Organización de Aviación Civil Internacional. Международная организация гражданской авиации

Transcription

1 International Civil Aviation Organization Organisation de l aviation civile internationale Organización de Aviación Civil Internacional Международная организация гражданской авиации Tel.: Ref.: SP 59/4.1-11/8 30 June 2011 Subject: Proposals for the amendment of Annex 6, Part I relating to extended diversion time operations (EDTO); and proposals for the amendment of Annex 6, Part I and the PANS-ATM relating to fuel planning, in-flight fuel management and the selection of alternate aerodromes Action required: Comments to reach Montréal by 30 September 2011 Sir/Madam, 1. I have the honour to inform you that the Air Navigation Commission, at the seventh meeting of its 185th Session held on 7 December 2010, considered a proposal to amend the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) contained in Annex 6 Operation of Aircraft, Part I International Commercial Air Transport Aeroplanes regarding extended diversion time operations (EDTO) arising from the Special Operations Task Force (SOTF) and, at the seventh meeting of its 186th Session and the first meeting of its 187th Session held on 10 March and 3 May 2011, respectively, considered a proposal to amend Annex 6, Part I and the Procedures for Air Navigation Services Air Traffic Management (PANS-ATM, Doc 4444) regarding fuel planning, in-flight fuel management and the selection of alternate aerodromes. The Commission authorized the transmission of these proposals to Contracting States and appropriate international organizations for comments. 2. This amendment proposal should be reviewed by flight operations and air traffic management personnel. In order to facilitate the review, background material is provided in Attachment A. Attachment B provides the amended provisions for extended diversion time operations, fuel planning, in-flight fuel management and the selection of alternate aerodromes in Annex 6, Part I. Attachment C provides the amended provisions for phraseology and Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures related to fuel in PANS-ATM. For each amended provision described in Attachments B and C, a corresponding rationale has been provided in Attachment D, Section A (for extended diversion time operations, fuel planning, in-flight fuel management and the selection of alternate aerodromes in Annex 6, Part I) and Section B (for phraseology and Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures related to fuel in PANS-ATM). The electronic version of this State letter provides hyperlinks between the provision and corresponding rationale in these attachments. A current draft of the planned guidance material, the Flight Planning and Fuel Management (FPFM) Manual, is available in English and is attached to the electronic version of this State letter in Attachment E. 999 University Street Montréal, Quebec Canada H3C 5H7 Tel.: Fax: icaohq@icao.int

2 -23. The proposals for fuel planning and the selection of alternate aerodromes will have minimal to low economic impact and implementation costs as many regulators and air operators already incorporate these concepts into their regulatory and operational structures. For those who do not, some change to regulations and operational procedures may be necessary, but are not anticipated to be overly burdensome. The proposals for EDTO will have minimal economic impact and implementation cost as the vast majority of operators engaged in EDTO with more than two-engine aeroplanes are currently operating in compliance with the proposed Standards. 4. In examining the proposed amendments, you should not feel obliged to comment on editorial aspects as such matters will be addressed by the Air Navigation Commission during its final review of the draft amendment. 5. May I request that any comments you wish to make on the amendment proposals be dispatched to reach me not later than 30 September The Air Navigation Commission has asked me to specifically indicate that comments received after the due date may not be considered by the Commission and the Council. In this connection, should you anticipate a delay in the receipt of your reply, please let me know in advance of the due date. 6. For your information, the proposed amendments to Annex 6, Part I and to the PANS-ATM are envisaged for applicability on 15 November Any comments you may have thereon would be appreciated. 7. The subsequent work of the Air Navigation Commission and the Council would be greatly facilitated by specific statements on the acceptability or otherwise of the proposals. Please note that for the review of your comments by the Air Navigation Commission and the Council, replies are normally classified as agreement with or without comments, disagreement with or without comments or no indication of position. If in your reply the expressions no objections or no comments are used, they will be taken to mean agreement without comment and no indication of position, respectively. In order to facilitate proper classification of your response, a form has been included in Attachment F which may be completed and returned together with your comments, if any, on the proposals in Attachments B and C. Accept, Sir/Madam, the assurances of my highest consideration. Raymond Benjamin Secretary General Enclosures: A Background B Proposed amendment to Annex 6, Part I C Proposed amendment to PANS-ATM D Rationale E Draft Flight Planning and Fuel Management (FPFM) Manual F Response form

3 ATTACHMENT A to State letter SP 59/4.1-11/8 BACKGROUND 1. FUEL PLANNING AND THE SELECTION OF ALTERNATE AERODROMES 1.1 In 2008, in conjunction with IATA, ICAO recognized the need for updating and amending the fuel and alternate selection provisions of Annex 6. Many of these provisions were unchanged since their introduction in the 1950 s, and a revision was in order to enable air operators to take advantage of the latest technologies and operating practices in the industry. 1.2 The Operations Panel (OPSP) developed the first set of proposals for amending the provisions in Annex 6 regarding fuel use and the selection of alternate aerodromes. These proposals were reviewed by the Air Navigation Commission at the tenth meeting of its 181st Session on 30 June 2009 and sent to States for consultation via State letter SP 59/4.2-09/63. Based on replies received to the State letter, it was determined that additional work should be done on the proposals, and the matter was referred back to OPSP for further development. OPSP reconstituted its Fuel Use Sub-Group to address the task, and following additional detailed work among participating regulators, air operators and manufacturers, a refined and updated proposal was submitted to the Air Navigation Commission. In its seventh meeting of its 186th Session held on 10 March 2011, the Commission reviewed the new proposals and found that they adequately addressed the concerns expressed in the replies to the original proposals in State letter SP 59/4.2-09/63. These new proposals (Attachment B) now represent the culmination of over two years of work to develop and refine the amendments in a manner that will benefit both air operators and regulators. First and foremost, the proposed amendments improve safety. In addition, they also offer a performance-based approach to fuel planning and alternate selection that should provide increased efficiency, resulting in cost savings and environmental benefits 2. EXTENDED DIVERSION TIME OPERATIONS (EDTO) 2.1 The Air Navigation Commission at the twelfth meeting of its 174th Session and the third meeting of its 175th Session held on 8 March and 26 April 2007, respectively, reviewed proposed amendments to Annex 6, Part I pertaining to extended range operations for aeroplanes with two or more engines arising from the sixth meeting of the OPSP Working Group of the Whole (OPSP-WG-WHL/6) and agreed that they be circulated to States and appropriate international organizations for comments. On 28 September 2007, State letter SP 59/4-07/47 was circulated. 2.2 The results of the State letter were presented to the Commission at the fifth meeting of its 178th Session on 22 May 2008 and the Commission decided that the replies to the proposals for extended diversion time operations (EDTOs) were too complex to address without further evaluation by a group of experts specifically assigned to review the issue in view of the latest developments in the industry. As a result, the Special Operations Task Force (SOTF) was created to address all issues impacting the development of provisions for EDTOs. The SOTF developed the attached amendment proposal over a two-year period to address the concerns expressed by States and international organizations.

4 ATTACHMENT B to State letter SP 59/4.1-11/8 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ANNEX 6, PART I NOTES ON THE PRESENTATION OF THE AMENDMENT The text of the amendment is arranged to show deleted text with a line through it and new text highlighted with grey shading, as shown below: Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it. text to be deleted New text to be inserted is highlighted with grey shading. new text to be inserted Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it followed by the replacement text which is highlighted with grey shading. new text to replace existing text

5 B-2 TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT ANNEX 6 TO THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION PART I INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORT AEROPLANES... ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS (used in this Annex)... EDTO Extended diversion time operations... ETOPS Extended range operations by turbine-engined aeroplanes... Editorial Note. Replace all occurrences of the term ETOPS by EDTO in Annex 6, Part I CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS Alternate aerodrome. An aerodrome to which an aircraft may proceed when it becomes either impossible or inadvisable to proceed to or to land at the aerodrome of intended landing where the necessary services and facilities are available, where aircraft performance requirements can be met and which is expected to be operational if required. Alternate aerodromes include the following: Take-off alternate. An alternate aerodrome at which an aircraft can would be able to land should this become necessary shortly after take-off and it is not possible to use the aerodrome of departure. En-route alternate. An alternate aerodrome at which an aircraft would be able to land after experiencing an abnormal or emergency condition in the event that a diversion becomes necessary while en route. ETOPS en-route alternate. A suitable and appropriate alternate aerodrome at which an aeroplane would be able to land after experiencing an engine shutdown or other abnormal or emergency condition while en route in an ETOPS operation.

6 B-3 Destination alternate. An alternate aerodrome to at which an aircraft may proceed would be able to land should it become either impossible or inadvisable to land at the aerodrome of intended landing. Note. The aerodrome from which a flight departs may also be an en-route or a destination alternate aerodrome for that flight. Editorial Note. Consequential amendments to these definitions in Annexes 2, 3, 6, Parts II and III, 11, PANS-ATM and PANS-OPS, Volume I will need to be updated.... Extended diversion time operation (EDTO). Any operation by an aeroplane with two or more turbine engines where the diversion time to an en-route alternate aerodrome is greater than the threshold time established by the State of the Operator.... EDTO critical fuel. The fuel quantity necessary to fly to an en-route alternate aerodrome considering, at the most critical point on the route, the most limiting system failure.... EDTO-significant system. An aeroplane system whose failure or degradation could adversely affect the safety of an EDTO flight, or whose continued functioning is important to the safe flight and landing of an aeroplane during an EDTO diversion.... Isolated aerodrome. A destination aerodrome for which there is no destination alternate aerodrome suitable for a given aeroplane type.... Maximum diversion time. Maximum allowable range, expressed in time, from a point on a route to an en-route alternate aerodrome.... Point of no return. The last possible geographic point at which an aeroplane can proceed to the destination aerodrome as well as to an available en route alternate aerodrome for a given flight.... Threshold time. The range, expressed in time, established by the State of the Operator to an en-route alternate aerodrome, whereby any time beyond requires an EDTO approval from the State of the Operator....

7 B CHAPTER 4. FLIGHT OPERATIONS 4.2 Operational certification and supervision Fuel and oil records An operator shall maintain fuel and oil records to enable the State of the Operator to ascertain that, for each flight, the requirements of and have been complied with Fuel and oil records shall be retained by the operator for a period of three months Flight preparation Alternate aerodromes Take-off alternate aerodrome A take-off alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the operational flight plan if either the weather meteorological conditions at the aerodrome of departure are at or below the applicable operator s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation or if it would not be possible to return to the aerodrome of departure for other reasons The take-off alternate aerodrome shall be located within the following flight time distance from the aerodrome of departure: a) for aeroplanes having two engines. Not more than a distance equivalent to a flight time of one hour at the single-engine cruise speed; and with two engines, one hour of flight time at a one-engine-inoperative cruising speed, determined from the aircraft operating manual, calculated in ISA and still-air conditions using the actual take-off mass; or b) for aeroplanes having with three or more engines. Not more than a distance equivalent to a flight time of two hours at the one-engine inoperative cruise speed., two hours of flight time at an all-engine operating cruising speed, determined from the aircraft operating manual, calculated in ISA and still-air conditions using the actual take-off mass; or c) for aeroplanes engaged in extended diversion time operations (EDTO) the operator s approved maximum diversion time considering the actual take-off mass For an aerodrome to be selected as a take-off alternate the available information shall indicate that, at the estimated time of use, the conditions will be at or above the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation....

8 B En-route alternate aerodromes En-route alternate aerodromes, required by 4.7 for extended range diversion time operations by aeroplanes with two turbine engines, shall be selected identified and specified in the operational and air traffic services (ATS) flight plans Destination alternate aerodromes For a flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules, at least one destination alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the operational and ATS flight plans, unless: a) the duration of the flight from the departure aerodrome, or from the point of in-flight re-planning to the destination aerodrome is such that, taking into account all and the meteorological conditions and operational information relevant to the flight, at the estimated time of use, a prevailing are such that there is reasonable certainty exists that: 1) at the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome of intended landing, and for a reasonable period before and after such time, the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological conditions; or and 2) b) the aerodrome of intended landing is isolated and there is no suitable destination alternate aerodrome. separate runways are usable at the estimated time of use of the destination aerodrome with at least one runway having an operational instrument approach procedure; or b) the aerodrome is isolated. Operations into isolated aerodromes do not require the selection of a destination alternate aerodrome(s) and shall be planned in accordance with d) 4); 1) for each flight into an isolated aerodrome a point of no return shall be determined; and 2) a flight to be conducted to an isolated aerodrome shall not be continued past the point of no return unless a current assessment of meteorological conditions, traffic, and other operational conditions indicate that a safe landing can be made at the estimated time of use. Note 1. Separate runways are two or more runways at the same aerodrome configured such that if one runway is closed, operations to the other runway(s) can be conducted. Note 2. Guidance on planning operations to isolated aerodromes is contained in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc xxxx) Two destination alternate aerodromes shall be selected and specified in the operational and ATS flight plans when, for the destination aerodrome: a) meteorological conditions at the estimated time of use will be below the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation; or b) meteorological information is not available.

9 B Notwithstanding the provisions in , , and ; the State of the Operator may, based on the results of a specific safety risk assessment conducted by the operator which demonstrates how an equivalent level of safety will be maintained, approve operational variations to alternate aerodrome selection criteria. The specific safety risk assessment shall include at least the: a) capabilities of the operator; b) overall capability of the aeroplane and its systems; c) available aerodrome technologies, capabilities and infrastructure; d) quality and reliability of meteorological information; e) identified hazards and safety risks associated with each alternate aerodrome variation; and f) specific mitigation measures. Note. Guidance on performing a safety risk assessment and on determining variations, including examples of variations, are contained in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc xxxx) and the Safety Management Manual (SMM) (Doc 9859) Weather Meteorological conditions A flight to be conducted in accordance with the visual flight rules shall not be commenced unless current meteorological reports or a combination of current reports and forecasts indicate that the meteorological conditions along the route or that part of the route to be flown under the visual flight rules will, at the appropriate time, be such as to render enable compliance with these rules possible A flight to be conducted in accordance with instrument flight rules shall not be commenced unless information is available which indicates that conditions at the aerodrome of intended landing or, where a destination alternate is required, at least one destination alternate aerodrome will, at the estimated time of arrival, be at or above the aerodrome operating minima. Note. It is the practice in some States to declare, for flight planning purposes, higher minima for an aerodrome when nominated as a destination alternate than for the same aerodrome when planned as that of intended landing A flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules shall not take off or continue beyond the point of in-flight re-planning unless; a) at the departure aerodrome, meteorological conditions, at the time of use, are at or above the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation; and b) at the aerodrome of intended landing or at each alternate aerodrome to be selected in compliance with 4.3.4, current meteorological reports or a combination of current reports and forecasts indicate that the meteorological conditions will be, at the estimated time of use, at or above the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation.

10 B To ensure that an adequate margin of safety is observed in determining whether or not an approach and landing can be safely carried out at each alternate aerodrome, the State of the Operator shall require that the operator specify appropriate incremental values for height of cloud base and visibility to be added to the operator s established aerodrome operating minima. Note. Guidance on the selection of these incremental values is contained in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc xxxx) The State of the Operator shall approve a margin of time established by the operator for the estimated time of use of an aerodrome. Note. Guidance on establishing an appropriate margin of time for the estimated time of use of an aerodrome is contained in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc xxxx).... Editorial Note. Renumber subsequent paragraphs Fuel and oil supply requirements Editorial Note. Replace in its entirety with the following: An aeroplane shall carry a sufficient amount of fuel, to complete the planned flight safely and to allow for deviations from the planned operation The amount of fuel to be carried shall, as a minimum, be based on: a) data provided by the aeroplane manufacturer and/or current aeroplane-specific data derived from a fuel consumption monitoring system; and b) the operating conditions for the planned flight including: 1) anticipated aeroplane mass; 2) Notices to Airmen; 3) current meteorological reports or a combination of current reports and forecasts; and 4) air traffic services procedures, restrictions and anticipated delays The pre-flight calculation of usable fuel required shall include: a) taxi fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel expected to be consumed before take-off; b) trip fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel required to enable the aeroplane to fly from take-off or the point of in-flight re-planning until landing at the destination aerodrome taking into account the operating conditions of b);

11 B-8 c) contingency fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel required to compensate for unforeseen factors. It shall be 5 per cent of the planned trip fuel or of the fuel required from the point of in flight re-planning based on the consumption rate used to plan the trip fuel but in any case shall not be lower than the amount required to fly for five minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above the destination aerodrome in standard conditions; Note. Unforeseen factors are those which could have an influence on the fuel consumption to the destination aerodrome, such as deviations of an individual aeroplane from the expected fuel consumption data, deviations from forecast meteorological conditions and deviations from planned routings and/or cruising levels. d) destination alternate fuel, which shall be: 1) where a destination alternate aerodrome is required, the amount of fuel required to enable the aeroplane to: i) perform a missed approach at the destination aerodrome; ii) climb to the expected cruising altitude; iii) fly the expected routing; iv) descend to the point where the expected approach is initiated; and v) conduct the approach and landing at the destination alternate aerodrome; or 2) where two destination alternate aerodromes are required, the amount of fuel, as calculated in d) 1), required to enable the aeroplane to proceed to the destination alternate aerodrome which requires the greater amount of alternate fuel; or 3) where a flight is operated without a destination alternate aerodrome, the amount of fuel required to enable the aeroplane to fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above destination aerodrome elevation in standard conditions; or 4) where the aerodrome of intended landing is an isolated aerodrome: i) for a reciprocating engine aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 45 minutes plus 15 per cent of the flight time planned to be spent at cruising level, including final reserve fuel, or two hours, whichever is less; or ii) for a turbine engine aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for two hours at normal cruise consumption above the destination aerodrome, including final reserve fuel; e) final reserve fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel calculated using the estimated mass on arrival at the destination alternate aerodrome or the destination aerodrome, when no destination alternate aerodrome is required:

12 B-9 1) for a reciprocating engine aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 45 minutes, under speed and altitude conditions specified by the State of the Operator; or 2) for a turbine engine aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions; f) additional fuel, which shall be the supplementary amount of fuel required if the minimum fuel calculated in accordance with b), c), d) and e) is not sufficient to: 1) allow the aeroplane to descend as necessary and proceed to an alternate aerodrome in the event of engine failure or loss of pressurization, whichever requires the greater amount of fuel based on the assumption that such a failure occurs at the most critical point along the route; i) fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions; and ii) make an approach and landing; 2) allow an aeroplane engaged in EDTO to comply with the EDTO critical fuel scenario as established by the State of the Operator; 3) meet additional requirements not covered above; Note. Guidance on EDTO critical fuel scenarios are contained in Attachment D; g) discretionary fuel, which shall be the extra amount of fuel to be carried at the discretion of the pilot-in-command Recommendation. Operators should determine one final reserve fuel value for each aeroplane type and variant in their fleet rounded up to an easily recalled figure An aeroplane shall not take off or continue from the point of in-flight re-planning unless the usable fuel on board meets the requirements in b), c), d), e) and f) if required Notwithstanding the provisions in a), b), c), d), and f); the State of the Operator may, based on the results of a specific safety risk assessment conducted by the operator which demonstrates how an equivalent level of safety will be maintained, approve variations to the pre-flight fuel calculation of taxi fuel, trip fuel, contingency fuel, destination alternate fuel, and additional fuel. The specific safety risk assessment shall include at least the: a) flight fuel calculations; b) capabilities of the operator to include: i) a data-driven method that includes a fuel consumption monitoring programme; and/or ii) the advanced use of alternate aerodromes; and c) specific mitigation measures.

13 B-10 Note. Guidance for the specific safety risk assessment, fuel consumption monitoring programmes and the advanced use of alternate aerodromes is contained in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc xxxx).... Editorial Note. Insert new and renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly In-flight fuel management An operator shall establish policies and procedures, approved by the State of the Operator, to ensure that in-flight fuel checks and fuel management are performed The pilot-in-command shall continually ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining on board is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made with the planned final reserve fuel remaining upon landing The pilot-in-command shall request delay information from ATC when unanticipated circumstances may result in landing at the destination aerodrome with less than the final reserve fuel plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome or the fuel required to operate to an isolated aerodrome The pilot-in-command shall advise ATC of a minimum fuel state by declaring MINIMUM FUEL when, having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel. Note 1. The declaration of MINIMUM FUEL informs ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing and any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur. Note 2. Guidance on declaring minimum fuel is contained in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc xxxx) The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL, when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel. Note 1. The planned final reserve fuel refers to the value calculated in e) 1) or 2) and is the minimum amount of fuel required upon landing at any aerodrome. Note 2. The words MAYDAY FUEL describe the nature of the distress conditions as required in Annex 10, Volume II, , b) 3. Note 3. Guidance on procedures for in-flight fuel management are contained in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc xxxx)....

14 B Additional requirements for extended range operations by aeroplanes with two turbine engines (ETOPS) operations by aeroplanes with turbine engines beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome including extended diversion time operations (EDTO) Requirements for operations beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome Operators conducting operations beyond 60 minutes, from a point on a route to an en-route alternate aerodrome shall ensure that: a) the following are taken into account and provide the overall level of safety intended by the provisions of Annex 6, Part I: 1) operational control and flight dispatch procedures; 2) operating procedures; and 3) training programmes; b) for all aeroplanes: 1) en-route alternate aerodromes are identified; and 2) the most up to date information is provided to the flight crew on identified en-route alternate aerodromes, including operational status and meteorological conditions; c) for aeroplanes with two turbine engines the most up to date information provided to the flight crew indicates that conditions at identified en-route alternate aerodromes will be at or above the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for the operation at the estimated time of use. Note. Guidance on compliance with the requirements of these provisions is contained in Attachment D Requirements for extended diversion time operations (EDTO) Unless the operation has been specifically approved by the State of the Operator, an aeroplane with two or more turbine engines shall not, except as provided in 4.7.4, be operated on a route where the flight time at single-engine cruise speed diversion time from any point on the route, calculated in ISA and still air conditions at the one-engine inoperative cruise speed for aeroplanes with two turbine engines and at the all-engine operating cruise speed for aeroplanes with more than two turbine engines, to an adequate en-route alternate aerodrome exceeds a threshold time established for such operations by that State. Note 21. In the context of the approval of operations at which the requirements of can be met, guidance material on adequate and suitable alternate aerodromes is contained in Attachment D. When the diversion time exceeds the threshold time, the operation is considered to be an extended diversion time operation (EDTO).

15 B-12 Note 12. Guidance on the establishment of an appropriate threshold time and on approval of extended diversion time operations are contained in Attachment D. Note 3. For the purpose of threshold time calculations, the destination aerodrome may be considered an en-route alternate aerodrome In approving the operation, the State of the Operator shall ensure that: a) the airworthiness certification of the aeroplane type; b) the reliability of the propulsion system; and c) the operator s maintenance procedures, operating practices, flight dispatch procedures and crew training programmes; provide the overall level of safety intended by the provisions of Annexes 6 and 8. In making this assessment, account shall be taken of the ro ute to be flown, the anticipated operating conditions and the location of adequate en-route alternate aerodromes The maximum diversion time, for an operator of a particular aeroplane type engaged in extended diversion time operations shall be approved by the State of the Operator. Note. Guidance on the conditions to be used when converting diversion times to distances are contained in Attachment D When approving the appropriate maximum diversion time for an operator for a particular aeroplane type engaged in extended diversion time operations, the State of the Operator shall ensure that: a) for all aeroplanes: the most limiting EDTO significant system time limitation, if any, indicated in the Aeroplane Flight Manual (directly or by reference) and relevant to that particular operation is not exceeded; and b) for aeroplanes with two turbine engines: the aeroplane is EDTO certified. Note 1. EDTO may be referred to as ETOPS in some documents. Note 12. Guidance on compliance with the requirements of this provision is contained in Attachment D. Note 2. The Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760) contains guidance on the level of performance and reliability of aeroplane systems intended by 4.7.2, as well as guidance on continuing airworthiness aspects of the requirements of A flight to be conducted in accordance with shall not be commenced unless, during the possible period of arrival, the required en-route alternate aerodrome(s) will be available and the available information indicates that conditions at those aerodromes will be at or above the aerodrome operating minima approved for the operation Notwithstanding the provisions in a); the State of the Operator may, based on the results of a specific safety risk assessment conducted by the operator which demonstrates how an

16 B-13 equivalent level of safety will be maintained, approve operations beyond the time limits of the most timelimited system. The specific safety risk assessment shall include at least the: a) capabilities of the operator; b) overall reliability of the aeroplane; c) reliability of each time limited system; d) relevant information from the aeroplane manufacturer; and e) specific mitigation measures. Note. Guidance for the specific safety risk assessment is contained in Attachment D For aeroplanes engaged in EDTO, the additional fuel required by f) 2) shall include the fuel necessary to comply with the EDTO critical fuel scenario as established by the State of the Operator. Note. Guidance on compliance with the requirements of this provision is in Attachment D A flight shall not proceed beyond the threshold time in accordance with unless the identified en-route alternate aerodromes have been re-evaluated for availability and the most up to date information indicates that, during the estimated time of use, conditions at those aerodromes will be at or above the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for the operation. If any conditions are identified that would preclude a safe approach and landing at that aerodrome during the estimated time of use, an alternative course of action shall be determined The State of the Operator shall, when approving maximum diversion times for aeroplanes with two turbine engines, ensure that the following are taken into account in providing the overall level of safety intended by the provisions of Annex 8: a) reliability of the propulsion system; b) airworthiness certification for EDTO of the aeroplane type; and c) EDTO maintenance programme. Note 1. EDTO may be referred to as ETOPS in some documents. Note 2. The Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760) contains guidance on the level of performance and reliability of aeroplane systems intended by , as well as guidance on continuing airworthiness aspects of the requirements of Recommendation. The State of the Operator of an aeroplane type with two turbine engines which, prior to 25 March 1986 was authorized and operating on a route where the flight time at single-engine one engine inoperative cruise speed to an adequate en-route alternate aerodrome exceeded the threshold time established for such operations in accordance with , should give consideration to permitting such an operation to continue on that route after that date.

17 B Editorial Note. Delete Attachment D in toto and replace by the following new Attachment D. ATTACHMENT D GUIDANCE FOR OPERATIONS BY TURBINE ENGINE AEROPLANES BEYOND 60 MINUTES TO AN EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROME INCLUDING EXTENDED DIVERSION TIME OPERATIONS (EDTO) (Supplementary to Chapter 4, 4.7) 1. Introduction 1.1 The purpose of this Attachment is to provide guidance on the general provisions relating to operations by turbine engine aeroplanes beyond 60 minutes flying time to an en-route alternate aerodrome and extended diversion time operations contained in Chapter 4, Section 4.7. The guidance also assists States in establishing a threshold time and approving the maximum diversion time for a given operator with a specific aeroplane type. The provisions in Section 4.7 are divided into: a) the basic provisions that apply to all aeroplanes operating beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome and; b) provisions to fly beyond a threshold time, and up to a maximum diversion time, approved by the State of the Operator, that may be different for each operator/aeroplane type combination. This Attachment provides guidance on the means of achieving the required level of safety envisaged. 1.2 Similar to the threshold time, the maximum diversion time is the range (expressed in time) from a point on a route to an en-route alternate aerodrome up to which the State of the Operator will grant approval. When approving the operator s maximum diversion time, States will need to consider not only the capable range of the aircraft, taking into consideration any limitation of the aeroplanes type certificate, but also the operator s previous experience on similar aircraft types and routes.

18 B The material in this Attachment is organized to address guidance on operations beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome for all airplanes with turbine engines (Section 2) and guidance for extended diversion time operations (Section 3). The EDTO section is further divided into general provisions (Section 3.1), provisions that apply to aeroplanes with more than two engines (Section 3.2) and provisions that apply to aeroplanes with two engines (Section 3.3). The two engine and more than two engine aeroplane sections are organized exactly the same way. It should be noted that these sections may appear to be similar and thus repetitive, however there are requirement differences based on the aeroplane type. The reader should see Section 2, 3.1 and then either 3.2 for aeroplanes with more than two engines or 3.3 for aeroplanes with two engines. 2. Operations by aeroplanes with turbine engines beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome 2.1 General All provisions for operating by aeroplanes with turbine engines beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome also apply to extended diversion time operations (EDTO) In applying the requirements for aeroplanes with turbine engines in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, it should be understood that: a) operational control refers to the exercise by the operator of responsibility for the initiation, continuation, termination or diversion of a flight;

19 B-16 b) flight dispatch procedures refer to the method of control and supervision of flight operations. This does not imply a specific requirement for licensed flight dispatchers or a full flight following system; c) operating procedures refer to the specification of organization and methods established to exercise operational control and flight dispatch procedures in the appropriate manual(s) and should cover at least a description of responsibilities concerning the initiation, continuation, termination or diversion of each flight as well as the method of control and supervision of flight operations; and d) training programme refers to the training for pilots and flight operations officers/flight dispatchers in operations covered by this and following sections Aeroplanes with turbine engines operating beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome are not required to have specific additional approval by the State of the Operator except if they engage in extended diversion time operations. 2.2 Conditions to be used when converting diversion times to distances For the purpose of this guidance, an approved one-engine-inoperative (OEI) speed or approved all-engine-operative (AEO) speed is any speed within the certified flight envelope of the aeroplane Determination of the 60 min distance aeroplanes with two turbine engines For determining whether a point on the route is beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate, the operator should select an approved one-engine-inoperative (OEI) speed. The distance is calculated from the point of the diversion followed by cruise for 60 minutes, in ISA and still air conditions as shown in the figure 2 below. For the purposes of computing distances, credit for driftdown may be taken.

20 B Determination of the 60 minute distance aeroplanes with more than two turbine engines For determining whether a point on the route is beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate, the operator should select an approved all-engine-operative (AEO) speed. The distance is calculated from the point of the diversion followed by cruise for 60 minutes, in ISA and still air conditions as shown in the figure 3 below. 2.3 Training Training programmes should ensure requirements of Chapter 9, are complied with such as but not limited to, route qualification, flight preparation, concept of extended diversion time operations and criteria for diversions. 2.4 Flight dispatch and operational requirements In applying the general flight dispatch requirements of Chapter 4 particular attention should be paid to the conditions which might prevail any time that the operation is beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome, e.g. systems degradation, reduced flight altitude, etc. For compliance with the requirement of Chapter 4, Section 4.7, at least the following aspects should be considered: a) identify en-route alternate airports; b) ensure that prior to departure the flight crew is provided with the most up-to-date information on the identified en-route alternate aerodromes, including operational status and meteorological conditions and, in flight, make available means for the flight crew to obtain the most up-to-date weather information; c) methods to enable two-way communications between the aeroplane and the operator s operational control centre;

21 B-18 d) ensure that the operator has a means to monitor conditions along the planned route including the identified alternate airports and ensure that procedures are in place so that the flight crew are advised of any situation that may affect the safety of flight; e) ensure that the intended route does not exceed the established aeroplane threshold time unless the operator is approved for EDTO operations; f) pre-flight system serviceability including the status of items in the minimum equipment list; g) communication and navigation facilities and capabilities; h) fuel requirements; and i) availability of relevant performance information for the identified en-route alternate aerodrome(s) In addition, operations conducted by aeroplanes with two turbine engines require that prior to departure and in flight, the meteorological conditions at identified en-route alternate aerodromes will be at or above the aerodrome operating minima required for the operation during the estimated time of use. 2.5 En-route alternate aerodromes Aerodrome(s) to which an aircraft may proceed in the event that a diversion becomes necessary while en route, where the necessary services and facilities are available, where aircraft performance requirements can be met, and which are expected to be operational if required, need to be identified any time that the operation is beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome. Note. En-route alternate aerodromes may also be the take off and/or destination aerodromes. 3. Extended diversion time operations (EDTO) requirements 3.1 Basic concept This section addresses provision that apply in addition to those in Section 2 of this Attachment to operations by aeroplanes with two or more turbine engines where the diversion time to an en-route alternate aerodrome is greater than the threshold time established by the State of the Operator (extended diversion time operations) EDTO significant systems EDTO significant systems may be the aeroplane propulsion system and any other aeroplane systems whose failure or malfunctioning could adversely affect safety unique to an EDTO flight, or whose functioning is important to continued safe flight and landing during an aeroplane EDTO diversion.

22 B Many of the aeroplane systems which are essential for non-extended diversion time operations may need to be reconsidered to ensure that the redundancy level and/or reliability will be adequate to support the conduct of safe extended diversion time operations The maximum diversion time should not exceed the value of the EDTO significant system limitation(s), if any, for extended diversion time operations identified in the Aeroplane s Flight Manual directly or by reference, reduced with an operational safety margin, commonly 15 minutes, specified by the State of the Operator The specific safety risk assessment to approve operations beyond the time limits of an EDTO significant time-limited system per the provisions in Chapter 4, Section 4.7, should be based on the safety risk management guidance contained in the Safety Management Manual (Doc 9859). Hazards should be identified and safety risks assessed according to predicted probability and the severity of the consequences based on the worst foreseeable situation. When addressing the following components of the specific safety risk assessment it should be understood that: a) capabilities of the operator refer to the operator s quantifiable in-service experience, compliance record, aeroplane capability, and overall operational reliability that: 1) is sufficient to support operations beyond the time limits of an EDTO significant time-limited system; 2) demonstrate the ability of the operator to monitor and respond to changes in a timely manner; and 3) there is an expectation that the operator s established processes, necessary for successful and reliable extended diversion time operations, can be successfully applied to such operations; b) overall reliability of the aeroplane refers: 1) to quantifiable standards of reliability taking into account the number of engines, aircraft EDTO significant systems and any other factors that may affect operations beyond the time limits of a particular EDTO significant time limited system; and 2) relevant data from the aeroplane manufacturer and data from the operator reliability program used as a basis to determine overall reliability of the aeroplane and its EDTO significant systems; c) reliability of each time limited system refers to quantifiable standards of design, testing and monitoring that ensure the reliability of each particular EDTO significant time limited system; d) relevant information from the aeroplane manufacturer refers to technical data and characteristics of the aeroplane and worldwide fleet operational data provided by the manufacturer and used as a basis to determine overall reliability of the aeroplane and its EDTO significant systems; and

23 3.1.3 Threshold time B-20 e) specific mitigation measures refer to the safety risk management mitigation strategies that ensure an equivalent level of safety is maintained. These specific mitigations shall be based on: 1) technical expertise (e.g. data, evidence, concurrence by the manufacturer) proving the operator s eligibility for an approval of operations beyond the time limit of the relevant EDTO significant system; and 2) an assessment of relevant hazards, their probability and severity of the consequences that may adversely impact the safety of the operation, of an aeroplane operated beyond the limit of a particular EDTO significant time limited system It should be understood that the threshold time established in accordance with Chapter 4, Section 4.7 is not an operating limit. It is a flight time to an en-route alternate aerodrome, which is established by the State of the Operator as being the EDTO threshold beyond which particular consideration should be given to the aeroplane capability as well as the operator's relevant operational experience, before granting an EDTO approval Maximum diversion time It should be understood that the maximum diversion time approved in accordance with Chapter 4, Section 4.7 should take into consideration the most limiting EDTO significant system time limitation, if any, indicated in the Aeroplane s Flight Manual (directly or by reference) for a particular aeroplane type and the operator s operational and EDTO experience, if any, with the aeroplane type, or if relevant with another aeroplane type or model General 3.2 EDTO for aeroplanes with more than two turbine engines This section addresses provision that apply in addition to those in Sections 2 and 3.1 of this Attachment in particular to aeroplanes with more than two turbine engines.

24 B Operational and diversion planning principles When planning or conducting, extended diversion time operations, an operator and pilot-in-command, should ensure that: a) when planning an EDTO flight, the minimum equipment list, the communications and navigation facilities, fuel and oil supply, en-route alternate aerodromes and aeroplane performance, are appropriately considered; b) if no more than one engine is shut down, the pilot-in-command may elect to continue beyond the nearest en-route alternate aerodrome (in terms of time) if he determines that it is safe to do so. In making this decision the pilot-in-command should consider all relevant factors; and c) in the event of a single or multiple failure of an EDTO significant system or systems (excluding engine failure), proceed to and land at the nearest available en-route alternate aerodrome where a safe landing can be made unless it has been determined that no substantial degradation of safety results from any decision made to continue the planned flight EDTO critical fuel An aeroplane with more than two engines engaged in EDTO operations should carry enough fuel to fly to an en-route alternate aerodrome as described in Section of this Attachment.

25 B-22 This EDTO critical fuel corresponds to the additional fuel that may be required to comply with Annex 6, f) 2) The following should be considered, using the anticipated mass of the aeroplane, in determining the corresponding EDTO critical fuel: a) fuel sufficient to fly to an en-route alternate aerodrome, considering at the most critical point of the route, simultaneous engine failure and depressurization or depressurization alone, whichever is more limiting; 1) the speed selected for the diversions (i.e. depressurization, combined or not with an engine failure) may be different from the approved all-engine-operative speed used to determine the EDTO threshold and maximum diversion distance (see 3.2.8); b) fuel to account for icing; c) fuel to account for errors in wind forecasting; d) fuel to account for holding, an instrument approach and landing at the en-route alternate aerodrome; e) fuel to account for deterioration in cruise fuel burn performance; and f) fuel to account for APU use (if required). Note. Guidance on EDTO critical fuel planning can be found in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc xxxx) The following factors may be considered in determining if a landing at a given aerodrome is the more appropriate course of action: a) aeroplane configuration, weight, systems status, and fuel remaining; b) wind and weather conditions en-route at the diversion altitude, minimum altitudes en-route and fuel consumption to the en-route alternate aerodrome; c) runways available, runway surface condition, weather, wind and terrain, in proximity of the en-route alternate aerodrome; d) instrument approaches and approach/runway lighting available, rescue and fire fighting services (RFFS) at the en-route alternate aerodrome; e) the pilot s familiarity with that aerodrome and information about that aerodrome provided to the pilot by the operator; and f) facilities for passenger and crew disembarkation and accommodation.

26 B Threshold time In establishing the appropriate threshold time and to maintain the required level of safety, it is necessary for States to consider that: a) the airworthiness certification of the aeroplane type does not restrict operations beyond the threshold time, taking into account the aeroplane system design and reliability aspects; b) specific flight dispatch requirements are met; c) necessary in-flight operational procedures are established; and d) the operator s previous experience on similar aircraft types and routes For determining whether a point on a route is beyond the EDTO threshold to an en-route alternate aerodrome, the operator should use the approved speed as described in Section of this Attachment Maximum diversion time In approving the maximum diversion time, the State of the Operator should take into consideration the aeroplane s EDTO significant systems (e.g. limiting time limitation, if any, and relevant to that particular operations) for a particular aeroplane type and the operator s operational and EDTO experience with the aeroplane type, or if relevant, with another aeroplane type or model For determining the maximum diversion distance to an en-route alternate, the operator should use the approved speed as described in Section of this Attachment The operator s approved maximum diversion time should not exceed the most limiting EDTO significant system time limitation identified in the Aeroplane s Flight Manual reduced by an operational safety margin, commonly 15 minutes, specified by the State of the Operator EDTO significant systems In addition to the provisions in section of this Attachment, this section addresses particular provisions for aeroplanes with more than two turbine engines Consideration of time limitations For all operations beyond the EDTO threshold as determined by the State of the Operator, the operator should consider, at time of dispatch and as outlined below, the most limiting EDTO significant system time limitation, if any, indicated in the Aeroplane s Flight Manual (directly or by reference) and relevant to that particular operation The operator should check that from any point on the route, the maximum diversion time does not exceed the most limiting EDTO significant system time limitation reduced with an operational safety margin, commonly 15 minutes, specified by the State of the Operator.

27 B For that purpose, the operator should consider the approved speed as described in Section or consider adjusting that speed with forecast wind and temperature conditions for longer threshold times (e.g. beyond 180 minutes) as determined by the State of the Operator En-route alternate aerodromes In addition to the en-route alternate aerodrome provisions described in Section 2.3 of this Attachment the following apply: a) for route planning purposes, identified en-route alternate aerodromes need to be located at a distance within the maximum diversion time from the route and which could be used if necessary; b) in extended diversion time operations, before an aeroplane crosses its threshold time during flight, there should always be an en-route alternate aerodrome within the approved maximum diversion time whose conditions will be at or above the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for the operation during the estimated time of use. If any conditions, such as weather below landing minima, are identified that would preclude a safe approach and landing at that aerodrome during the estimated time of use, an alternative course of action should be determined such as selecting another en-route alternate aerodrome within the operator s approved maximum diversion time. Note. En route alternate aerodromes may also be the take off and/or destination aerodromes Operational approval procedure In approving an operator with a particular aeroplane type for extended diversion time operations, the State of the Operator should establish an appropriate threshold time and maximum diversion time and in addition to the requirements previously set forth in this Attachment, ensure that: a) specific operational approval is granted (by the State of the Operator); b) the operator s past experience and compliance record is satisfactory and the operator establishes the processes necessary for successful and reliable extended diversion time operations and shows that such processes can be successfully applied throughout such operations; c) the operator s procedures are acceptable based on certified aeroplane capability and adequate to address continued safe operation in the event of degraded aeroplane systems; d) the operator s crew training programme is adequate for the proposed operation; e) documentation accompanying the authorization covers all relevant aspects; and

28 B-25 f) it has been shown (e.g. during the EDTO certification of the aeroplane) that the flight can continue to a safe landing under the anticipated degraded operating conditions which would arise from: 1) the most limiting EDTO significant system time limitation, if any, for extended diversion time operations identified in the Aeroplane s Flight Manual directly or by reference; or 2) any other condition which the State of the Operator considers to be equivalent in airworthiness and performance risk Conditions to be used when converting diversion times to distances For the purpose of this guidance, an approved all-engine-operative (AEO) speed is any all-engine-operative speed within the certified flight envelope of the aeroplane. Note. See Section of this Attachment for operational considerations When applying for EDTO an operator should identify, and the State of the Operator should approve the AEO speed, considering ISA and still air conditions that will be used to calculate diversion distances. This speed may be different from the speed used to determine the 60-minute and EDTO thresholds Determination of the EDTO threshold For determining whether a point of the route is beyond the EDTO threshold to an en-route alternate, the operator should use the approved speed (see and ). The distance is calculated from the point of the diversion followed by cruise for the threshold time as determined by the State of the Operator as shown on the figure 5 below.

29 B Determination of the maximum diversion time distance For determining the maximum diversion time distance to an en-route alternate, the operator should use the approved speed (see and ). The distance is calculated from the point of the diversion followed by cruise for the maximum diversion time as approved by the State of the Operator, as shown of the figure 6 below Airworthiness certification requirements for extended diversion time operations beyond the threshold time Not applicable. There are no additional EDTO airworthiness certification requirements for aeroplanes with more than two engines Maintaining operational approval In order to maintain the required level of safety on routes where these aeroplanes are permitted to operate beyond the established threshold time, it is necessary that: a) specific flight dispatch requirements are met; b) necessary in-flight operational procedures are established; and c) specific operational approval is granted by the State of the Operator Airworthiness modifications and maintenance programme requirements Not applicable. There are no additional EDTO airworthiness or maintenance requirements for aeroplanes with more than two engines.

30 B Examples On establishing the appropriate threshold and approved maximum diversion time for an operator with a particular aeroplane type, the State of the Operator should consider, but not be limited to, the following; the airworthiness certification of the aeroplane, the operator s experience in conducting operations beyond the 60-minute threshold, flight deck crew experience in conducting such operations, the maturity of that operator s flight dispatch system, the communication capability with the operators operational control centre (ACARS, SATCOM, HF, etc.), the robustness of both the operator s standard operating procedures and the familiarity of the crews with those procedures, the maturity of the operator s Safety Management System, the crew training programme and the reliability of the propulsion system. The following examples are based on those considerations and are taken from actual State requirements: a) State A; This State has established the threshold time based on the capability of the operator and the aeroplane type for an aeroplane with more than two engines at 180 minutes and approved a maximum diversion time of 240 minutes. That operator will need to have specific approval to be further than 180 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome (all-engine-operative (AEO) speed in ISA and still air conditions), remain within 240 minutes to an en-route alternate airport and meet the requirements in Chapter 4; If that operator with the particular aeroplane type plans a route within the threshold time established by the State of the Operator (in the above example this is 180 minutes) to an en-route alternate aerodrome, that operator would not require any additional approval from the State of the Operator and only need to comply with the requirements in Chapter 4; if the operation was conducted beyond 60 minutes from en en-route alternate aerodrome. b) State B; The CAA is approached by an operator who is in the process of expansion, having acquired aeroplane(s) with more than two engines capable of EDTO. The operator submits an application to amend its AOC to include this new aeroplane type on newly granted routes. These routes take the flight beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate, thus requiring the establishment of a threshold time and approval of a maximum diversion time. Taking into account: 1) that the operator has not had previous experience with the routes and area of operation; 2) the new aeroplane type; 3) the inexperience of the company and its flight operations/operations control department at planning and dispatching such flights; and 4) the new operating procedures to be established. State B determines that the threshold time for Operator B should be limited to 120 minutes and approves a maximum diversion time of 180 minutes.

31 B-28 As the operator gains experience with the operation and the procedures over time, the State may amend the initially established threshold time and approved maximum diversion time General 3.3 EDTO for aeroplanes with two turbine engines This section addresses provision that apply in addition to those in Sections 2 and 3.1 of this Attachment in particular to aeroplanes with two turbine engines EDTO provisions for aeroplanes with two turbine engines do not differ from the previous exended range operations by aeroplanes with two turbine engines (ETOPS) provisions. Therefore EDTO may be referred to as ETOPS in some documents issued before November Operational and diversion planning principles When planning or conducting, extended diversion time operations, an operator and pilot in command, should normally ensure that:

32 B-29 a) when planning an EDTO flight, the minimum equipment list, the communications and navigation facilities, fuel and oil supply, en-route alternate aerodromes or aeroplane performance, are appropriately considered; b) if an aeroplane engine shutdown, proceed to and land at the nearest (in terms of the least flying time) en-route alternate aerodrome where a safe landing can be made; c) in the event of a single or multiple failure of an EDTO significant systems or systems (excluding engine failure), proceed to and land at the nearest available en-route alternate aerodrome where a safe landing can be made unless it has been determined that no substantial degradation of safety results from any decision made to continue the planned flight EDTO critical fuel An aeroplane with two engines engaged in EDTO operations should carry enough fuel to fly to an en-route alternate aerodrome as described in Section of this Attachment. This EDTO critical fuel corresponds to the additional fuel that may be required to comply with Annex 6, f) 2) The following should be considered, using the anticipated mass of the aeroplane, in determining the corresponding EDTO critical fuel: a) fuel sufficient to fly to an en-route alternate aerodrome, considering at the most critical point of the route, failure of one engine or simultaneous engine failure and depressurization or depressurization alone, whichever is more limiting; 1) the speed selected for the all-engine-operative diversion (i.e. depressurization alone) may be different from the approved one-engine-inoperative speed used to determine the EDTO threshold and maximum diversion distance (see 3.3.8); 2) the speed selected for the one-engine-inoperative diversions (i.e. engine failure alone and combined engine failure and depressurization) should be the approved one-engine-inoperative speed used to determine the EDTO threshold and maximum diversion distance (see 3.3.8); b) fuel to account for icing; c) fuel to account for errors in wind forecasting; d) fuel to account for holding, an instrument approach and landing at the en-route alternate aerodrome; e) fuel to account for deterioration in cruise fuel burn performance; and f) fuel to account for APU use (if required). Note. Guidance on EDTO critical fuel planning can be found in the Fuel Planning Manual (Doc xxxx).

33 B The following factors may be considered in determining if a landing at a given aerodrome is the more appropriate course of action: Threshold time a) aeroplane configuration, weight, systems status, and fuel remaining; b) wind and weather conditions en-route at the diversion altitude, minimum altitudes enroute and fuel consumption to the en-route alternate aerodrome; c) runways available, runway surface condition, weather, wind, and terrain, in proximity of the en-route alternate aerodrome; and d) instrument approaches and approach/runway lighting available, rescue and fire fighting services (RFFS) at the en-route alternate aerodrome; e) pilot s familiarity with that aerodrome and information about that aerodrome provided to the pilot by the operator; and f) facilities for passenger and crew disembarkation and accommodation In establishing the appropriate threshold time and to maintain the required level of safety, it is necessary for States to consider that: a) the airworthiness certification of the aeroplane type specifically permits operations beyond the threshold time, taking into account the aeroplane system design and reliability aspects; b) the reliability of the propulsion system is such that the risk of double engine failure from independent causes is extremely remote; c) any necessary special maintenance requirements are fulfilled; d) specific flight dispatch requirements are met; e) necessary in-flight operational procedures are established; and f) the operator s previous experience on similar aircraft types and routes For determining whether a point on a route is beyond the EDTO threshold to an en-route alternate aerodrome, the Operator should use the approved speed as described in Section of this Attachment.

34 B Maximum diversion time In approving the maximum diversion time, the State of the Operator should take into consideration the EDTO certified capability of the aeroplane, the aeroplanes EDTO significant systems (e.g. limiting time limitation, if any, and relevant to that particular operation) for a particular aeroplane type and the operator s operational and EDTO experience with the aeroplane type, or if relevant, with another aeroplane type or model For determining the maximum diversion distance to an en-route alternate, the operator should use the approved speed as described in Section of this Attachment The operator s approved maximum diversion time should not exceed the EDTO certified capability of the aeroplane nor the most limiting EDTO significant system time limitation identified in the Aeroplane s Flight Manual reduced by an operational safety margin specified, commonly 15-minutes, by the State of the Operator EDTO significant systems In addition to the provisions in section of this Attachment, this section address particular provisions for aeroplanes with two turbine engines The reliability of the propulsion system for the aeroplane-engine combination being certified is such that the risk of double engine failures from independent causes is assessed as provided in the Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760) and found acceptable to support the diversion time being approved. Note. EDTO may be referred to as ETOPS in some documents Consideration of time limitations For all operations beyond the EDTO threshold as determined by the State of the Operator, the operator should consider, at time of dispatch and as outlined below, the EDTO certified capability of the aeroplane and the most limiting EDTO significant system time limitation, if any, indicated in the Aeroplane s Flight Manual (directly or by reference) and relevant to that particular operations The operator should check that from any point on the route, the maximum diversion time does not exceed the most limiting EDTO significant system time limitation reduced with an operational safety margin, commonly 15 minutes, specified by the State of the Operator For that purpose, the operator should consider the approved speed as described in Section or consider adjusting that speed with forecast wind and temperature conditions for longer threshold times (e.g. beyond 180 minutes) as determined by the State of the Operator En-route alternate aerodromes In addition to the en-route alternate aerodrome provisions described in Section 2.3 of this Attachment the following apply:

35 B-32 a) for route planning purposes, identified en-route alternate aerodromes need to be located at a distance within the maximum diversion time from the route and which could be used if necessary; b) in extended diversion time operations, before an aeroplane crosses its threshold time during flight, there should always be an en-route alternate aerodrome within the approved maximum diversion time whose conditions will be at or above the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for the operation during the estimated time of use. If any conditions, such as weather below landing minima, are identified that would preclude a safe approach and landing at that aerodrome during the estimated time of use, an alternative course of action should be determined such as selecting another en-route alternate aerodrome within the operator s approved maximum diversion time During flight preparation and throughout the flight the most up-to-date information should be provided to the flight crew on the identified en-route alternate aerodromes, including operational status and meteorological conditions. Note. En route alternate aerodromes may also be the take off and/or destination aerodromes Operational approval procedure In approving an operator with a particular aeroplane type for extended diversion time operations, the State of the Operator should establish an appropriate threshold time and approve a maximum diversion time and in addition to the requirements previously set forth in this Attachment, ensure that: a) specific operational approval is granted (by the State of the Operator); b) the operator s past experience and compliance record is satisfactory and the operator establishes the processes necessary for successful and reliable extended diversion time operations and shows that such processes can be successfully applied throughout such operations; c) the operator s procedures are acceptable based on certified aeroplane capability and adequate to address continued safe operation in the event of degraded aeroplane systems; d) the operator s crew training programme is adequate for the proposed operation; e) documentation accompanying the authorization covers all relevant aspects; and f) it has been shown (e.g. during the EDTO certification of the aeroplane) that the flight can continue to a safe landing under the anticipated degraded operating conditions which would arise from:

36 B-33 1) the most limiting EDTO significant system time limitation, if any, for extended diversion time operations identified in the Aeroplane s Flight Manual directly or by reference; or 2) total loss of engine generated electric power; or 3) total loss of thrust from one engine; or 4) any other condition which the State of the Operator considers to be equivalent in airworthiness and performance risk Conditions to be used when converting diversion times to distances For the purpose of this guidance, an approved one-engine-inoperative (OEI) speed is any one-engine-inoperative speed within the certified flight envelope of the aeroplane. Note. See Section of this Attachment for operational considerations When applying for EDTO an operator should identify, and the State of the Operator should approve the OEI speed that will be used to calculate diversion distances considering ISA and still air conditions. The identified speed should be the same one used to determine fuel reserves for OEI diversions. This speed may be different from the speed used to determine the 60 minutes and EDTO thresholds Determination of the EDTO threshold For determining whether a point of the route is beyond the EDTO threshold to an en-route alternate, the operator should use the approved speed (see and ). The distance is calculated from the point of the diversion followed by cruise for the threshold time as determined by the State of the Operator as shown on the figure 8 below. For the purposes of computing distances, credit for driftdown may be taken.

37 B Determination of the maximum diversion time distance For determining the maximum diversion time distance to an en-route alternate, the operator should use the approved speed (see and ). The distance is calculated from the point of the diversion followed by cruise for the maximum diversion time as approved by the State of the Operator, as shown in the figure 9 below. For the purposes of computing distances, credit for driftdown may be taken Airworthiness certification requirements for extended diversion time operations beyond the threshold time During the airworthiness certification procedure for an aeroplane type intended for extended diversion time operations, special attention should be paid to ensure that the required level of safety will be maintained under conditions which may be encountered during such operations, e.g. flight for extended periods following failure of an engine and/or aeroplanes EDTO significant systems. Information or procedures specifically related to extended diversion time operations should be incorporated into the Aeroplane s Flight Manual, Maintenance Manual or other appropriate document Aeroplane manufacturers should supply data specifying the aeroplanes EDTO significant systems and where appropriate, any time-limiting factors associated with those systems. Note 1. Criteria for aeroplane systems performance and reliability for extended diversion time operations are contained in the Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760). Note 2. EDTO may be referred to as ETOPS in some documents Maintaining operational approval In order to maintain the required level of safety on routes where these aeroplanes are permitted to operate beyond the established threshold time, it is necessary that:

38 B-35 a) the airworthiness certification of the aeroplane type specifically permits operations beyond the threshold time, taking into account the aeroplane system design and reliability aspects; b) the reliability of the propulsion system is such that the risk of double engine failures from independent causes is extremely remote, assessed as provided in the Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760) and found acceptable to support the diversion time being approved; c) any necessary special maintenance requirements are fulfilled; d) specific flight dispatch requirements are met; e) necessary in-flight operational procedures are established; and f) specific operational approval is granted by the State of the Operator. Note 1. The airworthiness considerations applicable to extended diversion time operations are provided in the Airworthiness Manual (Doc 9760) Part IV, Chapter 2. Note 2. EDTO may be referred to as ETOPS in some documents Airworthiness modifications and maintenance programme requirements Each operator s maintenance programme should ensure that: a) the titles and numbers of all airworthiness modifications, additions and changes which were made to qualify aeroplane systems for extended diversion time operations are provided to the State of Registry and, where applicable, to the State of the Operator; b) any changes to maintenance and training procedures, practices or limitations established in the qualification for extended diversion time operations are submitted to the State of the Operator and, where applicable, to the State of Registry before such changes are adopted; c) a reliability monitoring and reporting programme is developed and implemented prior to approval and continued after approval; d) prompt implementation of required modifications and inspections which could affect propulsion system reliability is undertaken; e) procedures are established which prevent an aeroplane from being dispatched for an extended diversion time operation after engine shutdown or EDTO significant system failure on a previous flight until the cause of such failure has been positively identified and the necessary corrective action is completed. Confirmation that such corrective action has been effective may, in some cases, require the successful completion of a subsequent flight prior to dispatch on an extended diversion time operation; and

39 Examples B-36 f) a procedure is established to ensure that the airborne equipment will continue to be maintained at the level of performance and reliability required for extended diversion time operations On establishing the appropriate threshold and approved maximum diversion time for an operator with a particular aeroplane type, the State of the Operator should consider, but not be limited to, the following; the airworthiness certification of the aeroplane, the operator s experience in conducting operations beyond the 60-minute threshold, flight deck crew experience in conducting such operations, the maturity of that operator s flight dispatch system, the communication capability with the operator s operational control centre (ACARS, SATCOM, HF, etc.), the robustness of both the operator s standard operating procedures and the familiarity of the crews with those procedures, the maturity of the operator s Safety Management System, the crew training programme and the reliability of the propulsion system. The following examples are based on those considerations and are taken from actual State requirements: a) State A; This State has established the threshold time based on the capability of the operator and the aeroplane type for a twin engine aeroplane at 60 minutes and approved a maximum diversion time of 180 minutes. That operator will need to have specific approval to be further than 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome (calculated at in ISA conditions and still air at the one-engine inoperative cruise speed), remain within 180 minutes to an en-route alternate airport and meet the requirements in Chapter 4, to If that operator with the particular aeroplane type plans a route within the threshold time established by the State of the Operator (in the above example this is 60 minutes) to an en-route alternate airport, that operator by definition would not be conducting an extended diversion time operation and thus would not need to meet any of the provisions in Chapter 4, Section 4.7. b) State B; This State has established the threshold time based on the capability of the operator and the aeroplane type for a twin engine aeroplane at 90 minutes and approved a maximum diversion time of 180 minutes, that operator will need to have specific approval to be further than 90 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome (calculated in ISA conditions and still air at the one-engine inoperative cruise speed), remain within 180 minutes to an en-route alternate airport and meet the requirements in Chapter 4, to If that operator with the particular aeroplane type plans a route within the threshold time established by the State of the Operator (in the above example this is 90 minutes) to an en-route alternate airport, that operator would not require any additional approval from the State of the Operator and only need to comply with the requirements in Chapter 4, and in particular c). c) The same State B; This State is approached by an operator who is in a process of expansion, having acquired twin engine aeroplane(s) capable of EDTO. The operator submits an application to amend its AOC to include this new aeroplane type on newly granted routes. These routes take the flight beyond 60 minutes to an en-route

40 B-37 alternate, thus requiring the establishment of a threshold time and approval of a maximum diversion time. Taking into account: 1) that the operator has not had previous experience with the routes and area of operation; 2) the new aeroplane type; 3) the inexperience of the company and its flight operations/operations control department at planning and dispatching such flights; and 4) the new operating procedures to be established. State B determines that the threshold time for this operator should be limited to 60 minutes and approves a maximum diversion time of 120 minutes. As this operator gains experience with the operation and the procedures over time, the State may amend the initially established threshold time and approved maximum diversion time. End of new Attachment D.

41 ATTACHMENT C to State letter SP 59/4.1-11/8 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PANS-ATM (DOC 4444) NOTES ON THE PRESENTATION OF THE AMENDMENT The text of the amendment is arranged to show deleted text with a line through it and new text highlighted with grey shading, as shown below: Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it. New text to be inserted is highlighted with grey shading. Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it followed by the replacement text which is highlighted with grey shading. text to be deleted new text to be inserted new text to replace existing text

42 C-2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PROCEDURES FOR AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CHAPTER 1 DEFINITIONS... Minimum fuel. The term used to describe a situation in which an aircraft s fuel supply has reached a state where little or no the flight is committed to land at a specific aerodrome and no additional delay can be accepted. Note. This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates that an emergency situation is possible, should any undue delay occur CHAPTER 10 COORDINATION 10.2 COORDINATION IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISION OF FLIGHT INFORMATION SERVICE AND ALERTING SERVICE In circumstances where an aircraft has declared minimum fuel or is experiencing an emergency or has declared minimum fuel, or in any other situation wherein the safety of the aircraft is not assured, the type of emergency and/or the circumstances experienced by the aircraft shall be reported by the transferring unit to the accepting unit and any other ATS unit that may be concerned with the flight and to the associated rescue coordination centres, if necessary. CHAPTER 12 PHRASEOLOGIES ATC PHRASEOLOGIES General...

43 C-3 Circumstances Phraseologies MINIMUM FUEL... indication of minimum fuel *a) MINIMUM FUEL; b) ROGER [NO DELAY EXPECTED or EXPECT (delay information)].... *Denotes pilot transmission. Editorial Note. Renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly CHAPTER 15 PROCEDURES RELATED TO EMERGENCIES, COMMUNICATION FAILURE AND CONTINGENCIES 15.5 OTHER IN-FLIGHT CONTINGENCIES Fuel emergency and minimum fuel Note 1. General procedures to be applied when a pilot reports an emergency situation are contained in and Note 2. Coordination procedures to be applied between transferring and accepting ATS units for flights in fuel emergency or minimum fuel situations are contained in Chapter 10, Note 3. The words MAYDAY FUEL describe the nature of the distress condition as required in Annex 10, Volume II, b) When a pilot reports a state of minimum fuel, the controller shall inform the pilot as soon as practicable of any anticipated delays or that no delays are expected. Note 1. The declaration of MINIMUM FUEL informs ATC that all planned aerodrome options have been reduced to a specific aerodrome of intended landing and any change to the existing clearance may result in landing with less than planned final reserve fuel. This is not an emergency situation but an indication that an emergency situation is possible should any additional delay occur.... Editorial Note. Renumber subsequent section accordingly.

44 ATTACHMENT D to State letter SP 59/4.1-11/8 SECTION A RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ANNEX 6, PART I Paragraph reference Abbreviations and Symbols EDTO Definitions Alternate aerodrome Definitions Extended diversion time operations (EDTOs) Definitions EDTO critical fuel Definitions EDTOsignificant system Definitions Isolated aerodrome Definitions Maximum diversion time Definitions Point of no return Rationale EDTO is a new abbreviation used in this Annex. The proposed amendment will replace the term ETOPS by EDTO throughout the Annex. The proposed amendment to the alternate aerodrome definition in Annex 6 expands on the current definition to clarify and simplify the definition by adding some of the elements that were considered in the adequate and suitable Attachment D definitions. The language in the take-off alternate, en-route alternate and destination alternate have been amended for consistency. There is no longer the need to define ETOPS en-route alternate. This is a new term requiring a definition. This is a new term requiring definition. This definition supports the term critical fuel that has been recently recommended for addition to paragraph 4.7 as part of the EDTO amendment. This term describes the amount of fuel required to safely complete the diversion while engaged in an extended diversion time operation. The amount of fuel will vary with the length of the diversion as approved by the State of the Operator. This is a new term requiring a definition. The term isolated aerodrome is used in the current version of Annex 6, Part I; however, there is no definition. Because this term has taken on new significance with the addition of performance-based criteria to enable flights to be safely conducted to isolated aerodromes, a definition is required to support the new provisions. This is a new term requiring a definition. The introduction of the term point of no return is significant because this is the point at which a decision must be made to either continue to the destination or divert to an en-route alternate. At this point, the pilot has enough fuel to successfully exercise either option. Once this point is passed, the only option remaining is to continue to the destination as the en-route alternate will be beyond fuel range. The wording of the term point of no return was carefully considered and chosen over other options because it is a commonly understood term that has been used in the aviation community for many years. Definition Threshold time This is a new term requiring a definition , and It was decided to delete reference to oil records because modern turbine engine aeroplanes use very little oil in comparison with the large piston engines which were in service at the time this Standard was written. As the requirement is referenced against and , neither of which mention oil usage, the Standard needs only to refer to fuel so that the State of the Operator may satisfy itself that the operator is safely managing its fuel planning.

45 D-2 Paragraph reference Rationale The tracking of oil usage is typically a maintenance function and this maintenance requirement provides a means for the State of the Operator to ascertain that oil requirements for both turbine engine aeroplanes and the dwindling numbers of piston engine aeroplanes remaining in commercial service are managing oil consumption safely and In , the word operator s was added to the established aerodrome operating minima clause, as paragraph specifies that aerodrome operating minima shall be established by the operator. The wording in a) and b) is re-written to be more precise in specifying the conditions, i.e. ISA and still-air, under which the calculation is to be made. The wording in c) addresses extended diversion time operations where the operator and aeroplane are subject to more stringent requirements, thus increasing the overall reliability of the operation. This reliability allows the diversion times associated with EDTO to be longer The words operator s established are added to this paragraph using the same rationale as for Proposal 5 above This Standard has been amended to address EDTO instead of ETOPS These paragraphs add specificity to the criteria for the selection of destination alternate aerodromes. In a), the notion of selecting a destination alternate aerodrome from the point of in-flight replanning is introduced as an additional requirement if the flight cannot be continued to the original destination. Paragraph a) also removes the vague statement reasonable period of time before and afterward and replaces it with a more realistic and achievable at the estimated time of use for relevant information to indicate that the approach can be made under under visual meteorological conditions. In b), the requirement for two runways to be available is introduced, with the idea that if no destination alternate is selected or available, a destination aerodrome with one runway could put a flight in jeopardy if that runway is closed. This is a long-standing issue that has been repeatedly mentioned as a safety concern and this provision is seen as a means of adding a significant measure of safety for flights operating to destinations with only one runway. New paragraph b) retains the original intent of current b), which allows operations to isolated aerodromes (but without mitigating measures), and adds a measure of safety by establishing a point of no return at which an operational assessment must indicate in-so-far as possible that a safe approach and landing can be made. It is important not to restrict operations to isolated aerodromes since there is a necessity for some operators to fly to these destinations, but rather to add requirements that will provide a better margin of safety This proposal increases the margin of safety for those operations that knowingly dispatch for destinations that are below minima or for which there is no meteorological information available. The theory is that as a diversion is more likely under these conditions, more than one alternate should be available in case one of the alternates becomes unusable Paragraphs , , and are all directed at tightening the requirements for the selection of alternate aerodromes to improve the margin of safety. The newly proposed provisions provide a basic set of requirements that are more restrictive in nature than the current provisions

46 D-3 Paragraph reference Rationale of Annex 6, Part I. It is recognized, however, that in many cases, established operators may be able to operate safely using criteria that are less restrictive. For example, an operator may be able to show that a destination alternate is not required to operate to a destination with only one runway if frequency of operations and environmental conditions, and historical data indicate that periods of time when the runway was not available are virtually non-existent. In this case, the operator would not have to carry additional fuel, and the weight penalty, to operate to a destination alternate. Paragraph provides a performance-based means for State of the Operator and operator to introduce operational variations based on specific safety risk assessments. In this manner, operators may be able to take advantage of the increased operating efficiencies, based upon demonstrated performance, that will result from the application of variations and These are minor wording changes to improve the meaning of the paragraph. The use of the word meteorological is more precise than the use of the word weather The new wording adds the notion of point of in-flight re-planning, i.e., a point along the route where on-board fuel is reassessed to determine if sufficient fuel is available to proceed to the destination as planned. It also adds the requirement in a) for the meteorological conditions at the aerodrome of departure to be at or above the operator s established take-off operating minima The incremental values for ceiling and visibility are added to the operator s established minima for the alternate aerodrome to provide an additional margin of safety This requirement supports the wording in paragraphs that replaces reasonable period of time before and after with estimated time of use. Based on operating conditions, the operator now will be able to choose a realistic margin of time, which could vary depending upon circumstances. The point is to permit the operator to select the window reflective of actual circumstances rather than a prescribed length of time This is a newly-stated requirement that sets the stage for the specific calculation of fuel amounts in the subsequent paragraphs These are the basic elements for computing the amount of fuel required. This describes the means by which fuel requirements are calculated: by combining the expected fuel use, either from data supplied by the aeroplane manufacturer or from a fuel consumption monitoring programme with the anticipated operating conditions, a minimum amount of fuel can be calculated to which requirements for additional fuel may be added These are specific amounts of fuel that will enable the flight to have sufficient fuel on board to cover planned fuel use as well as to allow additional fuel for unplanned events This provides a tool for flight crews to have an easily recalled value for final reserve fuel calculations for a particular aeroplane type. By making the figure easy to recall, crews will have a fuel figure readily at hand to

47 D-4 Paragraph reference Rationale prompt action, especially in cases where errors in the fuel calculations might have been made This ties the fuel planning requirements to in-flight replanning such that in-flight replanning also must meet the fuel requirements of b), c), d), e) and f) As with the selection of alternate aerodromes, the basic fuel provisions are the most restrictive provides a means for the State of the Operator and operator to introduce operational variations based on specific safety risk assessments. This in fact captures the current situation in which many operators are granted alleviations to prescriptive fuel regulations by their States of the Operator. This new provision reflects current practices This is a particularly important provision that adds a measure of safety by requiring operators to cross-check their planning and update their fuel figures if needed. It is also an integral part of a process by which the State of the Operator may grant alleviations to the prescriptive fuel requirements based on demonstrated performance This provision requires that the pilot be continually aware of the aeroplane s fuel state. Although it seems to be stating an obvious responsibility of the pilot-in-command, by expressing the requirement in a Standard, it will ensure that State regulators capture this most basic of requirements in their regulations This provision builds on the requirement to monitor the aircraft s fuel state in and adds the requirement for the pilot-in-command to request delay information from ATC whenever the predicted fuel upon landing may be less than the required fuel (per ) In preparing the new fuel provisions in Annex 6, Part I, the need was identified to update the related phraseology to ensure that pilots and controllers have a common understanding of fuel related phraseology terms.. Currently there is only a minimum fuel definition in PANS-ATM with very little guidance on how to apply it. There is no related phraseology nor provisions that clearly explain when and how to use the term. As a result, there are variances around the world on the use of the term minimum fuel. Therefore, its use is non-uniform between many States, operators and does not necessarily mean the same thing to pilots and controllers. This provision requires that when the pilot-in-command anticipates that the amount of fuel upon landing at the aerodrome of intended landing based on the current ATC clearance (this is the aerodrome to which the aeroplane is committed to) is getting close to the planned final reserve fuel (i.e. because of unanticipated delays) pilots are required to declare MINIMUM FUEL. This will indicate to the controller that the aeroplane, whilst still operating normally, the aeroplane has lost, to a degree, the routing flexibility due to its fuel state and needs to remain on the current clearance (i.e. it can no longer accommodate delays). Pilots should not expect priority handling from a MINIMUM FUEL call. ATC will advise the crew of expected delays and will coordinate with other ATC units when transferring the aeroplane to ensure everyone is

48 D-5 Paragraph reference Rationale aware. This change is also captured in the proposed amendment to PANS-ATM This terminology was chosen by the FUSG as the clearest and most urgent possible expression of an emergency situation brought about by insufficient fuel remaining to meet the planned final reserve fuel upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made. Immediate action must be taken by the air traffic control authority to ensure that the aeroplane can land as soon as possible. This change is also captured in the proposed amendment to PANS-ATM. It is important to note that the intent of the phraseology terms MINIMUM FUEL and MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL are to clearly and succinctly describe the problem so that further radio telephony (R/T) can focus on the solutions. 4.7 New title. EDTO is an evolution of ETOPS based on industry best practices and lessons learned from twin engine operations. The proposed SARPs divide Chapter 4, Section 4.7 into operations beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome and extended diversion time operations. SARPs for operations beyond 60 minutes are the basic provisions that apply to all aeroplanes operating beyond 60 minutes to an en-route alternate aerodrome. These operations would not require any specific additional approval by the State of the Operator except if they engage in extended diversion time operations. SARPs for EDTO approvals follow the authorization structure of current ETOPS SARPs. The State of the operator must establish the appropriate threshold time and approve the maximum diversion time for an operator with a particular aeroplane type. Compared to current SARPs for extended range operations by aeroplanes with two turbine engines (ETOPS), there are no additional requirements. Threshold time and maximum diversion time will be new for aeroplanes with more than two engines. These aeroplanes, primarily due to their system redundancy, are normally designed to have a maximum diversion time capability adequate for the long range routes. States, however, may wish to restrict the maximum diversion time based on an operator s lack of long range operations experience. In addition, the approved threshold time will mark the point beyond which an extended diversion time operation begins and additional requirements such as considerations for the most limiting EDTO significant system time limitations or re-assessing en-route alternate aerodromes will need to be complied with These Standards refer to the basic provisions for operations beyond 60 min. to an en-route alternate airport including EDTO.

49 D-6 Paragraph reference Rationale a): this Standard is based on the current text in Chapter 4, paragraph c) and defines what the operator must have in place to support these operations b): this new Standard is based on current industry best practices and ETOPS provisions as they would apply to all aeroplanes c): this Standard is based on the current Chapter 4, paragraph It has been amended in context to the new definition of en-route alternate aerodrome and would apply to aeroplanes with two engines only regardless of the established threshold time and This proposed Standard adds to current provisions the requirement to establish a threshold time for aeroplanes with more than two engines. The threshold and diversion times for the three and four-engined aeroplanes are calculated at the all engines operating speed as it is assumed that a diversion arising from a time limited system will not necessarily be the result of an engine failure, and the one engine out speed is not significantly different than the all engine operating speed The designed maximum diversion time may vary significantly from one aeroplane type to another and may or may not be specified in the type certificate. This Standard will allow States to limit the maximum diversion time for an operator based, for example, on the lack of experience in long-range operations a) and b) a): this is a new Standard which applies to all aeroplanes. It addresses the need to consider essential aeroplane systems, as described in the current Attachment D, paragraph 3, which may have an effect in maintaining the required level of safety for EDTO. The Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) has been chosen as the reference document because it is the only place where any limitation would consistently be available across different aeroplane types b): this Standard is a simplified version of the current Chapter 4, paragraph a) and b) This new Standard is a performance-based alternative for compliance with a). It was suggested by industry based on experience where mature operators have been granted the ability to take advantage of mitigation factors with regard to time limited systems This new Standard based on industry best practices, addresses the requirement to re-assess en route alternate aerodromes before engaging in EDTO (crossing the threshold time) This Standard is based on current text in Chapter 4, paragraph Recommendation Text amended for consistency and reference amended. Attachment D Attachment D has been re-created based on the new structure of the EDTO SARPs amendment proposal in Chapter 4, Section 4.7. It addresses in greater detail the provisions for operations beyond 60 to an en-route

50 D-7 Paragraph reference Rationale alternate aerodrome and extended diversion time operations. Furthermore, the EDTO section is divided into the requirements for aeroplanes with two engines using in as much as possible, current text in Attachment D and the new requirements for aeroplanes with more than two engines. For the sake of clarity the two engine and more than two engine aeroplane sections are structured the same way using the same language where applicable. The guidance material has been organized from simpler to more complex, for this reason the Section for aeroplanes with more than two engines precedes the section for two engine aeroplanes. SECTION B RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PANS-ATM Paragraph reference General Definitions Minimum fuel Rationale In preparing the new fuel provisions in Annex 6, Part I, the need was identified to update the related phraseology to ensure that pilots and controllers have a common understanding of fuel related phraseology terms. Currently there is only a minimum fuel definition in PANS-ATM with very little guidance on how to apply it. There is no related phraseology nor provisions that clearly explain when and how to use the term. As a result, there are variances around the world on the use of the term minimum fuel. Therefore, its use is non-uniform between many States, operators and does not necessarily mean the same thing to pilots and controllers. It is important to note that the intent of the phraseology terms MINIMUM FUEL and MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL are to clearly and succinctly describe the problem so that further R/T can focus on the solutions. The proposed definition is amended to accommodate the new provisions. The Note is no longer need in the definition as it is captured in the Notes to and Annex 6, Part I, The use of the term minimum fuel is not intended to be an urgency or an emergency call. To ensure clarity in this provision, the order has been modified New MINIMUM FUEL phraseology The intent of these Notes is to provide a reference to fuel related emergency provisions This provision complements the new Annex 6 minimum fuel provision ( ) which requires that when the pilot-in-command anticipates that the amount of fuel upon landing at the aerodrome of intended landing based on the current ATC clearance (this is the aerodrome to which the

51 D-8 Paragraph reference Rationale aeroplane is committed to) is getting close to the planned final reserve fuel (i.e. because of unanticipated delays), pilots are required to declare MINIMUM FUEL. This will indicate to the controller that the aeroplane, whilst still operating normally, has lost, to a degree, the routing flexibility due to its fuel state and needs to remain on the current clearance (i.e. it can no longer accommodate delays). This provision requires the controller to keep the pilot informed of any delays.

52 ATTACHMENT E to State letter SP 59/4.1-11/8 DRAFT FLIGHT PLANNING AND FUEL MANAGEMENT MANUAL (See electronic version of this State letter at

53 ATTACHMENT E to State letter SP 59/4.1 11/8 DRAFT FLIGHT PLANNING AND FUEL MANAGEMENT MANUAL CAVEAT: This document is a working draft only. It represents a work in progress and will continue to undergo extensive changes, reworking and additions in all sections. You should not use it to guide the development of flight planning and fuel management regulations. It provides background information and a flavour of the type of detailed guidance that supports the proposed Standards and Recommendations in the associated State letter. We hope that it will assist in you during your review and analysis of the amendment proposals in the State letter. You do not need to comment on the draft manual as it is intended for information only.

54 Doc XXXX AN/XXX [This draft was updated to reflect ATTACHMENT E to State letter SP 59/ /4.1 11/8 dated 30 June 2011] Note. Text boxes are inserted as placeholders in locations where additional content is under development but not yet suitable for insertion in the draft. Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (FPFMM) Approved by the Secretary General and published under his authority First Edition 20XXX International Civil Aviation Organization

55 AMENDMENTS Amendments are announced in the supplements to the Catalogue of ICAO Publications; the Catalogue and its supplements are available on the ICAO website at The space below is provided to keep a record of such amendments. RECORD OF AMENDMENTS AND CORRIGENDA AMENDMENTS CORRIGENDA No. Date Entered by No. Date Entered by

56 Table of Contents Foreword Executive Summary Acronyms and Abbreviations Definitions Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview of the Manual 1.1 History 1.2 Relationship to Annex 6, Part I SARPS and other ICAO documents 1.3 Scope 1.4 Objectives 1.5 Concept 1.6 Contents 1.7 Structure of this manual Chapter 2. Safety, Operational Efficiency and Emission Reduction 2.1 The relationship between safety, efficiency and the environment 2.2 Advances in operational and fuel planning 2.3 Opportunities for operational efficiency in a performance-based regulatory environment Chapter 3. Alternate Aerodrome Selection and Fuel Planning Regulations 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Factors that drive differences in alternate and fuel planning regulations 3.3 The limitations of infrastructure 3.4 Capability of the air traffic management (ATM) system and associated infrastructure 3.5 Aerodrome infrastructure and condition reporting (quality of NOTAM information) 3.6 Quality of weather reporting and forecasting 3.7 Advanced technologies and data analysis capabilities 3.8 Operational control, flight following, flight monitoring and flight watch capabilities 3.9 Summary Appendix 1 to Chapter 3. Alternate Selection and Fuel Planning Regulation Models 1.1 The European model 1.2 Static and prescriptive minimum requirements 1.3 Allowances for statistically driven contingency fuel planning 2.1 The U.S. model 2.2 Static and prescriptive minimum requirements 2.3 Operational variations permitted by deviation or exemption 3.1 The realities of other models 3.2 The availability of infrastructure and technologies 3.3 Static and prescriptive minimum requirements 3.4 Performance-based variations that recognize limitations of infrastructure and technologies 3.5 The operational realities of long and ultra long haul operations ii

57 Appendix 2 to Chapter 3. Example of a U.S. OpSpec that provides conditional relief from IFR no-alternate requirements (Paragraph C355, Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums: 14 CFR Part 121) Chapter 4. The Prescriptive Method of Alternate Selection and Fuel Planning 4.1 Introduction 4.2 History 4.3 Objectives of a prescriptive method 4.4 Prescriptive alternate selection and fuel planning SARPs of Annex 6, Part I 4.5 Take-off alternate aerodromes - selection and specification 4.6 Take-off alternate aerodromes - distance from aerodrome of departure 4.7 Take-off alternate aerodromes operating minima at estimated time of use 4.8 En-route alternate aerodrome selection and specification 4.9 Destination alternate aerodromes - selection and specification: one destination alternate 4.10 Destination alternate aerodromes - isolated aerodrome planning and Point of No Return (PNR) 4.11 Destination alternate aerodromes- selection and specification: two destination alternates 4.12 Meteorological conditions - VFR flight 4.13 Meteorological conditions - commencing or continuing an IFR flight 4.14 Alternate aerodrome planning minima - establishing incremental values for ceiling and visibility 4.15 Alternate aerodrome planning minima - establishing estimated time of use 4.16 Pre-flight fuel planning - basic fuel planning and deviations from the planned operation 4.17 Pre-flight fuel planning basis for calculation of required useable fuel 4.18 Pre-flight fuel planning - components of the pre-flight calculation of required usable fuel 4.19 Pre-flight fuel planning - final reserve fuel recommendation 4.20 Pre-flight fuel planning - minimum fuel for take-off or to continue from the point of in-flight re-planning 4.21 Pre-flight fuel planning - basic prescriptive calculation example 4.22 Summary Appendix 1 to Chapter 4. Example of a U.S. OpSpec for the application of planning minima (Paragraph C055, Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums: 14 CFR Part 121) Appendix 2 to Chapter 4. Annex 6, Part I, Examples of Prescriptive Flight Planning Processes that conform to Reduced Contingency Fuel (RCF) planning (B044) Re-dispatch/re-release planning Appendix 3 to Chapter 4. Prescriptive method job-aid for an approving authority Chapter 5. The Performance-based Method of Alternate Selection and Fuel Planning 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Scope, applicability and intent of Annex 6, Part I, Variations in alternate selection 5.3 Scope, applicability and intent of Annex 6, Part I, Variations in fuel planning 5.4 The role of prescriptive regulations in a dynamic performance driven environment iii

58 5.5 A contemporary approach to regulatory compliance using safety risk management (SRM) 5.6 Chapter objectives, concept and scope 5.7 Core criteria requirements for the application and use of performance based methods Organizational and operational process management and control Tactical SRM processes Operational control and flight monitoring systems Process definition and documentation 5.8 State regulatory oversight processes 5.9 Variation development, approval, and implementation process flow 5.10 Summary Appendix 1 to Chapter 5 Examples of Take-off Alternate Aerodrome selection scenarios Appendix 2 to Chapter 5. Examples of Destination Alternate Aerodrome selection criteria used to conform to Annex 6, Part I, No-destination alternate operations to aerodromes without two separate runways or without a nominated instrument approach procedure; No-destination alternate operations to destinations forecast to below VMC ; No-destination alternate operations to destinations with CAT III or CAT II capability; No-destination alternate operations associated with FAA OpSpec C355 No-destination alternate operations for operators that use Decision Point (DP) Planning; Single-destination alternate operations to aerodromes (when for the destination aerodrome, meteorological conditions at the estimated time of use will be below the operator's established operating minima or no meteorological information is available); Destination alternate operations associated with FAA Exemption Appendix 3 to Chapter 5. Examples of Flight Planning Processes that are dependent on the advanced use of alternate aerodromes in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, Decision Point (DP) Planning Pre-determined Point (PDP) Planning 3% En-route Alternate (ERA) contingency fuel planning Appendix 4 to Chapter 5. Examples of Contingency Fuel Calculations used to Conform to Annex 6, Part I, c) Statistical Contingency Fuel (SCF) Planning Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations Reserve (B043) Fuel planning Flag and Supplemental Operations (B0343) Reserve Fuel. Appendix 5 to Chapter 5. Example of a Fuel Consumption Monitoring (FCM) programme used to conform to Annex 6, Part I, a) and/or Annex 6, Part I, b) Appendix 6 to Chapter 5 Chapter 6. In-flight Fuel Management 6.1 Flight Crew and Flight Operations Officer procedures 6.2 Sufficient fuel to complete the planned flight safely Performance-based planning job-aid for an approving authority iv

59 6.3 The protection of final reserve fuel 6.4 In-flight fuel checks and fuel management 6.5 Requesting delay information from ATC 6.6 Minimum Fuel declarations 6.7 Emergency declarations 6.8 MINIUMUM FUEL and MAYDAY (due to fuel) declaration scenarios 6.9 Flight crew occurrence reporting procedures and responsibilities Attachments: ATT A - The Role of Tactical Safety Risk Management (SRM) 1.1 Introduction to safety risk management (SRM) 1.2 Clarifying terms 1.3 Concept of safety 1.4 SMS and SSP; a foundation for successful, system-wide risk identification, assessment and mitigation 1.5 Managing safety risks 1.6 Adaptation of SRM principles to specific operational processes 1.7 Continuous improvement 2.1 Identifying, Analyzing and Linking Hazards to Undesirable Outcomes 2.2 Hazard identification in alternate and fuel planning 2.3 Hazard analysis 2.4 Coping with hazards that manifest themselves without warning 2.5 Data collection 2.6 Documentation of hazards 2.7 Safety information analysis; methods, tools and techniques 3.1 Risk Management, Probability, Severity, Tolerability, Control and Mitigation 3.2 Safety risks in alternate and fuel planning 3.3 Safety risk management (SRM) 3.4 Risk probability and the difficulties in predicting unforeseen occurrences 3.5 Risk severity assessment 3.6 Risk tolerability assessment 3.7 Risk control and mitigation 3.8 Using operationally specific and quantitative data 3.9 Taking action 4.1 Safety Data or Occurrence Reporting 5.1 Safety Assurance and Continuous Improvement References List of ICAO Technical Publications v

60 FOREWORD This manual, referenced in Annex 6, Part I, provides operationally relevant guidance material to help States, civil aviation authorities and operators manage the specific safety risks associated with alternate selection, fuel planning and in-flight fuel management. It also provides guidance material to assist States and their civil aviation authorities in the development and implementation of prescriptive regulations and variations to such regulations based on the revised Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, and In a rapidly changing global economy, the international air transport industry must continuously adapt to new trends and increasingly competitive market conditions. While technical improvements in aviation continue to increase reliability and predictability, economic and environmental concerns also continue to require operators to use fuel more efficiently. Operators investing in newer technologies to meet these challenges should be allowed the operational flexibility to receive a return on their investments. The giant technological leaps made over the last century would not have been possible without parallel achievements in the control and reduction of aviation safety risks. Given the many ways that aviation can result in injury or harm, those involved with aviation have been preoccupied with preventing accidents since the earliest days of flying. Through the disciplined application of the best safety risk management practices, the frequency and severity of aviation occurrences have declined sharply. Until recently, ICAO Annex 6, Part I provided very general guidance for alternate selection and fuel planning. It distinguished between propeller and jet aeroplanes without sufficient justification and alternate selection criteria and contingency fuel requirements were not sufficiently detailed. In many cases, this lack of precision in the Annex 6, Part I resulted in the implementation of extremely conservative and prescriptive policies for flight planning. The revision of Annex 6, Part I ushers in a new era in modern aviation where operators can improve overall operational efficiency and reduce emissions by implementing national regulations based on globalized prescriptive standards and recommended practices or variations from such practices based on operator performance. These performance-based variations with precise guidance are based on the use of hard data, operational experience, and safety risk management principles. The challenge remains, however, for civil aviation authorities to define the regulations that allow operators to optimize fuel carriage based on demonstrable capabilities and continual safety risk management. Modern civil aviation authorities are placing increased emphasis on performance-based methods of regulatory compliance. Many operators have the capability and resources necessary to analyze operational hazards and manage safety risks to levels as low as reasonably practicable. Civil aviation authorities and operators should also have the collective capability to assess the actual performance of activities critical to safety against specific organizational controls. Together, these elements can provide the framework for a proactive, self-correcting and continually improving safety system. vi

61 Executive Summary As work progressed on the amendment proposal to Annex 6, Part I, it became evident that the scope and permanency of the related guidance materials made them suitable for inclusion in a manual. As such, under the direction of the Secretariat and during OPSPWG/WHL/12 in November 2010, the Fuel Use Sub-Group (FUSG) of the Operations Panel was charged with the creation and ongoing revision of the Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (FPFMM). The manual aims to accomplish two things: first and foremost, it provides the expanded guidance material necessary to implement national regulations based on each standard and recommended practice in the amendment to Annex 6, Part I. Additionally and more specifically, it provides overall and extensive guidance on how civil aviation authorities and operators can cooperate to derive the greatest benefit from their collective flight and fuel planning experiences. The manual contains a short history of the development of the amendment as well as expanded explanations of the new texts relating to alternate aerodrome selection, fuel planning and performance-based variations. It also provides guidance on how to conduct in-flight fuel management, including re-planning, re-dispatch and decision point planning. Additional sections detail the relationships among safety, environment, and efficiency, as well as discuss how fuel planning is to be treated within the State Safety Program (SSP) and the operator s Safety Management System (SMS). The primary goal in formulating the manual is maintaining the safety of flight operations. A secondary goal is of improving operational efficiency by reducing fuel uplift and the resultant aircraft operating weight. To accomplish these goals the manual was developed using two parallel and equally important approaches. The first or regulatory approach sought to take full advantage of the experiences and expertise of the State regulators that participated in the FUSG. As fuel planning is relatively mature at the regulatory level, the FUSG was able to leverage years of experience in implementing baseline prescriptive requirements as well as performance-based variations from such requirements that are contingent on the capabilities of each individual operator. The second or industry approach, involved leveraging the collective operational experience of air carriers around the world that were expressed by industry advisors to the FUSG. This effort explored industry best practices in implementing flexible fuel policies that produce operational efficiencies while maintaining proven levels of safety. These two approaches were merged by the FUSG to create one seamless document that begins by introducing the perspective of several national models for alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations. These models were introduced to support both the amendment to Annex 6, Part I and the guidance in the manual. They represent examples of how modern prescriptive and performance-based methods can be incorporated into national regulations. The manual is also amply supported by Appendices and an Attachment that provide further guidance on how to implement performance-based variations. vii

62 Acronyms and Abbreviations ACARS Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System ACF Analyzed Contingency Fuel ADS Automatic dependent surveillance ALARP As low as reasonably practicable ALoS Acceptable Level of Safety ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider AOC Air Operator Certificate ASD Aircraft Situation Display ASDE Airport surface detection equipment ASF Aircraft Stable Frame ATC Air Traffic Control ATCC Air Traffic Control Center ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management AFTN Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunication Network ATM Air traffic management ATS Air traffic services AWS Automated Weather Service CAA Civil Aviation Authority CAT I Category I CAT II Category II CAT III Category III CDL Configuration Deviation List CFMU Central Flow Management Unit CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPDLC Controller-pilot data link communications DARP Dynamic Airborne Re-route Procedure DP Decision Point ERA En-route Alternate EDTO* Extended Diversion Time Operations EU-OPS European Operations EUROCONTROL European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation FCM Fuel Consumption Monitoring FFPMM Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual FMS Flight Management System FOO Flight Operations Officer GBAS Ground Based Augmentation System HFB Hull-Specific Fuel Bias IFR Instrument flight rules ILS Instrument landing system IMC Instrument meteorological conditions INTER Intermittently ITCZ Intertropical Convergence Zone JAR-OPS Joint Aviation Requirement for the operation of commercial air transport MDA Minimum descent altitude MEL Minimum equipment list METAR Meteorological Terminal Aviation Routine Weather Report NAVAID Navigation Aid NOTAM Notice to Airmen OFP Operational Flight Plan OPMET Operational Meteorological OpSpecs Operations Specifications PDP Predetermined Point Procedure PIC Pilot in Command RCF Reduced Contingency Fuel Procedure PNR Point of no return RNAV Area Navigation RNP AR Required Navigation Performance - Approval Required SA Safety Assurance SAR Specific Air Range SARPs Standards and Recommended Practices (ICAO) SBAS Satellite Based Augmentation System SCF Statistical Contingency Fuel SELCAL Selective Calling SFC Specific Fuel Consumption SIGMET Significant Meteorological Information SME Subject Matter Expert SMM Safety Management Manual SMS Safety Management System SPECI Special Weather Report SRM Safety Risk Management SSP State Safety Programme TAFOR Terminal Aerodrome Forecast TEMPO Temporarily UPR User Preferred Route VFR Variable Fuel Reserve VMC Visual meteorological conditions: VOR Very high frequency omnidirectional range *Note: The acronym EDTO is used in lieu of ETOPS in Annex 6, Part I and throughout this manual. viii

63 Definitions When the following terms are used in the Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (FPFMM), related appendices and attachment, they have the following meanings: Acceptable Level of Safety Performance: the minimum degree of safety of an operational activity, expressed through safety performance indicators, which has been established by the State and is assured by an operator through the achievement of safety targets. Note: For the purposes of this manual, related appendices and attachment, the terms acceptable level of safety performance, acceptable level of safety risk or acceptable level of risk are functionally equivalent and may be used interchangeably. City pair: Route flown between an origin aerodrome to a planned destination aerodrome. Compliance-based regulatory oversight: The conventional and prescriptive method of ensuring safety used by a State s Civil Aviation Authority that requires conformance to preestablished non variable regulations by the operator. Decision Point: The nominated point, or points, en-route beyond which a flight can proceed provided defined operational requirements, including fuel, are met. If these requirements cannot be met the flight will proceed to a nominated Alternate Aerodrome. Note 1: The operational requirements required to be met are specified by the operator and approved, if required, by the State. Note 2: Once past the final Decision Point the flight may not have the ability to divert and may be committed to a landing at the destination aerodrome. Flight Following: The recording in real time of departure and arrival messages by operational personnel to ensure that a flight is operating and has arrived at the destination airport. Flight Monitoring: In addition to requirements defined for Flight Following, Flight Monitoring includes the: 1) operational monitoring of flights by suitably qualified operational control personnel from the point of departure throughout all phases of flight; 2) communication of all available and relevant safety information between the operational control personnel on the ground and the flight crew; 3) provision of critical assistance to the flight crew in the event of an in-flight emergency or security issue or at the request of the flight crew. Flight Watch: in addition to all of the elements defined for Flight Following and Flight Monitoring, Flight Watch includes the active tracking of a flight by suitably qualified operational control personnel throughout all phases of the flight to ensure that it is following its prescribed route, without unplanned deviation, diversion or delay and in order to satisfy State requirements. ix

64 Hazard: an existing or potential condition or an object with the potential to cause injuries to personnel, damage to equipment or structures, loss of material, or reduction of ability to perform a prescribed function. Note: Examples of relevant hazards may include: weather (adverse, extreme and space), geophysical events (volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis), ATM congestion, mechanical failure, geography (adverse terrain, large bodies of water), Aerodrome constraints (Isolated, runway closure), and any other hazard with undesirable potential consequences. Operation Specifications (OpSpecs): The authorizations, conditions and limitations associated with the air operator certificate and subject to the conditions in the operations manual. Note: Variations from prescriptive regulations, if permitted by a State s Civil Aviation Authority, are often expressed in OpSpecs, Deviations, Alternative Means of Compliance (AMC), Exemptions, Concessions, Special Authorizations or other instruments. Operational Control: The direction and regulation of flight operations. The direction is in the form of policy and procedure in compliance with regulation. Regulation is the statutory requirement stipulated by the Civil Aviation Authorty of the State of the Operator. Note: An operator, in exercising operational control, exercises the authority over the initiation, continuation, diversion or termination of a flight in the interest of the safety of the aircraft and the regularity and efficiency of the flight. Performance-based method: a risk-based approach towards the setting or application of the minimum performance requirements of a system or process, which facilitates the implementation of variable regulations or variations from existing prescriptive regulations. Note: Performance-based methods are supported by proactive operator processes that constantly monitor the real-time performance, hazards and safety risks of a system. Performance-based regulatory oversight: A method, supplementary to the compliance-based oversight method, taken by a State s Civil Aviation Authority, which supports the implementation of variable regulations or variations from existing prescriptive regulations, based on the demonstrable capabilities of the operator and the incorporation of risk-based methods for the setting or application of minimum acceptable performance requirements. Note: Performance-based regulatory oversight components rely on State processes that constantly monitor the real-time performance, hazards and risks of a system to assure that acceptable levels of safety risk are not exceeded in an air transportation system. Point of in-flight re-planning: a geographic point at which an aeroplane can continue to the aerodrome of intended landing (planned destination) or divert to an intermediate (alternate) aerodrome if the flight arrives at the point with inadequate fuel to complete the flight to the planned destination while maintaining the required fuel including reserve. Prescriptive method: a conventional means of achieving minimum acceptable performance of a system or process based on expected (operator) compliance with pre-established nonvariable standards or limitations. x

65 Safety: The state in which the possibility of harm to persons or of property damage is reduced to, and maintained at or below, an acceptable level through a continuing process of hazard identification and safety risk management. Safety indicator: a collation of high consequence safety related data for the purpose of monitoring, measuring or analysis. Note: Examples of relevant safety data may include: hull losses due to fuel starvation and occurrences of landing with less than final reserve fuel Safety performance indicator: a collation of lower consequence safety related data for the purpose of monitoring, measuring or analysis. Note: Examples of relevant safety data may include: occurrences of the complete consumption of contingency fuel (plus discretionary, if applicable), diversions due to fuel, and occurrences of trip fuel over-burn. Safety measurement: Refers to the measurement of selected high-level, high-consequence outcomes, such as accident and serious incidents. Note: Examples of relevant safety measurement: [Insert number] hull losses due to fuel exhaustion in [Insert number] operations. Safety performance measurement: Refers to the measurement of selected lower consequence outcomes, such as routine incidents or surveillance findings. Note 1: Examples of relevant safety performance measurement: [Insert number] occurrences of the complete consumption of contingency fuel (plus discretionary, if applicable) per [Insert number] operations. Note 2: The complete consumption of contingency fuel may be considered a high consequence event depending on the operational context (e.g. no alternate nominated). Safety Risk: The composite of predicted severity (how bad) and likelihood (how probable) of the potential effect of a hazard in its worst credible (reasonable or believable) system state. Note: for the purposes of this manual, related appendices and attachment, the terms safety risk and risk are interchangeable. Safety Risk Control: A characteristic of a system that reduces or mitigates (lessens) the potential undesirable effects of a hazard. Controls may include process design, equipment modification, work procedures, training or protective devices. Safety risk controls are written in requirements language, measurable, and monitored to ensure effectiveness. Safety target values: The concrete objectives of the level of safety. Note: Example of a relevant safety target values: Reduce by [Insert number] the occurrences of landing with less than final reserve fuel per [Insert number] operations. xi

66 Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview of the Manual 1.1 History The amendment to Annex 6, Part I alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning policy was part of a joint IATA and ICAO initiative to improve aircraft fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. A realistic, modern approach was needed that would take into account new technology and aircraft capability while providing for safe operations through the use of data analysis and safety risk management (SRM) methods. The task to draft the amendment was undertaken by the Operations Panel in 2008 and progressed through a series of meetings and correspondence among members. The purpose of the amendment was to include new planning criteria for the selection of alternate aerodromes and the pre-flight computation of total fuel supply. Additionally, new paragraphs were added that describe the duties of the operator and the pilot-in-command (PIC) regarding in-flight fuel management. Of particular note is a new requirement for the PIC to declare an emergency when the predicted usable fuel upon landing at the nearest aerodrome, where a safe landing can be made, is less than the planned final reserve fuel. This gives the PIC a clear course of action to be followed when actual fuel use results in the likelihood of a landing with less than final reserve fuel. Finally, the revised Annex recognizes that many States and operators often employ statistically driven performance-based methods and SRM principles when developing or applying alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning regulations. Such methods complement conventional prescriptive methods and are used to achieve and maintain levels of safety performance acceptable to the State and the operator. 1.2 Relationship to Annex 6, Part I SARPS and other ICAO Documents This manual provides guidance material for alternate selection, fuel planning and in-flight fuel management in accordance with the International Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) Annex 6 Operation of Aircraft, Part I International Commercial Air Transport Aeroplanes. It also borrows from ICAO DOC 9859 Second Edition, 2009: Safety Management Manual (SMM) but places the SRM concepts espoused in the SMM into an operationally relevant context. 1.3 Scope The scope of this manual is limited to providing detailed information related to destination alternate aerodrome and fuel management SARPs in Annex 6, Part I and to support the implementation of: the prescriptive alternate selection, fuel planning and fuel management SARPs of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, and 4.3.7, and; the performance-based variations to prescriptive alternate selection SARPs in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, ; 1 1

67 the performance-based variations to prescriptive fuel planning and fuel management SARPs in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, including performance-based measures in which assessment of historical fuel use can substantiate a safety case supporting a reduction in contingency fuel to be carried on board an aircraft. Note: This content of this manual does not relieve operators from their obligations under relevant national regulations, nor does it relieve States from those standards arising from the Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO Doc 7300) and its Annexes. 1.4 Objectives Annex 6, Part I SARPs provide the basis for prescriptive alternate selection, flight planning and fuel management regulations and variations from such regulations if an operator can implement performance-based methods acceptable to the State. Annex 6, Part I, however, does not provide specific details for States and operators to optimize the selection of alternate aerodromes or the carriage of fuel based on the implementation of either method. With this in mind, the objectives of this manual are to provide States and operators with: detailed guidance material to support Annex 6, Part I prescriptive alternate selection, fuel planning and in-flight fuel management SARPS; different means of conformance with the applicable Annex 6, Part I SARPs intended to assist operators and civil aviation authorities to ensure the safe conduct of flights; guidance material for the development of performance-based methods and the application of performance-based variations including knowledge of implementation strategies, criteria requirements, processes, controls and data/collection requirements; knowledge of the necessary expertise, sophistication, technology, experience and other attributes of States and operators needed to develop, approve or implement performance-based regulations or variations from existing prescriptive regulations. Such guidance is provided for the purpose of differentiating between states and operators capable of implementing performance-based methods and those that should initially use well defined prescriptive method; knowledge of the components of operational control systems that support implementation of performance-based regulations or variations from existing prescriptive regulations; knowledge of the components of an SSP and SMS necessary to implement performance-based methods, systems, measures, planning or variations; operationally specific guidance material related to identifying hazards and managing safety risks including guidance for the development of operationally specific safety risk analysis and assessment tools; specific details on how to calculate total fuel required to safely complete a planned flight and offer the means for the operator to optimize the carriage of fuel based on data analysis and safety management principles; 1 2

68 guidance material to assist in the development of procedures for operational personnel involved with in-flight fuel monitoring and management. Alternatee selection and fuel planning should be considered within the context of the required flight preparation activities provided in Annex 6, Part I. Therefore, the information presented in this manual should be used in conjunction with an operational control system approved by the State s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), implemented by the operator and, if appropriate, with applicable EDTO requirements. 1.5 Concept This manual is organized using a building block concept designed to accomplish the objectives of Chapter 1.3 (see Figure 1.1) ). The manual initially presents basic operational realities that underlie the development of alternate selection and fuel management regulations by a civil aviation authority. These realities are then framed within the context of the two predominant approaches to safety: the conventional prescriptive approach and the contemporary performance-based approach. The manual then defines the attributes of those States and Operators with the capabilities to implement performance-based regulations and those that should initially follow a prescriptive approach. It accomplishes this by first explaining the prescriptive SARPs of the revised Annex 6, Part I. The manual thereafter identifies the additional performance-based methods necessary to support performance-based regulations or variations from existing prescriptive regulations. All of this is accomplished with the intent to build a bridge from the conventional approach to safety to the contemporary approach that uses process based production methods and SRM principles. Figure 1-1: Manual Concept 1 3

69 1.6 Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction and Overview of the Manual Chapter 2 - Safety, Operational Efficiency and Emission Reduction Chapter 3 - Alternate Aerodrome Selection and Fuel Planning Regulations o Appendix 1 to Chapter 3 - Alternate Selection and Fuel Planning Regulation Models. o Appendix 2 to Chapter 3. Example of a U.S. OpSpec that provides conditional relief from IFR no-alternate requirements (Paragraph C355, Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums: 14 CFR Part 121) Chapter 4 - The Prescriptive Method of Alternate Selection and Fuel Planning o o o Appendix 1 to Chapter 4 - Example of a U.S. OpSpec for the application of planning minima (Paragraph C055, Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums: 14 CFR Part 121). Appendix 2 to Chapter 4 - Examples of Prescriptive Flight Planning Processes that conform to Annex 6, Part I, Appendix 3 to Chapter 4 Prescriptive planning job-aid for an approving authority. Chapter 5 - The Performance-based Approach of Alternate Selection and Fuel Planning o Appendix 1 to Chapter 5 Examples of Take-off Alternate Aerodrome selection o Appendix 2 to Chapter 5. Examples of Destination Alternate Aerodrome selection criteria used to conform to Annex 6, Part I, o Appendix 3 to Chapter 5. Examples of Flight Planning Processes that are dependent on the advanced use of alternate aerodromes in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, o Appendix 4 to Chapter 5. Examples of Contingency Fuel Calculations used to Conform to Annex 6, Part I, c). o Appendix 5 to Chapter 5. Example of a Fuel Consumption Monitoring (FCM) programme used to conform to Annex 6, Part I, a) and/or Annex 6, Part I, b). o Appendix 6 to Chapter 5 Performance-based planning job-aid for an approving authority Chapter 6 - In-flight Fuel Management ATT A - The Role of Tactical Safety Risk Management 1.7 Structure of this manual Chapters 1 through 3 form the foundation of the manual and provide the context for the expanded guidance in the succeeding chapters. Chapters 4 through 6 then follow the structure 1 4

70 of the revised Annex 6, Part I very closely and provide specific references to Annex 6, Part I and external documents where appropriate. Chapters are supported, where necessary, by appendices that further expand chapter guidance and/or provide supportive examples derived from existing national practices in alternate selection and fuel planning. The appendices are included immediately following the chapter they support. Chapter 4 provides expanded guidance related to the prescriptive alternate selection and fuel planning SARPs of Annex 6, Part I. It is intended to assist States and operators in implementing prescriptive regulations in compliance-based regulatory environments. It also identifies, by example, methodologies that may be used by a State or an operator to conform with the revised Annex. Chapter 5 introduces the concept of performance-based approach to alternate selection and fuel planning that supports the introduction of performance-based regulations or variations from existing prescriptive regulations as described in Annex 6, Part I. It begins by differentiating between those States and operators with the capability to implement performance based programmes and those that should follow a prescriptive and compliance based approach. It accomplishes this objective by identifying core requirements for all performance-based systems as well as identifying, by example, the additional requirements necessary to implement a specific variation. Chapter 5 does not attempt to address every potential variation sought by an operator or accepted by a State. More importantly, it seeks to precisely define the components of a performance-based approach, the capabilities of an operator necessary to support those methods and the capabilities of a State to monitor their efficacy. This was done specifically to ensure that performance-based approach is appropriately and effectively implemented prior to the application of any operational variation Chapter 6 completes the manual with an expansion of the in-flight fuel management SARPs of the revised Annex including those related to the protection of final reserve fuel and the declaration of an emergency. Finally, the manual is supported by an Attachment that provides operationally specific guidance material regarding the roles that State Safety Programmes (SSP) and Safety Management Systems (SMS) and Safety Risk Management (SRM) methods can play in ensuring the safety of flight operations. 1 5

71 Chapter 2. Safety, Operational Efficiency and Emission Reduction 2.1 The relationship between safety, efficiency and the environment Although the contribution of aviation emissions to the total CO2 emissions is relatively small, scheduled aviation traffic continues to grow. Scheduled traffic is currently growing at a rate of 5.8% per year and is projected to grow at a rate of 4.6% per year through This growth raises questions on the future contributions of aviation activity, environmental impact and the most effective way of addressing aviation emissions. The modern aviation community increasingly recognizes the need to complement existing regulatory compliance-based approaches to safety with a performance based component as a means of increasing operational efficiency. This potential for increased efficiency, while maintaining or improving levels of operational safety, is a logical first step in minimizing the environmental impact of aviation emissions. With the revision of Annex 6, Part I, operators can now improve overall operational efficiency and reduce emissions by utilizing performance-based, statistically driven and risk managed alternatives to prescriptive alternate selection and fuel planning regulations. These alternatives can be effectively utilized within the context of proactive regulatory environments and continuous safety risk management (SRM). 2.2 Advances in operational and fuel planning The previous Annex 6, Part I fuel provisions had their origins traceable as far back as 1949 when weather reports were far less reliable, fuel use in flight was less predictable, and assistance from dispatch services to update information on fuel requirements and weather conditions was inconsistent or non-existent. The fuel planning criteria were outdated and the provisions were insufficient to support the use of modern planning tools and maximization of efficiency. As a result, operators often carried excess fuel. Advances in computerized flight planning and flight management systems (FMS) bring increased accuracy and predictability to operational and fuel planning. These systems also provide reanalysis capabilities based on actual conditions. Statistically based fuel consumption programs accurately predict fuel burn and contingency fuel use. Alternate selection and fuel planning methodologies have also evolved steadily over decades of continuous use. Finally, advances in flight following, flight monitoring and/or flight watch capabilities provide systemic defenses against numerous safety risks while providing increased opportunities for operational efficiency. These and other developments have increased operational reliability and predictability significantly over decades and may render many prescriptive regulations conservative when 1 For additional information regarding aviation emission reduction please refer to ICA0 Manual 303-ANA 76 Operational Opportunities to Minimize Fuel Use and Reduce Emissions. 2 1

72 compared to their performance e-based counterparts. Such alternatives properly employed by operators with demonstrable capabilities and managed using modern SRM methods can optimize alternate selection and flight planning without compromising the safety of flight operations. 2.3 Opportunities for operational efficiency in a performance-based regulatory environment Today, fuel represents a significant portion of the operational costss of an airline. Therefore, the efficient use of fuel is increasingly importantt to the cost-effectiveness be reduced, while maintaining acceptable levels of of airline operations. If the amount of fuel carried on any given flight can safety performance, the weight-savings will be directly translated to reduced fuel burn. Reduced fuel burn equates directly to lower operating costs and fewer emissions. Some States have prescriptive regulations and oversight capabilities which do not permit the operators they oversee to take full advantage of modern flight planning and flight management capabilities. Other States, with the capabilities required to support performance-based variations, can enable operators to optimize flight planning using modern methods and technologies. Such variations to prescriptivee regulations allow operators to effectively minimize their impact on the environment, increase operational efficiency and proactively manage safety risks (Figure 2-1). It is this synergy that can provide operators with the opportunities to achieve additional efficiencies that may be impossible within the confines of a rigid and prescriptive regulatory framework. Efficiency SAFETY Environment Figure 2-1: The relationship between safety efficiency and the environment 2 2

73 Chapter 3. Alternate Aerodrome Selection and Fuel Planning Regulations 3.1 Introduction Many commercial aviation regulations, whether originally rooted in Annex 6, Part I or developed independently by civil aviation authorities, ultimately evolve to reflect operational experience and regional concerns. This evolution is inevitable as States and operators seek to find the appropriate balance between the ability to sustain services and the safety risks generated as a result of those services. One result of this evolutionary process is the realization that prescriptive regulations formulated for use in one area of the world may not be transferrable to other areas of the world that have varying levels of resources, operator experience, infrastructure and technology. This disparity in operational capability or resources, in turn leads to the further evolution of domestic national regulations apart from those required under the jurisdiction of a foreign authority or over the high seas. This can occur absent concise guidance to deal with such variations and illustrates one of the difficulties of developing globally harmonized and implementable alternate aerodrome selection and fuel planning standards and recommended practices. The primary purpose of Annex 6, Part I, remains however, to contribute to the safety, efficiency and regularity of international air transportation by providing clear and concise criteria for the development of safe national operating practices. It accomplishes these aims by encouraging ICAO s Contracting States to facilitate the passage over their territories of commercial aircraft belonging to other countries that operate in conformity with these practices. This philosophy also provides some assurance that all operators, including those that do not fall under the immediate jurisdiction of a local authority, are conforming to globally accepted safety standards. The revised alternate selection and fuel planning standards and recommended practices of Annex 6, Part I also no longer preclude the development of national regulations, which due to their performance-based nature, may be more suitable in a particular operating environment than their prescriptive counterparts. In such cases, operators in cooperation with civil aviation authorities can develop performance-based policies or programs that take full advantage of available operational and systemic capabilities. It is important to note, however, that in all phases of aircraft operations, minimum standards remain necessary as they may represent the most acceptable compromise and make commercial aviation viable without prejudicing safety. 3.2 Factors that drive differences in alternate and fuel planning regulations National regulations are developed and implemented by individual States in order to ensure aviation activities conducted within their area of jurisdiction maintain acceptable levels of safety performance. The following sections of this chapter provide a brief synopsis of the operational challenges and related hazards faced by States and operators in many parts of the world. They also contain examples of how prescriptive and the performance-based approach to regulatory compliance can provide systemic defenses with the potential to lessen the severity of hazards or mitigate potential safety risks. 3 1

74 3.3 The limitations of infrastructure Many States enjoy sophisticated, multi layered defenses that mitigate the safety risks associated with alternate selection or fuel planning. States, however, that lack the resources for infrastructure development or that do not possess the technical ability to implement advanced systems or techniques, may have to mitigate safety risks that result from operations through more restrictive (prescriptive) policies and procedures or by introducing performance-based alternatives. For example, one of the goals of any regulatory requirement related to the nomination of an alternate aerodrome is to assure, to the extent reasonably practicable, that a suitable runway will be available to an aircraft when needed. In compliance-based regulatory environments such assurances are typically predicated on well defined, prescriptive and conservative regulations, which define the specific conditions that require the nomination of one or more alternates. By definition such regulations do not lend themselves to interpretation nor do they take into account differences in flight planning methods, operational capabilities, realities of limited infrastructure, or the operational requirements of aircraft that approach the limits of existing infrastructure (e.g. Class F aircraft). In regulatory environments with a performance-based oversight component, however, performance-based regulations or variations from prescriptive regulations can be permitted by the State s CAA based on the application of safety risk management (SRM) methods. The effective application of such methods typically require an operator to define the operational processes, procedures, systemic defenses and risk controls necessary to maintain acceptable levels of safety performance. Any subsequent relief from prescriptive regulation is then typically predicated on an operator s ability to demonstrate (to the State) that the aircraft they operate, and the internal systems, processes, procedures and controls they have in place can effectively mitigate the resultant safety risks including those associated with implementing new processes. For example an operator, due to the limitations of infrastructure associated with a proposed route, may wish to operate into an aerodrome with a single suitable runway without nominating a destination alternate. In order to apply a variation to a regulation that prescribes alternate selection, the operator would apply SRM methods to determine the level of safety risk that will be associated with the proposed operations. The results of a safety risk assessment may or may not indicate that safety risk controls and/or mitigation measures are necessary. If required, however, such controls and measures would take into account any new hazards resulting from the application of risk mitigation and may also address, as applicable: Variations in fuel policy to account for unforeseen occurrences; Flight planning policies that use Decision Point planning to a destination: Aerodrome and runway condition monitoring; Variations in exposure time to potential runway closures that affect the flight; Weather monitoring including the potential for phenomena other than ceiling and visibility to affect the successful completion of the flight (e.g. thunderstorms, dust storms, wind); 3 2

75 Multiple approach and landing options and adjustments to landing minima to ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that an approach and landing can be accomplished at the destination or alternate, as applicable; The designation of emergency aerodromes not suitable for designation as alternates during flight planning or for use in normal operations but available in the event of an emergency; Flight crew procedures that specifically address limited landing option scenarios. 3.4 Capability of the air traffic management (ATM) and associated infrastructure The capabilities of the ATM system play a role in the development or implementation of any national regulation. Assessing the capabilities of the ATM systems encountered in operations and analyzing inherent hazards is also an important step in assessing safety risks, as less advanced ATM systems in particular, have the added potential to invalidate assumptions made by operators during flight planning. Conversely, advanced navigation, surveillance and ATM systems that provide systemic defenses are typically characterized by their abilities to accomplish one or more of the following: Optimize the use of available airspace and aerodrome capacity; Monitor flight progress and control flights safely and efficiently; Improve the navigation of aircraft by providing direct, optimum or preferred aircraft routing; Safely and efficiently separate aircraft, reduce delays and reduce fuel consumption; Access advanced communication systems; Access technology that can reliably fix an aircraft s position en-route and display realtime weather. 3.5 Aerodrome infrastructure and condition reporting (quality of NOTAM information) The ready access to timely and accurate aerodrome condition information is essential to operations, and provides a systemic defense that protects against the safety risks associated with operations to any aerodrome. States and operators with access to such information are characterized by the ability to reliably provide or obtain information that, to the extent possible, is indicative of the condition of required aerodromes, and associated services or facilities. Internal operator processes are also required to continually update such information, assess its validity and feed other related operational and SRM processes. As such, assessing the availability and reliability of NOTAM information is another important step during safety risk assessment activities and the development of national regulations. 3.6 Quality of weather reporting and forecasting Weather support services, including the capability to provide reliable and accurate weather reporting and forecasting, vary from State to State. Operations in areas of the world with sophisticated weather support services enjoy reliable, high quality weather reporting while operations in regions of the world with poor weather reporting and observational network infrastructure may have to rely on less sophisticated information and/or routinely plan for worst case weather scenarios. 3 3

76 Access to reliable weather reporting is another important systemic defense used to protect against the safety risks associated with operations. Operators should have ready access to reliable weather information as provided by the State responsible or by employing certified meteorologists approved by the State to carry out forecasting tasks on behalf of the operator. Operators should also have demonstrable internal processes that collect and analyze historical weather data to ensure the quality of weather data is consistent with operational requirements and considered during SRM activities. 3.7 Advanced technologies and data analysis capabilities Civil aviation authorities and operators with access to advanced technologies and sophisticated data analysis tools are best positioned to implement or apply a performance-based approach to regulatory compliance. Technological advances, by design, mitigate many of the safety risks inherent in human systems. In many parts of the world and for many operators, such defenses are built into the system to protect against fluctuations in human performance or decisions. Conversely, it is important to note that the absence of such systemic defenses can influence the level of safety risk to which a flight is exposed and may require a greater reliance on safety risk controls, mitigation measures or very well defined prescriptive criteria. Access to the following technologies and capabilities are characteristic of advanced operators and operating environments. They are typically considered by civil aviation authorities during system design and SRM activities associated with the implementation of prescriptive or a performance-based approach to regulatory compliance: Technological advances in aircraft capability and reliability: Advanced aircraft with onboard flight management systems, advanced navigation capabilities and reliable propulsion systems that increase the fidelity of flight planning systems, improve operational flexibility and support advanced methods of data collection and analysis. Technological advances in aerodrome approach systems, capability and reliability: The proliferation of CAT II, CAT III, RNAV/RNP AR/ RNP, GNSS, GBAS, SBAS, and other approach systems that increase the likelihood of a flight terminating in a successful approach and landing. Advances in-flight planning systems and technology: Automated flight planning systems that utilize operator specific historical and real time data to optimize routes and add accuracy and efficiency to flight planning. Advanced systems for the collection of operational data and data analysis tools: Routine and extensive safety data collection, beyond accident and incident reports, is an essential part of performance-based programs. As a consequence of a need to maintain a steady volume of safety data, expanded collection systems are required. In such systems, safety data from low-severity events becomes available through mandatory and voluntary reporting programs. In terms of safety data acquisition, these newer systems are proactive, since the triggering events required for launching the safety data collection process are of significantly lesser consequence than those that trigger the accident and serious incident safety data capture process. 3 4

77 3.8 Operational control, flight following, flight monitoring and flight watch capabilities Advances in the operational control of flights improve operational reliability, flight monitoring and provide real time flight support. Such operational control systems ensure the continuous and independent surveillance of flights while en-route and lessen the likelihood that unforeseen events could invalidate assumptions made during alternate and fuel planning. They may also provide for independent en-route re-analysis capability for the purposes of continually validating or modifying flight planning assumptions. Many operators also have access to technologies that can reliably fix an aircraft s position enroute. Such technologies, coupled with rapid and reliable communication systems, provide significant systemic defenses against the hazards encountered by aircraft in operations. Such operators often have the capability to rapidly communicate with emergency services, air traffic control (ATC) centers, aerodrome authorities and other entities that could facilitate a successful conclusion to a planned operation that has encountered unforeseen hazards. Operational control and flight following, flight monitoring and flight watch capabilities vary widely and many civil aviation authorities and operators are not positioned to make the significant investments necessary to maintain advanced systems. Authorities and operators alike should assess their capabilities in the context of the most advanced systems in use worldwide. Such systems are described in detail in Chapter 4 but are typically characterized by the ability to continuously monitor relevant operational information, fix an aircraft s position and, when necessary, contact flights while en-route. 3.9 Summary The development of national regulations and associated SRM requirements should take into account the overall capabilities of a State s CAA and of the operators they oversee. In assessing such capabilities a State should consider many factors including but not limited to: available infrastructure; capabilities of the air traffic management (ATM) system;; availability and quality of aerodrome infrastructure and condition reporting; availability and quality of weather reporting and forecasting; available advanced technologies and data analysis capabilities; operational control, flight following, flight monitoring and flight watch capabilities. Additionally, the capabilities of an authority coupled with the overall operational and SRM capabilities of an individual operator can affect the determination of national methods of regulatory oversight and operator compliance. In some cases, a State will rely solely on conventional and well defined prescriptive requirements (compliance-based) to maintain baseline performance. In others cases, capable civil aviation authorities and operators can work together to introduce performance-based components that will allow variations from prescriptive regulations as described in Annex 6, Part I, or In either case, the amended Annex 6, Part I provisions would require inter-alia that civil aviation authorities define regulations containing criteria and Operators establish processes approved by the State for the purposes of ensuring: 3 5

78 sufficient alternates are designated, when required; operations into isolated aerodromes are planned such that a safe landing can be made at the destination or en-route alternate at the estimated time of aerodrome use; flights are conducted in accordance with the flight rules and operating minima appropriate for the meteorological conditions anticipated at the estimated time of aerodrome use; flights are planned such that an adequate margin of safety is observed in determining whether or not an approach and landing can be carried out at each alternate aerodrome; flights are planned and when applicable, re-planned in-flight to ensure that the aeroplane carries sufficient fuel, including final reserve fuel, to complete the planned flight safely; sufficient fuel is carried to allow for deviations from the planned operation and that the pre-flight calculation of usable fuel required includes: taxi fuel, trip fuel, contingency fuel, final reserve fuel, and when required; alternate fuel, additional fuel, and discretionary fuel; in-flight fuel checks are performed and fuel is managed in-flight so as to ensure a flight can proceed, with the planned final reserve fuel on board, to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made. Note 1: Appendix 1 to this chapter contains examples of how national regulations have evolved within the context of regional concerns and capabilities. Note 2: Appendix 2 to this chapter contains an example of a U.S. OpSpec that illustrates how the capabilities of the operator and access to extensive infrastructure, reliable weather reporting advanced technologies and modern operational control methods can be leveraged using performance-based variations to existing prescriptive regualtions. Note 3: Chapter 5 and Attachment A provide detailed descriptions of the systemic defenses and associated hazards that should be considered during safety risk assessment activities. Appendix 1 to Chapter 3 Alternate Selection and Fuel Planning Regulation Models 3 6

79 3-APP The European model Although Europe s operating environment shares many similarities with other regions of the world there are some distinctions. The main driving factors for operations in Europe are: Weather: Europe s operating environment is dominated by Atlantic frontal systems, requiring procedures and flow rates to be based on IFR procedures with little reliance on VFR conditions for capacity planning. Navigation infrastructure is also advanced, with the widespread use of Category III capability. In fact, for many large operators the proportion of sectors operated to Category III aerodromes exceeds 90%. High Population density: Space is at a premium in Europe making development of new runways infrequent and new aerodrome development practically unknown. High population density also imposes restrictions on routing which, in turn causes congestion at many main hubs. Air Traffic System fragmentation: Europe has approximately 40 Air Navigation Service providers, which makes collaborative decision making difficult. A Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU) run by EUROCONTROL also manages flows with a view towards avoiding sector overloads, which may not represent the optimal solution for both provider and user. 3-APP Information flow between operators and ATCCs is also relatively restricted compared to the U.S, thus limiting the utilization of proactive flight dispatch departments. Consequently in-flight fuel and diversion decisions are almost entirely the responsibility of the PIC causing operators to be more reactive rather than proactive to traffic flow disruption. Static and prescriptive minimum requirements In Europe, prescriptive alternate selection and fuel planning regulations follow Annex 6, Part I SARPs closely and national differences were largely eliminated by the adoption of JAR-OPS in 1994, although differences of interpretation continue. For example, under EU policy, two prescriptive methods for contingency fuel are generally accepted: 5% of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight re-planning, 5% of the trip fuel from the point of re-planning to the destination; or Not less than 3% of the planned trip fuel or, in the event of in-flight re-planning, 3% of the trip fuel for the remainder of the flight, provided that an En route Alternate (ERA) aerodrome is available. Alternate aerodrome requirements are also closely aligned with Annex 6, Part I SARPs with few minor differences. 3-APP Allowances for statistically driven contingency fuel planning Unlike the United States where numerous variations from national alternate and fuel regulations are possible, EU-OPS regulations only recognize variations from prescriptive regulations related 3 APP2 1

80 to the carriage of contingency fuel. Such regulations currently contain two performance-based contingency fuel variations from prescriptive regulations. The variations allow for contingency fuel to be: An amount of fuel sufficient for 20 minutes flying time based upon the planned trip fuel consumption provided that the operator has established a fuel consumption monitoring programme for individual aircraft and uses valid data determined by means of such a programme for fuel calculation; or An amount of fuel based on a statistical method which ensures an appropriate statistical coverage of the deviation from the planned to the actual trip fuel. This method is used to monitor the fuel consumption on each city pair/aircraft combination and the operator uses this data for a statistical analysis to calculate contingency fuel for that city pair/aircraft combination. The first permissible variation for contingency fuel planning is not widely used. The second variation has been adopted by a number of operators with the resources to gather and interpret the requisite data. Such Statistical Contingency Fuel (SCF) programmes recognize that routes differ in their variability and that by allocating more fuel to those routes with higher variability and reducing fuel for those less variable, both fuel uplift and disruption can be reduced. Actual SCF coverage values are chosen by the operator according to their commercial requirements, and can differ according to the specific operational characteristics of the destination aerodrome (proximity of alternates, transport links etc). One EU-OPS authority also requires that an SCF planning programme achieve approximately the same coverage (i.e. the proportion of flights that burn all their contingency fuel) that fixed contingency fuel planning provides. Finally, SCF coverage values used by operators typically range between 90% and 99% of the maximum recorded contingency fuel used. It is important to note that the use of SCF alone does not attempt to achieve a target level of safety risk but merely replaces fixed contingency fuel planning with a more scientific method. The inherent flexibility of the system and the ability to instantly change coverage figures also means that coverage percentages can be altered if evidence from the operator s SRM processes suggests it is necessary. As data requirements for SCF planning are high and not instantly achievable for new routes, operators are required to revert to conventional contingency fuel planning until sufficient data is acquired. 3-APP The U.S. model Current alternate selection and fuel planning regulations in the U.S. evolved within one of the most highly developed and complex operating environments in the world. This environment is characterized by numerous systemic defenses that guard against foreseeable fuel over-burn scenarios. Operations in the U.S. are further characterized by: Extensive and Mature Infrastructure: Commercial operators in the U.S. enjoy access to an extensive network of suitable aerodromes, accurate weather reporting systems and reliable aerodrome condition monitoring programs. 3 APP2 2

81 Shared Systems of Operational Control: Most commercial operators in the U.S. operate under shared systems of operational control whereby a flight operations officer or designated member of management shares operational control authority with the PIC. Such shared systems ensure the continuous and independent surveillance of flights while en-route and lessen the likelihood that unforeseen events could invalidate assumptions made during alternate and fuel planning. Enhanced Flight Following, Flight Monitoring and Flight Watch: Operators in the U.S. have access to sophisticated technologies that can reliably fix an aircraft s position en-route. This facilitates the active and continuous tracking of flights by operational control personnel, which in turn ensures that flights follow their prescribed routing without unplanned deviation or delay. Air Traffic Management: Communication, navigation and surveillance systems used by ATM in the U.S also improve flight safety and optimize the use of available airspace and aerodrome capacity. These systems improve the navigation of aircraft and increase ATC s ability to monitor and control flights safely and efficiently. They also have the potential to reduce delays by providing more direct and efficient aircraft routing. Additionally, airspace and aerodrome capacity optimization reduces flight, holding and taxi times, distance flown and associated fuel consumption by employing direct or preferential routes. Advanced Communication Systems: Another unique element of the U.S operating environment is the widespread use of advanced communication systems to enhance communications between and among aircraft, air traffic controllers, and flight operations officers/flight followers. These and other methodologies support a system of rapid and reliable communications between aircraft and those entities with the real-time reanalysis capabilities necessary to continually validate flight planning assumptions. 3-APP Static and prescriptive minimum requirements form prescriptive foundation In the U.S. the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 14 governs the determination of alternate aerodrome selection, fuel supply and in-flight fuel management. Numerous regulations contained in CFR 14 form the prescriptive foundation or basis for alternate selection and fuel planning methods in use by U.S. air carriers. The origins of many of these regulations can be traced back to 1936 and part 61 of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), rather than routinely modifying CFR 14 regulations, grants capable operators deviations or exemptions from prescriptive elements of alternate selection and fuel planning regulations. In considering requests for deviations or exemptions, the FAA reviews the history of a regulation. This is done to determine if the reasons why the regulation was first established are still valid, and if literal continued compliance with the regulation is required in order to ensure that the level of safety risk currently provided would not be increased by the proposed deviation or exemption. This is a fundamental tenet of a performance-based approach to regulatory compliance and the first step in determining whether or not an operator can vary from a prescriptive regulation. Such deviations or exemptions are subject to performance criteria found in contractual 3 APP2 3

82 arrangements known as Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) or letters of exemption. As such, the means to maintain regulatory compliance and/or guidance material related to the application of an individual regulation may be found in documents apart from the core regulation(s). A U.S. air carrier s Air Operator Certificate (AOC) includes the OpSpecs applicable to the operator. The OpSpecs contain the exemptions from, authorizations to deviate from, or the conditions necessary to comply with, a specific regulation. Such deviations, exemptions, or means of compliance augment and, in some cases, supersede the related regulations. It is important to note that uninterrupted OpSpec approval is based upon ongoing conformance with the additional specifications stipulated in conjunction with an operator s original approval. 3-APP Variations from prescriptive regulations are permitted by deviation or exemption The contractual OpSpecs approval and exemption petition process are the current means by which the FAA is able to grant variations from the prescriptive alternate selection and fuel planning regulations found in CFR 14. The FAA grants such variations by OpSpec approval or exemption subject to the presence of specific systemic defenses or risk controls. Examples of OpSpec approvals or regulatory exemptions include but are not limited to: (B043), an OpSpec for Special Fuel Reserves in International Operations, which permits a deviation from the fuel carriage requirements of CFR 14 Part if the conditions within the specification are met; (B044) an OpSpec for Planned Re-dispatch or Re-release En-route, which stipulates the conditions necessary for an operator to comply with CFR 14 Part (f); (B0343) an OpSpec for Fuel Reserves for Flag and Supplemental Operations, which is a nonstandard authorization for certain fuel reserves for flag and supplemental operations; (C355) an exemption which authorize a reduction in the minimum ceiling and visibility, prescribed by FAR , for the destination airport before an alternate must be designated; (C055) an OpSpec for the determination and application of alternate airport planning minima; (3585) an exemption which allows airlines to dispatch or release a flight under when weather reports or forecasts indicate weather conditions are forecasted to be below authorized weather minimums at the estimated time of arrival. Each of the aforementioned examples, to varying extents, specifies the additional means required to mitigate or control the risks associated with the application of the deviation or exemption. Additionally, at least 2 of the examples contain the type of data that must be collected and provided to the FAA in order for the deviation or exemption to remain in force. Such flexibility is only afforded to operators with the demonstrable ability to manage safety risks associated with the approval as is possible within a regulatory framework with a performancebased oversight component. 3 APP2 4

83 Note: OpSpec 355 contains all of the attributes of a contemporary performance-based variation from prescriptive regulation and is included for illustrative purposes in Appendix 2 to Chapter 3. 3-APP The realities of other models The resources available to States and the oversight capabilities of civil aviation authorities vary widely in the world of international commercial aviation. Additionally, many States have yet to implement the safety assurance and oversight components necessary to complement an operator s SRM processes. Even more States continue to rely solely on compliance-based methods of regulatory oversight with little resources to introduce complementary performancebased components. Although recent developments in SRM continue to question the pervasive notion that safety can be guaranteed as long as rules are followed, the importance of regulatory compliance cannot be denied. And while compliance-based regulatory approaches have their limitations as mainstays of safety in an operational system as open and dynamic as aviation, compliance with safety regulations is fundamental to the development of sound safety practices. 3-APP The availability of infrastructure and technologies The operating environments within the United States and Europe are characterized by the availability of extensive infrastructure and the widespread use of advanced technologies in aircraft, ATM, weather reporting, communication and operational control systems. Access to such advanced systemic defenses is simply not possible in many other parts of the world. Such limitations should be considered by civil aviation authorities when developing alternate selection and fuel planning policies in order to effectively mitigate the safety risks associated with a lack of advanced systemic defenses. Civil aviation authorities in the United States and Europe also draft national regulations with the knowledge that operators under their jurisdiction already have access to advanced technology, highly developed infrastructure and high levels of operational experience. As a result, the criteria prescribed by these regulations are typically addressed (by operators) without undue cost given their current level of sophistication. This may not be the case in other parts of the world. States that lack highly developed infrastructure or access to advanced technologies must strive to achieve the appropriate balance between their ability to sustain commercial aviation services and the safety risks generated as a result of the production of those services. With this need for balance in mind, the following list details some of the factors that a State should consider when determining the appropriateness of national regulation or adapting the regulatory requirements of another State: Lack of Available Aerodromes: A lack of available aerodromes affects an operator s ability to nominate alternates within an economically sustainable distance to the destination. While there would be few examples where an aircraft could not conceivably carry sufficient fuel to reach an alternate, doing so may not be possible without the 3 APP2 5

84 offload of revenue payload. Air transport is a vital service in many parts of the world and in some cases the only means of transportation. Operators may find it necessary to conduct operations where no alternate is available provided the State, and the operator, can demonstrate there is a reasonable certainty that an alternate will not be required. Predominance of Non-Precision Approaches: States outside Europe and North America frequently contain aerodromes that use non-precision approaches for the primary approach. While non-precision approaches may not significantly impact operations in some parts of the world, fuel planning should take into account the higher minima associated with such approaches. Additionally, the lack of redundancy and the potential for an aid to fail should be considered within the fuel policy or operational procedures. As such, the prescribed minima should allow for the failure of a navigation aid and allow an approach to be completed successfully using either a procedure that terminates in a visual segment or another navigation aid. Routine Use of Circling and Visual Approaches: Due to the lack of navigation aids, or a lack of redundancy, States may be required to prescribe alternate minima for a particular aerodrome that is based on the conduct of a visual approach. Such an approach may be the culmination of an arrival procedure for which there is no navigation aid guidance or the result of a requirement to conduct a circling approach. While there is a general movement away from such approaches in States with high levels of infrastructure they remain a primary procedure in regions that do not enjoy such advanced development. As such, they remain a viable method of maintaining air services as long as approach minima and fuel policies consider the inherent limitations of such procedures. Concentration of Populations: Some States, despite large land masses, have their populations concentrated in small areas. As a result, distances between available aerodromes may be large and the availability of en-route alternates limited. Civil aviation authorities and operators should consider en-route system failures in the development of national and operational policies. The lack of available alternate aerodromes, however, may make the provision of additional flexibility an operational necessity in order to sustain viable commercial air services. Remote and Isolated Aerodromes: States that have jurisdiction over aerodromes that are physically removed from available alternate aerodromes may consider specifying additional fuel carriage requirements for operations to these aerodromes. Remote and Isolated Aerodromes can be island based or be located on continental land masses. Operators may elect to nominate a specific aerodrome as Isolated or Remote if, by complying with the State requirements for such operations, less fuel uplift would result without compromising the desired level of safety risk for the planned operation. 3-APP Static and prescriptive minimum requirements All States should prescribe, or where such prescription is not legislated, approve or accept the minimum alternate and fuel planning requirements for aircraft operating within their airspace. These regulations form one of the core elements in ensuring the safety of flight operations. Many States may choose to adopt, either in entirety or in part, the regulatory framework 3 APP2 6

85 specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) or the European Operations (EU-OPS). The use of these regulatory frameworks and methods of regulatory compliance may prove, particularly in theatres where long distances to limited infrastructure aerodromes exist, to be unreasonably restrictive in some operational environments. The exact nature of the prescriptive requirements may vary from State to State but in all cases they should ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, the lack of a suitable aerodrome or fuel exhaustion will not be determining factors in an aircraft incident or accident. Balanced against this need for safety, States should not attempt to legislate in an unreasonable or capricious manner in an attempt to mitigate human errors or events that are statistically insignificant. Refer to Chapter 4 of this manual for additional guidance related to the development and implementation of the prescriptive method of alternate selection and fuel planning. 3-APP Performance-based variations that recognize limitations of infrastructure and technologies States that do not enjoy the availability of extensive infrastructure and/or the widespread use of advanced technologies may still choose to implement performance-based variations from prescriptive criteria if operators have the demonstrable ability to manage operational safety risks. In many cases, however, the technical and operational abilities of individual operators may exceed those of the respective State. Where this is the case, operators should still be able to demonstrate that proposed practices utilizing existing or pending infrastructure developments maintain acceptable levels of safety performance. This allows for the introduction of new technologies vital to the development of aviation in many countries. Operators wishing to implement performance-based variations should be able to work with civil aviation authorities to implement new systemic defenses or take full advantage of existing defenses if deemed appropriate and effective in mitigating the safety risks of operations. Such defenses or safety risk controls may include, but are not limited to the following: Satellite Based Navigation Systems: The use of satellite based navigation systems can be used as a basis for prescribing lower operating minima provided the operator can demonstrate that operational policies and procedures effectively manage safety risks associated with such operations. Lower Traffic Densities: The lower traffic densities associated with specific routes may result in less altitude blockages, traffic holding or track diversions. A State, when setting or considering variations to national fuel policy, should consider such operational realities. In conjunction with such variations, operators should also be able to continually demonstrate that their route structure is such that the consequences of hazards associated with the traffic densities along proposed routes do not produce unmitigated safety risks. User Preferred Routes: The operation of flights along a User Preferred Route (UPR) may also result in less traffic congestion, more efficient routing of aircraft and lower fuel burn. The State may take this into account, when approving an operator s fuel policy, if it can continually demonstrate the operational ability to conduct such operations. 3 APP2 7

86 3-APP The operational realities of long and ultra-long haul operations Long haul and ultra-long haul operations are specialized operations undertaken by relatively few air carriers. Strict adherence to prescriptive requirements, particularly regarding the provision of destination alternate aerodromes, may be particularly problematic in these operations due to the inability of an aircraft to physically carry the fuel required. This is normally applicable to all long range aircraft as well as short to medium range aircraft when operating to the limits of their available range. The mechanisms necessary for the safe conduct of such operations may be beyond the capabilities of some operators, particularly if they have no previous and operationally specific experience. However performance-based variations from prescriptive regulations may be appropriate where an operator is able to continually demonstrate a level of operational sophistication and experience that ensures potential hazards have been properly considered and safety risks mitigated. In some cases a planned long haul operation will not be possible without such relief. In these cases, the State may require a demonstration of operational capability to ensure acceptable levels of safety performance can be maintained before relief from the prescriptive requirements of national alternate selection and fuel planning regulations can be granted. Note: Chapter 5 of this manual contains specific core criteria requirements that typify capable operators as well as additional guidance related to the development and implementation of a performance-based approach to alternate selection and fuel planning. 3 APP2 8

87 Appendix 2 to Chapter 3 Example of a U.S. OpSpec that provides conditional relief from IFR no-alternate requirements (Paragraph C355, Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums: 14 CFR Part 121) 3-APP Summarizing performance-based methods with FAA OpSpec C355 FAA OpSpec C355 is representative of a variation to existing prescriptive U.S. regulation that contains all of the attributes of a performance-based methodology for the designation of alternate airports. It contains an exhaustive compilation of criteria requirements, mitigation measures, and safety risk controls that far exceed the criteria of the prescriptive regulations it is designed to address. It is provided here as a means to illustrate the scope, breadth and potential of performance-based methods. 3-APP FAR forms the basis for the variation While it is possible for a basic regulation to be performance-based it is far more typical for a State s CAA to grant performance-based variations from established or existing prescriptive regulations. In the case of OpSpec C355, FAR forms the basis for any variation: Alternate airport for destination: IFR or over-the-top: Domestic operations. (a) No person may dispatch an airplane under IFR or over-the-top unless he lists at least one alternate airport for each destination airport in the dispatch release. When the weather conditions forecast for the destination and first alternate airport are marginal at least one additional alternate must be designated. However, no alternate airport is required if for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate (1) The ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation; and (2) Visibility will be at least 3 miles. (b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the weather conditions at the alternate airport must meet the requirements of (c) No person may dispatch a flight unless he lists each required alternate airport in the dispatch release. 3-APP OpSpec C355 allows capable operators to vary from FAR Contractual OpSpec approval and the exemption petition process used by the FAA allows variations from prescriptive criteria based on continual conformance with the conditions outlined in the exemption. Such conditions represent specific systemic defenses, mitigation measures and/or safety risk controls used to ensure a level of safety risk at least as good as the prescriptive requirement: 3 APP2 1

88 C355. Exemption to for Domestic Alternate Airport Requirements a. The certificate holder is authorized to dispatch flights in accordance with Grant of exemption(s) listed in Table l below, as may be amended, which grant(s) relief from 14 CFR Sections (a)(1) and (2) for domestic operations. All operations under the exemption are subject to compliance with the conditions and limitations set forth in the exemption and this operations specification, b. In accordance with the provisions and limitations of the exemption(s) listed in Table 1 below, the certificate holder is allowed to reduce the destination airport weather requirement of Section (a)(1) and (2) for designating an altemate airport from the current CFR requirement of at least 2,000 feet ceilings and at least 3 miles visibility to at least 1,000-foot ceilings and the visibility listed in Table 1 below based on the applicable exemption and the limitations and provisions of this operations specification. Table 1 Authorized Exemptions Grant of Exemption No. Ceiling and Visibility Required Per Exemption. Must Maintain at least CAT I or CAT II Approach Capability as Req d XXXX (Distinct No. assigned to each operator) 1,000-ft ceiling and 2sm visibility CAT II XXXX (Distinct No. assigned to each operator) 1,000-ft ceiling and 3sm visibility CAT I c. This authorization is applicable to only those destination airports within the 48 contiguous United States, d. This authorization may be used in operations to airports within the contiguous United States in accordance with operations specification A012 if issued, e. All operations under this authorization must be conducted while using a qualified dispatcher. (1) The certificate holder must provide a copy of pertinent parts of the exemption and documentation, with respect to the conditions and limitations of this operations specification, acceptable to the POI, to each dispatcher, and pilot-incommand who conducts operations under the exemption. (2) Each dispatcher must have a computer monitoring system or systems to display the location of each flight and current significant weather that is capable of showing the following: 3 APP2 2

89 (a) The aircraft s present position updated at least once every three minutes, (b) Overlays of weather radar returns updated at least once every five minutes, (c) Specific routing of the aircraft as assigned by ATC and actual filed flight plan routing, (d) Other airborne aircraft including those of other operators, (e) Planned and actual fuel at regular intervals along the route and the difference between planned and actual fuel. (f) Automatically alerts the dispatcher to a special weather update, changes in weather reports, forecasts and/or other significant weatherrelated reports which can be expeditiously relayed to the flightcrews while conducting operations under this exemption (3) Each dispatcher must have the capability to access the services of a qualified meteorologist approved by the POI or the certificate holder must have an approved EWINS program. (4) Each dispatcher must have the capability to expeditiously recompute projected arrival fuel from a "point aloft" to the intended destination in the event conditions, including those required to be reported in subparagraph l. below, occur that negatively impact the flight. (5) Each dispatcher must have data available that will show aircraft status, including the aircraft capability to conduct CAT I, CAT II or CAT III operations as applicable to the exemption being used. (6) The dispatch release will contain a statement for each flight dispatched under this exemption such as: ALTN WEATHER EXEMPTION APPLIED. REFERENCE (APPROPRIATE DOCUMENT SUCHAS FOM, GOM, etc). The certificate holder may choose to use other wording, if desired, but the meaning must be clear. f. The reporting requirements ofthe flightcrews listed in subparagraph l., Mandatory Pilot Reports, below and the required dispatch flight planning and tracking systems in subparagraph e. above must be used to determine the feasibility of dispatching the flight under this exemption and/or continuing the flight after dispatch. g. Approved Procedures. If the use of these systems, reports or the occurrence of other factors indicate that the conditions under which the flight was originally dispatched have changed and may negatively impact the flight, the dispatcher and flight crew must reevaluate the continued operation of the flight using approved procedures, and if necessary, agree on an alternate plan as soon as practicable after the occurrence of any of the following: (1) En route holding or delaying vectors, airspeed changes, altitude changes, or re-routings; 3 APP2 3

90 (2) Unplanned or sustained use of deicing and anti-icing systems or other factors directly relating to fuel consumption that may have a negative effect on trip fuel requirements. (3) The deterioration of destination weather below a 1,000-foot ceiling and 2-mile visibility if using an exemption that requires at least 3 statute miles visibility as listed in Table I above. (4) The deterioration of destination weather below a 1,000-foot ceiling and 1-mile visibility if using an exemption that requires for at least 2 statute miles visibility as listed in Table l above, h. If granted an exemption that allows for 1,000-foot ceiling and at least 2 statute miles visibility as listed in the granted exemption and Table l above, the certificate holder shall maintain at least CAT II approach authorization (operations specification C059) for those fleets to which this exemption applies and the following: (1) At the time of dispatch the flightcrew must be qualified and the aircraft equipped with operational avionics to conduct a CAT II approach. (2) The intended destination airport must have at least one operational CAT II or CAT III ILS approach that is available for use if needed. (3) Pilots in command (PIC) with less than the requisite minimum hours specified in Section shall not be utilized in operations under this exemption unless the operator also holds Exemption 5549, the PIC has been trained in accordance with the requirements of that exemption, and all of the conditions specified by Exemption 5549 are met. i. If granted an exemption that allows for 1,000-foot ceiling and at least 3 statute miles visibility as listed in the granted exemption and Table 1 above, the certificate holder shall maintain at least CAT I approach authorization (operations specification C052 and C074) for those fleets and flight crews to which the exemption would apply as well as the following: (1) At the time of dispatch the aircraft avionics equipment required to conduct CAT I ILS approach must be installed and operational. At the time of dispatch the flight crew must be qualified to conduct a CAT I approach to minima of at least 200 feet and RVR 2000 or lower, if published. (2) The intended destination airport must have at least one operational CAT I ILS approach with minima of at least 200 feet and RVR 2000 that is available for use if needed. (3) PIC with less than the requisite minimum hours specified in Section 121,652 shall not be utilized in operations under this exemption unless the operator also holds Exemption 5549, the PIC has been trained in accordance with the requirements of that exemption, and all of the conditions specified by Exemption 5549 are met. j. The exemption(s) referenced in Table l above cannot be used if thunderstorms are forecast in either the main body of a weather report or in the remarks section of the 3 APP2 4

91 forecast between one hour before to one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport. k. In the event any of the monitoring or capability requirements become inoperative after dispatch, the pilot-in-command and dispatcher will detennine whether the degradation would preclude a safe landing at the destination airport. l. Mandatory; Pilot Reports. Pilots will notify Dispatch as soon as practicable in the event of any of the following: (1) Lateral deviation from the planned route by greater than 100 NM. (2) Vertical deviation from the planned altitude by greater than 4000 feet, (3) ETA will exceed planned by greater than 15 minutes. (4) Fuel consumption in excess of planned that may have a negative effect on trip fuel requirements. (5) Fuel system component failure or apparent malfunction that may have a negative effect on trip fuel requirements. (6) The flight encounters weather significantly different than forecast, to include turbulence. (7) The flight is assigned en route or arrival holding. (8) Unplanned or sustained use of deicing or anti-icing systems. m. The certificate holder shall maintain a system for trend-tracking of all diversions. For at least the first 24 months of operations under the exemption(s) referenced in Table 1 above, or for such longer period of time as the POI deems necessary in order to thoroughly evaluate operational performance, the certificate holder must provide the Administrator, by the l5 th of each month, reports, formatted in chronological order and by fleet type, that fully document each diversion from the previous calendar month and include at least the following; (1) The total number of flights operated under domestic rules to destinations within the 48 contiguous states by the certificate holder. (2) The total number of flights in subparagraph m.(l) above that divert to an alternate airport. (3) Total number of flights operated under the exemption(s) referenced in Table l above including those flights conducted under the appropriate provisions and limitations of` operations specification A012. For each flight operated the following information must be included; (a) Dates (b) Airport pairs (c) Flight numbers (d) Aircraft M/M/S 3 APP2 5

92 (e) Trended or graphical summary of flight planned fuel versus actual arrival fuel and the contingency fuel carried (f) Emergency declared and reason (g) Any occurrence of a low fuel state which results in actions being taken by ATC and/or dispatch in order to provide priority handling, even if no emergency is declared (4) Diversions Under The Exemption(s). The flight numbers and the airport pairs where flights were diverted to an altemate airport that are operated under the exemption(s) referenced in Table l above, and the following; (a) Date of each diversion. (b) Aircraft M/M/S (c) The reason for each diversion, such as but not limited to, weather conditions, mechanical problem, fuel quantity, passenger problems, air traffic, flight crew, or any other reason. (d) Fuel remaining at the diversion airfield. (e) Original weather forecast for original destination. (f) Air traffic control priority and the reason for the assignment, if applicable. 3 APP2 6

93 Chapter 4. The Prescriptive Method of Alternate Selection and Fuel Planning 4.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the prescriptive SARPs of Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, related to the selection of alternate aerodromes, meteorological conditions required to operate in accordance with VFR and IFR, and pre-flight fuel planning. The prescriptive criteria contained in these SARPs are representative of the basic systemic defenses of an aviation system in addition to others such as training and technology. The criteria also respond to the need for the development of a sensible and well defined regulatory framework in any complex operating environment, as sound safety risk management (SRM) can only develop from a solid regulatory foundation. In a compliance-based regulatory environment, the State s CAA prescribes the minimum statutory requirements an operator must comply with when planning a flight. Such requirements are expressed as regulations that define the operating conditions that necessitate the selection of alternate aerodromes and the specific fuel quantities to be carried. This conventional approach, reflected in Annex 6, Part I, is used by many authorities as it contributes significantly in ensuring the safe completion of flights. It also offers economic advantages to authorities and operators that lack sophisticated systems, advanced technologies or specialized knowledge. Prescriptive regulations are also typically contingent on the use of fuel consumption data provided by the aircraft manufacturer, and require operators to consider the operating conditions under which a flight will be conducted including computed aircraft mass, expected meteorological conditions and anticipated ATC restrictions and delays. This chapter explains the prescriptive SARPs of Annex 6, Part I in order to form the foundation for the development of sound national regulations and to form the basis for the performance-based variations described in Annex 6, Part I, and It should be noted that although they are closely related, fuel planning and in-flight fuel management are addressed separately in this manual. 4.2 History Traditional flight planning methods assume the following principle hazards affecting the outcome of flights. While aircraft and aids to navigation have advanced over time permitting the development of lower operating minima, the same underlying assumptions remain: Need to return to destination immediately after take-off: The development of take-off alternate criteria may have stemmed from operator experience with high power piston engines, when take-off fires were more common. It was recognized that take-offs were routinely performed in lower visibilities than were permitted for landings and that a return to point of departure was not always possible. This resulted in a requirement to provide for a return alternate within a specified flight time as a means of mitigating inherent safety risks. Weather at destination: It was assumed that if visual meteorological conditions (VMC) existed at the destination, a safe approach would always be possible and an alternate would not be required. Conversely, if VMC were not forecast for the destination, not only would an alternate aerodrome be required, but the weather conditions at the alternate would have to 4 1

94 be less likely to prevent a safe approach than at the destination. This led to the development of Alternate Minima, which is more restrictive than normal operating minima. The underlying assumption was that weather was the major, if not the only, cause of diversion to the alternate, and the prescriptive regulation did not attempt to mitigate other causal factors(e.g. ATC disruption). In-flight contingency: The designation of Contingency fuel was established to compensate for unforeseen factors that could influence fuel burn to the destination aerodrome. Such factors included, for example, deviations of an individual aircraft from; expected fuel consumption data, forecast meteorological conditions or planned routings and cruising altitudes/levels. Contingency fuel has traditionally been computed as a percentage of trip fuel, a carryover from a time when both consumption data and forecast wind components were less accurate than they are today. Contingency fuel requirements also typically specify a minimum cut-off value in terms of flight time, recognizing that some contingencies occur once per flight (e.g. take-off and landing delays), and are not proportional to flight time. It should be noted that hazards other than the deviations accounted for in contingency fuel calculations are typically not considered in prescriptive alternate selection and fuel planning regulations. Such hazards that cannot be planned for, anticipated or are beyond the control of the operator include, but are not limited to: o o o o o o o o o Human error or distractions; Loss of situational awareness; Workload spikes; Inaccurate prognostics (weather); Equipment failures; Database failures; ATM failures; ATM saturation and tactical measures; Incidents/accidents resulting in infrastructure closures. Such hazards are unlikely to be mitigated by the prescriptive designation of an alternate aerodrome or the carriage of extra fuel. Although these hazards cannot typically be planned for or anticipated, their consequences can and should be effectively mitigated by other means including SRM, advanced technologies, operator policies and procedures, operational control methods, increasing awareness, and training. 4.3 Objectives of a prescriptive method In a compliance-based regulatory environment, the State s CAA prescribes the requirements for the operator to use in flight planning and re-planning. Such requirements are static in that they typically do not contain any performance-based elements to aid in the precise determination of alternate requirements, alternate minima or fuel reserves. They should, however, set clear and concise requirements for pre-flight planning and in-flight fuel usage, as well as specifically defining the actions necessary to protect final reserve fuel. 4 2

95 Prescriptive regulations are also typically complemented by reactive investigative processes to determine the root causes of incidents or accidents. As an example, such reactive processes typically require unplanned diversions, low fuel states and/or instances of landing below final reserve fuel to be reported and/or investigated. The results of such processes are then analyzed to determine if changes to prescriptive regulations are warranted. 4.4 Prescriptive alternate selection and fuel planning SARPs of Annex 6, Part I Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.4, and contain prescriptive standards related to alternate selection and fuel planning. Like any prescriptive national regulation these standards were established in Annex 6, Part I to prescribe baseline operator performance in the following areas: Take-off alternate aerodromes: Selection and specification on the operational flight plan and prescribed distance from aerodrome of departure; En-route alternate aerodromes: Selection and specification on the operational and ATS flight plan; Destination alternate aerodromes: Selection and specification on the operational and ATS flight plans and planning requirements for operations to isolated aerodromes; Meteorological conditions: Prescribed weather conditions for VFR flight and to commence or continue an IFR flight including operating minima for take-off, destination and alternate aerodromes; Alternate aerodrome planning minima : Criteria for establishing incremental values to be added to aerodrome operating minima and defining the estimated time of use of an alternate aerodrome; Pre-flight fuel planning: Criteria to address deviations from the planned operation, basic fuel planning, the pre-flight calculation of required usable fuel, EDTO Critical Fuel and Final Reserve Fuel. Each Standard in the aforementioned areas will be explained and expanded in the ensuing sections of this chapter. Annex 6, Part I 4.5 Take-off alternate aerodromes - selection and specification Annex 6, Part I, states that a take-off alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the operational flight plan if either the meteorological conditions at the aerodrome of departure are below the applicable operator s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation or if it would not be possible to return to the aerodrome of departure for other reasons. Conformance with this Standard requires an operator to select and specify a take-off alternate in the Operational Flight Plan under the conditions specified. It is intended to address an emergency during or immediately after take-off that requires the flight crew to land as soon as possible. An engine failure or fire is an example of such an emergency, as the likelihood of this occurrence during take-off is higher than during other phases of flight. Additionally, the approach and landing capability of the aeroplane may be degraded after an engine failure or fire resulting in the likelihood that the minima that permitted the take-off from the departure aerodrome will be lower than the applicable minima for landing, if for example the departure aerodrome, either: 4 3

96 is not equipped with a precision approach, or; has only a Category 1 precision approach, or; has a Category ll or lll precision approach but the aircraft is not certificated to land in Category ll or lll conditions with one engine inoperative, or; wind or terrain conditions do not allow the aircraft to use a favorable approach. The operator s established aerodrome operating minima for the operation typically refers to the minimum ceiling or runway visual range for landing with an engine inoperative as established by the operator. As such landings are assumed to occur within a relatively short period after take-off, it is typically, not necessary to apply additional margins to operating minima in order to allow for weather deterioration or uncertainty in the meteorological forecast. Such allowances, however, are typically considered in the case of destination or en-route alternate aerodrome planning where the time period during which the aerodrome is either required to be available, or the interval from the point of flight planning to the potential use of the alternate aerodrome, can be considerable. Note: Conformance with this Standard also requires that the operator establish operating minima in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, Content to be developed: Expand on the consideration to be given to use the departure aerodrome as the take off alternate if the forecast during expected time of use meets the minimum requirements; Explain the differences in how minima are applied (operating vs. alternate) 4.6 Take-off alternate aerodromes - distance from aerodrome of departure Annex 6, Part I, states that the take-off alternate aerodrome shall be located within the following flight time distance from the aerodrome of departure: a) for aeroplanes with two engines, one hour of flight time at a one engine-inoperative cruising speed, determined from the aircraft operating manual, calculated in ISA and still-air conditions using the actual take-off mass; or b) for aeroplanes with three or more engines, two hours of flight time at an all engine operating cruising speed, determined from the aircraft operating manual, calculated in ISA and still-air conditions using the actual take-off mass; or c) for aeroplanes engaged in extended diversion time operations (EDTO) the operator s approved maximum diversion time considering the actual take-off mass. This Standard defines the location of the take-off alternate aerodrome (specified in accordance with 6, ) in relation to the aerodrome of departure. This location is expressed in terms of the time required to reach the alternate under the conditions specified. Allowances are made for the specific range of aeroplanes with inoperative engines or engaged in EDTO operations. Item c), for example, recognizes that aeroplanes engaged in EDTO operations are subject to stringent reliability requirements and that diversion times to an alternate associated with such operations are inherently longer. To be engaged in EDTO operations means that the aircraft and operator have been 4 4

97 approved for EDTO operations and the aircraft has been dispatched in accordance with applicable EDTO requirements. Conformance with this Standard requires that an operator calculate maximum diversion distances for each airplane type and ensure a take-off alternate, when required in accordance with 6, , is located within the prescribed distance from the aerodrome of departure. Content to be developed: Differentiation between planning exercise and operating; Consideration that the calculation of this distance as being aligned with EDTO calculations for maximum diversion time; Prescriptive method used to calculate maximum diversion distances; Illustration. 4.7 Take-off alternate aerodromes operating minima at estimated time of use Annex 6, Part I, states that For an aerodrome to be selected as a take-off alternate the available information shall indicate that, at the estimated time of use, the conditions will be at or above the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation. Conformance with this Standard requires an operator to determine, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that take-off alternate aerodrome will be at or above the operator s established operating minima at the estimated time of use. The estimated time of use is established in accordance 6, (See 4.15, this chapter) and should take into account the flying time at the appropriate speed (one engine inoperative for twins, all engines operating for three and four engine aeroplanes or the approved EDTO diversion speed, as applicable) with a suitable margin for variable factors including: Change in take-off time (e.g. if take-off time changes and exceeds the margin defined by the State of the operator for the estimated time of use then the estimated time of use for the take-off alternate should be updated); Uncertainty in the timing of meteorological changes. The reference in this Standard to the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for the operation is understood to have the same meaning as the minima required at the aerodrome of departure, that is the minima appropriate for a one engine inoperative landing as typically applied to other alternate aerodromes. This should not be confused with planning minima which refers to the operating minima plus incremental values of ceiling and visibility as determined by the State of the operator and in accordance with Annex 6, Part I, It is typical, although not required to conform to 6, , for certain civil aviation authorities to prescribe the use of planning minima as the determinant for the nomination of a takeoff alternate. This is often done for commonality with destination alternate selection requirements and/or to ensure a greater likelihood that the take-off alternate will be at or above operating minima at the 4 5

98 estimated time of use. It may also be done with the presumption that take-off alternates are located at or near the maximum distances prescribed in Annex 6, Part I, In cases where the take-off alternate is relatively close to the departure aerodrome the use of planning minima as the determinant for the selection of a take-off alternate may not be deemed necessary by a State s CAA. In these cases the margin prescribed in 6, should be deemed sufficient to ensure the take-off alternate aerodrome will be at or above operating minima at the estimated time of use. 4.8 En-route alternate aerodrome selection and specification Annex 6, Part I, states that En-route alternate aerodromes, required by 4.7 for extended diversion time operations by aeroplanes with two turbine engines, shall be identified and specified in the operational and air traffic services (ATS) flight plans. This Standard applies only to aeroplanes with two turbine engines engaged in EDTO operations and requires operators to identify and specify, in the operational and ATS flight plans, en-route alternate aerodromes required in accordance with Annex 6, Part I The identification of en-route alternates at the flight planning stage applies to aeroplanes with two turbine engines any time they are operated beyond 60 min to an en route alternate aerodrome ( ) and all aeroplanes engaged in EDTO ( ), thus operators need to determine the earliest and latest Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) for each selected en-route alternate aerodrome(s). This time window referred to as the estimated time of use in the Standard is defined as the period of time between the earliest and latest ETA for a given en-route alternate aerodrome. In order to identify and specify such an aerodrome as an EDTO en-route alternate the operator, at the flight planning stage, would need to verify that the weather forecast (over the applicable time window) is equal or above the applicable planning minima. Although estimated time of use is addressed for any aerodrome in Annex 6, Part I, and discussed in detail in 4.15 of this chapter, the complexities of EDTO operations and the associated identification of en-route alternates warrants special attention. For example, a commonly accepted method for determining the earliest and latest ETA for a given en-route alternate or estimated time of use is as follows (Figure 4-1): For the earliest ETA: consider a medical emergency diversion (no failure, AEO) starting at the first Equal Time Point. For the latest ETA: consider diversion following depressurization (FL100), OEI or AEO, starting at the second Equal Time Point. 4 6

99 Figure 4 1: Method 1 for determining the time window for alternate 1 (flight from A to B) For additional conservatism, the method in Figure 4-1 uses two different speeds and Flight Levels for the diversions, e.g., AEO speed/fl for diversion 1 and OEI (or AEO) speed/fl100 for diversion 2. Nevertheless, it may be acceptable to use the same speed/fl for both diversions. Another commonly accepted method of determining the earliest and latest Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) for each required en-route alternate aerodrome(s) is to consider the entry and exit point instead of the ETPs, as illustrated in Figure 4-2 below: Figure 4 2: Method 2 for determining the time window for alternate 1 (flight from A to B) It should be noted that the speed/fl used for the determination of estimated time of use in either method is for flight preparation purposes only. The use of a speed/fl during flight preparation does not imply that the same speed/fl must be used in the event of a diversion. In other words, it is 4 7

100 perfectly acceptable for the flight crew to select a more appropriate speed/fl for an actual diversion. There is one less common but accepted methodology for the identification and specification of an en-route alternate that permits the dispatch of an EDTO flight when a forecast for the estimated time of use of the en-route alternate is not available at the planning stage. It presumes an aircraft will not proceed beyond the point of sole reliance (WPsr) unless the PIC obtains a valid forecast for the en-route alternate that satisfies the applicable planning minima (Figure 4-3). In summary: Figure 4 3: Point of sole reliance on an en route alternate aerodrome (flight A to B) The time window for a given en-route alternate aerodrome is the period of time between the earliest and latest ETA for a given en-route alternate aerodrome; This time window is referred to as the estimated time of use in various SARPs; There are at least 2 commonly accepted methods for the determination of estimated time of use for EDTO en-route alternates (Figure 4-1 and 4-2); At flight planning stage, the operator checks that the weather forecast (over the applicable time window) is equal or above the applicable planning minima; The estimated time of use is based on the Estimated Time of Departure (ETD). Should a significant delay occur (e.g. ETD delayed by more than 1 hour), the time windows for the selected en-route alternate aerodromes should be updated accordingly, and the weather forecast verified again considering the updated time window; 4 8

101 It is important to note that alternates that are required to be available for EDTO operations are normally subject to higher weather minima requirements than operating minima, used for en-route decision making. This is to cater for uncertainty of the weather forecasts; If a valid forecast is unavailable at the planning stage for a prospective EDTO en-route alternate, some civil aviation authorities may permit the dispatch of an EDTO flight based on the determination and use of a point of sole reliance (Figure 4-3). 4.9 Destination alternate aerodromes - selection and specification: one destination alternate Annex 6, Part I, states that for a flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules, at least one destination alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the operational and ATS flight plans, unless: a) the duration of the flight from the departure aerodrome, or from the point of in-flight replanning to the destination aerodrome is such that, taking into account all meteorological conditions and operational information relevant to the flight, at the estimated time of use, a reasonable certainty exists that: 1) the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological conditions; and 2) separate runways are usable at the estimated time of use of the destination aerodrome with at least one runway having an operational instrument approach procedure; or b) the aerodrome is isolated. Operations into isolated aerodromes do not require the selection of a destination alternate aerodrome(s) and shall be planned in accordance with d) 4); 1) for each flight into an isolated aerodrome a point of no return shall be determined; and 2) a flight to be conducted to an isolated aerodrome shall not be continued past the point of no return unless a current assessment of meteorological conditions, traffic, and other operational conditions indicate that a safe landing can be made at the estimated time of use. Note 1.- Separate runways are two or more runways at the same aerodrome configured such that if one runway is closed, operations to the other runway(s) can be conducted. Note 2.- Guidance on planning operations to isolated aerodromes is contained in the Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc xxxx). This Standard contains the criteria for consideration during the selection and specification of destination alternate aerodromes as well as the conditions for operating into isolated aerodromes a) 1) stipulates that in order to forgo the selection and specification of a destination alternate a reasonable certainty must exist that at the estimated time of use of the destination aerodrome, an approach and landing can be made in VMC as defined by the state of the operator a) 2) further stipulates that two separate useable runways with at least one having an operational instrument approach procedure be available at the destination aerodrome at the estimated time of use. The estimated time of use of the destination aerodrome is established in accordance 6, and explained in detail in 4.15 of this chapter. 4 9

102 Conformance with requires an operator to ensure sufficient alternate aerodromes are selected and specified on the OFP and ATS flight plan in accordance with the provisions of a) unless the destination aerodrome is isolated ( b) which is explained in 4.10 of this chapter. Separate Runways are defined in Note 1 and are considered to be two distinct paved surfaces which may cross one another but not considered opposite ends of one runway (e.g. one runway direction and its reciprocal do not constitute separate runways. Note 2 refers to operations into isolated aerodromes and is explained in 4.10 of this chapter Destination alternate aerodromes - isolated aerodrome planning and Point of No Return (PNR) Annex 6, Part I, b) refers to operations into isolated aerodromes that do not require the selection and specification of a destination alternate. An isolated aerodrome is defined in Annex 6, Part I as a destination aerodrome for which there is no destination alternate aerodrome suitable for a given aeroplane type. As a practical matter, however, destination aerodromes may be considered isolated by a State s CAA when the fuel required to go-around from Decision Altitude or the Missed Approach Point at the destination aerodrome and then divert to the nearest suitable alternate, exceeds the fuel required to hold at the destination aerodrome for 90 minutes (in the case of a turbine engine aeroplane). This assumption is validated by b), which stipulates that operations into isolated aerodromes shall be planned in accordance with d) 4), which in turn stipulates that where the aerodrome of intended landing is an isolated aerodrome a turbine engine aeroplane shall have sufficient fuel to fly for two hours at normal cruise consumption above the destination aerodrome, including final reserve fuel. Final reserve fuel is further defined for a turbine engine aeroplane as fuel to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions (2 hours isolated aerodrome fuel 30 minutes final reserve = 90 minutes hold over destination). Conformance with b) requires the determination of a point of no return, PNR. In the context of isolated aerodrome operations, a PNR is the point of last possible diversion to an enroute alternate (Figure 4-4). The Standard specifies that this point is to be determined on each flight to an isolated aerodrome. While this point can be calculated in the operational flight plan, this calculation will typically, not take into account any discretionary fuel, nor changes in fuel consumption after departure. The actual PNR will therefore often be reached later in the flight than the point originally calculated in the operational flight plan. Operators should therefore provide practical instructions so that flight crews can calculate the actual position of the PNR. These, for example, may take the form of a fuel plotting chart or practical instruction in the use of the calculating capabilities of the Flight Management System (FMS). 4 10

103 Isolated Aerodrome Greater than 90 minutes Hold Fuel (over destination) required to reach alternate Point of No Return (PNR) Last Available Alternate Aerodrome Note: Planned PNR does not take into account discretionary fuel or changes in fuel consumption after departure. Departure Aerodrome Figure 4-4: Point of No Return (PNR) Note: A PNR may coincide with the Final Decision Point used in DP Planning or the Pre-determined Point used in PDP planning. These flight planning methodologies are explained in detail in Appendix 3 to Chapter Destination alternate aerodromes - Selection and specification: two destination alternates Annex 6, Part I, states that two destination alternate aerodromes shall be selected and specified in the operational and ATS flight plans when, for the destination aerodrome: 4 11

104 a) meteorological conditions at the estimated time of use will be below the operator s established aerodrome operating minima approved for that operation; or b) meteorological information is not available. Conformance with this Standard requires the operator to select and specify, at the point of departure, a minimum of two landing possibilities at the end of the flight, either: the destination aerodrome plus one alternate or two alternate aerodromes if the destination is forecast to be below minima, or forecast (at the estimated time of use) meteorological information is unavailable Meteorological conditions VFR flight Annex 6, Part I, states that a flight to be conducted in accordance with the visual flight rules shall not be commenced unless current meteorological reports or a combination of current reports and forecasts indicate that the meteorological conditions along the route or that part of the route to be flown under the visual flight rules will, at the appropriate time, be such as to enable compliance with these rules. Conformance with this Standard requires the operator to have a process to determine if operations planned in accordance with Visual Flight Rules (VFR) can be conducted such that at the appropriate time during the progress of the flight, the meteorological conditions encountered make compliance with VFR, as defined by the State, possible. Such a process would entail identifying the VFR segments of a proposed route, obtaining reliable and accurate meteorological reports and forecasts at the planning stage and ensuring, to the greatest practical extent, that VFR operations will remain possible at the estimated time of use of the segment. Confidence in pre-flight planning activities would be contingent on en-route weather monitoring by the flight crew and operational control personnel to validate assumptions made during pre-flight planning Meteorological conditions - commencing or continuing an IFR flight Annex 6, Part I, states that a flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules shall not take off or continue from the point of in-flight re-planning unless; a) at the departure aerodrome, meteorological conditions, at the time of use, are at or above the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation; and b) at the aerodrome of intended landing or at each alternate aerodrome to be selected in compliance with 4.3.4, current meteorological reports or a combination of current reports and forecasts indicate that the meteorological conditions will be, at the estimated time of use, at or above the operator s established aerodrome operating minima for that operation. Conformance with Annex 6, Part I, a) requires an operator to have a process or procedures to ensure, in order for operations to be conducted in accordance with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), that a flight cannot take-off unless current meteorological conditions are at or above the operator s established aerodrome take-off operating minima for the operation. Conformance with Annex 6, Part I, b) requires an operator to have a process or procedures to ensure, in order for operations to be conducted in accordance with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), that a flight cannot take-off or continue for the point of in-flight re-planning unless, current meteorological conditions are forecast to be at or above the operator s established 4 12

105 aerodrome operating minima for the planned operation at the estimated time of use of the destination, en-route alternate, or destination alternate, as applicable. The estimated time of use of the destination and/or each alternate aerodrome is established in accordance 6, and explained in detail in 4.15 of this chapter Alternate aerodrome planning minima - establishing incremental values for ceiling and visibility Annex 6, Part I, states that To ensure that an adequate margin of safety is observed in determining whether or not an approach and landing can be safely carried out at each alternate aerodrome, the State of the Operator shall require that the operator specify appropriate incremental values for height of cloud base and visibility to be added to the operator s established aerodrome operating minima. Note. - Guidance on the selection of these incremental values is contained in the Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc xxxx) The operator s established aerodrome operating minima specify the limits of usability of an aerodrome for: a) take-off, expressed in terms of runway visual range and/or visibility and, if necessary, cloud conditions; b) landing in precision approach and landing operations, expressed in terms of visibility and/or runway visual range and decision altitude/height (DA/H) as appropriate to the category of the operation; c) landing in approach and landing operations with vertical guidance, expressed in terms of visibility and/or runway visual range and decision altitude/height (DA/H); and d) landing in non-precision approach and landing operations, expressed in terms of visibility and/or runway visual range, minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H) and, if necessary, cloud conditions. Annex 6, Part I, refers to the addition of appropriate incremental values for height of cloud base and visibility to aerodrome operating minima. Such minima, however, are predominantly defined in terms of required ceiling, decision altitude/height (DA/H), minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H), visibility and/or runway visual range as applicable. As such, the incremental values specified in the SARP functionally refer to additions to the expressions that define operating minima. Note: Ceiling is defined as the height above the ground or water, expressed in meters or feet, of the lowest cloud base below meters ( feet) covering more than half the sky and is typically reported as broken or overcast in meteorological reports. Conformance with this Standard requires an operator to have a process or procedures to ensure, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that at the estimated time of use of an alternate aerodrome, the weather conditions will be at or above the operator s established operating minima for an instrument approach. Because of the natural variability of weather conditions with time, as well as the need to determine the suitability of an alternate before departure, the minima used for planning 4 13

106 purposes are always higher than the operating minima required to initiate an instrument approach. This is necessary prior to the time that the instrument approach would be conducted, to provide for deterioration in weather conditions after planning and increases the probability that the flight will land safely after a diversion to an alternate aerodrome. In order to conform to an operator has to have detailed instructions in their operations manual for determining the suitability of alternate aerodromes. Such instructions should specify that suitable increments be applied to the operator s established operating minima for planning purposes. Since these increments are applied at the planning stage they are commonly referred to as planning minima. Planning minima are usually expressed in a table that contains incremental increases to the expressions that define the operating minima for an approach such as ceiling, DA/H, MDA/H, visibility and/or runway visual range. The increments are typically expressed as a number of feet, meters or miles to be added as adjustments to the operating minima. It is important to note that these increments may not be the same for all alternate aerodromes as different types of alternates (take-off, destination and en route) may have different and distinct planning minima. In its simplest form, a planning minima table may be based on straightforward additions to the DA/H, MDA and visibility associated with the applicable operating minima for a particular type of approach. This is true in the case of an EDTO alternate planning minima table used in Europe that is provided for illustrative purposes only in Figure 4-5. Approach facility Precision approach procedure. Non-precision approach or circling approach Alternate airfield ceiling Authorised DH/DA plus an increment of 200 ft Authorised MDH/MDA plus an increment of 400 ft Weather minima Visibility/RVR Authorised visibility plus an increment of 800 metres Authorised visibility plus an increment of metres Figure 4-5: (EC) No 859/2008 Planning Minima - EDTO Another type of planning minima table addresses potential failures of airborne or ground based navigation systems and is constructed based on what is commonly referred to as the one step down method. These types of tables, also used predominantly in Europe, take into account the possibility that a system malfunction, on the ground or in the aeroplane, may result in higher operating minima required for the remaining available instrument approach and landing. Figure 4-6 is an example of such a table provided for illustrative purposes only. Type of approach Planning minima Cat II and III Cat I (Note 1) Cat I Non-precision (Notes 1 and 2) Non-precision Non-precision (Notes 1 and 2) plus 200 ft / m Circling Circling 4 14

107 Note 1 RVR. Note 2 The ceiling must be at or above the MDH. Figure 4-6: (EC) No 859/2008 Planning Minima - Planning minima Destination alternate aerodrome, Isolated destination aerodrome, 3 % ERA and En-route alternate aerodrome A type of planning minima table used predominately in the U.S. is commonly referred to as a One NAVAID, Two NAVAID table. These types of tables consider the number of navigational facilities providing precision or non-precision approach capability. They also consider the number of different and in the case of EDTO, separate runways available for use at an aerodrome. Figure 4-7 is an example of an alternate planning minima table used in the U.S. and is provided for illustrative purposes only. Approach Facility Configuration For airports with at least one operational navigational facility providing a straight-in non-precision approach procedure, or Category I precision approach, or, when applicable, a circling maneuver from an IAP. Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums Ceiling Visibility Add 400 ft to MDA(H) or Add 1 statute mile or 1600 DA(H), as applicable. m to the landing minimum. For airports with at least two operational navigational facilities, each providing a straight-in approach procedure to different * suitable runways. Add 200 ft to higher DA(H) or MDA(H) of the two approaches used. Add ½ sm or 800 m 1 to the higher authorized landing minimum of the two approaches used. * In this context, a different runway is any runway with a different runway number, whereas separate runways cannot be different ends of the same runway. Figure 4-7: U.S. Alternate Airport IFR Weather Minimums There are advantages and disadvantages to all of these approaches to the determination of planning minima. For example, a simple addition to the required (operating) ceiling and visibility protects against weather deterioration up to the difference between the established operating minima and the planning minima. This margin, however, may be insufficient to cover the loss of a precision approach capability with the consequent switch to a non-precision approach with particularly high minima. Conversely if the next step down method is used and an approach happens to have minima close to the lower limits of the precision approach (e.g.: at an aerodrome relatively free from obstacles) the planning minima margins may not cover plausible un-forecast weather deterioration. Additionally, many of the conventional planning minima methodologies do not account for advances in technology such as RNP-AR, SBAS and others. As there are no simple solutions that will ensure an aerodrome will be at or above operating minima at the estimated time of use, any methodology used should be combined with other processes in order to properly mitigate the associated safety risks (e.g.: airport condition monitoring, operational control systems, flight monitoring, fuel planning, advanced communication systems, advanced technologies etc.). Additionally, alternate aerodrome planning minima tables should take the following into consideration, as applicable: 4 15

108 Estimated time of use; Increments to be added to operating landing ceiling and/or visibility; One-engine inoperative operations in the case of take-off planning minima; Type of approaches available; Number of navigational aids upon which approaches are based; EDTO; Additional criteria requirements for designating alternates with Required Navigation Performance - Approval Required (e.g. RNP, RNP AR (RNP SAAAR), SBAS, GBAS or GPS/WAAS approaches); Appendix 1 to this chapter contains an example of a U.S. OpSpec, provided for illustrative purposes, that combines many of the attributes of the conventional methods for determining planning minima discussed in this chapter with contemporary criteria with the potential to increase the likelihood that an approach and landing will be safely accomplished at an alternate aerodrome when necessary Alternate aerodrome planning minima - establishing estimated time of use Annex 6, Part I, states that The State of the Operator shall approve a margin of time established by the operator for the estimated time of use of an aerodrome. Note. - Guidance on establishing an appropriate margin of time for the estimated time of use of an aerodrome is contained in the Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc xxxx) Conformance with and several other SARPs discussed in this chapter require an operator to evaluate aerodrome conditions at the expected time of use. A common understanding of this term should be established by the State of the operator. While the time of use of, for example, a destination aerodrome is simply given by its ETA, the applicable time period for a required en route alternate can be an extended period of time from the earliest to latest possible time of diversion. In addition, a margin must be added to cover uncertainty of the flight time estimates, the chief of which is ground and airborne delay, and uncertainty in the timing of meteorological events The State of the Operator should also require the operator to add margins around the estimated time(s) of arrival to allow for unexpected variations in departure time, flight time, and timing of weather change. Additionally, the operator should consider time of applicability of temporary or transient events. A widely accepted and acceptable margin is one hour before and after the estimated earliest and latest time of arrival. This may be reduced in special circumstances, e.g. if the Met forecast is only valid for the time of operation of the aerodrome and does not cover the period before opening. The table in Figure 4-8 is a comprehensive treatment of the interpretation of Aerodrome Forecasts. Operators may choose to simplify this for ease of use, but the resulting instructions to crews should be no less restrictive. 4 16

109 Figure 4-8: Application of Aerodrome Forecasts Table Content to be developed: This chart needs to be updated and appropriately sourced 4.16 Pre-flight fuel planning - basic fuel planning and deviations from the planned operation Annex 6, Part I, states that an aeroplane shall carry a sufficient amount of fuel, to complete the planned flight safely and to allow for deviations from the planned operation. 4 17