NO Instrument App/NO TAF - Alternate ?

[Capn Rex Havoc]

G'day aviators, I have recently found myself unemployed from Emirates after 14 years, (A380 skipper), and I am am studying the "world's best practice" (tongue in cheek) Aussie AIP. I did a search this topic here, but the results were confusing and nearly 10 years old. So I thought I would ask the experts here for confirmation.

Scenario -

I am flying IFR charter to Woop Woop and it does not have a navaid, nor does it have a published approach procedure. It does not have a TAF. It is a gin clear day.

Question DO I need an alternate?

My understanding (interpretation) is that I DO need one. Am I correct?

Cheers n beers even in Algiers

[mmm345]

By day, an alternate IS NOT required to a non IAP destination if the the weather is greater than LSALT +500ft and 8km visibility for the final route segement. ENR 1.1 -11.7.2.12 and ENR 1.10

By night, an alternate is always required for a non IAP destination ENR 1.10 pg. 3

Does this make sense?

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Thanks mmm345,

Under the AIP - Alternates section (11.7)
it says as its first point under ~General (11.7.1.3) "When an aerodrome forecast is not available .... PIC must make a provision for a suitable alternate"

Then the the other sections go in to Weather conditions and Nav Aids.

So I reckon the starting point is you need a TAF, lest you need an alternate.

[mmm345]

The interpretation of that reference i believe is based around an aerodrome in which a TAF is normally available however is unavailable or is desingated as PROV ( provisional), which both require an alternate. However, my understanding is that this regulation is NOT applicable to an aerodrome in which a aerodrome forecast ( TAF) is not normally available IE.many small regional ports.

See ENR 1.10 -1.2.1, when planning to a non IAP destination, the minimum forecast is a GAF.

Anyone else have a different interpretation of these regs?

[pig dog]

First a disclaimer, my airline has its own, more conservative procedures therefore I’m not as fluent with the AIP as I once was, however I understand the bolded section from ENR1.10 below covers the above scenario re no TAF at destination:

1.2 Forecasts
1.2.1 Forecast information must include:
a. an aerodrome forecast for the:
(i) destination; and
(ii) when required, alternate aerodrome; and
b. one of the following:
(i) a flight forecast; or
(ii) a GAF (at and below A100); or
(iii) a SIGWX forecast (above A100); and
c. a wind and temperature forecast
For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF.

(mmm345, sorry it looks like you responded as I was typing my response. I agree with your interpretation that a GAF is sufficient, therefore allowing flight to destination without an alternate provided VMC can be maintained over last route segment)

[Ironpot]

Also, I have a recollection that you require QNH from a source within 100Nm but I can't find it - am I correct?

[mikewil]

The interpretation of that reference i believe is based around an aerodrome in which a TAF is normally available however is unavailable or is desingated as PROV ( provisional), which both require an alternate. However, my understanding is that this regulation is NOT applicable to an aerodrome in which a aerodrome forecast ( TAF) is not normally available IE.many small regional ports.

See ENR 1.10 -1.2.1, when planning to a non IAP destination, the minimum forecast is a GAF.

Anyone else have a different interpretation of these regs?


I would say an alternate is required anywhere there is no TAF (both VFR & IFR).

Unless it has changed, the requirement was that if an aerodrome as a TAF that is PROV (provisional) then an alternate is ALWAYS required (even on a perfect CAVOK day). If you extrapolate that requirement, then one would expect that if there is no TAF at all then an alternate is required as well.

[ersa]

By day, an alternate IS NOT required to a non IAP destination if the the weather is greater than LSALT +500ft and 8km visibility for the final route segement. ENR 1.1 -11.7.2.12 and ENR 1.10

By night, an alternate is always required for a non IAP destination ENR 1.10 pg. 3

Does this make sense?

Correct.....

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Hi mmm345 - when planning to a non IAP destination, the minimum forecast is a GAF.

Anyone else have a different interpretation of these regs?

The GAF minimum is in the Forecast section - not the Alternate section, so, to my reasoning, when talking about Alternate requirements - you need to look at the contents of 11.7..

and mikewill I would say an alternate is required anywhere there is no TAF (both VFR & IFR).

I agree with you mikewill. No TAF = Alternate.

From an airmanship perspective, I reckon that makes sense. I reckon if you don't know what is going on at an airfield you are launching to - eg possibility of fog etc, best you have an ace up your sleeve like an alternate that has a TAF.

[PaulH1]

Also from an airmanship point of view, airfields can be unusable for other reasons than weather. What would you do if as you were approaching your destination in VMC, an aircraft ahead of you burst a tyre on landing, blocking the only runway? You would be glad if you had researched an alternate then.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Also from an airmanship point of view, airfields can be unusable for other reasons than weather. What would you do if as you were approaching your destination in VMC, an aircraft ahead of you burst a tyre on landing, blocking the only runway? You would be glad if you had researched an alternate then.

That is true, but that sort of thing is not in the AIP - where as NO TAF = Alternate is.

[Capt Fathom]

I think we are talking small IFR charter aircraft. You can land anywhere. Lots of strips in Australia if your mate blows a tire!

[binzer]

Also from an airmanship point of view, airfields can be unusable for other reasons than weather. What would you do if as you were approaching your destination in VMC, an aircraft ahead of you burst a tyre on landing, blocking the only runway? You would be glad if you had researched an alternate then.



Do you plan for everything,,, what if your going to your alternate(single runway) and the plane in front of you bursts a tyre and blocks the runway?

[machtuk]

There comes a point where you wouldn't even get out of bed to do a flight if you tried to cover every scenario!. Apart from the legal requirements as mentioned here one has to way up the risks & apply them on an individual flight basis. I used to drive out to Island dromes in the middle of the night in the middle of the Pacific with all the 'legal' requirements complied with BUT there was plenty of other associated risks that I managed that weren't in the book, a plan B is mandatory even for a basic flight.

[Capn Bloggs]

By night, an alternate is always required for a non IAP destination ENR 1.10 pg. 3
If you're over 5700kg, this is incorrect. You're not allowed plan it. ENR 1.10 1.5.1.

[mmm345]

I agree with you that from an airmanship perspective, in a potentially marginal weather situation or whether you believe the GAF might not be a true reflection of the weather, it would be a very wise to carry an alternate.

However, this make no sense when considered from what a VFR aircraft can do.

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

This from the AIP doesn't distinguish between IFR and VFR. If that was the case that if planning to an AD that doesnt have a TAF you must require an alternate, VFR aircraft wouldn't be able to fly to any old airport that doesn't have a regular forecast without an alternate, which as we known isn't what happens legally. If a VFR aircraft in a CAVOK day, as seen visually and from the the area forecast can fly to a non- TAF aerodrome without an alternate, why cant a IFR aircraft, both aircraft are in the exact same weather conditions ( CAVOK).

Secondly, the AIP quote about requiring an alternate for TAF unavailable airport begins with " For aerodromes with an Instrument Approach Procedure". Evidently, this rule doesnt apply to an aerodrome without an IAP as this rule is in relation to being able to determine alternate requirements based upon the alternate minima published on the IAL chart.

Thirdly, Why would the AIP publish the Alternate Minima for a non IAP destination to be " LSALT+ 5 and 8km for the last route segment". Nearly always, the last route segment wont be contained within the capture region of an Aerodrome forecast ( 5nm of ARP), thus the GAF comes into play.

The note about a forecaast being unaviable or provisional is under my understanding to be in regards to being outside a TAFs validity period ( thus making it unavailable for planning) or other factors that cause a normally issued TAF to not be valid/available .

In summary

ENR 1.1: For aerodromes without an IAP, the alternate minima is LSALT + 500ft for final route segement and 8km vis

ENR 1.10 For a flight for which a IAP does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF

Why would you require a TAF to avoid alternate if it states that for a non IAP destination, the minimum is a GAF ( for the sole reason that you don't need to compare Aerodrome weather with the alternate minima on the chart).

Since there is no IAP chart, you establish the final routes LSALT, add 500ft and consult the GAF, if there is more than SCT cloud below the minima you just established, you provide an alternate.

Why should a VFR aircraft be able to fly to a non - TAF destination without a alternate, as they have looked at the GAF ( which is the minimum ENR 1.10) and out the window and its blue skies everywhere, whilst a IFR aircraft must carry an alternate whilst flying in the exact same weather conditions...?

And to re-instate the non IAP destination requirements, by day you need not have an alternate if LSALT+5 and 8km vis for last route segment, ( as will be able to conduct a visual approach), but by night require an alternate regardless.

Dont get me wrong, if its very marginal weather outside or i doubt the GAFs accurarcy or by knowledge of local weather conditions prevailing, an alternate will be very good idea.

However, I dont agree or see how an IFR aircraft must have an alternate simply because there is no TAF, however a VFR aircraft looking at the same blue skies can happily plan to the same airport without alternate fuel.

​​​​​​​

[Capn Rex Havoc]

mmm345,

This is cut and pasted directly from the Airservices Australia VFRG -As pilot in command, you must make provision in your pre-flight planning for an alternate aerodrome if:


you plan to arrive at your destination:

30 minutes before the commencement of
during or
30 minutes after the end of the validity period of a forecast that indicates meteorological conditions that are below alternate minima or

if the forecast for the destination is:

not available or
is attached with the term ‘provisional’.


The VFR alternate minima are as follows:


for aeroplanes:

a cloud base that is SCT with a ceiling of 1500 ft
8 km visibility; and


If I am to read the above format similar to an airbus checklist, those dot points make it pretty clear that if you don't have a TAF then you MUST have an alternate.

[mmm345]

Whilst this is quite a confusing topic ( from what i can see this isnt the first thread of the topic and head is starting to hurt alot), the AIP states multiple points to suggest that for a non IAP destination with no TAF, no alternate AD is required if GAF shows can maintain LSALT+500ft and 8km on final route segment.

Namely, ENR 1.1-92 refers to the clause about " Where the TAF is unavailable" ( potentially using language that implies that this clause refers to destinations where a TAF is normally available"- begins with " For AD with an IAP", the question of this thread is in regard to a negative IAP aerodrome.

Clause C of ENR 1.1-92 refers to the question of this thread, for " AD without an IAP".

Additionally, in ENR 1.10, it states that when an IAP does not exist at an AD- the minimum forecast required is a GAF, why would they say this if you need an alternate if you dont have a TAF.

The unavialbility of a normally published TAF is only a factor at an aerodrome with a published IAL. The TAF would be used in the planning phase to align with the alternate minima on the chart and thus determine alternate requirements.

At a non IAL chart destination, there is no published alternate minima on the chart to match the weather on the TAF with. Thus, the AIP states that you must conisder the LSALt on the final route segment , add 500ft and enter with a visbility of 8km. Consult the GAF ( as the TAF is null and void outside of 5nm ARP) and determine alternate requirements from this. The TAF for such a destination without an IAP would be useless ( although handy for SA) for planning alternates as 99% of the time the final route segment will not be within 5nm of the destination and thus requires consult of the GAF anyway.

[oggers]

"11.7.3.2 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 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 4.1"
Taken with the aforementioned flight planning requirement:"For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF."....then I would agree with mmm345 that in the specific scenario of the OP, an IFR dispatch by day without an alternate is legal based on a GAF only.

[werbil]

Whilst this is quite a confusing topic ( from what i can see this isnt the first thread of the topic and head is starting to hurt alot), the AIP states multiple points to suggest that for a non IAP destination with no TAF, no alternate AD is required if GAF shows can maintain LSALT+500ft and 8km on final route segment.

Namely, ENR 1.1-92 refers to the clause about " Where the TAF is unavailable" ( potentially using language that implies that this clause refers to destinations where a TAF is normally available"- begins with " For AD with an IAP", the question of this thread is in regard to a negative IAP aerodrome.

Clause C of ENR 1.1-92 refers to the question of this thread, for " AD without an IAP".

Additionally, in ENR 1.10, it states that when an IAP does not exist at an AD- the minimum forecast required is a GAF, why would they say this if you need an alternate if you dont have a TAF.

The unavialbility of a normally published TAF is only a factor at an aerodrome with a published IAL. The TAF would be used in the planning phase to align with the alternate minima on the chart and thus determine alternate requirements.

At a non IAL chart destination, there is no published alternate minima on the chart to match the weather on the TAF with. Thus, the AIP states that you must conisder the LSALt on the final route segment , add 500ft and enter with a visbility of 8km. Consult the GAF ( as the TAF is null and void outside of 5nm ARP) and determine alternate requirements from this. The TAF for such a destination without an IAP would be useless ( although handy for SA) for planning alternates as 99% of the time the final route segment will not be within 5nm of the destination and thus requires consult of the GAF anyway.

Agree completely with mmm345. As stated by someone else it does not apply at night for >5700.

Also, I always have a peek at the GAF when considering fuel loads even when there is a TAF as GAFs by definition are way more conservative. Criteria for inclusion of phenomena on the TAF is minimum 30% probability vs 10% on the GAF, and is not restricted to the 5nm fishbowl surrounding the aerodrome. It's very common to see TS on the GAF for the area around Darwin, but not on the TAF or TTF. The storms on these days sometimes ignore the Berrimah line.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

I guess I am looking at this from the perspective of never having seen it before, therefore as the uninitiated - I am looking at it from direct translation fo the regulation in print. To the folk who are using terms like - "the assumption is " or "it makes not sense" etc, provides little guidance.

Under the Auspices of ALTERNATE AERODROMES the over arching statement is11.7.1.3 as writing here.

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.

That sentence is not a conditional one, it is (to me at least) a straight out order.

oggers posted "11.7.3.2 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 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 4.1"
Taken with the aforementioned flight planning requirement:

That sub section (11.7.3.2) is under the RADIO NAV AIDS SECTION.
That sub section (11.7.3.2) deals with Alternate planning from the perspective of radio nav aids.

The sub section (11.7.2.12) is under the WEATHER CONDITIONS SECTION.
In the sub section(11.7.2.12) for IFR flight it outlines three conditions for ALTERNATE MINIMAThis section states
For IFR flights, the alternate minima are as follows:


For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima published on the chart (see ENR 1.5, Section 6.).

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.

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 (also refer ENR 1.10 Sub-section 1.4)


I guess, in summary, my take is that the NAV AID and WEATHER SUB SECTIONS of the ALTERNATE Chapter are referring to ALTERNATE MINIMA, where as the main section to the ALTERNATE chapter is outlining an overall caveat, ie no TAF = Alternate.

It is bloody confusing to say the least, as can be seen on these posts, and the ones in the past. Be great is CASA could clarify it.

[Guptar]

To illustrate my level of boredom, I have been digging through the regs to find an answer for a hypothetical situation. But can't come up with a definitive answer as the regs seem to be about either a small aircraft with steam guages in PVT ops or airlines operating out of capital city aerodromes.

This is the situation. (hypothetrical)
Airfield, lets say Mansfield Vic, an ALA that's privately owned....as in your own private landing strip. No instrument approaches available. All required runway lights for night ops.
Terrain - Mansfiled is in a bowl with high terrain on almost every side about 10nm away in each direction.
Aircraft - MTOW 6489 kg (Kinagir 360) ME Turbine. Has all the bells and whistles.
Pilot - has every rating needed & is current.
Fuel is not an issue
Wx, CAVOK

Mr moneybags has 2 aircraft. A new G58 Baron and a new Kingair 360.

One night, a typical summer night that's just beautiful, he decides to do a trip round the Melbourne (Port Philip) bay. You know one of those night that's just begs for a scienic over the bay. The regs say he can do it in the Baron. But can he do it in the 6489 kg Kingair?

Part 2 of the question is, for a trip home on another flight, could he plan IFR in the same Kingair to a nearby aerodrome with an instrument approach then downgrade to NVFR for the last 30nm to home base. Assuming WX conditions are NVFR.

All NVFR regulations are aimed at aircraft not above 5700 kg.

Will the advent of wearable HUDS with EVS systems require a re-write of the regulations. There is some interesting tech about to filter down to smaller aircraft. You can alsways see the terrain from synthetic vision no matter where you look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr9KjUqSV6o

[mmm345]

Yes i agree its a very confusing topic with conflicting information.

As you state above 11.7.3.2 is under the Radio Nav aids section, BUT, this same quote is repeated under Weather Conditions section ( 11.72.12 C).

For a destination without an IAP, the alt minima is LSALT + 5 and 8km visibility.

Note, the line referring to " where an aerodrome forecast is unaviable or is provisional, suitable alternate must be planned" is Clause B which begins with " For aerodromes with an IAP"- as the aerodrome forecast is used to be aligned to the alt minima on the IAP chart, which obviosuly isnt applicable to a destination without a published IAP chart, hence clause B begins with " For aerodromes with an IAP".

Heres a hypotheical situation: Planning a IFR charter from Bankstown to Cessnock ( AD north of Sydney near Williamtown).

Cessnock does not have any published IAP, nor nav aids, Nor TAF- however is quite a busy training a GA airport.

By day ( refer ENR 1.10 -1.4.1)- you can plan to a non IAP destination IFR if firstly you can navigate to the destination via an area navigation syste ( ie. GNSS) or visual reference ( since there are no nav aids at the destination ( ENR 1.1 4.1.1 IFR Navigation). So we can fly to the destination, but do we need an alternate.

ENR 1.10 states to refer to the alternate minima in ENR 1.1 11.7.2.12. In this reference, we refer to Clause C), since there is no published IAL chart. It states the Alternate minima is LSALT+5 and 8km visibility for the final route segment. Since the last route segment will probbley be via a waypoint MAKOR, the last route segment is well outside a TAF 5nm bubble ( irresepective of the fact we dont even have a TAF at Cessnock). Hence we consult the GAF for the area and see the lowest cloud we can expect is hypoteically FEW clouds 5000/ 7000, which happens to be above our final routes segment LSALT+500ft. Visibility isnt a problem based on the GAF.

So, we dont need an alternate since we are above the alternate minima for weather conditions. Is there any other things that may make us rewuire an alternate., consult ENR 1.1 approximatly page 90. Navaids alternates- not required since weather is better than LSALT +5 and 8km vis. Lighting- not a factor as daytime.

Therfore, we can plan an IFR flight to Cessnock without an alternate. By consulting ENR 1.5, when there is no published IAL chart, our landing minima will be the visual approach requirements by day. To land at this destination, paraphrasing the visual approach requirements, we will ensure that from an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA ( we could potentially use the Maitland 25nm MSA) or a pilot calculated/ grid LSALT, we are within 30nm,we have 5km vis, are clear of cloud and in continuous sight of ground and water, once this is acheived, we can commence a visual approach to Cessnock by DAY.

Now, lets consider if we are conducting this flight at night. ENR 1.10 states that we must have an alternate ( no ifs or buts), and we cant even do the flight if MTOW > 5700kg. Thus, we dont even need to consider the alternate factors in ENR 1.1 ( weather, aids, lighting etc) since before this is even considered, IFR to a non IAP destination at NIGHT must have an alternate. However, we must check the alternate factors such as Weather, aids, lighting etc when checking that our alternate doesnt actually require an alternate itself.

ENR 1.5 states that the landing minima will be VMC from LSALT within 3nm.
ENR 1.10 states that to conduct a landing at a non IAP destination at night ( Cessnock), we will fly at or above the LSALT until within 3n,. Once within 3nm,and with the aerodrome visually identified and able to maintain VMC, we can manouvere to land within a circling area of 3nm.


This provides a clear exam of how you can fly to a non IAP, Non TAF aerodrome , both by day and night, with compliance to the alternate requirements in ENR 1.1 and 1.10. Note, my example sees an alternate not rwquired by day, but is rewquired by night , cant be even conducted if above 5700kg at night.

Does anyone see if im missing something major here or got something very wrong??.

[KRviator]

Heres a hypotheical situation: Planning a IFR charter from Bankstown to Cessnock ( AD north of Sydney near Williamtown).

Cessnock does not have any published IAP, nor nav aids, Nor TAF- however is quite a busy training a GA airport.

By day ( refer ENR 1.10 -1.4.1)- you can plan to a non IAP destination IFR if firstly you can navigate to the destination via an area navigation syste ( ie. GNSS) or visual reference ( since there are no nav aids at the destination ( ENR 1.1 4.1.1 IFR Navigation). So we can fly to the destination, but do we need an alternate.

ENR 1.10 states to refer to the alternate minima in ENR 1.1 11.7.2.12. In this reference, we refer to Clause C), since there is no published IAL chart. It states the Alternate minima is LSALT+5 and 8km visibility for the final route segment. Since the last route segment will probbley be via a waypoint MAKOR, the last route segment is well outside a TAF 5nm bubble ( irresepective of the fact we dont even have a TAF at Cessnock). Hence we consult the GAF for the area and see the lowest cloud we can expect is hypoteically FEW clouds 5000/ 7000, which happens to be above our final routes segment LSALT+500ft. Visibility isnt a problem based on the GAF.

So, we dont need an alternate since we are above the alternate minima for weather conditions.

<SNIP>


Does anyone see if im missing something major here or got something very wrong??.Yes.

Per AIP ENR 11.7.1.3, you are using the GAF to determine destination weather, however, 11.7.1.3 requires you to use an aerodrome forecast which is referenced to a TAF. Cessnock has no TAF so you must plan an alternate to Maitland, if Maitland itself does not require an alternate due weather.

It's a ridiculous situation where you cannot use the GAF for arrival weather, but so long as that AIP says "aerodrome forecast" you have to have a valid TAF to be able to determine if the weather will be above the Alternate Minima.

I'd like to know what idiot wrote that such that I can't use the GAF!

[Capn Rex Havoc]

mmm345, thank you for putting the time into this, I really appreciate it.

So one last question - In your example, I follow it all, but isn't the critical link still the airport itself? Say I depart to Cessnock from Bankstown, on a beautiful clear day, just after dawn, in winter, no fuel for an alternate, No cloud on the GAF at LSALT plus 500 for the final segment, therefore I can navigate happily but when I get to Cessnock there is a fog bank. For a reason like this scenario is why I interpret that General statement at the start of the Alternate section of AIP to be if there is no TAF you need an alternate.

Taking it to an extreme, say I was chartered to fly an A380 from Sydney to Cessnock (yes I know the airfield wouldn't take an A380 but its just a hypothetical, I couldn't imagine doing the flight without having an alternate that has a valid TAF.

[mmm345]

Yes.

Per AIP ENR 11.7.1.3, you are using the GAF to determine destination weather, however, 11.7.1.3 requires you to use an aerodrome forecast which is referenced to a TAF. Cessnock has no TAF so you must plan an alternate to Maitland, if Maitland itself does not require an alternate due weather.

It's a ridiculous situation where you cannot use the GAF for arrival weather, but so long as that AIP says "aerodrome forecast" you have to have a valid TAF to be able to determine if the weather will be above the Alternate Minima.

I'd like to know what idiot wrote that such that I can't use the GAF!

The AIP actually conflicts this statement though. Although i do see your reference

In ENR 1.10 1.2.1 it states forecast information obtained must include aerodrome forecast etc. etc.
However, further down, it states " For a flight to an aerodrome where an IAP does not exist, the minimum forecast is a GAF". Therfore, since Cessnock has no IAP, the minimum forecast is a GAF.

Additionally, a TAF at Cessnock would be useless for alternate planning as since there is no IAP , as you must consider weather over the last route segment, which almost always will be outside the 5nm region of a TAF, thus requiring the GAF to be considered. I find it hard to believe there could be influential IMC weather on an aerodrome TAF, that isnt mirrored on the neighboring GAF since a GAF by definition must be more consiervative anyway.

mmm345, thank you for putting the time into this, I really appreciate it.

So one last question - In your example, I follow it all, but isn't the critical link still the airport itself? Say I depart to Cessnock from Bankstown, on a beautiful clear day, just after dawn, in winter, no fuel for an alternate, No cloud on the GAF at LSALT plus 500 for the final segment, therefore I can navigate happily but when I get to Cessnock there is a fog bank. For a reason like this scenario is why I interpret that General statement at the start of the Alternate section of AIP to be if there is no TAF you need an alternate.

Taking it to an extreme, say I was chartered to fly an A380 from Sydney to Cessnock (yes I know the airfield wouldn't take an A380 but its just a hypothetical, I couldn't imagine doing the flight without having an alternate that has a valid TAF.

I see your viewpoint and from an airmanship point i agree with you, however as you have both pointed out earlier, airmamhip is different to legal requirements.

ENR 1.10 states that the minimum forecast to a negative IAP destination is a GAF, i cant really see why they would write that if you actually needed an alternate whenever there wasnt a TAF because that would just be contradicting exactly what they write in ENR 1.10 ( Note. the statement in the alternate section for weather begins with " For an aerodrome with an IAP" which isnt Cessnock.

Additionally, i acknowledge you point about Fog and to be honest with you, if i was PIC conducting an early morning sunny winter flight to Cessnock, i would carry alternate fuel from an airmanship persepctive and what i know from local knowledge of actually flying there.

However, I dont see how there could be Fog at cessnock, of which isnt reflected on a GAF which is meant to reflect the weather conditions within a much larger area than the 5 miles of a TAF. If there is Fog at Cessnock, one would see this on the GAF that includes the Cessnock area and thus plan an alternate as vis/ cloud would be below 8km and LSALT +5 etc....

[ThunderstormFactory]

What about crosswind limitations?

[Capn Rex Havoc]

TSFactory - What about crosswind limitations?

Exactly.

and if you read the Sub Section Headed Radio Navigation aids,

11.7.3.2 Is the most limiting criteria and the drop the mike conclusion that if you don't have a TAF you need an AlternateNotwithstanding 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:


not more than SCT cloud is forecast below the final route segment LSALT plus 500FT and forecast visibility at the DESTINATION aerodrome is not less than 8KM

There it is - you need too have forecast visibility at the Destination aerodrome, which is provided by a TAF and therefore NO TAF = Alternate

[Lead Balloon]

As usual, this is a case of confusion caused by piecemeal and uncoordinated changes to AIP.

It’s obvious that the sentence about a GAF being ‘good enough’, in the case of a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, was plonked at the end of para 1.2.1 of ENR 1.10 without a review of the other provisions of AIP that refer to “aerodrome” forecasts.

ENR 1.10 is headed “Flight Planning”, but is sprinkled with operational assertions, like the circumstances in which a flight may depart and continue.

Para 1.1 of ENR 1.10 is merely a list of the things which must be ‘carefully studied’ in formulating a plan for “flights away from the vicinity of an aerodrome, flights over water and all IFR flights”. The “forecast information” mandated for ‘careful study’ by para 1.2.1 is limited by para 1.1. That’s why paras 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 start with the words: “For flights for which [a forecast / an aerodrome forecast] is required ...”. If a forecast was required in all cases, those words would be redundant.

But then paras 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 drift into operational rather than planning matters, and confusingly so. They purport to determine whether or not you are “permitted” to depart and continue. Since when is “planning” the same as “doing”?

Para 1.2.2 says: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 continue provided a suitable forecast is obtained for the intended destination within 30 minutes after departure.Note that para 1.2.2 starts out talking about “a forecast” - not specifically an aerodrome forecast - but ends by referring to a “suitable forecast ... for the intended destination”.

According to para 1.2.3:For flights to a destination for which an 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 11.7 is provided.

Good luck working out the interaction between those two paragraphs. If I make provision for an alternate meeting all of the requirements specified in ENR 1.1. Section 11.7 in my flight plan, am I “permitted” to continue my flight if I can’t obtain “a suitable forecast” for my “intended destination” within 30 minutes after departure? Who knows.

Over in ENR 1.1 Section 11.7 headed “Alternative Aerodromes”, para 11.7.1.3 says: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.I searched for the term “firm forecast” on the BOM website and in GEN 2.2, to no avail. And do the words plonked at the end of ENR 1.10 para 1.2.1 about GAFs also apply to ENR 1.1 para 11.7.1.3 so that “aerodrome forecast” means something that is not an “aerodrome forecast”? Who knows.

I do hope Mr Harfield and Mr Carmody received Cartier watches as a bonus this year, in addition to their circa $1 million (Mr H) and circa $600K (Mr C) salaries, to recognise the great job they’ve done in contributing to safety through simplicity!

[mmm345]

In ENR 1.10
2.1.2.3 For flights to a destination for which an 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 11.7 is provided.

Why would they need say " For flgihts in which aerodrome forecast is required" if as you say they are always required?

If ENR 1.10 says the minimum forecast to a non-IAP destination is a GAF, then this would be a case when a flight doesn't require an aerodrome forecast.

However, one flying to a destination that has an IAP, Clause 2 of ENR 1.1 comes into play, where when planning to a destination with an IAP and TAF becomes unavaiable, an alternate must be planed.

Can anyone provide some additional experience, potentially FIFO IFR charter as discussed in previous posts in flying to isolated non TAF, Non IAP destinations

[mmm345]

What about crosswind limitations?

This information can be determined from GPWT's of which in ENR 1.10 is a required forecast that must be obtained.

Obviously, if it appeared that crosswind would likely be a considerable problem without alternative runways available, then an alternate would be a very sound idea.

However, if the GPWT reflects that winds wont be an issue, why need carry fuel for an alternate that maybe over an hours flying time away in some rural areas on a blue sky, CAVOK calm day.

[runway16]

Captain Rex,

You forgot that there there was a guy in a C182RG also going to Woop Woop. he was building up hours for his CPL in the hope that in five years time, maybe, the number of out of work commercial pilots looking for a job will have decreased.

He was so excited at staying at Woop Woop and the fact that you called up behind him that he forget to dangle the Dunlops and pulled up in the middle of the runway with a grinding noise! OOps!

It is now one hour before last light. Town is some five miles away so no way to get him off the strip before you arrive. What are you going to do? Your twin likes lots of runway. You have 60 minutes of fuel remaining.
The nearest alternate is 20 miles away.

Think quick.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

G'day runway 16 (all bold really?),

I actually had that scenario many moons ago flying a 717 to Aye. A deaf pilot, landed gear up, didn't see the lights from the tower, we diverted to AS, then half way there, were told they towed the c210 off the runway so we went back.

I have had many other such decisions to make in my career, lots of warries to tell over the bar, like flying to Harare (elevation 5000 ft), at night, in an A330, half the runway closed, half the lights not working, one reverser in op, doing a VOR approach with 15 kts tail wind, and then on final the VOR failed( below min fuel to divert to Lusaka)

or delayed ex Dubai due weather in an a380, taxiied for 2 hours, amber on the FMS fuel gauge predictions for Amsterdam, get airborne, lightning strike on departure, continue to AMS, FMS showing 6.5 Tonnes on arrival, told to hold (unable due min fuel ), AMS had 35K Crosswind, touched down with 6 Tonnes. The beers tasted bloody good that night. (Final reserve was 4.5 tonnes - a go around and return to land burns about 3.5 tonnes)

Any way as good as the above warries are, they distract from my original post query, and interpretation of the AIP. I think Lead Balloon sums it up perfectly - The muppets who wrote this stuff have no bloody idea, and the muppets who are supposed to amend and correct and clarify this stuff are similarly clueless.

[mmm345]

G'day runway 16 (all bold really?),

I actually had that scenario many moons ago flying a 717 to Aye. A deaf pilot, landed gear up, didn't see the lights from the tower, we diverted to AS, then half way there, were told they towed the c210 off the runway so we went back.

I have had many other such decisions to make in my career, lots of warries to tell over the bar, like flying to Harare (elevation 5000 ft), at night, in an A330, half the runway closed, half the lights not working, one reverser in op, doing a VOR approach with 15 kts tail wind, and then on final the VOR failed( below min fuel to divert to Lusaka)

or delayed ex Dubai due weather in an a380, taxiied for 2 hours, amber on the FMS fuel gauge predictions for Amsterdam, get airborne, lightning strike on departure, continue to AMS, FMS showing 6.5 Tonnes on arrival, told to hold (unable due min fuel ), AMS had 35K Crosswind, touched down with 6 Tonnes. The beers tasted bloody good that night. (Final reserve was 4.5 tonnes - a go around and return to land burns about 3.5 tonnes)

Any way as good as the above warries are, they distract from my original post query, and interpretation of the AIP. I think Lead Balloon sums it up perfectly - The muppets who wrote this stuff have no bloody idea, and the muppets who are supposed to amend and correct and clarify this stuff are similarly clueless.
Agreed. The AIP has some quite confusing and contradictory statements on this topic which potentially need to be clarified, simplified etc.

But it certaintly isnt the only topic whoever wrote the AIP seems to struggle with in its ability to employ the copy and paste from ICAO PANS-OPS without mucking it up.:ugh:

[nickp]

Going into Hanover many years ago in a Dak, weather was foul but we broke out on minima, just. Met by the handling agent, we said we nearly had to divert to Hamburg - he replied that someone had blocked the runway at Hamburg. No problem say we, HAM has two runways. Yes says he, but the wreckage is on the intersection...
Some things you just can't plan for.

[the_rookie]

That is true, but that sort of thing is not in the AIP - where as NO TAF = Alternate is.

Umm yeah no it isn't..

[Lead Balloon]

Why would they need say " For flgihts in which aerodrome forecast is required" if as you say they are always required?It’s because, as I said, an aerodrome forecast is not always required. If you start at the start, the list of things mandated for careful study during flight planning applies only to “flights away from the vicinity of an aerodrome, flights over water and all IFR flights”.

So for IFR flights - yes - ‘it’, whatever ‘it’ is - is always required.

But that’s a distraction from the key issue causing confusion.

The key issue causing confusion is that when they plonked the sentence about GAFs being ‘good enough’, in the case of a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, at the end of para 1.2.1 of ENR 1.10, they didn’t review the other provisions of AIP that refer to “aerodrome” forecasts. I think you’ll find - in true Australian fashion - that the references to “aerodrome” forecast in e.g. ENR 1.10 para 1.2.3 and ENR 1.1 ENR 11.7.1.3 are intended to include a GAF in the case of a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist.

runway16: We get it. We all should have a ‘Plan B’. You divert to the alternate 20nms away, but then find that yet another guy in a C182RG has landed wheels up on the single runway at the alternate, and won’t be cleared before end of daylight.

Think quick.

[mmm345]

IF a non IAP destination required an alternate if a TAF was unavailable- Clause B would say " For destinations with or without an IAP- where the aerodrome forecast is unavailable or provisional, an alternate must be planned"... However, it doesnt, it saysb) 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.

If Clause B applied to a non insturment approach destination, then they need not write Clause C, however they do

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 (also refer ENR 1.10 Sub-section 1.4).

As i have stated earlier, Clause B is written as the IAL chart has an alternate minima which reqiures comparision to a TAF to determine alternate reqirements. A non- IAP destination has no such published alternate minima on a non-existant chart, thus Clause C comes into effect. ENR 1.10 supports Clause C in saying that a non-IAP destinations minimum is a GAP.

Consider this NOTAM found currently in the YBBN / MML FIR Notams

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1422x466/screen_shot_2020_10_25_at_9_33_06_pm_6bbab71d0e01852a3a83ba4 56e15b2d137da3414.png
It is reffering to ENR 1.1's IFR alternate minima for weather section as an amendment to Clause B. My interpretation is that one may be planning to a destination and then requires an Alternate due to the existance of Clause B, as a result of planning to do an IAP ( Note: Different to the situations we have been talking about earlier of a non- IAP destination) at their destination however the TAF is U/S, thus requring an alternate. However, COVID border restricitions potentially inhibits the ability of an aircraft to plan their desired alternate as it is across the nearby state border ( which is closed), therfore they have to plan to their secondary alternate ,which is within their state, but an extra 1.5 hours flight time. This causes excessive fuel load requirements and thus issues (ie. " E.G Insuffient Fuel".)

However, as a result of this NOTAM, one can disregard Clause B and effectivly apply clause C ENR 1.1 to a positive IAP destination. Note, how the destination doesnt have a TAF ( since this NOTAM applies), however they still state to consider LSALT+5 and 8km visbility...... from the only forecast still available to them..... the GAF.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

mmm345 - Yes, very interesting. I think the regs are flawed, piss poorly written, ambiguous, and inherently unsafe. May I also suggest that the NOTAM was issued by someone who does not understand the AIP. I can't get my head around going to a place with no IAP and no TAF and relying on a GAF to ascertain the success of landing.

[Lead Balloon]

I think the regs are flawed, piss poorly written, ambiguous, and inherently unsafe.That’s called: “World’s best practice”. I can't get my head around going to a place with no IAP and no TAF and relying on a GAF to ascertain the success of landing.Welcome to a country with lots and lots of destinations in the gaffa.

But I’m a bit confused. Your opening post specified an IFR charter flight on a ‘gin clear day’. There are ways of finding out what’s going on at your remote destination. And you can always choose to provide for an alternate, even if it’s not mandated. What’s the safety issue?

I’m not aware of any IFR charter flight in the recent or even distant past that ended in a forced landing due to the unsuitability of the planned destination and all potential alternates, planned or otherwise.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Hi Lead Balloon,

But I’m a bit confused. Your opening post specified an IFR charter flight on a ‘gin clear day’. There are ways of finding out what’s going on at your remote destination. And you can always choose to provide for an alternate, even if it’s not mandated. What’s the safety issue?

I guess I had been working too long for a company that was ruthless with respect to following the company and State regulations. Plus I wanted to brush up on the local regs, to be able to discuss the rulings intelligently with my potential new employer.

I’m not aware of any IFR charter flight in the recent or even distant past that ended in a forced landing due to the unsuitability of the planned destination and all potential alternates, planned or otherwise.

Your recollection or otherwise of past events is not a reliable source of safety adherence, no disrespect. Wasn't there a near disaster with QF and Virgin 737s a while back at Mildura or some such place with regards to diverting from Adelaide due fog? I hope there were robust changes made to whatever planning/fuel policies were in place at that time to close the Swiss cheese hole that nearly led to catastrophe.

[Lead Balloon]

Well it’s ironic that you raise the Mildura incident. Neither Adelaide nor Mildura is a place bereft of IAPs and aerodrome forecasts and reports. The incident raised questions about the reliability and timeliness of the forecasts and reports. You can confine your flights to destinations that have an IAP and TAF, but that evidently ain’t a guarantee of anything.

[Checkboard]

When you commit the aircraft to entering cloud, you have to get out of that cloud, and that is legally planned in two ways:

a) Descend to the LSALT, and become visual for a visual landing. Allow a 500' buffer to the forecast cloud base on the Area Forecast for the trigger to plan an alternate, or,
b) Descent to the minima of an IAP and become visual for landing (straight-in or circling). Allow a 500' buffer to the circling minima (and 2km to the vis) for the trigger to plan an alternate.

Unlike Europe, there's no (required) consideration for multiple runway availability.

If VFR, you have to fly a 1000' circuit - so add 500' to that to trigger your Alternate planning.

Fairly simple, eh?

[Lead Balloon]

Simple, yes. But you’re ‘linking’ the alternate requirement to “the forecast cloud base on the Area Forecast”. Those words appear nowhere in the Australian AIP.

[Checkboard]

Basically the same thing, though.

[Lead Balloon]

Pity the Australian AIP doesn’t say that.

Wouldn’t it be great if - one day - the Australian AIP was again written properly?

[mgahan]

For a Knuck who hated Aviation law as a subject in 1986, he did a great deal of good as AIP Editor in later years.. Effort now lost with the verbosity these days.

RIP Mice.
MJG

[Trevor the lover]

mmmm345

You asked for additional views a few posts back. Definitively - NO TAF means ALTERNATE. ENR 11.7.1.3 - WHEN AN AERODROME FORECAST IS NOT AVAILABLE, OR IS MARKED "PROVISIONAL" THE PIC MUST MAKE PROVISION FOR A SUITABLE ALTERNATE THAT HAS A FIRM FORECAST. End of paragraph.

The issue about LSALT + 500 is for no NAVAIDS. It should say "no cloud below LSALT plus 500 and 8km vis FROM THE TAF".

If still not convinced - think of this. There is no TAF at an airport called FUNGULU. LSALT to get there is 2,000 ft. The GAF, on the face of it, paints a picture of generally ****ty weather, but no real cloud below 2500 and vis is 9km. So off you go to FUNGULU and get there and its **** below 2500 and you cant get in.

10 miles from FUNGULU, so in the same area, is an airfield called ROSSOW. It has a TAF for cloud generally around 2500 ft and vis 9km (like the GAF), but it has TEMPO all day for cloud BKN at 800 and 3km vis in rain. So I go to ROSSOW, the weather is ****, but I've got the TEMPO fuel, so I hold then land. You only looked at the GAF, you say all good, you head off to FUNGULU and you get there at the same time I get to ROSSOW 10 miles away, the weather is ****, you can't get in and you have no fuel.


GAFS do not give INTERS, TEMPOS, fog, cross wind - these are all things that your fuel planning MUST be based on. Fuel at your destination is determined but the forecast AT YOUR destination. GAF is an overview.

[mmm345]

I


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1422x466/screen_shot_2020_10_25_at_9_33_06_pm_6bbab71d0e01852a3a83ba4 56e15b2d137da3414.png
.
Yep I have seen that point in the AIP aswell. However that isnt really in the IFR alternate minima section 11.7.2.12, which details the alternate minima conditions for IFR flights.

In particiular, as this whole thread is abpoiut a non IAP destination, Clause C would apply, which states to refer to ENR 1.10, of which says the minimum forecast for a non IAP destination is a GAF.

Note Clause B above it directly refers to the quote about aerodrome forecast being unaviable or provisional , as you referred to earlier, however beings with , For aerodromes with an IAP , if it were to case for non IAP destinations, they wouldnt have said " For aerodromes with an IAP" and clause C would be redundant. Since both these clauses are under the heading " For IFR flights, the alternate minima are as follows", clearly this is the alternate minima for IFR flights !, evidently based on if there is a published IAl chart with an alternate minima to compare to a TAF or not.

The issue about LSALT + 500 is for no NAVAIDS. It should say "no cloud below LSALT plus 500 and 8km vis FROM THE TAF".

Ah no, it isnt, it is found in the Weather IFR alternate minima section 11.7.2.12.

Additionally, refer to the current NOTAM ive included above. They clearly offer an ammendment to Clause B of the IFR altenrate weather minima, stating that when an TAF is U/S at the destination, instead of requiring an alternate, you can apply the LSALT +5 etc rule, in reference to the only remaining forecast since there is no TAF, THE GAF. The GAF is much more conservative than a TAF, often a TAF would suggest you can complete the flight LSAlt+5, however the GAF completly limits this without an alternate, not the other way around.

Obviously if the GAF was marginal you would carry an alternate, but on a CAVOK clear day, ( as per the opening post), an alternate is unessecary.

[Trevor the lover]

mmm345

There is a lot of experience on here telling you that you have this wrong. One day in the future, when you suddenly see the light, however far in the future that may be, feel free to PM everyone and admit it.

[Lead Balloon]

You seem quite certain, TTL. You could well be correct as a matter of basic airmanship and I would never argue with you on that front, but good luck in making a black and white argument on the basis of the current terms of the Australian AIP.

Why does ENR 1.1 para 11.7.2.6 refer to “a forecast” but the very next para refer to “TAFs”?11.7.2.6 When a forecast has multiple INTER or TEMPO deteriorations...

11.7.2.7 When TAFs include a FM or a BECMG ...And the para you quoted uses the term “aerodrome forecast”.

Let me guess: They all mean the same thing?

Then why-oh-why don’t they use the same descriptor for the ‘thing’?

BTW, GAFs do include TEMPO and INTER and FM, TL and BECMG, albeit only for critical locations. But those critical locations are chosen for a reason. And cloud amount descriptors in GAF do include e.g. FEW, SCT, BKN and OVC.

There would be no scope for disagreement if the right words were consistently used to describe the right things, but instead we have a mish-mash caused by piecemeal and uncoordinated amendments. I do hope some managers in Airservices and CASA get annual bonuses for their outstanding achievements on the AIP front.

[halas]

Why not plan to place with a published approach and TAF, then go visual from there to your intended destination?

halas

[finestkind]

Pity the Australian AIP doesn’t say that.

Wouldn’t it be great if - one day - the Australian AIP was again written properly?Done BUT. As we love the very efficient professional accuracy and faultless administrative bureaucracy of “Govermint” departments there will be no surprise that this was once done. The school where I did my SCPL (I think that was what it was called in those days) had a very interesting individual that ran the course. Ex WW11 pilot with an interesting number of stories particularly on the ineptitude of our CASA. One of the stories being that one of his students was a Barrister, so not a lay person in dealing with bureaucratic jargon. Whilst undertaking his course he was flabbergasted, flummoxed and effectively F%%k over by the inept written AIP, CAR, CAO, CASR, Oai abc’s etc. Being a chap with too many spare neurons he rewrote these in easy speak, submitted to school who passed on to CASA. Response was very good, will get our people to review and publish. When this was done the easy speak had been removed and the gobblygook was twice as bad.

[swh]

Since it’s charter, what does the ops manual say ?

[scavenger]

Here we go again.

mmm345 is completely correct, just because an airport has no TAF does not mean an alternate is necessarily required.

AIP ENR 1.1 para 11.7.1.3
Where an aerodrame forecast is not available or is provisional, the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.


Means don't plan a particular airport as your alternate unless that airport has an aerodrome forecast that is not provisional. It says nothing about the destination aerodrome or the destination aerodrome's alternate requirements. It is in the 'general' sub-section' of a section titled 'alternate aerodromes'.

There is a list of airports that have TAFs normally issued in GEN 3.5 - these are the only airports that can be used as alternates, provided their TAF is not provisional.

Here is an excerpt from an email I sent about 4 years ago to Airservices to request an amendment, for the sake of not going through this on Pprune every few years (Para 59.1.3 is where the paragragh in question used to be)

I refer to AIR ENR paragraph 59.1.3, which concerns the requirement for the PIC to make provision for a suitable alternate.

This is often interpreted as meaning that:

A flight planning to an aerodrome that never has a TAF is required to provide for an alternate for the sole reason that the destination never has a TAF.

This is not what I believe to be correct, but a literal reading of 59.1.3, without reference to headings, indicates that interpretation is correct.



And here is their response (via an 'SME') with my bolding

AIP ENR 1.1, 59.2, 59.3 & 59.4 describe the circumstances (weather, navaids and lights) by which an alternate may be required. None of these require an alternate solely on the basis of the availability or otherwise of a TAF.

AIP ENR 1.1, 59.1.3 is intended to be read, as it is contained in Section 59 – Alternate Aerodromes, as the means by which an alternate is disqualified if the TAF is not available or issued as ‘provisional’.

It is not intended to be read as requiring all non-TAF aerodromes or landing sites to have an alternate if no TAF is available.


What they are saying is 11.7.1.3 means, if the aerodrome forecast at the the planned alternate is unavailable or is provisional, then a different alternate is required with a non-provisional (firm) TAF.

The rest follows simply:

No aid airport by day = alternate minima LSALT + 500 on last route segment and 8 KM vis, as determined from the GAF (which must be obtained for all flights) - navaid alternate requirements no longer apply by day (para 11.7.3.2 in the Radio Navigation Aids section), lighting and weather still apply with a different alternate minima
No aid airport by night (not greater than 5,700 KG) = alternate

No TAF airport (can never be an alternate), use the GAF/GPWT (which must be obtained) to determine the forecast weather and then use the Weather conditions section to determine if an alternate is required (see above if no aid as well, because if no IAL then no alternate minima on a plate, thus use LSALT + 500 etc), then lighting and navaids. But if an alternate is required, it must have a TAF that is not provisional.

[Sunfish]

Can’t all this be diagrammed in a simple flowchart?

[Lead Balloon]

It could and should be, Sunfish, but because there’s been so much loss of corporate knowledge and expertise there’s no longer the critical mass to do these things in a coordinated and comprehensive way.


If the intent is as set out in Airservices’ response to scavengers’ question (and I’m confident that is the intent), ENR 1.1 para 11.7 should not start with this confusing dross:11.7 Alternate Aerodromes

11.7.1 General

11.7.1.1 A pilot in command must make provision for flight to an alternate aerodrome, when required, in accordance with the following paragraphs.It should instead say:

If a pilot in command is required by ENR 1.10 to make provision for an alternate aerodrome, the alternate must comply with the following paragraphs.

Then ENR 1.10 should be revised in the light of the GAF amendment.

[mmm345]

Here we go again.

mmm345 is completely correct, just because an airport has no TAF does not mean an alternate is necessarily required.

AIP ENR 1.1 para 11.7.1.3


Means don't plan a particular airport as your alternate unless that airport has an aerodrome forecast that is not provisional. It says nothing about the destination aerodrome or the destination aerodrome's alternate requirements. It is in the 'general' sub-section' of a section titled 'alternate aerodromes'.

There is a list of airports that have TAFs normally issued in GEN 3.5 - these are the only airports that can be used as alternates, provided their TAF is not provisional.

Here is an excerpt from an email I sent about 4 years ago to Airservices to request an amendment, for the sake of not going through this on Pprune every few years (Para 59.1.3 is where the paragragh in question used to be)



And here is their response (via an 'SME') with my bolding



What they are saying is 11.7.1.3 means, if the aerodrome forecast at the the planned alternate is unavailable or is provisional, then a different alternate is required with a non-provisional (firm) TAF.

The rest follows simply:

No aid airport by day = alternate minima LSALT + 500 on last route segment and 8 KM vis, as determined from the GAF (which must be obtained for all flights) - navaid alternate requirements no longer apply by day (para 11.7.3.2 in the Radio Navigation Aids section), lighting and weather still apply with a different alternate minima
No aid airport by night (not greater than 5,700 KG) = alternate

No TAF airport (can never be an alternate), use the GAF/GPWT (which must be obtained) to determine the forecast weather and then use the Weather conditions section to determine if an alternate is required (see above if no aid as well, because if no IAL then no alternate minima on a plate, thus use LSALT + 500 etc), then lighting and navaids. But if an alternate is required, it must have a TAF that is not provisional.


Totally agree. Thanks for the inclusion of the email to back up what ive been saying for this whole thread , appreciated. This is what ive been taught over the past year or two and is good to see it backed up.

There is no reason why you must plan for an alternate at a no IAP no TAF aerodrome if the weather is blue skies CAVOK. The AIP supports this fact through the numerous references that have been presented.

[Lead Balloon]

Still certain, Trevor the lover?

[exfocx]

mmmm345

You asked for additional views a few posts back. Definitively - NO TAF means ALTERNATE. ENR 11.7.1.3 - WHEN AN AERODROME FORECAST IS NOT AVAILABLE, OR IS MARKED "PROVISIONAL" THE PIC MUST MAKE PROVISION FOR A SUITABLE ALTERNATE THAT HAS A FIRM FORECAST. End of paragraph.

The issue about LSALT + 500 is for no NAVAIDS. It should say "no cloud below LSALT plus 500 and 8km vis FROM THE TAF".

If still not convinced - think of this. There is no TAF at an airport called FUNGULU. LSALT to get there is 2,000 ft. The GAF, on the face of it, paints a picture of generally ****ty weather, but no real cloud below 2500 and vis is 9km. So off you go to FUNGULU and get there and its **** below 2500 and you cant get in.

10 miles from FUNGULU, so in the same area, is an airfield called ROSSOW. It has a TAF for cloud generally around 2500 ft and vis 9km (like the GAF), but it has TEMPO all day for cloud BKN at 800 and 3km vis in rain. So I go to ROSSOW, the weather is ****, but I've got the TEMPO fuel, so I hold then land. You only looked at the GAF, you say all good, you head off to FUNGULU and you get there at the same time I get to ROSSOW 10 miles away, the weather is ****, you can't get in and you have no fuel.


GAFS do not give INTERS, TEMPOS, fog, cross wind - these are all things that your fuel planning MUST be based on. Fuel at your destination is determined but the forecast AT YOUR destination. GAF is an overview.

No, I think you're wrong. My employer ops aircraft >5700 into non IAP no TAF airports, and has been doing so using GAFs (as do many others) and CASA is well aware of the operations and it isn't done off the back of a dispensation. With regards to NOT AVAILABLE I suggest the following conversation:

You (to a mate): Can I borrow your car today?
Mate: No, it's not available!
You: Well, can I borrow it tomorrow?
Mate: Nah, not available tomorrow either.
You: When will it be available?
Mate: Never.
You: WTF, why?
Mate: Because I don't have a car!
Wouldn't happen like that, would it? More like this:

You: Can I borrow your car?
Mate: Sorry, don't have a car!


You see, to be "not available", it has to be there in the first place. BoM may not be able to produce a TAF due to industrial action or maybe due to insufficient met data, or only enough data to produce a provisional TAF.

I would say in your argument, the TAF for ROSSOW with those conditions would be reflected in the GAF! However, I agree with you, going with it just on the margins like that wouldn't be smart, but having been using GAFs for those ops for 6 yrs I've yet to see that, or the GAF is split and your ROSSOW is other the dividing line with the ****ty WX. Now that I have seen and have taken appropriate precautions fuel wise.

[mmm345]

No, I think you're wrong. My employer ops aircraft >5700 into non IAP no TAF airports, and has been doing so using GAFs (as do many others) and CASA is well aware of the operations and it isn't done off the back of a dispensation. With regards to NOT AVAILABLE I suggest the following conversation:

You (to a mate): Can I borrow your car today?
Mate: No, it's not available!
You: Well, can I borrow it tomorrow?
Mate: Nah, not available tomorrow either.
You: When will it be available?
Mate: Never.
You: WTF, why?
Mate: Because I don't have a car!
Wouldn't happen like that, would it? More like this:

You: Can I borrow your car?
Mate: Sorry, don't have a car!


You see, to be "not available", it has to be there in the first place. BoM may not be able to produce a TAF due to industrial action or maybe due to insufficient met data, or only enough data to produce a provisional TAF.

I would say in your argument, the TAF for ROSSOW with those conditions would be reflected in the GAF! However, I agree with you, going with it just on the margins like that wouldn't be smart, but having been using GAFs for those ops for 6 yrs I've yet to see that, or the GAF is split and your ROSSOW is other the dividing line with the ****ty WX. Now that I have seen and have taken appropriate precautions fuel wise.

Yes totally agree.

If the weather was this bad on the TAf, i struggle to see how this wouldnt be somwhat close to being reflected on the GAF. The GAF is generally much more conservative and whilst im sure there is the odd occurance where the GAF is not reflective of the TAF, in my experience, most GAFs paint the same if not much worse picture that what a TAF would, irrespective of even being able to permit flight at LSALT+5 ( the alternate minima to a negative TAF destinaition).

Lets not forget the opening post to this thread was about a CAVOK clear day.

The law supports the fact and permits no TAF in the fact that one requires a GAF to a non IAP destination ( ENR 1.10) and this will show ( 90% of the time) a sufficent coverage of the potential weather, and at worst it will prevent you from not carrying alternate with the LSALT+5 requirement ( which automatically requires the cloud base to be at 2000ft minimum since min LSALT is 1500ft from memory). Now, im sure that if an AD was forecasting BKN at 800ft, the GAF would at least show signficant cloud below LSALT+5.

But dont get me wrong, if the weather was marginal, nearby AD TAF's paint a bad picture and knowledge of wider area weather suggests being able to conduct a VA by day or establish VMC within 3 by night at a non IAP destination could be marginal, an alternate will be strongly considered !

[Captain Nomad]

What we really need is someone who operates on mmm345's interpretation to have 'one of those days' and for the courts to sort out what the actual interpretation should be...! (only kidding of course - I wouldn't wish that on anyone). At the end of the day, staying safe is the name of the game. Anyone who has dug through the old threads will see that I'm not a fan of the no TAF, no ALT interpretation. I have seen this one argued to death both ways...

Right at the beginning of ENR 1.10 1.1 it states (my bolding): "...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."

A bit later, 1.2.1 says: "Forecast information must include: a. an AERODROME forecast for the: (i) DESTINATION; AND (ii) when required, ALTERNATE aerodrome and..."

Remember Jepps had all those amendments not so long ago to make the very important wording change from 'aerodrome' to 'airport'? That's beside the point, but the point CAN be made that: your IFR flight needs a suitable and valid forecast for the destination airport. If there isn't one, you need one for the suitable alternate that you subsequently plan for... Simples!

I still think I would struggle testifying in court that it's all fine that my passengers sustained some injuries in the precautionary search and landing, or botched out-of-limits crosswind landing that ensued from my lack of due diligence to ensure the safe completion of the flight (remember CAR PIC responsibilities?)...

I also disagree that GPWT charts can be used to determine actual surface wind conditions at a proposed destination. The alternate weather conditions considerations in ENR 1.1 11.7.2.1 d. make a specific note that 'wind gusts must be considered' in determining suitable crosswind/tailwind conditions. Could you tell me how wind gusts are annotated on a GPWT chart please as I have never seen that before...

Well done on the somewhat civil debate so far folks - it's a pleasure to see some decency has returned to PPRuNe...!

[Lead Balloon]

But CN, you failed to read all the way to the end of 1.2.1. It says, with my bolding:For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF.Although it would have been better and less confusing if the GAF amendments had been implemented more coherently, the fact is that they accommodate a thing called 'reality'.

The reality is that a lot of IFR goes on to and from places in the gaffa that have no IAP/TAF and the people who engage in those operations are perfectly capable of ascertaining the conditions at those locations and risk managing realistic uncertainty about those conditions.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

LB
For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF.
That is under the Flight Planning Preparation - Forecasts section. So I just interpret that to be if when I am looking at my briefing package I can use a GAF.

To me that is different from the subsequent section which deals with Alternates. Which, as CN said, states emphatically No TAF = Alternate.

[Lead Balloon]

It does not state "emphatically". It states "confusingly".

Please confirm that you have read and understand the content of scavenger's post at #55.

I don't understand the point in denying that which goes on, all day, everyday, in reality and - surprisingly - seems to be supported by Airservices' preferred interpretation of the section dealing with alternates. Airservices says that the section does not determine when an alternate is required, but rather the parameters that an alternate has to satisfy if an alternate is required as determined during planning.

[Captain Nomad]

Lead Balloon, I have read to the end of the section - many times! And yes, I have read and understood #55 commenting on the alternate weather section.

For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF.

Refers specifically to what can be used for a no IAP destination aerodrome and tells me nothing about the subsequent obligation or otherwise of planning for an alternate... However, the statement at the beginning of 1.10 is quite clear in describing exactly what forecast information one MUST have for their IFR flight:

1.2.1 says: "Forecast information must include: a. an AERODROME forecast for the: (i) DESTINATION; AND (ii) when required, ALTERNATE aerodrome and..."


Exfocx, I agree, your operations can indeed be done above board no problem: My employer ops aircraft >5700 into non IAP no TAF airports, and has been doing so using GAFs (as do many others) and CASA is well aware of the operations and it isn't done off the back of a dispensation.

BUT, how many times do you actually do this without carrying alternate/return fuel...?

[Lead Balloon]

Righto.....

So no IFR flight can be conducted to e.g. William Creek or Louth, because there is no aerodrome forecast service for them?

Methinks you haven’t spent much time in the gaffa.

[Captain Nomad]

So no IFR flight can be conducted to e.g. William Creek or Louth, because there is no aerodrome forecast service for them?

No, that is not what I'm saying at all. The discussion is also irrespective of how much time I have spent flying IFR in the outback...

Willie Creek and Louth both have TAF alternate aerodrome options that could be planned for...

[Lead Balloon]

But it was you who quoted what you MUST have for an IFR flight, and that includes an AERODROME forecast for the ... DESTINATION, two posts ago. (Your bolding, capitalisation and italics.)

How can you possibly plan IFR to a destination that doesn’t have an aerodrome forecast service?

[Captain Nomad]

After the word 'destination' are the words 'and alternate.' It's like anything else IFR alternate related - if the destination doesn't have it, the alternate has to have it. It doesn't stop you from going though - provided you have the alternate plan in place. The GAF covers you for planning to the destination as stated.

Like I said, it can be argued to death both ways...! :}

[neville_nobody]

Plenty of mining flights have occurred over the years to non aid, non forecast aerodromes with no planned alternate. Given that CASA, mining companies, and the ATSB haven't said anything, which includes several high level incidents, I think it is safe to say that all you need is a GAF and use LSALT +500 for your weather and you can't do it at night if you are >5700KG.

I'm sure if you nearly crashed an aeroplane the ATSB would make mention that you didn't have a legal forecast.

[invertedpancake]

Hi folks,

Sorry to rehash an old post but I was looking to get some clarity regarding Day VFR to a ALA beyond 50nm. There seems to be a bit of conflicting information about whether or not an alternate is required.

Looking at ENR 1.1 10.7.1.3 it states:
"When an aerodrome forecast is not available, the pilot in command must make a provision for a suitable alternate that has an available forecast."

Here we go again.
AIP ENR 1.1, 59.2, 59.3 & 59.4 describe the circumstances (weather, navaids and lights) by which an alternate may be required. None of these require an alternate solely on the basis of the availability or otherwise of a TAF.

AIP ENR 1.1, 59.1.3 is intended to be read, as it is contained in Section 59 – Alternate Aerodromes, as the means by which an alternate is disqualified if the TAF is not available or issued as ‘provisional’.

It is not intended to be read as requiring all non-TAF aerodromes or landing sites to have an alternate if no TAF is available.


While I completely agree with the above as making sense, the AIP has had a number of updates since this post and it still reads as though it is referring to a general requirement for an aerodrome forecast being needed otherwise an alternate is required. When looking at the VFRG pg 80 it states:

"Where a forecast that is required for a planned destination is not available then you must nominate a destination alternate aerodrome."

To me, that seems to contradict what is found in the AIP assuming the former interpretation is correct.

When looking at ENR 1.1 10.1.2.1 Forecasts it states that:
Forecast information must include:
a. an aerodrome forecast for the:
(i) Departure
(ii) Destination; and
(iii) When required, any alternate aerodromes ....

For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF"

Is my understanding correct that because I am flying to an ALA, I can refer to the GAF for my alternate minima and not provide an alternate given conditions were suitable, however, if I flew VFR to an airport with an IAP and no TAF (e.g BOM reducing their TAF coverage for CAT D airports) I would be required to provide an alternate?

Looking at MOS 91 7.02 (5) it agrees with the above sentiment however, it only makes reference to IFR aircraft utilising a GAF for an airport without an IAP with no mention of VFR. So I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this wrong (likely knowing myself :}) or if the regs are just genuinely ambiguous and conflict.

[Capn Bloggs]

I think by "ENR 1.1 10..." you mean "ENR 1.10 1..." ;)

I'll take the deep dive... :{
Is my understanding correct that because I am flying to an ALA, I can refer to the GAF for my alternate minima and not provide an alternate given conditions were suitable,
Correct.

if I flew VFR to an airport with an IAP and no TAF (e.g BOM reducing their TAF coverage for CAT D airports) I would be required to provide an alternate?
Incorrect.

My logic (!): Part 91 Plain Engliiis section 10 (page 70). By omission, you are not an IFR flight so the IAP/TAF requirements don't apply. If it doesn't say you can't, then you can! :ouch:

ENR 1.10 section 1.2.1 doesn't make sense, both because it contradicts the new rules, and second, it contradicts itself:
Forecast information must include a. an aerodrome forecast...
then at the bottom:
...the minimum requirement is a GAF.

AIP ENR 1.1 10.7.1.3 contradicts the new rules as well.

Ref the VFRG page 80:
Where a forecast that is required for a planned destination is not available then you must nominate a destination alternate aerodrome.
You could say the GAF is your forecast for the destination (which, according to the Part 91 bits, it appears to be [for VFR]), so you don't need to nominate an alternate.

But then, in the next section "Destination alternate not required", the VFRG omits your scenario, where you're going longer than 50nm in good weather. Now if it had said "Destination alternate required when", then it could be made to read better.

the regs are just genuinely ambiguous and conflict.
Correct. :)

[invertedpancake]

I think by "ENR 1.1 10..." you mean "ENR 1.10 1..." ;)

I'll take the deep dive... :{

Correct.


Incorrect.

My logic (!): Part 91 Plain Engliiis section 10 (page 70). By omission, you are not an IFR flight so the IAP/TAF requirements don't apply. If it doesn't say you can't, then you can! :ouch:

ENR 1.10 section 1.2.1 doesn't make sense, both because it contradicts the new rules, and second, it contradicts itself:
Forecast information must include a. an aerodrome forecast...
then at the bottom:
...the minimum requirement is a GAF.

AIP ENR 1.1 10.7.1.3 contradicts the new rules as well.

Ref the VFRG page 80:

You could say the GAF is your forecast for the destination (which, according to the Part 91 bits, it appears to be [for VFR]), so you don't need to nominate an alternate.

But then, in the next section "Destination alternate not required", the VFRG omits your scenario, where you're going longer than 50nm in good weather. Now if it had said "Destination alternate required when", then it could be made to read better.


Correct. :)

Thank for you for taking the time to explain that. I can see what you mean regarding the IAP/TAF requirements. Good to know I’m not entirely crazy.

Cheers

[Captain Nomad]

Just don't bend the aeroplane at the destination in that strong crosswind that was above the crosswind limits for the airplane and that you didn't know about because the GAF doesn't have any surface level winds, and you couldn't avoid because you were down to minimum fuel - right...?

Just because something is legal does not mean it makes for good airmanship...