View Full Version : Dest alt going below planning minima?
president
26th Oct 2012, 16:31
Assuming EU-ops. You are en route to your destination when your destination alternate airport drops below planning minima but remains above operational minima. From a legal perspective can you still use it as destination alternate or do you need to pick another destination alternate. My opinion is that you can still use it as planning minima apply only in the planning stage. But I need documentation and reference to where I can find it in writing. Not just personal opinions.
Thanks!
president
26th Oct 2012, 16:57
Thanks, anyone able to decode the first line concerning revised flight plan and inflight replanning? Does it mean that you sometimes can use use plate minima for destination alternate inflight? I think it's a common conception that planning minima don't apply flight.
EGPFlyer
26th Oct 2012, 17:03
If landing isn't assured at your alternate (I.e. weather below planning minima) then you need to commit to your destination (if possible), or else find a new alternate.
EGPFlyer
26th Oct 2012, 17:16
Thanks, anyone able to decode the first line concerning revised flight plan and inflight replanning? Does it mean that you sometimes can use use plate minima for destination alternate inflight? I think it's a common conception that planning minima don't apply flight.
No, it refers to applicable planning minima, which is always 'one up' for alternates.
It's pretty logical if you think about it. If you can't land at your destination there's a good chance you are going to end up at your alternate with just over 30 mins fuel so the last thing you want to find is that some truck has driven into the localiser aerial. The only other approach available is an SRA but the weather is below that minima..... Not a nice place to be!
Microburst2002
26th Oct 2012, 19:52
You have to choose an airport above alternate planning minima ("wx better than good enough") to nominate it as a destination alternate.
Once airborne, that destination alternate should be above "good enough minima" or published minima, for you to count on it. Therefore, once airborne you can keept it as the alternate as long as you can land on it according to the plate minima.
But: if you make an inflight replanning to another airport any alternate for taht airport must meet planning minima, bacause you are in planning stage again.
president
26th Oct 2012, 21:18
Microburst, can you back up your claim with any evidence? It seems to be a common misconception that you can disregard your planning minima in flight. You are right about your last statement I'm sure but that doesn't mean you can just disregard your planning minima. I am talking about the case where you are en route and you get information that your dest alt goes below planning minima before TOD.
Airporn
26th Oct 2012, 22:00
I almost think it is a typo in the EU OPS 1.340 (b). In the old JAR OPS it was applicable aerodrome operating minima. Now it says planning applicable aerodrome operating minima which doesnt make sense. It is either planning minima as in (a) or applicable aerodrome operating minima...
DBate
27th Oct 2012, 13:46
Microburst got it absolutely right:
Being at the dispatch room: Planning minima for the alternate apply.
Once you are airborne and the minima fall below the planning minima for the alternate, you are still good to use it and fly to it if necessary - the actual landing minima apply at that stage.
But if you decide to change alternates in flight, than you have to apply the planning minima again, as you are doing an inflight re-planning.
This is what's in our manuals (EU carrier). Will try to find the reference in the EU-OPS manuals later, but am heading off to work now.
Will try to find the reference in the EU-OPS manuals later, but am heading off to work now. - save yourself the bother - see post #2. Yes it does seem wrong, but there it is. Your manuals appear to be wrong.
president
27th Oct 2012, 15:14
Thanks for good inputs. It's not hard to understand that you need to apply planning minima for planning in the air as well as on the ground. That's clear to me now thanks. But it's harder and still to be proven that you can disregard those minima once airborne. Exactly which part of EU-Ops allows you to do that?
Don't worry about it, Pres - stick to your own Ops manual - if it is wrong it is the regulator's fault.
president
27th Oct 2012, 15:32
Well there is no help on this in my ops manuals. And it would be nice to know where we stand legally. The reason I'm asking is that it happened to me the other day. Our dest alt went below planned minima and we nominated a new alternate. But I was not sure if it was really necessary. Good practice indeed but perhaps not always an option.
Out of interest, pres, does your Ops Manual specify and require the use of the the EUOPS 'Planning Minima' (1.297 I think), or does it just imply the use of AOM?
RAT 5
27th Oct 2012, 16:00
I appreciate this is about legality, but you then mentioned it happened in reality and a choice had to be made. Legal or not "common sense rules, OK". Surely, when-ever you are inbound to a dodgy wx. destination you'll have a cast-iron alternate, or 2, up your sleeve. It's not the legality of the matter about the alternate, it is about getting on the ground, preferably on some suitable tarmac, still with some fuel in the tanks, and at a place where more fuel is available. Planning is before the event, airmanship is in the execution of the event.
bookworm
27th Oct 2012, 17:33
I almost think it is a typo in the EU OPS 1.340 (b). In the old JAR OPS it was applicable aerodrome operating minima. Now it says planning applicable aerodrome operating minima which doesnt make sense. It is either planning minima as in (a) or applicable aerodrome operating minima...
Looks like someone noticed the typo, Airporn.
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:296:0001:0148:EN:PDF)
CAT.OP.MPA.245 Meteorological conditions — all aircraft
(a) On IFR flights the commander shall only:
(1) commence take-off; or
(2) continue beyond the point from which a revised ATS flight plan applies in the event of in-flight replanning, when information is available indicating that the expected weather conditions, at the time of arrival, at the destination and/or required alternate aerodrome(s) are at or above the planning minima.
(b) On IFR flights, the commander shall only continue towards the planned destination aerodrome when the latest information available indicates that, at the expected time of arrival, the weather conditions at the destination, or at least one destination alternate aerodrome, are at or above the applicable aerodrome operating minima.
Microburst2002
27th Oct 2012, 17:50
5th of october... Fresh one
Amazing, bookworm- the date on that pdf is 25/10/12 - 'news' does not get much more up-to-date than that:ok:
bookworm
27th Oct 2012, 18:58
Oh it's better than that BOAC. In Article 10
"It shall apply from 28 October 2012."
i.e. midnight tonight. You have been warned... ;)
(There is a 2 year derogation period, which I imagine every state will take advantage of.)
Fantastic! You must win the PPRune prize for the most current, if not prescient news-flash:)
president
27th Oct 2012, 20:44
Interesting news! @ Rat5 The wx at our dest was cavok. At our first alternate it dropped to just below npa minima for a cat 1 airport. But still way above cat 1. The cmd nominated a new alternate above planning minima but we had a little chat afterwards if we could have gone to our first alternate in case we needed to. It was a discussion that arose due to real circumstances but not a question of aircraft safety and airmanship.
bookworm
28th Oct 2012, 08:16
The wx at our dest was cavok. At our first alternate it dropped to just below npa minima for a cat 1 airport. But still way above cat 1. The cmd nominated a new alternate above planning minima but we had a little chat afterwards if we could have gone to our first alternate in case we needed to. It was a discussion that arose due to real circumstances but not a question of aircraft safety and airmanship.
Assuming that your ops manual doesn't have anything to the contrary, then legally you could have continued to your destination without any replanning. In fact, you could probably do so even if your destination were zero-zero. EASA has made a concerted effort to avoid "and/or" of late -- this one appears to have slipped through.
But there is, of course, an imperative to do something that is sensible as well as legal. Planning minima are set for a reason -- because forecasts are not perfect, and your skipper was clearly doing something that made good sense as TEM.
bubbers44
30th Oct 2012, 19:20
Had a 727 flight to Barranquila Columbia and both destination and alternate went below minimums with thunderstorms just over an hour out. We were unable to contact dispatch so got a reroute to Panama City and landed in VMC conditions. I don't know what the legal way to handle it was but sometimes you have to do what makes sense to keep everybody safe.
Lookleft
30th Oct 2012, 23:13
As an Antipodean wrestling with this issue since the report on the Westwind ditching off Norfolk Island came out, do you blokes have to always plan for an alternate regardless of your destination forecast? I'm more interested in the situation for flights within Europe rather than long haul.
EUOPS (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:254:0001:0238:EN:PDF) OPS 1.295 et seq
Microburst2002
1st Nov 2012, 18:13
Airlines (executives, I mean) are using that rule of the less than 6 hours, VMC, two runways, etc... to eliminate the alternate fuel.
Still, when you do that you need to uplift 15 minutes of Additional fuel.
Some airlines even use that during replanning (typically redistpatch in flight) so that once in flight and withinless than 6 hours to arrive they can eliminate the alternate fuel requirement. I assume they add the 15 min...
Some airlines even use that during replanning (typically redistpatch in flight) so that once in flight and withinless than 6 hours to arrive they can eliminate the alternate fuel requirement. I assume they add the 15 min... Absolutely, not only makes it sense but it's also economical and probably the most efficient way to save fuel on long haul flights. The idea is pretty simple and brilliant at the same time: land with about the same amount of fuel in the tanks after 14 hours flying as after a typical mid range flight, say within 6 hours. It's just a way to reduce a proportionate to flight time amount of contingency fuel to a reasonable end amount by placing a en route re dispatch airport typically within the last quarter of the total distance. In the end it the same whether one lands with 6 tons, 330 let's say, after 5 hours flight or 14 hours. :ok:
Microburst2002
3rd Nov 2012, 08:15
Low cost carriers in Europed use or used that "trick" and they had a few taxi in flame outs.
Long range flights are usually to major airports, which all meet the two runway, etc, etc... But they usually get congested without previous notice.
Once again, when it comes to fuel saving measures lime thet, captains have to be very conservative and take positive accion early when ot seems that you will burn more fuel than anticipated. In this case, advise ATC and declare mayday.
In some airlines it is policy to declare emergency even before reaching the final reserve, if it is obvious that you are going to burn a part of ot before landing
Low cost carriers in Europed use or used that "trick" and they had a few taxi in flame outs. -?? Can you substantiate that comment? It means that not only are/were they landing with probably less then 5 mins of fuel remaining but that they would presumably all be on a MAYDAY call? I think we would have noticed!
Microburst2002
4th Nov 2012, 07:35
Years ago, two airplanes from the same company landed in BCN with less than the final reserve. One had declared may day, the other had not. It is the one that did not declare may day the one that got stuck on the taxiway due to fuel starvation.
Maybe someone here can get stuff from that incident and give us a link.