HF radio required for Atlantic Crossing in light twin?

[digits_]

Hi all,

I'm reading up on crossing the Atlantic and fly from Canada to the UK.

Lots of info online, and most (unofficial) sources claim that you need an HF radio if you fly from Goose Bay to Greenland. If you go via Iqaluit, you don't need it.

This caused me to try and find some official info, which seems surprisingly hard.

I found this file: https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/file ... _e_nat.pdf

The last paragraph states (my emphasis):

Several attempts to establish communication may be necessary
upon entry into the fringe area of reception. Aircraft should
maintain SELCAL watch on HF when in fringe areas of VHF
coverage. Upon exiting, communication should be re-established
on HF channels, preferably before flying beyond normal VHF
coverage. Because VHF coverage is limited, aircraft must be
equipped with an approved and serviceable HF radio capable
of two-way radio communication with ATS from any point along
the route during flight (see CAR 602.39).
NOTE:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, aircraft may proceed across the
Atlantic without HF radio subject to the following restrictions:
a) bel ow FL 195, routing Iqaluit (Frobay) – Sondre Stromfjord
– Keflavík; and
b) FL 250 or above, routing Goose VOR – Prins Christian Sund
(or Narsarsuaq) – Keflavík. The aircraft is not allowed to
operate in the NAT HLA unless MNPS authority is held.

So the bold part basically confirms the online info: Iqaluit - Stromfjord is fine, Goose Bay - Greenland, not really, unless you are above FL250.

Then I tried to track down where those restrictions were coming from. The underlined part kindly referred to CAR 602.39, which states (my emphasis):

Transoceanic Flight
602.39 No pilot-in-command of a single-engined aircraft, or of a multi-engined aircraft that would be unable to maintain flight in the event of the failure of any engine, shall commence a flight that will leave Canadian Domestic Airspace and enter airspace over the high seas unless

(a) the pilot-in-command holds a pilot licence endorsed with an instrument rating;

(b) the aircraft is equipped with

(i) the equipment referred to in section 605.18,

(ii) a high frequency radio capable of transmitting and receiving on a minimum of two appropriate international air-ground general purpose frequencies, and

(iii) hypothermia protection for each person on board; and

(c) the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to meet the requirements of section 602.88 and, in addition, carries contingency fuel equal to at least 10 per cent of the fuel required pursuant to section 602.88 to complete the flight to the aerodrome of destination.

Which leads me to believe that a light twin that is capable of maintaining altitude on one engine does not need an HF radio to crass Atlantic Airspace.

Is that correct? Has anyone done this? Thoughts?

[ant_321]

I had a quick look and couldn’t find anything but I do know someone who was flying a turbo prop from Greenland to goose and was planning on going at 250 wrong way. It was unavailable so he requested 240 and that wasn’t allowed because they didn’t have HF. He decided to go at 260 instead of turning around in an airplane with a max altitude of 250. TC found out and he got a slap on the wrist for it.

[digits_]

I had a quick look and couldn’t find anything but I do know someone who was flying a turbo prop from Greenland to goose and was planning on going at 250 wrong way. It was unavailable so he requested 240 and that wasn’t allowed because they didn’t have HF. He decided to go at 260 instead of turning around in an airplane with a max altitude of 250. TC found out and he got a slap on the wrist for it.

Thanks for sharing. Was that in a Single or a Twin?

At those altitudes he was probably in some other controlled airspace requiring it, although I'm not completely sure.

[co-joe]

That seems so dated to me. A sat phone should meet the requirement shouldn't it? HF reception is spotty at the best of times.

[ant_321]

I had a quick look and couldn’t find anything but I do know someone who was flying a turbo prop from Greenland to goose and was planning on going at 250 wrong way. It was unavailable so he requested 240 and that wasn’t allowed because they didn’t have HF. He decided to go at 260 instead of turning around in an airplane with a max altitude of 250. TC found out and he got a slap on the wrist for it.

Thanks for sharing. Was that in a Single or a Twin?

At those altitudes he was probably in some other controlled airspace requiring it, although I'm not completely sure.

It was a twin. I had a quick look in the Jepp manuals as well and didn’t see anything. (Emphasis on the quick part)

[photofly]

From the North Atlantic Operations and Airspace manual (ICAO NAT Doc 007)

Flight Planning to Operate Without Using HF Communications
4.2.12 Aircraft with only functioning VHF communications equipment should plan their route
according to the information contained in the appropriate State AIPs and ensure that they remain within VHF
coverage of appropriate ground stations throughout the flight. VHF coverage charts are shown in Attachment
4. Some may permit the use of SATVOICE to substitute for or supplement HF communications. However,
it must also be recognised that the Safety Regulator of the operator may impose its own operational
limitations on SATVOICE usage. Any operator intending to fly through the NAT HLA without fully
functional HF communications or wishing to use an alternative medium should ensure that it will meet the
requirements of its State of Registry and those of all the relevant ATS providers throughout the proposed
route

I wanted to fly BGSF CYVP direct, and the supervisor at Gander told me by phone when I asked that they required HF, and if I didn't have it, they would issue an infraction notice to TC. But that was a piston single.

[digits_]

From the North Atlantic Operations and Airspace manual (ICAO NAT Doc 007)

Flight Planning to Operate Without Using HF Communications
4.2.12 Aircraft with only functioning VHF communications equipment should plan their route
according to the information contained in the appropriate State AIPs and ensure that they remain within VHF
coverage of appropriate ground stations throughout the flight. VHF coverage charts are shown in Attachment
4. Some may permit the use of SATVOICE to substitute for or supplement HF communications. However,
it must also be recognised that the Safety Regulator of the operator may impose its own operational
limitations on SATVOICE usage. Any operator intending to fly through the NAT HLA without fully
functional HF communications or wishing to use an alternative medium should ensure that it will meet the
requirements of its State of Registry and those of all the relevant ATS providers throughout the proposed
route

I wanted to fly BGSF CYVP direct, and the supervisor at Gander told me by phone when I asked that they required HF, and if I didn't have it, they would issue an infraction notice to TC. But that was a piston single.

So just to clarify, the infraction would be based on the Transport Canada rules? Greenland didn't care, right? (Couldn't find any rules or restrictions in Greenland)

[photofly]

From the North Atlantic Operations and Airspace manual (ICAO NAT Doc 007)

Flight Planning to Operate Without Using HF Communications
4.2.12 Aircraft with only functioning VHF communications equipment should plan their route
according to the information contained in the appropriate State AIPs and ensure that they remain within VHF
coverage of appropriate ground stations throughout the flight. VHF coverage charts are shown in Attachment
4. Some may permit the use of SATVOICE to substitute for or supplement HF communications. However,
it must also be recognised that the Safety Regulator of the operator may impose its own operational
limitations on SATVOICE usage. Any operator intending to fly through the NAT HLA without fully
functional HF communications or wishing to use an alternative medium should ensure that it will meet the
requirements of its State of Registry and those of all the relevant ATS providers throughout the proposed
route

I wanted to fly BGSF CYVP direct, and the supervisor at Gander told me by phone when I asked that they required HF, and if I didn't have it, they would issue an infraction notice to TC. But that was a piston single.

So just to clarify, the infraction would be based on the Transport Canada rules? Greenland didn't care, right? (Couldn't find any rules or restrictions in Greenland)

The feeling I got was that you needed HF in oceanic airspace, full stop - I don't recall the guy caring how many engines I had or didn't have. I didn't have to research the Greenland AIP.

You can always give them a call.

I also remember from Nuuk to CYFB having to do some weird dogleg via 65N5730W then AVPUT or something.

[photofly]

AIP Greenland says this:

3. Equipment to be Carried by All Types of Flight
3.1 Radio and navigation equipment
a. All aircraft shall be provided with radio communication equipment capable of conducting two-way communication at any time
during the flight with at least one aeronautical station and with
such other aeronautical stations and on such frequencies as
may be prescribed in this AIP.
b. The radio communication equipment shall consist of at least one
VHF and one long range communication facility, which can be
an HF transceiver or a SAT-COM if agreed with ATC.
Note 1: The mentioned requirements (items a. and b.) are considered
fulfilled if the ability to conduct two-way communication is established
during radio propagation conditions which are normal for the route.
Note 2: For transiting flights the HF equipment is not required if full
VHF coverage is available for the leg(s) flown.

[Meatservo]

Christ. HF is so last week, man. I've done a few transatlantic ferry-flights, and on every single one, we made a token effort to use the HF, consisting of saying "unreadable, please say again" for about five minutes until we picked up Reykjavik on the VHF. I wish they would just drop the WW2 crap and just universally embrace satellite technology already.

[ant_321]

Christ. HF is so last week, man. I've done a few transatlantic ferry-flights, and on every single one, we made a token effort to use the HF, consisting of saying "unreadable, please say again" for about five minutes until we picked up Reykjavik on the VHF. I wish they would just drop the WW2 crap and just universally embrace satellite technology already.

I agree they should move on. I know someone who was a HF radio operator in Gander about 45 years ago. He pushed hard to get a controller job only because he thought HF radio would be obsolete by 1985 at the latest. With that said, I find it strange that you’ve never got them to work. I use HF regularly and have never had a problem.

[Meatservo]

I agree they should move on. I know someone who was a HF radio operator in Gander about 45 years ago. He pushed hard to get a controller job only because he thought HF radio would be obsolete by 1985 at the latest. With that said, I find it strange that you’ve never got them to work. I use HF regularly and have never had a problem.

It could be that if I had more experience with HF, I would have had a better experience. I only ever tried it a handful of times, with planes that only had the equipment because it was a vestige of some former life. Not equipment that was used regularly.