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.

Speed is a big thing when it comes to flying. Lift is, after all, equal to half of something multiplied by something else and, oh yeah, velocity squared…

Now, with so many airplanes being hauled out of storage complete with bugs, beetles and other nasties nesting in places they should not be nesting in, there has been what EASA described as “an alarming trend” in the number of aircraft experiencing unreliable airspeed indications.

So we thought we would take a more practical look at what unreliable airspeed might really mean for you.

What are we talking about?

Airbus reported that in the period from January 2020 to March 2021, they had 55 events of unreliable airspeed. But 55 in a 14 month period (considering how many Airbus are out there flying) doesn’t sound that many.

So why is everyone so worried about it?

Well, we wrote a bunch of stuff about it here. We also talked about startle factor because that really is one of the big danger elements of the unreliable speed problemo. You see, if you get unreliable airspeed, there is a good chance you will do so at a horribly critical moment in flight. Like takeoff when you are near the ground, don’t have much speed, and have even less time to deal with it.

So, we are talking about you (the pilot) or it (the aircraft) not knowing what airspeed is reliable, and everything getting fairly confusing, very quickly.

Stop high-fiving and fly the airplane you fools.

What happens when it happens?

Airplane systems are clever. They use teamwork. They don’t just rely on one sensor or one probe, instead, they have independent probes talking to independent systems, and then these talk to each other and on a good day everything matches. On a bad day they might not.

But air data computers don’t argue, they get logical. If two are receiving the same information then chances are number three is wrong and then majority rules and the other systems effectively vote it out. Of course, they tell the pilot when this happens so you can judge for yourself, and maybe try to work out why there is a discrepancy.

Is it me, or does this ADC look slightly startled?

The situation gets more complex when the computers cannot determine which is reliable and which is not. When we talk about ‘Unreliable Airspeed’ this is the situation we are really referring to because now you are going to have to troubleshoot, pretty quickly, in order to work out what to trust. More critically, you are going to have to decide pretty fast whether or not your airplane is in a safe condition.

So your first action needs to be that ‘Aviate’ bit of those Golden “ANC” rules.

Don’t forget the first line…

The memory items for ‘Unreliable Airspeed’ are going to vary between types, but the general gist is probably the same: decide if the airplane is safe and if it isn’t, make it safe before you do anything else.

Airbus, for example, say “if safe conduct of flight impacted”.

So what they mean is don’t go hurling on thrust and yanking the airplane nose about unless you actually need to (but if you need to, then do!)

If you are in cruise – straight and level, with a sensible pitch attitude and thrust setting – and your autopilot disconnects because it ain’t sure about the speed, then do you actually need to do anything? Other than making sure you have control, probably not. The speed hasn’t suddenly become unsafe just because you cannot say exactly what it is.

The same goes for a nice, stable approach. If you’re configured, heading down the ILS, and your autopilot disconnects, but the airplane is still on the ILS, descending at a normal ROD with a normal thrust and pitch setting, why not continue (or at least see if it is safer too before you throw it into a go-around)?

Destabilizing it is potentially just going to give your a whole load more work, and the airplane a whole load more trouble.

Probably not going to be reliable…

But don’t forget the first line…

There are also instances when you do not have time to think about whether it really is or isn’t reliable.

V1 is determined during your performance calculations. This is the speed by which you need to have made the decision to stop, if you are going to. But it is not “just” the speed that matters. What your performance calculations are actually thinking about is how long (and by how long, really how far) it will take you to accelerate to that speed, and then how much runway you will need to decelerate back down from that speed if you reject.

So we sort of need to think about V1 in terms of the point on the runway we will pass when we reach that speed. If our airspeed indications are unreliable, then we cannot really say if we are at the point, before it or past it, and if we don’t know that and don’t know our actual energy then…

Can we stop?

Common sense and airmanship will probably tell you when rejecting versus taking TOGA and setting a pitch attitude is the best option.

Why does it happen?

Aircraft coming out of storage with stuff stuck in their probes seems to be the most common reason. Of Airbus’ 55, 44 of them were due to things “obstructing” the probes. One fix is to put covers on to stop stuff getting in. Unfortunately, this also led to a few situations where covers were left on stopping the air from getting in and resulting in, well, unreliable airspeed.

Icing if you fly into adverse weather is also a common cause. This can be incipient and hard to spot. Combined with high altitude handling differences, half asleep pilots, and a few other factors and you have a scenario starting to sound similar to the one Air France 447 encountered.

Damage to probes (hail stones, birds and things flying into them at high speed are probably to blame here) and Volcanic Ash are less common but equally possible reasons.

Not something you want nesting in your probe (or anywhere else)

What can we do about it?

Well, EASA, ICAO and other wise folk say to try and avoid it happening in the first place with some decent maintenance checks if pulling your aircraft out of storage. They also recommend good procedures and good monitoring as a good way to not get caught unawares.

The general advice is:

• Know your pitch and power settings. Old school, back to basics flying, but having an idea about these will a) help you notice when something just doesn’t look right and b) might just save the situation.
• Don’t ignore your stall warning. This works off Angle of Attack, not airspeed. Think of it like your wife/partner – it is probably yelling at you for a (very valid) reason.
• Follow your aircraft memory items and checklist. This means getting the airplane into a safe flying condition and then troubleshooting.
• Make life easy for yourself. Talk to ATC – ask for a block altitude. If you are heading in to land, ask for a long descending final so you can take your time configuring. Remember there are other resources onboard as well – GPS gives approximate altitude and speeds.

Two big pieces of supersonic news have hit headlines in recent weeks.

The good news was that a US major has agreed to purchase fifteen Boom supersonic jets still in development, with the option to purchase many more. All going well, they’ll be gracing the upper flight levels by the end of the decade. Cool stuff right?

But then the bad news was that Aerion Supersonic, widely regarded as being the closest to delivering a viable supersonic business jet, shut down after seventeen years and many millions of dollars spent trying to make the dream a reality.

The boomless, carbon neutral AS2 jet concept. | Aerion

This emotional roller coaster poses an important conundrum: purchase agreements are one thing but are we really that close to commercial supersonic flight? When you start digging it becomes clear just how much the sound barrier becomes a hurdle for the industry as it stands today.

And it’s not just about shock waves either – even though it’s possible, will it ever be profitable?

The iconic Concorde to this day remains one of only two commercial supersonic jets that was were in service (the Tupolev briefly being the other). In its twenty-seven year career of rattling windows at JFK and Heathrow, its profits were certainly subsonic. It’s possible that in its legacy it leaves an unpleasant truth: is it really worth flying faster than Mach 1?

The aviator inside me hopes so, but the writing may already be on the wall.

Can the legacy of Concorde teach us some valuable lessons?

We know we can build it, but here are the issues.

Ironically the formula to going supersonic appears quite simple: take a super slippery airframe, make it heat resistant and then liberally apply loads of power. But if only it was that easy.

When things go boom.

Firstly there’s the issue of sonic booms. ICAO’s current policy says that operators have to ensure that no ‘unacceptable situation’ is created for the public by the sonic boom of a commercial aircraft. The FAA have taken it further and said no-bueno to any commercial ops above Mach 1 over the US unless you have very special permission.

Low-boom technology is real, using special shapes to reduce the impact of the big bang on the ground but we’re still a ways-off going zero-boom in the near future. You might be thinking – why not go subsonic over land and wind it up over the ocean? That works for trans-continental flights but not so much for long legs over land. To make matters worse, supersonic airframes don’t fly efficiently at subsonic speeds. It would just not be viable to fly subsonic for hours burning copious amounts of gas.

What’s that noise?

All sonic booms aside, there is still an issue with noise. As speeds become supersonic, jet engines must lose bypass to stay efficient. The huge N1 fans we see on modern subsonic jets would only cause huge amounts of drag at high speeds.

Unfortunately this means they have a tendency to be ear-splittingly loud when they take off and land. Just listen to a video of Concorde – cool, yes. But legal? Not with today’s regs. Here’s what I mean.

Although this is set to change, ICAO hasn’t yet published specific noise guidelines for supersonic aircraft. Instead they say that noise levels for subsonic aircraft can be used as the guideline. The FAA say that commercial supersonic aircraft are banned unless they meet stage 2 noise limits – what are those you say?

They’re about as loud as older aircraft like the 727. For comparison, they used to produce around 90 decibels on the roll. Concorde once recorded 120 – about the same as a clap of thunder.

It’s clear that engine technology needs to be drastically different and new regs will need to be written to let the supersonic birds fly.

What about the trees?

The industry is in the midst of a massive move toward sustainability and the goals are ambitious. ICAO for instance is tasked by the Kyoto Protocol to control aviation’s burn-off that affects global warming. They’re now targeting carbon neutral growth until 2050 despite how quickly things once again begin to expand. There is an industry-wide push toward alternative fuels including hydrogen and Sustainable Aviation Fuel which can be run in conventional turbine engines using waste products that need to be seen to be believed.

The world is worried about global warming, ozone depletion and air quality and super-fast jets just don’t fit this mould. The future wants us to be squeaky-clean. This is a big barrier to supersonic aviation as the industry is unlikely to give the thumbs up to new technologies without knowing whether they are playing their role in keeping emissions down.

Sustainability – one of major barriers to supersonic flight.

But how will she handle?

Then there’s the airframe. We’re going to fly these things which means they need to perform on several levels. First of all they need to have acceptable handling and ride qualities – and delta wings are different. They need to be safe, and the passengers comfortable.

And how will they perform at high altitude? They have to be recoverable from jet upsets. Finally it’s safe to assume that if one of these aircraft makes it to the line (and I hope one does) it will be packed full of technology. But it’s important to remember that advanced technologies need to be approved and reliability becomes a pressing issue. This all takes time.

The Elephant in the Room – The Profit Barrier.

That old chestnut. It gets in the way of all the fun.

The shutdown of Aerion Supersonic raises some serious questions about the viability of these spectacular flying machines. All of these technological challenges are certainly boundaries but money talks. Perhaps the biggest challenge of all is economic.

Concorde first flew in 1976. Since then no one has come to market with a solution that would make them affordable to airlines and corporate operators alike. Companies like Boom, Spike and Exosonic are certainly weighing in on the challenge, but is the model missing the mark?

How do you put a dollar sign on time? Before Aerion left the market it estimated its AS2 jet would cost $120 million off the production line. Market leading subsonic jets like the Phenom 300 or Challenger 350 cost substantially less – not only to own, but to operate.

Supersonic jets will also use more fuel per mile than conventional aircraft, with far reduced range. In an environment where profit margin is based on the scent of an oily rag, what is a few extra hours enroute and how do you actually quantify that when signing on the dotted line?

At what point do time savings account for the extra cost? That is the crux of the issue.

Industry heavy weights Airbus, Lockheed Martin, GE and Boeing were all at one time or another onboard with Aerion. If they couldn’t make it happen, what challenges lie ahead for those who think they can?

The answer may lie in volume (more bums on seats), which is where Boom may get it right where Aerion and other corporate jet concepts did not. Only time and the bottom line will tell.

The Boom Overture Supersonic Jet – can it succeed where other smaller concepts have failed? | Boom

Supersonic commercial flight will be here one day.

But we have a ways-to-go yet. There is no doubt that some of the smartest brains in the world will solve these challenges but from an industry perspective a lot will have to change in a hurry if supersonic commercial travel is to become a reality within the next decade.

Update: The NOTAM campaign was launched with 1,500 attendees on April 8th – and yes, it was the largest virtual event in ICAO history! The first update webinar on progress being made is on June 16th at 1200Z – register with this link, and join the call.

The Global Campaign on NOTAM Improvement is being launched on April 8th, 2021. Spearheaded by ICAO, and supported by OPSGROUP, IFAIMA, and IFALPA, the campaign will focus on making significant improvements to the NOTAM system to enhance its effectiveness, usefulness, and reliability as a mechanism for pilots to receive critical flight information.

Kick-Off Webinar, April 8th 2021

At 1200Z on April 8th, 2021, we will launch the campaign with a worldwide webinar. So far, we have 600 registered participants. We are on track to make this the biggest virtual event in the history of ICAO. If you think about it, that’s pretty amazing for a meeting about NOTAM’s!

This webinar is open to everyone, and we would be delighted to have you join it – to show your support for the Notam Improvement campaign, to learn more about what the plans are, get the latest update, and see how you can get involved: this is a collaborative, shared mission that needs your help, whether you are a pilot, dispatcher, AIS officer, software developer, Flight Planning provider, ANSP, CAA, or are in any other way a user or provider of some aspect of the Notam system.

So, please join us – it’s open to all:
Register for the Worldwide Webinar on Thursday, April 8th, 2021 – 1200 UTC

1200 UTC = 7am Lima, 8am New York, 1pm London, 2pm Berlin, 4pm Dubai, 7pm Bangkok, 10pm Sydney, 12am Auckland.

Why should I join the Webinar?

Over the last few years, as many as 10,000 pilots and dispatchers have supported a move to fix Notams – through petitions, surveys, comments, emails, and joining the OPSGROUP Notam Team to help fix the problem. Your voice has been heard: this work is the result. Now, we need your support for this campaign – to reinforce the message that as an industry, we really care about this. Your presence will encourage those working on solving the Notam Problem, and you will get the full picture of where we stand in the progress to fix things.

We will speak about the mission, demonstrate the problem with some real world examples of pre-flight briefings, showing how these impact the daily lives of pilots and dispatchers, clarify the definition of “Old NOTAM’s”, and show how AIS staff can use the existing regulatory framework in Annex 15 and Doc 8126 to become a gatekeeper for NOTAM quality, demonstrate the Notameter, address regional challenges, and have a Q&A session.

Our presenters and speakers will include Stephen Creamer (Director of the Air Navigation Bureau at ICAO), Alex Pufahl (ICAO Technical Officer), Mark Zee from OPSGROUP, Capt. Lauri Soini from IFALPA, Fernando Lopes and Antonio Locandro from IFAIMA, Marco Merens from ICAO, and ICAO Regional Officers.

Join the launch of #NOTAM2021

What is the Notam Campaign all about?

First, the problem: Pre-Flight NOTAM Briefing packages are often far too big to be fully read and understood by pilots before a flight. The result: critical information is missed. Finding safe ways to decrease that volume is the key focus of this campaign.

In the Global Campaign on Notam Improvement, our aim is to solve the Notam Problem in manageable chunks, gathering energy as we solve them and make progress. Rather than re-invent the wheel, we will fix the system from within, starting with the easier aspects and progressing from there. The first phase of this campaign focuses on Old Notams. At any one time, there are about 35,000 active Notams globally, and 20% of these – one in five – are old; in other words, not respecting the existing rules of Notams being issued in principle once only for a maximum of three months (everything else should go into the AIP, an AIC, or some other publication).

We are drawing on the collective cooperation of the AIS community – the Notam Officers – to uphold the rules and get rid of Notams that don’t follow them. The result will be a potential decrease of 7,000 Notams per month, and a 20% reduction in the size of the average briefing packet. For more on the Notam Problem itself, have a look at “Why pilots are reading a Reel of Telegrams in the Cockpit“.

Who is behind it?

The Global Campaign is a meeting of minds, agreeing on one thing: Notams need fixing.

ICAO is spearheading the campaign, in the recognition that the Notam Problem is a worldwide issue that affects flight operations in every country.

Providing support, energy, and huge enthusiasm to help solve things are IFAIMA, representing the Aeronautical Information community, IFALPA, voicing the concern of Airline Pilots, and OPSGROUP, whose pilot, dispatcher, and flight operations members have been tirelessly involved in the mission to fix Notams since 2017.

What can you do to help?

Thank you for asking! If you are in the AIS community – perhaps as a Notam Officer, AIS Officer, Publisher, or Promulgator – please tell your colleagues, join the webinar, and get involved in this Campaign. If you are a Pilot or Dispatcher, join the webinar, share the news of this campaign (#NOTAM2021), voice your support, and monitor progress – we’ll want your help down the track as well. If you are a Flight Planning Provider or Software Developer – again, join the webinar, and when the time comes, get involved in the collaboration around technical improvements. If you work for an ANSP or Civil Aviation Authority – join the webinar, encourage your colleagues to join too, and help support the Campaign. If you work for an Organziation, tell your members, and share news of this campaign (#NOTAM2021). Oh, and join the webinar!

Join the launch of #NOTAM2021

How we got here …

This is a Global Campaign for a very good reason. We only solve this problem when we solve it for all countries – so we take the lessons learned domestically from those countries that have seen NOTAM wins, and amplify that across the rest of the globe.

In terms of change so far, most notable is the work done by the AIS Reform Coalition in the United States, chaired by Heidi Williams from the NBAA. This group of people from NATCA, ALPA, AOPA, IATA, A4A, ACI, the NBAA and others have been working feverishly in partnership with the FAA to drive change and improvement. And it has had remarkable results – the US has radically improved NOTAMs in the last 2 years: NTAP gone, a big reduction in PERM Notams, a single office for AIS, a transition to the FNS, and NOTAM Search replacing Pilot Web. Canada has transitioned to ICAO format for Notams, and provided a new delivery mechanism through CFPS.

We must also recognise huge efforts from the members of OPSGROUP, who as pilots, dispatchers, and other flight operations specialists have made their voice heard, sharing support, input, ideas, and enthusiasm for change; the efforts of IFALPA to bring attention to the issue, and IFAIMA who have given full support to solving things on the AIS side.

An important distinction to make here is that this work is on “NOTAMs, Now“. There is separate, ongoing work in the field of the “Future of NOTAMs”. You may have seen acronyms like SWIM and AIXM, and terms like Digital Notams or Graphical Notams. The FAA, ICAO, Eurocontrol, and other agencies are building a model for the future, when NOTAM’s will change from the current AFTN format and transmission into an internet, IP based, transmission and follow a service-oriented approach. This work is valuable, but with a target implementation date of 2028, has a different focus. Even if it goes smoothly, it would not instigate change until 2028. Needless to say, if we don’t fix the underlying issues now, it may not even solve them then, either.

The AIS Community, Pilots, and Dispatchers, working together

Here’s the really exciting part of this Campaign: for the first time we are seeing pilots, dispatchers, and AIS staff working together on solving the issue. This is a core tenet of the campaign: only when you have all parties involved, do you have a shot at success.

The AIS Community is invaluable in solving the problem, but they need our help. First, they need to know exactly the impact of the Notam Problems we describe – this drives their will to make change and improvement. Second, they need the support – which this Campaign will provide – to stand as gatekeepers for Notams. They themselves are often under pressure to publish Notams that they know don’t align with the rules, but have no alternative.

Phase One

So, once the Campaign is launched, what does the roadmap look like? Logically enough, we start with Phase One. A simple, bite-size chunk of the problem – Old NOTAM’s. In volume terms, it’s a lot more than bite-size – it’s actually 20% of the problem. The key is that it’s easy to understand, and therefore easy to work on. We don’t need to make any structural changes, or change how the system functions. This is simply about focusing on a known issue – that 7,000 of the 35,000 active Notams that should not be there.

Even more importantly, the focus is also on the energy, enthusiasm, and goodwill to make the changes necessary. As we gain momentum, we get encouragement from each and every Old NOTAM that is removed forever. We see that through collaboration, community, and support for each other, we can make change happen.

Remembering that this is a decades old problem that has been on the agenda since 1964, and that there are 193 countries on this journey, progress may feel slow at first. But we’re going to learn from each other, and go as fast as feels right. We’ll be celebrating the small wins!

Phase Two

The next phase will look at technical improvements. In other words, what structural and systemic changes can we make to NOTAM’s to leverage quick improvement.

We envision that this stage will be best served by a great deal of collaboration and discussion. One of the key groups here will be Flight Planning software providers. The vast majority of NOTAM briefings today are provided by these companies. As things stand, each one has a different, in-house method of processing the Notam flow – usually with algorithms, keyword searches, date/time validity ordering, and some Q-code assessment. So we might ask, how can we best structure the Notam data to provide a robust, reliable format with metadata that allows sorting and filtering – the two big asks from the pilot community. In other words, show me the critical stuff first, and skip the fluff.

We also, again, need full collaboration with AIS to see what the impact of those technical improvements will be, and whether they support them. Adding pilots and dispatchers into the mix will allow us to verify that the changes being discussed will actually have an impact by the time they reach the cockpit. If they don’t, then we’re not doing it right.

More about #NOTAM2021

• Kick-Off Webinar: Register for the event on April 8th, 2021 at 1200 UTC
• Progress Webinars start on June 16th, 2021.
• ICAO information page on the Global Campaign.
• OPSGROUP
• IFAIMA
• IFALPA
• FixingNotams.org – the journey so far

Mexico have recently found themselves downgraded by the FAA under their IASA program.

So, what does this mean for Mexico, and what does everyone else need to know about this?

First up, what is the IASA program?

It might sound confusingly like a combination of EASA and IATA, but ‘IASA’ is actually the International Aviation Safety Assessment Program run by the FAA, and used to determine the safety standards in foreign countries.

It was set up in 1992 to monitor air carriers operating in and out of the US – not to monitor the operators specifically, but to check the authority in the country is up to scratch with ensuring their operators are up to scratch. If not, the US don’t want to let them into their airspace.

What do they look at?

They are focusing on the country (not the operators in the country), to see how well they adhere to international aviation safety standards and recommended practices, as suggested by ICAO in Doc 9734.

There are 8 elements that the FAA/ICAO reckon a decent aviation safety oversight authority should be doing well:

• Legislation
• Operating Regulations
• The State civil aviation system and safety oversight functions
• Technical personnel qualifications and training
• Technical guidance, tools and provision of safety critical information
• Licensing, certification, authorization and approval obligations
• Surveillance obligations
• Resolution of safety concerns

I feel like they combined a few there, and its actually more than 8. But there’s the list.

The Big 8

How do they do the assessment?

If you visit the IASA site, on the FAA main site, then you’ll find each of those areas has its own checklist. These are thorough, lengthy things. The Operating Regulations alone is 19 pages with a whole bunch of points to check off per page. Oddly, all that checking leads to only two possible outcomes.

A country either meets the standard or it doesn’t. There is Category 1, or there is Category 2, no in-between.

• Category 1, Does Comply with ICAO Standards
• Category 2, Does Not Comply with ICAO Standards

Basically, if one or more deficiencies are identified, it’s a Category 2 ranking, and Santa won’t be bringing you a present that year.

A lot they are looking at

What does it mean to be on the naughty list?

Well, if you already have air carriers flying to the US then you can continue but they are going to monitor them pretty closely. If you don’t already have air carriers operating in and want to, then you’re going to have to improve before they give you permission.

But why should we all care?

After all, the oversight is to do with their air carriers and nothing more? Surely it just means their aircraft might be a risk coming into US airspace, or their pilots might not follow procedures properly?

Well, actually no. The problem is these air carriers share airspace with you. If their pilots are not licensed or trained correctly (think Pakistan’s recent problem) then this can degrade the safety for all aircraft operating in their vicinity.

If a state is failing to ensure minimum safety standards in areas such as the promulgation of safety critical information (notams), technical personnel qualifications (the maintenance folk who might be fixing your aircraft, or the CAA inspectors checking compliance) then this is something any international operators might want to be aware of as well because there are potential knock-on safety impacts for those heading into the country in question.

So does it tell me if another country is safe to fly to?

No. The FAA is not saying every country ranked 1 is safe, no issue, no problem.

It also isn’t telling you a country is unsafe to operate to if they don’t meet compliance standards. Remember, it is purely looking at the regulatory and safety oversight and asking if they ensure minimum ICAO standards. There are countries out there that pose significant threats (just not because of any deficiencies in the authority’s oversight).

It might also mean that the FAA have not ranked that country, because no-one from that country is flying or planning on flying to the US.

Remember, these rankings are looking at how a state ensures its air carriers are safe and compliant. It does not consider whether services or infrastructure within the state itself are safe or compliant.

The DRC isn’t on the list. It’s not the safest place in the world…

How should operators and pilots use this list?

For operators and pilots, if a country is ranked Category 2, it means you might want to be doing your own risk assessment before heading in. No-one is saying that country isn’t going to be safe, but they are saying there are deficiencies with the authority, and since that authority looks after a lot, it is worth asking whether there might be other deficiencies as well.

You should be looking at the following:

• What are the standards of the handling agents and maintenance services you are going to require there?
• How reliable are Notams, and are they providing the information required?
• What level of service and safety will ATC provide?
• Will procedures and regulations be correctly adhered to there, and if not, what will this mean operationally for your flight safety?

You can get this info from sites like Safeairspace, Airport Spy, and through talking with colleagues who have operated into there before.

Who is on the Category 2 list?

So the big news this week is that Mexico were downgraded. Again, actually.

Along with Mexico the FAA also have the following countries ranked at Category 2:

• Bangladesh
• Curacao
• Ghana
• Malaysia
• Eastern Caribbean States
• Pakistan
• Thailand
• Venezuela

It changes though.

In 2014, the FAA downgraded India, citing inadequate oversight by local regulators, and in 2001 South Korea found themselves downgraded due to unskilled technical staff, pilot screening problems, issues with flight operations rules and a lack of objectivity in air crash investigations.

Both made it back on again relatively quickly.

Let’s take a closer look at Mexico…

The FAA have not yet given the reasons for their downgrade. However, Mexico was downgraded previously – back in 2010 – due to shortcomings in technical expertise, trained personnel, record-keeping and inspection procedures.

Actually, Mexico has a pretty decent infrastructure in terms of airports, although these do pose some operational challenges of their own (things like high terrain, high elevation). The CAA was actually “revamped” back in 2019. We put out this post about ramp checks.

Mexico’s political problems seem to be at the root of most issues here for the aviation industry. A project to build a new airport was recently cancelled (Texcoco airport was partially constructed already.) Now the government are instead looking to improve MMTO/Toluca and build new runways at an Air Force base near Mexico City. Plans are also under way for a third terminal at Mexico City Juarez, but given it is already congested and operating over its designed capacity, this might not be any solution.

Combined with Covid Pandemic problems, the latest downgrade will mean a big financial impact for various Mexican airlines now unable to access the major Mexico-USA market, and the knock on effect from this might be further felt in the aviation industry there as a whole.

The Big Taco-way?

If you are operating into an FAA IASA Category 2 ranked country, doing your own risk assessment on the standards and compliance you can expect to experience there might be worthwhile.

Rejected take-offs aren’t new

Every time we open up those thrust levers and accelerate down a runway there is a risk that something will go wrong and that we will need to stop again. Which is why we brief before every departure.

But they are also pretty rare. One study found that they happen on average once in every two thousand take-offs. For a long-haul pilot that’s about one every twenty-five years, and for short-haul folks once every four years. And of those RTOs, ninety percent happen below 100 kts. So when they happen at speed they are usually accompanied with a healthy serving of startle factor.

Common sense and physics tells us that the faster we go, the more dangerous it becomes to reject, rather than get airborne. Once we hit V1 we go, because there may not be enough of the hard stuff in front of us to stop anymore. The problem is that reports continue to tell us that avoidable accidents are happening because crew are still rejecting take-offs above V1. Which poses an important question: why?

There is no simple answer. But accident and incident reports may hold some clues…

The Real World is Different

The vast majority of high speed RTOs we practice in the sim are related to engine problems. Failures, flame-outs, bird ingestion, compressor stalls. Those sorts of fun things. They are generally easier to identify and illicit a strong and confident decision to reject the take-off.

But here’s the kicker: Most high speed RTO’s are not caused by engine problems.

In fact historically, less than quarter of them are. Which means when something unexpected happens that we haven’t seen before, the Go/No-Go Decision suddenly becomes a lot more difficult.

Here are some of the other leading causes:

• Wheel/tire failure
• Config warning
• Bird strike
• ATC
• Noise/vibration
• Directional control issues
• Crew coordination
• Malfunction Indications

A lot can go wrong and the process of detecting, deciding and acting takes time. At high speeds close to V1 this is a problem. Here’s why…

Tire failure – one of the leading causes of high speed RTOs

V1 is not a Decision Speed

V1 has been redefined a number of times over the years and has ultimately ended up with the current FAA definition:

‘…..V1 means the maximum speed in the take-off at which the pilot must take the first action (e.g., apply brakes, reduce thrust, deploy speed brakes) to stop the airplane within the accelerate-stop distance. V1 also means the minimum speed in the take-off, following a failure of the critical engine at VEF, at which the pilot can continue the take-off and achieve the required height above the take-off surface within the take-off distance….’

I know what you’re thinking – that’s a lot of words. Which is why it is still casually referred to as ‘take off decision speed.’ It just rolls off the tongue better. But hidden amongst all those words is this key concept – by the time you reach V1, the decision must have already been made and the first action taken.

Here is an easier way to put it: V1 is the end of the go/no-go decision making process, not the beginning. 

It may seem like a technicality, but it’s not. It has been shown that with a balanced field length, if an RTO is initiated just two seconds after V1 an aircraft will exit the end of the runway at between 50 and 70kts. On average it takes pilots between 2-4 seconds to react. In other words, time is critical.

By V1, the decision needs to be made. Courtesy: Airbus

But there’s more to it than that. What does ‘unsafe to fly’ actually mean?

We know that the faster we’re going, the more dangerous it is to stop. Which is why we become ‘go-minded’ at higher speeds (usually above 80 or 100kts). It is in our efforts to embrace this go-mindedness that we have adopted the philosophy that there are four things that could trigger a high speed abort: engine failure, engine fire, windshear or an unsafe condition. Makes sense right? We brief them every sector.

But what constitutes an unsafe condition? Or in other words, what are the signs that an airplane is unable to fly?

Accident reports show that pilots are having difficulty recognising these conditions and that is leading them to stop above V1 when it would be safer to go. They often interpret anomalies (like a tire blow out) as events that threaten the safety of the flight and decide to reject at any speed. The overrun of a Learjet departing KCAE/Columbia Metro in 2008 serves as a tragic example.

In fact one study found that almost half of all high speed rejected take-offs were the wrong decision. That’s a startling statistic.

And to make matters worse, sometimes it is the right decision as the accident of an MD-83 in 2017 certainly proved.

Sometimes the decision to reject above V1 can be the right one too.

The Decision Isn’t Easy

Go/No Go – if only it was as straight forward as it sounds. From a pilot’s perspective, it is difficult to make the right decision. Given any number of failures, the incredibly short timespan we have to make the decision and the lack of information at hand, it’s no wonder that that not all rejected take-offs go to plan.

But there is still room for improvement if we continue to train for them and brief them using lessons learned from accidents past.

The Joint Industry/FAA Takeoff Safety Training Aid was published in 1993 as a guide to pilots and operators on how reduce the number of RTO related accidents and improve the outcome of go/no-go decisions. We still widely use those same principles today. There were four key takeaways identified from accident reports which might prove as a decent starting point:

• We must be prepared to make the decision before V1. 
• We need to be able to differentiate between ‘safe to fly’ and not. 
• Crew must be ready to act as a well co-ordinated team. 
• We have to be well practiced and able to fly RTO procedures proficiently.

It may be unrealistic to think that we can get rid of RTO related accidents entirely. But with more training and a focus on what is going wrong out there we can certainly work toward keeping everyone safer on the roll.

Back in April, the Pentagon confirmed that some leaked photos and videos of UFOs were, indeed, legitimate. Of course, ‘UFO’ just means “unidentified flying object” – it doesn’t necessarily mean extra-terrestrial. In fact, these days the US government generally use the term ‘UAP’ (unidentified aerial phenomena) which makes us think of old, retired aliens…

Reports of UFO’s/UAP’s, or whatever you prefer to call them are relatively common though, and over the years there have been numerous sightings directly from airline pilots.

So, do we need to be wary of alien spaceships in our airspace? What sort of risks do the other possible explanations actually mean for aircraft safety?

What is out there?

First up, let’s take a look at what sightings have been reported in the past, including the recently acknowledged ones.

The Metallic Blimp

The videos the Pentagon recently acknowledged were actually taken back in 2004 and 2015, and they show objects moving at mega speed. In one, a pilot is heard exclaiming “Look at that thing, dude! It’s rotating!”

But is that a UFO, or is there a more reasonable explanation?

The most obvious answer would be that it is a military aircraft of some sort, but given the videos were made by military pilots who were not aware of other military traffic operating in the area, and considering the Pentagon confirmed the videos’ authenticity, but not what they were showing, the mystery continues…

Screenshot from the Pentagon confirmed video

The New Mexico Sighting

In February 2021, a radio transmission from an America Airlines crew was picked up by a random blogger who happened to be listening in on a radio scanner. He apparently just ‘stumbled across’ the transmission.

The aircraft was routing over New Mexico at 37,000ft when they reported seeing an object zooming over them. On querying it with ATC, they were informed that the controllers could see no object on their radarscopes.

The Bright White Light Flight

In 2018, a British Airways crew called in after seeing a ‘very bright light that disappeared at very high speed’. The sighting was backed up by a Virgin Airlines pilot who said they also witnessed multiple ‘exceedingly bright’ objects.

New Age Reporting

The US Government is certainly taking sightings more seriously, and in 2019 announced they would bring in a new ‘data driven’ approach to reporting and recording them.

You can visit the official US NUFORC site here. NUFORC stands for the National UFO Reporting Center, and they have a database of all reports. In fact, the number of reports is quite impressive, as are some of the things written in them.

A snapshot of just a few of the repots in the database. From 1 day.

Here are the Other Theories (and the real risks)

The other possible explanations for many of these sightings actually have some important risk considerations to think about if you come across them in your airplane.

First up, meteor showers and falling space debris. These are pretty common and appear bright and fast-moving for more than a few seconds, particularly if they are entering the atmosphere at a certain angle and are big enough to withstand being immediately incinerated.

The American Meteor Society has a ‘Fire Ball Log’ which you can check to confirm whether your ‘UFO sighting’ was spotted by someone else and logged as meteor.

You can also keep an eye on the calendar for the reoccurring meteor showers which light up the skies each year.

The real risk here is fairly minimal. Aside from being a distraction, these are not going to hit an aircraft. Space debris is potentially another matter, and something we talked about here if you want to read up on it. The recent “return” of a Chinese Satellite gave some cause for concern just because of its size, and unguessable re-entry point.

Just a plain old meteor

The second theory (well, theories) are more earth-based. Atmospheric balloons and Chinese lanterns have been mistaken for UFO’s in the past – and these are often released without regard for how close they might get to aircraft. In 2018, an airplane narrowly missed a lantern while cruising at 20,000ft and despite being relatively thin these can still cause damage if ingested into engines.

In 1970, Aeroflot 1661 crashed shortly after take-off after colliding with a weather balloon. However, Radiosonde balloons are generally Notamed given their size and proximity to airports when released, so you should be aware of these in advance.

Tiny alien ships

Rocket Launches. And other launches for that matter. An experimental rocket test in Norway caused concern after atmospheric conditions produced a bizarre illusion in the skies. It was in fact a missile test from Russia which went wrong, resulting in a spectacular (and presumably quite expensive) cloud.

Unusual illusion and rocket test gone wrong

Rocket launches mean prohibited airspace, so when they are going up they shouldn’t be an issue to aircraft. The FAA are reporting rocket launch site on charts nowadays, and you can find launch dates published on their Temporary Flight Restrictions page.

Clouds. Yep, weird clouds have confused people into thinking a spaceship is loitering nearby. Lenticular clouds often form over mountains when moist air is pushed up over them. The time to watch out is when you see lines of these sitting beyond the mountain crests because they can mean some pretty serious mountain waves are out there – and this means turbulence.

Cape Town is a popular holiday spot for UFOs

Other planets, even the Moon, have been mistaken for other flying objects by pilots.

A crew once took evasive action because they mistook Venus for another aircraft. In all fairness, they didn’t think it was a UFO so much as a C130 known to be in their near vicinity. This incident boiled down to a loss of SA, and a lot of fatigue.

Then there are drones, UAVs, UASs. The FAA have a website dedicated to reports on sightings of these, and it is important to report them because they are a genuine threat to aircraft when they encroach on airspace they should not encroach upon.

So, do we need to keep an eye on the sky?

Regardless of whether you think something is terrestrial or extra, if there is an unidentified object in your airspace – report it. It might be a real and immediate hazard to other aircraft, and recognizing what you see out there for what it really is will also help avoid the real threats.

A preliminary US intelligence analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena has concluded that such incidents are at least a threat to flight safety and potentially present a broader hazard. Particularly because they are often physical, and are one more thing inside already cluttered airspace.

Of course, UFOs might really be aliens coming to say hello. Some of the mysteries are still, after all, unsolved…

We have written a fair amount on worldwide GPS Jamming issues. Here is what we said about it in ‘GPS Jamming: All the Wrong Signals’. But there is another GPS problem though which is a little closer to home (if your ‘aviation’ home is in the US anyway).

What’s the deal?

Let’s take a step back to 2017, when the NBAA and a bunch of other stakeholders took part in the 2017 RTCA tactical operation committee. That’s the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics and they are great – they try and help find compromises amongst the competing interests on critical aviation modernization issues.

One of these very issues is with GPS.

The FAA’s NextGen modernization program is using more and more GPS ‘stuff’. Stuff that is critical for commercial flight operations safety and efficiency. The US Department of Defense on the other hand is sort of doing the opposite – they are running GPS Jamming tests which are critical for National Security and the big problem with this is that the jamming tests often interfere with the GPS signals civil aircraft are using.

What was the 2017 outcome?

After they talked about it in 2017, the compromise was that the DoD will notify the FAA at least 120 hours before any planned tests. This should give the FAA time or put out Notams to warn crew and operators.

The May 2021 testing schedule

Problem solved?

Unfortunately not. The 120 hours notification is given, but the information which filters down to the pilots and operators who need to know about it often not sufficient. One of the difficulties is that the Notams have to provide information on different outage locations and this means loooooooong Notams filled with lots of Lat and Longs and times and dates. And this means critical information can sometimes get buried inside and makes it difficult or confusing for the crew to find it, extrapolate it (or even be aware of it in the first place).

What’s the plan now?

Well, the NBAA have reported on this, and say that the FAA are taking their concerns onboard. They plan to revisit the idea of producing visual representations of the outage areas. These will be much easier to digest than lines of lat and longs, and would hopefully enable crew to use them in conjunction with planning apps in the future.

There has also been a reminder issued to crew asking them to report outages and issues. If you find yourself in a jammy area, let ATC know. Tell them what you have lost so that they can warn other aircraft in the immediate area. The reminder has been sent to ATC as well because in the past, when aircraft have made these reports, the information has not always been shared out to other operators in the near vicinity.

What do you need to look out for?

What an outage means, practically, is interference to the GPS signals which your navigation system is using. The result can be a degradation in accuracy, or a full loss of the system (GPS primary).

If you are enroute, let ATC know your capability has been degraded so you can get the support you need to continue navigating safely.

Some aircraft are particularly sensitive to disruption in the GPS signals, and it can lead to you losing that system until it is reset on the ground. This means RNAV/RNP approaches might not be flyable anymore. Having an awareness of what this means for your aircraft is important. Think about your plan B for approaches in case you do loose GPS navigation capability.

Notams are out there and it might be frustrating picking out the areas which could impact you, but knowing about the outage spots in advance will help.

A display of WAAS services

Where can you look for info?

• The Navigation Center website is run by Homeland Security, and this is where you will find notices of GPS service interruptions and a link to their GPS Testing Notices. You can also file reports here if you encounter unexpected disruptions.
• This will take you to the Official government page on GPS.
• Your WAAS monitoring site is here. There are some good real time maps of current coverage
• The FAA also have a site where you can find Notams specific to GPS outages.

The 5G Update

We thought we’d throw in a little update in on this as well.

Last year we saw increasing concerns about possible interference from 5G networks because they operate on the same slice of radio spectrum usually reserved for Radio Altimeter signals (the 3.7-3.98 GHz band).

The big concern here is that interference could result in degradation of accuracy from spurious emissions, or outright failures in the radio altimeters. Not sure how much of a risk that means? Well, Turkish Airlines TK1951 crashed in EHAM/Amsterdam Schiphol in 2009 and one of the primary factors was attributed to a malfunctioning radio altimeter which sent an erroneous -8ft reading to the autothrottle system, commanding it to idle.

The NBAA are fronting a campaign here as well. Twenty organizations have joined forces to send the FAA a letter raising their concerns over this, in response to a report issued on March 3 that they don’t feel addresses the threat with enough analysis.

You can read the letter here.

Military aircraft and UAVs are also at risk here. Their radio altimeters use the same C-band frequencies, but they tend to fly a lot nearer the ground a lot more often. A very good summary of the issue can be found here.

Watch out if planning to overfly the SMPM/Paramaribo FIR this week – there’s an ATC strike happening each night between 0100-1100z, finishing at 1100z on June 4.

Each night, the airspace will effectively be uncontrolled with Contingency Procedures in place:

• Neighboring ACCs will be controlling the airspace
• Only certain routes are available
• No speed/level changes are allowed.
• Only medevac and emergency flights will receive any air traffic services.

Here’s the Notam:

SMPM PARAMARIBO (ACC)
A0063/21 - DUE TO INDUSTRIAL STRIKE NO ATC SERVICE AVBL
ATM CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR PARAMARIBO FIR ACT
ONLY MED AND EMERG FLT WILL REC ATS.
DAILY 0100-1100, 29 MAY 01:00 2021 UNTIL 04 JUN 11:00 2021. 
CREATED: 27 MAY 23:01 2021

Here’s where we’re talking about:

Procedures for the neighbouring ACCs:

a. Transmit Flight Plan messages to Paramaribo ACC through AMHS.
b. Authorize entrance into Paramaribo FIR, in agreement with the longitudinal separation established in this Contingency Plan.
c. Do not authorize any Flight Level or speed (Mach number, if applicable) change in the 10 minutes prior to the aircraft entrance into Paramaribo FIR.
d. Instruct pilots to keep the last assigned Flight Level and Mach number while over-flying Paramaribo FIR.
e. Instruct pilots to contact the adjacent ACC as soon as possible and at least 10 minutes before the estimated times over exit point of Paramaribo FIR.

Pilot and operator procedures:

a. Pilots shall include in the last position report to the competent adjacent ACC the estimated times over entry and exit points of the PARAMARIBO FIR.
b. Aircraft are to operate as close as possible to the centreline of the assigned contingency route.
c. contact the competent ACC as soon as possible and at least 15 minutes before the estimated times over exit point of PARAMARIBO FIR.
d. Keep navigation and anti-collision lights continually on while PARAMARIBO FIR is being overflown.
e. Maintain the flight level and the Mach number assigned by the competent adjacent ACC while operating within PARMARIBO FIR, unless for emergency or flight safety reasons.
f. Pilots need to continuously guard the VHF emergency frequency 121.5 MHz and should operate their transponder at all times during flight.
g. Transponders should be set on a discrete code assigned by the adjacent stations of PARAMARIBO ACC or select code 2000.
h. whenever emergencies and/or flight safety reasons make it impossible to maintain the flight level assigned for the transit through the PARAMARIBO FIR;

• The pilot shall immediately inform all other aircraft of the emergency, eventually level change, using blind transmissions on emergency frequency 121.500 MHz and on pilots’ air to air frequency 123.450 MHz.
• Broadcast every position and intention on emergency frequency 121.500 MHz and on pilots’ air to air frequency 123.450 MHz.

To check which routes are available, check out the Contingency Plan in full here:

If you need to contact the authorities in Paramaribo, here are their details:

Paramaribo ACC
E-mail: pengelacc@gmail.com and radha_atwaroe@hotmail.com
TEL: 00597-325203 or 00597-8555025

Several countries and aviation bodies have urged airlines and operators to avoid the airspace of Belarus following the country’s interception of an international flight bound for Lithuania and forced to land in Minsk.

Is there any cause for additional concern? Or was this a one-off event that poses no additional threat to airspace safety?

Here’s what happened:

• On Saturday, a Polish registered Ryanair 737-800 was operating a commercial flight between Athens and the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius. Toward the end of the flight while overflying the UMMV/Minsk FIR, ATC suddenly instructed the flight to divert to UMMS/Minsk due to a security threat onboard.
• They were not allowed to exit Belarusian airspace despite being closer to EYVI/Vilnius at the time.
• There are unconfirmed reports it was escorted to Minsk by a fighter aircraft.
• Believing the threat to be genuine the crew squawked 7700 and made an emergency landing where all passengers were subjected to additional security screening. One passenger of particular political interest to Belarusian authorities was arrested and detained.
• No bomb was found and the flight was cleared to depart seven hours later. It continued on to Vilnius (minus the arrested passenger).

Track of the Diverted Aircraft

Operational impact and airspace risk

The forced landing of this flight was politically motivated, and the crew were misled into believing that there was a credible security threat against the aircraft. Understandably, this is of major concern to civil aviation.

The perspective that OPSGROUP takes on any aviation-related incident or situation, is formed solely through the lens of operational impact to our members; in other words, “what does this mean for the flight we want to operate tomorrow“. If I am a pilot planing to operate a flight through the Minsk FIR tomorrow, am I subject to heightened risk of any kind?

Purely from this standpoint, we view this as a one-off incident, that is not likely to recur. We do not consider there to be additional risk to aircraft flying through the Minsk FIR.

But it’s still a major incident …

That does not mean that we are downplaying the magnitude of this event. The conventions and agreements that protect civil aviation are and should continue to be sacrosanct. Aviation itself here has been hijacked, not just this Ryanair aircraft: a dictator-led state has used the civil aviation system for its own nefarious, political purposes.

And as we have seen from the EU ban on Belarus related flights announced this week, the political response has been swift and strong.

But again, purely from an operational perspective, we must differentiate between political sanctions and genuine airspace risk warnings. The Belarus response is heavily weighted to the former, not the latter.

What aviation authorities are now saying

ICAO has issued brief statements online expressing concern, but are waiting for the circumstances of the incident to be investigated further.

EASA has published a Safety Information Bulletin saying that both EU and Third Country Operators should avoid the UMMV/Minsk FIR. However, EASA says it does not believe the safety concern relating to the incident comprises an “unsafe condition” that would warrant a Safety Directive which would force airlines to comply.

Latvia and Lithuania have banned all flights to/from their airports if overflying the UMMV/Minsk FIR. The UK, France, and Canada have all published Notams advising operators not to overfly the airspace of Belarus, and it seems highly likely that more countries will issue warnings in the coming days.

For an up-to-date list of these warnings and advisories, you can check the SafeAirspace.net page for Belarus here. SafeAirspace is a Conflict Zone & Risk Database, and we maintain this warning system to alert operators to tangible, credible threat information that should impact their flight planning decisions. To repeat – we do not consider there to be additional risk to aircraft flying through the Minsk FIR following this recent incident. However, with SafeAirspace.net we simply want to ensure that operators have a single source for all official risk warnings and advisories issued about individual countries, and it’s for that reason we have listed Belarus on the site.

How unprecedented is this?

It’s not a routine event for a country to force an overflying aircraft to land, but it’s also not as rare as you might think. Usually, a forced landing and/or fighter intercept occurs because of unpaid navigation charges, or the lack of an overflight permit. Each country publishes intercept procedures, so that pilots know how to respond to a military interception.

Indonesia is well known for this, and it doesn’t usually make headline news, but it did in 2019 when they forced an Ethiopian Airlines aircraft to land in Bantam. In 2016, Iran forced a Fly Dubai aircraft to land in Iran, following confusion about its flight plan. Peru is also known for forcing enroute aircraft to land because of issues with overflight permits.

Politically motivated interceptions are also not without precedent. In 1985, the Interception of EgyptAir 2843 followed US intelligence received reports that four Palestine Liberation Front Terrorists, responsible for hijacking a cruise ship, were located at an airfield near Cairo, and that Egypt was planning on flying them out to Tunis aboard an EgyptAir airliner. The flight was expected to route over international waters, close to a US Navy ship, and so the US coordinated with local ATC to ensure the aircraft was refused landing at both Tunis and Athens, and a pair of Tomcats were sent up to force the airliner to divert to a NATO base in Italy. Once on the ground the hijackers were removed and detained. 

In 1977, Lebanon accused Israel of ‘Air Piracy’ after they forced a Lebanese Middle East Airlines aircraft to land in Israel. The aircraft was en-route from Beirut to Baghdad, when it was intercepted by two Israeli fighters and diverted to an Israeli military air base in Haifa. Israeli intelligence thought the aircraft was carrying leaders of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In fact, it did not have them onboard but had been chartered by Iraqi airlines following a delay by one of their own aircraft. The crew and passengers were all forcibly removed from the aircraft add interrogated, according to reports, but were released and able to depart some two hours later.

Bottom line

For now, our guidance to crews and aircraft operators is to follow whatever your national aviation authority prescribes in the first instance – and we may expect to see a US FAA KICZ Notam on the way in similar fashion to the EU ban announced this week.

Outside that, it’s your choice as to whether to operate through Belarussian airspace, or not – but be aware of the difference between politically motivated sanctions (even if that motivation is highly justifiable) and genuine airspace risk.

In rushing to respond to this unusual hijacking of civil aviation protocols, we must be careful not to create another hijack in turn – the trustworthiness of conflict zone and airspace risk warnings.

Change is in the stars, literally.

Cheaper launch costs, reusable rockets and the world’s insatiable appetite for space based technologies have dangled a cosmic carrot for private enterprise to make money in space. The commercial space industry is booming. It turns over hundreds of billions of dollars each year and will hit the trillions by 2040.

This means more launches and re-entries than ever before as demand for earth’s lower orbit soars. In the US alone there have been sixty-five licensed commercial launches since the start of last year shared among twelve different launch sites – that’s a lot of rockets.

Space is also the realm of the billionaire visionary. Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic aims to soon make space tourism a reality. Over at Space X, Elon Musk dreams of colonizing Mars while Jeff Bezos seeks to inhabit our moon. Ambitious plans are on the horizon.

Fancy a trip to space? Virgin Galactic may soon make that a reality.

We’re on a Collision Course

The problem for commercial aviation is that the space industry needs our airspace more than ever. There’s no other way to the stars than straight through it.

Unless we find new and more efficient ways of sharing it, an increasing burden will be put on aviation to accommodate more and more launches in our skies.

The cost will come in more time, more fuel and more emissions.

Here’s the problem.

Space launches used to be a pretty rare occurrence. Across its career, the Space Shuttle for instance averaged only five launches each year.

Procedures haven’t changed a great deal since then either. When a rocket is launched, large chunks of airspace are closed for long periods of time. And once it’s all over, everything gets reopened. Safe right? But practical?

Not really, when staring down the barrel of hundreds of launches per year.

Take the US for example. The majority of launch sites are located on the coast and affect oceanic airspace. When you factor in the type of launch vehicle, its trajectory, where it will go if it needs to abort, where its boosters will land and any other hazards the airspace closures quickly become huge.

Launch sites in California affect Pacific routes. A single mission can affect half of the airspace between Hawaii and the West Coast. Launch sites in Virginia and Florida affect North Atlantic routes and lead to congestion in other airspace, such as Jacksonville.

Launch windows are also hours long, with backup windows in case of poor weather.

A famous Space X launch back in 2018 is a great example. You might remember the one – it delivered a small red Tesla Roadster to space in the very first test launch of the Falcon Heavy rocket.

Space X’s Spectacular Falcon Heavy

Its launch window was open for two and half hours. Due to unfavourable winds, it used up most of that. In the meantime, the FAA couldn’t re-open the airspace above it.

While the world waited for a ten minute launch, 563 flights were delayed and 34,841 extra miles were flown. 5,000 square miles were affected resulting in cumulative delays of seventy-seven hours.

That’s an expensive ride to space.

The airspace affected by the first launch of the Falcon Heavy

What’s the solution?

ALPA suggested that the current approach is based on segregation – keeping airplanes away from rockets. But the future relies on integration.

In a nutshell, here’s what they suggest to make it happen:

Better Comms.

 Broadly speaking, spaceflights need to be operated using similar procedures to how we manage earth-bound traffic.

Just like flight plans, launch plans could be introduced with similar details which can be communicated to all other airspace users and controllers in real time and amended when disruptions inevitably happen.

Existing technology used for remote or oceanic airspace can help here too. Fancy things such as next-gen HF and datalink could be used for live communication between pilots, air traffic control and space operators.

Better Surveillance.

 It’s already on the way. The FAA’s Space Data Integrator is a huge step forward in automating and simplifying the flow of live launch and re-entry data so that areas of risk to aircraft can be more efficiently predicted. The project has global potential.

Space-based ADS-B is another opportunity. Already making a big impact over the NAT, it could also be used for spacecraft, including their boosters during re-entry to help air traffic controllers manage airspace closures far more efficiently.

Better Sep.

With technology leading the way, we can begin to safely reduce the margin between aircraft and spacecraft. New international standards would need to be developed to make this happen – and both industries would need to be onboard.

With all these launches, what about debris?

Are we actually at risk?

The uncontrolled re-entry of debris from China’s Long March 5 rocket raised a few eyebrows (including NASA’s) a couple of weeks back when it splashed down east of the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.

For several days no one could say for sure where or when it would re-enter, making the issue of accurate aviation warnings impossible.

The launch and re-entry phases of space flight are usually protected by airspace restrictions designed to keep us well away from anything that could go boom. And unlike anti-aircraft weaponry designed to actively seek out aircraft, space-bound rockets only present a ballistic risk – in other words, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But this is solved by closing airspace.

Space debris is another danger, albeit a tiny one. It poses far more danger to people on the ground that it does to us up in the air. Admittedly there is a bunch of it up in orbit – 170 million pieces to be precise, but the US Government estimates that only about 400 of them re-enter each year. That’s about one per day.

A recent study actually crunched the numbers. The chances of a single piece of space debris (such as that from China’s Long March 5) hitting an aircraft is somewhere in the realm of a tiny fraction of a percent. That’s not to say it can’t happen – back in 2007 an A340 operating over the South Pacific came uncomfortably close, but the odds of a direct hit are almost zilch.

So far more pressing right now is how we fit two industries into one sky.

The sky’s the limit.

NASA and the FAA have an MOU regarding spaceflight, where they have committed to working together to improve safety and integration between space and earth based operations.

The FAA have also recently announced new symbols on their navigation charts, showing launch sites for better pilot awareness. Your first point of call remains the published TFR list, and notams regarding launch windows.

The potential benefits of commercial space travel are huge. But practically speaking both industries need to keep working on better and more efficient ways to share airspace. Otherwise we are all headed for one heck of a traffic jam up there.

IATA recently ‘urged action’ over rogue lithium-battery shippers. Folk are apparently sneaking them onboard without proper notification or packaging, and this could turn into one big, hot mess for airlines.

So, here is a closer look at Lithium Ion batteries, what they are, what they can do, and how to better deal with them onboard.

What are they?

In big terms they are things that power a lot of our airplanes. In smaller terms, they are the batteries in our phones and portable electronics.

And in super simple terms (and with some creative licence thrown in) they are a cell that contains an electrolyte liquid. Lithium Ions get all charged up, and when they are feeling particularly positive, they dive into the electrolyte and swim through it. The movement of them gets the electrons all excited too, and they go zooming along from the current collector, through the device (your phone, laptop, airplane) which sucks out their charge, and then they get collected up by the negative current collector. 

They are different to regular Lithium (without the ion) batteries because they are rechargeable. They also have no memory effect (they don’t get lazy when repeatedly recharged) and they have good energy-to-weight ratios.

A diagram because my explanation was not good

What is the risk?

They sometimes go into thermal runaway, usually when charging, but also if you bash them about (think iPhone stuck under business class seat, getting repeatedly run over by the chair mechanism as the passenger tries to pull it out again).

Thermal runaway, as the name suggests, involves them getting really hot – so hot it reaches the melting point of the metallic lithium and causes a pretty horrid reaction when it just keeps getting hotter and hotter until flame, fire, explosion…

You might think a small phone would not be much of a hazard but there are a lot of very flammable things in your airplane cabin. And there are a lot of things with lithium ion batteries in them that people bring onboard.

Then there are airplane batteries themselves. Boeing had an issue early on with their 787 Lithium Ion batteries leading to an All Nippon Airways 787 having a pretty serious incident with one before the problem was resolved.

The biggest risk though comes from those in the cargo bay. Particularly the ones that you don’t know are there, should not be there, and which you cannot monitor. A UPS 747 crashed in Dubai after LI batteries in the cargo hold caught fire. The report suggested the heat and smoke from the fire disabled the crew oxygen system and entirely obscured their view within 3 minutes of the initial warning.

Big flames. Not good.

What can we do about them?

Most airlines will have a procedure written into their manuals, but it is worth a quick recap because there are some important bits to note.

• If it has flames, use Halon. If you are using halon (in the cockpit) make sure at least one of you puts a smoke hood on – the stuff is very bad for you.
• If there are no flames and it is just smoking hot, then cool it down by pouring water or a non-alcoholic liquid on it. If it is a laptop or something fixed in the cockpit then have a little think before you go slugging water on it though, because there are other electrics around which might not like it that much.
• Don’t try to pick it up (without gloves on). Don’t cover it with ice thinking this will help cool it better, because it actually just insulates it more making it hotter. Don’t put it in fire resistant bags for the same reason.
• Once it is safe to move, use fire gloves and put it in a receptacle – things like waste bins are good. Fill with water and store it somewhere safe where you can keep monitoring it.

Getting your crew to be vigilant for phones under seats (and passengers not moving said seat until phone is retrieved) is a good plan too.

The Cargo Concern

Lithium Ion batteries in the cargo hold are a different matter. If you have Dangerous Goods approval then you will have manuals and info on this. If you don’t have DG approval then any mention of Lithium Ion batteries on a NOTOC should be concerning you.

Lithium Ion batteries are a Class 9 Dangerous Good. The ones to look out for are the UN3480 and UN3090 numbers:

• UN 3090, Lithium metal batteries (shipped by themselves). These are are not rechargeable and are designed to be chucked out after their initial use. They are actually Lithium Metal batteries. These are prohibited for carriage on passenger aircraft.
• UN 3480, Lithium ion batteries (shipped by themselves). These are the rechargeable ones found in your phones and things.
• UN 3091, Lithium metal batteries contained in equipment or packed with equipment
• UN 3481, Lithium ion batteries contained in equipment or packed with equipment

Lithium Ion batters are allowed to be carried on cargo aircraft so long as they have been handled properly. The proper handling, packing, labelling and loading (what they need to be separated from) is all covered by IATA in their massive DG Manual. You can get that here, and find some handy online while you’re at it.

Again, if your operator doesn’t have DG Approval then this is just for info. If you’re wondering whether they do have approval then they don’t – crew have to undergo a yearly Dangerous Goods refresher course and you would remember this (because it is generally quite boring).

The DG Labels you’ll want to see on any Lithium Ion filled boxes

So, the simplest thing is to not carry them…

That would be great, but unfortunately it is not that simple. Lithium Ion batteries are in everything nowadays. They come in all shapes and sizes. So the first step is ensuring your passengers know what they are in, and are aware that they shouldn’t be putting these in their checked baggage.

Here is a handy info brochure to give to passengers.

This is a general ‘heads up’ list of some of the things an LI battery might be lurking within:

• First up, those luggage bags which have them installed in them – if the battery can’t be removed and is more than 0.3g or 2.7Wh it probably shouldn’t be carried. If the battery is under those limits, or if it is removable then it can come onboard but only in the cabin, not in checked baggage.
• Any lithium ion battery that is under 2g or 100Wh can generally be brought into the cabin. There is often a limit here (20 per person) but this varies with different operators.
• Mobility aids – electric wheelchairs – often cause problems because folk don’t always know what their battery details are, and it is the airport staff who have to deal with this. The battery on these has to be in an enclosed container to prevent short circuits, and it must be attached as per the manufacturer instructions, or removed if it can be. If it is removed then it must not exceed 300 Wh or 160Wh if there are two of them on the device.
• Hidden batteries – A lot of devices contain batteries. eBikes. Drones. Things that passengers don’t always think about.

The Captain probably needs to know about the location of these, so if you see stuff being loaded on and haven’t been informed about it, ask.

Finally, rogue shippers. Because of the restrictions, people are sneaking them onboard hidden in incorrect packaging, and without declaring them. They key to stopping this is going to lie with the airlines, operators and ground staff who need to be vigilant. The crew cannot do much more than mitigate the situation if some are onboard, and do cause issues.

Here is the full note from the US Department of Transport and IATA

What to do if you have an incident

If you have a Dangerous Goods Incident, you need to report it, and usually quite quickly. The FAA info page is here to help.

Lithium Ion battery fires are extremely hot and burn incredibly fast. If you think you have LI onboard that might be compromised, get that airplane on the ground as quickly as possible, and get your passengers off.

They burn fast and hot

Want to read some more?

• EASA have a video you can watch
• The NBAA have some good guidance about it too