Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SPIM.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A SPIM
ATC / advisory: Center SPIM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Ours was a stub flight on day of event; having been delayed for 12 hours due to maintenance. Approaching Chimbote on UG436 in Peruvian airspace; we were queried by Lima ATC Controller; 'What is your permission number?' We replied with aircraft registration number. This happened a second time. On the third query; the Captain replied; 'I don't understand'. Neither the Captain nor I had any idea what this number was or where it might be located. After this; ATC was silent for several minutes and the Captain went on his scheduled break. After a couple of minutes; a new Lima ATC Controller asked for permission number and said that if we were unable to give it; we should expect to land in Lima. The Relief Pilot sent a text message to Dispatch to the effect of; 'ATC wants permission number to enter airspace'. He then followed up with a SATCOM call ranked high. Dispatch was made aware of the problem and said they would let Lima Operations know. We relayed to Lima ATC that we had informed our operations and were working on obtaining the number. The Captain was then recalled to the flight deck. Lima ATC began insisting that we provide the 'permission number' or land in Lima. I explained that we were 12 hours late; that we were a stub flight; and that the permission number was probably for the scheduled departure. The reply was; 'The authorities say you must land in Lima.' We rogered this and began receiving vectors for a north bound turn and decent that would set us up for an ILS Z to Runway 15 at Lima. The Captain informed the flight attendants; made a PA; and entered the divert into the FMS. We requested permission and received clearance to slow the aircraft during the descent. While setting up for the approach; the Captain determined that we would be overweight for landing. He declared an emergency with Lima ATC and asked that the Airfield Rescue and Fire Fighters (ARFF) equipment be standing by for our overweight landing. By this time we were at 4000 ft approaching SIGAS. ATC asked if we wanted to dump fuel. The Captain responded; 'Negative.' The Lima Controller's demeanor completely changed. Instead of a demanding tone; there now was almost an apologetic one. Being cleared for the approach; we were seconds away from commencing at SIGAS when ATC reported that they had received the permission number and would we like to continue on our original flight plan? We executed a modified go-around as flaps were only at 1; and climbed back up to FL370 on a southerly heading to capture our original flight plan at ARPON. Dispatch was contacted and fuel numbers were crunched. We were fortunate that our destination had very good weather. Dispatch re-released us without an alternate and sent information via ACARS. There was a discussion in the cockpit whether this was legit based on our destination having only one runway that was open. Part One was referenced and it seemed like the course of action to continue to our filed destination was legal and prudent. I estimated the time lost in our 'detour' at 22 minutes and the fuel at 5;000 LBS. We landed with 13.5K LBS and made the gate with 12.8K LBS. I had never been asked this question in all my extensive international experience. If this number is so all-fired important; why isn't it on our flight plan somewhere? Why couldn't dispatch just read us the number over SATCOM? I assumed we had long term overflight agreements with countries; not daily flight by flight permission slots. Apparently; Lima ATC believed we had the 'permission number' to overfly their airspace on board with us. My question is; Why don't we? Rumors swirled among our crew as to what would have happened to us had we landed in Lima. Aircraft impounded? Crew arrested? At a minimum; that divert would have been very expensive and embarrassing. I suggest airspace entry permission numbers be annotated on the flight plan under remarks on all stub flights.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier stub flight transiting Peruvian airspace 12 hours behind schedule was asked to provide the airspace entry permission number or land at Lima. No number was known but ATC received the number during the flight's approach so the crew executed a go around and proceeded to their filed destination.