PART 121 Alternate requirements OZ [Archive]

43Inches

1st Jul 2023, 04:05

1. No. Alternate minima is calculated from requirements in Part 121 MOS

2. Yes. They are two physically separate runways. How you decide to interpret that in your own operation is up to you though. Eg. Old mate rejecting and stopping at the cross of both runways.

Plan to use YMAV/YMEN and then use YMML as an alternate, no 15 minute final reserve, lower required minima that's below the old special alt minima. Divert once within 1 hour of the destination and continue based on the lower minimum required. Only problem is you will get screwed over by the slot system and get sent to the back of the queue for that arrival time...

You can use other methods like depart using an en-route alternate and re-plan using the 1 hour flight time/TAF3 rule to continue to YMML.

If it's part 121 your ops manual will tell you what you can do... If you are writing a part 121 ops manual, put whatever you want in there, the pilots will get confused in any case, and hopefully they carry enough fuel so your arse isn't called on in the investigation, good luck!

Bringanotherengine

1st Jul 2023, 08:27

Thanks all. Any further discussions on this welcome.

Bringanotherengine

1st Jul 2023, 09:34

Another question please

Night flight

If my alternate airport has PAL and stby power. If no responsible person is it correct i cannot use this as a alternate?

Thanks All

43Inches

1st Jul 2023, 09:43

All PAL setups need a responsible person present to switch the lights on manually (or display Portables) if there is a failure of the radio system, regardless of destination or alternate. The only relief, for alternates only, and a certain range of aircraft (non part 121) that have 2 x VHF or VHF + HF and 30mins fuel etc... or you carry enough fuel for first light +10 minutes.

Standby power is the one that can be omitted in certain circumstance for alternates, if the alternate was required due to standby power availability or PAL. Remember if you needed the alternate due to weather or navaids before lighting then you still need standby power at the alternate.

compressor stall

1st Jul 2023, 10:46

- are 2 crossing runways ie. YMML considered separate runways ?.

27 and 09 are different runways

16L and 16R are separate.

34 LAHSO and 27 could be considered separate.

compressor stall

1st Jul 2023, 10:52

If it's part 121 your ops manual will tell you what you can do... If you are writing a part 121 ops manual, put whatever you want in there, the pilots will get confused in any case, and hopefully they carry enough fuel so your arse isn't called on in the investigation, good luck!

As much as we love to rage at the vkusterfyck of the regulatory reform, the Part 121 alternate requirements aren’t actually that bad and are an ICAO international standard. it’s the CASR that drives you to the MOS that’s the problem.

It all goes nicely in a flow chart BTW.

Switchbait

1st Jul 2023, 12:27

27 and 09 are different runways

16L and 16R are separate.

34 LAHSO and 27 could be considered separate.

The best example I’ve seen to explain this part 👌🏽 Well done Compressor Stall!

43Inches

1st Jul 2023, 23:23

34 and 27 are definitely considered separate, LAHSO is just normal operations term, if something crashed on the intersection I'd say the hold short line would be way to close for comfort for the EMTs working there, and it's not designed for a persistent blockage of the crossing point. If you really want to get pedantic about the separation you could claim 16/34 operational length to be 2500 only using the portion south of the intersection. If your Jet cant stop in that distance you have other problems, go to Avalon. If you want to know how these laws are written with small risks unaccounted for then look no further than LAHSO, which had no provision for a double go-around with the runway occupied....

I've flown into Melbourne where the Airport has closed for several reasons, lighting failures, tower evacuations, animals running around the runways, VP/VIP arrivals, with no advanced warning, and whats worse the controllers had no idea what to do apart from hold everything in situ and wait for pilots to decide to divert... Do not assume they have solid contingencies for anything other than the staple aviation things... Never go there with minimum holding...

Bringanotherengine

1st Jul 2023, 23:49

Thanks all

If using a TAF 3 and using the reduced mins in table 4.11. Is it correct you basically need to be arriving within 2 hrs of the issue of the TAF in order to have to forcast valid 30 before and 60 after ? Seems only short flights would benefit from taf 3 use for alternate planning ?

item 1 of the 4.11 chart says "atleast 1 approach procedure has an available cat II or cat III minima. Does this mean you need to be able to use this approach type as it says available. Ie. Im flying to ymml but im only cat 1 approved.

Thanks all.

43Inches

2nd Jul 2023, 00:02

If using a TAF 3 and using the reduced mins in table 4.11. Is it correct you basically need to be arriving within 2 hrs of the issue of the TAF in order to have to forcast valid 30 before and 60 after ? Seems only short flights would benefit from taf 3 use for alternate planning ?

That's the general interpretation, and I assume that statement was included based on the issue frequency of the old TTF, as TAF3 can be up to 3 hours apart if conditions are not changing. So you might never get a window to use the TAF3 depending on arrival time. BOM aims for the first 5 hours to be accurate and up to date, yet CASA only allow the first 3 hours to be used. The TAF3 should mandate an issue every 30 minutes when conditions hit SPECI criteria.

That being said, watch for Fog conditions, the Met officers in Australia seem to be blind to it until it actually rolls in on the airport and shuts down operations. Even in the last 6 months there has been a few occasions when fog 'suddenly' appeared and aircraft with minimum fuel had to divert en-route. ('suddenly' being defined as it was hanging around the edges of, or approaching the field and no one thought to put a warning on the forecast until a pilot goes around or reports it). I also wonder whether the reluctance to put fog on forecasts is a commercial pressure, in that last minute fog forecast for internationals that are on the last 3 hours of their flight might cause diversions etc.... So they don't do it until it actually occurs.

Always come back on the Captain that must be "familiar with the route to be flown including local weather patterns and conditions".

All this being said I suggest you chat this through with your 217 department, if you are flying for a part 121 operation, as these are the basic fuel requirements and a company will have type specific and company specific alterations that need to be addressed.

compressor stall

2nd Jul 2023, 00:18

34 and 27 are definitely considered separate, LAHSO is just normal operations term, if something crashed on the intersection I'd say the hold short line would be way to close for comfort for the EMTs working there, and it's not designed for a persistent blockage of the crossing point. If you really want to get pedantic about the separation you could claim 16/34 operational length to be 2500 only using the portion south of the intersection. If your Jet cant stop in that distance you have other problems, go to Avalon. If you want to know how these laws are written with small risks unaccounted for then look no further than LAHSO, which had no provision for a double go-around with the runway occupied....

34 inches - I'm not sure if you're playing semantics but separate runways are only separate if there is sufficient runway remaining for you after the closure of the other runway. MOS 121 refers in multiple places.

The reason I used the LAHSO example was (perhaps too subtly) to outline that if an aircraft had a wheels up on 34 and left stuff strewn all the way to the north end closing 34, you won't have much luck landing on 27 (unless you fly 172 in there?) ergo, they are not always separate.

43Inches

2nd Jul 2023, 00:31

34 inches - I'm not sure if you're playing semantics but separate runways are only separate if there is sufficient runway remaining for you after the closure of the other runway. MOS 121 refers in multiple places.

The reason I used the LAHSO example was (perhaps too subtly) to outline that if an aircraft had a wheels up on 34 and left stuff strewn all the way to the north end closing 34, you won't have much luck landing on 27 (unless you fly 172 in there?) ergo, they are not always separate.

Turbo props could definitely use 27/09 as there's plenty of runway in a max performance landing. Remembering the aiming point for everything non-A380 is the second markers, not the 'fat boys', otherwise you need to remove approximately 150 mt from your landing distance available as the TCH is around 70 feet. They actually did consider 27 for LAHSO as it would be similar distance to LAHSO they had at Adelaide. You have about 1200 mtrs either side of the intersection. The DASH and SAAB can make A easily if you use the brakes, V you can even roll a bit now. I always laugh when 737s cant make N then a Heavy makes it with room to spare, even saw a 717 miss it the other day...

compressor stall

2nd Jul 2023, 00:36

Sure - fine for a SAAB. - but turboprop performance isn't going to help you in a B737.

One man's different can be another man's separate.

43Inches

2nd Jul 2023, 00:43

Well yes, plus the fact you have to actually take into account wind and actual available navaids now as well, not a generic all encompassing alternate minima that only increased with multiple navaid failure. That being said you could hold Avalon for not much more fuel as you lose the 15 minute final reserve,depending on your companies fuel policy. You'd have the same issues for Perth with less alternates available. If not tanker up for Adelaide/Canberra or Sydney, or Mildura if you dare...

Thats where it gets complicated, as if the wind is favoring 16 but 27 is out, you wont even be able to use CAT I minima... not even SI NPA it will be circling minima restriction only, which is the norm for 16 north end works.

What throws a spanner in the works of what ifs 'if' you want to take it that far, is that 'if' the aircraft crashes on 16/27 and slides towards the tower complex the tower will be evacuated and standard procedure is to close the airspace for an OMG what happened period of time so its all academic... hence if you really want to allow for catastrophes then just carry an alternate. The runway could even be destroyed by an earthquake these days, who knows, Mt Holden next door is an old volcano, so should we take that into account... but yes, straying from part 121 requirements a bit.

Bringanotherengine

2nd Jul 2023, 00:54

If using say Mildura as alternate for YPAD(at night) I would assume this can't be done as YMIA does not have a responsible person for PAL or does it? How to know this. ?

43Inches

2nd Jul 2023, 01:02

If using say Mildura as alternate for YPAD(at night) I would assume this can't be done as YMIA does not have a responsible person for PAL or does it? How to know this. ?

If you are part of a 121 organisation it is up to the company to organize that on behalf of the crew, PIC is still responsible to make sure it's available though before you depart. Some airports the ARO agrees to be available with a phone call, others they have local staff, if we are talking a 737 or bigger then you WILL need some form of ground staff and possibly an agreement to use other operators ground equipment, unless you have some form of airstairs installed on your jet. Never assume somebody will be available, other airlines cancel, their staff go home, AROs can have a drink after hours so if they are not on standby you cant expect them to suddenly drive to the airport at midnight without prior notice and so on....

That being said I've heard of several occasions where lights failed. One being a lightning strike on a light, which destroyed the mains box and the standby power. Another the maintenance works forgot to switch the PAL receiver back on, and locked the access box before leaving for the night. And a few others with varying normal reasons like PAL receiver failures that were switched on by ground staff.

Bringanotherengine

2nd Jul 2023, 01:11

Thanks for the info all. Appreciate it.

drpixie

2nd Jul 2023, 10:12

I used to summarize all the requirements as: can you guarantee a safe result, even when something (anything) goes wrong? It's never stated, but that's the basis of IFR ops - no guarantee of getting to your destination, but you have to be sure you always have a safe plan B.

Lighting fails - plan B - can safely go elsewhere. Engine fails - plan B - have performance to go safely somewhere. Weather worse than expected - plan B - have a safe alternate.

The things to consider have changed (very) slightly, but the philosophy is the same. Of course, there are always the unexpected (eg. unforecast fog rolling in everywhere - it happens - doesn't feel good) or multiple unrelated problems. You can't win every game, all the time, but you can make sure the odds are in your favor.

Lead Balloon

2nd Jul 2023, 11:50

43Inches

2nd Jul 2023, 11:55

"Always" have a "safe" plan B?

Just as plan A won't "guarantee" a safe result, nor will plan B.

VA and QF still landed "safely" in fog at Mildura after plan A failed and they executed plan B....

Lead Balloon

2nd Jul 2023, 12:06

That would explain why CASA and ATSB consider all the TIBA and TRAs and G 'safe' for RPT...

Wizofoz

3rd Jul 2023, 01:55

morno

3rd Jul 2023, 02:00

Here's a more general question that interests me- With Part 121 we are now more aligned with OS regulations.
Why then, is it the ABSOLUTE NORM to carry a filed alternate, except in exceptional circumstances, in pretty much every OS country, and the opposite here?

After operating overseas for a while where you always had an alternate, it scares the **** out of me not having the fuel to go somewhere if **** goes down at the destination. Seen it enough times to say that this no alternate bull**** in this country is going to come unstuck in a bad way one day.

Capn Bloggs

3rd Jul 2023, 02:40

Why then, is it the ABSOLUTE NORM to carry a filed alternate, except in exceptional circumstances, in pretty much every OS country, and the opposite here?
What evidence can you show that it is the "absolute norm" for Hi Cap RPT NOT to carry an alternate in Oz?

Hollywood1

3rd Jul 2023, 03:00

After operating overseas for a while where you always had an alternate, it scares the **** out of me not having the fuel to go somewhere if **** goes down at the destination. Seen it enough times to say that this no alternate bull**** in this country is going to come unstuck in a bad way one day.

Nothing stopping you from filing one, even if the regs doesn't require it.

Wizofoz

3rd Jul 2023, 03:01

What evidence can you show that it is the "absolute norm" for Hi Cap RPT NOT to carry an alternate in Oz?

Errr...being a Captain for one for 18 out of the last 35 years, including currently, perhaps?

43Inches

3rd Jul 2023, 08:42

Nothing stopping you from filing one, even if the regs doesn't require it.

All fine until the company asks why you have so many offloads, delayed services and why the other pilots don't. Company fuel policy is what you have to adhere to or face not being a captain. Whilst Captain is a fancy term, its just a form of shop front management, cost the company more than the baseline and face the firing squad. If you don't like the company fuel policy you will have to argue that ahead of time through the company, not do things your own way and hope for the best. Right now things are in the pilots favor, but I've been there when the bar charts come out comparing x pilots tankering vs b pilots and the meetings over 'why' you were carrying how many more tons than pilot c... And yes, this does happen at large airlines.

BTW on many occasions I have informed the company the reasons I have carried an alternate when the forecast appeared clear, due to my knowledge of local weather patterns such as fog or low cloud events that met offices can miss. They accept a well reasoned argument and go no further, but carrying an alternate in-case a 172 happens to crash onto a random runway in good weather conditions is not really a factor. These days there is more chance a climate protest group sets up blocking all the runways at Sydney at once for an hour, do you allow fuel for that?

Twomonthsoff

3rd Jul 2023, 11:14

All fine until the company asks why you have so many offloads, delayed services and why the other pilots don't. Company fuel policy is what you have to adhere to or face not being a captain. Whilst Captain is a fancy term, its just a form of shop front management, cost the company more than the baseline and face the firing squad. If you don't like the company fuel policy you will have to argue that ahead of time through the company, not do things your own way and hope for the best. Right now things are in the pilots favor, but I've been there when the bar charts come out comparing x pilots tankering vs b pilots and the meetings over 'why' you were carrying how many more tons than pilot c... And yes, this does happen at large airlines.

BTW on many occasions I have informed the company the reasons I have carried an alternate when the forecast appeared clear, due to my knowledge of local weather patterns such as fog or low cloud events that met offices can miss. They accept a well reasoned argument and go no further, but carrying an alternate in-case a 172 happens to crash onto a random runway in good weather conditions is not really a factor. These days there is more chance a climate protest group sets up blocking all the runways at Sydney at once for an hour, do you allow fuel for that?

I know it’s sounds a bit simplistic but having been LHS in high cap for many years both in Australia and overseas; my personal reserve has always been 30 min on top of company/statutory rsv. I know I’m not the only one with this feel good number; when I started out, it was called a drop more for mum and the kids. I’ve always got away with it with no significant off loading except maybe a bit of freight here and there and yes, I am flexible about it too except it’s a number I try achieve on most of my ops.

43Inches

3rd Jul 2023, 11:35

I know it’s sounds a bit simplistic but having been LHS in high cap for many years both in Australia and overseas; my personal reserve has always been 30 min on top of company/statutory rsv. I know I’m not the only one with this feel good number; when I started out, it was called a drop more for mum and the kids. I’ve always got away with it with no significant off loading except maybe a bit of freight here and there and yes, I am flexible about it too except it’s a number I try achieve on most of my ops.

30 minutes no problem, but always allowing an alternate, may mean an hour or more. The 30 mins for mum has saved me from diverting many times, which in turn has saved the company tens of thousands as a result. Hence any reasonable manager would be blind to it. In reality even without an alternate now the Part 121 makes you carry 15 minutes additional, as well as contingency. If something did splatter over a runway, with good fuel management you should be able to squeeze well over and hour out of normal reserves, two with mums bank. Hear something going wrong at the destination, slow to max endurance, look for alternatives, so on.

The Mildura incident proved that even holding an alternate is not 100% guaranteed safety, the same things that could happen at your destination suddenly are just as likely at your alternate. You could divert min fuel from A place due fog, and arrive at B just as a Cessna crashes on the runway, oops should of had an alternate, alternate. Or just fog arrives and nobody tells you about it....

Icarus2001

4th Jul 2023, 01:15

Whilst Captain is a fancy term, its just a form of shop front management, cost the company more than the baseline and face the firing squad.

Captain is a company rank. Pilot in Command is the regulatory term. Definitely more than a "fancy term". Only one person gets to decide how much fuel to carry on my flight. CASA says so.

43Inches

4th Jul 2023, 01:57

Captain is a company rank. Pilot in Command is the regulatory term. Definitely more than a "fancy term". Only one person gets to decide how much fuel to carry on my flight. CASA says so.

Tough words, but I'm pretty sure if 'your' fuel policy results in continual offloads and significantly more uplift than 'company' fuel policy you may not hold the fancy title of 'Captain' for very long. 30 minutes or so for 'mum' and well justified uplifts are one thing, being scared of a random very unlikely event and carrying alternates for everything even in CAVOK mild conditions is another. The candidate is employed as a Captain (duties and conditions attached) to act as pilot in command of company aircraft. The title Captain holds you to whatever is written in the company Operations manual as to the disposition of your required duties, PIC responsibilities form part of the duties and requirements. For instance if you have a dispatch service that the operations manual specifies as responsible for fuel uplifts then that is the deal, the PIC can talk with them about what extra fuel they feel is needed, but it will need to be justified.

maggot

4th Jul 2023, 03:16

ADL based?

How often are you limited so you can't toss on a bit of juice without an offload?

'company fuel policy' is the minimum requirement.

Pastor of Muppets

4th Jul 2023, 03:32

The reason alternates aren’t law in Australia is because the Viscount or similar old machine didn’t have the numbers to make one happen in Australia’s sparse environment, laws were changed to suit by accountants.

Bringanotherengine

5th Jul 2023, 06:24

compressor stall

5th Jul 2023, 08:27

Depends on what facilities your alternate runway has.

mos 4.11 refers.

seriously, make yourself a flow chart. Use MS excel shapes and colour code the options. Put MOS refs in each box Best days study you can do

Wizofoz

6th Jul 2023, 08:15

Question

If your destination is forcast below landing minima you need 2x alternates. What weather minima is required for these 2x alternates. Ie. Above landing minima?

i understand if one alternates is above the alternate requirements you only need one. But it doesn't specify for the 2 case.

thanks for your input
In a nutshell, two alternates that meet the requirements to be an alternate, or one alternate that meets the requirements to be a destination that doesn't NEED an alternate.