Take-off Alternates ??

[rotorque]

G'day guys,

This question is probably more directed to the UK drivers or anyone operating under JAR OPS 3.

The CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) of Australia are trying to introduce new regulations that are based on the JAR OPS part 3. The proposed changes are titled 'Commercial Transport Operations -Rotorcraft (Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 133)'. One of the proposed changes in particular is a little worrying for the IFR drivers in Australia as it refers to Take-Off Alternates. The proposed change, CASR 133.295 Selection of alternate heliports, states that "A. Each operator of a rotorcraft engaged in commercial transport operations under the IFR must ensure that an alternate heliport is available within 1 hour’s flying time (at normal cruise speed in still air) of the departure heliport if a take-off is to be conducted when weather conditions at the departure heliport are at or above take-off minima but are below landing minima."

In Australia this rule would be extremely limiting and impractical. Most operators of IFR helicopters here are situated around the oil or coal areas that are remote from any major airports or heliports. To expect us to be able to hold an alternate within 1 hours flight time is ludicrous, especialy concidering that within 120 to 150 miles the weather will be most likely to be similar to what is at the point of departure. In our current situation we can hold an alternate at any distance from the take off point. This allows us to get the job done.

At this stage I do not know whether the same rule is written in the JAR OPS 3, I am assuming that it is, therefore - Normaly, in the UK, what would be the maximum distance to a suitable alternate encountered by IFR pilots? Surely it couldn't be over 120 to 150 miles. If it is then I may have to reconsider, but for Aussie conditions and distances encountered this rule would be a huge problem.

I would appreciate any comments on the above or anything relating to why a one hour distance limit would be a good thing.

Cheers.

[212man]

I'm pushed for time, but the key point is that normally you use your departure a/d as the alternate unless it has an approach ban in force. ie unless the rvr is down to 5-600m (cloud base is a discussion point in its own right). If that is the case then in the UK they do indeed use alternates an hour away. Having said that, there is a CAA dispensation to use on a/d more than an hour away as it is on the other side of the country and therefore in a different wx system; one problem is that if Abn is down in fog, so are most of the ususal 60 min alternates.

Must go, hope that helps a bit..

------------------
Another day in paradise

[hardover]

Hey Hey,
Here is why 600 feet RVR was set up here this end. (from what i remember) The foggest area in eastern Canada happens to be the airport and surrounding areas. A local operator indorsed their crews on the sim for 600 feet not meters RVR take off only. This would allow the helos departure providing some allowences were made: cat 2 runway with centre line lights and a alternate airport for emergencies with weather above IFR limits within 30 minutes at single engine cruise.
This method was not used alot but at times it came in handy.
2dalou

[stopachoppa]

Just had a look at the JAR-OPS 3 Manual.
The relevant section (JAR-OPS 3.295) is quite a bit more detailed.
The get out clause is stated at 3.295(c)(2) which reads (c)"For a flight to be conducted in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules or when flying VFR and navigating by means other than by reference to visual landmarks, the commander shall specify at least one alternate in the operational flight plan unless:" (2)"The heliport of intended landing is isolated and no alternate is available. A Point of No return (PNR) shall be determined."

It then goes on do define off shore alternate options.

Would be quite happy to copy and mail the whole section to you if you want to compare notes!

[212man]

I don't have access to any manuals at the moment, but I'm fairly sure that what you are referring to is the destination, not the departure point. If no alternate is available for the destination, then you are correct in saying offshore alternates can be used (but not for payload enhancement), a bit like island holding fuel for FW a/c. However, the departure also must have an alternate when IFR, and for twin engined a/c it should be 60 min still air on one engine (90 min on two if 3 engined). Normally this would be the departure airfield. Then as above....

Can't quote any reference numbers at the moment, sorry.

------------------
Another day in paradise

[rotorque]

Thanks guys,

I think 212man is the closest to the mark. The particular section of the proposed rule happens to be the very first paragraph before any other conditions are mentioned, it states that the 'take off alternate' must be withing 1 hour of the departure airport, no ifs or buts.
I assume the idea is that they don't want you wondering around the sky for hours with a major emergency directly after take off, like an engine fire that has been put out by the extinguishers, this I understand and being in the drivers seat at that particular moment dosn't appeal to me either -BUT- For practical purposes, having to hold an alternate that is an hour away basically results in us having to stay on the ground on the many nights or days that we would otherwise be flying. The sort of emergency that I assume they wrote the rule for is extremely remote and (to me anyway) the rule seems to be an overkill. For operators to have to get a dispensation for an alternate that is further away than 60 minutes seems to defeat the purpose. In other words almost every IFR operator here would have to have a dispensation.

The proposed rule does refer to varying types of conditions a little later on, like isolated heliports needing a PNR calculation as stated above in Stopachopa's reply etc etc, which all seem reasonable - its just the one hour bit that gets us.

The reason for the post is realy to get an idea if it is as restricting for JAR OP pilots as it would be for us. And from 212man's response it seems that it may well be. The proposed changes are still in the draft phase and we are invited to respond to the discussion paper. Hence the question. If we come back with enough evidence that Australian conditions would not warant the introduction of this rule then obviously they are hard pressed to implement it.

Thanks again, this is one of the few 'soap boxes' that I have had need to stand on.

cheers.