Senario - do we need an alternate?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole "in the spirit of the law" argument is mute. The law says (see my post 59) you must make provision for flight to an alternate aerodrome, when required, in accordance with the following paragraphs.....cloud, vis yadda yadda.
glekichi
"In most circumstances" isn't the LAW. What you would do and what the Aus law requires (as written in AIP) are clearly 2 very different things.
I dont think there is a pilot out there who is talking to centre looking for the latest TAF/TTF as they are going through the IAF. If so, god help us all......
glekichi
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.
just beyond the IAF for a landing
What the???
gleckhici
Why the head bashing when people are following the LAW!!!??
This thing called 'forecasting' is not an EXACT science, that is why you need to hold an ALT when the Wx is at or below the ALT minimas. It gives a BUFFER, it protects you and your passengers from the possibility of not having enough fuel to land if the Wx is actually worse.
Why do people try to find ways around the law?? That is why we need to regulate these things so we can protect ourselves from ourselves!
Just hold the fuel or 'get some more' by whatever means you need to. SIMPLE
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!!
This thing called 'forecasting' is not an EXACT science, that is why you need to hold an ALT when the Wx is at or below the ALT minimas. It gives a BUFFER, it protects you and your passengers from the possibility of not having enough fuel to land if the Wx is actually worse.
Why do people try to find ways around the law?? That is why we need to regulate these things so we can protect ourselves from ourselves!
Just hold the fuel or 'get some more' by whatever means you need to. SIMPLE
What I am suggesting is that perhaps the interpretation isn't as clear cut as you might think. The number of different interpretations in this forum supports this.
I still believe there is a high likelihood that the rule was written (poorly) with planning requirements in mind.
This is NOT an attempt to 'find ways around the law', it is an attempt to think about it in a practical manner to understand what the lawmakers are aiming to achieve.
Pilots might not be getting the forecast once within sight of the field (but might overhear it being broadcast on centre), but whether they have heard it or not is irrelevant, under your interpretation of the rules, is it not? So the guy 30 miles out on a visual approach is now breaching the rules because an amended TAF has been issued?
What is wrong with a pilot using his judgement based on ALL information at hand, which includes the METAR, and a first hand assessment of the risk associated with the TAF?
One other point (not claiming its conclusive) is the CAR definition of an alternate: "alternate aerodrome means an aerodrome specified in the flight plan".
I still believe there is a high likelihood that the rule was written (poorly) with planning requirements in mind.
This is NOT an attempt to 'find ways around the law', it is an attempt to think about it in a practical manner to understand what the lawmakers are aiming to achieve.
Pilots might not be getting the forecast once within sight of the field (but might overhear it being broadcast on centre), but whether they have heard it or not is irrelevant, under your interpretation of the rules, is it not? So the guy 30 miles out on a visual approach is now breaching the rules because an amended TAF has been issued?
What is wrong with a pilot using his judgement based on ALL information at hand, which includes the METAR, and a first hand assessment of the risk associated with the TAF?
One other point (not claiming its conclusive) is the CAR definition of an alternate: "alternate aerodrome means an aerodrome specified in the flight plan".
I still believe there is a high likelihood that the rule was written (poorly) with planning requirements in mind
Has anyone here actually passed the IREX exam!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is NOT an attempt to 'find ways around the law', it is an attempt to think about it in a practical manner to understand what the lawmakers are aiming to achieve.
One other point (not claiming its conclusive) is the CAR definition of an alternate: "alternate aerodrome means an aerodrome specified in the flight plan".
Gundog,
I still think the word 'provision' is not specific enough to imply that it must be replanned in flight.
Have you looked at the CAR from which the AIP quote has been taken?
The title of the rule is 'planning' of flight. The wording of the rule is such that part 2 quite clearly follows on from part 1.
Part 1 - Before the flight, check weather
Part 2 - If the weather that you have checked is below alt minima, provide an alt.
I still think the word 'provision' is not specific enough to imply that it must be replanned in flight.
Have you looked at the CAR from which the AIP quote has been taken?
The title of the rule is 'planning' of flight. The wording of the rule is such that part 2 quite clearly follows on from part 1.
Part 1 - Before the flight, check weather
Part 2 - If the weather that you have checked is below alt minima, provide an alt.
239 Planning of flight by pilot in command
(1) Before beginning a flight, the pilot in command shall study all available
information appropriate to the intended operation, and, in the cases of
flights away from the vicinity of an aerodrome and all I.F.R. flights,
shall make a careful study of:
(a) current weather reports and forecasts for the route to be followed
and at aerodromes to be used;
(b) the airways facilities available on the route to be followed and the
condition of those facilities;
(c) the condition of aerodromes to be used and their suitability for
the aircraft to be used; and
(d) the air traffic control rules and procedures appertaining to the
particular flight;
and the pilot shall plan the flight in relation to the information obtained.
(2) When meteorological conditions at the aerodromes of intended
landing are forecast to be less than the minima specified by CASA, the
pilot in command shall make provision for an alternative course of
action and shall arrange for the aircraft to carry the necessary
additional fuel.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(1) Before beginning a flight, the pilot in command shall study all available
information appropriate to the intended operation, and, in the cases of
flights away from the vicinity of an aerodrome and all I.F.R. flights,
shall make a careful study of:
(a) current weather reports and forecasts for the route to be followed
and at aerodromes to be used;
(b) the airways facilities available on the route to be followed and the
condition of those facilities;
(c) the condition of aerodromes to be used and their suitability for
the aircraft to be used; and
(d) the air traffic control rules and procedures appertaining to the
particular flight;
and the pilot shall plan the flight in relation to the information obtained.
(2) When meteorological conditions at the aerodromes of intended
landing are forecast to be less than the minima specified by CASA, the
pilot in command shall make provision for an alternative course of
action and shall arrange for the aircraft to carry the necessary
additional fuel.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think the word 'provision' is not specific enough to imply that it must be replanned in flight.
From an Oxford Dictionary. Provision: providing for the immediate occasion only, of a stop gap kind, temporary, subject to revision.
Again the law as according to AIP (using myknowledge of the English language) is quite specific inusing the word provision.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe its time for CASA to spell it out once and for all
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is for all those so called professional pilots that doubt my professionalism
257 Aerodrome meteorological minima
(1) CASA may, in respect of an aircraft operation, determine the
meteorological minima for the landing or taking-off of an aircraft at an
aerodrome.
(2) A determination under subregulation (1) must be published in AIP or
NOTAMS.
(3) If an element of the meteorological minima for the take-off of an
aircraft at an aerodrome is less than that determined for the aircraft
operation at the aerodrome, the aircraft must not take-off from that
aerodrome.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(4) If an element of the meteorological minima for the landing of an
aircraft at an aerodrome is less than that determined for the aircraft
operation at the aerodrome, the aircraft must not land at that
aerodrome.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(4A) An offence against subregulation (3) or (4) is an offence of strict
liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code
(5) Subregulation (4) does not apply if an emergency arises that, in the
interests of safety, makes it necessary for an aircraft to land at an
aerodrome where the meteorological minima is less than that
determined for that aircraft operation at that aerodrome.
(6) This regulation does not prevent a pilot from:
(a) making an approach for the purpose of landing at an aerodrome;
or
(b) continuing to fly towards an aerodrome of intended landing
specified in the flight plan;
if the pilot believes, on reasonable grounds, that the meteorological
minima determined for that aerodrome will be at, or above, the
meteorological minima determined for the aerodrome at the time of
arrival at that aerodrome.
257 Aerodrome meteorological minima
(1) CASA may, in respect of an aircraft operation, determine the
meteorological minima for the landing or taking-off of an aircraft at an
aerodrome.
(2) A determination under subregulation (1) must be published in AIP or
NOTAMS.
(3) If an element of the meteorological minima for the take-off of an
aircraft at an aerodrome is less than that determined for the aircraft
operation at the aerodrome, the aircraft must not take-off from that
aerodrome.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(4) If an element of the meteorological minima for the landing of an
aircraft at an aerodrome is less than that determined for the aircraft
operation at the aerodrome, the aircraft must not land at that
aerodrome.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(4A) An offence against subregulation (3) or (4) is an offence of strict
liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code
(5) Subregulation (4) does not apply if an emergency arises that, in the
interests of safety, makes it necessary for an aircraft to land at an
aerodrome where the meteorological minima is less than that
determined for that aircraft operation at that aerodrome.
(6) This regulation does not prevent a pilot from:
(a) making an approach for the purpose of landing at an aerodrome;
or
(b) continuing to fly towards an aerodrome of intended landing
specified in the flight plan;
if the pilot believes, on reasonable grounds, that the meteorological
minima determined for that aerodrome will be at, or above, the
meteorological minima determined for the aerodrome at the time of
arrival at that aerodrome.
Who Cares,
all that regulation says is that the in the case of point (4) where there is an element of the meteorological minima below that required for landing (ldg Minima, not alternate minima); you can continue to the airport if you believe on reasonable grounds that the weather will be above landing minima (not alternate minima) at the time of arrival.
The regulation is only talking about landing and takeoff minima, its got nothing to do with holding fuel or alternate requirements - they are separate requirements that must still be met.
all that regulation says is that the in the case of point (4) where there is an element of the meteorological minima below that required for landing (ldg Minima, not alternate minima); you can continue to the airport if you believe on reasonable grounds that the weather will be above landing minima (not alternate minima) at the time of arrival.
The regulation is only talking about landing and takeoff minima, its got nothing to do with holding fuel or alternate requirements - they are separate requirements that must still be met.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the pilot believes, on reasonable grounds
Agree with ftrplt that the reg only relates to landing minima not alt min.
Gundog01,
I can't believe that is the basis of your argument either.
The word "provision" is used for the alternate because you probably aren't going there. You don't plan (intend) to go to an alternate, you provide for it (fuel and other preparations), because it is a backup.
Look again at the extract I have provided from the CAR, which, once again, is the origin of your AIP quote, in its full expanded form. The first sentence starts with, "Before beginning a flight,".
Some of us can admit that the rule is poorly written and understand why others might have a different opinion on the answer, but why is it those that share your opinion that are making all the childish comments and insults about the professionalism of those that don't agree, or even just those that suggest it is a little grey?
I can't believe that is the basis of your argument either.
The word "provision" is used for the alternate because you probably aren't going there. You don't plan (intend) to go to an alternate, you provide for it (fuel and other preparations), because it is a backup.
Look again at the extract I have provided from the CAR, which, once again, is the origin of your AIP quote, in its full expanded form. The first sentence starts with, "Before beginning a flight,".
Some of us can admit that the rule is poorly written and understand why others might have a different opinion on the answer, but why is it those that share your opinion that are making all the childish comments and insults about the professionalism of those that don't agree, or even just those that suggest it is a little grey?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to me, it is a purely a question of semantics.
IF you do not have an alternate, and it was NOT required at the flight planning stage, then you do not have an alternate!
IF.... the wx falls below alternate minima, but still above landing minima, then it is OK to continue.(REF: have a look at ther airport page on Jepps... it says "Alternate, for filing")
IF the wx is now below lnading minima, AND you have no fuel on board to divert, then you don't have too many options.. do you?
IF the wx is below the landing minima and you DO have fuel to divert somewhere, then.... it is up to you!
As to why aircraft end up all over the east coast when the wx turns to custard... well, that is because they DID divert because the airport was unsuitable... not just because the wx guesstimate told them to go and get moer fuel... just in case.
Of course, the other option is that is the hazard report is only for inter/tempo, and you DO have fuel to HOLD, then you do not need an alternate.
IF you do not have an alternate, and it was NOT required at the flight planning stage, then you do not have an alternate!
IF.... the wx falls below alternate minima, but still above landing minima, then it is OK to continue.(REF: have a look at ther airport page on Jepps... it says "Alternate, for filing")
IF the wx is now below lnading minima, AND you have no fuel on board to divert, then you don't have too many options.. do you?
IF the wx is below the landing minima and you DO have fuel to divert somewhere, then.... it is up to you!
As to why aircraft end up all over the east coast when the wx turns to custard... well, that is because they DID divert because the airport was unsuitable... not just because the wx guesstimate told them to go and get moer fuel... just in case.
Of course, the other option is that is the hazard report is only for inter/tempo, and you DO have fuel to HOLD, then you do not need an alternate.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glekichi
Just to make sure i know where you stand, if you got a forecast airborne that brought on an operatonal requirement, INTER, TEMPO or below Alt min, you would not carry the extra fuel that this new forecast requires because you are airborne not 'pre-flight planning'.
I would assume that it is because we are concerned that people may do what i mentioned above. And i would be very concerned that tehre may be professional pilots flying me or my family or anyone around under false assumptions about the rules.
There is nothing wrong with using your judegment until something goes wrong and the lawyers grill you because you (the PIC) didn't follow the law. Do you think airborne with the pressure to get the job done is the best time to be doing a risk assessment on a TAF? Who actually questions what a TAF says anyway?
I think the thread knows where i stand and as such this will be my last post. But i will be watching.
Gundog01 out.
Just to make sure i know where you stand, if you got a forecast airborne that brought on an operatonal requirement, INTER, TEMPO or below Alt min, you would not carry the extra fuel that this new forecast requires because you are airborne not 'pre-flight planning'.
but why is it those that share your opinion that are making all the childish comments and insults about the professionalism of those that don't agree
What is wrong with a pilot using his judgement based on ALL information at hand, which includes the METAR, and a first hand assessment of the risk associated with the TAF?
I think the thread knows where i stand and as such this will be my last post. But i will be watching.
Gundog01 out.
Gundog,
Fair enough. As you know, I don't believe it is the law to divert and get fuel.
Thus, I would assess the situation for myself and decide on the safest and most practical course of action.
For example, if I was only 30 mins away from destination, the amended TAF included only BKN cloud slightly below the alternate minima but still well above the landing minima, and the option was to fly 90 mins over water at night to get fuel from an aerodrome I have never been to before, so that I can fly another 90 mins back over the water to get to my destination 2hrs late in the worsening weather, then, yes, I would continue the 30 mins to the destination.
At the slightest hint that the ceiling, vis, etc. was at risk of dropping below LANDING minima, then I'd be diverting for fuel if I didn't already have it on board. When weight is not an issue I tend to take an extra 30-60 mins fuel to cater for scenarios like this.
It would alarm me, in fact, that some would be so tied up in their (misinterpreted) rules to make such a decision, adding incredible risk to the flight to avoid the alternate minima by 100ft, especially when under your interpretation of the rule, they may be ignoring a METAR that still shows no cloud at all, or, even worse, may even have the airport in sight and still divert!
My real argument is only with the legal interpretation of the rule. Airmanship then decides the course of action. I'm sure in MOST circumstances we would both take the same course of action.
Fair enough. As you know, I don't believe it is the law to divert and get fuel.
Thus, I would assess the situation for myself and decide on the safest and most practical course of action.
For example, if I was only 30 mins away from destination, the amended TAF included only BKN cloud slightly below the alternate minima but still well above the landing minima, and the option was to fly 90 mins over water at night to get fuel from an aerodrome I have never been to before, so that I can fly another 90 mins back over the water to get to my destination 2hrs late in the worsening weather, then, yes, I would continue the 30 mins to the destination.
At the slightest hint that the ceiling, vis, etc. was at risk of dropping below LANDING minima, then I'd be diverting for fuel if I didn't already have it on board. When weight is not an issue I tend to take an extra 30-60 mins fuel to cater for scenarios like this.
It would alarm me, in fact, that some would be so tied up in their (misinterpreted) rules to make such a decision, adding incredible risk to the flight to avoid the alternate minima by 100ft, especially when under your interpretation of the rule, they may be ignoring a METAR that still shows no cloud at all, or, even worse, may even have the airport in sight and still divert!
My real argument is only with the legal interpretation of the rule. Airmanship then decides the course of action. I'm sure in MOST circumstances we would both take the same course of action.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes exactly in NZ it is quite easy.....
So I go from AKL to WLG and half way there a new report for 5k and BKN 900' comes out and a corresponding new amended TAF to reflect this I do not have to declare a PAN PAN and continue and file some paperwork. Because at the time of filing I was meeting my regulatory requirements. Now if I did not have much extra gas on board I would be looking at some places along the way but I would not divert there unless there were other aircraft going missed at WLG.
Take each situation as a separate one and you will come up with a different set of results every time
91.405 IFR alternate aerodrome requirement
(a) A pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating under IFR must list at
least one alternate aerodrome in the flight plan unless—
(1) the aerodrome of intended landing has a standard instrument
approach procedure published in the applicable AIP; and
(2) at the time of submitting the flight plan, the meteorological
forecasts indicate, for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the
estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome of intended landing,
that—
(i) the ceiling at the aerodrome will be at least 1000 feet
above the minima published in the applicable AIP for the
instrument procedure likely to be used; and
(ii) visibility will be at least 5 km, or 2 km more than the
minima published in the applicable AIP, whichever is the
greater.
(a) A pilot-in-command of an aircraft operating under IFR must list at
least one alternate aerodrome in the flight plan unless—
(1) the aerodrome of intended landing has a standard instrument
approach procedure published in the applicable AIP; and
(2) at the time of submitting the flight plan, the meteorological
forecasts indicate, for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the
estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome of intended landing,
that—
(i) the ceiling at the aerodrome will be at least 1000 feet
above the minima published in the applicable AIP for the
instrument procedure likely to be used; and
(ii) visibility will be at least 5 km, or 2 km more than the
minima published in the applicable AIP, whichever is the
greater.
Take each situation as a separate one and you will come up with a different set of results every time
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stralia
Age: 74
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for a CASA ruling on this issue!
I've got a mate at CASA (no really, there are some CASA people that have friends too!) and I shall Email him a link to this thread and ask him for his interpretation on the question in hand, and if he is unable - to pass it on to the legal eagles in Canberra for their ruling. This thread has been viewed thousands of times by professional pilots (and yes, I consider pilots on BOTH sides of this debate to be equally professional, ehemm mayby some more equal than others
) and opinions are diametrically opposed. Can we at least for now, agree that the regulations on this issue are nebulous and clumsily written, as evidenced by the differing interpretations. Will report back after I've heard back from my CASA mate.
) and opinions are diametrically opposed. Can we at least for now, agree that the regulations on this issue are nebulous and clumsily written, as evidenced by the differing interpretations. Will report back after I've heard back from my CASA mate.
Last edited by Izdat Raton-Jourtail; 2nd Feb 2009 at 06:44. Reason: Spelliing
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how much is that gonna cost ya? and do we have to wait six weeks for an answer that just says, sorry, we lost your request. please pay another$xxx and re submit the question.