IFR Alternate Question

[MajorLemond]

Hello fellow aviation enthusiasts, I have a question: Does this aerodrome require an Alternate? (for an IFR flight to the aerodrome in DAY VMC)


IFR Aerodrome, (R-NAV) available.
No TAF serivice available.
No Navaid at Aerodrome.


I`m 99% sure it it does require an alternate as the Jepps say something like "If aerodrome forecast is provisional/Not available" alternate must be planned with a firm forecast".



To me it seems rather clear, however, Some have suggested that you can plan without an alternate using the "500` Above LSALT / 8km at Aerodrome rule" and just use the Area Forecast, but that is under the RADIO AIDS section of the Jepps and refers to flight to an aerodrome not having a radio aid on the ground, and has nothing to do with a TAF being available or not.


Anyone got a definitive answer? if so could you let me know the Jepp reference.

cheers,


M.L.

[waren9]

Jepp ATC page AU-303

3.1.3

No TAF available, so you have to plan for an alternate that does have a firm forecast.

Further, re the navaids AU-304

because no TAF available, 3.3.2 a) is not available to you and therefore alternate again required. The wording is vague but does require vis and cloud forecast at the destination aeordrome which to me an area forecast would not cut it.

i.e. If a TAF was available, no alternate is required by day if you can get relief under 3.3.2 a)

Thats my answer anyway. I'm sure someone will be along shortly with something different.

[MyNameIsIs]

Can't help with a Jepp ref, but.............


AIP ENR 1.1 57.1.3
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.


AIP ENR 1.1 57.2.9
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.


Now, what we have here is interpretation issues- just like the cirlcing minima but let's not start that up again!
Key words in the first bit of bolding - "AERODROME FORECAST".
The 2nd bolding says that even if you have an approach, but no aerodrome forecast, you need an alternate.
The 3rd bolding gives provision for IFR flight to a no-aid aerodrome but which does have a forecast- the interpretation problem arises because they do not state WHERE the cloud and vis info must come from.

[das Uber Soldat]

No aerodrome forecast = alternate required.

AIP ENR 1.1 57.2.9 assumes you have an aerodrome forecast from which to assess the 8km visibility requirement.

[blacknight]

RNAV is your only approach available. If you have a 129 GPS then alt required. If you have a 146a GPS no alt required due aids.

If the area forecast indicates your last route segment can be flown under the rule no more than sct cloud below 500ft above LSALT & vis > 8k then no alt required. The difficulty is deciding from the area forecast wether this is the case at your particular destination given the sometimes vague nature of these forecasts regarding areas within the forecast and you don't know the crosswind component for your planned runway either. So my usual move is to plan for an alt anyway if there is no TAF.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

The existance of a TSO 145a/146a GPS doesn't automatically guarantee no alt due navaids. Must also be listed in POH supps as being installed to that standard and you must have a current database and a valid FDE prediction of RAIM availability at that location.:ok:

[waren9]

Believe Blacknight is correct re the 146a receiver.

Ref Jepp Radio Aids page AU-8

[das Uber Soldat]

I must admit, I'm a tad confused, Its pretty black and white to me.

AIP ENR 1.1 57.1.3
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.

Its irrelevant if you have the ability to do an instrument approach or not. Its irrelevant if you think you can somehow ascertain the conditions for 1 airport off an area forecast or not.

Furthermore its not permissible to use RNAV alone to remove an alternate requirement when considering instrument approach options. See ENR 1.1 58.3 That said I stand to be corrected on that one as its been a while since ive read the regs re RNAV.

If you don't have an aerodrome forecast, you require an alternate. Show me where it states otherwise.

:ugh:

[sms777]

I think Superior Soldier is right again about this. I can't see anything more bald than what's written in the AIP's regardless of what super duper GPS you have.
Rules are rules!

[tmpffisch]

das Uber Soldat, under your reasoning you can you fly to an aerodrome without a TAF under VFR without an alternate on a CAVOK day, but going IFR requires an alternate...

In my books, use the area forecast to judge whether it is 8km vis and a ceiling 500ft above the last route segments' LSALT. (AIP ENR 1.1 57.2.9 / AU304 3.2.12c)


AU601 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 procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is an Area Forecast.

AU601 1.4.1
A flight operating under IFR by day may be planned to a non-instrument procedure destination provided that the aircraft can be navigated in accordance with General Flight Procedures. When the forecast for the destination is below the alternate minima (i) specified in Airports and Ground Aids, the pilot-in-command must ensure that a suitable alternate has been nominated.

(i)
AU304 3.2.12c
For aerodromes without an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima are the lowest safe altitude for the final route segment plus 500ft and a visibility of 8km

[Bankstown Boy]

Even think about it logically for a second - I got the most bestest GPS in the world, I'm current, the RAIM & FDE are good - and it's foggy ...

That's why an alternate is always required if you don't have an AD forecast.

It's not rocket science, and even better, the rules says so!

[das Uber Soldat]

das Uber Soldat, under your reasoning you can you fly to an aerodrome without a TAF under VFR without an alternate on a CAVOK day, but going IFR requires an alternate...

Whoa slow down there tiger, its not my reasoning, you can take it up with CASA.

I've often joked with colleagues about the contradictory nature of the regs and this is no exception. There is more than 1 example I can find where a VFR aircraft gets away without requiring an alternate when an IFR aircraft would!

It might be stupid, but when you have idiots running the show stupidity is generally what they produce :ok:

[das Uber Soldat]

AU601 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 procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is an Area Forecast.
And it makes no mention of requiring an alternate. You still would require an alternate

AU601 1.4.1
A flight operating under IFR by day may be planned to a non-instrument procedure destination provided that the aircraft can be navigated in accordance with General Flight Procedures. When the forecast for the destination is below the alternate minima (i) specified in Airports and Ground Aids, the pilot-in-command must ensure that a suitable alternate has been nominated.

(i)
AU304 3.2.12c
For aerodromes without an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima are the lowest safe altitude for the final route segment plus 500ft and a visibility of 8km
None of which you can reliably ascertain from an area forecast

All you've shown me are a few isolated paragraphs that through hazy inference suggest you can get away without an aerodrome forecast. Nothing that properly contradicts the black and white statement, listed at the very start of the Alternate requirements section of the AIP in no uncertain terms;

AIP ENR 1.1 57.1.3
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.

There is no 57.1.3b "Unless you're pretty sure you can get specific enough information out of a area forecast.. after all, bathurst is near the ranges right?!"

In my books on an average weather day, you'd be a brave soul to fly without a TAF to an airport and plan to arrive there with min reserves because you picked the cloud base from the "CLD" section of the ARFOR and the vis from the vis description of a area a few thousand square KM.

[waren9]

GentsThere were 2 parts to the OPs question.

As I read it, he asks for an answer to both parts in isolation. I think we all know and agree a 146a gps does not give free licence to do what you want.:confused:

[das Uber Soldat]

Im not seeing it waren?

[waren9]

dUS

Reading your posts, we agree. No TAF = Alt reqd.

Regarding the RNAV bit, and a seperate argument now

Jepp RADIO AIDS page AU-8 refers

Unless using a 145a or 146a receiver with a valid FDE prediction, at both the dest and altn if reqd, provision for an altn may not be based on RNAV(GNSS) appr capability.

Agree, clear as mud.

[PA39]

I called it #WAL....wx aids or lights, the need for an alternate.

[das Uber Soldat]

ah ok. I called a mate who informed me that the RNAV rules changed a while ago and can now under certain circumstances be counted as a radio aid when assessing the requirement for an alternate.

Having never flown one in my life I wasn't up to date on the regs. There you go, learn something every day :)

Cheers

[FGD135]

MajorLemond,

You do NOT require an alternate for the IFR scenario you described.

About 90% of the people you ask this question of, however, will say that you do, because they are reading the following rule too literally:

AIP ENR 1.1 57.1.3
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.

The words "not available" in that rule do not mean what the 90% think they do.

That rule is actually referring to cases where an aerodrome forecast is USUALLY available (i.e those places with navaids that have TAF coverage for the daytime only). During night hours, there will be no TAF - so this rule then applies.

This rule does NOT apply to aerodromes that never have TAFs issued for them.

I could go into why the rules are like this but I might save that for a future post.

For those that think an IFR flight DOES require an alternate in this scenario but a VFR flight does NOT, have another look at that rule (above). You will see that it does not distinguish between IFR and VFR.

So, according to the 90%, VFR flights can't go very far, because they always must be carrying alternate fuel to an aerodrome that has a TAF!

The 90% are wrong, of course, because the interpretation of that rule is the same for VFR as it is for IFR - and it means that, just like for IFR, the VFR flight does NOT need an alternate in the scenario given.


Some have suggested that you can plan without an alternate using the "500` Above LSALT / 8km at Aerodrome rule" and just use the Area Forecast
Correct! This rule would not exist if the interpretation of the 90% was correct.

[MajorLemond]

Hi fdg135,

I have heard a similar argument, have you got reference? Not trying to be a smartass or anything but I need to see a reg which states that for my own peace of mind... considering your reasoning is legitiment, and if an area forecast is suitable to determine the wx at an aerodrome which never has a taf... then why can't it be used for an aerodrome that " usually has a taf produced but is not available "

It makes zero sense to me if this is the case.

[MyNameIsIs]

Nice post FDG.

What I was alluding to in my initial post is that this, like many other aspects of our regulations, are completely open to individual interpretation. "Grey Area" just does not describe the regs well enough!

Out of interest, how did you determine or how do you know that the 57.1.3 reference is being read "too literally"?
What does "not available" mean? Not available because there never is one, or not available because something has happened and we cant get the normal TAF out for that place?


Interpretation.... That is the problem.
Some plain old common sense, proper planning and safe operation is the key.

'tis why you always have a bit of extra gas!

[MOQ]

I would have to say "Yes, you do require Alternate" in this specific example.



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.



In this example, the aerodrome does have published instrument approach procedure (R-NAV), so we do require aerodrome forecast. But then...



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.



So, for the aerodromes WITH instrument approach procedure without TAF requires an Alternate.

In the same situation, but for the aerodromes WITHOUT instrument approach procedure...



AIP ENR 1.1 Para 58.2.12c / Jepps ATC AU-300 Para 3.2.12c


For aerodrome without an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima are the lowest safe altitude for the final route segment plus 500 ft and a visibility of 8 km (also refer to Non-instrument Procedure Destination)



In this case, you do not require to have TAF (See first Quote), and you are not required to have an Alternate as long as you can satisfy the requirement above.


Clear as mud?

[Kelly Slater]

Given that there are around 20 replies and FGD135 says that 90% are wrong then I have to say that he is right and no alternate is required, thus making me the other 5% of those that are correct.

Of course he is also correct simply because what he says is correct.

[Xcel]

This question will clarify it for ya - ask any Rex or johnsons pilot what their requirements are for alternates when flyingto casino? and you'll get your answer...

No taf
instrument approach
arfor available

alternate Required or not?? Easy to carry alternate there - with so many close airports - but is it required? It's all in black and white!!

[Xcel]

Just reread the thread and as usual das has confused everyone...

Thank god fdg is on here...

Did the original poster change his post - where did this random rnav and confusion come from?

to the original poster - simple answer for YOUR post - NO Alternate if lsalt +500 >8km for last route segment

[MajorLemond]

To xcel..

Ok then... no alternate req`d....

Show me where in the regs?

cheers

[MajorLemond]

just out of curiosity, where do people get the LSALT + 500" covering the requirement from???? we are dealing with 2 separate requirements here:

First and foremost: said Aerodrome HAS NO TAF (Jepps say TAF req`d or ALT req`d

Secondly it has no Navaid: In this instance Lsalt + 500" can be used to satisfy the NAVAID REQUIREMENT.

The lack of an Aerodrome forecast still stands..

[Clearedtoreenter]

So, for the aerodromes WITH instrument approach procedure without TAF requires an Alternate.



Seems right. Take a pin with you if you get this in an IREX!

[waren9]

Not trying to be a smartass either but could the 10%'ers please supply Jepp references as per the OP's original request?
:confused:

[ThePaperBoy]

The reference is in post number 3 - people just have different interpretations of those paragraphs.

I'm with the guys that read it as: no TAF available due to no instrument approach at the field, use the ARFOR and the line about LSALT + 500 (not an automatic alternate required).

A number of those in the know (CASA FOIs, CPs, ATOs etc) also support the view about the "TAF not being available or PROV" refers to the TAF normally being available for use. From memory Bob Tait also went down this path with his IREX book (not that Bob sets the rules but it is a good indication of the answer the test will be looking for if this is your main concern).

Add a pinch of common sense to your fuel calculations and you'll never get caught short. However, on a CAVOK or FEW day I'm not carrying fuel for an alternate many miles away because my aerodrome has no TAF/IAL. In the real world this will badly affect your payload considerations. Can't always just fill the tanks like during your CPL training.

I called a mate who informed me that the RNAV rules changed a while ago and can now under certain circumstances be counted as a radio aid when assessing the requirement for an alternate.


Only TSO146.

[blacknight]

We seem to have done the alt due aids pretty well.
Since the destination would be considered to have no aid if you only had a C129 GPS then the rule in AIP ENR 58.2.12 (c) would apply which states the minima as the 500ft/8k thing. It also referrs to ENR 1.10 ss 1.4.1
If we didn't apply this rule away from the coast we couldn't go anywhere without aerial refuelling and a good bladder.
I'm enjoying the discussion on this thread as it seems that there are many interpretations of the same rules all from people with a ticket to go to the same places!!
PS I am assuming we are talking about a PVT flight.

[Xcel]

Major lemon - read the original post(as in page one) before jumping up and down!!

[das Uber Soldat]

"Just reread the thread and as usual das has confused everyone..."

well done ********. I quoted the regs and asked anyone to show me where its written otherwise. If you find that confusing go back to working in the hair salon. :rolleyes:

[Captain Nomad]

FGD and Das, sorry, but you have both confused the issue a bit. FGD you have confused it a bit with the whole melding of VFR/IFR (Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.12 referring to weather says "For IFR flights the alternate minima are as follows" and in 3.3.1 navaids it specifically says "A flight which is planned to be conducted under IFR on the last route segment") and a lack of distinguishing between wx and navaid alternate requirements. Also, the bit about places with TAF's USUALLY available is a red herring.

Das, you have confused it by saying "It's irrelevant if you have the ability to do an instrument approach or not." It is actually very relevant. Furthermore, you also have not distinguished well between navaid and wx requirements. You did fix up the RNAV bit though regarding it being a substitute for a navaid UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

I will use examples to try and help illustrate. But it is important to be clear about whether we require the alternate based on wx or navaid (I have ignored lights for simplicity and because it is not relevant to the original 'day' question, I am also assuming PVT/AWK category of operation).

Two locations for example: Coondewanna (no TAF ever - RNAV approach available, no navaid) and Cessnock (assume no TAF available - no approach available, no navaid).

When considering weather, is an alternate required?

Coondewanna: YES (Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.12 b. - "For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast is unavailable... must make provision for a suitable alternate...") Notice it doesn't matter what type or definition of 'unavailable' exists here. It matters not whether it is a place like Leinster on the weekend (TAF during the day only and not on weekends - it also has instrument approaches available), or Coondewanna (no TAF ever - RNAV approach available) - the answer is still the same if the location has an IAP.

Cessnock: CONDITIONAL NO (Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.12 c. - "For aerodromes without an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima are the LSALT for the final route segment plus 500ft and vis 8km") By the way, how many of you have a last route segment that is contained fully within the forecast region of a TAF? ARFORs can be, and indeed have to be used when determining this - seriously... If no TAF available alternate required as per Jepp ATC pg 303 3.1.3

When considering navaids, is an alternate required?
Coondewanna & Cessnock: CONDITIONAL NO (Jepp ATC pg 304 3.3.2 - "...a flight may be planned under 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 plus 500 ft 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 flight under IFR navigation requirments.")

Okay, so my answer to the original question? The question matches the Coondewanna example therefore, YES - it does require an alternate due to weather alternate requirements only. However all you have to do is remove one aspect of the question and change it to the Cessnock example (no RNAV approach available) and the answer becomes a CONDITIONAL NO. The key thing is whether the location has an instrument approach procedure.

[waren9]

Thankyou CN, that made sense to me.

[das Uber Soldat]

Thanks nomad, that seems a logical interpretation.

[MajorLemond]

Nomad,

Thanks for clarifying that, It`s exactly what I thought and the distinction you made between aerodromes with an IAL and one without makes it much easier to interpret the meaning.



Thanks again :ok:

[GBO]

If there isn't a TAF, common sense would say, you would carry fuel for an alternate. You wouldn't want to get to the destination and find a howling crosswind that's beyond the aircraft's limits!

[Checkboard]

If you commit the aircraft to flying into a cloud, you have to guarantee that you can safely get it out of the clouds.

That's either by:
an instrument approach to an airport, with the weather forecast to be comfortably above the minimum descent alt, or
by flying the aircraft on a leg with the cloud forecast to be comfortably above the lowest safe altitude, so that you can reasonably expect to become visual while still safe from terrain and continue for a visual approach.

Option 2 requires an Area forecast, as you are considering flight in an area to become visual, not around an airport.

[blacknight]

CN,
I agree with your assesment except to further qualify that in the original post if you had a TSO 129 GPS this aerodrome would be considered to be a "no aid" destination so the answer would be a conditional no alt required if you can get visual before reaching LSALT. Assumes you can get a good area forecast. On the other hand if you think it will be IMC at the destination then ALT definitely required.

[Captain Nomad]

Blacknight, no, you are not further clarifying, you are further confusing the distinction between WEATHER and NAVAID considerations.

If you read my post you will notice that I conclude that an alternate IS required due to weather considerations only - not due to navaids.

The fact is, as academic as the situation might be, regardless of TSO146 or 129, the location happens to be one with no TAF available AND with an IAP therefore you are constrained by Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.12 b.

The only way you can get out of providing for an alternate in this example is to obtain a suitable TAF for the location.

[Wally Mk2]

"CN" thanks christ you put 2gether that lot, well done & well explained:D After near 40 posts though, that's the real worry!


Wmk2

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Apart from the occassional QF into Perth or a medivac jet into Norfolk Is, does anyone in really go anywhere without carrying an alternate or appropriate holding - even if it is unofficial?

Not me!

How do you know that just as you arrive in the circuit area, someone isn't going to suffer a gear collapse, or the like, and block the runway?

Is is NOT a nice feeling to find yourself running out of options. I have been there twice in almost 40 years, and in no hurry to revisit. All perfectly legal when I departed, but then things went downhill fast.

Dr :8

[The Green Goblin]

Apart from the occassional QF into Perth or a medivac jet into Norfolk Is, does anyone in really go anywhere without carrying an alternate or appropriate holding - even if it is unofficial?

Not me!

How do you know that just as you arrive in the circuit area, someone isn't going to suffer a gear collapse, or the like, and block the runway?

Is is NOT a nice feeling to find yourself running out of options. I have been there twice in almost 40 years, and in no hurry to revisit. All perfectly legal when I departed, but then things went downhill fast.

Dr

In commercial aviation you don't always have that luxury. It's a fine line between payload and margin fuel. Most of the time I can squeeze on an extra 30 mins of margin fuel at holding rates, but that would be gone very quickly on a go around and climb to altitude. So it won't really get you anywhere, it will only buy you a little time at your destination.

Many a flight I have only the required reserves and flight plan fuel. I don't like it, but the alternative is to bump payload. The company gets upset when you do this unless it is required.

[das Uber Soldat]

How many times have you gone on min ifr fuel to an airport with no forecast?

I'd still like further information on why para 3 from alternate requirements in the aip stating that if an 'aerodrome forecast is unavailable' it means only that if a taf hasn't been issued for the time of operation but normally is serviced by a taf. Why not if one is not available ever?

[The Green Goblin]

How many times have you gone on min ifr fuel to an airport with no forecast?

Never.

To me it's pretty black and white. No forecast = an alternate required.

There is a get out of jail card however. You can depart without a forecast and an alternate provided you get a forecast for your destination within 30 mins of departure and the conditions at your departure aerodrome allow a safe return for up to an hour.

Using the requirements for a no wx forecast destination for an aerodrome that normally has a TAF and is unavailable is cowboy behaviour. I'd be having stern words with the Pilot who is suggesting such a thing.

[Captain Nomad]

I'd still like further information on why para 3 from alternate requirements in the aip stating that if an 'aerodrome forecast is unavailable' it means only that if a taf hasn't been issued for the time of operation but normally is serviced by a taf. Why not if one is not available ever?

Das, it doesn't mean that - it is a red herring. As I have stated before, it really doesn't make any difference if the location never has a TAF or only sometimes has a TAF. If a TAF is unavailable and the location has an IAP the answer will always be: ALTERNATE REQUIRED when considering this weather component of alternate considerations.

The super key thing which keeps confusing everyone is whether there is an IAP at the location - it makes all the difference for WEATHER alternate considerations!

Ironically, if it is a place with no IAP the alternate minima then becomes possibly less restrictive in the sense that the LSALT +500 and 8km vis requirement comes into play. YOU CANNOT USE THIS TO GET OUT OF PROVIDING FOR AN ALTERNATE AT A LOCATION WITH AN IAP AND A TAF TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE!

To provide some historical context, in the days before RNAV, the interpretation that the weather alternate clause about a location WITH AN IAP and TAF 'UNAVAILABLE' would have been directed squarely to locations with a TAF temporarily unavailable. These locations would have also had at least one ground-based navaid in order to ALSO have an IAP in the first place. So traditionally, yes, this clause would have been directed at such locations as my previous example of Leinster on the weekend. However, now we have increasingly more places popping up with no TAF but with an RNAV approach with no ground-based aids (mining airstrips are a prime and most common example). This clause applies to these locations equally as to the tradtional locations with a TAF temporarily unavailable!

[das Uber Soldat]

Bold italics AND caps lock. Exciting stuff.

I understand your last post. What I don't really understand is the scenario of the no taf and no ial airport. ENR 1.1 58.1.3 paraphrased, an airport where an aerodrome forecast is not available or prov requires provision for an alternate'

Why is this over rided by not having an IAL? I understand that in the circumstance where there is no IAL the alternate minima changes, however I don't understand why you now no longer need to comply at all with 58.1.3.

Not trying to start an argument, just genuinely don't get it.

Cheers.

[Captain Nomad]

Das, not all the bold and caps were directed at you. Some posters have been implying that the LSALT +500 and 8km vis requirement can get you out of the altn requirement - it can't when the location has an IAP.

Fair call, I see what you are getting at in your last post. I may have inadvertently caused some confusion and I have edited my examples to clarify that. I don't believe ENR 1.1 58.1.3 (Jepp ATC pg 303 3.1.3) can be circumvented while under the IFR. The clause in Jepp 3.2.12 c. would best be illustrated by a place such as Cessnock (no instrument approach but TAF at least some of the time) ARFOR and TAF can be used when calculating whether or not weather is below the the altn minima (LSALT +500/8km vis).

Does that clear it up?!

[43Inches]

No TAF = Alternate required IFR or VFR (except VFR by day remaining within 50NM)

The other paragraphs relate to Instrument procedure availability and their weather minima whilst referenced to the TAF/TTF.

If only an ARFOR is available how do you allow for Storms/Rain Showers/Fog/Mist/Dust etc... within your area. Would you allow a blanket alternate as the ARFOR does not refer to inter or tempo or accurate commencement times etc. You may be able to get a cloud base but then have to convert to ceiling etc and local effects will vary the base. What about crosswind exceeding the maximum componant for the aircraft, again ARFOR wind at 2000' is a pretty useless indication at some locations.

[FGD135]

Hmm. Where do I start?

The assertions made by Captain Nomad are incorrect and I will explain why below.

First of all, I need to bring in the small matter of "logic". There is definite logic about the the alternate rules regarding navaids and TAFs (but this logic is only visible when one has the correct understanding of those rules).

Until now, in this thread, there has been no consideration of the logic involved. When the logic is considered, it becomes clear that the view of the 90%'ers (including Captain Nomad) cannot be correct.

And, now that people are giving some thought to the logic, we are seeing hints that the logic underlying Captain Nomad's view is anything but logical:

From das Uber Soldat:
Why is this over rided by not having an IAL?

And from Captain Nomad himself:
Ironically, if it is a place with no IAP the alternate minima then becomes possibly less restrictive ...

To really understand the rules regarding alternates, you can't simply read, and apply literally, the words of the AIP (if the wording was better, you probably could, however). You must apply a certain amount of logic. That logic comes from an understanding of what the rules are trying to achieve.

Give some thought to what the rules are trying to achieve. When you think you know what the rules are telling you, ask whether that thing is actually logical. If your answer is NO, then the most likely reason is because your reading of the rules was incorrect.

To test out whether there is any logic behind the interpretation of the rules put forth by Captain Nomad, consider the following:

Again, we will work with the Coondewana and Balfour Downs example. Coondewana has an instrument approach (RNAV), but never has a TAF. Balfour Downs does NOT have an approach, and also never has a TAF.

To really focus on the logic, let us pretend that these two aerodromes are only 5 miles apart.

According to Captain Nomad, in day VMC, a flight to Coondewana would require nomination of an alternate, but a flight to Balfour Downs would not.

So, this means that Balfour Downs could be nominated as the alternate for Coondewana!!

Does this sound logical?

Here's another example. I actually brought this up in my previous post but can see I need to bring it up again. That rule again:

AIP ENR 1.1 57.1.3
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.
This is the rule that the 90%'ers will point to when confronted with the question about TAFs. This rule applies to BOTH VFR and IFR. According to the 90%'ers, a VFR flight must, in accordance with this rule, provide for an alternate if the destination does not have a TAF (even when the destination NEVER has a TAF).

So, this means that VFR flights, in the middle of the day, with perfect weather, must always be carrying alternate fuel to an aerodrome that has a TAF!!

Sound logical?

Captain Nomad, you are falling into the same trap as the rest of the 90%'ers. You are reading the words too literally and not questioning whether your interpretation might actually make any sense.

[blacknight]

Thank you FGD. I was beginning to think I had no one agreeing.

[waren9]

Not sure how you can be too literal. If thats what it says, then thats what it says.:confused:

CASA wrote the rules and if they didnt write in another clause with a VFR exemption for the example you raise then I'd be inclined to comply.

Anyway, the OP didnt ask about VFR flight, not sure why you're pushing that one. Still, I'm here to learn and I say it again, if you've got a Jepp reference to support your argument, I'd be keen to read it.

Cheers
W9

[FGD135]

Anyway, the OP didnt ask about VFR flight, not sure why you're pushing that one.

There is a very good reason why I brought that in to the discussion. I think Captain Nomad is also a bit bewildered about the relevence of it.

I brought up the VFR thing because it very effectively demonstrates that the interpretation of the following rule, by the 90%'ers, is flawed:

AIP ENR 1.1 57.1.3
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.

You see, the OP asked the question about whether an aerodrome, in day VMC, because it did not have a TAF, required an alternate.

The 90%'ers rushed in and said "yes", and pointed to this rule as evidence.

But, their interpretation was faulty, I countered, and to demonstrate, brought up that VFR example.

If their interpretation was correct, then the VFR flights would be seriously (and utterly illogically) restricted - as I have pointed out.

So, if it could be shown their interpretation was wrong, then their case for "alternate required because no TAF" collapses - which means there is no rule anywhere that suggests any such thing.

[glekichi]

Das uber and fdg

How do your interpretations fit in with enr 1.10?

1.2 Forecasts

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 pre-scribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the mini-mum requirement is an Area 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.

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.

[waren9]

FDG

Just because you have found an example that in your mind doesnt "logically" fit the rules, doesnt necessarily make you and the other 10%ers right. I respectfully suggest there is something we have both missed.

I'm not arguing whether your logic is right or not. There are plenty of things that go on on Australian aviation that are not logical to me, but they still happen.

I counter again, if you cannot find the exemption for VFR example which I think you concede is not written anywhere, I would not like to take "logic" as my only defence in to the courtroom.

We all know thats not how CASA works.

[das Uber Soldat]

Im finding this thread to be really informative. Lets not ruin it by behaving like condescending dickheads when we think we're right eh?

I think the fact that so many clearly experienced people are in disagreement goes a long way to show how poorly written the regs really are, that something so simple as 'do I need an alternate' can generate this kind of disagreement.

I'd like to see a consensus reached if possible. I know in any grey area situation simply put ill be carrying an alternate, but it would be nice to know what the final word really is.

:)

[glekichi]

If that is me you are referring to das uber, I can see how it could have come across that way but it was not my intention.

1.2.1 seems to answer the question about if an area forecast is acceptable or not, very clearly, I thought, so I didn't elaborate.

1.2.2 and 1.2.3 also spell out the other questions raised by others fairly clearly as well, in my opinion.

Agree that the rules are written in a very grey manner. Reading 1.1 57.1.3 in isolation certainly gives the wrong idea. Very common with the casa regs - ban everything and then tuck away explanations/exceptions elsewhere, and ban a few extra things elsewhere while you're at it, with no particular logic or structure. Just look at the number of rules that apply to all flight that appear under the title of air operations, a term that implies commercial operations.

[Gundog01]

Firstly, apologies for all the cut and paste rules. Secondly, another example of poorly worded regulations which cause confusion and a variety of understandings.

For my 2 cents....I have included what I see as relevant rules below and highlighted the appropriate sections for the original example given (DAY IFR with IAP available with no TAF (ignoring the NAVAID section)).

AIP ENR 1.1 57.1.3
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.

AIP ENR 1.1 57.2.9
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.

Enr 1.10

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 pre-scribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the mini-mum requirement is an Area 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.

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 ENR 1.1 Section 58. is provided.

Summary..
It seems pretty clear from the 4 highlighted sections that in the example given an alternate must be planned for to depart legally.

To use FGD135's logic argument. Logically if you don't know what the weather is going to be at the aerodrome you are intending to land at then you plan to carry enough fuel to go to an alternate where you know what the wether is.

FGD135 says


So, this means that VFR flights, in the middle of the day, with perfect weather, must always be carrying alternate fuel to an aerodrome that has a TAF!!


The rule that this qoute is trying to dispell is not just for VFR but for IFR as well which is why it is broken down further as listed above.

[strim]

Don't need to carry alternate fuel if the destination has no TAF and wx aint more than SCT below LSALT +500' for last route segment, based on ARFOR.

Obviously there are some who disagree, my local FOI isn't one of those.

The LSALT +500 is adequately conservative and I believe not particularly restrictive, especially when route LSALTS can be calculated down to 7nm either side of track using some methods.

There have been plenty of times when I've required ALT fuel (based on the above) and got visual approaching LSALT. There have been times when I'm not visual and have travelled to the ALT. Both these scenarios severely restricted load carrying capacity. This is where I think a lot of you are missing the commercial realities involved here. Requiring ALT fuel for all non TAF 'dromes even when CAVOK would cripple GA and is completely illogical.

[WangFunk]

Place with an instrument approach is referring to IF RULES

Place without an Instrument Approach is Technically VF RULES.

IFR requires MET always otherwise ALTERNATE. SIMPLE

IFR also requires at least ONE-navaid approach otherwise ALTERNATE. SIMPLE

IMC into VMC because of NO navaid..= A visual happy ending, IF you can meet the LSALT+500 & 8k.... NO Alternate REQ'D

You guys are doing my head in!!

[das Uber Soldat]

CASA formulated the regs based on commercial realities?

[Captain Nomad]

FGD, I have not fallen into any trap other than making a poor choice for one of my original examples. If you re-read my original post you will notice I have changed the example to Cessnock. In my attempts to clarify one situation (aerodrome with IAP versus one without) I may have created some confusion in another area (IFR destination NO IAP and NO TAF). I do apologise.

I have ONE IMPORTANT QUESTION for you and if you can answer it with a reference from the regs I would be most obliged. Keeping strictly to the scenario in the original question, how would you talk yourself out of this requirement? (Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.12 b.) - "For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast is unavailable... must make provision for a suitable alternate..."

The reason why I state:

Ironically, if it is a place with no IAP the alternate minima then becomes possibly less restrictive ...

is because that WOULD be the case if you were planning IFR by day say from Dubbo to Cessnock (no IAP) on a CAVOK ARFOR and CAVOK TAF for Cessnock (for example). YOU WOULD NOT NEED AN ALTERNATE! However if that was an IFR by day flight from Port Hedland to Coondewanna I would beg to differ and say that AN ALTERNATE WOULD BE REQUIRED (because Coondewanna has an IAP).

The reason why I have always specified IFR is because that is what the whole original question is about and also I was avoiding some smart alec coming along quoting the VFR by day within 50nm and also THIS! "For flight under the VFR (day or night) and helicopters operating under VFR at night, the alternate minima are a ceiling of 1500ft and a visibility of 8km. (Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.13).

I can't believe this has gone on so long. I hope this is the end of it. I don't know how much more clearly I can put it...

[WangFunk]

"For a flight to a destination for which a pre-scribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the mini-mum requirement is an Area Forecast."

Do you know why that is? IFR, Its so you can work out LSALT + 500 (Which if you think bout it, LSALT only applies to IFR aircraft) and 8ks VIz!
You could probably work out your alternate requirements of that LOVE AND LIGHT xx :ugh:

[FGD135]

Requiring ALT fuel for all non TAF 'dromes even when CAVOK would cripple GA and is completely illogical.
Great post, strim. You have managed to say in a few sentences what it has taken me several posts to say.

das uber, apologies if it was me you were referring to. I know I can be overly blunt in my writing at times.

About the CASA rules. The rule book could do with a good rewrite. I think we all agree on that. There are a number of things - like this stuff about alternates - that to really understand, you must read between the lines then apply some philosophy, history and logic to.

These rules about alternates were quite clear until RNAV approaches came along. To accomodate RNAV approaches, the rules were only tinkered with. The result is, today, a bunch of rules that are confusing and contradictory.

Some answers to questions:

How do your interpretations fit in with enr 1.10?
Those rules relate to the requirements to obtain a forecast before making a flight. They have nothing to do with the rules regarding alternates.

43Inches, good point.

Not trying to be a smartass either but could the 10%'ers please supply Jepp references as per the OP's original request?
The references have all been quoted throughout this thread. Some several times over.

Here is what the rules are really saying (daytime cases only):

An aerodrome can either SERVE as an alternate, or it requires an alternate. I find it easier to think in terms of the requirements that allow a place to SERVE as an alternate.

For the "non-VMC" scenario, to serve as an alternate, an aerodrome must have:
1. a valid TAF, and
2. navaid(s) and associated instrument approach(es), and
3. weather conditions better than the stipulated minima (e.g xwind, viz);

For the "VMC" scenario, to serve as an alternate, the aerodrome only needs:
1. weather conditions better than the stipulated minima (e.g xwind, viz);

If an aerodrome cannot SERVE as an alternate, then it REQUIRES an alternate. The logic behind the rules is all about the conditions an aerodrome must satisfy in order to SERVE as an alternate.

Note: I am unfamiliar with TSO C146 rules, but believe (from what I have read here) that an aircraft so fitted does not require ground-based navaid(s) for an aerodrome to satisfy alternate requirements.

[FGD135]

Captain Nomad,

Looks like we were both composing at the same time. Apologies if my previous posts have come across as overly blunt.

"For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast is unavailable... must make provision for a suitable alternate..."

I knew that you would quote this one and had intended to address it in my previous post but forgot.

Yes, this does appear to say that if a place has an instrument approach, then without a TAF, you must provide an alternate.

But, this passage dates from the days before RNAV approaches. In those days, the situation being referred to was one where there were ground aids, and also therefore, TAFs for all (or some) of the time.

So, this passage was (then) perfectly consistent with the various others. It is not consistent nowadays.

[Captain Nomad]

FGD, your explanation highlights to me why if I am flying IFR by day to Warnervale (no IAP no forecast - need alternate), I can use Cessnock and its firm forecast as my alternate without it itself needing an alternate even though it does not have an IAP or navaid. THAT is when the LSALT +500 & 8km vis rule comes into play!

I don't know if your description of how come you were not holding an alternate in the first place for the original example would auger well in a court of law. Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.12 b. couldn't be much clearer.

[glekichi]

Okay FGD, Ill give it one more attempt but after this I give up.

Those rules relate to the requirements to obtain a forecast before making a flight. They have nothing to do with the rules regarding alternates.

Apply the logic theory that you have been discussing.

If it is not saying that the area forecast (showing the right information) satisfies the requirement for an aerodrome that does not have an instrument approach thus not requiring an alternate, then what else is it saying?

You can fly anywhere without a forecast if you are going to hold an alternate that does have one (suitable), so, what exactly would this area forecast be fulfilling as the "minimum requirement" ?

Also have a look at ENR 1.10 1.4.1 Non-instrument Procedure Destination.
It clearly states that flight to these destinations is allowed and that an alternate is required only if the destination forecast is worse than what is specified in ENR 1.1 58.2.12.

ENR 1.1 58.2.12

LSALT + 500' and 8km on the LAST ROUTE SEGMENT.

The weather on the last route segment can be calculated using the ARFOR obtained in accordance with ENR 1.10 1.2.1.

How many aerodromes without any instrument procedure have a TAF anyway?

[Jack Ranga]

This would have to be the most all-time, bestest PPRUNE thread ever :ok::D

I mean, what a cack! Go back to page one and start with a wry smile on your face and read through to page 4.

Says it all about aviation in Australia don't you think?

I reckon I could come up with a paragraph that would state categorically whether YOU NEED AN EFFING ALTERNATE OR NOT................

[waren9]

Well Jack, CASA couldnt do it in 20, what makes you think you could do it in one?:E

Looking back, I think the question posed by the OP was not specific enough and required some interpretation or assumptions to come to an answer. Clearly not everyone has read it the same way.

I can see FDG's point after some late night reading but choose to disagree for now. My final answer to the OPs scenario is...not enough information.

[das Uber Soldat]

Before i read this thread, I thought I knew the rules.

All I know now is that im ****in confused :)

[Stationair8]

Used to be a stock-standard question at RFDS interviews.

[Captain Nomad]

Could someone please enlighten me as to all the VFR GA that is apparently going on that would have to come to a grinding halt? 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). By my reading of the regs, VFR is not exempt from the requirement to have a firm forecast or an alternate in this situation.

As for locations with no IAP and a TAF, well there are a few out there. Off the top of my head: Cessnock, Giles, Shark Bay, North Rankin A Platform (maybe there is some private helo procedure I don't know about), Kintore, Yuendumu, Ivanhoe, and probably quite a few more if I trawled through the regions with a fine tooth comb!

I have given two examples of where the LSALT +500 and 8km vis rule can be used yet people are still trying to extrapolate that rule into a situation where the rules clearly state: "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." I am still entirely unconvinced that you could argue your way out of this in front of a judge!

The next clause states: "For aerodromes without an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima are the LSALT for final route segment +500ft and vis 8km (also refer to non-instrument procedure destination)." It never states that this scenario involves a location which is also without a TAF and I don't think it is safe to presume that. That this clause exists is precisely to help you with scenarios where you are dealing with TAF locations by day with no IAP as per the Cessnock example.

[glekichi]

Captain Nomad,

The final route segment requires an area forecast to calculate enoute cloud base and visibility, not a TAF.

[Jabawocky]

Used to be a stock-standard question at RFDS interviews.

And what was their preferred reply? :E

[Captain Nomad]

The final route segment requires an area forecast to calculate enoute cloud base and visibility, not a TAF.

So where is the 'OUT' clause permitting this to now obviate the need for a firm AERODROME forecast as required by Jepp ATC pg 303 3.1.3 "When an AERODROME forecast is not available or is 'provisional,' the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast."

This even appears in the old VFG book produced by CASA for VFR pilots! I'm still waiting for a regulation reference that produces an 'out' clause for this people...

(where's that popcorn icon??!!)

[das Uber Soldat]

You could be waiting a while, I've been waiting since page 1.

[glekichi]

The RFDS do still ask that question!

The out IS ENR 1.10 1.2.1.

It is backed up by ENR 1.10 1.4.1, amongst others.

This is going around in circles now and I'm starting to sound like a broken record, so Ill make this post my "out".

Enjoy.

[pcx]

Jepp ATC para 3 Alternate Aerodromes.
Wish I knew how to cut and paste from Flightstar.

3.1 General

3.1.1 A pilot in command must make provision for flight to an alternate aerodrome, when required, in accordance with the following paragraphs.

The way I interpret this is that there has to be a requirement already existing for the provisions of the following paragraphs to apply.

Therefore the provision in

3.1.3 When an aerodrome aerodrome forecast is not available or is "provisional" the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.

only applies if there is a requirement for an alternate specified somewhere else. ie this clause does not, in itself, generate a requirement for an alternate.

As has already beed discussed I think that IFR flights are required to provide for an alternate in accordance with para 3.2.12.

However I always believed that it was permissable to change category to VFR on the last route segment providing that the area forecast was such that VFR was possible.

Carefull reading of

Flight Planning 1.2 Forecasts

seems to indicate thet I am wrong for any destination that has a prescribed instrument approach procedure, but correct for any other aerodrome.

Common sense to me says that just because an aerodrome has an instrument approach it will need an alternate if a TAF is not available but an aerodrome close by that does not have a TAF will not, if the area forecast indicates no more than scattered cloud below LSa + 500ft and vis 8000m on the last route segment. I do not believe that this was the intent of this clause.

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.

I guess that I really do not know the correct answer to this one, even after 30 years of flying. That really says more about the way the regulations are drafted than any thing else.

We really do all need to be concerned with the CASA rush to "offences of strict liability".

[Jack Ranga]

Well Jack, CASA couldnt do it in 20, what makes you think you could do it in one?

I know there's sarcasm & humour in your post waz :ok: but I'm going to use it as a Dorothy Dixer:

Could it be because the moron, public service, nanny state lawyer types have gotten control of the CASA.

And in their drafting of this and everything else in CAO's, ANO's, CAA's, CAR's, CAAP's, AIP, ERSA, DAP and every other publication that has existed in the past, present & future, they have not consulted any industry group, user group, dare I say it stakeholders or used any common sense whatsoever?

Just so long as it's almost impossible to read or interpret or justify almost any decision you have to make unless you are Rhodes Scholar, no make that a group of Rhodes Scholars of like mind.

Could that be the reason?????

[scavenger]

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?

[BoatsNHos]

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:


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).


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."

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.

Before i read this thread, I thought I knew the rules.

All I know now is that im ****in confused

me too... my head hurts.

[Captain Nomad]

pcx,

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.


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!

[Xcel]

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 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).

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
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

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...

[Captain Nomad]

doesn't cessnock have west mainland vor for approach??


No, that is Maitland - different airport and airport non co-located West Maitland aid.

How about a scenic operator?? Joy flights?? Instruction?? Aerial photography?? Tug?? All cowboys??


More than 50nm from the departure point?

[FGD135]

I wish you good luck with getting those flights past a safety conscious boss!


Well done! 100%!

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 ...
This passage has no relevance to Jundee. Can you see why? Hint: Jundee has an instrument approach.

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!

[Xcel]

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

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...:D

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?)

[Captain Nomad]

no navaid but LSALT +500 and 8km vis so tick ...
This passage has no relevance to Jundee.

I absolutely disagree. It has every relevance if you DON'T have a TSO 146 GPS by day (I only brought up the TSO 146 for the night flight). When considering NAVAIDS one always has to provide for an alternate if there is no navaid EXCEPT for the caveat expressly allowing LSALT +500 and 8km vis by DAY as listed in Jepp ATC pg 304 3.3.2. IT MAKES NO MENTION THAT THIS CAVEAT CAN BE USED AT NIGHT WHEN CONSIDERING NAVAIDS! (ie. if you had a TSO129 GPS for the night flight you would still need an alternate on TWO counts - weather and navaids even though the ARFOR is LSALT +500 and 8km vis and you could do the RNAV approach to get in).

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

[scavenger]

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).

[Captain Nomad]

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).

Except the book does not distinguish between the two - in both cases you need an alternate. It does not say for a place with no forecast that you can use an alternate minima it says "must provide an alternate" furthermore it is stated twice over in the case of the location having no forecast AND an IAP.

[FGD135]

I absolutely disagree.

You are correct. My apologies. My fault for speed reading the scenarios!

[scavenger]

It looks like people on both sides are just as convinced as each other that they are correct.

Except the book does not distinguish between the two - in both cases you need an alternate.

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...

[Captain Nomad]

Folks, I call it a day! Thanks for a great debate. :ok: It seems we will never come to an agreed consensus on some things.

[Kelly Slater]

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.

[MOQ]

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;

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.

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)

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.

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.


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.









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.

[Captain Nomad]

MOQ I vote your last post as the best so far on this subject! :ok:

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

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!

[desmotronic]

Common sense otherwise known as airmanship. I vote 10%.

[Checkboard]

"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."

:O

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! ;)

[FGD135]

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)!

[MOQ]

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.

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.

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.

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)!

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...)

[das Uber Soldat]

This thread had run it's course. In debating hard for a definitive answer, the only one we have discovered is that there isn't one.

Valid points can be made for both sides of the argument and clearly there is no final answer on the topic.

Common sense will be ruling my fuel plan decisions and I thank my lucky stars I don't have to operate into ports without tafs!

Continue the hamster wheel at your own peril

[Captain Nomad]

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)!

We have already been over this. NO, the VFR cockie NEVER needs to know if there is an IAP as his Jepp reference for VFR flight only stipulates an alternate minima of 1500ft and 8km vis - with rightly no mention of IAP or not.

One final story. Some might say it is an airmanship decision but you can decide in which pilot's shoes you would rather be in for this very possible real world scenario:

PILOT A: Boss says "Take as much cargo as you possibly can." You have multiple trips to do anyway so the more you take the better and the boss has left drum fuel supply at the destination, Jameson Ranges. You start before dawn pulling the plane out of the hangar at Kalgoorlie. You read the forecast which shows that the trough is still hanging around the central interior. ARFOR indicates more cloud in the Southern region of Area 64. In the remaining area, which includes your destination to the North, the only cloud to worry about appears to be a low layer of SCT which is below the LSALT (but it is not MORE than SCT). The next layer is BKN about 1000ft above your LSALT. Worst vis that is mentioned for the North is reducing to 8km in light showers. You decide to go with a minimum fuel load and refuel out of the drums at Jameson.

A while later you find yourself in the early morning light approaching Jameson at the LSALT. You are now sitting between layers but it looks like that low layer has turned into a solid overcast at probably no more than 500ft AGL and that the worse weather predicted for the South of the region has actually spread further North than expected and with the early morning sun the cloud has thickened - especially after that rain overnight. The TAF for Warburton further to the West wasn't too bad but they have just announced an ammended TAF for SCT at 600ft and BKN at 4,000ft. There is rain coming out of the layer above you and as you contemplate having to try and get through that lower layer to a boggy, wet strip with your fuel guages starting to knock on reserves you suddenly feel very cold and alone wondering how you got yourself into this situation...

PILOT B: He read the same forecast and is about to do the same job as PILOT A. He decided to carry enough extra fuel to get across to Warburton. Arriving over Jameson with the same real world weather as PILOT A he says "stuff this!" and sets course for Warburton. Even though the ammended TAF is SCT at 600ft you know you will still get in there. You even have an NDB approach or RNAV approach to help you! It is a sealed strip to boot. You look forward to putting your feet up on solid ground until you can try again later in the day when the weather lifts. You also decide it might be wise to get a strip report for Jameson too incase the extra rain overnight has deemed it too wet for use.

I know who's shoes I would rather be in even though some could argue that both pilots set off on a legal flight.

Okay, I really do plan on getting off the hamster wheel now! :}

[Checkboard]

with the same real world weather as PILOT A he says "stuff this!" and sets course for Warburton. Even though the ammended TAF is SCT at 600ft you know you will still get in there.

... and unfortunately he finds that Warburton, despite the amended TAF, is closed in thick fog when he arrives ...:rolleyes:

What's your point? :confused: It's possible for the forecast to be wrong? :cool:

When the weather is AS FORECAST, pilot A gets the job done in two trips, and pilot B (loaded up with gas) takes three - the difference between a profit and a loss on the job. When the company goes under, pilot B can feel righteous standing next to poor pilot A in the dole queue... :p

[AutopilotEngage]

In reference to the Bob Tait Instrument Rating Study Guide,

Question 31
You are planning an IFR charter flight in VH-OZY into an aerodrome for which no TAF is available. Select the requirement regarding the provision of an alternate for this flight -

Correct Answer (b) - no alternate is required providing the area forecast indicates no more then 4 eighths of cloud below LSALT + 500 feet and visibility not less than 8 km.

It also includes the answer explanation in the back,

31 - (b) - You can be sure that any aerodrome which has no TAF will have no instrument approach procedure other than a GPS NPA. Since a GPS NPA is ignored (actually says ingored in the book :D) when it comes to planning an alternate, the requirements for no TAF are the same as the requirements for no approach procedure. AIP ENR 1.1 para 73.3


So hey I'm going to go with Mr. Tait on this one, but only because that was my understanding in the first place and his explanation has backed it up.

[43Inches]

There are two paragraphs which appear to contradict or at least undermine each other;

AIP ENR 1.1-58 ALTERNATE AERODROMES states;


58.1.3 When an aerodrome forecast is not available or is "provisional", the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.


This appears to be a very solid statement which says no TAF, must have alternate. (and the use of "an" in a statement - "an –indefinite article
the form of a (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a) before an initial vowel sound" means you use it instead of "a" in front of a vowell, no legal ramification other than what is stated)

Paragraphs 58.2 onwards specifies the weather minimums, not forecast requirements. Whilst 58.2.12(c) does refer to LSALT +500 it does not state a TAF is not required to contradict 58.1.3.

The issue comes when compared to flight planning requirements in ENR 1.10. The opening statement has who this is applicable to;

ENR 1.10 Flight Plan Preparation states;


.......in the case of all flights away from the vicinity of an aerodrome, flights over water and all IFR flights, must make a careful study of:
a. current weather reports and forecasts for the route to be flown (ARFOR) and the aerodromes to be used(TAF);
......(the rest not relevent to the discussion)



So applicability is to all VFR flights away from an airport (navs/cross country) and all IFR flights (including local air work). The 50nm day VFR rule is just a dispensation for nominating an alternate due to weather below the alternate minima, not absolving you from checking the weather.

The statement which then instills the confusion is now immediately after;

ENR 1.10-1.2 Forecasts


1.2.1 A forecast must be either a flight forecast or an area forecast with an aerodrome forecast (TAF) for the destination and, when required, the alternate aerodrome. For a flight to a destination for which a pre-scribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is an Area Forecast.


So now in the face of ENR 1.1-58.1.3 it states if there is no instrument procedure (do not confuse with no nav-aid) you do not require an alternate due to lack of aerodrome forecast.

In answer to the original question an alternate is definitely required as there is an RNAV based instrument procedure and the aerodrome has no TAF service.

However there are the other discussions regarding the use of the area forecast when there's no instrument procedure (IFR or VFR). This can be used but it is an extremely blunt instrument and will more often then not result in an alternate being required anyway. There is a lot of discusion regarding cloud below LSALT +500 but that is only one part of the alternate minimums. Visibility, weather phenomenon and wind componants are all vital and usually very vague on the ARFOR. For instance on the Darwin sector ARFOR it forecasts isolated smoke reducing vis to 7km (VMC but below 8km alternate minima). It does not specify any specific location at all so i'm assuming you would need an alternate for everywhere within that area without a TAF that states theres no smoke there.

That being said ENR 1.1 58.1.3 is a very straightforward statement and could be a tricky one to overcome if you just happen to run out of fuel due weather whilst operating to a no-procedure aerodrome with min fuel.

With regard to this;


31 - (b) - You can be sure that any aerodrome which has no TAF will have no instrument approach procedure other than a GPS NPA. Since a GPS NPA is ignored (actually says ingored in the book :D) when it comes to planning an alternate, the requirements for no TAF are the same as the requirements for no approach procedure. AIP ENR 1.1 para 73.3


Considering a GPS NPA is an instrument approach procedure i'm not sure how this conclusion could be achieved without further reference to say it may be ignored.

[AutopilotEngage]

43 Inches, AIP GEN 1.5 para 8.5.5.4 see table and Notes 3 and 4

[43Inches]

43 Inches, AIP GEN 1.5 para 8.5.5.4 see table and Notes 3 and 4


This reference is to do with nav-aid requirments and has nothing to do with the statement made in ENR-1.10 1.2.1. ENR-1.10 1.2.1 refers solely to whether an instrument approach exists at the destination and if you need a TAF, not whether you can use it to satisfy your navaid requirement or compare forecast minima to the charted value.

What this means is that if you do not have the relevent approved GPS reciever your destination becomes a "no-aid" destination, not a "no procedure" destination. You can still go to the destination and conduct a GPS approach but can not use the system to satisfy nav-aid alternate requirements.

[Johnny_56]

Another alternate question.

You are flying to a destination with an RNAv and the area forecasts indicates and approach may be required. (No TAF, 1x TSO 129, no ground based aids). Plan for an alternate.

Does your alternate require a ground based aid? Does day/night make a difference? There is an RNAV available and a TAF indicating visual approach conditions.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Another alternate question.

You are flying to a destination with an RNAv and the area forecasts indicates and approach may be required. (No TAF, 1x TSO 129, no ground based aids). Plan for an alternate.

Does your alternate require a ground based aid? Does day/night make a difference? There is an RNAV available and a TAF indicating visual approach conditions.

This is Australia 2017 - nowhere has a ground based aid.....

[Johnny_56]

Alternates all round then...

[LeiYingLo]

If you only have a TSO C129 then the alternate must have a ground based navaid and approach if the weather at the alternate would not allow a visual approach (Check out CAAP 179 page 47 for a useful flow chart).

I don't think it being day or night would change this as it is a weather related requirement and not a lighting requirement.

If you had a TSO C145 receiver (2 of them if CHTR or RPT) with a valid FDE prediction then you wouldn't have a problem nominating an alternate with just an RNAV provided the weather was at or above the alternate minima for that approach.