Choice of alternates

[peterh337]

How many people would pick an alternate which is near the destination, and how many would pick one which is a long way away?

Let's say you are doing a training flight from Shoreham to Bournemouth, some approaches at Bournemouth, and then flying back to Shoreham.

How many would pick Southampton as alternate (given it has the same wx as Bournemouth and has the same sort of ILS) rather than pick e.g. Lydd or Southend (which are likely to have different wx)?

The advantage of Southampton is that you can get a single train back to Shoreham, which you cannot do from any of the other places that have an ILS.

I tend to think of this as having a "crash alternate" (where a crash has closed the runway) and for that a nearby airport is fine, and a "weather alternate" (which obviously needs to be more distant).

[BackPacker]

Oh, I know where this is going... Did you forget to nominate your ETOPS alternate at the 170A?;)

[A and C]

A huge amount of variable factors with this question and lots of scope for personal opinion.

If this is about getting things right for the 170A then as long as all the usual criteria are met (WX, approach aids, airfield open, big enough runway etc) then all else is just personal opinion.

[Ultranomad]

Unless there is a risk of weather deteriorating below CAT I (or whatever the aircraft and the pilot are certified for), I would pick an alternate as close as possible, but with:

Better navaids and approach facilities
Longer, hard runway
Several runways in different directions, or at least a better orientation of the only runway with respect to prevailing winds
Flatter terrain and fewer obstacles around
Familiar to me

[BackPacker]

Also be advised that *some* airfields require PPR or PNR if you nominate them as your alternate.:ugh:

(In real life, if you really need that alternate and forgot PPR or PNR, then you'd probably land anyway and sort out the mess on the ground. But it might be an "issue" on your exam.)

[flybymike]

Poor old Peter. Every time he starts a new thread it is assumed to be another 170a failure point...;)

[S-Works]

Poor old Peter. Every time he starts a new thread it is assumed to be another 170a failure point...

Judging by the number of them he must have totally wiped out on the 170A.... :p:p:p:p

[LeeP-PA28]

My alternate (for returning home) is the closest aerodrome / airport with published approaches. Worst case there is I fly down to minima, have a cuppa tea and either go home via bus or fly back later in the afternoon.

When going elsewhere, I usually go for 2 alternates: 1 local with published approaches (if my destination doesn't have approaches) and a second, a good distance away where hopefully the weather would be somewhat different.

[englishal]

If you are flying from EGKA to EGHS is there anything wrong in nominating the departure airfield as the alternate? So if Bournemouth is closed due to weather or a blocked runway, you just turn around, and fly the 30 minutes home where you know the weather will be ok to land? That is what I'd do anyway.

In a TB20 full of fuel you could divert to any airfield in England so you could put down Newcastle as your alternate if you wanted, or pick one on the fly if alternate 1 is closed, ;)

The 170A is a load of utter bollox in my humble opinion, and I have never come across anywhere where you have to pass a test to be allowed to do a test!

[GeeWhizz]

Diversion aerodromes is a personal preference. Here are my considerations...

I'll always have one alternate that's near to my destination which you might call a 'crash div' or whatever. It's purpose is to be there if some unlucky sod ploughs the runway at the destination and it can't be hoovered up before the fuel endurance approaches. Let's be honest if it'll only take 15-20 mins to clear up whatever is obstructing the runway, I'd rather do a few orbits/GH and get in to where I'm supposed to be going than divert elsewhere. This div is plogged properly.

I'll always have an en route diversion too. Simply just in case something goes wrong at altitude and I know where I'm going to try to land. I wouldn't book it as a diversion, it'd be a bloody emergency - I'm landing! Likewise I wouldn't have this one plogged either, just a knowledge of where it/they is/are from my track.

A weather diversion always seems to me to be too cowboy like. The short trips that most PPLs do arn't long enough for the weather to become 'unexpected'. I concede that on longer international and transcontinental flights, how much you trust the weather man is down to your judgement alone. I'd have a good planned weather div for these types of flight. But as before, for a PPL in the UK if the weather is pants, turn back and return to whence you came! Or back to where you didn't continue into the poor weather in the first place. This is very IFR capability determined.

In selecting a div I look for general weather (VFR if possible) and more importantly the wind direction and strength. I wouldn't be comfortable having a planned alternate where the wind strength would be at the 'demonstrated crosswind limit', sods law says it'll be outside of the limit and I'd break something. At the same time as reasoning with the weather I consider runway length, but only in so much as, is it long enough. And I mean long enough, no adding extra length for whatever silly reason. We learn PFLs, flapless, glides, and short field techniques for a reason, and any strip with an ATZ is likely to have at least 600m grass (which is fine for most if not all singles, and many twins in most weather conditions that GA tend to fly in).

After the weather and wind, I don't really care what facilities are available! Yes a cuppa and some avgas might be nice, but then most airfields that make sensible diversions have these facilities anyway. In my mind, a diversion is an emergency situation for whatever the reason, be it you, or someone else at your original destination. Of course if a narky hass-hole says you cannot divert because you've not booked an aerodrome "Pan-Pan short of fuel" would probably work just nicely!;)

[mm_flynn]

geewiz,

so far I have had to divert 5 times (3 'crash' 2 weather)

2 x for collapsed landing gear, in each case it took way longer than 15 minutes to cleanup. Once I was in the crew room of the diversion for about 5 hours and once I did my whole BFR and then dropped the examiner at a different airport while they departure airport remained stubbornly closed.


In general in a spam can I wouldn't particularly plan a crash diversion unless I was in a particularly sparse airport area, the circumstances will always be different and my aircraft can get into most airports. If I was flying a G6 on the other hand.... (just wishing). On weather, I would plan something either local with an ILS if going into a VFR field or something in a different weather system (having made he mistake of not doing that, going missed at primary, then at alternate, and then needing to formulate a further alternative plan - fortunately with 600nm of remaining range)

[GeeWhizz]

5 times?! You're a pro ;)

The term 'crash' diversion is misleading. It could be for anything e.g. someone lost a panel and the runway has to be checked so it doesn't become a hazard for others. That wont take too long. Nose legs collapsing etc will obviously take a lot more time, but in either case the 'crash' div should be sufficient.

[mm_flynn]

5 times?! You're a pro ;)
.

I fly for fun and am a chicken so don't often set out on a day when the weather is at minimums, hence the limited number of airports unusable on arrival :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thoughts:

Exam: anywhere suitable, and make the numbers work.

Real world cross-country in GA - I'm far more likely to divert due to weather or serviceability than I am due to a problem at my destination. So, I actually will have a series planned along my route - which really only means making sure I have visual and instrument approach plates readily to hand for my selection of choices. The diversion itself I just fly like an exam exercise - just route from a convenient waypoint along my existing route.

And just like the emergency exit, always remember that the best alternate may well be behind you!

Real world jet operations - pick the nearest legally feasible alternate to the destination, that way your landing fuel can be minimised, and so payload maximised and costs minimised.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Oh, I know where this is going... Did you forget to nominate your ETOPS alternate at the 170A?;)

Just maybe, Peter's recent training and ongoing examination has caused him to think about various aspects of flying and best practice, and air some of the points he's thinking about himself. If so, all power to his elbow for doing so.

G

[peterh337]

Exam: anywhere suitable, and make the numbers work.Well that's my view too.

But Backpacker's 1st post in this thread is indeed near the mark as regards what prompted the question ;) The "nice chap" (who I shall not have the pleasure of flying with again, ever) insisted that Lydd or Southend are not acceptable alternates and that Southampton is the correct one.

I don't have problem with picking alternates for all my "real" flights. With a ~1300nm zero-fuel range I normally pick a selection of airports which have the approach aids (ILS being the one of choice by far), avgas, Customs, and which one would not mind being stuck in for a day or two. In most places in Europe (north of say Italy or Greece) this is a non-challenge. I use a satellite phone to check the tafs and metars at all the airports in question, way before I get there.

PPR/PNR is not a huge issue (IMHO) because while yes you should get PPR/PNR the reality is that once you are on your way to the alternate the situation is a full emergency and you will just declare a mayday (if necessary, in southern Europe, citing "low oil pressure") and land there regardless of any landing clearance. The only time I would obey a refusal to land (which itself would be hugely unprofessional of ATC) would be if I had other good options or if I was going to be fired at.

Obviously it would be stupid to file Gatwick or Heathrow as alternates (because there are other options nearby such as Southend which is H24 with an ILS... except the ILS is INOP right now ;) and doesn't cost £500 plus an absolute arm and a leg in parking costs) but in the more common context one might be talking of an airfield which is PNR/Customs but is otherwise open to GA and not busy.

I just wondered why the hell somebody would pick Southampton as the alternate in the scenario originally described. I was hoping somebody could illuminate that choice. To me it makes sense only if Bournemouth was closed due to a crash or some runway contamination etc, or the ILS became INOP and it was ~OVC004 and you wanted to be able to get home using a single train journey. Lydd and Southend are in the sticks but in nearly all cases of a wx diversion one can fly home the next morning in good VFR conditions :)

[S-Works]

I am curious to understand why you consider a diversion a full emergency?

[gasax]

My approach (from a VFR only perspective) is closer to Peter's. To be any use, a realn alternative has to have differing weather. So major topographic features, sea, stuff like that make airfields worthy alternatives.

So called 'crash' alternatives - I've had to use them 3 or 4 times and at those times the 'nearest' button on the GPS, alllied to a flight guide are fine - the weather is still flyable, loads of fuel all sorts of things are possible.

Crossing the Channel on a poor VFR day - often the only viable alternative will be on the side you started from. Typically the majority of diversions I have made have come from reaching a point where I was not longer happy VFR and usually turning through an angle much greater than 90 degrees. Might waste some time but there is nothing much more comforting than retracing your path through a 'known' environment.

[englishal]

The problems with Exams is that they are not real world scenarios. If you were going to EGHH because you NEEDED to go, then maybe Southampton might be a fine alternate. If you are going for training, then I'd just go home.

What are the rules with regards to Alternates? If the destination is forecast to be VFR then you don't even need to file an alternate right?

As a general rule, I'd file an alternate which has a different climate, so SOU and Bournemouth are not good, because if the weather is crappy at EGHH then it is likely to be crappy at Southampton too. You'd be better off filing Boscombe Down as it is inland, or I agree with you Lydd or Southend as they are likely to be in a different air mass if there is frontal stuff coming in from the SW (plus you have the chance to check Shoreham on the way past and dive in there and just go home for a beer if weather permits).

[MIKECR]

Maybe im stating the obvious here but if this is in reference to an IR skills test then the flight should be treated as a public transport flight(certainly used to be when I did mine, albeit some time ago now). If its still the case then I would be applying the relevant EU Ops criteria to select an appropriate alternate(if required....or even 2 alternates if legally required). Thats perhaps what your examiner was looking to see in your planning and may explain why he said your choice of alternate was wrong.

[mm_flynn]

Maybe im stating the obvious here but if this is in reference to an IR skills test then the flight should be treated as a public transport flight(certainly used to be when I did mine, albeit some time ago now). If its still the case then I would be applying the relevant EU Ops criteria to select an appropriate alternate(if required....or even 2 alternates if legally required). Thats perhaps what your examiner was looking to see in your planning and may explain why he said your choice of alternate was wrong.
Which is part of the problem as this is a PPL/IR so he is unlikely to be legally able to do public transport ;)

Not withstanding that, I have never noticed the part of EU OPS that say an alternate must be the closest possible ILS equipped airport to your destination so as to minimise PAX onward bus costs. Both Lydd and Southend seem reasonable alternatives that comply with EU OPS. This feels like any answer Peter gave would be wrong.

Southampton == WRONG, if the weather is below minimum in Bournemouth why do you think it is going to be any better in Southampton.

Lydd == WRONG, its CAVOK at Bournemouth and forecast to be fine at Southampton, why fly to the other side of London when there is a perfectly good alternate right next door.

[Black Jake]

FBM and B-X,
Apart from your own self gratification, self aggrandization or a personal vendetta, what is the point of mocking Peter's posts?
Forgive my ignorance, but I would like to have thought that those who frequent this site and contribute to these forums, especially those who perhaps have the experience, skills, knowledge and qualifications to be instructors and examiners, would be only too pleased to help the lesser qualified amongst us by passing on help, guidance and encouragement rather than sarcasm and ridicule.

Regarding selection of alternates, I think the availability of train services from one airport to another should be quite low on the list of desirable qualities. True, it might be seen as a plus point to get home as soon and as cheaply as possible, but the term, "pressonitis" seems to be a factor in a significant number of accident and incident reports.
IMHO - When poor weather might be a factor, one should select an alternate airfield where the forecast is significantly better than the forecast at the planned destination. Generally this means an alternate that lies in a different airmass, or is sufficiently far from the planned destination that the weather affecting the destination is not forecast to arrive at the alternate by the ETA plus a few hours, or has already passed through. Obviously one should also consider things like LDA Vs LDR, wind direction and strength, the availability of approach aids, approach minima Vs weather, operating hours, handling, maintenance, fuel etc.

For those who fly commercially I assume this is all prescribed in EU-OPS and company operations manuals. For the private pilot there seems to be less guidance and oversight; much of it is left to the pilot's discretion.
When poor weather is not a factor, a suitable airfield relatively close to the planned destination or indeed the airfield of departure (if one isn't particularly fussed about arriving at the destination) is usually a suitable alternate.

For an instrument rating flight test, I guess the simulated test conditions are for poor weather at departure and destination rather than fair. So for an IFR flight from Shoreham to Bournemouth and back, it could be argued that Southampton and Lydd would most likely be affected by the same prevailing weather on the South Coast of the UK and would therefore be unsuitable as "cast iron" IFR alternates. If however the problem was cross winds at Bournemouth (R/W 08/26) rather than cloud base/visibility, Southampton (R/W 02/20) might be a good choice after all.

But then I suspect that Peter knows all this already and is fishing.

Surely a brief discussion with any 170/IR examiner about the actual weather and actual alternates on the day Vs the assumed conditions for test and the consideration of alternates based on the assumed conditions, would demonstrate sound knowledge and understanding of IFR flight planning and procedures and be recognised by the examiner as such?

BJ

[MIKECR]

Selection of aerodromes
(a) An operator shall establish procedures for the selection of destination and/or alternate aerodromes in accordance with
OPS 1.220 when planning a flight.
(b) An operator must select and specify in the operational flight plan a take-off alternate aerodrome if it would not be possible
to return to the departure aerodrome for meteorological or performance reasons. The take-off alternate aerodrome,
in relation to the departure aerodrome, shall be located within:
1. for two-engined aeroplanes, either:
(i) one hour flight time at a one-engine-inoperative cruising speed according to the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM)
in still air standard conditions based on the actual take-off mass; or
(ii) the operator’s approved ETOPS diversion time, subject to any MEL restriction, up to a maximum of two
hours, at the one-engine-inoperative cruising speed according to the AFM in still air standard conditions
based on the actual take-off mass for aeroplanes and crews authorised for ETOPS; or
2. two hours flight time at a one-engine-inoperative cruising speed according to the AFM in still air standard conditions
based on the actual take-off mass for three and four-engined aeroplanes; and
3. if the AFM does not contain a one-engine-inoperative cruising speed, the speed to be used for calculation must be
that which is achieved with the remaining engine(s) set at maximum continuous power.
(c) An operator must select at least one destination alternate for each IFR flight unless:
1. both:
(i) the duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or, in the event of in-flight re-planning in accordance
with OPS 1.255(d), the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed six hours, and
(ii) two separate runways (see OPS 1.192) are available and usable at the destination aerodrome and the appropriate
weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that
for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at the destination aerodrome,
the ceiling will be at least 2 000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility
will be at least 5 km;
or
2. the destination aerodrome is isolated.
(d) An operator must select two destination alternate aerodromes when:
1. the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate
that during a period commencing one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival, the
weather conditions will be below the applicable planning minima (see OPS 1.297(b)); or
2. no meteorological information is available.
(e) An operator shall specify any required alternate aerodrome(s) in the operational flight plan.
20.9.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 254/37
OPS 1.297
Planning minima for IFR flights
(a) Planning minima for a take-off alternate aerodrome. An operator shall only select an aerodrome as a take-off alternate
aerodrome when the appropriate weather reports or forecasts or any combination thereof indicate that, during a period
commencing one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather
conditions will be at or above the applicable landing minima specified in accordance with OPS 1.225. The ceiling must
be taken into account when the only approaches available are non-precision and/or circling approaches. Any limitation
related to one-engine-inoperative operations must be taken into account.
(b) Planning minima for a destination aerodrome (except isolated destination aerodromes). An operator shall only select
the destination aerodrome and when:
1. the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that, during a period commencing
one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions
will be at or above the applicable planning minima as follows:
(i) RVR/visibility specified in accordance with OPS 1.225; and
(ii) For a non-precision approach or a circling approach, the ceiling at or above MDH; or
2. two destination alternate aerodromes are selected under OPS 1.295(d).
(c) Planning minima for a:
destination alternate aerodrome, or
isolated aerodrome, or
3 % ERA aerodrome, or
en-route alternate aerodrome required at the planning stage
An operator shall only select an aerodrome for one of those purposes when the appropriate weather reports or forecasts,
or any combination thereof, indicate that, during a period commencing one hour before and ending one hour
after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions will be at or above the planning minima in
Table 1 below.
Table 1
Planning minima — Destination alternate aerodrome, isolated destination aerodrome, 3 % ERA and en-route
alternate aerodrome
Type of approach Planning minima
Cat II and III Cat I (Note 1)
Cat I Non-precision
(Notes 1 and 2)
Non-precision Non-precision
(Notes 1 and 2) plus
200 ft / 1 000 m
Circling Circling
Note 1 RVR.
Note 2 The ceiling must be at or above the MDH.

[peterh337]

I know (or think I know) how to choose alternates, but as I wrote earlier I wondered if anybody can come up with a reason for choosing Southampton in that scenario. It seems to hang entirely on the unlikely scenario of Bournemouth getting shut down.

It is indeed possible that the examiner in question had AOC criteria in mind, not realising that they are perhaps inapplicable to a private IR.

He was certainly highly specific on that convenience should not feature at all in the choice of alternates or the decision to take one; an admirable and correct and proper attitude I am sure.

Another examiner I flew with today (just some practice) was equally puzzled.

Incidentally I do think that "usefulness" should feature significantly in the choice of alternates. I would not file as an alternate an airport whose locality is an absolute sh**hole (and there are plenty of such) because the incentive to divert there is going to be zero except as an all out emergency with no options left. Private flying is meant to be enjoyed - it is damn expensive enough... If I was going to divert and had various options I would ask passengers where they would like to go (ILS and a decent place to eat would probably feature strongly).

Let's face it, despite all the supposed procedures, even the most famous airlines frequently choose alternates picked for practicality (vis that famous 747 flight from the USA to "London Manchester" with 1 engine shredded on takeoff).

Lydd can be an excellent weather alternate and indeed was the only place open for many miles around the south when I flew back from Tempelhof once. And even it closed minutes after I landed (OVC001 or so). You just cannot realistically get out of there, short of flying out the next day or whatever. For some reason, Lydd often escapes very low cloud which shuts down much of the south east GA access.

In places like Greece one often has no option but to file an alternate which has no avgas, but that is rarely the case up here.

[S-Works]

Apart from your own self gratification, self aggrandization or a personal vendetta, what is the point of mocking Peter's posts?

Well mostly because Peter and I have a long history and I will confess to getting a certain amount of enjoyment at him suffering at the hands of a system he is being forced to adopt and that he has always derided. :p:p:p

However I was not mocking his post. I am genuinely interested in why he considers a diversion a full emergency. They are common place for me at work, especially on the Spain run where Santander is frequently below minima.

[peterh337]

They are common place for me at work

What is your line of "work" these days, bose-x ?

[Johnm]

Grrrrrrr I get madder than a really mad thing when people start trotting out commercial ops in the IR context. I got my IR when I was already two years too old to be a commercial pilot.

Europeans please get your head round the fact that many of us with IR just want to fly IFR in our little aeroplanes so we can use them like cars. We don't care about commercial operations and we don't have ops manuals and we ALWAYS plan for convenience.

If my destination and alternate don't work (as has happened to me a couple of times) I get ATC to go find me somewhere I can get into, it's one of the things ATC is for.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[MIKECR]

Yeah but if you want the rating then you have to jump through the hoops. If that means the conduct of the test is as per a public transport flight then so be it. Do what you like private IFR wise once you've got the rating.....nobody will give a damn.

[S-Works]

peterh337
*
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brighton (pronounced without the "t")
Posts: 111
Quote:
They are common place for me at work
What is your line of "work" these days, bose-x ?


Dunno, Peter, you tell me? Male gigolo, pet detective, the list is endless..... ;)

[Piltdown Man]

Just stick some common sense into planning and ask yourself few questions like, what's the weather like (CAT I, Non-precision, Just about VFR or is a beautiful, gin clear sunny say?), what's the aircraft like (Full IFR, VFR etc.?) and what happens if something breaks (on the plane or on the airport)? Commercially, you'd pick the closest 'company' airport but privately, given a choice, maybe you'd select the one with the best alternative transport links or maybe the one with the cheapest parking. A proper plan will also allow for a one level of degradation in the aircraft (like ILS failure and a diversion to a non-precision airfield, or NDB failure and a diversion to an airfield that is VFR). Then you have to carry enough fuel to start-up, climb and fly to your destination, make an approach, go-around and divert and arrive with a reasonable amount of fuel at your alternate.

PM

[flybymike]

Apart from your own self gratification, self aggrandization or a personal vendetta, what is the point of mocking Peter's posts?
Erm, excuse me but my post was intended as an expression of sympathy for Peter because of assumptions previously made by Back Packer (and alluded to by Ghengis) I think Peter knows me well enough personally to know that I was not taking the Pi55.

[IanSeager]

Peter

If it is a test or a 170A put down whatever is expected. If it is a private flight put down whatever is sensible (I'd have gone for Exeter over Lydd btw), if it is a diversion for real, go to wherever will work best at the time, just because it is on your flight plan you don't have to use it (but I know you know that).

Ian

[n5296s]

All very interesting. In the US it's clearly understood that a filed alternate is ONLY for planning purposes - primarily fuel. Once you get up there you can do whatever is most convenient. ATC doesn't even know what you filed.

Of course it depends what you fly too. I rarely have less than 2 hours reserve, which means that in California I can always fly to the desert if I had to. If carrying fuel costs you serious money (as in a 747) then of course you can't be as casual about things.

If I'm going to a non-ILS airport, I always file the nearest ILS (assuming the weather is up to diversion mins). If my destination has an ILS then I'll file to another nearby airport that has one, but if the weather is below ILS mins I'll probably be going further than that - and making sure I have enough fuel accordingly, regardless of the flight plan.

(Of course in the US there is no public transport worth speaking of. Airports with an ILS generally also have decent car rental though).

[Hodja]

Another reason for *filed* alternates is lost comms.

If you turn up at your destination in IMC w/lost comms & unable to land, ATC will expect you to proceed to your filed alternate.

Otherwise I agree about the arbitrariness of *filing* an alternate.

Unless crossing national borders or tricky airspace, in a diversion situation & with ATC's help, I'd always divert to the most appropriate alternative, irregardless of whether I'd put it into the original flight plan or not.

(but I'm sure there's situations where this could cause major administrative trouble)

[Big Pistons Forever]

While I have had my differences with Peter337 in his present and previous incarnations, this time it is hard not to think he was screwed by an examiner who was a total w@nker.

With respect to an alternate airport there is no grey area. If the airport has the appropriate weather forecast, no notams which affect its suitability and is within the fuel range then it is a legal alternate. The examiner may not like your choice but it would seem to me the examiner is grossly exceeding his authority if he were to mark you down for presenting a legal alternate not of his liking.

As for selecting an alternate outside the make believe fantasy land that is flight school IFR training in pretty much every country, well that is a different story.

When flying IFR privately I use the same criteria as when flying commercially. There will be 3 alternates

1) The commercial one: That is the place that will cause the least cost and inconvenience

2) The legal one: That is what goes on the flight plan and meets all the legal requirements

3) The inflight decision one: This is a result of the constant assessment of how things are going and where to go with the worst case scenario and will be updated with the a succession of "near to me" airports as the flight progresses.

Some days all three are the same, most days 1 and 2 are the same and the odd day 3 is the only one that matters.

[Black Jake]

FBM
Please accept my apologies - I misread your post.

Peter is obviously seeking to clarify some of the things that happened and/or things that were debriefed by his examiner during a recent IR flight check (power checks, rudder checks, when to call "established" on the ILS, calculation of DA, the addition of PEC and the selection of alternates). Obviously we only have his side of the story, and his recollection of events. The examiner hasn't and probably can't reply with his or her own version of the flight.
Nevertheless, I find it saddening that the standard response of some supposedly experienced and highly qualified pilots (and examiners?) is negative when its so easy to avoid the politics and just offer good advice. Personally I find it heartening to read about the exploits of a pilot who constantly asks questions, challenges perceived wisdom and practice and wants to understand why we do what we do.

Once again, I'm sorry for misrepresenting you in relation to the above.

BJ

[BackPacker]

If it is a test or a 170A put down whatever is expected.

To be honest, I think this is exactly what Peters question was about.

Peter has been flying on his FAA PPL/IR throughout Europe for a number of years now and he's still around despite having to divert a few times. So I guess from a practical standpoint, he knows all there is to know about selection of alternates. In fact, from a practical point he can teach us all something about selection of alternates.

Now he failed his JAA 170A, and this is apparently one of the reasons. So he wants to get to the bottom of this.

So far the only real references people have posted (other than a few common sense posts - but we have established by now that the JAA IR is not about common sense) seem to come straight from EU-OPS. But EU-OPS doesn't apply to private flights. The question then becomes: Does it (legally speaking) apply to an IR that's going to be attached to a PPL? In other words: Show us the bit in the ANO, LASORS or whatever that specifies that knowledge of, and adherence to, EU-OPS is a requisite for the IR.

Or in yet other words:

Yeah but if you want the rating then you have to jump through the hoops. If that means the conduct of the test is as per a public transport flight then so be it.

So is a selection of a public-transport worthy alternate (as per EU-OPS) one of the hoops to jump through or not?

[peterh337]

It's actually a good point whether EU-OPS apply.

I am sure they do not apply to the private pilot flying somewhere for real, in the areas we are talking about. But I am not sure they do not apply to somebody doing the ICAO IR to JAA IR conversion training at a UK FTO.

As BP mentions, I have an FAA IR (CPL/IR in fact), with the IR since 2006. I've been doing the 15hr conversion course to a JAA PPL/IR, and have completed that. What I don't know is whether that course was an "approved course" i.e. a course approved by the UK CAA for that FTO to run, or whether it was an "ad hoc" bit of training. I think it is the latter, and this may well determine whether (and to what extent) the stuff that features in that FTO's CAA approval is required. For example I do not need to wear the pilot uniform :) I also do not need to use the specific kneeboard which is in their approval (a friend of mine who did a CPL/IR had to use a specific kneeboard and had to organise the papers on it in a specific way). I was told I have to use their plog form, which I did use despite it being near useless for any real flying.

The 170A (which is a "pre test test") examiner may have been applying some of their "approved course" rules, but I really have no idea. I have finished there now. I just wondered if there was some (bizzare) reason for using Southampton as the alternate...

The point about choosing an alternate in case of equipment failures is an excellent one.

Under FAA rules if your filed destination has only a GPS IAP then you cannot file an alternate with only a GPS IAP - IIRC. I think this rule is widely disregarded in as much as people file alternates which they have no intention of ever using, which is legal because once airborne you can divert anywhere you like (in the USA, this really works, because there is no PPR/PNR and most airports are H24 with PCL, etc etc).

Most IFR planes have two NAV receivers capable of LOC/GS and two indicators (though usually only NAV1 can drive the autopilot) but they usually have only one LOC/GS antenna. And these antennae do fail - both in the antenna and in the wiring to it and in subsequent signal processing. I once flew a really crappy VOR approach (on which I used the VOR rather than the GPS OBS mode - something I almost never do ;) ) and it turned out to be a very subtly duff KN72 (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/hsi-failure/) signal converter which generated incorrect HSI deviation bar and to/from flag indications but failed to drop the flag into view. I've also had, on another occassion, an internal break in one of the two VOR/LOC antennae which produced a total blind spot on a particular bearing; this was revealed by flying a full 360 orbit some distance from a VOR.

[421C]

Now he failed his JAA 170A, and this is apparently one of the reasons. So he wants to get to the bottom of this.



I think there is a misunderstanding here. If I recall from an earlier deleted thread, Peter was quite open that there were in-flight error(s) which led to a fail. As I understand it, he is not asking "why did I fail" but trying to understand why he got the feedback he did on various other items.

The 170A signatories job (he doesn't have to be an examiner) I think is to
- assess if the candidate has flown to the test standard and is ready for test
- help the candidate by debriefing on any points which might be picked up by an examiner

I think there are a number of points to be made here. When the examiner notices a potential or actual "deviation" it could be to a degree varying from "on its own, this would be a fail item" through to "it might be preferable if you did this a bit differently". His debriefing has to cover all of these. The 170A guy might only fly once with a student, so he has to pack everything into the debrief. Perhaps some examiners are inclined to polarise feedback and label something a "fail item" as a means of emphasis.

It seems to me that most (all?) of the topics discussed are legitimate items of feedback.
- you mustn't omit the pax brief under any circumstances. The training slot is not as rigid as a CTOT!
- brief the examiner beforehand and agree the conduct of power and rudder checks
- call "localiser established" not just when within half-scale deflection on intercept, but also having rolled out and stabilised on the inbound heading

The 170A Signatory/Examiner's conduct is something Peter was unhappy with and he will avoid flying with him again. These things happen. Us ranting on about it has no value, and (forbid the thought) we might even think it unfair to do so, not having been present.

There is an article here PPL/IR Europe - FAA to JAA IR Conversion Flight Training (http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=554) on FAA to JAA IR conversion flight training. One point it makes in the section about "attitude" to conversion training is:


As a conversion candidate, you won’t be learning anything fundamentally new in the IR course. Instructors will tend to treat you more like a peer than a young cadet. In this context, there is a potential trap. Success in the JAA IR is dependent, to an extent, on a long set of ‘secondary’ disciplines – from how you prepare and plan a flight through to the exact way in which you execute the checks and standard procedures. For the experienced candidate, there is a temptation to blend what the instructor teaches with your own established methods, or to dilute methods that seem excessively laborious with a more pragmatic style. This could apply to many elements of the course, from how avionics are configured and checked at every phase of flight, through to the exact method for executing a hold or the exact sequence of engine failure drills. If you don’t try to understand and emulate the instructor’s methods 100% from the very start of your training, you may create a problem that won’t manifest itself until late in the process.

I think the key point here is that a conversion candidate needs to "immerse" himself in the methods specific to the JAA IR test. Many of the feedback items discussed are legitimate elements of that.

On the choice of alternates, I think there is a misunderstanding. The alternate in question is not an alternate to Bournemouth, but to Shoreham. Although the training flight described simulates a flight from Shoreham to Bournemouth diverting back to Shoreham, the actual IFR flight plan filed is for a round-robin flight from Shoreham to Bournemouth and back, and thus the alternate is for the arrival at Shoreham. Southampton is the best and obvious choice for an alternate in these circumstances (IMHO), subject to TAFs and NOTAMs obviously and if I were training someone, I think I'd suggest that in preference to Lydd (and certainly Southend).

It may well be that the manner in which these points were made to Peter was wrong. But there is some reasonable substance behind (most of) them, and a more general and important point - your approach to the IR test as a conversion candidate needs to be as closely aligned to all the detailed expectations of the JAA "way" as possible. There is much more value to be had in trying to understand how to do this than in over-analysing every element of how this "way" differs from one's established methods.

brgds
421C

[peterh337]

Why Southampton?

[mm_flynn]

Why Southampton?

in the context C421 provides, I would guess the argument for Southampton could be

EGKA has only NPA and being right on the coast could be subject to fog, locally low ceilings. Southamption, being slightly inland and with an ILS will likely still be available if the weather at Shoreham goes below minimums. As a bonus, Southampton is a 'better' place to get a car/train home from than any other sensible alternate.
This is particularly true if the TAFS and general weather picture don't show both airports in the same system of persistent low cloud and fog!

[UV]

I just wondered if there was some (bizzare) reason for using Southampton as the alternate...



Why Southampton?

You tell us...you were at the de-brief! Didnt you ask?

[proudprivate]

What I'm still missing is a legal reference, applicable to JAA (or UK CAA) flight under Instrument Rules, that would disqualify putting Lydd as an alternate, or make it a "fail item" on a check ride. I have not seen this and it probably doesn't exist.


It seems to me that most (all?) of the topics discussed are legitimate items of feedback.

- you mustn't arrive late for a check ride appointment
- you'd better give more plausible scientific explanations when you make a statement about an action necessary for safety reasons (such as claiming that wind can blow back stones or debris back into a propellor)
- you must be capable of properly debriefing a candidate, so that regardless of the result, he walks away with a worthwile learning experience
- especially if you are operating regularly as a check pilot or an examiner in the area, you need to familiarize yourself with the training operation so that you know what you can expect from a candidate.

would also be legitimate items of feed back about this particular event.

Even the debriefing item

- call "localiser established" not just when within half-scale deflection on intercept, but also having rolled out and stabilised on the inbound heading
which I have been taught to do appears not to be a legally challengeable issue, as pointed out accurately by Billiebob. Indeed, the ICAO definition of "localiser established" appears to be a half-scale deflection and just that (at least in the context of a VOR or ILS). A proper check pilot or examiner would have told Peter : "Legally speaking you're in the clear, but I would seriously recommend you to wait with the call until you're stabilized on the inbound heading".

Overarching here is a false sense of superiority of - especially UK CAA - JAA instructors and examiners. As a result, they focus on trivialities like whether a gyro is spinning to the right or to the left, and forget about the essence and practicalities of safe private operation. While apparently innocent, this chip on their shoulder has stood in the way of many a proper and useful European Aviation integration project and has contributed to skyrocketing cost inefficiencies in the European Aviation scene. Believe me, it is frustrating to witness this from abroad.

But a lot of you don't care, because you make a (poor) living out of these cost inefficiencies.

The PPL/IR quote is quite telling. Referring to beginning IR students as "cadets". :yuk: Next thing we have to wear eagles with swastika's ?

[Fuji Abound]

You tell us...you were at the de-brief! Didnt you ask?


Strange.

I always thought when you do a debrief you run through the issues that arose during the flight, why you think they were issues and what you would have done differently. You then ask if the explanations you have given were clear and whether the "candidate" wishes to ask anything.

Then again you could just fail the "candidate" and leave the reasons as a complete mystery - sounds about how things go these days.

;)

[421C]

The PPL/IR quote is quite telling. Referring to beginning IR students as "cadets". It's referring to the 95% of persons at an UK FTO who are young, ab-initio attendees of a full-time "frozen ATPL" course with the intention of becoming professional pilots. Perhaps "Cadet" was merely a shorter way of saying that, which wouldn't make the typical reader vomit or think of WW2 uniforms.


What I'm still missing is a legal reference, applicable to JAA (or UK CAA) flight under Instrument Rules, that would disqualify putting Lydd as an alternate
which I have been taught to do appears not to be a legally challengeable issue, as pointed out accurately

A flight test is not an exercise in barrack-room lawyering. No-one is saying that Peter was failed because of these items. Maybe they were emphasised as "fail points" because the examiner thought he might be reluctant to accept them as input without this sort of emphasis. How they were positioned is quite a different topic from their legitimacy as debrief points.

would also be legitimate items of feed back about this particular event.
Perhaps. Generally in the flight test environment, a candidate's main priority is to focus on the feedback to him, so he may improve and meet the test standard. It seems to me the more fruitful discussion.

[Genghis the Engineer]

On the issue of failing for something that's not actually against the rules - surely that's possible in just about any skill test?

All skill tests will be assessing somebody's observance of what is considered (by the examiner) to be best practice.

A well known example in the UK is flight through a MATZ - we all know that to do so without permission is perfectly legal so long as you stay out of the ATZ itself. However, it is not very clever and even at PPL level you'd almost certainly fail for flying through a MATZ without achieving 2-way and obtaining a MATZ penetration clearance.

Similarly, Peter mentioned earlier that he'd been pulled up for not having his aircraft into wind for run-ups. This is not illegal, not downright dangerous, but most times, places and aircraft it would be regarded as best practice that you point an aeroplane into any significant wind for run-ups, and that if you don't, you do so deliberately and are able to explain and defend what you just did.

So in both cases, I suspect that Peter's "sin" may not have been doing what he did - but in not explicitly stating to the examiner "I'm doing things this way, here are my reasons for doing so."

G

[proudprivate]

Perhaps "Cadet" was merely a shorter way of saying that

Cadet is military jargon for a person in officers' training. It is quite misplaced in a civil environment. My point being that far too many FTO's confuse themselves with the Air Force. Also, the organisation PPL/IR shouldn't endorse this confusion, as they are not serving the wannabee ATPL community.


A flight test is not an exercise in barrack-room lawyering.

Nobody said that. But the 170A check pilot Peter encountered clearly didn't have sufficient back ground knowledge to support his claims in the de-brief. The discussion in this (and similar threads) revolves around
- the debrief items Peter encountered
- the appalling quality of the check pilot

Maybe they were emphasised as "fail points" because the examiner thought he might be reluctant to accept them as input without this sort of emphasis.

What utter nonsense. Either they are grounds for failure or just points of attention worth mentioning. Any decent examiner should be able to distinguish between the two.

But I give you the benefit of the doubt : I needn't have been a knob, it could have been an knob with a communication problem. But definitely one the CAA should look into.

[421C]

Why Southampton?

It's a full service, CAS, IFR airport sensibly close to Shoreham and on the route from Bournemouth. It is used as an alternate from Bournemouth for IR tests, which was the main south coast IR test location until the recent changes. Any examiner is likely to be comfortable with Southampton as an alternate.

Lydd looks a good possibility also, but it is further, off-route, outside CAS, no radar and (perhaps most critically) the DHs and RVRs are minima are much higher (ie. 480' and 1500m). Southampton a better bet, given the relatively high minima at Shoreham.

I can't "prove" it "must" be Southampton. Lydd would be fine too if the TAF were suitable. It's obviously not an actual item someone would fail on.

brgds
421C

[421C]

Cadet is military jargon for a person in officers' training. It is quite misplaced in a civil environment. My point being that far too many FTO's confuse themselves with the Air Force. Also, the organisation PPL/IR shouldn't endorse this confusion, as they are not serving the wannabee ATPL community


Cadet is in common English usage in reference to formal airline training programmes. The article wasn't "endorsing" that. It was using common English.

We must both be having a quiet day to debate a subject of such vital importance....

[peterh337]

The examiner made a point forcefully that "convenience" is completely irrelevant to the choice of an alternate.

That said, I fail to see what is wrong with Lydd or Southend or Biggin - or indeed Bournemouth where you have just shot some approaches so you know which way round the NDB hold is ;) and its weather is going to be exactly the same as Southampton's.

I think the key point here is that a conversion candidate needs to "immerse" himself in the methods specific to the JAA IR test

Clearly so :ugh:

It would be helpful if they were written down somewhere. Otherwise, the appropriate level of immersion will be hard to achieve.

Anybody who can fly IFR can get 99% of a flight right. It is the last 1% which gets you.

[GeeWhizz]

Anybody who can fly IFR can get 99% of a flight right. It is the last 1% which gets you.

Which is 99% of aviation in general....?!

To comment on recent rhetoric, I'm not bothered for the reasons for creating debates on all the aforementioned topics. These are intrinsic to all types of flying. Those of us with the intention of going CPL/IR in the future I'm sure find this very useful. That said, as well as providing he who posts with others' opinions, I like to think we all take something away from these debates... even if we don't admit it most of the time. It's all food for thought which, actually, is what we need sometimes.

How many of us will now really think about our planned alternate? Maybe none, but I'd guess that most will have more justification for using the alternates that we always use, or think about using different ones. :cool:

[421C]

That said, I fail to see what is wrong with Lydd or Southend or Biggin - or indeed Bournemouth where you have just shot some approaches so you know which way round the NDB hold is http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif and its weather is going to be exactly the same as Southampton's.
Fair enough. You then have 2 choices. Do it your way or do it the way suggested by your school. I'd advise the latter.

...BTW, the wx at Bournemouth is not exactly the same as Southampton, you can have zero-zero fog at Bournemouth and CAVOK at Southampton.


It would be helpful if they were written down somewhere. Otherwise, the appropriate level of immersion will be hard to achieve
Have a look at the IR manual here: http://www.pplir.org/images/stories/pplir_files/IR%20Training%20Manual%20v1.53.pdf
Ulitmately though, we are discussing some very secondary debriefing points (into wind power checks, choice of alternate). Despite all the efforts at standardisation, you are never going to avoid someone who flies with you for the first time as 170A or Test examiner having some such points to debrief on. If that is all he picks you up on, you are laughing, because you will have passed (IMHO).

[Fuji Abound]

It is true of any exam - do it your way and risk failure, do it the prescribed way and you should pass. I suspect whatever the discipline we pursue we all feel in later life exams could be better prepared, and, importantly more relevant to the "real" world. I often wonder why this should be so and yet it is a criticism all too commonly voiced.

That said I dont think I have ever taken a "flying test" in which I was satisfied with my performance but I managed to pass everyone first time. That isnt a boast, simply a reflection that I did feel that by the time I took the test I was safe enough to get the job done and while the examiner had plenty of debrief points I did enough to convince him I was safe. That has always installed some confidence in me that the system works well most of the time because their were enough pendatic points to justify a fail.

BTW 421C - I dont know you, but might I ask please if you are from Germany or that region, or from India or that region?

[peterh337]

I was never briefed on the examiner's preferences. The choice of alternates, the "downwind" power checks, etc were made on previous training flights and was accepted fine. So it's not a case of me doing it "my way" against some advice. Having gone through the virtually total charade of the JAA IR ground school I am well used to going along with the flow :)

[421C]

I was never briefed on the examiner's preferences. The choice of alternates, the "downwind" power checks, etc were made on previous training flights and was accepted fine. So it's not a case of me doing it "my way" against some advice

My point is take the 170A examiner's advice as an extension of the training, that has picked up a few more points. This is normal, and the ones discussed are mostly very minor. Ignore the fact they were presented as "fail items". If they'd merely been suggestions, we'd probably never be discussing them.

Inevitably, of course, none of these issues will ever come up again! Your next 170A guy will be satisfied with whichever alternate you choose and however you want to do power and rudder checks....

[bookworm]

Regarding selection of alternates, I think the availability of train services from one airport to another should be quite low on the list of desirable qualities. True, it might be seen as a plus point to get home as soon and as cheaply as possible, but the term, "pressonitis" seems to be a factor in a significant number of accident and incident reports.

No, that's the reason why the "availability of train services", and other factors relevant to the purpose of the flight, should be high on the list of desirable qualities. The way to avoid "pressonitis" is not to assume that you have superhuman willpower, but to create contingency plans that make it easier to take the right decision when it is required.

When the decision to divert sits on the margin, you'll make a better decision knowing that your diversion has a train connection to that business meeting you were going to, or perhaps a scheduled flight home to your bed, rather than requiring a night spent sleeping in the aircraft.

[peterh337]

Clearly it has been a while since you were correctly immersed (or perhaps I should say immersed to the correct depth) in the JAA IR training environment, bookworm :)

[MIKECR]

So after 3 pages,Peter, can you perhaps put us all out of our misery and actually tell us what the examiner said in his debrief that concluded your choice of alternate was wrong?? Is it just me or is this the question that we're all waiting for an answer to?:) This would presumably go some way to concluding this thread.

[peterh337]

He wasn't specific; he just said that Lydd or Southend were bad choices, with some other things spoken too fast for me to follow and remember. I wasn't going to argue, because there is always a chance that, at the last moment, he will say "damn ... I will sign your form" :)

What I understand from the foregoing discussion is that any alternate for which the numbers add up should be acceptable, and there seems to be a consensus that it being further away is not a bad thing.

[MIKECR]

Well I hate to say it then but you should have pushed him for a full explanation as to why Lydd or Southend were bad choices. Presumably there must have been some sort of issue he wasnt happy with. He/She should have explained this in the debrief.

I would also clarify next time what condition the test is being conducted under - i.e. public transport or private. If its public transport(as per the typical IR test) then apply the EU Ops criteria and you cant go worng.

The pre test brief from the examiner should cover all areas. Its also your opportunity to ask any questions regarding the conduct of the test. I would probably go next time with a list of things written down that I wanted to ask, that way everything should hopefuly be covered.

You dont want to labour the IR test, its too bloody expensive!!:}

[bookworm]

Clearly it has been a while since you were correctly immersed (or perhaps I should say immersed to the correct depth) in the JAA IR training environment, bookworm

Mercifully so, Peter.

I'm surprised that the ops rules under which the flight is to be conducted are not made clear. The JAR-OPS1/EU-OPS criteria for alternates are different from the UK (and ICAO Annex 6) requirements for private flights.

If the flight is to be operated as a commercial flight, I would expect the alternate chosen to be commercially expedient, and close enough to make any required alternate fuel not too much more than minimal. For a private flight, I would expect any legal alternate to be acceptable.