Shallow Fog
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shallow Fog
I have a vague memory that a TAF with MIFG doesn't impose an alternate requirement - does anyone have an AIP (or other) reference to support this?
I have searched both the AIP and Pprune to no avail.
Thanks for your input.
I have searched both the AIP and Pprune to no avail.
Thanks for your input.
Bottums Up
Toecutter747
Can't find a reference either, but the definitions of Fog & Mist from the BOM site are:
I would have thought that its the reduced visibility, as opposed to fog, as such, that requires the alternate.
As an example, a DRW ATIS earlier this year had a component, "cloud base 1500, visibility 1500m in fog"
Couldn't have been fog if the vis was 1500m. If the vis was 1500m then the aerodrome was open for landings and an alternate wasn't required.
Can't find a reference either, but the definitions of Fog & Mist from the BOM site are:
Fog: Suspension of very small water droplets in the air, reducing visibility at ground level to less than a kilometre.
Mist: Similar to fog, but visibility remains more than a kilometre.
Mist: Similar to fog, but visibility remains more than a kilometre.
As an example, a DRW ATIS earlier this year had a component, "cloud base 1500, visibility 1500m in fog"
Couldn't have been fog if the vis was 1500m. If the vis was 1500m then the aerodrome was open for landings and an alternate wasn't required.
Nunc est bibendum
If I recall correctly, the MET part of the Jepp World Wide Text defines shallow fog as 'less than six feet in height'. I'd have to look it up again to be sure.
Personally, I think you'd have to be pretty game not to carry some sort of alternate or contingency fuel based on a forecast of shallow fog only. How many times have we all seen the shallow fog become not so shallow in a matter of minutes?
Sure, rules are rules but there's no subsitute for common sense.
TL
Sure, rules are rules but there's no subsitute for common sense.
TL
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIP ENR 1.1 - 88 says it is all about the visibility. If unforecast MIFG appears on a SPECI I treat it as a hazard alert coz it will probably develop into something else they didn't forecast either! If the standard issue TAF says MIFG you can supposedly ignore it if the VIS is OK. Not sure I would.