UAE FIR RVSM...shall we say... ISSUES!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK sandborne so you're telling us that you are allowed to ask about RNP status and the like and "take the pilot's word for it". Good show. But that's precisely why we're asking why the RVSM element gets picked on as opposed to all the other goodies in the FPL.
And are you really trying to indicate that, when allowing non-FPLed aircraft to transit your airspace at a non-RVSM level, you then interrogate each of those aircraft about vital elements of the FPL that you still don't possess? How do you know that said a/c have any kind of equipment (TCAS/RNAV/etc) if you haven't got the plan?
Why RVSM only? If the aircraft is a ferry flight with limited equipment, how would you know?
I like my job, too, but if you all banded together and just said "no", everyone would be happier and, oh, it would be SAFER as well!!
And are you really trying to indicate that, when allowing non-FPLed aircraft to transit your airspace at a non-RVSM level, you then interrogate each of those aircraft about vital elements of the FPL that you still don't possess? How do you know that said a/c have any kind of equipment (TCAS/RNAV/etc) if you haven't got the plan?
Why RVSM only? If the aircraft is a ferry flight with limited equipment, how would you know?
I like my job, too, but if you all banded together and just said "no", everyone would be happier and, oh, it would be SAFER as well!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ex OBBI
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Credit must be given to the UAE controllers, they do call us ASAP and let us know that a particular A/C needs to be dropped.
We then have (some) time to get the pilot to check with their ground ops/ handling agents and fire through another copy of their flight plan by fax, most times it actually works and they get to stay up.
Maybe the plan is there in the UAE but someone forgot the "W" in the equipment list when they filed it, again the controllers are screwed, the directive comes from above.
Can't explain this away if repetitive plans are filed, maybe they get lost internally at AUH centre?
We then have (some) time to get the pilot to check with their ground ops/ handling agents and fire through another copy of their flight plan by fax, most times it actually works and they get to stay up.
Maybe the plan is there in the UAE but someone forgot the "W" in the equipment list when they filed it, again the controllers are screwed, the directive comes from above.
Can't explain this away if repetitive plans are filed, maybe they get lost internally at AUH centre?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB
Repetitive flight plans are not accepted in the UAE. Must be a current and correct flight plan.
1962
NOT OUR IDEA about which elements we are and aren't allowed to ask for, just explaining what the controllers are doing re your previous points, and how is running non RVSM aircraft throught a busy FIR in RVSM airspace safer?
Repetitive flight plans are not accepted in the UAE. Must be a current and correct flight plan.
1962
NOT OUR IDEA about which elements we are and aren't allowed to ask for, just explaining what the controllers are doing re your previous points, and how is running non RVSM aircraft throught a busy FIR in RVSM airspace safer?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am commenting from an ATCO's point of view. If we do not have a current and correct flight plan than for us the aircraft is not RVSM. No we cannot band together and refuse to not act as per our local instructions. There are people who wouldn't do it in the first place and others that can't afford to lose their jobs or have no where else to go etc. The complaint about flight plans not being recieved is a legimate one but it they are not all ways addressed correctly. Quite often companies mistake Dubai or Abu Dhabi approach for the ACC and address it there.
I have had one example of a pilot saying to me that he had a copy of his plan and it was addressed to us and we didn't recieve it and I have not been able to explain why to him. That is why I said you need to complain to your companies to put pressure on the GCAA to investigate the workings of it's com centre as I feel that some of the problem, but not all, stems from there. Here's one way I can think of (but don't refer to me). Refuse to pay for our services until the investigation is complete that will stir the pot a bit I bet.
I have had one example of a pilot saying to me that he had a copy of his plan and it was addressed to us and we didn't recieve it and I have not been able to explain why to him. That is why I said you need to complain to your companies to put pressure on the GCAA to investigate the workings of it's com centre as I feel that some of the problem, but not all, stems from there. Here's one way I can think of (but don't refer to me). Refuse to pay for our services until the investigation is complete that will stir the pot a bit I bet.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Age: 63
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've experienced this kind of problem once. Flying Brussels to Bombay, Bahrain gave us a warning that we would clear descend below FL290 because of UAE didn't receive our Fight Plan. Fortunately, we could contact company by ACARS and everything was done properly and We could continue at FL350. Otherwise, we probably get in trouble, since the weather in Bombay was very bad and we were already short of fuel.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: a galaxy far far etc.
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to confirm the general concensus that the UAE may be the problem here. 2 previous posters have departed Europe and proceeded to overfly the UAE, where they experienced this problem. Now, if they were at RVSM flight levels within Europe, then they sure as hell had the apppropriate indicator in the FP, because Eurocontrol would have automatically rejected it otherwise.
I'm jus' sayin'
I'm jus' sayin'
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to be a few issues here.
ICAO RVSM ATC procedures (found in your Regional RVSM ATC Manual - all of which seem based on the European one) allow RVSM flights to be filed by the operators as RPLs. It is stated that the UAE does not accept RPLs, so issue 1 is whether that 'difference' has been filed in the AIP for the information of said operators.
Issue 2 is that UAE is not receiving FPLs for various flights. Perhaps this is because they are all being filed as RPLs in the first place ? If it is because the UAE has not filed a difference as mentioned in issue 1, then it is their fault and the operators are being 'punished' for a mistake not of their doing. If it is because the difference is there and not being heeded, then the UAE CAA should be taking this up with the operators individually in the interests of flight safety, possibly even through the channels of the operators home CAA. Head in the sand and using a punishment as a means of dealing with the issue has no place in a modern global aviation environment. The chances of the issues being fed back to the people with the power to deal with using this method is, at best, haphazard.
Issue 3 concerns data transfer from the adjacent ACCs. Is this done electronically through OLDI ? In which case, ICAO procedures demand that the RVSM status is sent with the data transfer message. So, even in the absence of a FPL, the UAE is being passed data about the aircrafts RVSM status. Or if the data is being passed verbally, then there is once again an agreed ICAO procedure available which highlights the RVSM status. ATC operators in the rest of the world (including the most dense and complex parts of the world) can accept the word of an adjacent agency regarding RVSM status for flights in the absence of a FPL, why can't the UAE ?? After all, why would the adjacent ACC allow a non RVSM aircraft to operate in its airspace (which is generally not allowed) and then try to pass it on without any exceptional co-ordination ?
Issue 4 is how to drag the UAE in to the fold and operate RVSM like the rest of the world. It seems the ATCOs themselves there can't do it, either due to lack of power, fear, or ambivalence. So it's really up to the operators affected to get their CAA to lobby the UAE CAA, either directly, or perhaps more successfully, through the ICAO Regional office.
Just one final point to ponder ... if the UAE ATC system won't let the aircraft fly in RVSM system without a received FPL, then how can it let them enter any controlled airspace, as the navigation equipment requirements for flight in that airspace must also be unknown ?
ICAO RVSM ATC procedures (found in your Regional RVSM ATC Manual - all of which seem based on the European one) allow RVSM flights to be filed by the operators as RPLs. It is stated that the UAE does not accept RPLs, so issue 1 is whether that 'difference' has been filed in the AIP for the information of said operators.
Issue 2 is that UAE is not receiving FPLs for various flights. Perhaps this is because they are all being filed as RPLs in the first place ? If it is because the UAE has not filed a difference as mentioned in issue 1, then it is their fault and the operators are being 'punished' for a mistake not of their doing. If it is because the difference is there and not being heeded, then the UAE CAA should be taking this up with the operators individually in the interests of flight safety, possibly even through the channels of the operators home CAA. Head in the sand and using a punishment as a means of dealing with the issue has no place in a modern global aviation environment. The chances of the issues being fed back to the people with the power to deal with using this method is, at best, haphazard.
Issue 3 concerns data transfer from the adjacent ACCs. Is this done electronically through OLDI ? In which case, ICAO procedures demand that the RVSM status is sent with the data transfer message. So, even in the absence of a FPL, the UAE is being passed data about the aircrafts RVSM status. Or if the data is being passed verbally, then there is once again an agreed ICAO procedure available which highlights the RVSM status. ATC operators in the rest of the world (including the most dense and complex parts of the world) can accept the word of an adjacent agency regarding RVSM status for flights in the absence of a FPL, why can't the UAE ?? After all, why would the adjacent ACC allow a non RVSM aircraft to operate in its airspace (which is generally not allowed) and then try to pass it on without any exceptional co-ordination ?
Issue 4 is how to drag the UAE in to the fold and operate RVSM like the rest of the world. It seems the ATCOs themselves there can't do it, either due to lack of power, fear, or ambivalence. So it's really up to the operators affected to get their CAA to lobby the UAE CAA, either directly, or perhaps more successfully, through the ICAO Regional office.
Just one final point to ponder ... if the UAE ATC system won't let the aircraft fly in RVSM system without a received FPL, then how can it let them enter any controlled airspace, as the navigation equipment requirements for flight in that airspace must also be unknown ?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touche, Radar!
At the risk of repeating myself, I can't get my head around why the RVSM element is the only thing that concerns the UAE authorities (authority?).
As a Muscat controller, I can tell you a few stories about some fly-by-night operators coming up from the south into UAE and Dubai airspace and we certainly don't possess a plan, yet UAE happily lets them in. How can that be safer than allowing reputable carriers through the airspace when positive confirmation has been received that they are RVSM approved?
It's this discrepancy that confounds me the most and it is a safety issue for the surrounding ATCO's and affected pilots because it diverts your attention from what you should be doing, all for the sake of punishment. It's not working.
At the risk of repeating myself, I can't get my head around why the RVSM element is the only thing that concerns the UAE authorities (authority?).
As a Muscat controller, I can tell you a few stories about some fly-by-night operators coming up from the south into UAE and Dubai airspace and we certainly don't possess a plan, yet UAE happily lets them in. How can that be safer than allowing reputable carriers through the airspace when positive confirmation has been received that they are RVSM approved?
It's this discrepancy that confounds me the most and it is a safety issue for the surrounding ATCO's and affected pilots because it diverts your attention from what you should be doing, all for the sake of punishment. It's not working.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few points.
You say here that everyone else gets the flight plan but the UAE doesn't therefore its the fault of the UAE. Firstly in many cases on inquiry to surrounding FIR's, they also didn't recieve a valid flight plan but took the word of the pilot in flight. We are not allowed to do that and need a hard copy of a valid flight plan in our posession to allow a flight to operate in RVSM airspace. Secondly, for some strange reason even though there are two addresses to send the flight plan to for the UAE ACC, some operators still send it to AUH APP and more often DUBAI APP, who see it is an overflyer and bin it. Another common reason for pushdowns is because some companys don't know how to cancel flight plans and instead file 5 flight plans for the same flight all with different Aircraft types and routes etc. Unless a flight plan is cancelled, we take the first flight plan as valid. Subsequently if the flight plan is for a 767 and the aircraft is coordinated to us as an A320, then effectively we have no flight plan for an A320, we therefore don't have that A/C as being RVSM approved, result, pushdown. Every pushdown is investigated so as to find out why we didn't recieve a flight plan.
And to the person who said it hasn't made a difference, there has been a huge improvement in the correct filing of flight plans since this started. We do call the neighbouring FIR ASAP to advise the aircraft to get a flight plan filed so they can stay up, and in at least 50% of the cases this solves the problem, but there are the usual suspects who no matter how many times they depart out of Pakistan or Egypt (common departure points where flight plans don't get filed properly from), and then get pushed down, rather than blaming the dodgy FPL filing people they have in these places, blame the ATCO on the other end of the radio.
My question is, in Europe, when a flight wants to leave say Geneva for Paris, and they don't have a flight plan filed, what happens??
You may think it is pedantic and stupid, and one one hand I may agree, but on the other hand, try being on the recieving end of flights with no flight plan that even though were coordinated to us from our next door FIR to be flying a certain way and then unexpectedly turn into oncoming traffic, because their flight plan we don't have has them going a different way. And the whole rubbish about this rule not applying to UAE airlines is well rubbish. While Gulf Air was still partly owned by Abu Dhabi we regularly had to push down aircraft overflying the UAE FIR due to no flight plan recieved. Bottom line about Emirates is they are rarely pushed down because, other than the odd time where they come out of Egypt and they have the same dodgy company filing for them there as many others, they manage to file a correct flight plan.
When this first started there was on average 30 pushdowns a day. Now most days there are less than 10. You may not agree with it, but it is making airlines file flight plans properly.
You say here that everyone else gets the flight plan but the UAE doesn't therefore its the fault of the UAE. Firstly in many cases on inquiry to surrounding FIR's, they also didn't recieve a valid flight plan but took the word of the pilot in flight. We are not allowed to do that and need a hard copy of a valid flight plan in our posession to allow a flight to operate in RVSM airspace. Secondly, for some strange reason even though there are two addresses to send the flight plan to for the UAE ACC, some operators still send it to AUH APP and more often DUBAI APP, who see it is an overflyer and bin it. Another common reason for pushdowns is because some companys don't know how to cancel flight plans and instead file 5 flight plans for the same flight all with different Aircraft types and routes etc. Unless a flight plan is cancelled, we take the first flight plan as valid. Subsequently if the flight plan is for a 767 and the aircraft is coordinated to us as an A320, then effectively we have no flight plan for an A320, we therefore don't have that A/C as being RVSM approved, result, pushdown. Every pushdown is investigated so as to find out why we didn't recieve a flight plan.
And to the person who said it hasn't made a difference, there has been a huge improvement in the correct filing of flight plans since this started. We do call the neighbouring FIR ASAP to advise the aircraft to get a flight plan filed so they can stay up, and in at least 50% of the cases this solves the problem, but there are the usual suspects who no matter how many times they depart out of Pakistan or Egypt (common departure points where flight plans don't get filed properly from), and then get pushed down, rather than blaming the dodgy FPL filing people they have in these places, blame the ATCO on the other end of the radio.
My question is, in Europe, when a flight wants to leave say Geneva for Paris, and they don't have a flight plan filed, what happens??
You may think it is pedantic and stupid, and one one hand I may agree, but on the other hand, try being on the recieving end of flights with no flight plan that even though were coordinated to us from our next door FIR to be flying a certain way and then unexpectedly turn into oncoming traffic, because their flight plan we don't have has them going a different way. And the whole rubbish about this rule not applying to UAE airlines is well rubbish. While Gulf Air was still partly owned by Abu Dhabi we regularly had to push down aircraft overflying the UAE FIR due to no flight plan recieved. Bottom line about Emirates is they are rarely pushed down because, other than the odd time where they come out of Egypt and they have the same dodgy company filing for them there as many others, they manage to file a correct flight plan.
When this first started there was on average 30 pushdowns a day. Now most days there are less than 10. You may not agree with it, but it is making airlines file flight plans properly.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst the odd push down is due to a glitch in the AFTN process or similar I do sympathise, but I do take great delight (and I really mean that!) in pushing down certain companies who for my last 8 1/2 years in the Middle East cannot be Ar*ed to get their flight planning squared away and I think all controllers in this region know who I am talking about.
One of the said companies (rhymes with Ta-Ta) who operates in this FIR on a daily basis 3 weeks down the track after the appropriate promulgation still haven't ammended a routing that takes them into their destination even after continual attempts by us to get them to inform their ops....they obviously can't be bothered so why should we pander to their negligence and unprofessional operation.
No sympathy I'm afraid.
PPRune Radar
"Issue 3 concerns data transfer from the adjacent ACCs. Is this done electronically through OLDI "
Mate, we can't even handoff a target between our own sectors never mind data between adjacent units! The only connectivity apart from our telephone is the AFTN and the flight plans received are then manually entered into our out dated and timexed system.
One of the said companies (rhymes with Ta-Ta) who operates in this FIR on a daily basis 3 weeks down the track after the appropriate promulgation still haven't ammended a routing that takes them into their destination even after continual attempts by us to get them to inform their ops....they obviously can't be bothered so why should we pander to their negligence and unprofessional operation.
No sympathy I'm afraid.
PPRune Radar
"Issue 3 concerns data transfer from the adjacent ACCs. Is this done electronically through OLDI "
Mate, we can't even handoff a target between our own sectors never mind data between adjacent units! The only connectivity apart from our telephone is the AFTN and the flight plans received are then manually entered into our out dated and timexed system.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having looked at the figures yesterday, I just wanted to ammend my figures of how many push downs are made. When this all first started the number of pushdowns were between 15 on a good day to 30 on a bad day. Now most days are 5 or 6 push downs. Of those there are daily offenders like Air Zimbabwe who never files a flight plan when coming from Zim, and usually 3 coming from Baghdad, I guess understandable with other things on their mind.
Just again for the record, when there is a push down, we contact the Communications centre here to confirm verbally they don't have a flight plan. We personally check the FPL computer to make sure there isn't one for example filed on the wrong day or something, and then we advise the briefing office to advise us as soon as anything comes in. We then advise the FIR with the aircraft before us, to advise the pilot ASAP to get a flight plan filed to us on the correct addresses. We can only do this once we have recieved an estimate from that FIR, which can be 2 hours before or it can be 15 minutes. So as you can see we don't all sit on our hands and laugh at the poor aircraft being pushed down. The UAE ACC try everything we can to get a correct flight plan in our hands so we can leave the aircraft up.
As Fox said, its the same suspects over and over again, so the "we filed a flight plan, we promise", just doesn't wash I'm sorry. Bottom line is finally after years of slackness in the middle east the problem is finally being fixed. I say its a shame that other FIR's around us seem happy to take details in flight ( which often are wrong as the aircraft calls us and they are a different aircraft type, and shoot off flying on a different route than expected), and continue to accept mediocrity on the part of the airlines.
Just again for the record, when there is a push down, we contact the Communications centre here to confirm verbally they don't have a flight plan. We personally check the FPL computer to make sure there isn't one for example filed on the wrong day or something, and then we advise the briefing office to advise us as soon as anything comes in. We then advise the FIR with the aircraft before us, to advise the pilot ASAP to get a flight plan filed to us on the correct addresses. We can only do this once we have recieved an estimate from that FIR, which can be 2 hours before or it can be 15 minutes. So as you can see we don't all sit on our hands and laugh at the poor aircraft being pushed down. The UAE ACC try everything we can to get a correct flight plan in our hands so we can leave the aircraft up.
As Fox said, its the same suspects over and over again, so the "we filed a flight plan, we promise", just doesn't wash I'm sorry. Bottom line is finally after years of slackness in the middle east the problem is finally being fixed. I say its a shame that other FIR's around us seem happy to take details in flight ( which often are wrong as the aircraft calls us and they are a different aircraft type, and shoot off flying on a different route than expected), and continue to accept mediocrity on the part of the airlines.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: High up on the mountain
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on guys, compare apples with apples. You cannot compare european standards to the ME. The level of compliance in Europe is far higher in many aspects. In the ME most FIRS seem to accept poor fpling standards and the minute one unit stands up to improve the situation it gets shot down. It is quite interesting that we were given a copy of a letter showing what the UAE IS actually doing with all pushdowns. Instead of standing on the outskirts throwing stones (aka ATCO1962) perhaps the other firs should join in and tighten up on standards. It is a fact that the UAE ACC has a far higher standard than it's neighbours (remember apples vs apples). The UAE does not have OLDI but I'm sure the day will come that automation is linked throughout the region and when that happens the system will require a fpl so best everyone starts practicing to do better.
Cat out
Cat out
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's like I'm talking to myself here.
I'll always be on your case, cat, until I can work out why the RVSM element gets picked on. You and ANSA can quote all the stats you like but from our perspective, there's no change.
Problem is, your supposedly improving correct FPL count is skewed by all the hard work the surrounding FIRs do when they ask the pilots to refile and you finally get a good plan. Your cloistered view then makes it appear that the punishment is working. I hope you get that. It's not, and this is from a pit face controller.
Even GFA had to go down yesterday and he was bamboozled as to who was at fault. Until an investigation is done, you shouldn't punish in the air!
Again, if you're really wanting to improve FPLing in the manner that you are doing, you should ban all a/c until a correct FPL is filed. That would be consistent and you wouldn't have to worry about a/c type, equipment levels, etc.
Why is the RVSM element the only one you worry about???? Is anyone listening??
I'll always be on your case, cat, until I can work out why the RVSM element gets picked on. You and ANSA can quote all the stats you like but from our perspective, there's no change.
Problem is, your supposedly improving correct FPL count is skewed by all the hard work the surrounding FIRs do when they ask the pilots to refile and you finally get a good plan. Your cloistered view then makes it appear that the punishment is working. I hope you get that. It's not, and this is from a pit face controller.
Even GFA had to go down yesterday and he was bamboozled as to who was at fault. Until an investigation is done, you shouldn't punish in the air!
Again, if you're really wanting to improve FPLing in the manner that you are doing, you should ban all a/c until a correct FPL is filed. That would be consistent and you wouldn't have to worry about a/c type, equipment levels, etc.
Why is the RVSM element the only one you worry about???? Is anyone listening??
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCO1962, the question is are you listening??? If all the FIR's in the Middle East were strict on the flight planning issue then we wouldn't be having this conversations, as all airlines would know that if you want to fly here you do as is required in the rest of the world and file a flight plan. The UAE took a stand on the RVSM issue because the change to RVSM airspace came along at a time when the UAE was preparing to move to an advanced ATC system where the system needs flightplans to work properly, so took that opportunity to "educate" the airlines that if you want to fly in the UAE airspace at your requested level then you file a flight plan, but there are still the same old serial offenders who can't seem to manage that simple task. Gulf Air is one of those ongoing offenders. The pilots always act all offended that they are being pushed down, but they regularly fail to file a correct flight plan. The one you are referring to was a stuff up by the Gulf Air briefing people, so if you and the Gulf Air pilot want to be bamboozled then look to the airline employees, not us.
You say there is no change to you, but there is. When this first started we were getting you to push down aircraft all the time. Now as was said the maximum number of pushdowns per day is 6 (in the last 2 weeks that is the maximum, usually 4 or 5 a day), which means poor old you in Muscat will in all probability have to do one push down for the UAE per shift. If the pilot is bamboozled please tell the aircraft to call us early for a chat and we will explain that we are trying to drag the Middle East into the first world and as such expect the bare minimum, ie a bloody flight plan.
I find it amazing that you are giving the UAE grief about needing aircraft to file a correct flightplan to the correct place. I think the grief should be given to FIR's who don't take a stand against lazy and incompetent airlines (or agencies supposed to file on their behalf, like is the case out of Pakistan and Egypt for some of the big airlines, hence many of the problems for Gulf Air and the like) who can't get their **** together.
You say there is no change to you, but there is. When this first started we were getting you to push down aircraft all the time. Now as was said the maximum number of pushdowns per day is 6 (in the last 2 weeks that is the maximum, usually 4 or 5 a day), which means poor old you in Muscat will in all probability have to do one push down for the UAE per shift. If the pilot is bamboozled please tell the aircraft to call us early for a chat and we will explain that we are trying to drag the Middle East into the first world and as such expect the bare minimum, ie a bloody flight plan.
I find it amazing that you are giving the UAE grief about needing aircraft to file a correct flightplan to the correct place. I think the grief should be given to FIR's who don't take a stand against lazy and incompetent airlines (or agencies supposed to file on their behalf, like is the case out of Pakistan and Egypt for some of the big airlines, hence many of the problems for Gulf Air and the like) who can't get their **** together.
Last edited by AirNoServicesAustralia; 27th Apr 2006 at 04:42.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the pale Blue Dot
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to put my 2 fills worth into this discussion. Currently I’m a pilot with EK and we get a copy of the AFTN FPLN with the addressees ,with our documentation. Now in a previous life I was an ATC down in the South of the Dark Continent and when I was still an appy was seconded to the comm Centre, so I know how to read and address these things. Now to the point ,it has happened on more than on occasion whilst flying towards Europe that we are asked for our routing as the ATC unit does not have the FPLN and when checking the addressees on our copy of the AFTN FPLN the said ATC units are indeed in the address field. I normally inform the ATC of this fact and at what time the FPLN was sent and then no problem. Now my very old experience of the AFTN network is that sometimes things get lost in the system, so how can you be sure that these airlines you are punishing have not correctly filed and it has just got lost in the maze. If I where management of a “punished” flight I would withhold all and any over flying fee’s pending a full investigation as that flight did not get the service it is meant to get. Surely if the previous sector has a flight plan it must be assumed that one was correctly filed, and remember there are still a small number of operators that phone in to ATC and file or fax the form to an ATC unit, so who is to say that said ATC unit fouls up the addressees, And you punish the airline?????? Is it a surprise that Air Zim or flights out of Baghdad never have a FPLN, with the state of those places it would surprise me if the FPLN got beyond the airport boundary. Just remember the AFTN is not infallible.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not saying the AFTN is infallible but for the most part it is the same airlines again and again that do this. For the record I said the Air Zimbabwe flight never files (inbound from Zimbabwe) and also other flights from Baghdad from other so-called airlines. I agree absolutely that airlines should investigate fully all push downs just as is done by GCAA. If all the airlines took flight planning as seriously as they should in this part of the world, we wouldn't be having this problem. I have on a number of occasions been told by an angry pilot that why didn't we have the flight plan when the neighboring FIR had it, when on investigation they in fact didn't have it but didn't give a ****. Thats the problem here if all FIR's demanded that a flight plan was filed then the problem would be solved by the FIR where the flight has originated. The problem we have all the time is a flight gets out of Pakistan for Europe. The flight gets to FL360 cruising with no flight plan in the system. Pakistan doesn't care, as who needs a flight plan anyway. Muscat doesn't care, as who needs a flight plan anyway. The flight gets to our boundary still with no flight plan and we are the bad guys cos we force Muscat to push them down to FL280. Then the flight takes a different route than expected, "because thats the way we planned", and the importance of having a flight plan becomes clear.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: High up on the mountain
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Antman
With your experience in working comm centre you will also know that messages get sent from centre to centre or hub to hub. The problem here is that certail hubs/centres do not forward the correct addresses either through lack of standards, equipment or they are just **** at what they do. I have checked out this letter that we have floating around and it appears that each 'pushdown' is investigated and a letter sent to the authority of the country concerned. The letter is also sent to ICAO regional office so I gather something should be done in these countries. I am sure with you working down south the problem is as bad as there?
ATCO1962
The point is that with one way airways the safety issue with RNP is not as severe as with RVSM. Operators flying into this region are known not to be the most honest. Do we try and seperate the honest ones from the not so honest ones?? No we do something constructive in ensuring fpls are sent.
I have a question for you, an airline files 3 fpls. The first is a lander in your fir, the next 2 fpls are all overflights. Assuming all other details are the same, which fpl do you accept as being the correct one?
With your experience in working comm centre you will also know that messages get sent from centre to centre or hub to hub. The problem here is that certail hubs/centres do not forward the correct addresses either through lack of standards, equipment or they are just **** at what they do. I have checked out this letter that we have floating around and it appears that each 'pushdown' is investigated and a letter sent to the authority of the country concerned. The letter is also sent to ICAO regional office so I gather something should be done in these countries. I am sure with you working down south the problem is as bad as there?
ATCO1962
The point is that with one way airways the safety issue with RNP is not as severe as with RVSM. Operators flying into this region are known not to be the most honest. Do we try and seperate the honest ones from the not so honest ones?? No we do something constructive in ensuring fpls are sent.
I have a question for you, an airline files 3 fpls. The first is a lander in your fir, the next 2 fpls are all overflights. Assuming all other details are the same, which fpl do you accept as being the correct one?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANSA,
5 or 6 pushdowns a day wouldn't be a success in my eyes. I talked to a SVA pilot the other day who calculated that the extra fuel burn would be between 2-3 tonnes. Not just punishment, but environmental damage as well.
Your desire to have better flight planning is shared by us all, don't worry, but your expectation is a very Western one when you consider, as has been indicated by some, just from where and by whom FPLs are sent. An airline can do everything correctly and the FPL still won't get transmitted to the correct units in a timely fashion if at all. As frustrating as it is, we get just as many incorrectly filed plans as you, yet we deal with those issues in a manner in which no extra workload is incurred. We don't have the admin staff to investigate each and every occurrence but we do send the occasional threatening letter to those who should know better.
Unfortunately, the stance your authority takes doesn't address the problem of units and countries that don't enjoy the financial and human resources that the Gulf countries enjoy. It would be wonderful if a bit of grace were extended to all and sundry until the actual cause of a lost FPL is found, rather than using this misguided notion of punishment to bring about change, which doesn't seem to be going down a treat with any of our posting piloting brethren.
Cat
Our assistants, who handle incoming FPLs work on the principle that the last received FPL is the valid one. It doesn't always work because of the disorganisation that one sees in some operations depts or briefing offices, but it's not a bad working theory.
And I'll have to beg to differ about the RNP issue. It wasn't so long ago that I had a certain Tupolev operator who was 160NM, I say again, 160NM off track on his way to SHJ. This in RNP5 airspace. That was investigated and the crew suspended for a few months, or so we were told.
5 or 6 pushdowns a day wouldn't be a success in my eyes. I talked to a SVA pilot the other day who calculated that the extra fuel burn would be between 2-3 tonnes. Not just punishment, but environmental damage as well.
Your desire to have better flight planning is shared by us all, don't worry, but your expectation is a very Western one when you consider, as has been indicated by some, just from where and by whom FPLs are sent. An airline can do everything correctly and the FPL still won't get transmitted to the correct units in a timely fashion if at all. As frustrating as it is, we get just as many incorrectly filed plans as you, yet we deal with those issues in a manner in which no extra workload is incurred. We don't have the admin staff to investigate each and every occurrence but we do send the occasional threatening letter to those who should know better.
Unfortunately, the stance your authority takes doesn't address the problem of units and countries that don't enjoy the financial and human resources that the Gulf countries enjoy. It would be wonderful if a bit of grace were extended to all and sundry until the actual cause of a lost FPL is found, rather than using this misguided notion of punishment to bring about change, which doesn't seem to be going down a treat with any of our posting piloting brethren.
Cat
Our assistants, who handle incoming FPLs work on the principle that the last received FPL is the valid one. It doesn't always work because of the disorganisation that one sees in some operations depts or briefing offices, but it's not a bad working theory.
And I'll have to beg to differ about the RNP issue. It wasn't so long ago that I had a certain Tupolev operator who was 160NM, I say again, 160NM off track on his way to SHJ. This in RNP5 airspace. That was investigated and the crew suspended for a few months, or so we were told.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah ok Jors Troolie, so how do we judge a reputable airline from a non reputable airline when deciding who to believe and who not to. I wouldn't trust Qatar Airways as far as I could kick it. Some of their pilots don't even try to meet ATC requirements, and couldn't care less. Just because they are a big regional airline, I am to believe them over for example an Iranian airline that does everything asked of them and then some.
Everyday we get details passed on to us from a "couldn't give a ****" FIR on flights we don't have flight plans on that is completely wrong. Every day we get relayed details of flights supposedly landing Dubai that are actually for Sharjah, that supposedly is a 767 and turns out to be a 727. Are we supposed to believe that the "couldn't give a ****" FIR has actually checked the RVSM status while they haven't even managed to confirm the type of aircraft being flown.
As has been said before, forgetting the specific RVSM issue, the proper reciept of a flight plan is a serious safety issue and should be treated as such. The hard line taken by the UAE has drastically improved the percentage of correctly filed flight plans. The airlines are getting the message through their hip pocket. The other FIR's can send all the grumpy letter they like, it won't make a bit of difference until they implement actions that hurt the airlines bottom lines.
Everyday we get details passed on to us from a "couldn't give a ****" FIR on flights we don't have flight plans on that is completely wrong. Every day we get relayed details of flights supposedly landing Dubai that are actually for Sharjah, that supposedly is a 767 and turns out to be a 727. Are we supposed to believe that the "couldn't give a ****" FIR has actually checked the RVSM status while they haven't even managed to confirm the type of aircraft being flown.
As has been said before, forgetting the specific RVSM issue, the proper reciept of a flight plan is a serious safety issue and should be treated as such. The hard line taken by the UAE has drastically improved the percentage of correctly filed flight plans. The airlines are getting the message through their hip pocket. The other FIR's can send all the grumpy letter they like, it won't make a bit of difference until they implement actions that hurt the airlines bottom lines.