Yes. Can't speak for every airline but that is the rules in Australia. Now you have options within that like using a SLAM plus the TTF for arrival, but if it changes to Fog at 100m then you will either have to have a alternate, or enough holding for the FM period commencement. I believe that is where one of the Qantas incidents got caught. The TTF had it clearing up but it didn't.

Don't know why Australia has a ceiling requirement.

The only solution to all this would be to have European styled rules with compulsory alternates at planning stage and CAT IIIB at all capital cities. That way you could carry on and have a go at the Autoland.

However in Australia that would a very expensive solution and never get passed by the airlines which is why we have the no alternate rules. Some CAT III gear would take the stress out though.

I'm not fully conversant with the AIP but is there a statement that says once airborne and the weather at destination is below alternate minima but above approach minima, an alternate is required. I don't recall a statement that says this. It sounds like good practice, except for having to comply with a ceiling when an ILS is available and if your destination is a place like ADL with no available alternates and the weather changes, you go from being legally dispatched to illegally airborne and there is nothing that the operator could have done.

That's the question CASA asked its own FOI's in relation to the Norfolk ditching and 50% said yes and the other said no. So again if the equipment at ADL was able to support CATIIIB the crews could have legally continued and landed. I also would like to know if QF have MIA as a suitable or alternate in their FAM for the 737 operation?

No. If you got the TTF that had Fog on it at the time you were landing you have to either recalculate from that point to ADL and then to a alternate or recalculate your position to ADL and then to the FM period that it improves.

Or divert straight away.

If you can't do any of that you then have to declare a PAN and do whatever works.

For CAT III to work we will have to have compulsory alternates. Until Australia brings that in CAT III won't do much.

What if you don't have the TTF? We will have to wait and see what the time line shows but there is no requirement to update TTF's if you departed with a valid TAF. If the crew considered that the safer option was to continue to ADL (if it had CAT III) rather than to divert to an airport OCTA and that they were unfamiliar with then they would be ok.

Reality is you would be given the update through ATC so even if you didn't go looking for it you would end up with a new TAF. As soon as that happens you would have to do some recalculations.

There is also a requirement to have the most current TAF on you if you can't get or use the TTF.

Cat 3b would have allowed a safe approach and landing in the event described at ADL. Compared to what transpired it would have been a much better outcome. There would in fact be no emergency Nev. A report to CASA maybe. Under the EU OPS policy that dictates an alternate for most flights, an alternate is not required when the weather is better than 1000/2.5k and the dest has separate runways for sectors less than six hours. The same crew could have been caught out with the weather change but they would have had a legal approach to fly. I think we need 3b for all our major commercial ports.

Sorry to be a pain Nev, but what statement in the AIP says you require an alternate if the weather is below alt mins but above approach mins once airborne.

I used Jepps ATC section 3.

Nev, can you please post the exact wording and section reference, my Jepp ATC (AU) lists exactly the same requirements as the AIP, nothing about once airborne landing minima applies.

The bit about arrival at a aerodrome will be during a period where cloud or viz is below the alternate minima. Then it goes on to the bit about INTER TEMPO TTFs etc....

Are you guys saying that once airborne the Alternate requirements don't apply?

Have a look at AU-515 Sect 11 In-Flight Fuel Management and see if that might have applied if a CatIIIB ILS was available. Like you Nev I always thought the alternate considerations applied at all stages of flight but now I see that it is a grey area and that once you are in the air, as long as you meet the requirements of the above section, then you do what you consider safe.

Ernestkgann, The AIP and Jepp's are only a summary of the regulatory rules, the actual rule document is best used for reference.

You ask where this requirement for inflight alternate airport is?

The rule/regs for an airline operation require... "Each holder of an air operator certificate to establish a fuel policy for both flight planning and inflight requirements..."

Every "air operator" has their approved exposition (manuals) which contains the company fuel policy.

The rule/regs for airline operations, require the inflight fuel to include reserves to cover operation at all times....

To comply with this, the operators exposition's use's the aerodrome alternate requirements or special alternate requirements as a trigger for the inflight fuel policy.

Refer to the rule/reg for... "Air Operations" - for further guidance.

Rgs

I agree completely cobber which is why I asked earlier does the company ops manual dictate the requirement for an alternate under those circumstances. I don't believe the regulatory pub does.

Some slow learners hereabouts Ernie!

My company manual states that once airborne landing minima shall be used.
If your company chooses not to clarify/supplement the regs then it can get messy when the SHTF.

Ok, I'll bite.

The AIP provisions for alternate airfields make no distinction between planning and in-flight cases. Therefore, I believe a straightforward interpretation is that the provisions apply for all stages of a flight.

Ref: Jepps AGA Sect 3 para 3.2.1

Nothing about planning, just "operating" and "when arrival at the destination will be..."

Cheers,
O8

Thanks Oktas. Does it also state the approach minimums during those conditions ie the difference between landing and alternate minimums?

No. All the operational requirements are based on alternate minima, which is clearly stated. The term "landing minima" is not used in this context.

(Which I find odd btw. How can one be allowed to proceed to an airfield which is forecast to be closed due weather upon arrival? Private ops, sure, but not air transport ops. But I digress.)

I agree with oktas 8 and I dont see how 515 makes it confusing. Its not like that section can overrule another anyway. What CASA approves QF/VA to do is another matter entirely.

If the WX is below the SLAM or alternate minima you need a plan B!