Enroute Alternate Weather Requirements

[tayyareci]

Hello everybody,

If anyone can give me a reference for this question I really appreciate I am unable to find it so far,

on a non ETOPs route for a twin engine operation what's the weather requirements for an enroute alternate airport, as far as I remember there's no requirement but I cannot find where it would be written

and is there any difference for this rule for a 4 engine operation

thanks

[tayyareci]

found the answer

“JAR-OPS 1.245
(a) Unless specifically approved by the Authority […], an operator shall not operate a two-engined aeroplane over a route which contains a point further from an adequate aerodrome than the distance flown in 60 minutes at the [approved] one-engineinoperative cruise speed”.

thanks

[Jimmy Do Little]

on a non ETOPs route for a twin engine operation what's the weather requirements for an enroute alternate airport

Does the following help?

3.4.6 Alternate Airports

An aeroplane shall not be released unless the required take-off, destination and alternate airports, including en route alternate airports to be used in the event of a system failure which requires a diversion, are listed in the operational flight plan, (e.g. on board copy of computer flight plan).
Suitable en route alternates are also required to be identified, listed and provided to the crew with the most up to date information (e.g. airport data, facilities, weather, etc.) as part of the dispatch release for all cases where the planned route of flight contains a point (Note: appendix "B" includes the word "no" a this point) more than 60 minutes flying time at the approved one-engine-inoperative cruise speed from an adequate airport. Since these en route alternates serve a different purpose than the destination airport and would normally be used only in the event of an engine failure or the loss of a primary airframe system, an airport may not be listed as an en route alternate unless:
The landing distances required as specified in the Aircraft Flight Manual for the altitude of the airport, for the runway expected to be used, taking into account wind conditions, runway surface conditions, and aeroplane handling characteristics, permit the aeroplane to be stopped within the landing distance available as declared by the airport authorities and computed in accordance with the applicable regulations;
The airport services and facilities are available and adequate for the operator's approved approach procedure(s) and operating minima for the runway expected to be used;
The latest available forecast weather conditions for a period commencing one hour before the established earliest time of landing and ending one hour after the established latest time of landing at that airport, are equal to or exceed the authorized weather minima for en route alternate airports in appendix B; (Standard Alternate Requirements).
For the same period, the forecast cross wind component for the intended landing runway, including gusts, is less than the maximum permitted cross wind for a single engine landing. Where no single engine demonstrated cross wind value exists, 80% of the all engine demonstrated value will be used.

[Wizofoz]

We are getting a few terms mixed up here, I feel.

What Jimmy has quoted is the requirements for an aerodrome to be considered a Suitable airport. An aircraft on an ETOPs flight must always be within the ETOPs maximum threshold (120, 180 or 207 mins at the pre-determined, single engine diversion speed as appropriate) at any time that it is more then 60mins flight time from an Adequate airport.

There are no weather requirements for an airport to be considered an Adequate airport.

I think what tayareci might be referring to a Fuel en-route alternate, required to reduce contingency fuel from 5% to 3%. Such an aerodrome need only meet the requirements of an Adequate airport, and as such has no weather requirements.

[Jimmy Do Little]

wizofox... True and correct, but on a non ETOPs route for a twin engine operation what's the weather requirements for an enroute alternate airport

[Wizofoz]

Jimmy-

If you are non-ETOPs the weather requirements for en-route alternates are nil, as you only have to consider adequate airports.

From your quote-

for all cases where the planned route of flight contains a point more than 60 minutes flying time at the approved one-engine-inoperative cruise speed from an adequate airport.

If you are always LESS then 60mins from an adequate airport, you are non-ETOPS. Adequate airports have no weather requirements.

[Jimmy Do Little]

I think the confusion here is in the difference between, Alternate "Planning" and Alternate "Actual".


----------------------

From my companies FOM (Per applicable Regulations)

Definitions from FOM... (Non-ETOPS. ER ops covered in separate section)

Alternate aerodrome : An aerodrome to which an aircraft may proceed when it becomes either impossible or inadvisable to proceed to or to land at the aerodrome of intended landing.

Alternate aerodromes include the following :
Take-off alternate : An alternate aerodrome at which an aircraft can land should this become necessary shortly after take-off and it is not possible to use the aerodrome of departure.

En-route alternate : An aerodrome at which an aircraft would be able to land after experiencing an abnormal or emergency condition while en route.

Destination alternate : An alternate aerodrome to which an aircraft may proceed should it become impossible or inadvisable to land at the aerodrome of intended landing.


Duties and Responsibilities....
....Ensure that the provisions specified in the Operations Manual(s) in respect of fuel, oil and oxygen requirements, minimum safe altitudes, aerodrome operating minima and availability of alternate aerodromes, where required, can be complied with for the planned flight;

Pilots are responsible for monitoring weather of destination airport, enroute
alternates (if applicable), destination alternates(if applicable) (VOLMET or other appropriate service) NOTAM’s etc, during flight to ensure that there have been no changes which may affect the safety of the operation.

In the event of changed conditions at the destination or any alternate airport due to weather or some other factor the commander must take the responsibility as to the appropriate course of action.

Remember, there is a difference between "Suitable Enroute Alternate" and "ETOPS Alternate", or whatever your company (authority) decides to call it. (See Boeing Reference 22 Oct 2005).

My door is wide open for further discussion, as these things are often misunderstood.

[Wizofoz]

Sure.

Nothing you've quoted indicates any requirement for en-route alternates to conform to any particular weather minima if the flight is non- ETOPS.

Can you quote anything that would, say, cause a re-route or cancellation to be required because any or all en-route aerodromes, within the 60 minute ETOPS threshold, was below any particular weather minima? Yes, you should know what the weather is like at aerodromes on your route, so you know whether they are available to divert to, but there is no planning OR en route minimum weather that they have to conform to to commence and continue the flight, as long as the flight is non-ETOPs.

You can fly 10 000 miles over nothing but aerodromes that are 0/0 in fog, as long as you are never more than 60 minutes from an Adequate Aerodrome, the definition of which does not include any weather requirements.

[Jimmy Do Little]

Can you quote anything that would... Everything above is simply cut and pasted from various relevant manuals, etc.



You can fly 10 000 miles over nothing but aerodromes that are 0/0 in fog, as long as you are never more than 60 minutes from an Adequate Aerodrome, the definition of which does not include any weather requirements. Only if that aircraft actually had a 10 000 mph S/E cruise speed.

More Regulatory quotes:.....

Take off alternate is required if weather below landing minima of the airport:
• T/O alternate must be within 60 minute at S/E inop cruise
• Weather at alternate airport must be above alternate minima at time of
departure and at ETA for alternate.....

Blows the 10000 mile idea.

Alternate is an Alternate. All need some planned weather requirement to be NOMINATED on a flight plan (ATC or CFP).

ETOPS is simply better defined, and the regulations are condensed.

If you could quote ANY regulations or authorized reference, I'd be happy to consider.

[Wizofoz]

Sorry Jimmy, but you are simply wrong. There is no requirement for an Adequate Airport to conform to any weather minima, and no requirement OTHER than an aircraft be within sixty minutes of an adequate airport at every point on the flight.See Tayaracie's second post.

Destination and Takeoff alternates have weather requirements. Suitable Airporst (only relevent to ETOPS) have weather requirements. Adequate airports don't. The very Regs you have quoted say this, but you are miss-interpreting them.

Some cut'n'pasting of my own-

1) Adequate - an adequate airport is an airport, which the operator and TCCA consider to be adequate, having regard to the performance requirements applicable at the expected landing weight. In particular, it should be anticipated that at the expected time of use:
the airport will be available, and equipped with the necessary ancillary services, such as ATS, lighting, communications, weather reporting, navaids and emergency services; and
at least one approach aid will be available for an instrument approach.


2) Suitable - a suitable airport is an adequate airport with weather reports, forecasts or combination thereof, indicating that the weather conditions will be at or above minima as specified Appendix B of this document, and field condition reports indicate that a safe landing can be accomplished during the period of intended operation.

Note that there are no weather requirements for an Adequate aerodrome.

You must remain within 60 mins flight time of an Adequate aerodrome, unless you have approval to operate ETOPs.

Now please supply one quote which says you must stay within 60mins of a Suitable aerodrome.

[Jimmy Do Little]

I agree, there is no legal requirement (Government, authority, etc) with each country (Some do) , but MOST FOM will include it, thus making it legal for their operations.



I also clearly stated earlier that my above references were FOM / AOC references.

---------------------------------------------

USE OF ADEQUATE AIRPORTS FOR NON-ETOPS FLIGHTS

Normally weather for adequate airports are not required except:

- where the departure airport is below landing minima, a useable adequate airport must have a valid forecast from 30 mins prior to earliest time of use to 30 mins after latest time of use.

PRE-FLIGHT (non-ETOPS) and in the non-ETOPS segments of an international flight there must be an adequate airport above the landing minima within 60 min / 405 nm (180 min / 1200 nm ETOPS A/C) of the A/C for the entire route. This is a company (not regulatory) requirement to make sure that enroute airports are available for use. MEL reductions in ETOPS diversion distances do not affect this requirement (ETOPS affecting MELs apply to ETOPS flights).

INFLIGHT, there is no legal requirement to monitor/maintain adequate airport weather above landing minima. Airmanship dictates general airport proximity and associated weather awareness.


Again, Planning (Pre-Flight) and actual (In flight). There is a difference.

The original question....
on a non ETOPs route for a twin engine operation what's the weather requirements for an enroute alternate airport, answer that I have in FOM (approved by local authority)

there must be an adequate airport above the landing minima within 60 min / 405 nm ...of the A/C for the entire route

R T F Q


As a side note:

...a suitable airport is an adequate airport with weather reports, forecasts or combination thereof, indicating that the weather conditions will be at or above minima as specified...

...there must be an adequate airport above the landing minima...

...by definition, implies a "Suitable" Airport.

[Wizofoz]

OK, I see that your company has a requirement over and above the regulatory requirements. That's fine (but things would have been sped up if you'd indicated it was a company thing, not a regulation), but I can assure you it is not the case with "most' airlines, at least not those operating under JAR.

I've worked for a total of 5 Airlines. An Australian major, a Japanese operator, A European Charter company, A European Lo-Co and now a large ME based international which complies with JAR.

None of them, nor, as far as I am aware, the likes of BA, Lufthansa, VA etc have any requirements over and above the regulations.


The OP asked what the weather requirements were for non-ETOPS en-route alternates. From a regulatory standpoint, and for the actual operation of most airlines, there ARE none, planning or otherwise.

[Jimmy Do Little]

Have worked for some of the same 5 major operators (ETOPS and NON-ETOPS). All had a similiar requirements in their FOM's, albiet you had to dig deep in the books to find.

Time to put this one to bed.

Cheers

[0-8]

Direct from our Ops Manual (Large European operator):

NON-ETOPS Operation

The route must remain within 60 minutes of an Adequate airfield.
Note, that for the purposes of 'Adequate' the airfield does not have to
meet ANY weather criteria, but must meet the definition of an
Adequate airfield in Ops Manual A Section 8.6.2.1.

[Jimmy Do Little]

Depends on your company I suppose.....


Reminds me of a quote from an Unknown source....

"You learn to fly in a few hours, it takes years to learn when NOT to fly"
--------------------------

Incidentally... From the US FAR's (FAA Regulations)

Sec. 121.191

a) No person operating a turbine engine powered transport category airplane ....

2) The net flight path allows the airplane to continue flight from the cruising altitude to an alternate airport where a landing can be made ...where the airplane lands after an engine fails.......

b) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, it is assumed that--
(1) The engine fails at the most critical point en route;....

5) The alternate airport is specified in the dispatch or flight release and meets the prescribed weather minimums; and ....

[Henry VIII]

Sorry guys, I guess it’s time to refer to rules regardless of each single company ops manual.

EU-OPS 1.297 (C) says :

[(c) Planning minima for a:

(1) Destination alternate aerodrome,
(2) Isolated aerodrome,
(3) 3% ERA Aerodrome,
(4) En-route alternate aerodrome
required at the planning stage
An operator shall only select an aerodrome for
one of those purposes when the appropriate weather
reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof,
indicate that, during a period commencing one hour
before and ending one hour after the estimated time
of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions
will be at or above the planning minima in Table 1
below.]

Table 1 Planning minima – [Destination
alternate aerodrome, isolated destination
aerodrome, 3% ERA and en-route alternate
aerodrome]
Type of approach------------Planning Minima
Cat II and III-------------------Cat I (Note 1)
Cat I-----------------------------Non-precision (Notes 1 & 2)
Non-precision----------------Non-precision (Notes 1 & 2)
------------------------------------plus 200 ft/1 000 m
Circling-------------------------Circling

Note 1 RVR.
Note 2 The ceiling must be at or above the MDH.


EU-OPS 1.297 (D) details the ETOPS en-route planning minimas.

Regards :ok:

[Jimmy Do Little]

[(c) Planning minima for a:

(1) Destination alternate aerodrome,
(2) Isolated aerodrome,
(3) 3% ERA Aerodrome,
(4) En-route alternate aerodrome
required at the planning stage
An operator shall only select an aerodrome for
one of those purposes when the appropriate weather
reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof,
indicate that, during a period commencing one hour
before and ending one hour after the estimated time
of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions
will be at or above the planning minima in Table 1
below.]

Thank you Henry. I think I've been saying this all along.

[Wizofoz]

EU-OPS 1.297 (D) details the ETOPS en-route planning minimas.


No, you haven't. The En-Route alternate specified in Henrys post refers to an ETOPS Suitable airport, not a non-ETOPs adequate

5) The alternate airport is specified in the dispatch or flight release and meets the prescribed weather minimums;

The alternate YOU are refering to is a DESTINATION alternate, not an en-route one.

A company may choose to exceed the regulations in any way it chooses, but the regulations are as I and others have outlined to you.

My "10 000 Mile" Idea was correct under the regs and most airlines practices.

[Jimmy Do Little]

Check it again...

EU-OPS 1.297 (C) says :.... (Note "C")


EU-OPS 1.297 (D) details the ETOPS en-route planning minimas. (Note "D")

As I stated so many times earlier. It's about "Planning" and "Inflight". Eitherway, enroute alternate is typically required, and weather must be ABOVE landing minima during the "Planning" phase of flight.


Incidently. The same applies for ETOPS, however those rules include the term "Suitable". However, if during "Planning" an airport defined as "Suitable" was later (During the ETOPS portion of the flight) degraded to Adaquate, a reroute to non-etops would not be required - amongst other things (Fuel when depressurized, etc, etc)


Again, the question refered to is NON-ETOPS.


I think Henry (and Oldsmokey in a previous forum) was pointing out that you may be wrong. I'll leave it up to them to confirm either case.

[Wizofoz]

Eitherway, enroute alternate is typically required, and weather must be ABOVE landing minima during the "Planning" phase of flight.


You have not produced any supporting documents for this, except for your companies individual procedures, and have had several shown to you that contradict you. You even said so yourself, but now seem to have changed your mind.

[BOAC]

Whoa guys and girls!

Henry - you have actually 'misquoted' EU OPS! If you look at (c) the "required at the planning stage" is on the same line as (4) En-route alternate aerodrome. You have dropped it a line. NORMALLY an 'en-route alternate' is not specified/used by a company. When it is, those weather restrictions apply. Hopefully knickers untwisted?

Have a look at 1.1.92 ''adequate' (a) [and note the slight difference for ETOPS 'adequate']

[Jimmy Do Little]

I've quoted: FAA, TC, CAAS and several company OPS manuals. I also included the references.

Henry was kind enough to quote EU-OPS.

The general point that you seem to be missing is this:

All flights must operate in a safe manner, and therefore have a place to go in the event that things don't go as expected (Common sense amongst other things).

Some regulations include this requirement. Some don't. Many - no most -western Operators include a similar requirement.

Non-etops flights (When required) have the same weather requirement for enroute alternates (weather.....1 hour before ETA to 1 hours after...etc), along with destination alternates, take-off alternates, etc. The difference is 60 mins, versus 120,180, etc, etc for ETOPS.

Also, there is the inclusion of the term "Suitable" with ETOPS, which is not included in Non-ETOPS. Non-ETOPS simple says, "Adequate Airport...with "weather above landing minima..."

Now, if your ME airline believes that flying "10000 miles" with no "Adaquate Enroute Airport" with "weather above landing minima" is acceptable, then rest assured I'll be avoiding that airline!

Big reminder! We are talking about "Planning" not about "In-flight". And, as BOAC stated When it is, those weather restrictions apply

[BOAC]

Jimmy - it matters not what YOUR OM says except for you - the question by tayyarci was about REGULATIONS. EU-OPS do NOT require weather to be consdiered at en-route points. (Note I did not say 'en-route alternates').

This does not mean that we are all flying around over 8/8 fog ignoring the weather and not thinking about where to go! It was about what is REQUIRED.

[Jimmy Do Little]

The original question was not referring to regulations, else this would be much simpler.
on a non ETOPs route for a twin engine operation what's the weather requirements for an enroute alternate airport, as far as I remember there's no requirement but I cannot find where it would be written

and is there any difference for this rule for a 4 engine operation

He is looking for a requirement, and with the reference to the difference for four engine aircraft, it is easy to assume that he's referring to Air Carrier Operations. In which case, the FOM supersedes the Regulations PROVIDED that they are more restrictive than the applicable Reg. If I assumed his question correctly, his companies FOM is the approved source for requirments, thus the answer lies there.

I looked in three separate FOM's from other Air Carriers and found very similar requirements.

Otherwise, the only clearly stated "Regulation" is that from the US FAA (FAR121), which ONLY applies to Air Carriers. FAR 91 (General Aviation) does not include such a requirement.

[BOAC]

Geez - this is hard going!

1) The OP is UK based therefore EUOPS applies
2) NB The OP 'found' the answer in JAROPS (no weather requirement) #2 thus OP was looking for REGULATORY
3) Your #3 refers to s/e cruise times OVER 60 mins. (see wizofoz #6) therefore not applicable.

Shame we didn't 'bed' this one at #13:ugh:

[Wizofoz]

Now, if your ME airline believes that flying "10000 miles" with no "Adequate En-route Airport" with "weather above landing minima" is acceptable, then rest assured I'll be avoiding that airline!


My ME airline, My Australian airline,my Japanese airline and BOTH my UK based airlines- Guess I just know how to pick 'em.

Kindly name the airlines who's FOMs you checked and quote the requirements for weather minima non-ETOPs from them. (happy to reciprocate afterwords). You've shown a marked inability to interpret manuals so far- I'd be surprised if it didn't extend to your claim that most airlines impose these restrictions over and above the regs.

[Jimmy Do Little]

I stand corrected. Should have been 3.4.6 (b) Alternate Airports - Non-ETOPS, which includes the statement "...No more than 60 minutes..."



Nonetheless, this is a Company Requirement. Again, the definitive answer will be in his companies FOM, and it is quite possible that there is NO requirement in that manual.

[Mac74]

Interesting subject, clearly this is a grey area in the regulations.
Since most airlines just copy these regulations into their manuals, it's up to the pic to accept a route or not regarding weather.

[BOAC]

Thank you Mac - some daylight!Jimmy - it matters not what YOUR OM says except for you - the question by tayyarci was about REGULATIONS. EU-OPS do NOT require weather to be considered at en-route points. (Note I did not say 'en-route alternates').

This does not mean that we are all flying around over 8/8 fog ignoring the weather and not thinking about where to go! It was about what is REQUIRED.

As a man (not God) said to me once - "That's why God put the 4th stripe on your shoulders" (mind you, a bit OTT, no?):)

[TyroPicard]

Are you sure it was God? it might have been a BA captain - oh, hang on...

[BOAC]

Nah - it weren't you - you are only deputy G.

[bfisk]

Without reading all the previous posts, maybe the thread starter refers to the fact that contingency trip fuel may be reduced when an enroute alternate is avaliable?

[Wizofoz]

bfisk,

I'm not sure that he did, but that has also been addressed here. Under JAROPS, to reduce contingency from 5% to 3% one must have an ADEQUATE airport (thus we no attached weather requirements) lying within a circle whose diameter is 20% of the route distance (a minimum of 50miles) centred 75% alond the route.

Why adequate rather than suitable in this case? Dunno, but thems the rules.

[Max Angle]

Hmm, see this is still rumbling on. For what it's worth my answer to the original question (for EU-Ops, non ETOPS) is that IF an en-route alternate is required because you need to reduce your contingency fuel below 5% of trip due to performance/payload problems OR you are using the 3% ERA reduction procedure (they are different things for different situations) then it must be "adequate" and permit a landing to be made at ETA +/- 1 hour using the standard alternate planning minima.

For a twin on a non-ETOPS flight you must also remain within 1 hours SE flying time of an adequate aerodrome, the definition of which does not include any weather criteria.

[Wizofoz]

Hi Max,

My FOM simply says an airport must be "Available" and I know the common interpretation of that is "Adequate" (No weather requirements). Do you have a reference that is different? I'd be very interested to know and would have a serious look at our regs.

One thing though, I think people get caught up and think that "Adequate Airport" is a term soley associated with ETOPS planning. It isn't. It PRE-DATES the invention of ETOPS, and the fact that many routes couldn't meet the "Adequate with 60mins SE flight time" rule was why ETOPS was invented in the first place.

[BOAC]

Wiz - I do not have EU-OPS immediately to hand, but JAR OPS 1.2.97 (c) and table have that. It also refers to 'en-route alternate when required at the planning stage' but I have never experienced that requirement on any non-ETOPS flight. Choice of non-ETOPS ERAs has always been left to the operating crew in flight.

Edit: Got the T-shirt - same ref in EU-OPS surprise surprise!

[Max Angle]

The only reason to select an en-route alternate on a non-etops flight is to allow the reduction of contingency fuel below 5% of trip. You are effectively re-dispatching the flight overhead the en-route alternate or abeam it at suitable point thus enabling you to reduce the contingency to 5% of the trip from the decision point to the destination rather than 5% of the whole trip fuel. We use it quite a bit on routes that stretch a 320 or 321 to the limit such as Tehran-Heathrow, being able to lose 400kg of contingency fuel can make all the difference

As BOAC says JAR 1.297, which is available if you google it, says that at an en-route alternate has the same planning minima as a destination alternate, the rules and reference are the same under EU-Ops as far as I can tell. Quite agree that "adequate" is not simply an ETOPS term. I guess the difference with an en-route alternate is that there is a real chance of ending up there and you have to dispatch knowing that is will be available to you should you need it.

[BOAC]

MA - there is still a puzzle (as always) in the regs as they distinguish between a 3% alternate and an 'en-route alternate'. Heaven knows . I think I'll just ignore it.:)

[Max Angle]

As far as I can tell the planning minima are the same, its their allowable location and terms of use that are different.

A 3% ERA can be used on any flight to reduce the contingency fuel to 3% of total trip fuel rather than 5% thus allowing a little less fuel to be loaded and saving (a small amount) on the burn as well as perhaps allowing a larger payload. Copied from our manual: "The en-route alternate should be located within a circle having a radius equal to 20% of the total flight plan distance, the centre of which lies on the planned route at a distance from the destination of 25% of the total flight plan distance, or at least 20% of the total flight plan distance plus 50 nm, whichever is greater, all distances are to be calculated in still air conditions." Fortunately it's easier in practice as the company have worked them out for all the routes that can benefit. It's up to the skipper on the day as to whether they want to use it or not.

There is also the option to reduce to minimum contingency (250kg on a 321) in which case the en-route alternate must be within 150nm of track and be at least 30 minutes flying time from the destination but obviously you need it fairly close to destination as you don't want 5% of the remaining trip fuel to be more than 250kg. This option can only be used if you unable to load the normal 5% (or 3% if are using that procedure) due to a performance or payload restriction.

In both cases the airfield must be above the planning minima for +/- 1 hour of ETA.

[BOAC]

I'm pretty familiar with the 3% jobbie. It is the other 'ERA' referred to of which I have no experience. I'm guessing it is just there in case a company, for some reason, wishes to nominate an ERA, although why escapes me.

[Wizofoz]

Max,

AS BOAC said, here in lies the dilema. I've just had a good look at our rules, and the only specified weather requirements are for Destination Alternates and ETOPS Suitable airports. It is absolutley laid down that there are no weather minima for Adequate airports (alos known as en-rout alternates) and as such, the assumtion is there are none for the en-route fuel alternate.

The way you interpret it, however, does seem to make sense from a EU-Ops perspective, which we are supposed to be compliant with.

I'll do some more reading and maybe drop it in the CFIs lap...

[woo hoo]

Hi
can anyone direct me to the new LROPS rules please. I tried the FAA but the document wasn't available for some reason.
thanks

[9.G]

There's a discrepancy between the regs and OPS manuals regarding the definition of en route alternate. The EU-OPS says it's an airdrome which might be required at the planning stage, very ambiguous in my eyes. AI manual for instance says En-route alternate: An aerodrome at which an aircraft would be able to land after experiencing an abnormal or emergency condition while en route. , quite better. Regarding planning minimum, it's applicable to all of them including en route alternate, as per EU OPS 1.192
En-route alternates, 3% ERA, destination alternates and isolated destination airport. This is theory in practice you get a folder with actual and forecast weather for a bunch of airdromes along the route to have an idea where to go in case needed. As usual sound airman-ship is required. Hope that helps.
Cheers:ok:

[flywildcamel]

Lots of confusion regarding this...

Would you fly on a NON ETOPS sector during 2 hours with opened airfields, but you can not land there because the weather for all of them are bellow your minimas (Europe case, October due to fog, early morning for few hours), where would you divert in case of an engine fire (one engine 60 minutes Adequate aerodrome)?

1st thing 1st, there is NO OFFICIAL definition of a SUITABLE Airport/aerodrome, only ADEQUATE Aerodrome

CAT-OPS ANNEX I
Definitions for terms used in Annexes II to V
(4) ‘adequate aerodrome’ means an aerodrome on which the aircraft can be operated, taking account of the applicable performance requirements and runway characteristics;
(43) ‘en-route alternate (ERA) aerodrome’ means an adequate aerodrome along the route, which may be required at the planning stage;
(48) ‘fuel ERA aerodrome’ means an ERA aerodrome selected for the purpose of reducing contingency fuel;

CAT.OP.MPA.107 Adequate aerodrome
The operator shall consider an aerodrome as adequate if, at the expected time of use, the aerodrome is available and equipped with necessary ancillary services such as air traffic services (ATS), sufficient lighting, communications, weather reporting, navigation aids and emergency services.

CAT.OP.MPA.140 Maximum distance from an adequate aerodrome for two-engined aeroplanes without an ETOPS approval
(a) Unless approved by the competent authority in accordance with Annex V (Part-SPA), Subpart F, the operator shall not operate a two-engined aeroplane over a route that contains a point further from an adequate aerodrome, under standard conditions in still air, than:
(1) for performance class A aeroplanes with either:
(i) a maximum operational passenger seating configuration (MOPSC) 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 (OEI) cruising speed determined in accordance with (b);

CAT.OP.MPA.185 Planning minima for IFR flights — aeroplanes
(a) Planning minima for a take-off alternate aerodrome
The operator shall only select an aerodrome as a take-off alternate aerodrome when the appropriate weather reports and/or forecasts indicate that, during a period commencing one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions will be at or above the applicable landing minima specified in accordance with CAT.OP.MPA.110. The ceiling shall be taken into account when the only approach operations available are non-precision approaches (NPA) and/or circling operations. Any limitation related to OEI operations shall be taken into account.
(b) Planning minima for a destination aerodrome other than an isolated destination aerodrome
The operator shall only select the destination aerodrome when:
(1) the appropriate weather reports and/or forecasts indicate that, during a period commencing one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions will be at or above the applicable planning minima as follows:
(i) RVR/visibility (VIS) specified in accordance with CAT.OP.MPA.110; and
(ii) for an NPA or a circling operation, the ceiling at or above MDH;
or
(2) two destination alternate aerodromes are selected.
(c) Planning minima for a destination alternate aerodrome, isolated aerodrome, fuel en-route alternate (fuel ERA) aerodrome, en-route alternate (ERA) aerodrome
The operator shall only select an aerodrome for one of these purposes when the appropriate weather reports and/or forecasts indicate that, during a period commencing one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions will be at or above the planning minima in Table 1.


SPA.ETOPS.110 ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome
(a) An ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome shall be considered adequate, if, at the expected time of use, the aerodrome is available and equipped with necessary ancillary services such as air traffic services (ATS), sufficient lighting, communications, weather reporting, navigation aids and emergency services and has at least one instrument approach procedure available.
(b) Prior to conducting an ETOPS flight, the operator shall ensure that an ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome is available, within either the operator’s approved diversion time, or a diversion time based on the MEL generated serviceability status of the aeroplane, whichever is shorter.
(c) The operator shall specify any required ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome(s) in the operational flight plan and ATS flight plan.
SPA.ETOPS.115 ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome planning minima
(a) The operator shall only select an aerodrome as an ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome when the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that, between the anticipated time of landing until one hour after the latest possible time of landing, conditions will exist at or above the planning minima calculated by adding the additional limits of Table 1.
(b) The operator shall include in the operations manual the method for determining the operating minima at the planned ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome.

[SR-22]

flywildcamel, there used to be a "suitable aerodrome" definition, as this is a 4 year old thread, but at least in EU-OPS the "suitable aerodrome" definition has been removed.

I believe the original poster was asking from a regulatory perspective not company regulations as many have posted in the past. So as here below from EU-OPS 1.192:

(a) Adequate Aerodrome. An aerodrome which the operator considers to be satisfactory, taking account of the applicable

performance requirements and runway characteristics; at the expected time of use, the aerodrome will be available and

equipped with necessary ancillary services such as ATS, sufficient lighting, communications, weather reporting, navaids

and emergency services.

No weather minima is required for the 60min distance adequate aerodrome, only the above.

Then for the enroute alternates also from EU-OPS 1.192:

(c) Adequate ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome. An adequate aerodrome, which additionally, at the expected time of

use, has an ATS facility and at least one instrument approach procedure.

(d) En-route alternate (ERA) aerodrome. An adequate aerodrome along the route, which may be required at the planning

stage.

(e) 3 % ERA. An en-route alternate aerodrome selected for the purposes of reducing contingency fuel to 3 %.

So enroute alternate is a completely different thing then the adequate aerodrome. For all of these there is of course a weather minima requirement, e.g. the "one step up".


Then for the ETOPS adequate alternate weather planning minima is a bit different:

For a Precision approach CAT I, add a 200feet to authorized DA/DH (only from CAT I, CAT II/III not to be considered) and add 800m to the authorized visibility.

For a non-precision or a circling approach, add 400feet to the authorized MDA/MDH and add 1500m to the authorized visibility.

[flywildcamel]

I have checked the previous edition of the EU-OPS, and the one before that... still no definition of Suitable Airport...

Then, as you mentioned the EU-OPS 1.192, it makes reference to c/ En-Route Aternate (ERA) and d/ 3%ERA...

What is for you, at the planning stage a C/ EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE ?considering that it is a part of the IFR planning stage, NON ETOPS...

cf definition: en-route alternate (ERA) aerodrome’ means an adequate aerodrome along the route, which may be required at the planning stage;

[FullWings]

We (a major EU carrier) are currently discussing this anomaly as at the moment we only specify "adequate" aerodromes when dispatched non-ETOPS (60min). It always struck me as odd that we flew ETOPS until the weather worsened to the point where ETOPS alternates (what we still call "suitable") were unavailable, then we just blasted off using 60mins, irrespective of the conditions.

I do admit to being a bit uncomfortable going to/from Japan/China/Korea over Russia in the winter with miles and miles of airfields giving 100M BLSN VV000. If you need to divert, you could probably find *somewhere* within a couple of hours that you could use operationally but it will have been below forecast minima for ETOPS. You end up doing a non-ETOPS sector knowing full well that you will be >>1hr from anywhere sensible for much of the route, which seems somewhat of a loophole in the whole intent of long-range ops.

[piratepete]

Wiz,
Ive got a similar background to you, training etc, and im guessing you are with EK now? Anyway you are quite wrong on this subject.In my 39 years of aviating 35 of them on jets, it has ALWAYS been the same.Required by regulation(ENZED ALL OVER ASIA also in ME) and thus appearing in airline FOMs everywhere, on a NON-ETOPS flight the crew must NOMINATE their en-route alternates on the day (write their names on the CFP) and compare the forecast to the PLANNING MINIMA TABLE we all know so well.Once Airborne actual minima apply as usual.If this is not the way you do it then UAE must be on another planet to mine.Thats their choice I guess.

[FE Hoppy]

ERAs are required for some non-etops flights.

CAT.OP.MPA 40 for baby jets 19 seats and less than 45360. They can go to 120 minutes with adequate but can also get approval to go to 180 minutes but then must have ERA i.e. adequate plus weather. IT isn't ETOPS but the requirements are similar.

Also for Isolated airport ops.

[de facto]

Non ETOPS flights by EU regs need ADEQUATE airports which do NOT require suitable WX.
It is up to the PIC and or Company to address the issue by adding EXTRA fuel or by implementing strict rules for adequate airports via SOPs.

[FullWings]

It is up to the PIC and or Company to address the issue by adding EXTRA fuel or by implementing strict rules for adequate airports via SOPs.I don't think more fuel is going to help as that's not normally the problem - it's the time between usable alternates. I feel, eventually, the whole "adequate" airfield definition in EU-OPS will have to be dispensed with or altered to include weather. There's not much point in having information on somewhere but the forecast conditions preclude a successful approach and/or landing.

Over Russia/China in the winter, you could be really scraping the bottom of the barrel sometimes to get proper ETOPS alternates, should the 60min criteria be changed as above. Maybe EU operators are aware of this and are happier with the status quo...?

[piratepete]

Im afraid the world does not begin or end in europe, even USA for that matter! Certainly not in the M.E. or Emirates.For many decades now, many many of us have been flying around the planet in our twins by FIRST consulting our NON-ETOPS weather-planning table and comparing this to the forecast for our NOMINATED ENROUTE ALTERNATES.I do not understand how you can simply suggest that this is not required.Unless you operate to a lower standard than most of us, ie no planning minima necessary.This requirement, and the TABLE have been a routine requirement for twins since I started aviating on a 737-200 back in 1978......It has nothing at all to do with fuel requirements either.Assumimg that your flight is longer than 2 hours at nominal single engine speed (and thus distance).Pete.

[FullWings]

...many many of us have been flying around the planet in our twins by FIRST consulting our NON-ETOPS weather-planning table and comparing this to the forecast for our NOMINATED ENROUTE ALTERNATES.Point is, under EU-OPS as they stand, none of the above applies. If, as a pilot working for an EU operator who hasn't made any extra provisions in this respect, you get given a non-ETOPS flight plan but there are sections along it where airfields are below operational minima and you'll be >1hr away from anywhere workable, what do you do? Refuse to fly? As it's legal, I suspect the no tea / no biscuit option would follow shortly afterwards...

[piratepete]

I rest my case.The EU is a very very small but interesting part of the planet.Its a big world out here.The majority of regulators including ICAO require you to apply PLANNING MINIMA, a good idea by the way, before you even go to your 737, 757, 767 777 320 etc etc......why is this so hard for you Euros to accept? I dont get it.

[FullWings]

why is this so hard for you Euros to accept? I dont get it.I think most pilots would agree - it's EASA that needs convincing and their track record has not been the best recently.

[fruitcake]

Hello Jimmi Dolittle,

Sorry to budge in to an old topic. Question:

Where does the 80 % off the all engine demonstrated come from?