Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 90; Flight Crew Total 13000; Flight Crew Type 5000
Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
In cruise at FL410 in CPDLC contact with Gander Oceanic Controllers. We requested climb from FL410 to FL430. Approval came via CPDLC to climb. We climbed to FL430. Passing FL420 we received SELCAL from Gander asking why we were climbing. We responded that we requested climb via CPDLC and received clearance via CPDLC that we were cleared to climb to FL430. Gander claims they sent no such message. We took pictures of our FMS CPDLC messages that showed approval to climb.After we reviewed our messages we noticed instead of ZZZZ in active center block on the FMS we had WIFS. We have now found out that this is an automated test station. We have since been told that no matter what message you send to this address it will answer you in the affirmative. In other words when we requested climb to FL430 the FMS message we received was 'climb to and maintain FL430'. We have the photos to back this up. ATC stated they have never heard of such a problem.We believe this problem will happen again to some unsuspecting crew. I have spoken with our satellite data provider and they are going to change their manual to make sure this doesn't happen again. We as a flight department are new to CPDLC. We did all the appropriate training. I have hundreds of crossings over the years and have never had an issue. According to Gander supervisor there was no traffic coming in either direction during our climb.
The reporter stated his aircraft would not logon to CPDLC prior to the oceanic FIR. While troubleshooting the problem; the crew referenced their company's SATCOM provider CPDLC manual. The SATCOM manual instructed that if communications' difficulty were encountered logon to WIFS. The WIFS logon was successful so the crew continued the flight as they normally would with no ATC contact. After the discussion with ATC about the false climb clearance; the crew researched WIFS and discovered SATCOM provides WIFS as a test station intended for ground use only. A design flaw is that CPDLC cannot distinguish if the aircraft is on the ground or airborne. An additional problem for the crew was that once logged onto WIFS; the CPDLC could not be disconnected from that station and so communicated over HF.
Corporate jet Captain reported difficulty logging into CPDLC and referenced his company's SATCOM provider instructions. The suggested WIFS logon was successful after which a CPDLC climb request from FL410 to FL430 was approved. However; ATC called via SELCAL to inquire about the climb which they had not approved. It was determined WIFS was for ground tests only.