Wikiposts
Search
The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Shallow Fog

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28th May 2006, 03:12
  #1 (permalink)  
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.
Toecutter747 is offline  
Old 28th May 2006, 04:20
  #2 (permalink)  

Bottums Up
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: dunnunda
Age: 66
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Toecutter747

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.
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.
Capt Claret is offline  
Old 28th May 2006, 05:26
  #3 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
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.
Keg is offline  
Old 28th May 2006, 06:54
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks guys - that make sense now. As you say it's low vis that creates the alternate requirement, not the presence of any particular weather phenomenon.
Toecutter747 is offline  
Old 28th May 2006, 10:19
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 261
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, no alternate requirement with shallow fog. Don't have the reference at hand sorry.
Dookie on Drums is offline  
Old 28th May 2006, 22:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not at work
Posts: 1,571
Received 76 Likes on 32 Posts
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
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 28th May 2006, 23:13
  #7 (permalink)  

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.
karrank is offline  
Old 29th May 2006, 05:53
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 261
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All well and good carrying a bit extra juice as I would as well but the operative word is "requirement".
Dookie on Drums is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.