IFR Alternate Question
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it is the language used, "...AN aerodrome forecast..." implies there was one in the first place but it is unavailable. 'An' is an indefinite article in English and refers to an object in a non-specific way. There has to be an object in the first place, however.
If there was never an aerodrome forecast, the language might be, "when there is NO aerodrome forecast available...". If this were the language i would agree that an alternate would always be required whenever there is no TAF.
This seems to mean that when an aerodrome forecast is unavailable, they mean there sometimes is one but it is unavailable for some reason and an alternate is required.
Any other reading requires a VFR flight to carry an alternate when flying to an aerodrome without a TAF, as noted above.
A careful reading of ENR 58.1.3 reveals that the alternate does not need to have an aerodrome forecast, merely a firm forecast. We all know that the minimum requirement for a place with no IAL is an area forecast. This means the weather at the alternate could be sourced from an ARFOR and the place could be used provided the conditions are above the appropriate alternate minima and the place does not require an alternate for an unrelated reason.
What was the RFDS answer?
If there was never an aerodrome forecast, the language might be, "when there is NO aerodrome forecast available...". If this were the language i would agree that an alternate would always be required whenever there is no TAF.
This seems to mean that when an aerodrome forecast is unavailable, they mean there sometimes is one but it is unavailable for some reason and an alternate is required.
Any other reading requires a VFR flight to carry an alternate when flying to an aerodrome without a TAF, as noted above.
A careful reading of ENR 58.1.3 reveals that the alternate does not need to have an aerodrome forecast, merely a firm forecast. We all know that the minimum requirement for a place with no IAL is an area forecast. This means the weather at the alternate could be sourced from an ARFOR and the place could be used provided the conditions are above the appropriate alternate minima and the place does not require an alternate for an unrelated reason.
What was the RFDS answer?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok because this thread has been so cut and dry so far, I have another Red Herring question……
Is a destination aerodrome that has no physical radio navaids (i.e. no NDB/VOR), but has an RNAV procedure, considered to be “served by a Radio Navigation Aid”?
If not, then you could just ignore the fact someone has gone to all the effort of drawing up an RNAV procedure (rip it out of your DAP folder) and apply the requirements of AIP ENR 1.1 para 58.3.2, which states:
The following paragraph also talks about NVFR alternates and specifically mentions NDB/VOR :
Also, AIP Gen 2.5 refers to Radio Navigation Aids as those indentified in the ERSA FAC section for each location.
It makes sense to me if I read the above statement in the context of an instrument approach procedure which requires a physical radio navaid at the destination aerodrome, and as such that aerodrome would normally have a TAF (although it may sometimes be unavailable or ‘provisional’).
The key word is “When” which implies it is normally available, but “when it isn’t”, then…. do this. That interpretation is also supported by the fact it is discussed in the same breath as a provisional forecast.
If it was talking about aerodromes that never have a TAF, surely it would include something explicit like “for aerodromes where a forecast service is not provided....”.
That leads me to interpret the statement as meaning “if the Aerodrome forecast normally exists, but is temporarily unavailable, or is provisional...."
I may be wrong… happens from time time… but that’s how I read it.
me too... my head hurts.
Is a destination aerodrome that has no physical radio navaids (i.e. no NDB/VOR), but has an RNAV procedure, considered to be “served by a Radio Navigation Aid”?
If not, then you could just ignore the fact someone has gone to all the effort of drawing up an RNAV procedure (rip it out of your DAP folder) and apply the requirements of AIP ENR 1.1 para 58.3.2, which states:
58.3.2. Notwithstanding the above, a flight may be planned under the IFR by day to a destination aerodrome which is not served by a radio navigation aid without the requirement to provide for a suitable alternate aerodrome, provided that:
a. not more than SCT cloud is forecast below the final route segment LSALT (which you can only work out from an ARFOR, not a TAF) plus 500FT and forecast visibility at the destination aerodrome is not less than 8KM; and
b. the aircraft can be navigated to the destination aerodrome in accordance with para 19.1 (flight under the IFR).
a. not more than SCT cloud is forecast below the final route segment LSALT (which you can only work out from an ARFOR, not a TAF) plus 500FT and forecast visibility at the destination aerodrome is not less than 8KM; and
b. the aircraft can be navigated to the destination aerodrome in accordance with para 19.1 (flight under the IFR).
The following paragraph also talks about NVFR alternates and specifically mentions NDB/VOR :
58.3.3. …must provide alternate within 1 hour of destination unless destination is served by a radio navigation aid (NDB/VOR) and the aircraft….blah blah”
Also, AIP Gen 2.5 refers to Radio Navigation Aids as those indentified in the ERSA FAC section for each location.
"For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast is unavailable or is 'provisional,' the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate."
The key word is “When” which implies it is normally available, but “when it isn’t”, then…. do this. That interpretation is also supported by the fact it is discussed in the same breath as a provisional forecast.
If it was talking about aerodromes that never have a TAF, surely it would include something explicit like “for aerodromes where a forecast service is not provided....”.
That leads me to interpret the statement as meaning “if the Aerodrome forecast normally exists, but is temporarily unavailable, or is provisional...."
I may be wrong… happens from time time… but that’s how I read it.
Before i read this thread, I thought I knew the rules.
All I know now is that im ****in confused
All I know now is that im ****in confused
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
pcx,
I agree entirely! That is why Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.13 lists the alternate requirement for VFR which you will notice makes no mention of whether there is an IAP or not. "For flight by aeroplanes under the VFR (day or night) and helicopters operating under the VFR at night, the alternate minima are a ceiling of 1500ft and vis of 8km."
This next bit will either help to clinch my logic or further confuse people. I'm an 'illustrations' person as people would have noticed by now as I keep using them!
According to the logic of those such as FGD, you can do the following scenarios without providing for an alternate:
This Sunday morning you can jump in your plane and fly IFR from Perth to Leonora (TAF unavailable) with nothing more than ARFOR (lights - N/A, navaid - tick, weather - got the ARFOR so 'tick'). What's more, you can go back there Sunday night too if you wish! (lights PAL+STBY+ resp. person to turn on for you - tick, navaid - tick, weather - still got the ARFOR so 'tick').
To tricky it up a bit more. The Sunday after that you can fly from Perth up to 'TAF unavailable' Jundee (lights - N/A, navaid - no navaid but LSALT +500 and 8km vis so tick, weather - got the ARFOR so 'tick'). You have a whiz bang TSO146 GPS with FDE prediction etc so once again you can blast off and do it Sunday night too! (lights PAL+STBY+ resp. person to switch the lights for you - tick, navaid - no navaid but got that whiz bang GPS which substitutes for a ground aid so tick, weather - got the ARFOR so 'tick').
I wish you good luck with getting those flights past a safety conscious boss!
Also what about the case of a VFR only pilot. He or she may legitimately not know what an instrument approach exists for a particular destination and is certainly not required to have copies of approach plates to find out.
This next bit will either help to clinch my logic or further confuse people. I'm an 'illustrations' person as people would have noticed by now as I keep using them!
According to the logic of those such as FGD, you can do the following scenarios without providing for an alternate:
This Sunday morning you can jump in your plane and fly IFR from Perth to Leonora (TAF unavailable) with nothing more than ARFOR (lights - N/A, navaid - tick, weather - got the ARFOR so 'tick'). What's more, you can go back there Sunday night too if you wish! (lights PAL+STBY+ resp. person to turn on for you - tick, navaid - tick, weather - still got the ARFOR so 'tick').
To tricky it up a bit more. The Sunday after that you can fly from Perth up to 'TAF unavailable' Jundee (lights - N/A, navaid - no navaid but LSALT +500 and 8km vis so tick, weather - got the ARFOR so 'tick'). You have a whiz bang TSO146 GPS with FDE prediction etc so once again you can blast off and do it Sunday night too! (lights PAL+STBY+ resp. person to switch the lights for you - tick, navaid - no navaid but got that whiz bang GPS which substitutes for a ground aid so tick, weather - got the ARFOR so 'tick').
I wish you good luck with getting those flights past a safety conscious boss!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fgd gone off on a tangent as well now and lost me...
My turn for a tangent: doesn't cessnock have west mainland vor for approach??
Captain nomad
How about a scenic operator?? Joy flights?? Instruction?? Aerial photography?? Tug?? All cowboys??
You guys have the problem that your trying to cover every situation known to man - if the rules where written that way they would run out of paper.
I think everyone is in agreeance it's just being semantic and obscuring the regs with half truths with people's interpretations on "technicalities" and "logic". But that's why your in command - ultimately you must adapt and interpret the rules as proficiently as possible to the situations..
These rules where written with the idea that if the aerodrome forecast "became" unserviceable or provisional then you would need an alternate. And that is exactly how it used to read...
In the absence of this and the advent of rnav approaches it has become more stringent in it's interpretation due to the intent of operators. The clause to allow lsalt +500' >8km was to allow dead reckoning or VFR rules effectively for the last route segment - in the absence of an aid or firm forecast this makes sense. Now operators use gnss lnav and rnav everywhere and too many were getting caught out staying Imc for the last route segment and with no evaluation on remaining visual and attempting a continuous decent to the destination many got caught out on min fuel and no alternate. It may have been interpretive as to whether the new(er) rule states that an aerodrome forecast is unavailable or provisional, compared to never available or provisional...
Except it is now clarified under enr 1.10
The aerodrome forecast IS required when under ifr and an approach is present.
An arfor is not as accurate, doesn't include local wind, cb's or isolated weather phenomena. It can have fluctuations and discrepancies of upto 5hpa - which is why we add 50' to mda etc when using area qnh.
Hope this is clear...
Cheers
P.s typing this the same time as scavenger - agreed mate...
My turn for a tangent: doesn't cessnock have west mainland vor for approach??
Captain nomad
How many people do you know of are regularly blasting off VFR with just enough fuel for a destination further than 50nm from departure with no TAF and no alternate? (yes, we all know there will always be a cowboy out there doing it).
You guys have the problem that your trying to cover every situation known to man - if the rules where written that way they would run out of paper.
I think everyone is in agreeance it's just being semantic and obscuring the regs with half truths with people's interpretations on "technicalities" and "logic". But that's why your in command - ultimately you must adapt and interpret the rules as proficiently as possible to the situations..
These rules where written with the idea that if the aerodrome forecast "became" unserviceable or provisional then you would need an alternate. And that is exactly how it used to read...
In the absence of this and the advent of rnav approaches it has become more stringent in it's interpretation due to the intent of operators. The clause to allow lsalt +500' >8km was to allow dead reckoning or VFR rules effectively for the last route segment - in the absence of an aid or firm forecast this makes sense. Now operators use gnss lnav and rnav everywhere and too many were getting caught out staying Imc for the last route segment and with no evaluation on remaining visual and attempting a continuous decent to the destination many got caught out on min fuel and no alternate. It may have been interpretive as to whether the new(er) rule states that an aerodrome forecast is unavailable or provisional, compared to never available or provisional...
Except it is now clarified under enr 1.10
1.2.3 For flights to a destination for which a aerodrome forecast is re-quired and cannot be obtained or is “provisional”, the flight is per-mitted to depart provided an alternate aerodrome meeting all the requirements specified in ENR 1.1 Section 58. is provided
An arfor is not as accurate, doesn't include local wind, cb's or isolated weather phenomena. It can have fluctuations and discrepancies of upto 5hpa - which is why we add 50' to mda etc when using area qnh.
Hope this is clear...
Cheers
P.s typing this the same time as scavenger - agreed mate...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
doesn't cessnock have west mainland vor for approach??
How about a scenic operator?? Joy flights?? Instruction?? Aerial photography?? Tug?? All cowboys??
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish you good luck with getting those flights past a safety conscious boss!
Every one of those scenarios does NOT require an alternate - assuming the cloud base and visibility were above the minima (which you did not state).
Have to pull you up on a little something, however. About Jundee, you said:
... no navaid but LSALT +500 and 8km vis so tick ...
The "safety concious boss" (is there such a thing?) could always write his own (additional) alternate requirements into the Ops Manual. If he did, he might find that he has put his operation at a significant competitive disadvantage!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.2.2 For flights for which a forecast is required and cannot be obtained, the flight is permitted to depart provided the pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return of the flight within one hour of departure. The flight is permitted to con-tinue provided a suitable forecast is obtained for the intended des-tination within 30 minutes after departure.
Still not a cowboy!!
Let's be honest - as logical, smart individuals (ok maybe I'm not this category) well all know we carry as much fuel as humanly possible as often as we can. On those other times as long as we have our wits about us and continue to evaluate the situation as it unfolds whilst following what's in black and white its all good...
If in doubt ask your cp - when he doesn't know or your not satisfied ask your foi... It is the only reason I have come to the conclusions I have...
As Fgd just said if your ops manual says to do 6 star jumps before starting and is more stringent than the regs then guess what you should be doing.
And if in doubt - carry an alternate (how many times we see a taf with no fog when the conditions are perfect for just that?)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
no navaid but LSALT +500 and 8km vis so tick ...
This passage has no relevance to Jundee.
This passage has no relevance to Jundee.
Over in the weather section it makes no distinction between day or night. The common error with ALL the scenarios is that we are back to square one and are in contravention of the requirement to provide an alternate for an aerodrome with IAP and TAF unavailable as per TWO Jepp references (ATC pg 303 3.1.3 and pg 304 3.2.12 b.) which you seem to be able to conveniently ignore despite the plain language! I am not convinced a judge would overlook both of those statements as easily!
I am still waiting for the reference to an 'OUT' clause which will legally get you out of these requirements...!
Xcel, we have done this to death dude - the end result is YOU STILL NEED AN AERODROME FORECAST:
1.2.2 For flights for which a forecast is required and cannot be obtained, the flight is permitted to depart provided the pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return of the flight within one hour of departure. The flight is permitted to con-tinue provided a suitable forecast is obtained for the intended des-tination within 30 minutes after departure.
Captain nomad - you can go well more than 50 nm
Captain nomad - you can go well more than 50 nm
Last edited by Captain Nomad; 22nd Jun 2011 at 01:56.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nomad,
surely you can see the difference between having an idea that's wrong and having no idea.
its the same difference as having an aerodrome forecast that's unavailable (alternate required) and no aerodrome forecast (no alternate required unless conditions below the alternate minima).
surely you can see the difference between having an idea that's wrong and having no idea.
its the same difference as having an aerodrome forecast that's unavailable (alternate required) and no aerodrome forecast (no alternate required unless conditions below the alternate minima).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
its the same difference as having an aerodrome forecast that's unavailable (alternate required) and no aerodrome forecast (no alternate required unless conditions below the alternate minima).
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like people on both sides are just as convinced as each other that they are correct.
With respect, it does. This is the disagreement and it centres on the interpretation of the phrase, "When an aerodrome forecast is unavailable..."
You are saying (i think) that from a plain interpretation this phrase refers to anywhere.
I am saying this only means places for which a TAF exists but is unavailable. This is based on my undertsanding of the meaning of the indefinite article 'an'. Courts frequently apply the actual definition of words and grammatical construction to legislation to determine the meaning - see the recent walloping of CASA by AATA in the Direct Air case.
I think most agree that requiring VFR flights to carry an alternate because the paddock doesn't have a TAF is wrong.
Anyway interesting thread, nuff said...
Except the book does not distinguish between the two - in both cases you need an alternate.
You are saying (i think) that from a plain interpretation this phrase refers to anywhere.
I am saying this only means places for which a TAF exists but is unavailable. This is based on my undertsanding of the meaning of the indefinite article 'an'. Courts frequently apply the actual definition of words and grammatical construction to legislation to determine the meaning - see the recent walloping of CASA by AATA in the Direct Air case.
I think most agree that requiring VFR flights to carry an alternate because the paddock doesn't have a TAF is wrong.
Anyway interesting thread, nuff said...
An aerodrome with an instrument approach has alternate weather requirements predicated on the type or types of approachs available. An areodrome with a navaid is surveyed to more stringent rules than one without. For a field without an instrument approach, the lowest alternate minima would be 2000' and 8ks vis, somewhat more restrictive than the average minimas for a field with an aid. Perhaps this comes into play with the rules.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I've made it clear enough in my last post (#22) with all the references you need on this issue. I will try again in plain language.
AIP ENR 1.10 Para 1.2.1 (Jepps ATC AU-600 Para 1.2.1) refers to Flight Planning requirement, i.e. what kind of operational information (such as weather forecast) is required to be obtained. It says;
Emphasis in on whether the aerodrome has "Instrument Approach Procedure" or not. Do not confuse this with NAVAID requirement, which is a separate issue to WEATHER issue.
Basically, this is what this paragraph is saying;
- Aerodrome with IAP: Require ARFOR and TAF
- Aerodrome without IAP: Require ARFOR only (as minimum)
But as we all know, not all the aerodromes with IAP has TAF available (doesn't really matter whether it is permanently unavailable for temporarily unavailable.)
So, if that's the case, refer to AIP ENR 1.10 Para 1.2.3 (Jepps ATC AU-600 Para 1.2.3)
In plain language;
For Aerodrome with IAP (i.e. TAF required)
- If no TAF (or PROV), an Alternate is required.
For Aerodrome without IAP (i.e. TAF not required)
- If no TAF (or PROV)...well, let's find out as the paragraph above only refers to Aerodromes with IAP. But we do know that TAF is NOT required.
AIP ENR 1.1 Para 58.2.12 (Jepps ATC AU-300 Para 3.2.12) talks about the Alternate minima for IFR flights.
In summary;
For Aerodrome with IAP
- TAF is required
- If no TAF (or PROV), an Alternate is required.
For Aerodrome without IAP
- TAF not required
- If no TAF (or PROV), as long as the cloud base is 500ft above the LSALT and visibility is >8km, not Alternate is needed. Of course, it is expected that you make this decision based on ARFOR, as there may not be TAF for these aerodromes. Your descent will be in en route environment rather then local environment which what TAF is referring to anyway.
Some people are getting a bit exited about what is said in AIP ENR1.1 para 58.1.1, where it says "When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast."
Well, AIP ENR 1.10 Para 1.2.3 (Jepps ATC AU-600 Para 1.2.3) says;
"For flights to a destination for which a aerodrome forecast is required and cannot be obtained or is "provisional", the flight is permitted to depart, provided an alternate aerodrome meeting all the requirements specified in Alternate Aerodromes paragraph is provided."
I say again. If the aerodrome has no IAP, you do not require TAF in the first place. This paragraph redirects you to ENR1.1 58.1.3, where it says, no TAF, alternate needed. So, I read it as 58.1.3 only applies to the situation where TAF is required (aerodromes with IAP)
If you take 58.1.3 as a blanket statement, it would mean that an VFR flight on a 100nm cross-country flight in clear day would need an Alternate too. Just because the is no TAF at the destination. It only refers to aerodrome with IAP, where you are required to have TAF.
AIP ENR 1.10 Para 1.2.1 (Jepps ATC AU-600 Para 1.2.1) refers to Flight Planning requirement, i.e. what kind of operational information (such as weather forecast) is required to be obtained. It says;
AIP ENR 1.10 Para 1.2.1 / Jepps ATC AU-600 Para 1.2.1
A forecast must be either a flight forecast or an area forecast with an aerodrome forecast for the destination and, when required, the alternate aerodrome. For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is an Area Forecast.
A forecast must be either a flight forecast or an area forecast with an aerodrome forecast for the destination and, when required, the alternate aerodrome. For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is an Area Forecast.
Basically, this is what this paragraph is saying;
- Aerodrome with IAP: Require ARFOR and TAF
- Aerodrome without IAP: Require ARFOR only (as minimum)
But as we all know, not all the aerodromes with IAP has TAF available (doesn't really matter whether it is permanently unavailable for temporarily unavailable.)
So, if that's the case, refer to AIP ENR 1.10 Para 1.2.3 (Jepps ATC AU-600 Para 1.2.3)
AIP ENR 1.10 Para 1.2.3 / Jepps ATC AU-600 Para 1.2.3
For flights to a destination for which a aerodrome forecast is required and cannot be obtained or is "provisional", the flight is permitted to depart, provided an alternate aerodrome meeting all the requirements specified in Alternate Aerodromes paragraph is provided.
For flights to a destination for which a aerodrome forecast is required and cannot be obtained or is "provisional", the flight is permitted to depart, provided an alternate aerodrome meeting all the requirements specified in Alternate Aerodromes paragraph is provided.
For Aerodrome with IAP (i.e. TAF required)
- If no TAF (or PROV), an Alternate is required.
For Aerodrome without IAP (i.e. TAF not required)
- If no TAF (or PROV)...well, let's find out as the paragraph above only refers to Aerodromes with IAP. But we do know that TAF is NOT required.
AIP ENR 1.1 Para 58.2.12 (Jepps ATC AU-300 Para 3.2.12) talks about the Alternate minima for IFR flights.
AIP ENR 1.1 Para 58.2.12 (Jepps ATC AU-300 Para 3.2.12)
For IFR Flights, the alternate minima are as follows:
a) For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima published on the chart.
b) For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast is unavailable or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate.
c) For aerodromes without an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima is the lowest safe altitude for the final route segment plus 500ft and a visibility of 8km.
For IFR Flights, the alternate minima are as follows:
a) For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima published on the chart.
b) For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast is unavailable or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate.
c) For aerodromes without an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima is the lowest safe altitude for the final route segment plus 500ft and a visibility of 8km.
For Aerodrome with IAP
- TAF is required
- If no TAF (or PROV), an Alternate is required.
For Aerodrome without IAP
- TAF not required
- If no TAF (or PROV), as long as the cloud base is 500ft above the LSALT and visibility is >8km, not Alternate is needed. Of course, it is expected that you make this decision based on ARFOR, as there may not be TAF for these aerodromes. Your descent will be in en route environment rather then local environment which what TAF is referring to anyway.
Some people are getting a bit exited about what is said in AIP ENR1.1 para 58.1.1, where it says "When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast."
Well, AIP ENR 1.10 Para 1.2.3 (Jepps ATC AU-600 Para 1.2.3) says;
"For flights to a destination for which a aerodrome forecast is required and cannot be obtained or is "provisional", the flight is permitted to depart, provided an alternate aerodrome meeting all the requirements specified in Alternate Aerodromes paragraph is provided."
I say again. If the aerodrome has no IAP, you do not require TAF in the first place. This paragraph redirects you to ENR1.1 58.1.3, where it says, no TAF, alternate needed. So, I read it as 58.1.3 only applies to the situation where TAF is required (aerodromes with IAP)
If you take 58.1.3 as a blanket statement, it would mean that an VFR flight on a 100nm cross-country flight in clear day would need an Alternate too. Just because the is no TAF at the destination. It only refers to aerodrome with IAP, where you are required to have TAF.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
MOQ I vote your last post as the best so far on this subject! 
In essence you are reinforcing what I have been trying to say all along. Right up to THIS VERY PAGE people have STILL been arguing that for a location with an IAP and no TAF (as per the ORIGINAL QUESTION) you can STILL use LSALT +500 and 8km vis to get out of providing for an alternate. This should now be put to rest for good that this is NOT the case! FGD's conclusion on my scenarios in post #83 is INCORRECT:
Now for the no aid, no TAF scenario. If you want to argue for the barest minimum as ARFOR I can see where you are coming from. However, I would like to remind people of Jepp ATC pg 601 1.1 "...all IFR flights, must make a careful study of:
a. current weather reports and forecasts for the route to be flown AND THE AERODROMES TO BE USED"
And the first part of next section 1.2.1 "A forecast must be either a flight forecast or an area WITH AN AERODROME FORECAST FOR THE DESTINATION and, when required, the alternate aerodrome."
So one could still argue that you can proceed to farmer Boondoggles' paddock with the minimum ARFOR but no TAF = alternate required and what's more the alternate cannot be farmer Yokel's paddock next door as it says "with an aerodrome forecast ...and, when required, the alternate aerodrome."
Good night PPRUNE!
In essence you are reinforcing what I have been trying to say all along. Right up to THIS VERY PAGE people have STILL been arguing that for a location with an IAP and no TAF (as per the ORIGINAL QUESTION) you can STILL use LSALT +500 and 8km vis to get out of providing for an alternate. This should now be put to rest for good that this is NOT the case! FGD's conclusion on my scenarios in post #83 is INCORRECT:
Well done! 100%!
Every one of those scenarios does NOT require an alternate
Every one of those scenarios does NOT require an alternate
a. current weather reports and forecasts for the route to be flown AND THE AERODROMES TO BE USED"
And the first part of next section 1.2.1 "A forecast must be either a flight forecast or an area WITH AN AERODROME FORECAST FOR THE DESTINATION and, when required, the alternate aerodrome."
So one could still argue that you can proceed to farmer Boondoggles' paddock with the minimum ARFOR but no TAF = alternate required and what's more the alternate cannot be farmer Yokel's paddock next door as it says "with an aerodrome forecast ...and, when required, the alternate aerodrome."
Good night PPRUNE!
Last edited by Captain Nomad; 21st Jun 2011 at 13:52.
"What are you intending to do, Jones?"
"I'm going to fly my aeroplane into that cloud, Boss."
"Are you allowing for a weather-safe alternate?"
"Nope, I'd like to, but can't carry the fuel."
"That's fine - once in that cloud then, how are you going to get out of it without hitting the ground first?"
Scenario One
"I'm going to shoot the approach at my destination."
"Then you need a TAF, and to be reasonably safe, one which shows that the weather will be above the alternate minima"
Scenario Two
"I can't shoot an approach at my destination, so I intend to descend to the LSALT, become visual, and continue for a visual approach."
"Then you need an ARFOR, and one which shows that you can reasonably expect to become visual at the LSALT - say +500' and 8km vis."
Now, that seems the common sense approach to me. I don't see why it matters if an aerodrome has an approach specified if you do not plan to use it, perhaps due lack of equipment or whatever - and if you never crash, no one will ever ask!
"I'm going to fly my aeroplane into that cloud, Boss."
"Are you allowing for a weather-safe alternate?"
"Nope, I'd like to, but can't carry the fuel."
"That's fine - once in that cloud then, how are you going to get out of it without hitting the ground first?"
Scenario One
"I'm going to shoot the approach at my destination."
"Then you need a TAF, and to be reasonably safe, one which shows that the weather will be above the alternate minima"
Scenario Two
"I can't shoot an approach at my destination, so I intend to descend to the LSALT, become visual, and continue for a visual approach."
"Then you need an ARFOR, and one which shows that you can reasonably expect to become visual at the LSALT - say +500' and 8km vis."
Now, that seems the common sense approach to me. I don't see why it matters if an aerodrome has an approach specified if you do not plan to use it, perhaps due lack of equipment or whatever - and if you never crash, no one will ever ask!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOQ,
Lovely post, but your assertion fails the logic test.
But I must say, you and Captain Nomad are doing an incredibly thorough job at probing and examining the rules. So well have you done, that you have constructed an understanding that actually makes the various references all look consistent and without contradiction!
But alas, there are two big problems:
1. The logic test has failed. Under your assertion, a flight in the middle of the day, with 8 oktas blue sky, must plan an alternate if the destination has an IAP but no TAF. There could be another aerodrome a couple of miles away, with no IAP (and no TAF) but it wouldn't require an alternate - according to you.
2. Your assertion applies equally to VFR flight - and is utterly non-sensical when so applied. According to you, the VFR cockie needs to find out if his destination has an IAP. If it does (but has no TAF), he must then carry alternate fuel to an aerodrome that doesn't (or has a TAF)!
Lovely post, but your assertion fails the logic test.
But I must say, you and Captain Nomad are doing an incredibly thorough job at probing and examining the rules. So well have you done, that you have constructed an understanding that actually makes the various references all look consistent and without contradiction!
But alas, there are two big problems:
1. The logic test has failed. Under your assertion, a flight in the middle of the day, with 8 oktas blue sky, must plan an alternate if the destination has an IAP but no TAF. There could be another aerodrome a couple of miles away, with no IAP (and no TAF) but it wouldn't require an alternate - according to you.
2. Your assertion applies equally to VFR flight - and is utterly non-sensical when so applied. According to you, the VFR cockie needs to find out if his destination has an IAP. If it does (but has no TAF), he must then carry alternate fuel to an aerodrome that doesn't (or has a TAF)!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checkboard and FGD135, I completely agree with what you are saying actually...
When AIP states "For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure", I believe it assumes one's ability (aircraft & crew) and intention to conduct such an approach.
If you are unable to conduct RNAV approach, you will need to be visual at or above LSALT to continue the descent. Arriving at the aerodrome having IAP that you can't use, is exactly same as arriving at aerodrome that has no IAP.
Alternate requirement becomes issue obviously in marginal conditions only. If all available forecast is indicating CAVOK condition, you are no longer dependant on IAP to get visual, therefore availability of IAP should not be a factor when considering alternate requirement. So, I do agree with you. We should be able to not carry alternate for either destinations.
Again, in VFR flight, you are obviously unable to carry out IAP. Availability of IAP should not be a factor when considering alternate requirement in this case as well.
AIP is just poorly written...as usual. I don't think we need to carry alternate in the examples above, but I do understand the logic of people who think otherwise, if you just read the AIP as it is without considering its intentions.
It will all make sense if AIP reads, "For aerodrome with an instrument approach procedure (and the pilot is able to, and intend to carry out an instrument approach because the condition is marginal)...TAF is required and if you don't have it, better have some fuel to go elsewhere." (or something along these lines...)
When AIP states "For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure", I believe it assumes one's ability (aircraft & crew) and intention to conduct such an approach.
If you are unable to conduct RNAV approach, you will need to be visual at or above LSALT to continue the descent. Arriving at the aerodrome having IAP that you can't use, is exactly same as arriving at aerodrome that has no IAP.
1. The logic test has failed. Under your assertion, a flight in the middle of the day, with 8 oktas blue sky, must plan an alternate if the destination has an IAP but no TAF. There could be another aerodrome a couple of miles away, with no IAP (and no TAF) but it wouldn't require an alternate - according to you.
2. Your assertion applies equally to VFR flight - and is utterly non-sensical when so applied. According to you, the VFR cockie needs to find out if his destination has an IAP. If it does (but has no TAF), he must then carry alternate fuel to an aerodrome that doesn't (or has a TAF)!
AIP is just poorly written...as usual. I don't think we need to carry alternate in the examples above, but I do understand the logic of people who think otherwise, if you just read the AIP as it is without considering its intentions.
It will all make sense if AIP reads, "For aerodrome with an instrument approach procedure (and the pilot is able to, and intend to carry out an instrument approach because the condition is marginal)...TAF is required and if you don't have it, better have some fuel to go elsewhere." (or something along these lines...)