ATI Blog

Last month the Australian government began random testing for drugs and alcohol use among aviation personnel working in safety sensitive positions. The tests can be administered to foreign flight crewmembers upon arrival or any time during a duty period in Australia. Failure of the test(s) will result in immediate disqualification from duties.

Following a positive test or refusal to take a test, crewmembers may be restricted from future operations within Australian airspace until completion of a rehabilitation course is documented. The results may also be referred to the individual’s regulatory authority. Australian criminal proceedings are also possible following a positive test.

Drug testing seeks traces of amphetamines, cannabis, cocaine and opioids. Breath alcohol content of 0.02% or greater is considered failure. Tests are conducted by independent contractors. They include multiple samples and secondary testing as outlined by Australian regulatory guidelines. All positive tests are further reviewed by a Medical Review Officer for legitimacy of methods and results.

The Australian Government Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) recognizes that some over-the-counter or prescription drugs can trigger positive results. Therefore, CASA reiterates the need to make certain that all medicinal drugs are properly approved by aeromedical professionals prior to use when duty may be required.

Refusal to participate in the testing program is registered as a drug/alcohol failure and holds the same prohibition from further duty assignments and reporting to other aviation authorities. Interfering with the integrity of the testing process, refusal to provide identification, failure to remain in the testing area and continuation of duty after a positive test result are considered criminal offenses.

The random testing program in Australia follows a fatal crash on Hamilton Island in 2004 when the pilot was found to have traces of alcohol and cannabis. Drug testing in the aviation industry was first introduced by the FAA in 1988. Alcohol testing was added in the United States in 1995.

References:
http://aod.casa.gov.au/aod/

After little more than one month into a planned 5-month trial, Oakland Oceanic has cancelled the Central Eastern Pacific Flexible Route (i.e. Tracks) program between the continental United States and Hawaii. During the brief trial period, Flex Routes only replaced the fixed ATS Routes a handful of times.

The FAA plans to reevaluate the fuel models and develop improvements to the program. Originally based upon B-767 performance specifications, the CEP Flex Routes intended to use daily weather information to create more efficient routes to and from Hawaii. The details of the program were previously reported in this blog.

During the trial period the FAA increased coordination with navigation database service providers to ensure all possible CEP waypoints were included in FMS database updates. The daily NOTAMs for Oakland Oceanic indicated whether the program was operational each day and flight planning organizations routinely included the NOTAMs to their clients. But the FAA has decided to make adjustments before relaunching the program later this year.

Stay tuned for updates.

Ref. KZOA NOTAM A0922/09

One of the most overlooked procedures in the North Atlantic airspace is the requirement for all aircraft not assigned a track to make standard meteorological reports with every position report. Oakland Oceanic recently issued a reminder, in the form of a NOTAM, that all waypoints within the Oakland OCA are designated as Meteorological reporting points.

The Ⓜ symbol that normally appears next to waypoints that require met reporting had been mistakenly removed from Jeppesen charts. Crews are reminded to append met information to all position reports within the Oakland OCA FIR.

For proper information to include and the sequence of meteorological reports, see the Communications Log section of all ATI plotting charts.

Ref. KZOA NOTAM A1737/08

An operational trial of flexible routes (i.e. Tracks) is being conducted, FL290 and above between the continental United States and Hawaii. Although the program is voluntary, operators utilizing the Flex Routes will be given altitude priority. The trial is planned to end 31 May 2009, but may be extended.

Based upon best winds en route, Oakland Oceanic publishes two one-way routes in each direction daily. Unlike the PACOTS and NATS, CEP Flex Routes are not named alphabetically. Eastbound routes are titled HSCEP (Honolulu-San Francisco Central Eastern Pacific) and HLCEP (Honolulu-Los Angeles). Westbound routes are LHCEP (Los Angeles-Honolulu) and SHCEP (San Francisco-Honolulu).

Like the majority of airways to Hawaii, the CEP Flex Routes link northern and southern California to the island state. Use of these routes is not limited to flights involving Los Angeles, San Francisco or Honolulu. Operators not flying between the city pairs used to define the Flex Routes should select the track in the appropriate direction that is most beneficial for their flight. The routes will be published by 0200Z and are valid from 1500-1400Z (based upon time entering Oceanic airspace).

The CEP Flex Routes constitute preferred routes between the continental US and Hawaii. When winds aloft favor the ATS routes the Flex Routes will simply state that Standard ATS routes are effective. When Flex Routes are active they are defined by waypoints comprised of whole degrees of latitude and longitude.

When CEP Flex Routes are active some ATS routes will be unavailable since standard lateral separation between the CEP Flex Routes and ATS routes must be maintained. Airways that do not assure necessary separation will be unavailable at altitudes that conflict with CEP Flex Route traffic.

Similar to NAT Tracks, the CEP Flex Tracks are defined by waypoint combinations using whole degrees of LAT/LONG. The FAA and navigation database suppliers have coordinated to ensure all waypoints used to define CEP Flex Tracks are in the FMS navigation database (NDB). Pilots must use extra caution when selecting these waypoints from the database since the coding may be unfamiliar to many users.

The ARINC 424 coding of LAT/LONG waypoints in the Central Eastern Pacific uses the following convention. XXNYY
XX = Latitude.
N= Indicates Northern hemisphere and replaces the 1 when longitude is greater than 99.
YY = Ten and single digits of the Longitude component.
(i.e. the digits following the 1 when Longitude is greater than 99 degrees)
For example: 34N133W is coded as 34N33

KZOA NOTAM # A5257/08 (Part 1 thru 7) announcing the CEP Flex Route program can be viewed at:
https://www.notams.jcs.mil/dinsQueryWeb/queryRetrievalMapAction.do

The following is an example of the Track Definition Message when the CEP Flex Tracks were not active:

A0353/09 – (TDM TRK HSCEP 09012215002 AMDT
0901221500 0901231400
CEBEN CIVIT CORTT CUNDU CREAN
RTS/PHNL MKK CLUTS CEBEN
CREAN PIRAT OSI KSFO
RMK/NO FLEX TRACKS STD CEP ATS ROUTES IN USE TODAY
CANCELS NOTAM A0347/09 AND CORRECTS DATE.
22 JAN 15:00 2009 UNTIL 23 JAN 14☺) 2009. CREATED: 22 JAN 00:55

The following is an example of the Track Definition Message when the CEP Flex Tracks were active:

A0729/09 - (TDM TRK HSCEP 090210150001
0902101500 0902111400
AUNTI 29N150W 33N143W 36N135W ALLBE
RTS/PHNL MKK APACK AUNTI
ALLBE PIRAT OSI KSFO
RMK/0. 10 FEB 15:00 2009 UNTIL 11 FEB 14:00 2009. CREATED: 10 FEB 01:16 2009

Notice that the TDM includes preferred departure and arrival routing between the airports and Oakland OCA FIR for aircraft departing PHNL and arriving KSFO.

On 25 Sept 2008, RVSM was implemented in all FIRs throughout Africa and Oceanic airspace controlled by African ACCs. Operators must have RVSM approval from the State of Registry to operate FL290-410 (inclusive).

The Africa RVSM flight level allocation is identical to that used worldwide (China excepted). The Africa RVSM design is taken from JAA TGL6, Rev 1. Like the European implementation of RVSM, Africa requires biennial pilot training and altimetry verification with HMU over-flight.

Equipment requirements for operations in Africa RVSM are identical to European airspace:
a.)    Two primary altitude measuring systems.
b.)    One automatic altitude-control system.
c.)    One altitude-alerting device.
d.)    Operating Transponder (where applicable).

RVSM in Africa may be suspended for greater than moderate turbulence, operation of non-approved (State) aircraft in the airspace or loss of communication with an aircraft in RVSM airspace, In such cases, conventional (2000’) vertical separation will be used.

When equipped with offset capability as part of the FMS, the flight crew may apply Strategic Lateral Offset Procedures (SLOP) in African non-radar airspace. Crews are reminded that SLOP shall be applied only to the right of course at a distance of 1nm or 2nm from centerline.

Since much of Africa has no ATM surveillance, use of the IATA In Flight Broadcast Procedure (IFBP, 126.9 MHz) is strongly recommended to improve situational awareness among pilots.

Published information from African aviation authorities is very difficult to find. The Africa region has not filed special procedures or exceptions from ICAO procedures for RVSM operations or contingencies. Pilots are encouraged to review ICAO lost communication procedures (ICAO Doc. 4444, PANS-ATM, Chapters 8 & 15) and radio phraseology for RVSM (JAA TGL6, Rev. 1).

Effective 5 March 2008, ICAO Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing) standards required all pilots operating internationally to have an airman certificate with endorsement of English language proficiency (ELP). While many States (countries) complied with the ICAO implementation date, ICAO allowed delays up to three years for countries notifying the organization of intended delays.

The FAA filed a notification of delayed implementation. FAA airman certificates must have the ELP endorsement no later than 5 March 2009.

However, in order to comply with foreign regulations that implemented the ELP requirement on the original 5 March 2008 date, most FAA licensed pilots operating internationally have already secured new certificates with the ELP endorsement.

Those pilots that have not yet received new certificates with the “English Proficient” endorsement are urged to do so immediately.

To obtain a replacement certificate with the “English Proficient” endorsement, airman certificate holders should submit an on-line request through the FAA Web site

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/english_proficiency/

The following is from the IBAC Bulletin 08-1:

Shanwick Oceanic still has a very high proportion of Interventions to prevent GNEs.

The total number of Interventions since the beginning of this calendar year was 74.

Although an Intervention is a safety net that seems to be successful for most of the time there are always holes (3 GNEs were not prevented this year).It is vital that we do not allow these holes in the safety nets to line up. One of the first safety nets has to rest with the crew ensuring that their Oceanic clearances are correct. The majority of these Interventions are as a result of following the flight plan and not the clearance.

Even within that there appears to be another common thread. Attached you will find an Oceanic map for your reference. A large proportion of these Interventions are happening in the airspace east of 15W. For example an Oceanic clearance might be via MALOT – BURAK but the flight plan is MALOT – DOLIP.
The airspace between 15W and Landfall is still Shanwick Oceanic and a safe procedural clearance must be provided in the event of RT failure, Shannon radar failure etc. Although flights will usually be in contact with Shannon Radar after 15W and Shannon may well take them off the original Oceanic clearance (which Shannon is allowed to do) the flight must still anticipate following Oceanic clearances.

Consequently the awareness of crews is drawn to the issue of proper adherence to oceanic navigation procedures and its importance to flight safety.
Crews are urged to uphold the following practices:

• Question clearances if in doubt
• Cross check understanding of clearance
• Cross check FMS and clearance
• Follow clearance to clearance limit
• Follow clearance – not the flight plan

There is research into the possibility of reducing separation standards on the North Atlantic which could provide operators with more opportunity to request optimum routes and levels. It may be that navigation errors such as these interventions may delay that introduction.
*********************************
Prepared by Peter R. Ingleton
IBAC Director, ICAO Liaison
21 October 2008

Nav Canada has recently determined that few aircraft will be approved for automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) operations by the originally planned date of November 20, and has therefore elected to postpone the operational implementation of ADS-B in the Hudson Bay airspace to January 15, 2009. Nav Canada will take time during this delay to complete upgrades to many air traffic management systems without affecting other projects.  For futher information click here.

In July 2008, the FAA amended 14 CFR 67.401 (Special Issuance of Medical certificates).  Paragraph (j) now states that for a pilot who holds a Special Issuance Authorization letter or a Statement of Demonstrated Ability, that letter “…must be in that person’s physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft.” The rule was implemented by the FAA Flight Standards Division primarily to be in compliance with ICAO standards. The FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine has expressed a concern for privacy in these cases

Pilots flying internationally may encounter aviation officials more strictly enforcing medical documentation. In a change from past requirements, pilots may be asked to produce their Special Issuance Authorization letter (and any Statement of Demonstrated Ability) addition to a current medical certificate.

The issue at hand here is that FAA medical certificates do not state limiting or disqualifying diagnoses. However, the Special Issuance Authorization letter lists the specific diagnoses for which the airman does not meet certification standards in the first paragraph.  The letter goes on to state requirements for further testing required to maintain or renew the Authorization.

Pilots with questions about this new regulatory requirement should call their AME to discuss implications for their personal situation.

Dissecting the visa requirements and application process for France has become a significant preflight challenge for flight crews. Unlike many visitors to France, visas are always required for crew members.

Travel to France on the continent of Europe requires a Schengen visa. The Schengen visa is valid in all 24 countries that are signatories of the treaty. However, even in Schengen countries visas are not required for most visitors unless they intend to stay for a long duration. Only France routinely issues and requires Schengen visas for visitors, particularly crew members.

France also has 4 overseas departments that are wholly integral parts of France and considered equally among the country’s 28 regions. The Overseas Departments (département d’outre-mer, or DOM) include Guadeloupe (Le Raizet- TFFR), Guyane (Cayenne-Rochambeau- SOCA), Martinique (Le Lamentin- TFFF) and Reunion (Saint Denis- FMEE). However, the Schengen visa does not apply to the Overseas Departments. There is a specific visa for visits to DOM.

Furthermore, France also has Overseas Territories (territoires d’outre-mer, or TOM) that have somewhat more autonomy. French Polynesia (Tahiti- NTAA) is among the TOM. Once again, the Schengen visa does not apply to the Overseas Territories either. There is a unique class of visa for visits to TOM.

Crew members are advised to understand the differences among French lands and the various visa requirements. Simply, visas are required for crew members entering any French land. The type of visa depends upon the French designation of the destination. Application for DOM and TOM visas can be made when submitting a passport for the Schengen visa. Like many diplomatic processes, it may be a worthy effort for busy international crew members.

Details regarding all French visas can be found @ the French Embassy website. Information found under Note 2 for each visa type makes clear that regardless of citizenship, crew members are not exempt. The French Embassy in Washington will process Schengen, TOM & DOM visas in less than two hours (with an appointment or expediter service).

http://www.consulfrance-washington.org/spip.php?rubrique98