When are you required to maintain a plotting chart?
 

I referred to the Federal Aviation Administrations's Advisory Circular 91.70a to discover we are required to maintain a plotting chart where the route segment between the operational service volume of International Civil Aviation Organization standard ground-based NAVAIDS exceeds 725 nautical miles for turbojet aircraft and 450 nautical miles for turboprop aircraft on page 28. On page 29 there is a statement that says "Plotting Procedures for Special Conditions. The Administrator requires plotting procedures for routes of shorter duration that transit airspace where special conditions exist such as reduced lateral and vertical separation standards, high density traffic, proximity, or potentially hostile border areas."

It does not suggest a place where I can find a listing of such routes. Can any of you suggest where I might find this list?
Thanks!

I don't have answer for the routing question. If you give me an email address I can pass along an email contact for the FAA Intl Ops Inspector out in SFO and perhaps he can forward an answer. I also would like to know where these specific routes are located. NCA is the only one I can think of that might qualify at this moment.

Keep in mind that the AC is advisory only and it may not be as definitive as one would think. The ATS routes between the mainland and HNL come to mind. I don't think many carriers are using a plotting chart on these routes. They do keep one handy in the event of a re route or other off track diversion, but routine plotting I don't think so.

I'm a real advocate of plotting, so please don't assume that I'm looking for excuses to eliminate this one last chance to detect a GNE before it's to late.

Doesn't this mean any route greater than 725 miles whether published or not(and therefore there would be no published list).

I am very new to this long haul stuff, and I have to admit, after several oceanic crossings, we have not used a plotting chart. Most flights were on published routes but one was on a random route of many lat/long coordiates. We do a route check(paper flight plan as filed with ATC vs ACARS uplinked flight plan on the route page) prior to departure from an ACARS uplinked flight plan and check total distance only which can be off by several miles due whether or not the planned approach was entered.

Perhaps I should know better, but do most airline folks out there crossing oceans pull out a plotting chart and use it. And is this route check sufficient in your opinion.

Thanks

JammmedStab don't know who your flying for but find it hard to believe that your operations support the notion of non compliance with regard to the post position plot on a random route. Please familairize yourself with this small detail and use it so as to keep your ass out of the meat grinder. It's not just a matter of your position that you could be endangering but multiple other aircraft operations as well along your route of flight.:}

I feel certain that if you did a search on this website you would find several good posts regading this subject as it has been discussed in great detail in the past.

Are your aircraft CPDLC ADSC equipped?

I will look further into it. So far I have only done one random route crossing. Perhaps it was just that particular instructor's way.

Let us know how that works out for you. No plotting while flying in the NAT is simply unacceptable and if you were under EASA or FAA oversight, I suspect that you would get a very serious repermand.:E

Having said all of this you do need access to a plotting chart for the area of operations. Hopefully they are available....

Yes, there was one onboard but not used. Perhaps an individual instructor thing.

Will ask other instructors.

I did notice that you said the associated AC about plotting charts is advisory only, now you say "No plotting while flying in the NAT is simply unacceptable and if you were under EASA or FAA oversight, I suspect that you would get a very serious repermand". As I am new to this stuff can you please clarify.

Sorry about the comfusion. The NAT is unique so plotting is a requirement since it is basically a random route twice a day. I have the 2012 edition in a PDF format and would be happy to send it to you if you provided an email address via a PM. :ok: I have a few other items that you may like to read as well.

Chapter Eight talks about the plotting requiremnts in the NAT.

Thanks, I am a Pacific guy. Same thing I assume.

I'm missing your point and this subject is simply to large to continue with in this format. Does your airline have anything that resembles an International procedres course? Happy to forward you some materials regarding this and many other international procedures as it sounds like you may benefit form some self induced education on this.

I flew the Pacific for years. Plotted every long range, overwater leg. To not do it and need it, would (at the very least) be embarrassing. :*

I actually lost two LTN 92's out of three (and my ADI/HSI) one night from NRT-ANC.

Plotting keeps you in the loop. :cool:

Having flown both the Pacific and the Atlantic for over 20 years on the 747 Classic and the -400, the plotting exercise was the same in both aircraft. Granted the 400 is much more reliable than the classic with Delcos and Litton 92s, throw in GPS updating and any major system failure is fairly remote. However, if anyone has my luck, the first time it's not done is the time you will really need it.

Have flown for three different carriers, and all of them the SOPs were all the same. Plotting was mandatory.

The international procedures courses I attended (Scott IPC) and did online recurrents with (ATI) both stipulated that the plotting charts were part of the master document required to be retained (for 6 months?) following any flight in international oceanic airspace. IIRC the FARs require US operators to follow the ICAO annex 2 procedures. I would expect that other ICAO signatories have similar language in their own aviation regulations.

The potential practical benefit of plotting the actual track of the aircraft on the basis of position checking should be apparent: The position checks plotted on the chart should agree with the the pre-plotted track. This is not only a GNE detection measure but along with the heading and GS info recorded on the flight log and forecast winds is the only remaining navigational basis upon which to continue the flight by dead-reckoning should a loss of navigational sensors or computation capability (GPS/IRS/FMS) occur. As unlikely as total navigation capability loss might seem in most aircraft today, the antiquated old plotting chart is considered to be the last line of defense.

So during the relatively small number of crossings I've done, we completed the logs and plotted our position as required by company procedures then turned them in with the rest of the trip paperwork to be filed away in a box somewhere. I sometimes wonder how close we could have come to hitting our coast-in fix if we'd had to rely on dead reckoning, especially in case of a contingency deviation from planned track or a diversion to an enroute alternate. Bad days are always possible!

ICAO ANNEX 2?
 

Annex 2 is Rules of the Air.... which while being of great benefit to the management of aviation in general are not germaine to the question whether a plotting chart is necessary.

While the FAA may propose a procedure which is great for FAA aircraft to follow, unless it is an operating requirement of a particular airspace and promulgated as such, it is not binding on any other party.

A foreign aircraft operating into the US is obliged to comply with Part 91, and 129. Part 129 requires the aircraft to be also operated under OpSpecs as approved by the FAA, which does not include a plotting requirement.

Having crossed the ditch on a routine basis for some 30 years, I can state I haven't seen a plotting chart used, once. Polar, different deal, and I don't object to that, except for the lack of understanding of what is being done anyway by those furiously plotting positions per policy, and then burying the chart under dinner plates. NAT... different deal, no issue, specified procedure. With the initial introduction of Pacific flex tracks, there certainly was a case for plotting the track out, but it was not a specific requirement. (Polar tracks I-IV however has had MIL radar coverage since at least 26 Oct 1962... :| , Antarctic slightly less coverage).

If I appear blunt on this matter perhaps it stems from watching navigators furiously working on charts using data sources that were occasionally just awful, such as single ASN-42's, dopplers etc.

On the assumption of any reasonable level of cognition, above somnambulism, it is still difficult to see what the immediate gain is for a plot vs other means of cross checking of reasonableness. A check of total distances, L/L or track/distances for each leg between the FMC/FMCGS and the flight plan is sufficient to give a safeguard for gross procedural error and a basis for navigation reversion in the case of multiple system losses dumping you into a life of no GPS or INS, just the compass and clock.

Yes, fdr, annex 2. I only mentioned annex 2 because FAR 91.703 does. However due my inadequate adeptness at negotiating the rabbit warren of document construction that is ICAO, I am unable to locate the specific requirement for a master document even though my training materials quote ICAO annex 2 as the authoritative source. As to the matter of the plotting chart, the company manual at my last outfit requires it's use while the NAT/MNPS manual only recommends the use of a plotting chart in addition to the required master document. Accordingly I'll concede your point that the plotting chart is NOT required unless it can be shown by some other means that it is.

As to the practical usefulness of a plotting chart, that is strictly a matter of opinion and I'll presume yours to hold greater validity than my own in light of your obviously greater experience in ocean crossings. (as I previously stated I've only done a few crossings) However I personally believe that the chart (properly annotated with position/winds checks) would be of significant assistance in executing the remainder of the flight following NAV loss to a fairly high degree of accuracy. Perhaps even accurately enough to remain within the allotted lateral tolerance. Yes the same thing can be done using only the flight log but the method of plotting the track is perhaps more visually intuitive than the numbers alone. Since I don't prefer to sleep, read magazines or do crosswords while flying, marking a plotting chart isn't any extra trouble at all!

In any case the extremely remote possibility of finding oneself down to compass and clock these days probably renders this discussion entirely academic. But then cynicism just comes to me naturally...

I simply can not believe that there are collegues flying oceanic operations without plotting. Are you That lazy, are you that clueless about one of the most basic Pilot navigation practices?! No wonder that some consider us glorified busdrivers if you do not even know how to properly do chartwork.:=:mad::ugh:

Take a class! Learn how to cross the ocean correctly! Some of you guys scare me that we share the same airspace! :mad:

Try looking up, or google it if your company does not have a copy, AC91-70A

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...C%2091-70A.pdf

It will read just like this!!

3-6.
POSITION PLOTTING.
a.
Plotting and Systematic Cross-Checking of Navigation Information. During all phases of flight in Class II navigation, each operator’s long-range navigation program (LRNP) will require the standardized application of disciplined, systematic cross-checking of navigation information.
(1)
Plotting Procedures Impact. Plotting procedures have had a significant impact on the reduction of gross navigation errors (GNE). There is a requirement to plot the route of flight on a plotting chart and to plot the computer position approximately 10 minutes after waypoint passage. This may or may not require plotting, depending upon the distance between the standard ICAO ground-based NAVAIDs. This applies to all operators.
(2)
Turbojet Operations. All turbojet operations, where the route segment between the operational service volume of ICAO standard ground-based NAVAIDs exceeds 725 NM, require plotting procedures.
(3)
Turboprop Operations. All turboprop operations, where the route segment between the operational service volume of ICAO standard ground-based NAVAIDs exceeds 450 NM, require plotting procedures.

Thank you for posting the link to AC 91-70A noneya.

I was hoping to find a regulatory document requiring the use of a plotting chart to better make my point regarding the need to do so. Unfortunately I was unsuccessful in finding it and had to admit that I was at a loss to quote a regulatory requirement. As far as I am concerned personally, the company manual requirement is reason enough for me although I would still use the plotting chart even on an empty repositioning flight in a privately operated aircraft not on an operating certificate just because it makes sense to do so. The MNPS manual recommends the use of a plotting chart to supplement the master document (flight log) and that's good enough reason for me too until I know better.

In any case, obtaining MNPS approval from the FAA is aided significantly by following the "advise" contained within several ACs. On the operational side, pilots and operators benefit greatly by the fact that several highly regarded international procedures courses are offered which gather regulatory and procedural data from a great many different sources and present them as a single package to their clientele for what amounts to a reasonable fee when you consider the alternative.

My experience is strictly parts 91 and 135 bizjet ops so I don't know whether certain part 121 ops employ some alternative means in lieu of using a plotting chart. It just seems to me unlikely that they simply decided it's not necessary. Besides, what a nice thing it is to see your various contingency ETPs right there on the chart (as you plot your progress) along with what you are expected to do (side panel on the brand we used) in each of those contingency cases though. Thank you Cap'n Jeppy and other fine chart makers!

Seeing as I don't really have experience at this and am trying to learn more....perhaps a detailed response to this earlier statement by another poster

" it is still difficult to see what the immediate gain is for a plot vs other means of cross checking of reasonableness. A check of total distances, L/L or track/distances for each leg between the FMC/FMCGS and the flight plan is sufficient to give a safeguard for gross procedural error and a basis for navigation reversion in the case of multiple system losses dumping you into a life of no GPS or INS, just the compass and clock."

One simple reason I have done it is because the requirement was made mandatory in our SOP. I know for a fact, the first carrier where I flew the 400 was instrumental in ensuring the long range nav procedures were carried over from the classic to the 400.

Jammed Stab raises the issue of checking distance, L/L and/or track distances for a crosscheck. I can not tell you how many times I have seen the wrong L/L entered and the distance and track match what the correct route should have been. In addition, when you have a re-route it's not a big deal to plot it out. I might be a simpleton, but I believe one picture is worth a thousand pictures.

Let's be realistic, in this day of CPDLC/ADSB, taking a minute to do a quick plot is not going to upset the work load. It might upset your power nap, but that's about it......