Is there a limit distance for Destintion Alternate?

[JABBARA]

.

In Jar Ops 1, is there a distance limit for the destination alternate from destination aerodrome in terms of time/distance?

I have gone through Jar Ops 1, although it mentions weather/minima requirments for destination alternate, I did not come across any distance requirement for twin engine airplane.

Does anyone have an idea?

Thank you in advance

[aviator's_anonymous]

The distance limit for your destination alternate would be the distance your fuel on board would allow you to go. I think for an alternate, as long as it comes within weather minima requirements as the alternate, u can use it. Normally, if u are required to plan an alternate, u wouldn't really want to plan the alternate aerodrome which is furthest away, u would want the closest one which would allow u to land if your initial aerodrome's minima came to the point that you needed to divert. As long as your alternate aerodrome came within alternate restrictions (Say, Night VFR Alternate requirements etc....) but that's a different story..... =)

[Pub User]

The exact criteria will be given in your ops manual, but basically its the nearest one with appropriate facilities and a suitable weather forecast.

Often the closest may have a very similar weather forecast to the destination, and therefore be unsuitable, so a different one must be chosen. Other (commercial) factors may also be applied, such as fuel prices, transport links and accomodation availability.

[nibog]

Think the rule is something along the lines of:

You must have enough fuel to get to alternate + 45 mins holding + 2 Approaches.

It's been a while though, maybe it's changed.

Think i actually seen it in an old ICAO doc.

guess it was a long while ago..

[411A]

Under FAA regs in the past (now too, I believe), where no suitable destination alternate exists, island reserve fuel would be carried, which was two hours fuel at all-engines normal cruise.
PanAmerican used this quite extensively in the south pacific.

[batty]

From my understanding there is no limit for a distance for a destination alternate.

Your reserve fuel is made up of Alternate fuel + Final Reserve Fuel

Alternate Fuel:
Missed approach at destination +
Cruise to +
Approach and landing at alternate

Final Reserve Fuel:
Hold at 1500ft at alternate for 30mins

There is a limit for take off alternate on a twin engine of one hour at single engine cruise speed.

[The Real Slim Shady]

This section of JAR Ops suggests that the 60 minute rule applies to all stages of flight. However, if you are operating in an area which does have an adequate airfield within 60 mins, say it was halfway between your destination and your alternate, using this regulation you could overfly it and proceed to the alternate which was 2 hours from dest. Clear as mud???

JAR-OPS 1.245 Maximum distance from an adequate aerodrome for two-engined aeroplanes without an ETOPS Approval

(a) Unless specifically approved by the Authority in accordance with JAR-OPS 1.246(a) (ETOPS Approval), an operator shall not operate a two-engined aeroplane over a route which contains a
point further from an adequate aerodrome than, in the case of:

(1) Performance Class A aeroplanes with either:

(i) A maximum approved passenger seating configuration of 20 or
more; or

(ii) A maximum take-off mass of 45 360kg or more, the distance flown in 60 minutes at the one-engine-inoperative
cruise speed determined in accordance with subparagraph (b)below;

[Pilot Pete]

The Real Slim Shady

I think we are now getting into another area, namely ETOPS. I think the original question was 'is there a limit on distance to a destination alternate?' The answer under JAR, I believe, is no. BUT, ETOPS rules could come into it if there was no other suitable airfield within the non-ETOPS time/distance limit.

So you could logically deduct that there would be a limit if you would have to fly under ETOPS rules to reach the destination alternate and your a/c was not ETOPS capable. Equally though, I suppose you could deduce that you could fly absolutely miles away (why you would want to I don't know), if there were suitable en-route alternates that would allow you to get to the destination alternate non-ETOPS.

As for flying ETOPS to a destination and then flying ETOPS to the destination alternate, I would assume you would be getting into Isolated Airfield territory then, with different rules.

PP

[The Real Slim Shady]

PP,

I wasn't actually thinking along those lines and would appreciate your opinion on the interpretation of the JAR.

I read it as a non ETOPs aircraft proceeds from point A to to point B. Within that route are adequate airfields within 60 minutes, hence no ETOPs.

At point B ( destination ) the aircraft then diverts to point C (alternate ) which is 2 hours from B. Between B and C is point X, another adequate airfield, midway between the 2, which the aircraft overflies en route to C.

Thus the aircraft is never more than 60 minutes from an adequate airfield but the FP alternate is 2 hrs from the destination.

Clear as mud?? I can't think why anyone would necessarily want to do that in Europe but there may be parts of the world where for political or diplomatic reasons it may be necessary; but then it wouldn't come under JARs!!!!

What do you think??? Purely in terms of the theory, not the practice.

[popay]

JAR-OPS 1.245 Maximum distance from an
adequate aerodrome for
two-engined aeroplanes
without an ETOPS
Approval
SECTION 1 JAR-OPS 1 Subpart D
JAR-OPS 1.245(a)(1) (continued) JAR-OPS 1.245(b)(2) (continued)
(i) A maximum approved
passenger seating configuration of 20 or
more; or
(ii) A maximum take-off mass of
45 360 kg or more,
the distance flown in 60 minutes at the one engine-
inoperative cruise speed determined in
accordance with subparagraph (b) below;

(b) An operator shall determine a speed for the
calculation of the maximum distance to an adequate
aerodrome for each two-engined aeroplane type or
variant operated, not exceeding VMO, based upon the
true airspeed that the aeroplane can maintain with
one-engine-inoperative under the following
conditions:
(1) International Standard Atmosphere
(ISA);
(2) Level flight:
(B) At the maximum flight
level to which the aeroplane, with one
engine inoperative, can climb, and
maintain, using the gross rate of climb
specified in the AFM, whichever is
less.
(3) Maximum continuous thrust or power
on the remaining operating engine;
(4) An aeroplane mass not less than that
resulting from:
(i) Take-off at sea-level at
maximum take-off mass; and
(ii) All engines climb to the
optimum long range cruise altitude; and
(iii) All engines cruise at the long
range cruise speed at this altitude, until the
time elapsed since take-off is equal to the
applicable threshold prescribed in
subparagraph (a) above.
(c) An operator must ensure that the following
data, specific to each type or variant, is included in
the Operations Manual:
(1) The one-engine-inoperative cruise
speed determined in accordance with
subparagraph (b) above; and
(2) The maximum distance from an
adequate aerodrome determined in accordance
with subparagraphs (a) and (b) above.
Note: The speeds and altitudes (flight levels) specified above
are only intended to be used for establishing the maximum
distance from an adequate aerodrome.
[Ch. 1, 01.03.98; Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]

In my opinion the distance is limited to 60 min, one engine out for specified speed for specific aircraft type.
Cheers.

[Pilot Pete]

Slim

Yeah I see your angle on re-reading!

I still think that there is no limit as long as you have adequate airfields between your destination and your destination alternate to satisfy this rule quoted here a couple of times;

"the maximum distance to an adequate
aerodrome for each two-engined aeroplane type or
variant operated, not exceeding VMO, based upon the
true airspeed that the aeroplane can maintain with
one-engine-inoperative"

I don't think this says that the destination alternate is the ONLY adequate airfield that you can take into account when diverting from your destination airfield. Why couldn't you have one or more adequate airfields between your destination and your chosen alternate to satisfy the JAR requirement of not flying beyond 60 mins on one engine from an adequate airfield?

All theory though.........!

PP

ps Popay,

I don't think the original question was assuming a divert at destination on one engine, if it was then I agree with your last sentence.

[popay]

Pilot Pete, hi there.
The question was: “In Jar Ops 1, is there a distance limit for the destination alternate from destination aerodrome in terms of time/distance?” My answer is: yes there is, using the mentioned rule JAR-OPS 1.245 Maximum distance from an adequate aerodrome for two-engined aeroplanes without an ETOPS Approval, a time limit is 60 min/ distance for instance A330 is 422 NM, based on speed 330 knots and reference weight of not less then 220 tonnes, one engine out. Everything else beyond, those limits is ETOPS. Regulations regarding the selections of destination airdrome: JAR-OPS 1.295 Selection of aerodromes
(a) An operator shall establish procedures for
the selection of destination and/or alternate
aerodromes in accordance with JAR-OPS 1.220 when
planning a flight.
(c) An operator must select at least one
destination alternate for each IFR flight unless:
(1) Both:
(i) The duration of the planned
flight from take-off to landing does not
exceed 6 hours; and
(ii) Two separate runways are
available and useable at the destination and
the appropriate weather reports or forecasts
for the destination aerodrome, or any
combination thereof, indicate that for the
period from one hour before until one hour
after the expected time of arrival at
destination, the ceiling will be at least 2 000
ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is
greater, and the visibility will be at least 5
km. (see IEM OPS 1.295(c)(1)(ii)); or
(d) An operator must select two destination
alternates when:
(1) The appropriate weather reports or
forecasts for the destination, or any combination
thereof, indicate that during a period commencing
1 hour before and ending 1 hour after the
estimated time of arrival, the weather conditions
will be below the applicable planning minima; or
(2) No meteorological information is
available.
(e) An operator shall specify any required
alternate(s) in the operational flight plan.
[Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]
Amendment 7 1-D-7 01.09.04
In other words, whenever your destination is further than 6 hours you need a destination alternate, which has to be usable for planning purposes and adequate for operation. The regulations prescribe the limitation in time and distance based on worst case scenario, which is for TWO ENGINE A/C is one engine out. Those limitations for instance for 3 or 4 engines airplane are two hours. Generally we are not speaking about one engine out diversion as such, but in order to specify criteria for limitation, the authorities prescribe worst case scenario. The same rule applies by the way for departure aerodrome. That’s my way of understanding that could be wrong.
Cheers.

[Pilot Pete]

Yeah Popay, I see what you are saying about worst case scenario at the planning stage.

That then means that you must comply with the rule if you you lose an engine and the hypothetical diversion to a destination alternate further away with a suitable en-route alternate would not be possible.... but, if you were on two engines when you got to destination I don't see why you couldn't divert to a destination alternate further than 60 minutes away, as long as you had a suitable en-route alternate that did comply!!!!

Any thoughts?

PP

[popay]

Hi Pilot Pete,
Another rule says: Enroute Alternate Selection Criteria
This is an alternate, which may be used in addition to a conventional Destination Alternate,
allowing reduced contingency fuel to be planned. The abeam point to the en-route alternate
must be in the latter half of the route. The shortest distance from the en-route alternate to the
aircraft must be no more than half the distance the aircraft is from destination. The airfield
must be approved for the aircraft type and promulgated as open. It is planned so that should
the calculated fuel remaining to destination fall below the minimum required then a diversion
to it could be initiated to uplift fuel.
That’s the case, when you would nominate an en route alternate due to commercial reasons. This would be the case if you need to reduce your contingency down to 3% or company minima (lets say 600 kg), basically its redispatch in flight. If you noticed there is a limitation where the en route alternate can be located, in particular somewhere around 75% of the route.
Due to that regulation I don’t see a reason why you would select another enroute alternate between your destination and destination alternate. If you would have to select a destination alternate with more than 60 minutes, due to political reasons or whatsoever reasons, then this part of the flight would become an ETOPS flight, with associated planning procedures.
I think, its not quite correct to call the aerodrome placed between your destination and destination alternate as an en route alternate.
That’s how I would interpret the definition, but I might be wrong.
Cheeers.

[Wrongstuff]

I think the answer to the original question is (In Europe) that a destination alternate has no defined max distance. The only requirement is to be able to carry enough fuel to divert to that alternate. This flight to diversion if over 60 mins would not be breaking the single engine rule if there were plenty of adequate airports along the diversion route and adequate does not involve weather.

I believe that some UK operators fly to the Canaries using oceanic routes, Sometimes they can be right on the 60 min limit from Santiago. Santiago weather can be below limits for landing but it is still adequate.

[JABBARA]

Hi everbody who replies.

This question regarding the "limit distance for destinaton alternate" arose when the company I am working for, started to operate to Kabul to carry Military Personnel from Europe. We are operating under the JAA, as you stated, normally there is no need to mind the distance of destination alternate as long as the area of operation is confined within Europe.

But overall I understand now, there is no distance limit for a suitable destination alternate provided the operator did not violate 60-min ETOPS rule while diverting.

Thank you.

[Pilot Pete]

I did type another whole reply to you popay last night, but the forum got its knickers in a twist and it was lost....:(

However, the last two posts allude to the point I was making in that I don't see anywhere in the JARs that says you cannot divert wherever you want to as long as you don't break the 60 min rule from a suitable airfield (not necessarily your destination alternate) . Having other airfields that are suitable between your destination and destination alternate would suffice, so that if you lost an engine you could then divert to one of these, no problem (well, other than the engine!)

PP

[popay]

Hi Pilot Pete,
I mean theoretically you could fill up your tanks, let’s say for A332, 109 tons and fly for 13 hours where ever you want, and still have about 37 tons left in your tanks, but I don’t see any practical relevance in what you are saying. Fuel wise, the main requirement in terms “of in flight fuel management” is, to have at least final reserve on board upon landing anywhere on your route, so that the only restriction fuel wise. I think the whole purpose of commercial flight planning is to carry as much as possible payload and as much as only necessary fuel, in order to do that safely the authorities have put some rules and restriction.
If we are talking about some private flights or VIP flight, then the only rule there is just fill it up to the random regardless of where you go.
Again theoretically if you have enough fuel to reach any aerodrome you want, you don’t need any alternates or whatsoever, unless you are operating over remote area.
The whole idea about commercial aviation is based on reducing costs, but the task of the authorities is to enforce the airlines to operate safely.
Sorry it’s gone a bit hypothetical, but I think that’s the main matter.
Cheers.

[Piltdown Man]

I totally agree with Wrongstuff. But what is the real point of the question? As many other contributors have pointed out, there is more than one type of alternate.

[giorgiop]

a non etops aircraft (class A, mtom>45360kg and mapsc>19) must fly on route not further than 60 minutes from a suitable aerodrome.
for class a with mtom<45360kg and mapsc<20 the limit is 120 min or 180 min (subjected to approval from the authority
turboprop class b and class c aircraft may fly 120 minuts or 300nm, wichever is nearest to the alternate.
riciprocating class b may fly 90 minuts or 300nm.
all the time and distance are intended with one engine inoperative.

i think this is the answer to the initial question. it's a general rules applicable in any phase of the flight except for take off alternate and isolated destination

ciao ciao

[Pilot Pete]

Popay

I agree totally with your points regarding what we are trying to do commercially and have pointed out that my answer is only theoretical (and completely impractical IMHO). You are right, the question has seemed to lead to theoretical answers about what is allowable, be they desirable or not.

I shall retire and try to get rid of my Accra belly now.:sad:

PP