Thai Airways Polar Operations

Meeting
Bangkok Thailand
January 10, 2005
Gene Cameron
Manager Global Support Flight Operations
United Airlines
Polar Routes
 Why Polar ?

• Faster
• Smoother
• Non-Stop!
 Polar Benefits

• Flight Time Reduced Up To 1 Hour or more

• Increase in Payload/Reserve Fuel Capability
• Absence of Turbulence
• Possibility for New Service to Asia From a
Number of North American Cities
ORD
 Polar Routes

North Pole Chicago

Polar 1

Polar 2
HKG
Polar 3

Polar 4
 Who’s Flying Polar
United Chicago - Hong Kong - Chicago
Chicago - Beijing - Chicago
Chicago/New York (JFK) – Tokyo
Chicago – Osaka
Chicago – Shanghai
Continental Newark – Hong Kong
Newark - Tokyo
Air China New York (JFK) – Beijing
Cathay Pacific New York (JFK) – Hong Kong - JFK
Singapore Newark – Singapore
Air Canada Toronto – Hong Kong
Northwest New York (JFK) - Tokyo
Thai New York(JFK) - BangkoK (May,2005)
UNITED’s POLAR OPERATIONS
1999 Through December 31, 2004

1999 12
2000 253
2001 466
2002 461
2003 578
2004 1096

(163 eastbound in 2004)

2866 Total
Polar 1 Polar 2 Polar 3 Polar 4
29 433 1330 1068
September 20, 2004
ORD-HKG
Route Time Psngrs
Polar 4 14:30 347+

Polar 3 14:22 347+

Polar 2 14:36 347+

Polar 1 14:56 317

A218 14:49 331

R220 16:15 54
December 8, 2004
ORD-HKG
Route Time Psngrs
Polar 4 14:56 347+

Polar 3 14:44 347+

Polar 2 14:53 347+

Polar 1 14:59 347+

A218 16:00 200

R220 17:01 1
 Chicago – Hong Kong Daily Route
Comparisons
Polar 1 Polar 2 Polar 3 Polar 4

9/7 15:17 14:54 14:05 14:31

9/8 15:15 14:59 14:29 14:45

9/9 15:11 14:55 14:44 14:51

9/10 15:22 14:57 14:47 15:22

9/11 15:15 15:02 14:43 14:49

9/12 15:37 15:14 14:49 14:53

9/13 15:41 15:23 14:58 14:51

Chicago – Hong Kong September 21, 2004
Route Comparisons
Route Time Fuel Burn Psngrs

Polar 3 14:08 348.2 347+

Polar 4 14:21 352.3 347+

Polar 2 14:31 353.4 344

Polar 1 14:39 355.3 331

RFE (A218) 15:22 355.3 182

NOPAC (R220) 15:55 355.3 52

 Polar Operations Specifications- B055

Authorization Required For Operations North of 78

Degrees North Latitude

Authorizes Aircraft Types

Polar Diversion Airports

Polar Operations Recovery Plan

Communications Capability Throughout the Region

Fuel Freeze Strategy and Monitoring Requirements

 Polar Operations Specifications- B055-
Continued
MEL considerations for Polar Operations

Pilot/Dispatcher Training issues/Long-range crew

requirements

Dispatch and Crew Considerations During Solar Flare

Activity

Minimum of two cold weather exposure suits

Expanded medical kit with AED

Validation Requirements for Polar Operations

Factors Influencing Route Selection
Flight time - Winds on day of operation will affect
route selection

Payload demand – What routing can accommodate

the desired payload

Over flight charges – Different routings may require

lower over flight costs

ETOPS – Are suitable alternates available on the

desired route?
Slot allocation – Anchorage slot allocation program

Significant weather considerations on desired route

Factors Influencing Route Selection (continued

Aircraft equipment, MEL, communications capability

Specific aircraft fuel performance

Solar radiation

Cold Fuel

HF Propagation

Crew Duty limitations

 Aircraft Performance Factors
Each aircraft has a specific fuel correction factor can
have a significant affect on payload capability on ultra
long range routes such as Chicago to Hong Kong, usually
due to fuel load limititations.

Chicago to Hong Kong example September 10, 2004

B747-400

Aircraft 8106 Specific Fuel Range adjustment +0.0 percent

347 passengers (full) plus 2,500 pounds of cargo

Aircraft 8181 Specific Fuel Range adjustment +1.1 percent

338 passengers plus zero additional cargo

Aircraft 8171 Specific Fuel Range adjustment +2.8 percent

292 passengers plus zero addition cargo
Operational Concerns
• Cold Fuel
• Communications
• Emergency Landing Sites
• Search and Rescue
• Recovery Plan
• Solar Radiation
Operational Concerns

• Cold Fuel
• Communications
• Emergency Landing Sites
• Search and Rescue
• Recovery Plan
 Boeing’s Limit

• “Inflight tank fuel temperature must be

maintained at least 3 degrees C above the
freeze point of the fuel being used.”
• United uses 3 degrees C above the
specification limit.
• OK for domestic operations, but not for
global operations.
 Operational Limits

•Based on warmest freeze point allowed by

specification.
•Actual freeze point typically much lower.
 Can We Get Jet A-1 vs. Jet A?

• ORD and JFK Fuel Systems Can Only Supply One Type
of Fuel

• ORD and JFK Supplies Jet A Fuel

• Fuel Trucks Are Not Allowed on the Ramp to Bring in

Alternate Fuels (Jet A-1).

• While Jet A-1 has a lower freeze point, it’s density is less,
yielding less range.
 NEW TECHNOLOGY
• Freeze / Density Sensors Have Been Installed in the
Distribution System At ORD

• The Fuel Is Sampled Every 30 Minutes and the Actual

Freeze Point Is Recorded

• The Warmest Recorded Freeze Point Becomes the

“Expected Freeze Temperature”

• This Value Is Listed in the “Remarks” Section of the Flight

Plan Forecast (Pilot’s copy)

• Fuel Freeze Prediction Program (FFPP)

FPF Remarks

- 3 0 C = - 41 Limit
Actual Datalink Message
Actual Datalink Message

Excellent Correlation
Between In ground System
and Lab Results

Pre-Departure FPF Remarks

 Cold Fuel
• Avoid The Extremely Cold Air If Possible
(SAT’s of -650 C or colder)
• The “Remarks” section of the FPF will
include:
• Expected fuel freeze value.
• Forecast areas of SATs of –65C or less.
• Polar Temperature Chart Included with
Paperwork
• TAT/SAT Conversion Table
• Wind Matrix Table With SAT (flightplan)
Polar Temp Chart
EXAMPLE OF CRITICAL COLD TEMP FORECAST
TAILORED FOR UAL POLAR FLIGHTS : KORD - ZBAA
KORD - VHHH
 What If The Fuel Temp
Approaches the Limit In Flight?
What To Do?
 In Summary

• Monitor Freeze Point In The Fuel Farm

• Measure Plane-side Freeze Point
• (Only If Routed Through –650C or Colder
Air)
• Route Around Cold Air If Possible
• Take Corrective Action Early If Limit
Approached
Operational Concerns

• Fuel Freeze Issues

• Communications
With ATC
With Company

• Emergency Landing Sites

• Search and Rescue
• Recovery Plan
• Solar Radiation
 HF Communications

• Must Keep a Link With ATC

GP Operators
• Must Keep a Link With Company
LDOC Operators
 ATC Communications

• Generally Good Throughout Polar Region

• Good Along Airways In Russia
• CPDLC with Magadan ACC is very good
• Lack of continuous CPDLC from US,Canada, and
through Russia needs to be addressed.
• Polar data link gap above 82 North latitude
requires HF. Improvements must be considered.
 ATC Comm
Arctic Radio HF

Arctic Radio VHF

Edmonton Ctr

Winnipeg

Minneapolis Ctr

Chicago Ctr
North Pole

Russia 4
3
2
1

Mongolia Korea

China
Hong Kong
 HF Communications

Magadan ACC
Murmansk ACC HF
CPDLC/ADS

4
VHF Communications
3
2
1 Normal VHF
Communications

Ulaanbaatar Control
 Russia

Mongolia CPDLC/ADS Capable

POLHO

China
 Company Communications

• Primary Company Communications Is

Via ACARS Data Link
• SATCOM Is Available up to 82o N on
Both Sides of the North Pole
 So…….
• Because SATCOM Will Not Be Available
Above 82N
• An LDOC Facility Must Be Used to
Maintain Company Communications
 LDOC Communications

• Dispatch Will Pre-coordinate HF Freqs with

San Francisco ARINC (new Barrow site),
Stockholm, and Cedar Rapids Radio
• The Recommended Freq’s Will Be Sent via
ACARS
• If You Lose Contact, Try Another Freq Or A
Different LDOC
Operational Concerns
• Fuel Freeze Issues
• Communications
• Emergency Landing Sites
• Search and Rescue
• Recovery Plan
• Solar Radiation
 Emergency Airports
• May NOT have Medical Facilities

• May be UNABLE to Remove Passengers

from Plane

• May NOT have Lodging, Food, Water

• May NOT have Protection from the Elements

• May be UNABLE to Service the Aircraft

 ENROUTE AIRPORTS
Blue: Published in AIP
Bodo Red: Not published
Longyearbyen ___: Surveyed Fairbanks
Anchorage
Barrow
Oulu Rovaniemi
King Salmon
Murmansk
St. Petersburg Nome
Cold Bay
Arkhangelsk
Mis Shmindta
Moscow
Pevek
Amderma
Nizhniy Novgorod Syktyvkar Usinsk
Anadyr
Ukhta Salehard
Kazan Norilsk Tiksi
Samara Novyj Urengoj Khatanga
Igarka
Ufa Kogalym Shemya Is.
Ekaterinburg Surgut Raduzhnyi Polyarnyj
Nizhnevartovsk Magadan
Yakutsk
Petropavlovsk-kamchatsky
Mirny
Novosibirsk
Barnaul Krasnojarsk Neryungri
Abakan Bratsk

Irkutsk Yuzhno-sakhalinsk
Chita Blagoveschensk
Ulan-ude
Khabarovsk Existing tracks
Ulaanbaatar Choibalsan
Sapporo Proposed tracks
 747- 400 Diversion to an
Emergency Airport

ONLY For Serious Threat to Continued Safe Flight

Fire That is Unknown or Uncontrollable
Airframe Structural Damage
Continued Safe Flight Impossible
 747-400 Diversion to an
Emergency Airport

NOT For:
Medical Emergency
Engine Failure
 777 Diversions

NOT For:
Medical Emergency

In Flight Shut down (IFSD)

Limited number of suitable
en-route alternates in the polar
region that must be considered
Polar Route Emergency Airport
Coverage

Above 80 Degrees North

Emergency Airports are Within 2 Hours

Below 80 Degrees North

Emergency Airports are Within 1 Hour
Emergency Airports Within 2 Hours
Longyear Norway

Thule

North Pole Chicago

Polar 2
HKG
Polar 3

Tiksi, Siberia

Barrow
 RUSSIA

Polar 1

Norilsk
Polar 2

Polar 3
Irkutsk

Tiksi

Mirny

Emergency Airports within 1 Hour

 Enroute Alternates (ETOPS)
Canada: Iqaluit (CYFB) 8600FT
Yellowknife (CYZF)7500FT
Churchill (CYYQ) 9200FT
Alaska: Fairbanks (KFAI) 11050FT
Barrow (KBRW) 6500FT
Greenland : Thule (BGTL) 9997FT
Norway: Longyear (ENSB) 7221FT
Russia: Norilsk (UOOO) 10925FT
Yakutsk (UEEE 10827FT
Magadan (UHMM) 11325FT
Khabarovsk (UHHH) 12467FT
 OPBWX ETOPS and Emergency Station Outlook
DATE: 22-Jan-02
Issued By: WATT
Low est
Station Forecast ETOPS Emergency Standard WX Wx Viable
M in. T e m p
18z-00z Station Station Minimums for Use
(C)

YWG(Winnipeg) CYWG Y 400ft/1mi YES 2

YYQ(Churchill) CYYQ Y 600ft/1.5mi YES -21
YZF(Yellowknife) CYZF Y 600ft/1.5mi YES -18
YFB(Iqaluit) CYFB Y 600ft/1.75mi YES -17
THU(Thule) BGTL Y 600ft/1.5mi YES -22
LYR(Svalbard) ENSB Y 900ft/2.25mi YES -9
DYR(Anadyr) UHMA Y 800ft/2mi YES* -34
Low est
Station Forecast ETOPS Emergency Standard WX Wx Viable
M in. T e m p
00z-06z Station Station Minimums for Use
(C)

LYR(Svalbard) ENSB Y 900ft/2.25mi YES -11

DYR(Anadyr) UHMA Y 800ft/2mi YES* -34
MMK(Murmansk) ULMM Y 600ft/1.5mi YES -38
NSK(Norilsk) UOOO Y 600ft/1.5mi NO* -32
HTG(Khatanga) UOHH Y 800ft/2mi NO -33
IKS(Tiksi) UEST Y 800ft/2.25mi NO* -35
BTK(Bratsk) UIBB Y 600ft/1.75mi YES* -10
IKT(Irkutsk) UIII Y 400ft/1.25mi NO -12
ULN(Ulaanbatar) ZMUB Y 800ft/2mi YES -29
YKS(Yakutsk) UEEE Y 600ft/1.5mi NO -40
NER(Neryungri) UELL Y 800ft/2mi YES -36
GDX(Magadan) UHMM Y 600ft/1.5mi NO -19
PKC(Petropavlovsk) UHPP Y 600ft/1.5mi YES -14
UUS(Sakhalinsk) UHSS Y 600ft/1.5mi YES -20
KHV(Khabarovsk) UHHH Y 400ft/1mi. YES -18
NOTE: * denotes a disagreement between
OPBWX and government TAF
 Polar Safety Kits
• Polar Safety Kit Will Be Onboard all Polar
Flights

• Each Kit Contains Two Suits

• The Captain Will Determine Who Will Have

Access To The Kits

• Their Purpose Is To Allow Someone To

Deplane For Coordination Of Services, etc.
Operational Concerns
• Fuel Freeze Issues
• Communications
• Emergency Landing Sites
• Search and Rescue
• Recovery Plan
• Solar Radiation
POLAR CAP Search & Rescue

Norway
SAR
Greenland SAR

North Pole
Canadian SAR

Chicago
Russian SAR

USCG Juneau
&
HKG 11 AF RCC Anchorage
 Areas of CAPABILITY
•SAR Agreements Effectively Extend U.S. Actual
Responsibility
 POLAR CAP Search & Rescue

Norway
SAR
Greenland SAR

Russian SAR
North Pole
Canadian SAR

Chicago

Extended
U.S. Area USCG Juneau
&
HKG 11 AF RCC Anchorage
Operational Concerns
• Fuel Freeze Issues
• Communications
• Emergency Landing Sites
• Search and Rescue
• Recovery Plan
• Solar Radiation
 DIVERSION & RECOVERY PLAN

For diversions to offline airports

A: Provide for Passengers and Crew

B: Recover Aircraft
 Passenger Recovery Plan

• Plan Immediate Relief (Shelter And Food)

• Determine If Other Carriers Service the
Airport
• Fly A UAL Charter To Pick Up Passengers
• Coordinate US Military Assistance If
Needed
Operational Concerns

• Fuel Freeze Issues

• Communications
• Emergency Landing Sites
• Search and Rescue
• Recovery Plan
• Solar Radiation
 Solar Activity

Review Space Weather Now Website

Review NOAA Space Weather Scales

Do Not Plan A Polar Operation If An S4

Solar Storm is Active or Expected

S3 Storm Will Permit Polar Operations

At Flight Level 280 or FL310
 OPBWX Significant Weather Report
SOLAR ACTIVITY
Issued by: WATT Time: 1130Z
Date: 22-Jan-02
Status: WARNING
Radio Effects: R2
Solar Radiation: S3
Navigation Effects: G2

Use the following scale to determine effects from Solar Activity.

(R1)Minor Impact on HF (S1)No Effects (G1) No Effects
(R2)Small HF Effects (S2)No Effects (G2)Possible Errors
(R3)Degraded HF (S3)Modify Flight Plan (G3)Positions Errors Likely
(R4)HF Blackouts (S4)No Polar Flying (G4)Increased Errors
(R5)Complete HF Blackout (S5)No Polar Flying (G5)Major Positions Errors

Note: For R2, R3, R4, or R5, consider POLAR 4 for routing.

Additional Comments:
SOLAR ACTIVITY WILL BE ACTIVE. THE GEOMAGNITEC FIELD IS ALSO EXPECTED TO BE
ACTIVE FOR THE NEXT TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS.

VOLCANIC ASH ADVISORIES

KARYMSKY VOLCANO ERUPTED AT 22/0335Z. ASH EMISSION UP TO FL500, MVNG TO THE
NORTH AT 25-30KTS. AIRCRAFT TRAVELING POLAR 4 TRACK SHOULD BE ALERT TO ASH AT
HIGH ALTITUDES. WIND MODELS SHOW MORE WESTERLY WINDS AT 75 DEGREES NORTH
WITH ASH TRAVELING NO FUR

TROPICAL WEATHER ADVISORIES

NONE
Solar Activity Affecting Polar Flights
10/26/00: Lost of HF prior to 75N, re- route
off Polar route with Tokyo fuel stop.

11/10/00: Due to poor HF, ORD to HKG flown

non-polar at 47 minute penalty

11/25/00: Polar flight re-route at 75N due to

Solar Radiation, Tokyo fuel stop 19:30 block

3/30/01-4/21/01
25 flights operated on less than optimum polar
routes due to HF disturbances resulting in time
penalties ranging from 6 to 48 minutes
 ROUTE FLEXIBILITY
DAILY ROUTE SELECTION IS BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:

Forecast enroute winds

HF radio propagation
Suitable enroute airports (777)
Solar radiation issues
Approved Entry points
 Slot Allocation Factors
• Current Slots limits:

• Polar slots are 20 to 25 minutes between flights.

• Russia Far East Routes are 20 minutes

• Slot Delays or inability to obtain the desired

flight level could result in less than optimum
operation.
 Russian Route Restrictions Winter 2004
Polar 1 - H24.
Polar 2 – H24.

Polar 3 - Restricted to crossing RAMEL between 1840 and 1110Z

(Various ACCs not 24 HR UEBB, UEVV )

Polar 4 – Restricted to crossing ORVIT between 2040 and 1125Z

(Various ACCs not 24HR UESO, UESU, UEBB, UEMH)

Polar 4 closed for Saturday departures from North America due to

same ACCs closed on Sunday (in Russia).

Polar 4 closed for Sunday departures from Asia to North America

due to ACCs closed.
 China Entry/Exit Limitations

There are currently seven “possible” entry points into China for
flights from North America:

Lamen, Agavo, Arguk, Simli, Telok, Polho, Morit

Current CAAC policy approved a single entry/exit for flights

into/out or over China.

Qualified polar flights receive approval for three entry/exit fixes

into China: Polho, Simli, Arguk
 China Entry/Exit Limitations

Initially UAL835 Chicago to Shanghai was approved for a single

entry via Lamen.

Routing via Lamen could affect flight time by over one hour
to one hour 30 minutes longer than polar routings.

Revenue payload would be held off due to aircraft

capability.

On certain days, Lamen would be the preferred entry point

providing the most cost efficient routing and payload, due
to variability in wind conditions.
 China Entry/Exit Limitations

Chicago to Shanghai Flight Time Comparisons

Random Check in November 2004

Dte Polho Simli Arguk Lamen

11/413:37 14:16 15:07 14:31

11/614:14 14:34 14:45 14:17

11/17 13:27 13:53 14:30 14:48

11/20 14:04 13:58 13:57 13:55

ANCHORAGE TRACK ADVISORY November 26, 2003

FLIGHTS FOR TRACK P3 CROSSING FIX RAMEL

COA99 1745 2359 KEWR VHHH 1745 2359 340 P3

CCA982 2130 0400 KJFK ZBAA 2130 0400 340 P3
************************************************************

FLIGHTS FOR TRACK P4 CROSSING FIX ORVIT

UAL801 1648 2314 KJFK RJAA 1648 2314 340 P4

UAL851 1815 0015 KORD ZBAA 1824 0015 340 P4
UAL895 1850 0045 KORD VHHK 1850 0045 340 P4
UAL881 1827 0018 KORD RJAA 1829 0018 380 P4
UAL883 1901 0048 KORD RJAA 1858 0048 380 P4
************************************************************
ANCHORAGE TRACK ADVISORY November 26, 2004

FLIGHTS FOR TRACK P3 CROSSING FIX RAMEL

ACA15 1515 2050 CYYZ VHHH 1515 2050 340 P3

UAL851 1820 0020 KORD ZBAA 1820 0020 340 P3
UAL835 1900 0055 KORD ZSPD 1900 0055 340 P3
CPA831 2005 0210 KJFK VHHH 2005 0210 340 P3
COA99 2035 0240 KEWR VHHH 2035 0240 340 P3
CCA982 2100 0305 KJFK ZBAA 2100 0305 340 P3
************************************************************

FLIGHTS FOR TRACK P4 CROSSING FIX ORVIT

COA9 1630 2250 KEWR RJAA 1630 2250 340 P4

UAL801 1650 2325 KJFK RJAA 1650 2325 340 P4
UAL877 1820 0020 KORD RJBB 1820 0020 340 P4
UAL895 1850 0045 KORD VHHK 1850 0045 340 P4
UAL881 1830 0025 KORD RJAA 1830 0025 380 P4
UAL883 1930 0130 KORD RJAA 1930 0130 380 P4
************************************************************
 China Entry/Exit Limitations

UAL Exit Approvals by Flight:

UAL836 PVG-ORD: Lamen

UAL850 PEK-ORD: Polho Simli Arguk
UAL896 HKG-ORD: Polho Simli Arguk

UAL858 PVG-SFO: Lamen

UAL862 HKG-SFO: Lamen
UAL888 PEK-SFO: Arguk
 Flight Level Stratum in Polar Region and Asia

Altitude Table - RVSM Transition to Metric Altitudes

From Anchorage To Magadan To China

RVSM Altitude Metric Altitude Metric

FL300 9600M (FL315) 9600M (FL315)

FL320 9600M (FL315) 9600M (FL315)

FL340 10600M (FL348) 10800M (FL354)

FL380 11600M (FL381) 11600M (FL394)

 ATM ISSUES (Continued)

Anchorage Center has limited application of CPDLC.

ADS is currently not functional (Ocean 21 is coming !)

Polar 1 requires coordination with Reykjavik and Edmonton. Traffic

using Polar 1 is on the increase.

Magadan ACC in Russia is fully functional with CPDLC/ADS

Polar routes 3 and 4 are not H24

RVSM is not available through Russia, Mongolia, and China

Metric flight levels inhibit efficiency, and require additional flight level
changes because of differences between Russia/Mongolia and China

Significant arrival delays due to inefficient use of airspace at

destinations, Example Hong Kong STAR.
 Air Traffic Management Issues
We Lack end to end efficiencies in ATM

Slot Allocation restrictions:

20 to 25 minutes slot separation
Cross into Russia with 10 or 15 minutes separation
U.S. departure airports (Chicago, New York) do not
adhere to wheels up times

Coordination between Edmonton and Anchorage is challenged by

aircoms and further coordination required with Russia.

CPDLC and ADS is not available at Edmonton Center (Nav

Canada). This can affect route selection when HF propagation is
a problem, and also affect crossing traffic and separation issues.
 Conclusions – What do we need?
FAA Implementation of Ocean 21 at Anchorage Center

Nav Canada implementation of CPDLC/ADS and ADS-B

Improve ATM coordination - FAA, Nav Canada, Iceland, and Russia

Russia and China need to embrace RVSM

24 HR route availability through Russian Airspace

Increased entry/exit approvals with China

Metric Flight levels standardization - ICAO recommendations.

Reduce separation standards where possible, and eliminate slot

allocation programs, if possible.

RNP/RNAV at airports for SIDs and STARS to increase efficiencies.

 SUMMARY

Polar Operations Must Consider the Following Challenges

• AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE, RANGE LIMITS

• COLD FUEL ISSUES
• SOLAR RADIATION
• ROUTE FLEXIBILITY
• COMMUNICATION LIMITATIONS ENROUTE
• TWIN ENGINE (ETOPS) OPERATIONS
• AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES
 In Conclusion:

Operations are on the increase

Controlling operating costs are essential

Small improvements bring large benefits

Cooperation and collaboration will be essential to

everyone’s success.
THANK YOU