Narrative:

Air carrier flight X was a B747 charter flight scheduled to operate from sydney to auckland on dec/tue/95. My crew reviewed all preflight paperwork including WX, NOTAMS, flight plan, etc. This information is obtained by air carrier dispatch and transmitted to the sydney station for presentation to the crew. I determined the flight could be operated safely and in accordance with the air carrier flight operating manual and all applicable FAA regulations. I then signed the flight release. Flight X departed sydney and proceeded as cleared to sarux intersection (auckland fir), then to auckland at FL370. The flight was uneventful until contacting akl control 200 mi west of wp VOR. They answered by telling us they were a flight advisory service only and could issue no ATC clrncs, could not control traffic but could issue advisories as to where traffic might be. This was due to an ATC strike. We were advised to descend to cross 11 DME mi west of wp VOR at an altitude below 7000 ft MSL due to a departing wbound DC8 that had been advised to cross 11 DME mi east of vp VOR above 8000 ft MSL. We were advised to proceed direct to ot beacon after passing wp VOR descending to 3000 ft MSL and execute an ILS or visual approach to runway 5 at akl airport. They also gave us the current akl WX and altimeter. Approximately 3 mi from ot beacon, we reported runway in sight and were told to contact airport advisory frequency 118.7 (akl tower). Upon contacting airport advisory we were simply told there was no traffic between us and the airport and no airplanes on the runway. At no time after entering the akl fir had this flight been operating on an official IFR clearance or received official IFR separation. There was a special NOTAM in effect and published well ahead of our departure time from sydney. This NOTAM was never presented to the crew by air carrier dispatch nor any other company entity. I know the company was aware of this NOTAM because the dispatcher who released this flight contacted the sydney station while the first officer and I were in the office to tell the station agent that we must depart sydney at a time sufficient to arrive in auckland within plus or minus 2 mins of our flight planned arrival time. No reason was given for this. I found out after arrival auckland that this was one of the special procedures in effect for the non ATC environment. I believe the company deliberately withheld this NOTAM and related special procedures from the crew for 2 reasons: 1) the air carrier flight operating manual prohibits arrs or approachs without an ATC clearance for an instrument or a visual approach, 2) there is currently a labor dispute at air carrier between the pilots and management. Management feared we would use this as a reason not to move this flight. Regarding departures, the air carrier flight operating manual requires all flts to operate IFR with an ATC clearance received via radio or telephone. Where a control tower is not in operation and telephone clearance is not possible, a flight may depart VFR provided the WX is VFR and flight remains VFR after takeoff and obtains an IFR clearance no farther than 50 NM from the airport. I was emphatically told by akl airport advisory service that no ATC clrncs would be issued and that airplanes would depart at their discretion in accordance with an issued time slot and advisories only would be issued with no guaranteed IFR traffic separation. The captain of each departing aircraft had to be signed off that he had received a special briefing on the non ATC procedures by an approved briefer. Therefore, no official ATC clearance would be received until reaching the brisbane IFR approximately 1 hour 30 mins after takeoff and 700 mi west of akl airport. I contacted my regional flight manager with this information and informed him I did not believe there was any way this flight could depart legally in accordance with the air carrier flight operating manual. He made the following statements: 1) 3 other air carrier flts had operated in and out of akl recently while an ATC strike was in progress and none of the other crews objected or had problems with the fom, 2) the company considered the time slot issued for departure to be a full blown official IFR clearance even though none would verbally or in any other way be issued, 3) he said he would put a letter in my box stating the company's position and that air carrier flight operations management would take full responsibility for the flight being legally operated in accordance with the aircraft flight operating manual. This, in effect, ordered me to depart on schedule. Air carrier flight X departed akl on dec/wed/95 at XR55Z in accordance with special non-ATC, no-ATC clearance procedures. At XT22Z we crossed the brisbane fir and received an official ATC clearance from the brisbane fir to sydney. I do not believe this flight operated in accordance the air carrier fom. I do believe that air carrier management deliberately withheld information from the crew regarding the new zealand ATC strike knowing that when we finally did find out about it in flight, we would be committed to continue on and land at akl. Management also insisted that we depart akl under non ATC procedures and officially accepted responsibility for fom compliance when none existed. I believe the pilot labor dispute was at the root of management's actions. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter believes that the ATC dispute is still ongoing at akl, but that is a sporadic situation. He does not know exactly how other pilots of his air carrier are handling this as he has been away for more than 10 days. The only traffic that his air carrier has into akl is an occasional charter. The reporter has filed a report both with his air carrier and his pilot's union with no response as yet. The promised letter from his chief pilot has not yet been sent and the chief will not return the reporter's phone calls. The reporter believes that his air carrier treats the 'time slot' as an ATC clearance. Other acrs are operating into akl under the same philosophy. He also believes that his air carrier deliberately withheld the NOTAM because of the ongoing labor dispute between the air carrier and its pilots. The reporter does not know how the FAA is treating this situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR CREW FLEW INTO NZZO AIRSPACE DURING A TIME WHEN THERE WAS NO ATC AVAILABLE DUE TO LABOR DISPUTE.

Narrative: ACR FLT X WAS A B747 CHARTER FLT SCHEDULED TO OPERATE FROM SYDNEY TO AUCKLAND ON DEC/TUE/95. MY CREW REVIEWED ALL PREFLT PAPERWORK INCLUDING WX, NOTAMS, FLT PLAN, ETC. THIS INFO IS OBTAINED BY ACR DISPATCH AND XMITTED TO THE SYDNEY STATION FOR PRESENTATION TO THE CREW. I DETERMINED THE FLT COULD BE OPERATED SAFELY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACR FLT OPERATING MANUAL AND ALL APPLICABLE FAA REGS. I THEN SIGNED THE FLT RELEASE. FLT X DEPARTED SYDNEY AND PROCEEDED AS CLRED TO SARUX INTXN (AUCKLAND FIR), THEN TO AUCKLAND AT FL370. THE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL UNTIL CONTACTING AKL CTL 200 MI W OF WP VOR. THEY ANSWERED BY TELLING US THEY WERE A FLT ADVISORY SVC ONLY AND COULD ISSUE NO ATC CLRNCS, COULD NOT CTL TFC BUT COULD ISSUE ADVISORIES AS TO WHERE TFC MIGHT BE. THIS WAS DUE TO AN ATC STRIKE. WE WERE ADVISED TO DSND TO CROSS 11 DME MI W OF WP VOR AT AN ALT BELOW 7000 FT MSL DUE TO A DEPARTING WBOUND DC8 THAT HAD BEEN ADVISED TO CROSS 11 DME MI E OF VP VOR ABOVE 8000 FT MSL. WE WERE ADVISED TO PROCEED DIRECT TO OT BEACON AFTER PASSING WP VOR DSNDING TO 3000 FT MSL AND EXECUTE AN ILS OR VISUAL APCH TO RWY 5 AT AKL ARPT. THEY ALSO GAVE US THE CURRENT AKL WX AND ALTIMETER. APPROX 3 MI FROM OT BEACON, WE RPTED RWY IN SIGHT AND WERE TOLD TO CONTACT ARPT ADVISORY FREQ 118.7 (AKL TWR). UPON CONTACTING ARPT ADVISORY WE WERE SIMPLY TOLD THERE WAS NO TFC BTWN US AND THE ARPT AND NO AIRPLANES ON THE RWY. AT NO TIME AFTER ENTERING THE AKL FIR HAD THIS FLT BEEN OPERATING ON AN OFFICIAL IFR CLRNC OR RECEIVED OFFICIAL IFR SEPARATION. THERE WAS A SPECIAL NOTAM IN EFFECT AND PUBLISHED WELL AHEAD OF OUR DEP TIME FROM SYDNEY. THIS NOTAM WAS NEVER PRESENTED TO THE CREW BY ACR DISPATCH NOR ANY OTHER COMPANY ENTITY. I KNOW THE COMPANY WAS AWARE OF THIS NOTAM BECAUSE THE DISPATCHER WHO RELEASED THIS FLT CONTACTED THE SYDNEY STATION WHILE THE FO AND I WERE IN THE OFFICE TO TELL THE STATION AGENT THAT WE MUST DEPART SYDNEY AT A TIME SUFFICIENT TO ARRIVE IN AUCKLAND WITHIN PLUS OR MINUS 2 MINS OF OUR FLT PLANNED ARR TIME. NO REASON WAS GIVEN FOR THIS. I FOUND OUT AFTER ARR AUCKLAND THAT THIS WAS ONE OF THE SPECIAL PROCS IN EFFECT FOR THE NON ATC ENVIRONMENT. I BELIEVE THE COMPANY DELIBERATELY WITHHELD THIS NOTAM AND RELATED SPECIAL PROCS FROM THE CREW FOR 2 REASONS: 1) THE ACR FLT OPERATING MANUAL PROHIBITS ARRS OR APCHS WITHOUT AN ATC CLRNC FOR AN INST OR A VISUAL APCH, 2) THERE IS CURRENTLY A LABOR DISPUTE AT ACR BTWN THE PLTS AND MGMNT. MGMNT FEARED WE WOULD USE THIS AS A REASON NOT TO MOVE THIS FLT. REGARDING DEPS, THE ACR FLT OPERATING MANUAL REQUIRES ALL FLTS TO OPERATE IFR WITH AN ATC CLRNC RECEIVED VIA RADIO OR TELEPHONE. WHERE A CTL TWR IS NOT IN OP AND TELEPHONE CLRNC IS NOT POSSIBLE, A FLT MAY DEPART VFR PROVIDED THE WX IS VFR AND FLT REMAINS VFR AFTER TKOF AND OBTAINS AN IFR CLRNC NO FARTHER THAN 50 NM FROM THE ARPT. I WAS EMPHATICALLY TOLD BY AKL ARPT ADVISORY SVC THAT NO ATC CLRNCS WOULD BE ISSUED AND THAT AIRPLANES WOULD DEPART AT THEIR DISCRETION IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN ISSUED TIME SLOT AND ADVISORIES ONLY WOULD BE ISSUED WITH NO GUARANTEED IFR TFC SEPARATION. THE CAPT OF EACH DEPARTING ACFT HAD TO BE SIGNED OFF THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A SPECIAL BRIEFING ON THE NON ATC PROCS BY AN APPROVED BRIEFER. THEREFORE, NO OFFICIAL ATC CLRNC WOULD BE RECEIVED UNTIL REACHING THE BRISBANE IFR APPROX 1 HR 30 MINS AFTER TKOF AND 700 MI W OF AKL ARPT. I CONTACTED MY REGIONAL FLT MGR WITH THIS INFO AND INFORMED HIM I DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY WAY THIS FLT COULD DEPART LEGALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACR FLT OPERATING MANUAL. HE MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: 1) 3 OTHER ACR FLTS HAD OPERATED IN AND OUT OF AKL RECENTLY WHILE AN ATC STRIKE WAS IN PROGRESS AND NONE OF THE OTHER CREWS OBJECTED OR HAD PROBS WITH THE FOM, 2) THE COMPANY CONSIDERED THE TIME SLOT ISSUED FOR DEP TO BE A FULL BLOWN OFFICIAL IFR CLRNC EVEN THOUGH NONE WOULD VERBALLY OR IN ANY OTHER WAY BE ISSUED, 3) HE SAID HE WOULD PUT A LETTER IN MY BOX STATING THE COMPANY'S POS AND THAT ACR FLT OPS MGMNT WOULD TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FLT BEING LEGALLY OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACFT FLT OPERATING MANUAL. THIS, IN EFFECT, ORDERED ME TO DEPART ON SCHEDULE. ACR FLT X DEPARTED AKL ON DEC/WED/95 AT XR55Z IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIAL NON-ATC, NO-ATC CLRNC PROCS. AT XT22Z WE CROSSED THE BRISBANE FIR AND RECEIVED AN OFFICIAL ATC CLRNC FROM THE BRISBANE FIR TO SYDNEY. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS FLT OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE THE ACR FOM. I DO BELIEVE THAT ACR MGMNT DELIBERATELY WITHHELD INFO FROM THE CREW REGARDING THE NEW ZEALAND ATC STRIKE KNOWING THAT WHEN WE FINALLY DID FIND OUT ABOUT IT IN FLT, WE WOULD BE COMMITTED TO CONTINUE ON AND LAND AT AKL. MGMNT ALSO INSISTED THAT WE DEPART AKL UNDER NON ATC PROCS AND OFFICIALLY ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR FOM COMPLIANCE WHEN NONE EXISTED. I BELIEVE THE PLT LABOR DISPUTE WAS AT THE ROOT OF MGMNT'S ACTIONS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT THE ATC DISPUTE IS STILL ONGOING AT AKL, BUT THAT IS A SPORADIC SIT. HE DOES NOT KNOW EXACTLY HOW OTHER PLTS OF HIS ACR ARE HANDLING THIS AS HE HAS BEEN AWAY FOR MORE THAN 10 DAYS. THE ONLY TFC THAT HIS ACR HAS INTO AKL IS AN OCCASIONAL CHARTER. THE RPTR HAS FILED A RPT BOTH WITH HIS ACR AND HIS PLT'S UNION WITH NO RESPONSE AS YET. THE PROMISED LETTER FROM HIS CHIEF PLT HAS NOT YET BEEN SENT AND THE CHIEF WILL NOT RETURN THE RPTR'S PHONE CALLS. THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT HIS ACR TREATS THE 'TIME SLOT' AS AN ATC CLRNC. OTHER ACRS ARE OPERATING INTO AKL UNDER THE SAME PHILOSOPHY. HE ALSO BELIEVES THAT HIS ACR DELIBERATELY WITHHELD THE NOTAM BECAUSE OF THE ONGOING LABOR DISPUTE BTWN THE ACR AND ITS PLTS. THE RPTR DOES NOT KNOW HOW THE FAA IS TREATING THIS SIT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.