NAT/HLA contingency
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAT/HLA contingency
Hi All,
Following (hypothetical) scenario:
In NAT/HLA airspace, random route, CPDLC.... etc...
Something happens in flight which requires you to divert, let's say a medical thing... basically something where you can maintain altitude.
Now the hypothetical part, you are unable to get a re-clearance by ATC ... it takes too long... you decide to use the contingency procedure...
Am I right in saying that you go offset by 5NM, climb/descent 500ft - then you are allowed to immediately divert at this "new" altitude to the direction of your diversion airfield.
As you can maintain altitude, a descent below FL290 is nor required nor obliged, and all in accordance to the contingency procedure ?
A few times I have the "discussion" that this diversion turn can only be made, when offset by 5NM, 500ft vertical offset and below FL290... which I believe is only correct if you can not maintain altitude.
Looking forward to your comments.
Following (hypothetical) scenario:
In NAT/HLA airspace, random route, CPDLC.... etc...
Something happens in flight which requires you to divert, let's say a medical thing... basically something where you can maintain altitude.
Now the hypothetical part, you are unable to get a re-clearance by ATC ... it takes too long... you decide to use the contingency procedure...
Am I right in saying that you go offset by 5NM, climb/descent 500ft - then you are allowed to immediately divert at this "new" altitude to the direction of your diversion airfield.
As you can maintain altitude, a descent below FL290 is nor required nor obliged, and all in accordance to the contingency procedure ?
A few times I have the "discussion" that this diversion turn can only be made, when offset by 5NM, 500ft vertical offset and below FL290... which I believe is only correct if you can not maintain altitude.
Looking forward to your comments.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps , good to explore views on here, but that wouldn’t be my recollection of how to interpret things.
In the interests of your own, everyone else’s safety, and in turn efficiency, I wouldn’t leave to chance your understanding based on what the well-intentioned and potentially competent membership of an internet bulletin board said in response to your question. Instead, I’d ask a competent person, from one of the NAT ANSPs the question and get a formal response.
I was fairly close to the creation of the new contingency procedure and I know how closely the ANSPs worked with IATA and current line pilots, and I know how few experts there really are here.
if you look at https://www.icao.int/EURNAT/Pages/EU...-Document.aspx alongside the UK AIP, you’ll find the controlled document set that is reliable, and also some points of contact to direct questions to. If you draw a blank, DM me and I’ll connect you with my colleagues who are competent to formally answer your questions.
Finally, whilst there is an obvious safety risk in you not waiting for a clearance, the potential consequence of acting as you hypothesise is that you spend a long time operating at a trajectory you are not cleared for, and in turn raise the NAT Collision Risk Estimate, threatening the very small separation standards that underpin flight efficiency here. That said, acting this way may equally give rise to concerns of unlawful operation, as well as safety risks - I just wouldn’t do it.
In the interests of your own, everyone else’s safety, and in turn efficiency, I wouldn’t leave to chance your understanding based on what the well-intentioned and potentially competent membership of an internet bulletin board said in response to your question. Instead, I’d ask a competent person, from one of the NAT ANSPs the question and get a formal response.
I was fairly close to the creation of the new contingency procedure and I know how closely the ANSPs worked with IATA and current line pilots, and I know how few experts there really are here.
if you look at https://www.icao.int/EURNAT/Pages/EU...-Document.aspx alongside the UK AIP, you’ll find the controlled document set that is reliable, and also some points of contact to direct questions to. If you draw a blank, DM me and I’ll connect you with my colleagues who are competent to formally answer your questions.
Finally, whilst there is an obvious safety risk in you not waiting for a clearance, the potential consequence of acting as you hypothesise is that you spend a long time operating at a trajectory you are not cleared for, and in turn raise the NAT Collision Risk Estimate, threatening the very small separation standards that underpin flight efficiency here. That said, acting this way may equally give rise to concerns of unlawful operation, as well as safety risks - I just wouldn’t do it.
While we are on the subject of "contigency" and given this is the ATC sub-section and sorry if it's considered a bad thread drift,... but what do the ATCs do around the traps with contingency due no staff ?
what is the airspace class reclassified as ? In Oz we use a very confusing cocktail of TRA/TIBA, put out a notam with a ph number to call for approval, and then find a willing participant (doesn't have to be ATC and we call them a CRM) to sit at screen and answer said phone.
Does anyone else do it this way. ? What are the different ways ATC is done around the world in this regard ?
Have a read of the thread AsA TRA/TIBA/OPR RESTRICTIONS IN the Australia, NZ and the Pacific section of worlwide pprune for more background.
what is the airspace class reclassified as ? In Oz we use a very confusing cocktail of TRA/TIBA, put out a notam with a ph number to call for approval, and then find a willing participant (doesn't have to be ATC and we call them a CRM) to sit at screen and answer said phone.
Does anyone else do it this way. ? What are the different ways ATC is done around the world in this regard ?
Have a read of the thread AsA TRA/TIBA/OPR RESTRICTIONS IN the Australia, NZ and the Pacific section of worlwide pprune for more background.
Last edited by 10JQKA; 11th Nov 2023 at 22:24.
if you look at https://www.icao.int/EURNAT/Pages/EU...-Document.aspx alongside the UK AIP, you’ll find the controlled document set that is reliable,
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, now Jim59 , you’ve gone and selectively quoted what I said. You omitted the offer/invitation to DM me, and I’d put the original author in touch with an expert. Don’t let me stop you helping the author yourself though, that way your contribution would actually be helpful for them too (?). Oh, and I thought this was PPRuNe, not Twitter/X 😉
