ICAO Webinar

IFALPA Perspective on GRF

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 Executive Summary
Focus on Open Issues for Pilots:

Training

RCC Communication to the Cockpit

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 List of Contents
1. Training
- General
- Acquisition
- Processing
- Transmission of Information
2. RCC Communication To Cockpits
- Case Study
- Way Forward

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 Introduction
General situation introduced by
previous speakers.

IFALPA is not an organization that

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 Training
General Considerations
Complex update of ICAO framework
CBT as a minimum – reference to
IATA
Improve safety through other means
Simulator – Line checks - Classroom

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 Training
Acquisition Of Information
How do I get which information
during flight?
Dispatch? ATC? Other Options?
VOLMET? ATIS via VHF? What about
the U.S?

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 Training
Processing Of Information:
GRF provides tools to support decisions to land on a
contaminated runway, it does not provide a decision
tool.
Contaminated Runway: What are the implications?
Crosswind – MEL – Procedure – need to know early.
How do I treat a 3-5-2?
„Canned“ decisions in combination with limited LDA
considerations – shortened TDZ?
GAPPRE provides guidelines for training organizations.

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 Training
Transmission of Information:
When do I transmit an AIREP/PIREP?
How do I assess braking action?
Autobrake low gives me maximum
medium-to-poor deceleration action.
What are the consequences of my
report?

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 RCC Communication To Cockpits

There is an obvious gap in the

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 Case Study

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
Case Study
Snow Air 123 from EFHK to
EHEH, alternate LFQQ
Aircraft not ACARS equipped

No D-ATIS at destination or

RCR LFQQ 03260455

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
Case Study
Snow Air 123 from EHAM to
RJTT
In Cruise at LEVOK R 809
(top of screenshot)
Emergency – need to divert
quickly
-
UIBB or UNKL?
WX available via ACARS
(METAR), SN forecast
Before: MOTNE attached –
complete picture – “canned”
decision
Out of VHF Range (300 NM)
Ask Krasnoyarsk Control?
Contact Dispatch?
Time Delay – Safety Issue

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 Case Study
Cold front over the Channel with snowfall:
Date: October 29th 2021
5-5-3 Runway 21 in EHEH - which RWYCC does your
pilot apply?
LFQQ Lille RWYCC: 1-2-2, Rwy 26 in use. How does
the pilot know about the runway condition in LFQQ
when he starts his approach into EHEH? Would he
change his alternate if he knew the conditions in
LFQQ? Which wind could he accept in LFQQ?
F and NL are EASA countries – what would change if
the alternate was in the UK?

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 Case Study
ATIS dissemination via VHF only: Is it acceptable
NOT to know the RCR of your alternate airport if it is
located behind your destination? What about CAT POL
A 230/235?
Airlines: Would your pilot have had the tools to make
the right decision?
Is it enough for the pilot to start his before landing
calculation when able to receive VHF-ATIS? Where do
I get the SNOWTAM-RCR for my alternate? ICAO: 1-2-
2 means 2-2-1 on RWY 26! Which performance
calculation do you apply? Lowest? Middle? Touch-
down zone?
Regulators: Is this example far-fetched?

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 Way Forward
The followingcontents were
supported by all airline
representatives present at the ICAO
meeting in Madrid in January 2020

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 RCC Communication To Cockpits
Issue and questions
Based on an informal survey with experts, today, only a
selected number of airlines are able to receive SNOWTAMS
in the cockpit via Datalink without intervention by dispatch.
Currently, the plan to transmit RCR to the cockpit is
predicated on (D-)ATIS. This has been addressed by ICAO,
see ATIS leaflet. Long ATIS messages remain an issue.
If no D-ATIS is available it will not be possible to receive RCR
data in the cockpit, unless the RCR data is directly
supported by dispatch or the aircraft is within VHF range.
Safety issue: MOTNE suppressed: No information available
about runway condition at destination while en-route.
There is no alert about runway contamination.
Safety issue: No runway state can be received of enroute or
destination alternates while out of VHF-range without D-
ATIS.
May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 RCC Communication To Cockpits
Issue and questions (continued)
It is the ANSP's legal responsibility to communicate
RCR/SNOWTAM. Is ATC prepared? (FIS capacity, knowledge
about information from adjacent states)
Do pilots know the promulgation procedures (i.e. FIS
frequencies?)
Does ICAO supervise implementation and promulgate
information about deficiencies?
Will former CIS states be in conformity with GRF?
What about long-haul flights overhead Siberia? How would
they choose an emergency alternate?

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 RCC Communication To Cockpits
ACTION proposed:
A SNOWTAM request via ACARS should be made available.
This would involve SITA, ARINC and potentially AIS services.
SNOWTAMs would likely need a separate Q code.
Promote that these communication channels are available
to all ACARS equipped aircraft at any time of flight to access
SNOWTAM. This needs to be verified by every state.
It should be possible to request a separate SNOWTAM (not
included as part of the entire airport NOTAM-package) via
ACARS.
Report three RWYCCs with contaminants when necessary
(varying values).
It is the ANSPs' legal responsibility to communicate
RCR/SNOWTAM. Ensure communication in cooperation with
operators, airports and MET services.
Increase use of D-ATIS (better than Voice) and (mid-term)
internet-access to live as well as historic ATIS.
Promote the implementation and use of GRF in the Russian
Federation and former CIS states if applicable
May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA
 Conclusion
Training level needs to be assured – CBT as a
mininum – increase safety through additional
measures
IFALPA see a need for increased cooperation
between stakeholders in certain areas, especially
communication.

Until then, we hope for mild winters.

May 20th 2021 IFALPA on GRF CPT Peter Michael Rix, MBA