the global voice of pilots - home - ifalpa dec 2005.pdf · typhoon management to flight time...

Is that it for the PEC? Athens Update

December 2005

I F A L P A. . . . .The Global Voice of Pilots news

How low can you go...the use of MDA as DH

Asia-Pac Regional Conference Report


December 2005

The 22nd and possibly last IFALPA Pan EuropeanConference took place in Athens in mid November.The meeting was hosted by HALPA and chaired byIFALPA RVP EUR (Membership), Capt. SimonEspensen of Danish ALPA. The reason this confer-ence could be the last to be held is that followingthe restructuring of IFALPA the European CockpitAssociation (ECA) will become the European repre-sentative body of the Federation. The restructuringof not only IFALPA but also the ECA has been pro-gressing well, a point made by IFALPA PresidentCapt. Dennis Dolan in his opening remarks. Therewill be a further Pan European meeting during theFederation’s Annual Conference in Istanbul in Aprilto tie up any remaining ‘loose ends’ and “if anoth-er PEC meeting is required beyond that then we willhave it” explained Capt. Dolan. Beyond that point,however, the European entity of the Federation willbe the ECA. As a result, delegates were remindedto put the dates for the next ECA Conference, dueto be held in Brussels June 26-28 2006, in theirdiaries. In his remarks Captain Dolan stressed thatthe respective restructurings and integration of theECA has brought the two organisations into a muchcloser working relationship, which will result “in thework of the European region becoming very effec-tive”.

European Regional Fund’s futuresecured…IFALPA Regional Officer Carole Couchman present-ed a statement of the European Regional Fundwhich revealed how the 2005 income had beenachieved. It was clear from her presentation that in2005 a considerable surplus would be generated,and that therefore the GB£1 per member levyagreed at the June meeting would not be requiredfor 2006. Naturally, collection of this levy wouldcease immediately and Member Associations thathave already paid the levy as part of their 2006subscription will have this sum refunded. TheConference went on to discuss the future of thefund. It was agreed that the balance of the fund willbe transferred to ECA once the restructuring hasbeen fully implemented.

…as is the PEC Benevolent Fund’sThe decision taken by the Conference regardingthe PEC Benevolent Fund was that, like theEuropean Regional Fund, the reasons for its exis-tence would still be valid after the new Europeanstructure is in place. Therefore, it too should betransferred to ECA but retained separately from theRegional Fund. The detail of how this will be

Pan – European Conferencewraps it up in Athens


December 2005

The International Federation of Air LinePilots’ Associations has over 30 years expe-rience of providing high quality Loss of Licenceinsurance to the world’s piloting profession. Asa result of working directly with pilots and oneof the leading Insurance companies in theLoss of Licence field, IFALPA has developedand Sponsors one of the most comprehensiveand flexible Loss of Licence Insurance Plans onthe market!

FLEXIBILITY, AFFORDABILITY, SECURITY

The IFALPA Sponsored Loss of LicenceInsurance Plan can be tailored to suit yourneeds whatever stage of your career you areat. Choose from a range of currencies, yourSum Insured and which risks you wish to becovered for, including Life Cover.

AND because IFALPA takes no profit from thescheme our premiums have been rated tomaximise affordability yet maintain the secu-rity to provide you with peace of mind that ifyour health lets you down - IFALPASponsored Loss of Licence Insurance WON’T!

Find out more, CALL Global Flying Insurance Services

Tel +44 207 480 1260 or on the web www.pilotslossoflicence.com

achieved will be worked out by IFALPA and ECA inthe coming months.

Support for the restructure solidDuring the joint session of the PEC and ECA, dele-gates heard from the IFALPA President’s WorkingGroup on the wider implications of the Federation’srestructuring. Central to this presentation weredetails of the election process for the newExecutive Vice President (Europe).

At the conclusion of the presentations, the ECAboard tabled a motion, adopted unanimously, that“The Conferences support the work done in prepa-ration for ECA becoming the formal regional bodyof IFALPA and endorses the future direction as pre-sented to these Conferences”. A full report of thePan-European Conference complete with Industrialupdates from around the region can be found onthe IFALPA website.


December 2005

Speaking at the opening of the 2005 Asia PacificRegional Conference held in Kuala Lumpur onNovember 30, Malaysian Deputy Minister ofTransport, YBM Tengku Dato' Seri Azlan Ibni SultanAbu Bakar told delegates that airlines and authori-ties ignore pilot input at their peril, noting that the“the value of pilot knowledge and experience inmatters of aviation safety cannot be overestimat-ed”. The Minister went on to say that in “today’sfast developing industry this role has become evenmore important in balancing the competing pres-sures of operational demands, passenger needsand above all, safety”. Following the DeputyMinister’s speech the remainder of the first day,which was chaired by MAPA’s Capt MohammedRafeedy, was taken up with an informative seriesof presentations on a diverse range of topics fromtyphoon management to flight time limitations andpilot fatigue.

Marathon session for RegionalMeetingIt is a cliché to say that the agenda for the second

day of the Conference was packed but the volumeof work covered was demonstrated by the fact thatthe afternoon session did not reach a conclusionuntil after 7 o’clock in the evening. Indeed a num-ber of discussions continued long into the night ata number of KL restaurants. During the course of

the day, chaired byIFALPA RVP AsiaEast, Capt. SureshMenon, delegatesheard presenta-tions of their inter-im reports by theregion’s RVPs,updates on RVSMdevelopment and anumber of othertechnical issues.Included in thesepresentations wereconcerns abouttraffic separationin the UjungPandang FIR andthe development of

Minister hails pilots at Asia/PacificRegional Meeting

This year’s Asia Pacific RegionalConference was opened byMalaysian Deputy Minister ofTransport, YBM Tengku Dato'Seri Azlan Ibni Sultan AbuBakar

The consenus amongdelegates was thatMAPA had excelledthemselves in the

organisation of theConference.


December 2005

FANS in the Bay of Bengal.

Industrial situation fluidMoving on from the technical issues the meetingthen heard a series of Industrial Updates fromaround the Region. These updates revealed that anumber of established airlines, notably MAS andGaruda, had experienced a large number of resig-nations among their pilots who choose to relocateto growing and start-up airlines in the Middle Eastand India. The Meeting also heard that the longrunning ‘49er’ dispute between HKAOA and CathayPacific had been settled, with 32 pilots acceptingeither jobs with the airline or a cash settlement.Elsewhere flight time limitations remain a con-tentious issue with a number of airlines choosingto ignore existing agreements and conventions.The Korean delegation also offered an account ofthe strike at Asiana that concluded earlier thisyear, as well as the continuing industrial problemsat Korean Air Lines. Further south, Captain GaryParata reported that Air New Zealand and FreedomAir had pooled their A320 operations, but that aquestion still remains about a proposed ‘singlepool of pilots’ whose work rules will be governed bytwo sets of terms and conditions.

Restructuring the core of discussionIn the other three IFALPA regions much of the talkat the Conferences has centred on the restructur-ing of the Federation, and the Asia PacificConference was no different. The meeting heard apresentation on the implications of the restructur-

ing process from Carole Couchman and RickBrennan, both members of the President’sWorking Group, and specifically highlighted wasthe election process for the new board position ofExecutive Vice President (Asia Pacific). The flexibil-ity of the new structure and its ability to adapt tolocal needs was demonstrated by the debate thatfollowed the presentation. The decision taken bythe Conference was that because of the region’slarge geographical area and diverse culture itwould retain the existing RVP structure while theEVP would be thought of as an additional resourceat least for the time being. Delegates were alsoreassured that the restructuring would not affectthe resources provided by the Federation and that,on the contrary, the level of support from Chertseywould remain as high as it is today.

Last day NegotiationsThe final day of the Conference was occupied by anIndustrial Seminar led by Rick Brennan. The inter-est generated by the Seminar was again demon-strated by the event running well past its intendedfinish time thanks to the liveliness of the questionand answer session. With the conclusion of theseminar on the afternoon of 2 December it wasclear that the organising team at MAPA hadexcelled at arranging an excellent conference.Tentatively the Conference will move next year toAuckland, New Zealand. A full report of the regional meeting is available onthe IFALPA Intranet.


December 2005

AA Committee boasts 45 membersin Hong Kong

IFALPA’s second AccidentAnalysis Committee meeting ofthe year took place in Hong Kongfrom Tuesday the 22nd toThursday the 24th of November,under the Chairmanship ofCaptain Gavin McKellar. Themeeting was organised by theHong Kong Member AssociationHKALPA, whose President,Captain Dave Newbery, is also anactive member of the AACommittee. It was attended by 45members and observers from 23countries, including five repre-sentatives from IFALPA’s newMember Association, China ALPA.The Committee was pleased towelcome two new permanentobservers: Captain Bob Rugarberfrom Boeing, who succeededCaptain Gus Stearns, now retired, and MrGiuseppe Caldarelli from ATR. Also in attendancewas Mr Y P Tsang, Deputy Chief Inspector ofAccidents with the Hong Kong Civil AviationDepartment.

Tuninter ATR72 co-operation high-lightedThe meeting started with the reports on IFALPA’srepresentation at international safety meetingsand continued with the review of recent accidentsdeemed of particular interest to IFALPA consideringthe issues involved. There were several in-depthpresentations made on high profile accidents, andin particular the Tuninter ATR-72 crash whichoccurred near Sicily on 6 August. Captain KamelTemzini from the Tunisian Association explainedthe aftermath of the accident, stressing the out-standing help that had been provided to theTunisian pilots by the Italian Association ANPAC

from the moment the accident occurred, and espe-cially the personal involvement of Captain AndreaFlorio.. As a mark of recognition for Captain Florio’sactions, Captain Carlos Limon, IFALPA’s DeputyPresident on behalf of the Principal Officers, pre-sented him with the first Letter of Commendationfrom IFALPA. This presentation was followed by astanding ovation for Captain Florio.The Committee then went on addressing the rest ofthe agenda, including its Terms of Reference.Several new policy proposals were drafted for theIstanbul Conference. In the evening, theCommittee members were invited to a number ofsocial events, including a junk trip to Cheung Chaoisland where a traditional Chinese dinner wasserved.The next AA Committee meeting is scheduled to behosted by ANPAC and take place in Rome fromTuesday the 30th of May to Thursday the 1st ofJune 2006.

Arnaud du Bedat reports

IFALPA Deputy President, Capt. Carlos Limon (left), congratulatesCapt. Andrea Florio on his Letter of Commendation.


December 2005

How low can you go?The use of MDA as DH

By F/O Steve Rosli

Currently ICAO is debating whether the use of theMinimum Descent Altitude (MDA) as DecisionHeight (DH) should be allowed for operators usingthe Constant Descent Final Approach (CDFA) tech-nique on non-precision approaches. In order not topenalise the use of a safer approach technique, asopposed to the classic “dive and drive” styleapproaches, the proposal is to allow the MDA ofany non-precision approach to be treated as a DHwhen the CDFA technique is used. All well and goodbut there is a question of reduced obstacle clear-ance if this is adopted. If a go around is initiated atMDA following a CDFA the aircraft will continuedescent below MDA, thus reducing obstacle clear-ance from the approach design.

The concept of approach minimaAt present, PANS-OPS dictate different minima forprecision and non-precision approaches. In thecase of the former a decision altitude or height isdefined as the point at which the crew must initi-ate a missed approach if they cannot safely landthe aircraft. Since the decision to abort theapproach is taken at this point is must beassumed that the time taken in making the deci-sion to discontinue the approach and configuringthe aircraft for the go-around, as well as the actu-

al descending momentum of the aircraft itself, anaircraft will continue below this altitude or heightbefore a positive rate of climb is established (in aCategory D aircraft this loss of height is expectedto be 161ft). Therefore, the aircraft may begin itsmissed approach below the 2.5% climb gradientassumed by the approach design and thus sepa-ration from obstacles in the missed approachpath will be reduced.In a non-precision approach, however, the mini-mum is based on a Minimum Descent Altitude(MDA). The vital difference is that in this type ofapproach the procedure is to descend to the MDAand then continue inbound at this altitude untilvisual contact with the runway environment isestablished or the Missed Approach Point (MAP) isreached. Therefore, in the event of a missedapproach being initiated at the MAP the aircraftshould not descend any lower than MDA and willclimb away at or above the climb gradient expectedin the approach design.

Comparison of MDA and DH clear-ance provisionsThe basic DH for a Category I ILS approach is 200ftabove the runway threshold and the missedapproach design provides obstacle clearance cal-


December 2005

culated for the lowest point in a go-around. Thispath does not take into account any MinimumObstacle Clearance (MOC) in the missed approachpath; it is possible that the approach designer’s2.5% climb gradient will pass right through anobstacle in the missed approach path.Consequently, a given DH in itself provides no guar-antee of a margin of clearance (or indeed anyclearance at all) over an obstacle. MDA on theother hand, will provide a basic 246ft clearanceover any obstacle in the approach path, and subse-quently in the missed approach path. The differ-ence between those two philosophies is basedupon the accuracy of the approach aid and thesubsequent size of the area in which the aircraftmight arrive at its minimum altitude.

Influence of the location of thecontrolling obstacleNot surprisingly, the most critical obstacle interms of both height and location is referred to asthe controlling obstacle. This is the obstacle from

which the Obstacle Clearance Altitude (OCA) isderived. The OCA is the primary factor used indetermining the minimums that will eventuallyfind their way onto a pilot’s approach charts. Eachtype of approach has its corresponding OCA. Inrelatively flat terrain, the actual minimum for anapproach will most likely correspond to the mini-mum required OCA, since the main obstacle is theground itself. If there are any obstacles in thefinal segment, the minimum will have to be raisedin order to provide the required MOC for thatobstacle. The method by which the minimum isderived is also dependant upon the position aswell as the height of the obstacle.

Final approach segmentIf the obstacle is located in the final approachsegment the construction of the OCA is a questionof simple arithmetic: the MOC is added to themaximum height of the obstacle and the sum ofthose two values represents the OCA. For a preci-sion approach the maximum height loss value isadded to the obstacle elevation.

Missed approach segmentFor the initial missed approach segment the cal-culations have more factors to take into account.

A non-precision approach is constructed by factor-ing the following values and assumes a 10kt tail-wind component:

** fix accuracy tolerance** three second reaction delay** 15 seconds of level flight prior to start of

climb

When the obstacle is located in the intermediatemissed approach segment there are two optionsfor the approach designer, with the first being sim-ilar to the final approach. The designer starts fromthe obstacle, adds 98ft and then draws a line witha down gradient of 2.5% back towards theapproach. The point at which this line crosses thestart of climb datum (SOC) is the OCA for theapproach. Put another way, the distance needed toclear the obstacle at a climb gradient of 2.5% is thedistance from the SOC to the obstacle.In the event that this altitude would be too penaliz-ing the designer has another option. If the MAP ismoved back towards the final approach fix (FAF)the OCA may be reduced since there will be agreater distance to climb to the required height toclear the obstacle.

Controlling obstacle in the finalapproach segmentIn the case of a controlling obstacle in the finalapproach segment, the aircraft performing a goaround will descend below the MDA and run therisk of reducing its margin over the obstacle dur-ing the time it is below MDA. This is, however, onlyan issue if the controlling obstacle is located inthe initial missed approach area, namely betweenthe Missed Approach Point (MAP) and the Start ofClimb (SOC).

Controlling obstacle in the missedapproach segmentThis situation again offers two possibilities. First,if the MAP is located at the runway threshold theaircraft will perform a go around before reachingthe MAP and therefore remain above the calculat-ed missed approach path.Second, the further the MAP is located towardsthe FAF, and subsequently towards the pointwhere an aircraft will start its go around, thereremains less margin over the calculated missed


December 2005

approach path. The extreme case would be a MAPlocated at the intersection of the nominal glidepath with the MDA, the exact point where a goaround will be initiated. In this case the aircraftwould drop below the calculated missed approachpath and risk a total loss of MOC.Since the SOC is calculated on the basis of TrueAir Speed, which again is dependant on the air-port elevation, the exact value of the reduction isdifferent for any given airport.

Comparison to an ILS Cat IapproachOn a Cat I ILS, with a DH of 200ft, it is consideredsafe for obstacle clearance to reduce to 39ft(assuming the Category D standard height lossof161ft and a missed approach initiated at DH).It can be assumed, therefore, that since goaround performance with all other parametersbeing identical (i.e. weather conditions, approachangle, aircraft configuration) is independent ofthe type of approach flown prior to the go around,that any obstacle in the final approach segmentposes no greater threat in a CDFA approach withthe MDA used as DH than it would in an ILSapproach.For the obstacle in the missed approach segment,

however, the situation is different.On an ILS the height loss is taken into accountwhen calculating the OCA. Since this type ofapproach does not provide an MOC over anymissed approach obstacle no value for a margincan be given.On a CDFA approach, where the minimum has atolerance of zero feet, the height loss is not con-sidered for the missed approach segment, thus areduction in MOC might result down to an unpre-dictable value, or in the worst case, even a totalloss of MOC.

ConclusionIn the case with the controlling obstacle located inthe final approach segment the comparison withan ILS approach shows that a larger marginresults for a CDFA approach where the MDA isused as DH. It can be assumed that the safety ofsuch a procedure is at least equivalent to an ILSapproach. On the other hand, if the controllingobstacle is located in the missed approach seg-ment, the comparison with an ILS approachshows that the risk of a reduction in MOC is con-siderable and must be taken into consideration.Although the construction of the missed approachsegment for a non-precision approach is very con-servative we cannot simply go ahead and discardthe criteria out of hand. An alternative that appears to be a viable option isto use the ILS missed approach design philosophy.Clearly, this differs from the non-precision criteria(although it’s beyond the scope of this article to gointo that level of detail.It would seem that an aircraft performing a goaround following CDFA and using the MDA as if itwere a DH will benefit from at least the same levelof obsticle clearance as if it was carrying out amissed approach following an ILS approach.Indeed, since the underlying approach design crite-ria is still based on a non-precision approach theMOC will still be greater than that of an ILSapproach even when the height loss in the goaround is taken into consideration.

Steve Rösli is a first officer flying Airbus 320/330and a member of the IFALPA Aircraft Design andOperations Committee.

It would seem that an aircraft performing a go around following CDFA and using theMDA as if it were a DH will benefit from at least the same level of obsticle clearanceas if it was carrying out a missed approach following an ILS approach.


December 2005

Stockholm ArlandaRST ReportStockholm ArlandaRST Report

By F/O Christer LeijonBy F/O Christer Leijon

The Arlanda Runway Safety Team (RST) had itsbeginnings at a September 2003 meeting with theairport’s management and was attended by myselfand another pilot to discuss the taxiway signage atthe airport. This meeting was generated followingtwo taxi incidents during that summer. In additionto the pilot team, the meeting was attended by rep-resentatives from the airport as well as ATC. At themeeting we voiced the general comments frompilots which reflected the difficulties of finding yourway at Arlanda. Our concerns included:

** A number of large unlit apron areas making taxiing at night difficult.

** Unlit “asphalt islands” between taxiways thatare hard to detect – high visibility paint wouldmake a big difference.

** Non standard signage that is confusing to pilots and controllers.

** Taxiway signs obscured by piles of snow during winter.

** Parallel taxiways A and U have a connectingtaxiway named UA.

In addition to these concerns, we pointed out thattwo separate sections of taxiway were in a poorstate of repair.

Runway Safety Team establishedIn 2004 the Runway Safety Team was formed, withthe attendees of the September 2003 meetingforming the nucleus of the group. While generallyspeaking the team members from the airport side

took on board our comments they tended to look atsolutions that dealt with the ‘symptoms’ ratherthan the ‘disease’ preferring to add additional sig-nage rather than ensure that the existing signagewas brought into line with ICAO recommendations.Notably there was little appreciation of our argu-ment that the signage should also be kept as sim-ple as possible to avoid confusion to pilots unfamil-iar with Arlanda’s layout.

A powerful demonstrationIn order to demonstrate our argument, on a darkand rainy night in February 2005 we took the teamleader of the RST and placed him in the right handseat of a Fokker 50 armed him with a Jeppesenchart of Arlanda and taxied around the airport foran hour. During this exercise he got lost, and thiswas despite the fact that he had worked with thetaxiways and signage at Arlanda for no less than25 years. We also demonstrated the roughness ofthe taxiways which give a really rough ride even atnormal taxi speeds. Following this demonstrationhe looked at the arguments of the pilot group in acompletely different light and, as a result, a num-ber of changes were adopted by the airport.

** Due to the questions over the need forIntermediate Holding Point (IHP) signage and theconfusion caused by the use of different sign stan-dards, some of which are located other than at taxi-way intersections, the extensive installation of IHPsigns been halted pending further investigation bythe RST. Ten to fifteen of these signs remain in


December 2005

position and some comply with ICAO recommenda-tions while some do not. In addition, not all of thesigns are indicated on the taxiway charts.

** As a field test some of the unlit asphalt ‘islands’ will be lit this winter with a fixture thathas a cone type reflector that directs the lightdownwards. In addition high visibility paint isbeing evaluated for use next summer.

** While it was agreed at meetings earlier thisyear to add lighting to the presently unlit areas ofthe apron unfortunately this move has beendelayed by the airport’s new RST leader on thegrounds of cost.

** The unlit apron areas are getting a few extralight poles and a couple of standard position signsto help pilots identify their position.

** The snow clearance team, who also attend the RST meetings, have changed the proceduresfor snow clearance which they hope will solve theproblem of snow piling up around taxiway signs.

** Regarding parallel taxiways ‘A’ and ‘U’ taxiway‘A’ will be renamed ‘apron taxiway D’ and only usedas such. This has proved to be an easier solutionthan finding a new name for taxiway ‘UA’.

** The poor surface on the two areas of taxiway‘Z’ have been repaired over the summer.

In addition to the IHP questions we also had con-cerns about the development of a conflict/incur-sion ’hot spot’ map, but at the most recent meet-ing we were presented with the latest edition of the’hot spot’ map by the the airport authrities. It wasone of the best examples of this type of map I’veseen so far. The pilot group together with the repre-sentatives of the surface vehicle operators havepushed for a ’keep it simple’ approach and the air-port has responded by producing a map withoutcomplications and superfluous details.

Runway useasgeWe have also had meetings with Arlanda ATC abouttheir use of a preferential runway system. At pres-ent ATC uses a simple limit of 5 knots max tail windcomponent to preclude use of the noise preferredrunway. Following advice from Robert Brons of theVNV, we are arguing for a 5 knot tailwind and 15

knot of crosswind formula that also takes intoaccount the condition of the runway surface. Asyou might appreciate, this is a significant issue inthe challenging conditions of the Swedish winter.Work on this continues. Although this is not strictlyspeaking a runway safety issue, rather more of anATS one, we have the connections with ATC throughthe work of the RST. The RST continues to grow with four pilots involvedon behalf of the pilot group (with me as co-ordina-tor). I have had an ‘ALR Briefing’ and the otherthree will do the same during December. The RST also hosted a safety seminar in Octoberthis year which looked at airside safety issues forground staff, pilots and ATC controllers. As well asthe safety issues, the intention of the seminar wasalso to present the RST and its aims. The evalua-tion forms handed out to the participants indicatedthe seminar was a success with a lot of positivefeedback from the attendees. This is a successthat we intend to repeat.

Christer Leijon is a First Officer with SAS flying theMD80. Since his airline career began in 1988 hehas flown Metro IIIs, Fokker 50s, DC-9s and B-767s he is currently awaiting his command course.In addition to his flying duties, Christer has beenactive in flight safety issues for Swedish ALPAsince 2002 as chairman of the association’s flightsafety committee. He is also a member of the run-way safety team at Stockholm Arlanda.

Non-standard taxiway sig-nage has led to pilot confu-sion especially those notbased at Arlanda


December 2005

Dates for your DiaryThis month

Human Performance Committee Meeting1-3 December

Madrid, Spain

Contact: James Eales

[email protected]

2006

January227 Principal Officer’s Meeting

30 January - 2 February

Chertsey, UK

Contact: Heather Price

[email protected]

FebruaryCommittee Chairman’s Meeting

3 February

Chertsey, UK


[email protected]

April62nd Annual Conference

28 April - 2 May

Istanbul, Turkey


[email protected]

HHaavvee aann iiddeeaa ffoorr aann aarrttiiccllee oorr wwaanntt IIFFAALLPPAAnneewwss ttooccoovveerr yyoouurr ssttoorryy?? Contact Gideon Ewers, IFALPAMedia and Communications Officer Tel. +441932 579041 or email [email protected]

Don’t Forget!

Electronic Subsciption to IFALPANews is easy

and FREE. Simply email [email protected]

with News Subscricption in the subject lin

e

Captain Ricardo Old

It is with great sadness that the Federationannounces the death of Captain Ricardo Old.Captain Old served as IFALPA’s Regional Secretaryfor the Caribbean and South America Region from1976 until his retirement in December of 2002. Assuch he played a significant role in raising the pro-file of professional pilots throughout the region. Inaddition to his work with the Federation, CaptainOld was one of the founding members of ASPA deMexico. In December 2003 he was awardedIFALPA’s Presidential Citation in recognition of hiswork for the Federation.Prior to becoming an airline pilot Captain Oldserved in the British Royal Air Force.

the global voice of pilots - home - ifalpa dec 2005.pdf · typhoon management to flight time...

Documents