional airline EasyJet admitted an attack may have compromised data of around 9 million passengers. Several thousands had their credit and debit card details accessed.

What are we seeing at OPSGROUP?

We are seeing scammers getting more cunning, scams which are more targeted and ones which are worryingly specific.

First up, the Nav Fees scam. This one has been around for a while – we reported on it here. They send you an email, pretending to be from Eurocontrol or IATA or some government agency, with a new bank account to send your Nav Fees to. Pretty standard stuff. Fortunately, most of these emails are poorly written, and easy enough to identify as bogus – but that’s only if you are on your guard.

Then there’s the charter quote email scam. These have believable company names. Some of the names are even “real” people, so the email looks legitimate, and all it does is ask for a quote. So you open the email attachment and now they have you.

Thankfully, OPSGROUP is not in the charter quote business (and our email system is fairly good at spotting these now), but for some of you reading this, who do see real emails for quotes, this might pose a problem.

The Charter Quote scam

The more concerning ones come from very specific, and very genuine aviation linked companies such as ‘Airbus’.

These are worrying because they are so specific, so targeted, that it is often hard to spot the real from the scam.

Microsoft put a warning out earlier in 2021 saying they are tracking this ‘dynamic’ campaign which is targeting the aerospace and travel sectors with spear-phishing emails. When the PDF in the email is opened it delivers RevengeRAT or AsyncRAT to your computer.

RATs it seems are the new worms. A Trojan is installed and user credentials, webcam info, statistics about the system are pilfered and pillaged.

The Airbus Symposium Scam is a known one

Your OPSGROUP Cybersecurity Assessment

1. If you receive an email from an unknown sender, or for something you haven’t signed up to – should you open the attachment?
   • Yes
   • No
2. You receive an email or a call asking for details that involve passport info, bank details or anything else sensitive – should you share it?
   • Yes
   • No
3. There is a Nigerian Prince/Princess who really wants to marry you and send you several million dollars – should you trust them?
   • Yes
   • No

If you answered “Yes” to any of these questions, go back to the start of this article and read it again.

The process for obtaining a crew visa for China can be very confusing. We definitely recommend using an agent to assist with this, and with the permits for your aircraft. G3Visas are a good one – they really know their stuff. But if you are determined to go it alone then here is what we know.

What’s the deal?

Crew need a C-type visa. This are usually valid for 7 days.

Simple so far.

However, crew can actually enter China on different visas at certain locations, if pre-arranged. And if you rock up with the wrong sort, you are probably going to get a fine or be asked to go home again.

In fact, for crew entering as a passenger on a commercial flight (heading in to ferry out an aircraft for example) you cannot enter on the Crew C-Type visa. This means you are going to need a business or a tourist via.

In 2013, they added in a new immigration policy for transit passengers. If you are from one of the 45 countries on their approved list, and you transit in via ZSPD/Shanghai Pudong, ZSSS/Hongqiao or ZBBB/Beijing to a third country, then there is a 72 hours without a visa regulation. The US is included on this list and we are mentioning it because of the above point about crew entering (as a tourist) to ferry an aircraft out.

You can also obtain multi-entry visas depending on your operations, but you are going to need a schedule showing the multi-operation and some sort of official company letterhead proof of why you want multiple entries. We definitely recommend having an agent assist with this because the paperwork can be daunting.

What are the Visa types (that you need to know about)?

• C – The standard crew visa
• L – Tourist visa generally valid for single, double or multiple entry. US and Canadian citizens may be eligible for a 10 year L-Visa
• M – Business visa useful for folk visiting regularly or work reasons (and who aren’t employed by a Chinese company)
• Z – Work visa (if employed by a Chinese company)
• G – Transit visa. It is basically the same price as an L visa so probably better to just go for that one if you need one

Good old entry stamps. Your passport validity (and space in it) is also important

The Bilateral Agreement

China and the US have a bilateral visa agreement and it can be a little tenuous.

Back in December 2020, the US put in new rules to try and “curtail” travel by member of the Chinese Communist Party and their immediate family members. It limited them to one travel visa a month. Prior to this a 10 year visa could be obtained. 

All very political.

This didn’t impact crew visas. However, we have heard recently that:

“Due to unilateral change of the visa application arrangements by the US side, a large number of crew visa applicants from Chinese airlines are unable to obtain US visas through the previous channel. In response, we are compelled to take necessary reciprocal countermeasures for crew visa applications from the US side.”

We have not been able to verify this, but it comes from G3 Visas who are a bit of an authority on Chinese visa getting. So get in touch with the agent you are using to help you organize your visas, and leave a little more time in case of delays. So far, there has been no further update on what the deal is at the moment.

Are there other options?

Some operators who are ferrying aircraft out report that they have flown in via Seoul or somewhere else close and not part of China (so not Taiwan or Hong Kong), and then simply hopped from one aircraft to the other and flown it out again. This circumvents the requirement for the visa since you are not really entering the country…

We are not recommending or advising against it. We will say that a fair few operators have reportedly done this, and it has worked fine. But you might want to think about what will happen if you have to divert and go into a Chinese airport because then you are going to visa-less and this could get messy.

Customs and Immigration

Don’t have any mistakes on your Gen Dec. It will cause BIG delays.

Also, be aware that certain nationalities are going to be asked a few more questions. This includes crew. 

Turkey

For reasons unknown, if you have been to Turkey and have a visa or entry stamp in your passport, then you are going to have to explain yourself. Actually, it might have something to do with the Turkic Uyghurs in Xinjiang / the Uyghurs diaspora living in Turkey…

Uyghurs

If a crew member is from the Xinjiang region, expect them to be taken aside for additional checks. Nothing to be alarmed about, but good to know in advance that it will happen.

Tensions between China and the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs community are high

Chinese Citizens working outside of China

They can be a little “funny” with Chinese citizens who work for a foreign airline. Again, it tends to lead to additional immigration “chats” so be prepared for a brief delay.

What about permits?

Getting a permit is notoriously intimidating. They require use of AFTN/SITA, have specific routings and are only valid for exact timings given. If you want to land then you need a sponsor letter written in Mandarin by the receiving party…

Basically, use an agent. The authorities are not always the most patient or helpful. You’ll be paying around $75 for a one way overfly, $100 for a round trip landing and some extra depending on handling.

Mainland Ground Express are a helpful bunch and you can get hold of them on +86 20 8111 7474 or via email at operations@groundexpress.aero

Useful links for more info

• The US government travel resources site has some handy info on general visa and travel stuff.
• G3visa is a really handy agent for helping obtain any type of visa.
• Universal Weather maintain some pretty up-to-date info on the situation as well.
• The OPSGROUP member Forum and Slack channels. Yeah, we’re going to throw this one out to our members and say ask on there because the rules and procedures seem to change a lot and often the best info comes from someone who has just been there.

And finally…

If you have been to China recently, experienced issues (or good things) with the visa or permit getting process, or have any tips for other operators then please let us know! Your up to date experience would be very handy to pass on to everyone!

The big talking point of the moment – Airbus and Cathay Pacific’s project to have only one pilot in the cockpit during cruise.

So let’s take a look at what this might mean for safety, operations and pilots worldwide.

The headlines are misleading

Cathay and Airbus have not designed a new A350 which no longer needs pilots operating it. There is no mega computer AI robot involved which is stealing our job.

The plan is to simply allow one pilot to go and rest during “quiet cruise” phases, while another pilot remains in the cockpit vigilantly monitoring (and probably with toothpicks propping their eyes open). This will allow them to potentially reduce the number of crew required on long haul flights, and while it means a change to procedures it is not really, as many are reporting, a leap towards pilotless flight decks.

Maybe just a small step

So, what are the considerations here that people are talking about?

Cathay Pacific are in talks with Airbus on this project

GermanWings

The GermanWings accident resulted in a rule that there must be two persons in the cockpit at anytime. So if a pilot needed a bathroom break, a cabin crew member was required to come in. This was fairly contentious at the time because, as many pointed out, what is a cabin crew member going to do if a “situation” arises?

This rule was eventually revoked, in part because EASA and other authorities brought in new regulations relating to pilot psychometric testing. However, with only one pilot in the flight deck, this does raise various safety concerns – from events similar to the GermanWings accident, to the question of pilot incapacitation or even, what do they do if they need the loo?

What about the AF447 accident?

AF447 was, in part, attributed to the experience levels of the two crew in the flight deck – both First Officers while the Captain was out sleeping.

Using cruise relief pilots is not a new thing though, and in order to operate with a single pilot, that pilot will presumably need to meet a minimum experience level. Additionally, the Captain will maintain the decision as to when they leave the flight deck in their First Officer’s hands.

Big storms on the horizon? Maybe stay in for a bit longer.

The lonesome pilot can also recall their colleague to the flight deck should a situation require it. So the question really comes down to whether a situation is likely to arise where, by having only a single pilot the result is more critical or catastrophic than if two had been present and therein lies the problem – because years of aviation safety studies have shown time again that there is a reason we operate with two crew.

Safety in numbers

Modern aircraft, and the A350 in particular, have many levels of safety and redundancy to support the crew. They can automatically fly TCAS maneuvers. They can carry out an emergency descent at the push of a button. In addition, Airbus are working to demonstrate that their aircraft and systems are robust enough to basically not really fail. They are also designing them to be able to autonomously handle any situation without pilot input for 15 minutes.

This will be a big deal. It will mean, should something fail, and the single pilot be incapacitated, that there is time for the second pilot to wake up and make it to the flight deck to solve the situation. However, recent aviation accidents involving malfunctioning systems (designed to minimize pilot workload), and ongoing concerns about automation complacency highlight the potential downside of such advancements.

Can ETOPS can teach us something?

The A350 was certified for 370 minutes ETOPS. That’s a long time. It is over 6 hours. 6 hours on one engine potentially. So what leads to this?

ETOPS is given to the operator, not the aircraft, and it is based on the operator’s ability to demonstrate necessary airworthiness, maintenance and ops requirements. It is really a statistical thing. If an operator hasn’t had an engine issue in a really long time then they are probably going to be able to get a better ETOPS approval.

So what does this have to do with only one pilot in the flight deck?

Well, it boils down to the same thing – statistics and procedures:

• How often does something go wrong in the cruise (which requires two pilots to handle it)?
• What procedures will be in place for ensuring safety and redundancy levels are maintained?

The answer to Question 1 might be “hardly ever”, but aviation safety improvements are built on the fairly simply idea that if there is a risk, find a way to mitigate it. 

Even if that risk is minute, if it can be removed it should be. This is why astronauts have their appendix out before heading into space. This is why we have redundant systems onboard, or each pilot eats a different meal. Statistics might suggest an event occurring which a single pilot cannot deal with and which then results in a fatal accident or hull loss is tinier than a hair on a fleas back…

But if a risk exists that can be mitigates simply by retaining two pilots in the cockpit, then two pilots should remain.

A Disco onboard

They gave the A380 a bar and showers, now the plan is to have Discos…

DISCO actually stands for Disruptive Cockpit (I am not sure that sounds any better). This is the Airbus project looking at enhanced cockpit design to enable single-pilot operations on new aircraft.

The DISCO concept is looking to place core technologies into the flight deck in a ‘multi modal’ way. Things like pilot monitoring systems which track eye movement, voice recognition for commands, improved ground collision avoidance systems, new navigation sensors.

And of course pilot health monitoring systems.

An integral safety aspect of this concept lies in the monitoring of the sole pilot, and the availability of a system to detect if they become incapacitated, and to alert the remaining crew member.

Not an entirely new concept

It is only happening in 2025

The plan is to implement this in 2025. That is 3 and a bit years of procedure writing, regulation making, testing and trialling before it is put into action, and there are a fair few obstacles that stand between now and that day :

• Regulators will be looking at their procedures with a fine tooth comb
• The pilot will probably need monitoring, particularly to ensure incapacitation does not occur (or if it does, the other pilot can quick-foot it back)
• There will need to be pilot training in place
• Airbus need to hit that 15 minutes of safe autonomy.
  • And these systems will also need to deal with situations where ‘Black and White’ failures do not occur. When you consider the multiple, varied and often “illogical” failures which can arise from a lightning strike, a bomb onboard, or multiple computer failures this does not look as simple as Airbus might say
• The approvals for this do not just sit with the Hong Kong authorities. Any state that the airline might overfly with only one pilot in the driving seat is going to have to be convinced as well
• Passengers will need convincing…

And they still need to answer the question of the toilet. We all want a little more information on how that ‘specially designed unisex toilet’ to be used ‘in coordination with ATC’ will work.

A new flight deck concept?

If this happens, they won’t need pilots anymore

This is a contentious one to raise right now. Say ‘single pilot’ or ‘autonomous systems’ and a lot of pilots break out in a sweat, seeing themselves replaced by AI computers. But aviation has always been very innovative and those in it have always had to adapt to new technologies. Take a glance back to the 1980s and flight engineers were still a relatively common site in flight.

Ignoring the rather decimating impact of Covid though, aviation was growing, and it was growing fast.

Chances are it will again.

There are around 200,000 active pilots and forecasts suggested upwards of 500,000 would have to be trained over the next two decades to meet forecast growth demands. Even if every (long haul) flight deck sees the number of crew in it halved, it is still probably safe to say none of the current or new generation of pilots will be out of work anytime soon.

But we still are not convinced

There are unresolved questions here. The main one being “Why?”

You see, there is already this rather marvelous thing in an airplane – it can watch the pilot, it can monitor aircraft systems, and it can take over no matter what the failure or the complexity of that failure might be…

It is called “the other pilot”.

There is a good reason why aircraft are multi-crew machines. So why are Airbus and Cathay Pacific investing millions into developing systems which can do this?

It isn’t for safety…

This is being driven, not by manufacturers looking to increase safety, but by an operator looking to reduce costs. And for many, that appears an unwise and arguably unethical reason. Even if the statistical impact on safety is a 0.0001% decrease, that is still an unacceptable decrease when it is made for business reasons. There are also a great many places within an airline or operation where costs can be cut, and when cuts are made these should never occur at the price of safety, even if that price does seem negligible.

The main photo is of a pair of VietJet co-pilots who got married – because we think that’s nice, but also because we liked the play on ‘single pilot’ in the flight deck idea. Congrats to them both for their lovely day!

There are several reports that amidst the events surrounding the forced diversion of Ryanair Flight 4978 to Belarus last month, at least one MiG-29 was scrambled to intercept and escort the 737 to Minsk airport.

While military interceptions of civilian airliners are very rare, they can happen and for serious reasons. Which poses an important question – if a jet were to appear off your wing tip tomorrow, would you know what to do?

Each interception is potentially hazardous which is why ICAO publish rules and procedures (Annex 2) that both military and civilian aircraft should be following to minimise the risk. Each state is responsible for its own airspace, but where possible they should be following ICAO’s guidelines. For crew this includes knowing the actions to be taken and the visual signals to be used.

Here’s a break-down of what you need to know.

Why do they happen?

ICAO are very specific – an interception should be avoided and only used as a last resort. ATC must try and establish communications with you first. The primary reason is that they haven’t been able to talk to you.

There are lots of simple reasons why this can happen – usually a wrong frequency or perhaps they’ve forgotten to hand you over. In this instance they will try and contact you on 121.5 (which is one reason we monitor Guard), or via another aircraft. If that fails, ATC have a problem. You’re flying through their airspace and you’re not talking. It is not clear what is happening on board.

Incapacitation is a biggie, the crew may have fallen asleep or perhaps something more serious has happened as Helios 522 tragically reminds us. Or the aircraft may have been hijacked. Either way, they need to get someone up there to check things out.

When the crew of Helios 522 stop answering on the radio, two F-16 jets were scrambled to try and make contact. Courtesy: Alan Lebeda

What will they want us to do?

One of three things, depending on what the problem is. They’ll either want to identify you, communicate with you or re-direct you. The latter may be because you have strayed off-course or busted some kind of restricted airspace. Far less often it is because authorities may believe you are involved with illegal activity (such as drug smuggling) or or you are for some reason hazardous to other aircraft.

The Interception Manoeuvre.

ICAO have a standard procedure for military aircraft to follow to minimise startle factor for you and decrease collision risk. A standard interception will take place in three phases, here’s how it works.

Phase I.

Intercepting aircraft should approach you from astern (behind). They will disable pressure reporting on their transponders – not to hide from you, but to avoid triggering a nuisance RA. They should still be visible on your TCAS but only as a TA. The lead aircraft will take up a position on the left, ahead and slightly above at a distance so as not to cause startle and to be clearly visible to the captain. It is likely there will be an accompanying aircraft which will remain behind you throughout. They will be trying to contact you on guard frequency (121.5) using the callsign ‘INTERCEPTOR’ or ‘INTERCEPT CONTROL.’

Phase II.

The lead aircraft will close slowly with you but not closer than needed to establish communications. All other aircraft will remain well clear of you.

Phase III.

What happens next depends on the situation. If they have finished their interception (they have identified you, re-established your comms with ATC or understand your intentions) they will perform a break away procedure to clear you.

Or they may need to divert or re-route you. In which case they will remain in position and clearly visible at all times.

The lead plane will take up position on your left, ahead and slightly above. Courtesy: Swiss International Airlines. 

What you need to do in the flight deck.

Stay calm. You’ll likely be startled. Slow it down and remember the following:

• Notify ATC (if possible). Make sure you have 121.5 active, the volume turned up and that your headset or speaker is working. Try and establish contact with them. Listen out for the callsigns above.
• Select Mode A on your transponder and squawk 7700 (unless ATC tell you otherwise). If you have ADS-B or ADS-C onboard, select the appropriate emergency function.
• Communicate (more on that below).

How do we talk to them?

The primary way they will want to talk to you will be in plain English on 121.5.

If they can’t raise you on that, they will use visual signals which is why they need to get so close to you.

There are ICAO standard signals used across most member states (including the US) that you need to know (or at least know how to find quickly). Here’s how they work:

When they want you to land.

If they can’t talk to you and want you back down on the ground they will direct you to an airport, turn on their landing lights, lower their gear and begin to circle.

If you intend to land you should lower your own gear and land. If the airport is inadequate, you should continue to circle 1000 – 2000ft, raise your gear and flash your landing lights until your escort re-directs you some place else.

What about if their instructions contradict someone else’s?

According to ICAO, if you receive contradictory instructions from other sources you should continue to comply with those from the intercepting aircraft.

Their duty of care.

You have to do as you’re told, but they should be looking after you. ICAO are very clear that nothing can be done during interceptions to unnecessarily put your aircraft or its passengers at undue risk. So, when they are requiring you to land, it is important to know they must take care to ensure your safety.

Firstly, they should not divert you to an airfield which is unsafe for your aircraft type. For civil aircraft this means the runway must be equivalent to at least 2,500m long at sea level, and have a bearing strength that is strong enough. The surrounding terrain must be suitable to allow for a safe approach and missed approach.

They must also take steps to ensure that you have sufficient fuel and if possible the airport they want you to land at is published in the relevant AIP.

Finally, they should give you sufficient time to prepare for the landing, including giving the crew a chance to check landing performance and brief.

Should I be worried about being shot at?

Seeing a fighter on your wing is an intimidating sight. But the use of weapons is very unlikely, especially if you are complying with instructions or are obviously unable to respond. ICAO have asked all contracting states for a commitment that all measures will be taken to refrain from the use of weapons (including to attract attention) as they endanger the lives and safety of everyone on board. However, that’s not to say they can’t be used. So the best defence is always to follow instructions.

Military interception of a civil aircraft is extremely rare.

While the diversion and alleged interception of Ryanair last month raises valid concerns throughout the aviation community it is important to remember that ICAO’s procedures have been designed to minimise risk across a broad range of scenarios. It’s important that we stay aware of them and how to apply them.

Hajj is the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, which means a change in traffic density and also some flight restrictions into Saudi Arabia.

The Hajj period this year is July 17-22

However, with current quarantine measures (1 week in a hotel if you haven’t been jabbed), the increase in inbound traffic might start a little sooner.

Where in Saudi?

OEJN/Jeddah and OERK/Riyadh airports are the two main entry points to Saudi Arabia for those attending Hajj. In fact, to fly in here during Hajj period your passengers may well need special Hajj visitor visas, or will likely experience some pretty long delays in customs.

Use these airports as alternates with caution during this period because traffic is going to be much higher even this season (2021) when visitor numbers are restricted. You might also experience delays if a VIP is landing as they tend to add in security measures (which can include holding other aircraft if there are enough “V”s before the “IP”)

Where else?

OEMA/Madinah can also see more traffic since those holding Visit or Seasonal Work visas are often transferred via here instead.

OETF/Taif Regional airport is also apparently open for Hajj flights if you are moving people domestically.

If you are planning on operating a Hajj charter

You are going to need to get a request in with the GACA (General Authority of Civil Aviation) Administrative Liaison Center. There are quite strict quotas because they want a 50/50 split with Saudi air carriers so an early request is a good plan.

We suggest doing it through an authorized agent like fbo@spa.sa – these folk are nice and responsive.

Operations requests have to be sent to GACA through official channels. Hajj flight schedules should sent via e-mail to: hajflights@gaca.gov.sa

You can find a bunch of useful info on how to apply for that here. Actually, if you are thinking of operating a Hajj flight then definitely read this since there are a lot of things you need to be aware of. It is the official GACA produced ‘Hajj Instructions Governing the Carriage of Pilgrims by Air’.

Airspace Warnings

There are a fair few in place for the south-western region of the Jeddah FIR. The general view is to avoid that part of the Jeddah FIR, and avoid Yemen, and anywhere near the Yemeni border.

It is also worth reading up on the ESCAT procedures Saudi Arabia have because an escalation in attacks is possible during Hajj season, particularly with a focus on Riyadh and Dammam airports due to the higher numbers of traffic. Basically, if they activate, you will have to follow exactly what ATC tell you and will probably be required to land at the nearest suitable aerodrome, or leave Saudi Airspace right away.

Any other alerts I should know about?

We have a few alerts out at the moment for Saudi Arabia including one about hotel room shortages. Anyone who is unjabbed needs to quarantine for at least a week so these have been filling up fast.

Crew are exempt from quarantine but do still need a PCR test less than 72 hours old.

Hajj Routes

Usually, ASECNA put out an AIP SUP for Hajj routes through Africa, because the number of Muslims routing from Africa to Saudi Arabia means changes to the traffic flows and standard routings are required so ATC can deal with it all.

Normally, traffic is very much north-south predominant, with Europe-Africa flights being the main flow. When Hajj operations start up, a good amount of traffic starts operating east-west (ie. Africa-Saudi Arabia and vice versa), and this is something to be aware of when cruising along at FL330 with spotty HF comms.

However, we haven’t seen one published yet this year, possibly because numbers are so restricted. So keep on a look out, and listen out if routing through Africa just in case.

The FIRs which see higher traffic during Hajj

Where can I find more info?

You can find it right here with this handy list:

• Useful Info on Hajj and Umrah travel conditions
• The official GACA site 
• The official GACA info pack on Hajj flights

Finally, if you are flying any Muslim passengers and they ask which direction Mecca is in, then there is a waypoint MECCA which you can use to find the bearing.

We last wrote about this back in 2017, after the en-route wake of an A380 flipped a Challenger 604 upside down over the Arabian Sea. But as the skies start to grow busier again it’s worth having a think about how to avoid wake turbulence or deal with it when you come across it.

If you are going to run into wake turbulence, there is a good chance it will happen near the ground. Not the ideal place to suddenly find yourself banking sharply without warning.

The levels of traffic operating in close proximity (and in configurations specifically designed to produce lots of lift which is what basically leads to wake) can make the approach, departure, takeoff or landing a gauntlet of swirling vortices of doom. Added to that, aircraft are generally operating at low speed with lower controllability margins.

A study in Australia looked at the vortices of an A380 and in 35 knot winds, at 2,400ft, it took 72 seconds for the vortices to cover 1300m. They move, and they take a while to dissipate. This study took place after a Saab 340B temporarily lost control, dropping 300-400ft in altitude and rolling 52 degrees left and 21 degrees right. 

An ILS calibration aircraft crashed in OMDB/Dubai after breaching minimum separation distances from commercial traffic. Hitting wake is not fun and can lead to catastrophic consequences.

Thankfully, wake turbulence is taken seriously. In fact, in 2016, wake turbulence categories were rethought.

They used to just be based off MTOWs:

• Super (the A380 held this spot)
• Heavy (anything with a MTOW more than or equal to 136 tons) 
• Medium (7 tons to 136 tons)
• Light (anything under 7 tons)

Nowadays, the categories are a little more complex and consider both weight and wingspan, because wing design is a big contributor to what sort of vortices roll off the tips. Now we have 7 categories: G-A. Ultimately, the important thing to remember is the distance you need from each depending on what you are in.

Here’s one we made earlier

Get woke about wake.

So, we have our 7 categories, and we have our distance based separation (which ICAO allows to go as low as 2.5NM).

Something to remember – these have been designed to allow maximum runway capacity and operational efficiency. You won’t be ATC’s favorite pilot if you ask for more separation (you might even lose your spot in the sequence) but safety is ultimately up to you.

If you need more space, say something.

There are a few other things you can do to help avoid wake in the airport area:

• Consider requesting a SLOP on arrival – yes, this is possible. Except where they have super strict NABT routes.
• Consider asking for an extended holding pattern, or opposite direction hold – just check where that might fly you (if you’re close to the border with another airspace you might run into another sort of trouble).
• Try and remain above the flightpath of the preceding aircraft, and avoid long level sections by flying a CDA.
• Watch those speed margins – if you think you might meet some wake, think about taking some flap a little earlier so you have more margin.
• If you are a ‘heavy’ or a ‘super’ then ATC might not want you to fly a CDA, especially in high density airspace. JFK are one such spot.
• Look at what the wind is doing – if it’s light or variable then those vortexes are going to sit there, waiting for you to fly into them…

Is there any technology to help?

There is indeed. In fact, there are several interesting projects and technologies being tested to help with wake.

Vortex modelling is playing a major part in the EU’s Single European Sky ATM Research and has led to some rather clever folk in Germany discovering that if you build a “plate line” (basically a wall of large wooden boards) this effectively cancels out most of the wake. This is being tested at EDDF/Frankfurt and EDDM/Munich airport using smoke and lasers.

Not so clear air turbulence

Turbulence can really CAT-ch you out.

Going back to the 2017 Airbus 380 vs Challenger 604 battle – the Challenger came off a lot worse.

The big takeaway from this: the risk of wake in cruise is a pretty big one as well. So what can you do about it?

• SLOP – It is one of the things it was designed for.

But use a bit of common sense here – if the wind is from the left (and slopping to the left is not available), then flying to the right of track just means when you get to abeam where the aircraft in front was, their wake has probably been blown right of track as well. Maybe ask them to SLOP!

Don’t play Chicken, be a chicken and SLOP

Of course, severe turbulence isn’t only caused by wake. Weather, mountains, atmospheric stuff are all to blame as well.

There are technologies out there to help with this as well. Lidar is just such a thing. The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency and Boeing have discovered that if you stick one of these onto the side of an airplane then it can detect aerosols on the air. These are tiny particles, such smaller than water droplets so a conventional radar won’t detect them. The Lidar system does though, and can provide up to around 70 seconds warning (about 10 miles).

This might not always be enough to avoid, but it’s enough to switch the seatbelt sign on and warn everyone down the back.

So, sometimes there are warning signs, but sometimes there aren’t. We aren’t going to bore you with a science lesson on Clear Air Turbulence or how to check your shear rates. What we do think is worth talking about is what ICAO, EASA, the FAA et al. have say about what to do when you have inadvertently come across something that has really upset your airplane.

UPRT

Upset Prevention and Recovery Training. This is a big (and very good) thing. Since the AF447 accident it has become mandatory for crew to be trained in UPRT.

But what actually is it?

Well, it is one answer which is hoping to solve the issue of LOC-I incidents amongst other things. Loss of Control in flight is the biggest cause of fatal accidents over the last two decades (on commercial jet aircraft), having led to 33% of fatal accidents.

It is designed to solve the “startle” factor by giving a clear, defined method of what to do if you don’t really know what is going on. Basically, when you experience an “unusual attitude” (with the airplane, not with a strange co-pilot).

Not what you want be seeing

An unusual attitude is anything outside your aircraft’s normal limits. For a large transport category aircraft we are probably talking nose up more than 25 degrees of pitch, or down more than 10, a bank angle greater than 45 degrees or any flight within these parameters but with airspeeds “inappropriate for the conditions”.

What has changed here from the old-school stall recovery type training?

Well, the big change is what we are really learning during the training. Upsets are not “some aerodynamic phenomenon lurking in the atmosphere to grab pilots following well structured procedures” – they happen when things have gone very, very wrong and procedures have flown out the window.

So, UPRT is about training to deal with the startle and the confusion – giving a method to right the airplane when that startle and confusion is likely preventing you from doing so. It is also about learning how to recognize a potential threat that might lead to an upset, and it is about better monitoring to prevent the startle.

Tell me how to do it.

Probably more for a trained instructor, but the general gist is this:

• Push
• Roll
• Power
• Stabilise

(Sometimes Roll and Power might want to go in the opposite order.)

Pushing does not mean ramming the stick forward. It means unloading the wings. And once they are unloaded you want to stop the push, but that doesn’t mean yanking the nose back up into a negative-G maneuver. You are going to have to trade some height for speed (and safety) here. When the aircraft is back under control, that means gently returning it to the horizon.

Roll is similar – it is all about giving the wings the best chance of performing, and that means getting them level and not barrel-rolling around the sky. But… if your nose is mega high, and you have power on, then pushing forward is going to be tough to do. So adding some roll can also help us out here, getting the nose to drop, and giving us control of, well, the controls.

UPRT is about monitoring, recognizing and handling.

Fancy some further reading?

• Here is a link to the FAA Advisory telling you all about their recommendations for UPRT.
• Here is a big old document on Wake RECAT, by EASA.