The 2018 APEC meeting will be held in AYPY/Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea on 15 and 16 November, 2018. If you’re trying to get there, here’s what you need to know…

What’s happening at the airport?

• Parking – There may not even be enough space for all the official delegations’ aircraft, let alone anyone else, so expect parking congestion also at YBCS/Cairns and YBTL/Townsville airports. YBTL will also be used as a base by Australian military aircraft tasked with assisting the airspace security during the event; if you are heading there, make sure you read and carry the AIP SUP H99/18.
• Night closures – Closures of the main runway (14L/32R) mean that the airport is effectively closed each night from 2100-0430 local time until 13 November.
• Customs – if you’re actually going to AYPY during this period, you can view the APEC Customs handbook here.
• Flight Plans – If you indicate the wrong ADS-B FLT ID (in Section 7 of your FPL) and are inbound or outbound to AYPY/Port Moresby or AYNZ/Lae Nadzab you can expect a 20 minute delay or holding (A1069/18 refers).

What’s happening in the airspace?

AIP SUPP 5/2018 outlines the airspace restrictions for APEC2018. Here are the important bits, all effective from Nov 2-20:

• Watch out for overflights of AYPY, as there’s a 90 NM ADIZ in place around the airport from SFC-FL600.
• There is a temporary restricted area (TRA931) 30 NM around AYPY, SFC-FL330. Anyone flying to/from AYPY with a valid flight plan and talking to ATC can enter this area.
• There is another more restrictive area (TRA930) over the CBD and event venue. Only APEC aircraft can enter this area.
• Actual activation times will be notified by NOTAM.
• Expect Royal Australia Air Force FA18 fast jets to be patrolling and operating with ‘due regard‘ overhead during various times

A real life report…

Here’s a report from an Opsgroup member trying to operate to AYPY/Port Moresby for the APEC summit:

- The closest parking spot we could get for a G650 is YPDN/Darwin. We were denied parking in YBCS/Cairns; we were told parking is reserved for head of states only. YBTL/Townsville denied us parking too, on the basis of no space available.

- The handler at AYPY/Port Moresby is not very responsive at the best of times, and has been unreliable also in the past, even when no special event was going on. In the past we once even got handling confirmed for an arrival during a scheduled runway closure!

- Until Nov 30, crew/pax visas cannot be arranged upon arrival, to enhance security during the APEC event. Instead, visa requests must be made through embassies during this time. This is normally not a problem outside of special events. The PNG Embassy in London have been very quick in getting visas approved for our crew, with a maximum turn of 5 working days, and as short as 3 working days.

Some other Supplementary information if you are operating to AYPY/Port Moresby:

• High terrain in close proximity.
• Navaids not monitored by ATC. Standby power reported to be available. Jackson and Parer locaters no longer in operational use. Disregard any procedures that use these aids.
• Navaids may not be accurate or serviceable. Review all available information prior to use and perform appropriate crosschecks to verify navaid integrity.
• ATC may give inappropriate radar vectors and ALT instructions. During radar outage, ATC will provide procedural control. Maintain situation awareness to ensure safety not
  compromised. Refer to Radar Terrain Clearance Chart to cross-check altitudes.
• RWY 14L has upslope for 3/4 of its length, then slopes downward to the RWY 32R threshold, giving the illusion that the runway is shorter than actual.
• In gusty winds, expect windshear on approach RWY 14L.
• T-VASIS may be unserviceable without prior warning.
• Engine start clearance not required unless notified on ATIS.
• POB should be given with pushback request.
• Airway B220 is a designated two-way airway. Beware potential late-notice opposite direction traffic given close proximity to FIR boundary.
• Short-notice deterioration of ATC services may occur. If ATC not available, revert to CTAF on tower frequency.

Did we miss something? Let us know!

It’s going to be mostly sunny and warm (78F, 26C) this week in Bermuda if you’re heading that way – but you should also know they are going to be full non-radar – so plan ahead.

We put together what you need to know.

Firstly, the Bermuda Secondary Surveillance Radar will be out of service for 7 days starting this coming Monday, 29 October, at 1100z (0800L). The NOTAM says it will be back to normal the following Monday, 5 November, at 1700z (1400L).

The following non-radar procedures are in effect (NOTAM – A0404/18 and A0154/18)

• If you are landing at TXKF/Bermuda you should flight plan and expect FL310 or below at the NY Oceanic CTA/FIR boundary. 
• Expect possible flow restrictions due to traffic volume and/or during adverse weather.
• Carry fuel to cover “minimum” of 15 minute arrival/departure delay.
• All aircraft must file via MOMON 1 or POPOP 1 RNAV STAR however there are restrictions on which transitions can be used:
  • MOMON 1 – Only DASER, ANVER and RNGRS transitions allowed
  • POPOP 1 – Only BALTN and JIMAC transitions allowed
• Departing aircraft must file via either the BORNN 1 or SOMRR 1 RNAV SIDs.
• If you are NON-RNAV then you must flight plan to DASER, ANVER, RNGRS, BALTN, or JIMAC (180 nm ARC BDA VOR) then the respective airway to BDA VOR.

A0152/18 – AERODROME INTERMITTENT PERIODS  OF HIGH BIRD ACT OF KILL DEERS AND PLOVERS DUE TO SEASONAL MIGRATORY
PATTERNS: THE MIGRATORY SEASON BEGINS IN EARLY OCT AND RUNS THRU  EARLY APRIL WITH BIRD ACT AT ITS HIGHEST APRX BTN HR OF 1000 – 2130.  EXERCISE CTN WHEN FLY DRG THESE TIMES.

“Beware all pilots traveling to Abidjan, Customs is waiting for you!”

That is the message we received in a disconcerting report this week from one of our long-time members which certainly troubled us here at OpsGroup. We thought it was important to share.

The pilot told us that he and his business jet were recently “held hostage” by airport custom officials in the port city of DIAP/Abidjan, Ivory Coast, West Africa.

The crew had all the appropriate landing and overflight permits as required. GenDec’s, passports and associated documents were also in order. Therefore, all the evidence points to a good old fashioned shakedown and a convoluted scheme setup between local Customs agents and certain ground handlers to extort bribes from foreign crew.

The report we received explains how the crew were ramp checked by Customs officials after landing. The aircraft documents were confiscated and the Captain was “interrogated until 1am” the following morning.

The officials claimed that the pilot both failed to declare their arrival, as well as the “aircraft contents, passengers and baggage.”

The fine was CFA 6,900,000,000 (yes billion!) francs, which equates to USD $12,066,720 (yes, million!)

Ay Caramba!

The offence was purported to be importing a high value item (aircraft) without customs approval. The high fine figure was “based on the insurance value of the aircraft.”

The crew were held hostage in the country for 10 days until senior Customs officials could finally agree on the appropriate “accusation” and that the associated fine was actually “legal”.

After the 10 days, the crew were able to negotiate a deal and depart safely – although not without having to involve the aircraft’s insurance underwriter, who paid a ‘substantial amount’ for the aircraft to be allowed to depart.

On reflection, the crew noted that if Customs does meet your aircraft without you arranging it in advance, “you can be sure you are about to be trapped.” They do not tell you why they are looking for documents, more specifically, your aircraft documents, and will not tell you anything as they walk away to call their seniors, carrying your documents with them.

So in short: do not let go of your documents!

The advice from our member:

• Contact the handling agent first hand and double check that they are an approved, recognized handler and have approval from the various authorities (immigration, customs, police, anti-drug) to operate airside. Also check that they can arrange for you to get to the Customs and Immigration officers landside. Do not assume because the handler takes all your documents and gives you an invoice and receipts that the authorities have been advised of your arrival and situation.
• The Abidjan Customs authority does not recognize a GenDec as an approved form of advice about passengers, health and cargo. They will also not sign off on the submitted GenDec. They will not come to your aircraft unless you specifically arrange for them to do so.

It’s important to stress that we are not talking about a small African airstrip in the back lots. This is a large international gateway with many major international airlines serving the city. Over 4 million people live here and it’s the economic capital of the Ivory Coast.  But corruption is endemic, it spills over every sector of the public administration; clearly even into Customs!

As Brookings put it, “for the inspector, the temptation is large because his salary is relatively small compared to the potential bribe.” It still doesn’t make it right and this experience serves a timely warning for all crew operating through the airport.

Have you been subjected to similar behavior when passing through DIAP/Abidjan? Let us know.

Extra Reading

• Cote d’Ivoire Travel Advisory
• Understanding the Roots of Corruption in Cote d’Ivoire
• Why there is (petty) corruption in Ivory Coast

The Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh recently published circular 02/2018 which outlines a $195 USD overflight permit fee for non-scheduled foreign aircraft transiting the VGFR/Dhaka FIR . The fee is certainly on the high side but the disappointing part is :

“The payment is non-refundable, irrespective of the approval or rejection to the permit request.”

Say what?

There was a similar type of no-refund situation within the TNCF/Curaco FIR but we now understand after some noise, operators are getting refunds as per normal industry practice.

We say it’s time for the CAA in Bangladesh to stop this non-refundable nonsense.

Have you had a permit denied and not received your money back? Reach out and Let us know!

PBCS has been an ongoing PITA for some time now. We wrote about it back in March. Here are the top three questions we’ve had on it since then – and now we finally have some answers!

Question 1: What happens if I still haven’t received my updated A056 LOA?

After the PBCS tracks were introduced in March 2018, the FAA published a Notice requiring all N-reg operators to update their A056 LOA authorization – regardless of whether or not they intended to fly these PBCS tracks. For private (Part 91) operators, the deadline to submit the application was 30th September 2018.

There was a barrage of applications, and the FAA still seem to have a bit of a backlog, as even now some operators have still not received their updated approvals.

The FAA’s unofficial policy is that as long as you have applied for a revised LOA, you can continue to use your old authorization after September 30th, while you wait for the new one to be issued.

Bottom line: This means you are allowed to keep flying in the North Atlantic, just not on the PBCS tracks.

Question 2: What about that problem with aircraft with Honeywell systems installed?

Back in March, a latency timer issue with certain Honeywell FMS systems meant that there were bunch of aircraft which weren’t able to get the PBCS approval.

In June, Honeywell issued a service bulletin fix for the issue, available at varying times for different aircraft. Since then, the FAA has been issuing the updated A056 LOA approvals to those aircraft with the Honeywell systems that reflect the new capabilities but the still don’t meet the PBCS requirement of RCP240 due to the latency timer issue.

Bottom line: Now those affected aircraft are able to receive the updated A056 LOA approvals, just with a PBCS restriction – meaning they can continue to operate in the North Atlantic, just not on the PBCS tracks.

Question 3: What the heck is PBCS anyway?

PBCS stands for ‘performance-based communication and surveillance’.

PBCS involves globally coordinated and accepted standards for Required Communication Performance (RCP) and Required Surveillance Performance (RSP), with the goal being to allow the application of reduced lateral and longitudinal separation to aircraft which meet the criteria.

To be PBCS compliant, you basically need CPDLC capable of RCP240 and ADS-C capable of RSP180; this effectively means having a 4 minute comms loop, and 3 minute position reporting.

PBCS has been implemented in various different chunks of airspace around the world, but most notably in the North Atlantic, where the three core daily NAT Tracks are assigned as PBCS tracks between FL350-390. To fly those, you will need to be PBCS compliant (read above) but also have RNP4 (the rest of the NAT only requires RNP10).

Feeling queasy? That’s okay, reading about PBCS makes us feel that way too. If you’re still hungry for more though, check out our recent article on all things PBCS!

More questions? Get in touch!

The NAT used to be simple. Fill your flask, fire up the HF, align the INS and away you went.

Now, it’s a little more complicated. Basic Instruments are not enough. Use this quick and dirty guide from FSB to figure out where you are welcome on the NAT, depending on what equipment and training you have. Valid for October 15, 2018.

The United States is rolling out En Route FANS CPDLC during 2018-19, for all equipped, trained and permitted operators. The FAA’s Advisory Circular AC 90-117 outlines the requirements for U.S. operators.

Trials have begun with KZID/Indianapolis going live with 24/7 ops starting last week.

We also understand that KZME/Memphis and KZKC/Kansas City are still in the testing phase with CPDLC and voice read back happening 1-2 nights per week during the midnight shift.

The current deployment schedule as it stands can be found in this graphic. [if you know what DFV means, let us know!]

How to participate:

• The FANS logon is “KUSA” for the entire country and you may logon at any time. The CPDLC connection will become active after departure, and the crew is notified via a welcome message uplink. If En Route FANS CPDLC enabled airspace is active, you will stay logged on. If the aircraft transitions from En Route FANS CPDLC enabled airspace into non-Data Link airspace with an active CPDLC connection then the connection will terminate approximately seven minutes after exiting.
• To participate, file “DAT/FANSE” in Field 18 of the ICAO Flight Plan.
• Equipment required is VDL Mode 2, indicated as “J4” in Field 10a of the ICAO Flight Plan.
• If an operator wants to use domestic En Route FANS CPDLC and is already using FANS DCL then the the majority of operations will fall into one of these scenarios:
  • (1) The operator uses FANS DCL via the “DAT/1FANS2PDC” preference in Field 18 of the ICAO Flight Plan. In that case, update the preference to “DAT/1FANSE2PDC“.
  • (2) The operator uses FANS DCL via the FAA’s Subscriber Database. In that case, the operator will want to add the entry “DAT/FANSE” in Field 18 of the Flight Plan.

Some things to keep in mind:

• Domestic En Route FANS CPDLC enabled airspace will be seamlessly integrated with foreign (Canadian) and Oceanic FANS CPDLC enabled airspace.
• The Oceanic Clearance will not be delivered via FANS CPDLC. You will still need to request the clearance via AFIS/ACARS or obtain it via voice.

Have you had the chance to try it out recently? Let us know!

Extra Reading:

• Rockwell Collins
• FAA Advisory Circular AC 90-117

We reported a few months back that the Airport Authority (AAHK) and the Hong Kong Schedule Coordination Office (HKSCO) have decided to trial an increase in slot availability from 4 to 6 total slots each night. It looks like the trial is being extended until March 2019.

The published details:

Notice on night slot availability (trial from 8 August 2018 until 31 March 2019)

1. The number of slots available for GA/BA operations between 0000 to 0500 local time (16-21 UTC) will increase from 4 slots daily to 6 slots daily.
2. The application procedure for these 6 slots will be the same as that for the 4 daily slots currently available.
3. The above are provided on a trial and temporary basis and are subject to continuous review jointly by AAHK and HKSCO.
4. Also important to note, as pointed out to us by our friends at the Asian Business Aviation Association (AsBAA) – these 6 slots will be made available to all aircraft types, not just the ones currently exempted from the noise abatement regulations. This means that BBJ’s/ACJ’s/Lineage 1000/Globals/G650ER etc can now operate in and out of Hong Kong at night-time, subject to slot availability.

In Short: The performance-based communication and surveillance (PBCS) framework allows for higher safety standards and more efficient airspace use. If your aircraft already has the equipment and you cross the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans often, it’s worth looking into getting your regulatory approval.

PB… what? It’s a good question. We have so many acronyms in aviation, it’s easy to forget what this one stands for and what it really means. So, let’s try and get to the bottom of it.

What is PBCS?

Official answer:

The ICAO performance-based communication and surveillance (PBCS) framework ensures that emerging technologies for communication and surveillance fully support ATM operations and are implemented and operated safely.

In plain speak:

With the technology already available on many aircraft and in the Air Traffic Control facility, aircraft can now fly closer than ever before, especially over non-radar oceanic airspace.

There are two key buzz words, so let’s define them. They are interlinked with RNP – Required Navigation Performance.

• RSP – Required Surveillance Officially known as “surveillance data delivery”, often stipulated in the Airplane Flight Manual. Basically, how often does the aircraft send its position to ATC/ground station. There are two specifications, RSP180 and RSP400. The numbers indicate the maximum number of seconds (180 or 400) for the transaction to occur.
• RCP – Required Communication ICAO has two specifications, RCP240 and RCP400. Again, the numbers indicate the maximum number of seconds (240 or 400), or “transaction time” taken for the controller to issue an instruction to the crew and for them to receive a response. This could be via CPDLC, HFDL, VDL or SATCOM.

So, we have a loop here, C-N-S. Communication, Navigation and Surveillance. An aircraft sends surveillance information to ATC about where it is; the aircraft stays within confines of RNP navigation requirements and ATC communicates with the aircraft within the required transaction times.  Pretty easy!

But why do we need PBCS?

The take away? If all given aircraft in a certain airspace have a lower RSP value and a lower RCP value, we can start putting these aircraft closer together.

Essentially – performance-based separation minima. This allows aircraft to be separated safely according to technological capability rather than “one-size-fits-all” prescriptive distances.

What are the differences from PBN?

They are similar but there are notable differences. In a simple sense, the PBN (RNP/RNAV) only requires that the operator obtains approval because it focuses on how the equipment works. PBCS (RSP/RCP) however requires the involvement and approval of the air traffic service provider because it’s a two-way communication and surveillance effort. There are dependencies and complexity with the equipment standards on both ends.

In this graphic you can see a high-level summary of who is responsible for what:

Where is it in place?

Currently PBCS is in effect in one form or another in the following FIR’s

• NZZC/Auckland Oceanic
• NFFF/Nadi
• KZAK/Oakland Oceanic
• PAZN/Anchorage Oceanic
• WSJC/Singapore
• VCCF/Sri Lanka
• NTTT/Tahiti
• RJJJ/ Fukuoka
• KZNY/New York Oceanic
• CZQX/Gander
• EGGX/Shanwick
• BIRD/ Reykjavik
• LPPO/Santa Maria Oceanic

The Air Traffic Service providers of China, Brazil and Indonesia have also shown interest to introduce PBCS in the future.

Specifically, PBCS is being used between FL350 and 390 on certain “half” NAT tracks as we have written about before.

What do I need to do?

Requirements vary from state-to-state on the exact procedure for obtaining approval. It’s important to note that not all aircraft are automatically PBCS ready (refer to your aircraft manufacturer and your airplane flight manual).

The FAA has outlined its approval process here and has a handy powerpoint document here.

An important element is to prove that you have signed the “PBCS Global Charter” which can be found at the FANS Central Reporting Agency (CRA) website.

When a PBCS authorization is obtained an operator is required to file both P2 (indicating RCP240) in item 10 and SUR/RSP180 in item 18 of the flight plan, in addition to the J codes for CPDLC and D1 or G1 for ADS-C in item 10.

The correct filing of these two codes will indicate to any ATM ground systems applying performance-based separation minima that the aircraft is eligible for these minima and that the crew have received the relevant training in order to safely operate using the reduced separations.

Will you notice that PBCS standards are being applied to your flight?

Ok this is the funny part of this story. The short answer, probably not.

While it may be easier for RCP240/RSP180 approved aircraft to obtain optimal flight profiles, especially during high traffic periods, and particularly for NAT flights using the OTS, the application of these standards is generally tactical in nature for ATC. An aircraft may not have performance-based separation applied at all on an individual flight, or possibly may never have had it applied to any of its flights. Even if a you have RCP240/RSP180 approvals, if the aircraft nearby does not also have the approvals, the separation standards cannot be applied!

What if I don’t have RCP240 and RSP180 approval?

If you do not have RCP240/RSP180 approvals you will always have the larger separations, e.g. 10-min, applied, and not be eligible for the lower standards in cases where it may be beneficial.

The only airspace that has implemented tracks that will require PBCS to file is in the NAT OTS. There are still non-PBCS tracks in the OTS for which PBCS approvals are not required.

All other airspace in which performance-based separation minima are currently applied will allow aircraft with and without RCP240 and RSP180 approvals to enter and use the airspace in a mixed-mode operation.

Will I be penalized if I don’t have it?

Probably not in the short term. In the future as more and more airspace corridors become PBCS only, then it is possible you may be subject to reroutes, delays or the requirement to fly outside of certain flight levels.

So, our conclusion?

PBCS is a great step forward in maximizing efficiency in a busier airspace environment thanks to the advent of better technology. If you fly the NATs often and have an aircraft capable of PBCS certification standards, then yes – do it! The approval process is not overly burdensome, and many modern transatlantic jets already meet most of the technical requirements.

Ultimately, reduced separation standards mean more great air-to-air views. So, pack your camera!

Did we miss something, or does something need more explaining? Let us know!

Extra Reading:

• The latest Nat Doc 007 North Atlantic Operations and Airspace Manual
• FAA-Performance-based Communication and Surveillance (PBCS) Monitoring
• FAA-PBCS FAQ
• FAA-PBCS: Operator Approvals
• FAA-Performance-based Communication and Surveillance (PBCS) Approvals and Monitoring
• FAA-PBCS Manual Doc 9869 Review
• ICAO-Operational Authorization Guide
• ICAO-PBS Overview
• NBAA -Revised Authorization Required for Performance-Based Comm, Surveillance Operations
• New Zealand -Performance Based Communication and Surveillance (PBCS) Implementation Plan

New NOTAMS (pretty poorly written ones – but hey that’s another topic) have been issued for SCEL/Santiago in Chile, outlining some runway configuration changes between 31 October and 20 December, 2018.

Operational Changes

• RWY 17L/35R will be closed for heavy maintenance between 1200z-2259z (0900L-2000L) daily except during low visibility operations.  (NOTAM A3273/18)
• New RWY 18/36 established on current Taxiway Alpha and will be used in place of 17L/35R for aircraft up to A321 size. It’s dimensions are 2280M x 36M. See updated ground chart here. (NOTAM A3262/18)
• New RWY 18 GNSS approach established. See this chart. (NOTAM A3263/18)
• The STARs currently used for 17L will be applicable for RWY 18. (NOTAM A3265/18)

Opsgroup members have also advised us that;

• Due to standard late night noise restrictions, departures will be required to use 17L (not 17R).
• Pay careful attention to the substantially different missed approach procedure for GNSS RWY 18 procedure. This has been designed differently to allow a “tighter” traffic sequence and permit simultaneous operations on 17R. This is not normally possible due to the conflicting departure and missed approach paths.

If you do get to head to Chile, grab the window seat and grab a camera! I took these last year!

It really is such a great approach!

You were all very supportive when we wrote the initial article on the BS Notam problem last year, and have followed our journey in fixing the problem since then.

Big news!

The NTSB called the Notam System a bunch of garbage on Tuesday this week, and assigned probable cause of the AC759 incident in SFO to the Notams that were missed.

What this means to OpsGroup is massive fuel to our fire: we are working hard to fix this problem, and having a public facing government organisation like the NTSB come down like a ton of bricks on the Notam System drives us forward in leaps and bounds.

The group members have been decisive in helping us to identify the problem and taking action to fix this. So, we want to acknowledge all of you! Great work!

In solving two of the above five problems, we have been working with ICAO for several months now. You all got involved in Norm, and 17,000 Notams later, we happy to report that version 0.1 of Norm is now live on the ICAO website. Norm is a bot – an AI, that has learned what Notams look like, and thanks to OpsGroup rating these 17,000 Notams, is also learning which ones are critical and which ones are not.

He’s still young. He doesn’t get everything, but if you feed him a Notam you’ll see him assign it a criticality of 1-5.

This will in turn allow us to sort Notams, putting the most important stuff first.

The pilot at the controls of a Beechcraft B200 Super King Air that crashed shortly after take off had the aircrafts rudder trim in the full left position for take off, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has found.

The ATSB final report said the aircraft’s track began diverging to the left of the runway centre line before rotation and the divergence increased as the flight progressed.

It then entered a shallow climb followed by a “substantial left sideslip with minimal roll” before beginning to descend. At this point the pilot issued a mayday call seven times in rapid succession.

Approximately 10 seconds after the aircraft became airborne, and two seconds after the transmission was completed, the aircraft collided with the roof of a building.

What Happened?

The investigation found that the pilot did not detect that the aircraft’s rudder trim was in the full nose-left position prior to takeoff.

“Prior to takeoff, there were several opportunities in the pre-flight inspection and before takeoff checklists for the pilot to set and confirm the position of the rudder trim,” the ATSB final report said.

A King Air flight simulator was used to recreate the event as part of the ATSB investigation.

The pilot who performed the flight simulator test commented that:

The yaw on take-off was manageable but at the limit of any normal control input. Should have rejected the take-off. After take-off the aircraft was manageable but challenging up to about 140 knots at which time because of aerodynamic flow around the rudder it became uncontrollable. Your leg will give out and then you will lose control. It would take an exceptional human to fly the aircraft for any length of time in this condition. The exercise was repeated 3 times with the same result each time. Bear in mind I had knowledge of the event before performing the take-offs.

The pilot also stated that it could be possible for a pilot to misinterpret the yaw as being caused by an engine power loss rather than from a mis-set rudder trim.

Safety message

Cockpit checklists are an essential tool for overcoming limitations with pilot memory, and ensuring that action items are completed in sequence and without omission. The improper or non-use of checklists has been cited as a factor in some aircraft accidents. Research has shown that this may occur for varying reasons and that experienced pilots are not immune to checklist errors.

This accident highlights the critical importance of appropriately actioning and completing checklists.

Checklist discipline

In previous correspondence between the accident pilot and the ATSB when discussing checklists, the pilot stated that:

“You don’t get complacent as a pilot but you get into a routine. The same as your pre-take-off checks, you get a routine and you don’t need to use a checklist because you are doing it every day, you are flying it every day… I take-off with one stage of flap because it gets me of the ground quicker. And I never change my routine…”

Wait what!??? It is stating the obvious but it’s a timely reminder that checklists are an essential defense against pilot errors. 

Sadly, it could have been a life-saver in this instance.

The ATSB video to supplement the report.

Here’s the level of inconsistency we’ve reached in international air transport: we take each passenger, scrutinize their booking, check the no-fly-list, watch them on CCTV, pull them apart at TSA, remove anything sharper than a pen, question them, x-ray the bags, run Explosive Trace Detection tests, screen the hold baggage, background check every member of the crew, and then, once they’ve all boarded, fly this ultra-secure airplane straight into a war zone.

Welcome to the Eastern Mediterranean. It’s an active conflict zone. The Russian naval build up there this month is the largest since Moscow’s intervention in Syria began in 2015. Over Syria, 9 aircraft have been shot down this year.

The most recent was on Monday night this week, when Syria came under attack from Israel fighter jets, and started firing indiscriminately at anything off the coast that looked like a threat. They wanted to shoot something down, and they did — except it was a friend, not foe. They took out a Russian Ilyushin IL-20M transport category airplane. Even on the worst radar, that doesn’t look anything like an Israeli F-16.

50 miles away from where the Russian aircraft plunged into the sea on Monday night is the international airway UL620, busy with all the big name airline traffic heading for Beirut and Tel Aviv. If Syria can mistakenly shoot down a Russian ally aircraft, they can also take out your A320 as you cruise past.

And yet, most airlines continue to operate. Are we really so comfortable with operating in conflict zones again?

The lessons of MH17 seem to be fading fast. It’s a little over four years since 298 people lost their lives over Ukraine one summer afternoon, thanks to an errant missile fired during a civil war at an aircraft that they thought was a military threat. “Why were they over a war zone”, everyone cried afterwards.

Well, we all were. Me too. I was a pilot for Austrian Airlines at the time. I recall one morning in Vienna, some months before MH17. Boarding the last of the passengers, my BBC news app flashed up a story about a helicopter being shot down in eastern Ukraine .

As we were headed east, with my colleague in the cockpit, we quickly plotted the position on our enroute chart, and noted that it was really close to our route. Maybe 30 miles north. “We might see something interesting!”, we said, and pushed back. We didn’t, nor did we think much more about it.

Do you see the thought process though? Before MH17, we didn’t consider the risks to our aircraft from war zones. Especially being so high. Helicopters might be getting shot down, but we’re at 35,000 feet. No problem.

This is why all of these airlines — mine, at the time, included — operated on the route.

Image: Der Spiegel

And then it happened, and none of us could quite believe it.

But we learned. “Conflict Zone” became a buzzword. We had task forces and committees, whitepapers and promises, and — myself included — talked at length about how this happened, why, and how to avoid it in the future.

And yet, here we are flying unsuspecting passengers along the Syrian border. If you’re unsuspecting enough, and buy a SkyTeam codeshare ticket — you’ll actually overfly Syria on the Honey Badger airline of the region, Middle East Airlines.

Here we are flying passengers in the Eastern Mediterranean war zone. Why is this happening?

My guess: because we don’t think anything bad is going to happen, because the airspace boundary lines on the charts make that little bit of sea near Cyprus feel different from that little bit of sea near Syria, but mainly because there is no clear guidance from Aviation Authorities.

Let’s start with Cyprus. The Nicosia FIR has a big chunk of unsafe airspace. The Russian aircraft on Monday was shot down on the Nicosia FIR boundary. What do the Notams say? Take a look. There are 97 of them. Mostly about fireworks at local hotels. Critical stuff indeed. Then there are 20 or 30 about “Russian naval exercises”. A clue, perhaps, but where is the black and white “An Aircraft was Shot Down on our Border on Monday?” . Or, since we are still using teletype to communicate Notams to crews, “AN AIRCRAFT WAS SHOT DOWN ON OUR BORDER ON MONDAY”. Wait, we have to abbreviate that, and use codes, for some reason. “ACFT SHOT DOWN ON FIR BDY 17SEP”. That’s better.

What about Turkey? Anything on the Eastern Mediterranean risk? Let’s have a look. Nope, just 132 Bullshit Notams, and something about an AWACS aircraft. See you back here in 30 minutes when you’ve read them all.

Remember, I’m being a pilot, an airline, a dispatcher, trying to find information on the Risk in the Eastern Mediterranean. And this is how hard it is.

EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency), how are you doing? Let’s start here, at the “Information on Conflict Zones”. Paragraph 2 tells us that ICAO have a Central Repository on Conflict Zones, launched in 2015.

No, they don’t. That died — quite a long time ago. This is where it used to live. So, there is no ICAO Central Repository on Conflict Zones. There is a new ICAO document with guidance on managing Conflict Zone risk (and it’s a bloody good one, too) — but where is the picture of current risk?

Let’s plough on through the EASA site. Aha! Seems we have a Conflict Zone alerting system, and Conflict Zone bulletins. Here they all are: https://ad.easa.europa.eu/czib-docs/page-1

The last one on Syria was issued on April 17th. But it seems to be just a list of Notams issued by other states. And these are out of date. The German Notam has expired, the French AIC has been replaced.

And there’s no guidance. No Map. No routes to avoid. Nothing about Cyprus, or Beirut. No mention of the Russian shootdown. No mention of the 9 aircraft shot down this year.

How am I supposed to know, as an operator, or pilot, what the risks are and where to avoid. We’re getting closer to the point here. You’re not supposed to rely on the Aviation Authority. That is their message. You must conduct your own risk assessment. You must research and find out about the risks yourself.

You are on your own.

If you’re a big airline, that’s probably fine. You’ll make your own decisions about where to fly, anyhow. But what about everybody else?

While OpsGroup works hard to get information out to our members — and we spend a lot of time researching risk — I would greatly prefer that we didn’t have to.

Aviation Authorities must issue better guidance for the aircraft entering their areas.

Let me remind you. Airlines are operating 50 miles from a position where an airplane was shot down at night, by a missile type that’s already taken out a passenger airliner by mistake, fired by a beleaguered Syrian defence post, at a friendly aircraft that they did not take time to identify.

And the guidance to operators from Authorities: NIL.

Opsgroup has now published Note 31: Airspace Risk in the Eastern Mediterranean. There is a clear risk to civil aircraft operating on airways UL620, UW74, UR18, and UP62. In simple terms, if you find yourself planned overwater east of Cyprus, reconsider your route.

Further reading:

• ICAO Doc 10084 – Risk Assessment Manual for Civil aircraft flying over or near conflict zones. This was published this year, fully updated – read it!
• Safeairspace. Managed by OpsGroup, this is our public repository and first point of warning for Airspace Risk for airlines, pilots, dispatchers, and aircraft operators.

With planned runway and terminal constructions, LIML/Milan Linate will be closing from July 27, 2019 until October 27, 2019.  Work has already begun with Assoclearance (slot coordination) to work out summer schedules.

Today, September 20, a coordination meeting will take place to clarify the slot allocation process for S19. Following this, a September 25th meeting at Linate will be held to discuss the operational impact of the closure.

Milan Linate handled over nine million passengers in 2017, so a large portion of this traffic will now have to operate through LIMC/Milan Malpensa, which already stands as the second busiest airport in Italy, handling over 22 million passengers in 2017.

We’ll have more information after both the slot and operations meetings this coming week.

Do you know more? Feel free to comment or drop us a line!

Latest update: 1900z, Sept 17th.

Most airports have reopened, with the exception of KILM and KOAJ (see below).

The National Weather Service have warned – “Florence is forecast to bring a large area of rainfall of 20-40 inches to parts of NC/SC. We cannot overstate the threat of catastrophic flooding this storm will bring!”

Severe disruption is expected across the entire region spanning from KSAV/Savannah in the south up to KRIC/Richmond in the north, with multiple airport closures planned.

As of 1900z on Sep 17th, the situation is as follows:

• ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA (KAVL) @flyavlnow
  Airport is open and operational.
• CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA (KCHS) @iflyCHS
  Airport is open and operational.
• CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (KCHO) @CHOAirport
  Airport is open and operational.
• WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA (KILM) @ILMAirport
  The airport is open, but it’s not recommended to operate, no power, no ILS, no tower. One runway is open for rotor aircraft.
• FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA (KFAY) @flyFAYairport
  Airport is open and operational.
  
• MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA (KMYR) @FlyMyrtleBeach
  Airport is open and operational, some equipment outages, keep an eye on Notams.
  
• GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA (KGSO) @flyfromPTI
  Airport is open and operational.
• HILTON HEAD, SOUTH CAROLINA (KHXD)  @hiltonheadSC
  Airport is open and operational.
• NORFOLK, VIRGINIA (KORF) @NorfolkAirport
  Airport is open and operational.
• RALEIGH-DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA (KRDU) @RDUairport
  Airport is open and operational.
• SAVANNAH, GEORGIA (KSAV) @fly_SAV
  Airport is open and operational.
• WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA (KINT)
  Airport is open and operational.
• LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA (KLYH) @lynchburggov
  Airport is open and operational.
• RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (KRIC) @flack4RIC
  Airport is open and operational.
• CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA (KCLT) @cltairport
  Airport is open and operational.
• NEW BERN, SOUTH CAROLINA (KFLO)
  Airport is open and operational.
  
• FLORENCE, NORTH CAROLINA (KEWN)
  Airport is open and operational.
• PITT-GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA (KPGV)
  Airport is open and operational.
• JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA (KOAJ)
  The airport is closed – scheduled to reopen Sept 18, accepting military and rescue flights.
• ROCKY MOUNT, NORTH CAROLINA (KRWI)
  Airport is open and operational.

Do you know more and can add to this list? Let us know!

Extra Reading:

• Google Crisis Map
• You can view the latest projections and forecast maps with the NOAA here.
• You can view the latest information from the FAA here. The latest flight delay information is here. 

The FAA has published new guidance today on overflight risk for Iran, and the Tehran FIR (OIIX). The relationship between the US and Iran has soured in the past twelve months, since the last KICZ Notam and guidance was published. In May, when President Trump announced the withdrawal from the Nuclear deal, the Iranian parliament burned the US flag and shouted “Death to America”.

Without seeming alarmist, this relationship must be taken into account when planning flights through the Tehran FIR. Although the reopening of Iraqi airspace in November last year has provided additional routing options, our recent article London – Dubai, which way is best? shows that there is no perfect route in the region, and operators must consider their preference for Iraq vs Iran.

A new Notam for Iran, KICZ 16/2018 was published today, and contains new wording, rather than being an extension of the previous. The key message of the Notam is : “Exercise caution when flying into the Tehran FIR“.

In addition, new background guidance has been published in conjunction with the Notam, and these are the key new items:

• There is concern for heightened Iranian air defense sensitivity and exercises as a result of regional instability and/or political tensions. Heightened Iranian air defense sensitivity may create an inadvertent risk to U.S. civil aviation operating in the Tehran FIR (OIIX)
• A U.S. civil operator experienced a fighter intercept in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) in December 2017
• There is the potential for Iranian surface-to-surface missile fire from western Iran, targeting Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) positions located in the region (such as occurred in June 2017)
• There is an inadvertent risk to U.S. civil aviation operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) from Iranian-fielded GPS jammers

We would add that if planning an overflight of the Tehran FIR, consider the risk from an unplanned landing – decompression, medical, engine fire – which may force you into Tehran or another airport – it’s a big chunk of airspace. The US State Dept currently advises: Do not travel to Iran due to the risk of arbitrary arrest and detention of U.S. citizens.

As always, we’d like to hear your thoughts and comments on this new information, overflying Iran, and Middle East risk in general. Comment below, or mail our team at comments@ops.group.

References

FAA Notam KICZ 16/2018 published Sep 9, 2018
FAA Background Notice on Tehran FIR published Sep 9, 2018
FAA Prohibitions, Restrictions and Notices (not yet updated)

In the recent France AIP August update a new requirement was added for all aircraft inbound to LFPB/Paris Le Bourget to list their parking position and handler on Field 18 of their flight plan.

Mentioned twice in the local traffic regulations (the translation is a little iffy but you get the idea):

Mandatory assistance by approved based companies. The name of the assistant society must be stated in field 18 of the FPL as a remark (RMK).

and

It is required to the crews to indicate in field 18 of the flight plan, the traffic area of destination and the name of the handling provider.

We understand that this came about due to “much confusion” of the parking stand locations after aircraft land.

Remark 18 should include

1. Handler Name
2. Your parking stand location (e.g. HANDLER ABC T1 APRON FOXTROT 2)
   • For heavy aircraft (A330/A340/A350/B747/B787/B767/C130) apron Golf, Sierra or Foxtrot 3 will suffice. Your local handler should give you confirmation ahead of your expected flight.
3. Your handlers phone number.

So it should look something like this:

(FPL-FGTRY-IG

-C525/L-SDFGRWY/S

-LFMD0610

-N0360F340 OKTET UM733 GIPNO UT26 LOGNI UN854 DJL

-LFPB0120 LFPN

-PBN/A1B2D2S1 DOF/180903 IFP/MODESASP ORGN/KBLIHAEX RMK/HANDLER ABC TERMINAL 1 APRON FOXTROT 2 TEL : +3312345678)

Do you know more? Feel free to comment or drop us a line!

Also- here is a video of a Beech Bonanza flying under the Eiffel Tower 

As a group of 4000 pilots, dispatchers, and controllers, we stand for safety ahead of commerce. Al Jazeera interviewed our founder, Mark Zee, about the current risk in Ethiopian airspace created by the ATC strike, and why we care so much about getting the truth out to our members.

https://www.facebook.com/flightservicebureau/videos/244638736242463/?t=1

5th September, update:

As of this morning, most controllers have returned to work. Some concessions made by ECAA. Addis ACC and TWR are again staffed with qualified controllers, so the safety situation, for now, is restored. However, 9 remain in jail. Returning controllers were forced to sign an ‘admission’ of illegal strike action in return for amnesty. IATA In Flight Broadcast Procedure requirement for Addis FIR remains in place, meaning you must broadcast on 126.9 as in other areas of concern in Africa. Further as we get it.

4th September:

Last week we were one of the first to expose the attempted ATC Strike cover up by the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority.

As a reminder, untrained and uncertified foreign controllers, retired and local non-operational ATC personnel are being used to control air traffic over Ethiopia. 

It is a catastrophic misjudgement, creating a safety risk in the Addis FIR and at Ethiopian Airports for pilots and passengers alike.

Here are some more updates since our last article:

• On August 29, The International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers Association (IFATCA) penned a letter to the Prime Minister of Ethiopia. You can read it here.
• The neighbouring controllers in Kenya warned that flights in and out of Addis Ababa are not safe. You can view their letter here – specifically they warned that the ‘possibility of air misses’ is real.
• The ECAA over the weekend rejected concerns regarding the safety of Ethiopian airspace, specifically calling the claims from Kenya as “outright lies.”  The ECAA has said that ATC are operating “in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 provisions.” They did not deny however that foreign and retired ATC are being used.
• The ECAA also outlined that the national carrier, Ethiopian Airlines, has “awarded” veteran Air Traffic Controllers,  who are performing their “national obligation.“
• However on Monday, the local state affiliated broadcaster, Fana BC, reported that the Federal Police Commission had detained nine individuals on suspicion of attempting to disrupt international flights and coordinating a strike that began last week. This has been quickly condemned on social media, as many locals called on the government to resolve the issues raised by the ATCs rather than resorting to intimidation.

The ECAA claims that “some” of the striking controllers have returned to work.

Major airlines and uninformed passengers continue to fly into and over Ethiopia and this continues to be a major safety risk.

Do you have more to add this story?  Please, let us know!

Beijing is hosting the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) on September 3 and 4, 2018.

As a result ZBAA/Beijing Capital airport will not allow any GA/Corporate Jet operations from Thursday, August 30 until Thursday, September 6 unless you are attending the forum itself. If you are, you will require a a sponsor letter from the organizing committee to obtain landing permission.

Further restrictions:

• There will be no take-off for all flights between 0700-0855L, strictly landing only.
• A maximum of two movements are allowed per hour for all flights between 0600-2355L.
• Governmental flights require an authorization letter from the respective Embassy to arrange handling services.
• Flights with diplomatic clearance can still operate to ZBAA even if they are not attending the forum.
• ZBAA cannot be used as an alternate (except in an emergency) until 6 September (Refer NOTAM E1870/18).

Operators are advised to consider ZBSJ/Shijiazhuang Zhengding airport (139nm away) and ZBTJ/Tianjin Binhai airport (67nm away) as alternative destinations during this time period.

Do you know more? Let us know!

• Ethiopian ATC on strike, no Notams, government hush up
• OPSGROUP alert for the  Addis Ababa FIR
• Airspace risk – unrated controllers, some foreign and unfamiliar

Air Traffic Controllers are on strike in Ethiopia, and Ethiopia would prefer that you don’t know this. We, as OpsGroup, would prefer that you do.

Ethiopia would also prefer that it has no impact on the flight operations of its national carrier, Ethiopian Airlines. Therefore, they have drafted in foreign controllers to replace the strikers, issued no Notams, hushed any publicity, and proactively declared ‘operations normal’ (complete with bizarre, hand drawn airplanes).

European airlines – and frustrated passengers – will watch with great interest, thanks to their own ATC strike woes: regular stoppages by French, Italian, and Greek controllers have this summer, once again, been the source of massive cancellations, reroutes, and delays. Has Ethiopia found the golden elixir, the magic solution to a long-running problem? Is this how to handle a strike by your nations’ Air Traffic Controllers?

It absolutely is not. It is a catastrophic misjudgement, creating a safety risk in the Addis FIR and at Ethiopian Airports for pilots and passengers alike. Ethiopian airspace, this week, is most definitely not ‘operations normal’ – it is unpredictable and unsafe, staffed by unrated, inexperienced controllers, many from abroad – evidenced already by alarming reports of close calls from adjacent Area Control Centers – read on.

The facts are this: faced with an upcoming strike by ATC, Ethiopian Airlines – now Africa’s largest airline –  formed what in the boardroom might have seemed a workable plan: Recruit a bunch of controllers from other countries, fly them in to Addis, and have them do the work of the striking staff.

The first batch of foreign controllers came from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a small group described by the local controllers, unsurprisingly, as mercenaries. When the strike started at 7am this past Monday morning, they were ready to go. Not content with stopping there, the requests from ECAA – the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority – for more external controllers went out thick and fast, like an Ambien fuelled shopping spree on Amazon. 30 requested from Sudan, 24 from Kenya. More from Zimbabwe, Malawi. Finding those requests rejected, and resistance from other ATC agencies, the biggest request yet: 120 controllers from ASECNA.

The plan, commercially, is understandable. The wish to keep their airplanes flying is not endemic to Ethiopian Airlines. British Airways, Ryanair and Easyjet, have all made very public their frustrations with ATC strikes. An association, A4E, was formed to fight the problem at European level.

But here’s why the Ethiopian solution doesn’t work.

And as a former Air Traffic Controller, and Airline Pilot, I can tell you why.

Air Traffic Control is complex. That’s not a secret. On average, it takes a controller three months to gain a ‘rating’, or qualification, for a specific piece of airspace; that’s how long it takes to become comfortable with the 4D picture in front of you to provide a flawless ATC service. More complex airspace could take six months.

You have to learn each corner of your bit of sky. Learn the rules of the sector, learn the agreements you have with other centres about how you will receive and present traffic at the boundary. But the most important thing you learn is how the traffic flows.

ATC is not an aerial traffic battle whose landscape changes each day. It is not a web of complex contrails that, seen from the ground, appear to merge and diverge at random. The traffic flow is a largely predictable set of events, where the same airlines are operating on the same routes – providing a basis for us, as controllers, to learn the patterns of the flow, and to learn a trick for every trajectory.

This is key. It’s been 15 years since I worked the North Atlantic flow in Shannon, but I remember the callsigns, the flows, and how to handle them, like an indelible challenge and response game in my mind.

“Shamrock 37J, airborne Shannon” : “direct to Strumble, climb him to 270”.
“Belfast departure for Tenerife” : “stop him low, get him under the NAT traffic”.
“Two converging at LIFFY” : “Drop the Speedbird, he’s for Manchester”.

Humans learn patterns. This is how ATC works. We fill a bucket full of “stuff we’ve seen before”, leaving us free to concentrate on the few things we haven’t. This is the flow. If you watch 737’s fly up the Hudson on a hot summer morning, this is the La Guardia flow. Not an inch left or right. Heading into Amsterdam? “Direct to Pampus, down to FL70”.  One after another.

This is why we need three months to learn the airspace. For the flow. And this is why, when I found myself in New Zealand, learning to operate as an Air Traffic Controller far away from Shannon, I was floundering, like one of those dreams where you running but standing still. I am a controller, but I can’t control. I don’t know the airspace, and I don’t know the flow. Slowly, over the months, geography takes shape, traffic patterns show themselves, situations become seen. I start to get a sense of distance and time on my scope – or scopes, because New Zealand is long and thin I have to reorientate my thinking north-south, rather than east-west, as in Shannon. Out of the mist of training, I am a controller again, but it takes time. A lot of time.

Ultimately, I can reach the point where I can do my job – the real job of an Air Traffic Controller – to be familiar enough with the airspace and traffic that I have “the picture”. The full situational awareness, with most climbs, descents, speeds, and vectors being routine and familiar, means I can spot the something that’s off, wrong, going to develop into a conflict, and do so intuitively, like a sixth sense. Air Traffic Control is an art, it’s a dance. You don’t do it by complex calculations in your head, you don’t need a computer. It’s the visual in front of you – radar or tower – coming to life in your brain, you feel it, and the solution becomes instinctive.

And this is why you can’t bus in a set of replacement controllers, shuffle them down the corridor into the radar room, and up the stairs to the tower, and expect a safe, efficient, and orderly flow of traffic.

Controllers know the power of the strike. In most countries, it is used rarely, and fairly. They understand the impact on airlines and passengers. There are many other forms of industrial action a controller can take – like a training ban, an overtime ban – before reaching the point of actually stopping work.

Commerce will always find a way to continue. Safety is different, and delicate. It must be nurtured and protected. When the two collide head on – the commerce of keeping an airline flying, vs. the safety of an established, effective Air Traffic Control system – safety must take precedence. Here, safety means accepting the strike, as is – and working with the controllers, quickly, to find a solution. Let them be heard.

We’ll keep this page updated with the latest situation on the Ethiopian ATC strike. Reports that we have received so far are as follows:

• Controllers in adjacent ACC’s are reporting lack of adherence to Letters of Agreement – seeing aircraft with 4 minutes instead of 10 minutes separation.
• RA reported by Kenya ATC between two airlines on Wednesday.
• Kenya and Sudan reported loss of separation and poor coordination and transfer of traffic at their FIR boundaries with Ethiopia.
• Retired and Management controllers, who appear to have never rated or validated in position, are also being used, though unqualified for Addis.

We were first alerted to this issue by a Fox. Many of you know that we are Fixing Notams. The lack of Notams in this situation, is an exceptionally clear example of point 1 in the “Why” of the Notam Problem. Sometimes, we can’t trust the state to tell the truth. And this is a clear example.

Thankfully, our network of Foxes – undercover ATCO’s, pilots, and dispatchers –  is growing, and reporting on things just like this, so that we can tell you what’s really going on. Keep reporting.

Further reading

• Tell us anything additional we should know – news@ops.group
• Monitor #ops-alerts in your member Dashboard, and Slack.
• Contact the author: Mark Zee.

In Short: Operations at WMKK/Kuala Lumpur International Airport have been suspended from 0900L-1030L every day this week (27-31 August). This is to make way for the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) to conduct rehearsals for an aerial flypast that will be part of Malaysia’s National Day parade.

As we outlined in our daily brief, WMKK/Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) is being shutdown this week for 90 minutes everyday, between 9am and 10:30am to allow fly-over “rehearsals” for the National Day parade.

We think this is excessive.

The shutdown of a major international gateway airport (the 23rd busiest airport in the world) for 7 and half hours in one week will impact over 498 flight operations and thousands of passengers.

The NOTAM says it all.

A2434/18 - ALL ARR AND DEP SUSPENDED DUE TO NATIONAL DAY 2018 REHEASALS AND 
ACTUAL FLYING DISPLAYS. 0100-0230, 27 AUG 01:00 2018 UNTIL
31 AUG 02:30 2018. CREATED: 13 AUG 07:13 2018

The central planning committee of the National Day event said:

“The air space closure is necessary to ensure the smoothness of the 2018 National day flypast practice sessions, but more importantly, the safety of aircraft flying in and out of KLIA.”

We are all about safety here. But to shutdown such a big chunk of airspace and totally suspended flying operations at 9am at such a big airport for a whole week seems particularly extreme.  This is not a small isolated airport, this is a large 3 runway complex with A380’s coming and going.

This isn’t the first time such a move has happened here. In September 2016, the airport was closed for several hours a day to conduct an “aerial survey”.

This time, we understand, there was limited to no industry consultation with the onus being on the airlines and operators to notify affected customers.

Malaysia’s Transport Minister simple asked that “I hope all airlines will notify their passengers about this and reschedule their flights.” 

He finished by saying “this was inevitable as we are celebrating our Independence Day”.

We say no– shutting down a major airport for nearly 7 hours to practise some flying displays is not “inevitable“.

What do you think? Do you know more, please let us know!

If you need to get into KL during these times, WMSA/SULTAN ABDUL AZIZ SHAH INTL is a good alternative.

Extra Reading:

• Travel Advisory: KLIA2 Airspace Closure On 27-31 August 2018 – Air Asia
• Airspace Closure at KLIA! – Malindo Air
• Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) airspace will be closed for the Merdeka Flypast rehearsals – Malaysia Airlines

Australian traffic holding is a funny one; you can fly 16 hours directly from a place far far away, and then just before landing you get told to hold for 20 minutes – even though you have been in Australian airspace for sometimes 7 hours plus, they wait until the last few minutes to slow you down. ?

A recent AIP update and AIC Supp (H25/18) has updated the Airborne Holding Requirements for the four major Australian airports:

YBBN/Brisbane and YMML/Melbourne now are all in line with YSSY/Sydney

• Daily, 2000Z-1300Z (0600L-2300L) = 20 Minutes 

YPPH/Perth – Monday to Friday ONLY

• 0100Z-0500Z (0900L-1300L) = 10 Minutes
• 0500Z-0900Z (1300L-1700L) = 5 Minutes
• 0900Z-1300Z (1700L-2100L) = 10 Minutes

There has been a slight change in the AIP requirements also. Instead of publishing “holding fuel advisories” – it’s now called “airborne traffic delays”. So they aren’t really advising you on what fuel to carry anymore. In fact they go as far as saying that:

“All traffic delay estimates are an indication only. Actual holding may differ from the estimate, and operators should use their own judgement on fuel carriage decisions. More detailed historical holding data is available from the NCC on request.”

But… if you arrive at a destination without sufficient holding fuel for “actual traffic holding” then… “you will not be accorded a priority approach unless you declare an “emergency”.

So keep an eye on the NOTAMs for updated daily requirements. Even as recently as this week, 30 minutes holding was being required in YSSY/Sydney due to ATC shortages.

Insider tip: If you see the winds in Sydney from the west gusting more than 25 knots, you will see a NOTAM for traffic holding that increases the 20 minutes to 50 minutes or more due to single runway ops. You can expect to see similar NOTAMs when any low visibility operation kicks in at the other airports.

A few other quick updates for operations around Australia that you might have missed.

• YPPH/Perth now has a Category III Instrument Landing System. Perth is a very isolated airport, especially for long-haul widebody operations, with the nearest diversion alternates being over 600-1000nm away.
• YBBN/Brisbane‘s main runway, 01/19, will be changing designation to include a LEFT and RIGHT in early November in preparation for the certification of the parallel runway in 2020.

Have we missed anything? Then let us know!

A few months back an Air Canada A330 suffered a hydraulic failure as it started it’s Atlantic crossing from France to Canada. The crew decided to turn back and wanted to divert to EGLL/London Heathrow – this was denied.

Since then, other reports have been received of other aircraft requesting similar non-emergency diversions over the UK and them being denied. We understand the “non-acceptance of diverts” policy is in place for EGGW/Luton, EGSS/Stansted and even as far away as EGHH/Bournemouth. It is important to note however that if you declare an emergency (PAN/MAYDAY) – then all bets are off and you can divert wherever you like.

This week we saw EGGW/Luton go as far as publishing a NOTAM to that effect.

A2663/18 – DIVERTS SHALL ONLY BE ACCEPTED FOR ACFT THAT HAVE DECLARED AN  EMERGENCY.

So what’s going on?

We understand it’s a mix of things.

1. With the heavy summer traffic situation all across London (which is being compounded by the various curfew and overnight flight limitations) it seems that the major airports don’t want an aircraft landing and disabling their runway.
2. We have heard specific concerns stating that there is nowhere to park overflow aircraft. One aircraft might be manageable but multiple during peak disruption maybe not so easy.
3. Some Opsgroup members have reported that the main driver of this policy at EGGW/Luton and EGSS/Stansted may be down to ‘their fear of adverse publicity on social media’ regarding aircraft sitting there waiting to go somewhere else and passengers tweeting away the problems with the airport and its facilities.
4. Luton also put forward the argument that they do not want to interrupt the home-based operators by allowing other operators in. However, at the same time they are automatically denying home-based operators a diversion unless you declare an emergency.
5. Border Control has also bought into the argument, especially at EGSS/Stansted, saying their manning levels can’t cope with an influx of extra passengers at short notice.

There are a whole host of other factors at play which make diversions in the London area a headache, particularly at night time. Opsgroup member Diego Magrini from Jet Concierge Club sums it up nicely:

“Minor airports close early in the evening, for example EGSC/Cambridge, EGTK/Oxford, EGLF/Farnborough, EGWU/Northolt. These would all be very good alternatives, but become unavailable pretty early. Let’s be honest: no business jet want to divert to EGLL/Heathrow or EGKK/Gatwick (costs, slots, friendliness, etc), and most cannot go to EGLC/London City due to training and approval. This is of course on top of Heathrow and Gatwick not accepting diversions most of the time, or not having slots available. Some airports outside London, although open and accepting traffic, do not have an FBO presence during the night, and this cannot be arranged at short notice for a diversion. Combining all of this in the very short timeframe of a diversion can be very tricky!”

There is a cool video that shows just how busy London does get on any given day….

If you have any further knowledge or recent experience to share, please let us know!

Extra Reading

• UK AIP – ENR 1.1 – Diversion

Overnight, the brewing tropical cyclone in the Pacific was upgraded to a Category 4 hurricane, and is anticipated to be a Category 5 when it reaches Hawaii.

Hurricane “Lane” is only the sixth recorded Category 5 hurricane in this part of the Pacific Ocean, and the National Weather Service is predicting that this storm is only going to intensify. This is also the nearest to Hawaii that a storm of this size has occurred, so the state has issued numerous emergency proclamations to better prepare for the potential life-threatening flash floods and storm surges that accompany a storm of this size.

This storm, if it proceeds as forecast, will impact operations into all Hawaiian airports, including PHNL/Honolulu  and PHOG/Kahului. Beyond the daily flight traffic to these two airports, they also act as major ETOPS/EDTO alternates for flights across the Central and Southern Pacific. So expect an impact in routing.

Also, post storm, there may be infrastructure damage that may limit operations for a period of time.

You can find the latest from the NOAA here.

We will update you with the latest flight operations developments as they happen.