Senario - do we need an alternate?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what's so difficult to understand about this.
Doesn't matter whether your'e driving to the airport, flight planning, airborne etc. - if a TTF indicates weather conditions forecast below the alternate minima, THE AIRPORT REQUIRES AN ALTERNATE.
The courses of action available in the airborne case are:
1. Nominate a suitable alternate (If FOB on board allows)
2. Divert to an en-route airport to pick up extra fuel. (Insufficient FOB)
3. If the departure or any en-route airport can not be reached with required fuel reserves, declare a PAN and continue.
If a Hazard ALert is broadcast, then it needs to be broken down into 2 elements:
1. Weather conditions above the alternate minima. Is it safe to continue (Pilot judgement)
2. Weather conditions below the alternate minima. (Pilot Judgement + comments above)
Doesn't matter whether your'e driving to the airport, flight planning, airborne etc. - if a TTF indicates weather conditions forecast below the alternate minima, THE AIRPORT REQUIRES AN ALTERNATE.
The courses of action available in the airborne case are:
1. Nominate a suitable alternate (If FOB on board allows)
2. Divert to an en-route airport to pick up extra fuel. (Insufficient FOB)
3. If the departure or any en-route airport can not be reached with required fuel reserves, declare a PAN and continue.
If a Hazard ALert is broadcast, then it needs to be broken down into 2 elements:
1. Weather conditions above the alternate minima. Is it safe to continue (Pilot judgement)
2. Weather conditions below the alternate minima. (Pilot Judgement + comments above)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arctaurus 100% agree with the three options.
Icarus53, agree that now it is a case of diversion planning vice alternate planning but, i'm pretty sure if you ditched an aircraft because your "airmanship" decision was to continue to the dest and you subsequently needed that 'unplanned' alternate/diversion, there would be some hefty legal ramifications.
it comes down to command decision, airmanship, whatever you want to call it - not a matter of obeying a legal requirement.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if there is a tempo placed on the destination(say tempo bkn 1500), and you dont have 60min holding fuel you must carry an alternate.
All those in the alt required camp would divert??
All those in the alt required camp would divert??
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who Cares,
If you don't have the fuel on board to cater for the weather requirement, whatever it is, (INTER/TEMPO/ALTERNATE):
1. Nominate a suitable alternate (If FOB on board allows)
2. Divert to an en-route airport to pick up extra fuel. (Insufficient FOB)
3. If the departure or any en-route airport can not be reached with required fuel reserves, declare a PAN and continue.
It's really very simple.
If you don't have the fuel on board to cater for the weather requirement, whatever it is, (INTER/TEMPO/ALTERNATE):
1. Nominate a suitable alternate (If FOB on board allows)
2. Divert to an en-route airport to pick up extra fuel. (Insufficient FOB)
3. If the departure or any en-route airport can not be reached with required fuel reserves, declare a PAN and continue.
It's really very simple.
When it comes down to whether or not alternates refer to the planning stage or the 'all stage' scenario, remember a forecast is only required to be obtained prior to flight (not during flight) covering the duration of the flight up to 60mins after. If you obtain a forecast and it's clear then at some stage after departure it is updated to below alternate minima but you never hear about it, does that mean that you're flying illegally without knowing about it? If alternates were required to be replanned in flight, wouldn't they also have made it a requirement to obtain updated forecasts in flight at X minute intervals to enable you to do this? To reiterate, you are only legally required to obtain a forecast prior to flight, and as alternate planning depends on having obtained a forecast...
CASA use the term 'in the spirit' of the regulation quite regularly when having these debates. Whilst I don't particularly agree with that phrase, I'll bet they meant it something along those lines when you tie in flight planning requirements (Jepp AU-601) with alternate planning requirements.
Having said that, I do agree that it doesn't mention explicitly in the alternate section that it is purely a pre flight consideration so either way, it requires some clarification.
CASA use the term 'in the spirit' of the regulation quite regularly when having these debates. Whilst I don't particularly agree with that phrase, I'll bet they meant it something along those lines when you tie in flight planning requirements (Jepp AU-601) with alternate planning requirements.
Having said that, I do agree that it doesn't mention explicitly in the alternate section that it is purely a pre flight consideration so either way, it requires some clarification.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragun,
There are rare occasions where we are left in no mans land. Example: short sector, on descent, ATIS suddenly indicates unforecast FOG - no fuel to go any where, TTF SPECI not yet issued. This is the occasion where we are paid to make a sensible decision, which WILL mean a PAN call and MAY mean an autoland.
In 35 years domestic flying in OZ, there has only been 1 occasion where I have made a PAN call on the basis of totally unforecast weather (FOG) and no fuel to go anywhere. There was absolutely no issue with CASA (because the forecasting system failed abysmally) or the company (because the dispatch system relied on the same data).
Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and just do it. That's the system.
The weather (INTER/TEMPO/ALTERNATE) requirements are fixed and do apply at any time. For the most part, you get a feel for weather situations and obtain TTF's frequently if it warrants.
There are rare occasions where we are left in no mans land. Example: short sector, on descent, ATIS suddenly indicates unforecast FOG - no fuel to go any where, TTF SPECI not yet issued. This is the occasion where we are paid to make a sensible decision, which WILL mean a PAN call and MAY mean an autoland.
In 35 years domestic flying in OZ, there has only been 1 occasion where I have made a PAN call on the basis of totally unforecast weather (FOG) and no fuel to go anywhere. There was absolutely no issue with CASA (because the forecasting system failed abysmally) or the company (because the dispatch system relied on the same data).
Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and just do it. That's the system.
The weather (INTER/TEMPO/ALTERNATE) requirements are fixed and do apply at any time. For the most part, you get a feel for weather situations and obtain TTF's frequently if it warrants.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It shouldn't need to be mandated to obtain inflight updates at crucial points along track, ie PSR, PSD, etc so that an educated decision can be made about whether to continue or divert/return. I beieve they call it airmanship. It is a sad day when people try to 'get away' with not obtaining updates just coz it suits their plan.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well just looked at our manual
It states: that the Alt minima indicates the minimum ceiling and vis required to determine whether an alternate aerodrome is required as well as whether an aerodrome is suitable as an alternate, at the flight planing stage.
It states: that the Alt minima indicates the minimum ceiling and vis required to determine whether an alternate aerodrome is required as well as whether an aerodrome is suitable as an alternate, at the flight planing stage.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These rules apply to all flying in Australia. What is practical for RPT is not always so for others. 2 pilots, multiple radios, east coast will have a lot more options for getting updates and inflight replanning than single pilot, single radio, 200 nm west of Mt Isa.
No-one is "trying to get away with not obtaining <in flight> updates". Sometimes it just isn't that practical - especially when you're handflying in the cockpit rather than sitting in an office on the ground.
No-one is "trying to get away with not obtaining <in flight> updates". Sometimes it just isn't that practical - especially when you're handflying in the cockpit rather than sitting in an office on the ground.
Gundog
The debate isn't whether or not it's good airmanship or not to obtain forecasts in flight - I'm sure no one would disagree with that or try to get around making sensible operational decisions by hiding behind regulations.
The debate is the black and white legality of the question with direct reference to published regulations. Two very different things, as I'm sure everyone reading and contributing to this thread is aware.
If people could keep the two things separate the thread would be a lot more productive. Remember, company fuel policy is at the very least compliant with published regulations and more often than not exceeds them.
Arctaurus - I'm not saying I have an answer, I just think the regulations need clarification. Obviously that's the case or this debate wouldn't even be happening
Cheers guys
The debate isn't whether or not it's good airmanship or not to obtain forecasts in flight - I'm sure no one would disagree with that or try to get around making sensible operational decisions by hiding behind regulations.
The debate is the black and white legality of the question with direct reference to published regulations. Two very different things, as I'm sure everyone reading and contributing to this thread is aware.
If people could keep the two things separate the thread would be a lot more productive. Remember, company fuel policy is at the very least compliant with published regulations and more often than not exceeds them.
Arctaurus - I'm not saying I have an answer, I just think the regulations need clarification. Obviously that's the case or this debate wouldn't even be happening
Cheers guys
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unhinged,
I was probably reading between the lines of several posts on this thread with the 'getting away' with it comment. I'm well aware of hand flying and the difficulties associated with single pilot ops in remote areas. However, it would be prudent (via VHF, HF or relay) if any doubt exists about your destination to do your upmost to obtain an update prior to a decision point (PSR, PSD etc), even more so if your 200nm west of Mt Isa or halfway between Alice Springs and Kal with very limited options.
Who cares,
I'm fairly certain that the "but our OPS manual says" defence won't wash at the BOI. Back to your tempo question, absolutely. To be legal (once you have obtained your inflight update and recieved info about the Tempo) you must carry tempo fuel or fuel for an alternate. You are now aware of an operational requirement and must cater for it. If your are past any suitable alt and out of options then PAN and press hoping you get in between the TEMPO conditions.
Dragun,
I personally think the reg's are quite black and white. As published earlier AIP mentions nothing about WX, Lighting or Navaids only being assessed pre-flight.
To flip the question. If you recieved an update airborne that the ILS was out for you destination would you be legally obligated to hold an ALT (if WX was below alt min for the next most accurate aid) based on the new information, even though you are past the flight planning stage. Of course you would. Wx updates are no different.
I was probably reading between the lines of several posts on this thread with the 'getting away' with it comment. I'm well aware of hand flying and the difficulties associated with single pilot ops in remote areas. However, it would be prudent (via VHF, HF or relay) if any doubt exists about your destination to do your upmost to obtain an update prior to a decision point (PSR, PSD etc), even more so if your 200nm west of Mt Isa or halfway between Alice Springs and Kal with very limited options.
Who cares,
I'm fairly certain that the "but our OPS manual says" defence won't wash at the BOI. Back to your tempo question, absolutely. To be legal (once you have obtained your inflight update and recieved info about the Tempo) you must carry tempo fuel or fuel for an alternate. You are now aware of an operational requirement and must cater for it. If your are past any suitable alt and out of options then PAN and press hoping you get in between the TEMPO conditions.
Dragun,
I personally think the reg's are quite black and white. As published earlier AIP mentions nothing about WX, Lighting or Navaids only being assessed pre-flight.
To flip the question. If you recieved an update airborne that the ILS was out for you destination would you be legally obligated to hold an ALT (if WX was below alt min for the next most accurate aid) based on the new information, even though you are past the flight planning stage. Of course you would. Wx updates are no different.
Last edited by Gundog01; 30th Jan 2009 at 01:24.
I'm amazed!!
I am truly amazed that there seems be be such difficulty with this concept. An Alternate is required whenever the conditions fall below ALT MIN, that is why it is called ALT MINIMA.
Icarus53
If the PIC has done all that s/he can be reasonably expected to do, in order to obtain the most up-to-date operational information, then they would not be breaking the law if an unforeseen operational requirement was put in place. Sometimes, despite all the best planning, 'stuff happens'. However, it would be indefensible if you failed to do all that you could be reasonably expected to do in order to get info, and just 'blundered on'.
AIP 2.1.1
AIP. 2.4.1
Dragun:
See AIP above. As the PIC you are required to obtain information in-flight that can be used to assist in operational decisions. I cannot access the reference to reproduce it verbatim, but you ARE required to have a forecast, that covers your ETA plus 60 mins (TTF or TAF). If your ETA falls within this, then you don't need to obtain an update. If your ETA is not covered by this, then you are required to obtain updated wx that is valid for your arrival.
You can depart from an airfield without a valid forecast, provided you obtain a valid forecast within 30 min (again can't find the reference). If this Wx requires an INTER/TEMPO/ALT then you must adhere to those requirements.
This indicates that you do have to get airborne reports.
It seems pretty simple - if the wx (obtained preflight or inflight) requires additional fuel, then you either have to get it (in-flight: change route/speed/height etc) or divert to an airfield that you have the required reserves to make.
Icarus53
I don't think anyone on here has suggested that. The argument here seems to have been reduced to semantics. Some (myself included) suggest that alternates can only be "provided for" in the planning stage. If we hold onto an absolute requirement to carry an alternate whenever the wx conditions require (regardless of how little fuel we are carrying when we are notified of the conditions), then we are stating that the PIC is capable of breaking the law without any possible way of foreseeing or avoiding the situation. Sometimes it's hard to "provide" an alternate unless AAR is an option for you.
AIP 2.1.1
Pilots are responsible for requesting information necessary to make operational decisions.
The in-flight information services are structured to support the
responsibility of pilots to obtain information in-flight on which to
base operational decisions relating to the continuation or diversion
of a flight.
responsibility of pilots to obtain information in-flight on which to
base operational decisions relating to the continuation or diversion
of a flight.
If alternates were required to be replanned in flight, wouldn't they also have made it a requirement to obtain updated forecasts in flight at X minute intervals to enable you to do this? To reiterate, you are only legally required to obtain a forecast prior to flight, and as alternate planning depends on having obtained a forecast...
You can depart from an airfield without a valid forecast, provided you obtain a valid forecast within 30 min (again can't find the reference). If this Wx requires an INTER/TEMPO/ALT then you must adhere to those requirements.
This indicates that you do have to get airborne reports.
It seems pretty simple - if the wx (obtained preflight or inflight) requires additional fuel, then you either have to get it (in-flight: change route/speed/height etc) or divert to an airfield that you have the required reserves to make.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with most of what you say.
AIP
Jepp
... but you ARE required to have a forecast, that covers your ETA plus 60 mins (TTF or TAF). If your ETA falls within this, then you don't need to obtain an update.
73.2.11 Flights which cannot use TTF will plan the flight on the current TAF until such time as the destination ETA falls within the validity period of a TTF.
6.1.2 The issue of a new forecast by a meteorological office, such as a routine aerodrome forecast, shall be understood to cancel automatically any forecast of the same type previously issued for the same place and for the same period of validity or part thereof.
Wow...i can't believe there are people out there who call themselves professional pilots, yet would not carry an alternate (or holding, or divert) if they were in flight and the TAF changed to below alternate minima. (Its basic, there is no argument!) Yes...all of a sudden you need extra fuel as the TAF changed while you were inflight...that has never meant you continue...that has always meant you divert or slow to create fuel. 'Who cares', you need to seriously read up on your reg's, and yes i am someone who knows a hell of a lot about the regs.
And to 'pilots' who would not divert if their destination went below alternate minima with a tempo and they didn't have tempo fuel. Preflight or inflght it doesnt matter...if your dest goes tempo after takeoff you have to have tempo fuel...if you don't you have to divert. I am very worried that there are so called professional pilots who think its only a preflight requirement! DID YOU PASS YOUR ATPL'S THE FIRST TIME OR THE TENTH TIME....OR NOT QUITE YET????
That is a real worry. One wonders how they are getting through airline checking and training...or perhaps CASA needs to oversee certain airlines more?
Of course, an observation is an observation. A TAF or TTF METAR is what matters, not an observation. An observation is open to interpretation, subject to the TAF. There is no legal requirement for an observation, as there is no trend (it just adds to one's situational awareness)...only for a TAF/TTF METAR.
And to 'pilots' who would not divert if their destination went below alternate minima with a tempo and they didn't have tempo fuel. Preflight or inflght it doesnt matter...if your dest goes tempo after takeoff you have to have tempo fuel...if you don't you have to divert. I am very worried that there are so called professional pilots who think its only a preflight requirement! DID YOU PASS YOUR ATPL'S THE FIRST TIME OR THE TENTH TIME....OR NOT QUITE YET????
That is a real worry. One wonders how they are getting through airline checking and training...or perhaps CASA needs to oversee certain airlines more?
Of course, an observation is an observation. A TAF or TTF METAR is what matters, not an observation. An observation is open to interpretation, subject to the TAF. There is no legal requirement for an observation, as there is no trend (it just adds to one's situational awareness)...only for a TAF/TTF METAR.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stralya
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Sprite,Can I suggest that you tone done your rhetoric a little. As you are someone who has pronounced yourself to "know a hell of a lot about air regulations", it would be a lot more useful to the mere mortals contributing to this thread if you provided us with reference to the actual chapter and verse where your vast knowledge is founded. As to your questioning whether we have the ability to even pass the exams and obtain an ATPL, on my account that is affirmative. I have 7 different ATPL's from as many countries and they were all obtained on first go. I can further tell you that Australia is the only of those countries where I can even file an IFR flight plan without a nominated alternate, REGARDLESS OF FORECAST WEATHER CONDITIONS, so it is pretty clear to me that Australia has a variation to the recommendations stipulated in the relevant ICAO Annex. So please no more Mr. Smartypants, just give
me a reference to the relevant Australian air regulation where it is stipulated as incumbent on me as a pilot to obtain an updated Weather Forecast after dispatch, if such a forecast gets issued during the validity period of the one I already obtained as part of my preflight briefing. And to re-iterate, this discussion is NOT about "I reckon it makes sense to do x, so I reckon that all other pilots that don't do x are morons". It is about whether there is a LEGAL requirement for us as pilots to obtain updated forecasts during flight and to file an amendment to our original flight plan if our destination is subject to an amenment that introduces a requirement for an Alternate. There are clearly some differing opinions on this matter, so cut us some slack will ya'?
me a reference to the relevant Australian air regulation where it is stipulated as incumbent on me as a pilot to obtain an updated Weather Forecast after dispatch, if such a forecast gets issued during the validity period of the one I already obtained as part of my preflight briefing. And to re-iterate, this discussion is NOT about "I reckon it makes sense to do x, so I reckon that all other pilots that don't do x are morons". It is about whether there is a LEGAL requirement for us as pilots to obtain updated forecasts during flight and to file an amendment to our original flight plan if our destination is subject to an amenment that introduces a requirement for an Alternate. There are clearly some differing opinions on this matter, so cut us some slack will ya'?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do people not understand what a semantic argument is?
Nobody that I can find on this thread has gone anywhere close to suggesting that they would just continue on their merry way if the destination went below minima. Not even if it was just an observation, which some parties suggest doesn't really matter.
All I suggest is that I separate the concept of "providing for an alternate" as a planning issue. After that, it becomes a question of inflight diversion - the concepts are more closely aligned (it is a question of what do I do with what I have, rather than what do I need to cover the known requirement) and I acknowledge that conditions may occur whereby it would be impossible for me to "provide for an alternate". If the legal requirement becomes useless at that point then from a philosophical perspective it is useless otherwise.
If your brain finds it easier to use the concept of alternate planning in flight, be my guest.
Nobody that I can find on this thread has gone anywhere close to suggesting that they would just continue on their merry way if the destination went below minima. Not even if it was just an observation, which some parties suggest doesn't really matter.
All I suggest is that I separate the concept of "providing for an alternate" as a planning issue. After that, it becomes a question of inflight diversion - the concepts are more closely aligned (it is a question of what do I do with what I have, rather than what do I need to cover the known requirement) and I acknowledge that conditions may occur whereby it would be impossible for me to "provide for an alternate". If the legal requirement becomes useless at that point then from a philosophical perspective it is useless otherwise.
If your brain finds it easier to use the concept of alternate planning in flight, be my guest.
Last edited by Icarus53; 30th Jan 2009 at 12:55.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Jet,
This means that you are required to update your preflight TAF with a TTF when you are airborne.
Self explanatory. You can't just use the first TTF you get 3 hours out from your destination, as the TTF issued 2.5 hours out cancels the first one. You essentially have to get the last TTF issued before your PNR.
No you can't. You can plan to a PNR based on a suitable airport, as you can to destinations in any other country. This is explained in this document
http://www.casa.gov.au/download/caaps/ops/234_1.pdf
73.2.11 Flights which cannot use TTF will plan the flight on the current TAF until such time as the destination ETA falls within the validity period of a TTF.
6.1.2 The issue of a new forecast by a meteorological office, such as a routine aerodrome forecast, shall be understood to cancel automatically any forecast of the same type previously issued for the same place and for the same period of validity or part thereof.
I can further tell you that Australia is the only of those countries where I can even file an IFR flight plan without a nominated alternate, REGARDLESS OF FORECAST WEATHER CONDITIONS, so it is pretty clear to me that Australia has a variation to the recommendations stipulated in the relevant ICAO Annex.
http://www.casa.gov.au/download/caaps/ops/234_1.pdf
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay for the lovers of references. Hopefully the following clears tings up.
Ref AIP.
Important difference with the phrase "must make provision for", and "must plan for". To my mind make provision for means at any stage during flight, where as plan for is preflight.
Redjet
This was never the question, it was once you have obtained said forecast what do you have to do.
From the sound of this you're suggesting that a more recently obtained TAF can be disregarded if the preflight TAF tells you what you want to know??
Ref AIP.
73.
ALTERNATE AERODROMES
73.1
General
73.1.1 A pilot in command must make provision for flight to an alternate
aerodrome, when required, in accordance with the following paragraphs.
aerodrome, when required, in accordance with the following paragraphs.
74.
SUITABILITY OF AERODROMES
74.1
General
A pilot in command must plan the flight to comply with the following
conditions for the use of an aerodrome, including an alternate
aerodrome:
conditions for the use of an aerodrome, including an alternate
aerodrome:
Redjet
just give me a reference to the relevant Australian air regulation where it is stipulated as incumbent on me as a pilot to obtain an updated Weather Forecast after dispatch, if such a forecast gets issued during the validity period of the one I already obtained as part of my preflight briefing.
From the sound of this you're suggesting that a more recently obtained TAF can be disregarded if the preflight TAF tells you what you want to know??
I just can't let this go.....
Icarus 53,
The original question posted by Clackarjack was:
The question was fairly simple - "Do you need to hold an alternate for B?"
There was no question regarding whether or not the PIC was required to obtain the wx in flight, (this was asked and answered later), but once the information was in the hands of the PIC, whether a legal requirement to hold an ALT now existed.
From the AIP references listed in this thread, the answer is YES IT DOES.
I'm not trying to antagonize you or be a smart @rse, but I would like to comment on your point about semantics.
I don't believe anyone is being semantic about it, and I don't feel that the AIP wording is semantic.
Let us assume for a second that you had full tanks and only needed 1/4 tanks for your trip. An ALT requirement is placed on destination whilst you are airborne. It is now possible to 'provide for an Alternate' because you have the fuel - no diversion necessary. So I'm not sure how you can say that you can only provide for a ALT in the planning stage. If you have the fuel or other airfield options, you can 'provide for and alternate' in flight.
Let us now say you have only the legal arrival fuel for destination, and the same ALT requirement is put on. Now you don't have the fuel, therefore you must divert, this diversion is not your destination, but an alternate airfield, therefore you have met the requirement to provide for an alternate - your diversion is your alternate.
If you are beyond PNR/PSD then you have no choice, declare an emergency if required and continue - autoland/ditch whatever, but this is now an emergency procedure and the ALT rules no longer apply (nor do many other for that matter!)
The point here is that at the planning stage you did not need to 'provide for an alternate' as no requirement was in force at the time, however, in-flight things changed which required an alternate. In two of the scenarios above, you could 'provide for an alternate' airborne, and in the last one, you could not (through no fault of yours) so were required to continue, and seek priority (declare an emergency) in order to basically say 'I can not comply with my legal requirements now'
As I have hopefully pointed out above, unless you are declaring an emergency, then you ARE required to obey "a legal requirement" and you can 'provide for an ALT airborne"
All the best
The original question posted by Clackarjack was:
Here's a question for you....
This issue has come up repeatedly, and as far as I can tell, colleagues are evenly split on the answer.
Assume you are flying from A to B, with preflight WX not indicating alt required, so we are landing with standard company FOD (2.4 for 737 / 2.0 for Ejet).
ATC broadcasts a Hazard Alert for B, with WX now below the alt minima.
Do you now need an alternate for B ??
I have tried not to be leading in this senario - I have a strong opinion on the answer (which I'll withhold for now), and have sought answers from CAR, CAO, CAAP, Vol 1, Jepps etc, but opinions are divided.
Thoughts?
This issue has come up repeatedly, and as far as I can tell, colleagues are evenly split on the answer.
Assume you are flying from A to B, with preflight WX not indicating alt required, so we are landing with standard company FOD (2.4 for 737 / 2.0 for Ejet).
ATC broadcasts a Hazard Alert for B, with WX now below the alt minima.
Do you now need an alternate for B ??
I have tried not to be leading in this senario - I have a strong opinion on the answer (which I'll withhold for now), and have sought answers from CAR, CAO, CAAP, Vol 1, Jepps etc, but opinions are divided.
Thoughts?
There was no question regarding whether or not the PIC was required to obtain the wx in flight, (this was asked and answered later), but once the information was in the hands of the PIC, whether a legal requirement to hold an ALT now existed.
From the AIP references listed in this thread, the answer is YES IT DOES.
I'm not trying to antagonize you or be a smart @rse, but I would like to comment on your point about semantics.
I don't believe anyone is being semantic about it, and I don't feel that the AIP wording is semantic.
Some (myself included) suggest that alternates can only be "provided for" in the planning stage.
Let us now say you have only the legal arrival fuel for destination, and the same ALT requirement is put on. Now you don't have the fuel, therefore you must divert, this diversion is not your destination, but an alternate airfield, therefore you have met the requirement to provide for an alternate - your diversion is your alternate.
If you are beyond PNR/PSD then you have no choice, declare an emergency if required and continue - autoland/ditch whatever, but this is now an emergency procedure and the ALT rules no longer apply (nor do many other for that matter!)
The point here is that at the planning stage you did not need to 'provide for an alternate' as no requirement was in force at the time, however, in-flight things changed which required an alternate. In two of the scenarios above, you could 'provide for an alternate' airborne, and in the last one, you could not (through no fault of yours) so were required to continue, and seek priority (declare an emergency) in order to basically say 'I can not comply with my legal requirements now'
I would hold to the view that once airborne, operational changes become matters of diversion planning. To refer to it as "providing for an alternate" ignores the many other options available to a crew, including autoland, ditching (we all know it's been discussed!), using up their reserves etc. Not saying they're good options, but they don't involve "alternates". As others suggest, it comes down to command decision, airmanship, whatever you want to call it - not a matter of obeying a legal requirement
All the best
I do realise that this question most likely referred to Australian rules, however, it might be interesting to note that in NZ the rules include very clearly that, "at the time of submitting the flight plan", if the requirements aren't met, then an alternate is required.
Another prime example of how poorly written the Australian rules are. It seems with every law related question there is a near 50/50 split on the interpretation of the rule, and that is amongst the few pilots that can find the rule to offer their interpretation!!
If the TAF was changed en-route to BKN below the alternate minima, but well above the landing minima and with a METAR indicating good conditions also, then I've gotta say I would carry on, in most circumstances.
I can just imagine someone declaring a PAN PAN (or even diverting as some have suggested!!) just beyond the IAF for a landing in SKC conditions because the TAF has just been amended to include BKN cloud starting in 25 mins time 900ft above the landing minima but 100ft below the alternate minima!!
I think the 'spirit of the law' interpretation would certainly mirror the NZ law. I am sure CASA would have at least mentioned (in any of the AIP, CAAPs, CAOs, or CARs) en-route changes to TAFs and subsequent requirements if that was not the case.
Another prime example of how poorly written the Australian rules are. It seems with every law related question there is a near 50/50 split on the interpretation of the rule, and that is amongst the few pilots that can find the rule to offer their interpretation!!
If the TAF was changed en-route to BKN below the alternate minima, but well above the landing minima and with a METAR indicating good conditions also, then I've gotta say I would carry on, in most circumstances.
I can just imagine someone declaring a PAN PAN (or even diverting as some have suggested!!) just beyond the IAF for a landing in SKC conditions because the TAF has just been amended to include BKN cloud starting in 25 mins time 900ft above the landing minima but 100ft below the alternate minima!!
I think the 'spirit of the law' interpretation would certainly mirror the NZ law. I am sure CASA would have at least mentioned (in any of the AIP, CAAPs, CAOs, or CARs) en-route changes to TAFs and subsequent requirements if that was not the case.