Entry Clearance Refused

[777fly]

Not too long ago I experienced the most stressful 30 minutes of a 39 year commercial flying career. We were overflying Russian airspace and approaching the Mongolian FIR boundary at about 0200Z, out of Milan enroute to Tokyo.VHF contact was not established with the Mongolian controller until about 60nm (7 minutes) from the boundary. Our entry clearance number was passed, with the response 'standby', followed a minute later by a refusal of entry as our clearance was 'not valid'.We made repeated requests for a re-check as the miles ticked down to the boundary, to no avail, and at 10nm executed a sharp 180 turn back along our route. The next 20 minutes were passed under the highest workload I can remember, the initial actions being to get the speed back to reduce the turn radius, obtaining a descent clearance to avoid opposite traffic, negotiating with both Russian and Mongolian controllers and trying to make sense of our options.
It's another story to describe how we eventually resumed our flightplan route, but does anyone know just what option are permissible when routeing off flightplan in Russia/Mongolia/China?
My initial thoughts were of three options:
1. Find a way to get a clearance into Mongolia ( this worked eventually but only by luck and bluff)
2. Route back to Western Europe or base, land and think about it.
3. Ask for a re-route over northern Russia, with a tech stop for refuelling somewhere on the Eastern Steppe.
In disussing this incident since, a variety of opinions have not provided a definitive answer to what options were available.
1.There is a belief that if a valid overflight clearance has been issued, a boundary controller cannot refuse entry and I should have just continued as planned.
2.Apparently Russian airspace overflights can only enter and leave by the flightplan defined entry/exit points and I could only have retraced our route back to our entry point - true, or not?
3. Could I have replanned out of my problem by flying North and East across Russia. Would the Russian system have accepted such a re-routing?
If any navigation department can provide an accurate answer to the above, I can retire happy.

[Flight Detent]

Yep, happened to me a couple of years ago, flying out of Bangkok for Dubai, B747-200 frieghter.

When we tried to get clearance to enter Indian airspace, you all know how difficult that can be, we were told our overfly clearance number was not valid.

Finally, at the last minute (literally), we started into a very big LH orbit, with one flightcrew guy talking to the Indian controllers (?), another getting clearance from the current controller to do the orbit with the associated estimates etc, they required, and the FE (thank heavens we had one!), on the HF phone patch to company operations to get this sorted - which they did about half way into out second orbit.

Indian overfly authorized, we then pressed on, but the fuel reserves were severely affected.

PS: The overfly authority number was not changed because it was, in fact OK, the controllers just got it wrong, somehow!

Cheers, FD :uhoh:

[hawk37]

For those who have experienced this denial of clearance, I think I can feel your trauma, but I've not been there.

777Fly, your quote:

"the initial actions being to get the speed back to reduce the turn radius, obtaining a descent clearance to avoid opposite traffic" cause one to ponder....

Does ICAO procedures not address this situation? I’m not familiar with international procedures, but I thought the initial clearance is normally to destination, or in rare occasions to some point short.

My point is that in North America one often hears “as filed”, or “flight planned route” to destination. And in the unlikely case where you were only cleared to a point short, and reach your point without further clearance, then hold as per the countries regulations. Quite clear. No altitude change!!

Similarly, I’m told in Europe the initial clearance is usually given to destination, but often no route specified other than a departure procedure. And that in the absence of additional instructions “as filed” is to be assumed. But in no case enter a holding pattern unless specifically instructed to, nor descend. Perhaps this is not true. Can anyone confirm?

If I understand correctly then, certain countries require an entry clearance. Do ICAO procedures require ATC then to provide instructions/procedures to follow (such as a standard hold) and provide protected airspace at these fixes where an entry clearance is not obtained prior to the entry point?

Your need to descend to avoid traffic seems to indicate otherwise.

Such a simply question. Must have a simple answer!

Hawk

[Left Coaster]

Wow... That's the kind of question that might keep a guy up a while longer or might make the bar talk less boring! As one who is about to add those routes to his CV, I am very interested in finding out more about this kind of ATC potential problem Thanks!

[777fly]

To reply to Hawk37: My description was somewhat condensed. We did enter a hold, hence the rapid speed reduction. Its surprising how long a hold takes above FL350. During this time we had a continuous refusal of onward clearance and no luck (at 0200Z) in getting help from the company. Limited fuel reserves precluded protracted holding and the return along track required a descent to an appropriate quandrantal level. The CIS controller gave the return clearance, but not a level change- the airway was extremely busy and there was following traffic at our level.
In my experience, most major airfields will only pass an SID in the initial clearance, which implies activation of the filed flightplan. This flight plan and stored company overflight clearances take care of the en-route. At some international boundaries a readback and verification of the overfilight clearance is required ( usually for military flights, airlines operating ad-hoc services, or temporary flights by charter airlines) It turned out that our entry was refused because the controller was looking at the previous day's clearance number.
My questions still remain.......what are the continuing/re routing options?
It occurs to me that, in the event of total radio failure, we would be expected to follow our flightplan to destination anyway! Could we then expect a fighter escort if we penetrate one of these international boundaries without passing a clearance number or even talking to the control centre at all?

[RYR-738-JOCKEY]

777fly wrote: "It occurs to me that, in the event of total radio failure, we would be expected to follow our flightplan to destination anyway! Could we then expect a fighter escort if we penetrate one of these international boundaries without passing a clearance number or even talking to the control centre at all?"
In case of com failure you would follow your flightplan and set 7600 on the transponder, wouldn't you?
If you didn't, you would probably be intercepted and forced down somewhere.

[777fly]

Thanks RYR-738-Jockey. Yes, of course I would do that. You might have come up with the answer I was looking for: Go quiet, squawk 7600 and press on.My radios could 'fix' themselves at the next FIR boundary along. What happens if there is no SSR coverage though?

[popay]

777fly, i had similar experience especially in the CIS countries and China.
To answer some of you questions: for repetitive flights; series of charter or permanent regular flights (which are subject to bilateral governmental agreement) the operator has to seek for permission from its own CAA and the CAA of overflying territory and the intended destination through the diplomatic channels 45 days before intended operation. Its called form R. After receiving the overfly or landing permission (the appropriate permission numbers to be carried aboard) the operator files either RFP or makes individual request for single flights. That's preliminary work, before the actual operation begins and the flight plan for each flight is filed 1 hour before departure, which is supposed to be submitted throughout the intended route and each ATC unit has received the details at least 10 min before entry of the A/C. Its ICAO standard. In certain countries including CIS, China, Iran; Mongolia and nowadays in Europe as well, all the civilian air traffic movements are coordinated with air defence. This particular fact makes it almost impossible to reroute, while being down the route. (not in Europe of course, but absolutely impossible in China, Russia, Mongolia). That's why departing from eastern airdromes you have to sign a dispatcher clearance as well, without which its a no go. ATC departure clearance should specify the clearance limit; saying "cleared to ZZZZ .......", which means all the coordination work has been done and the ATC units are informed and overflying or landing permission is obtained. Even if you select 7600 on your box and entered the airspace without clearance you will be intercepted and probably forced to land. Absence of SSR doesn't mean the military radar doesn't see you (their primary radar is very very accurate and they do track you all the way), especially in northern China, where sometimes, outside the VHF coverage, you will suddenly hear a voice on 121,5 saying to you that you are 2,5 NM left/right of track and give you heading to re intercept the track. All in all its a dangerous game, trying to fool on ATC with tricks like loss of comm. I am afraid there are not many options for rerouting, flying in those parts of the world. Its pain in the ass being confronted with such a problem down the route, but it does happen quite often and not always resolved in operators favour.
Cheers. :8

[777fly]

Popay, thanks for that. What you say ties up with what I know, suspected and have experienced- it all adds up to a very bad situation if onward clearance cannot be co-ordinated, or you need to go off track to avoid weather, east of Moscow.

[hawk37]

777Fly. Could you perhaps provide a few more details? Some of us are not as familiar with International contingencies. Your story seems an extremely important lesson for us.

1. Did the CIS controller authorize the turn, before you started it? Or was this a timely decision made by the crew?

2. Since the CIS controller did not give the level change, did you do it on your own? Due to TCAS? Due to previous HF/VHF position reports indicating traffic behind you at same altitude?

3. Was this a 500 foot altitude change (RVSM), or 10000 foot?

4. You say you entered a hold, but the CIS controller gave you a “return clearance”. Did he then actually approve the hold?

Popay, you sound like you’ve worked in this business, and have excellent details to add. Do I understand you correctly that a controller can refuse entry, even though an overflight has been issued, as 777Fly says. And if refused, then that is to be taken as an ATC instruction, and thus aircrew must reverse course?
Furthermore, does ICAO provide any contingency instructions for crews on the proper procedure to follow when this does occur, other than “Don’t Enter”?
Guess I’m wondering about something like “if unable to receive further instructions, enter a standard hold, descend or climb 500 feet (RVSM), ….” Etc

And Popay, your reference to 10 minutes. Surely each airspace gets the information more than 10 minutes prior to entry. The ICAO flight plan has the address of each FIR, gets transmitted when the plan is filed, doesn’t it? Or perhaps not……

If one thinks globally, with such an almost deliberately complicated overfly permission procedure, and the large number of people, aircraft, and countries involved, it seems perfectly normal to expect that entry permission will not go by the book in all cases.

Hawk

[777fly]

Reply to Hawk:
We attempted to obtain clearance right up to the FIR boundary. The initial turn, to take up the hold, was at crew initiative.Informed CIS controller of action, advised awaiting onward clearance. Turning back inbound in the hold, CIS controller advised that he could not accept us holding due traffic, told us to return to previous CIS waypoint, no level change given. The airway was very busy eastbound and we were aware that following traffic at our level was now extremely close, requested immediate descent.This was given to the westbound quadrantal, not 500ft.Traffic seen on TCAS but passed well clear. Lost comms with Mongolian controller at 40nm.
How did we get out of the situation? When we passed our clearance number to the Mongolian controller, he read back the clearance number he was expecting. I wrote it down but it was not the same as ours. As we headed back into the CIS , a quick look at the company file of seasonal overflight clearances revealed that the clearance number he was expecting was the previous days flight, under a different flight number. Informed CIS controller we were changing callsign and requested return to FIR boundary. Passed the 'expected' clearance number and were allowed entry. A bit of bluff which you may see as a stroke of genius or totally unprofessional - up to you. The next problem was who would the Chinese think we were when we reached their FIR. Luckily they accepted our new I/D with no questions asked, but I spent an uneasy 6 hours waiting for someone to catch on. Only the Japanese controllers queried our flight number, but accepted a reversion to original with no problems. I can recommend adrenalin as an antidote to in-flight fatigue, but I don't want that experience again. Only 3 months to go, so not likely. Incidentally, according to a recent Flight magazine survey of the World's airforces, Mongolia does not possess aircraft capable of intercepting a high altitude jet, though China does.

[popay]

hawk37, sorry for the late answer mate, I have done some research for official info and found some of it. ATC unit can refuse the entrance of the A/C despite the submitted FP/RPL, in exceptionally circumstances, if we are talking about experienced countries e.g. Israeli airspace has been closed immediately after 9/11 attacks and all the inbound traffic rerouted. One of the flights from my previous company was on the way to Ben Gurion and has been refused the entrance clearance, diverted to Larnaca refueled and came all the way back. However under normal operational conditions that one shouldn't happen, as the coordination process among the ATC units is done upon submission of the flight plan and supposed to be also acknowledged and accepted or rejected by such. Its a subject to the agreement between the ATC units (different countries) whether its simple receipting of AFTN message or sending active confirmation is sufficient, as i have read in DOC 4444. Consequently, the rejecting ATC should have submitted the negative message upon receipting of the FP details, in my opinion. Well, all in all, if you have been refused the entrance, the only thing you can do is turn back or reroute if possible, unless its an emergency and have declared it and you perceive that safest course of action would be to enter the IFR and e.g. to proceed to the decompression escape alternate (as an example).
Those are the excerptions i have found in the ICAO DOCs:
3.6.2 Adherence to flight plan3.6.2.2.1
3.6.2.3 Intended changes. Requests for flight plan changes shall include information as indicated hereunder:
a) Change of cruising level: aircraft identification; requested
new cruising level and cruising speed at this level, revised
time estimates (when applicable) at subsequent flight
information region boundaries.
b) Change of route:
1) Destination unchanged: aircraft identification; flight rules; description of new route of flight including related flight plan data beginning with the position from which requested change of route is to commence;revised time estimates; any other pertinent information.
15.6.1 Emergency separation
15.6.1.1 If, during an emergency situation, it is not
possible to ensure that the applicable horizontal separation can
be maintained, emergency separation of half the applicable
vertical separation minimum may be used, i.e. 150 m (500 ft)
between aircraft in airspace where a vertical separation
minimum of 300 m (1 000 ft) is applied, and 300 m (1 000 ft)
between aircraft in airspace where a 600 m (2 000 ft) vertical
separation minimum is applied.
15.6.1.2 When emergency separation is applied the flight
crews concerned shall be advised that emergency separation is
being applied and informed of the actual minimum used.
Additionally, all flight crews concerned shall be provided with
essential traffic information.
I don't think its necessary to make use of that procedure in case of simple course reversal, but could give you an idea though. In case of course reversal just prior to FIR, i would just turn 90 DEG staying within 10 nm from the airway centerline and in coordination with ATC descent to the appropriate reversal level turning on the back course, or if intended request specific en route holding instructions until further advice. Well, that's what I have found out, would appreciate any additional or corrective information.
Cheers.

[hawk37]

Popay, you’ve obviously done some deep reading on this issue. It still leaves the pilots to address the following:

1. reference 3.6.2.3 mentions “requests for flight plan changes” However turning 90 or 180 degrees at a FIR boundary, as most recommend, is contrary to the flight plan, and any ICAO procedures that have been found.

2. While you mention “agreement between atc units” on the subject of coordination of flight plans, there seems to be no “agreement between atc units” on how to handle entry refusals.

3. It would be interesting to know if the International Procedures departments of major airlines have put anything in writing to their crews on how to deal with this entry refusal. Or in fact if ICAO provides any contingency procedures.

Hawk

[popay]

hawk37, i quite don't get your point, mate sorry.
You have read that the entry clearance has been refused, ergo there's nothing you can do, except to turn around. Otherwise you will be treated as an intruder and that's not funny. I am not sure if you would like to spend some years in Chinese or Mongolian prison? There's no need for agreement of refusal among ATC centres because its commander decision what to do. He/ she either comes back or lands somewhere. As long as they stay within the previously cleared portion of flight, they just have to coordinate their actions with ATC.
Cheers.

[hawk37]

Popay, well, maybe I’m misinterpreting what others have said. I’ve little ICAO experience.

777Fly on Jan 20 said a SID “implies activation of the filed flightplan.”, and with your recent post detailing ICAO requirements for “Adherence to flight plan” and “Intended changes. Requests for flight plan changes.” Etc I was under the premise this was a flight clearance approval. I now gather you are NOT cleared to your destination via any route, where an overflight clearance is required.

I’m still somewhat alarmed that there are no agreements between atc units on how to handle these entry refusals, which while rare, never-the-less happen, as indicated by the responses. Leaving it to Capt’s prerogative may be an idea, but with traffic conditions often unknown to the crew, and no clear directives to them on how to handle a clearance refusal, its no wonder that the few who have experienced them have come under such a high stress level.

3. Still, as I said previously, it would be interesting to know if the International Procedures departments of major airlines have put anything in writing to their crews on how to deal with this entry refusal. Or if in fact ICAO provides any contingency procedures.