Senario - do we need an alternate?
In response to the original question, an alternate is required for B, as the weather at the arrival time is now below alternate minima, and a Hazard Alert is broadcast to assist aircraft to avoid hazardous weather situations (ERSA GEN). It is current until the updated TTF or TAF is issued.
3.4.3 The TTF supersedes the TAF for its validity period and is the
current forecast for pilots of aircraft whose arrival time falls within
the validity period.
The TTF supersedes the TAF. If you have updated weather for your arrival, you have to use it (as described in the ATSB recommendations below).
73.2.10 TTF may have either one visibility or two visibilities included in the
report. Operational requirements will apply when:
a. the sole visibility is less than the alternate minimum, or
b. the higher visibility is less than the alternate minimum.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.
So, a requirement exists (ie an alternate or holding) when visibility is less than the ALTERNATE MINIMA (not the landing minima as some have suggested!)
2.4 In-flight Information
2.4.1 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. The service consists of three elements:
a. ATC Initiated FIS;
b. Automatic Broadcast Services; and
c. an On−Request Service.
As you can see it is the responsibility of pilots to obtain information inflight to decide whether to continue or divert.
Operational information, such as meteorological forecasts and the status of airfields and navigation aids, is critical to flight safety. Knowledge of this information is the basis for many operational decisions made by flight crews, such as whether to continue the flight to the planned destination or to divert to another airfield. Operational information obtained prior to a flight should be updated in flight, where necessary, so that decisions are based on the most current information.
The changes explained in this document have meant that flight crews must be more diligent in obtaining their in-flight information. Instead of being routinely provided with updated weather and NOTAM information by an operational control service, the flight crews themselves must now actively seek this information from Flightwatch. Flight crews who have been slow to adapt to these changes may not have received crucial in-flight information.
Some flight crews trained under the previous system could be labouring under the misapprehension that updated operational information is still automatically passed to them. On those occasions when information has not been automatically passed to a flight crew, it may have been perceived as a failure by ATS to provide an in-flight update of operational information, or that the information was not available.
Shortcomings in flight crews' knowledge of procedures for updating in-flight information may need to be reviewed and addressed through company training and checking programs.
(ATSB SAN19980092)
Finally, a real world example from the ATSB of how if weather deteriorates in flight below the alternate minima then you require an alternate. Note that even though the weather is above the landing minima, it still generated a report because the destination and alternate weather had deteriorated below the alternate minima in flight.
200104228 SA227-DC Metroliner
When about 60 NM inbound to Adelaide, at about 1830 CST, the pilot of the Metroliner was advised by ATS of hazardous weather conditions at the destination airport. The pilot requested current weather conditions for the planned alternate aiports and was advised of the weather by ATS. The actual conditions indicated that those planned alternate airports now had alternate requirements, hence were not suitable for a diversion. The pilot declared a PAN* phase due to insufficient fuel for a suitable alternate.
The pilot was cleared by ATS to conduct an ILS approach, and landed the aircraft safely on runway 23.
* PAN is an urgency phase that is normally broadcast by radio.
ATSB Summary
Following an unforecast weather deterioration at the destination, the aircraft subsequently landed in weather above the destination landing minima.
I hope that everyone now appreciates that, if the weather changes inflight to below the alternate minima, they either need to divert, or have enough fuel for holding or an alternate, and that they are reponsible for getting updated forecasts.
3.4.3 The TTF supersedes the TAF for its validity period and is the
current forecast for pilots of aircraft whose arrival time falls within
the validity period.
The TTF supersedes the TAF. If you have updated weather for your arrival, you have to use it (as described in the ATSB recommendations below).
73.2.10 TTF may have either one visibility or two visibilities included in the
report. Operational requirements will apply when:
a. the sole visibility is less than the alternate minimum, or
b. the higher visibility is less than the alternate minimum.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.
So, a requirement exists (ie an alternate or holding) when visibility is less than the ALTERNATE MINIMA (not the landing minima as some have suggested!)
2.4 In-flight Information
2.4.1 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. The service consists of three elements:
a. ATC Initiated FIS;
b. Automatic Broadcast Services; and
c. an On−Request Service.
As you can see it is the responsibility of pilots to obtain information inflight to decide whether to continue or divert.
Operational information, such as meteorological forecasts and the status of airfields and navigation aids, is critical to flight safety. Knowledge of this information is the basis for many operational decisions made by flight crews, such as whether to continue the flight to the planned destination or to divert to another airfield. Operational information obtained prior to a flight should be updated in flight, where necessary, so that decisions are based on the most current information.
The changes explained in this document have meant that flight crews must be more diligent in obtaining their in-flight information. Instead of being routinely provided with updated weather and NOTAM information by an operational control service, the flight crews themselves must now actively seek this information from Flightwatch. Flight crews who have been slow to adapt to these changes may not have received crucial in-flight information.
Some flight crews trained under the previous system could be labouring under the misapprehension that updated operational information is still automatically passed to them. On those occasions when information has not been automatically passed to a flight crew, it may have been perceived as a failure by ATS to provide an in-flight update of operational information, or that the information was not available.
Shortcomings in flight crews' knowledge of procedures for updating in-flight information may need to be reviewed and addressed through company training and checking programs.
(ATSB SAN19980092)
Finally, a real world example from the ATSB of how if weather deteriorates in flight below the alternate minima then you require an alternate. Note that even though the weather is above the landing minima, it still generated a report because the destination and alternate weather had deteriorated below the alternate minima in flight.
200104228 SA227-DC Metroliner
When about 60 NM inbound to Adelaide, at about 1830 CST, the pilot of the Metroliner was advised by ATS of hazardous weather conditions at the destination airport. The pilot requested current weather conditions for the planned alternate aiports and was advised of the weather by ATS. The actual conditions indicated that those planned alternate airports now had alternate requirements, hence were not suitable for a diversion. The pilot declared a PAN* phase due to insufficient fuel for a suitable alternate.
The pilot was cleared by ATS to conduct an ILS approach, and landed the aircraft safely on runway 23.
* PAN is an urgency phase that is normally broadcast by radio.
ATSB Summary
Following an unforecast weather deterioration at the destination, the aircraft subsequently landed in weather above the destination landing minima.
I hope that everyone now appreciates that, if the weather changes inflight to below the alternate minima, they either need to divert, or have enough fuel for holding or an alternate, and that they are reponsible for getting updated forecasts.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grundog01
Dunno about you, I use a Taf for accessing weather, then when I am within 1200nm the TTF will cover me for my arrival.
Im no lawyer but pretty sure you can only be proscuted for breaking a Regulation, Im happy to stand corrected though if that isnt the case.
So if someone can find the Reg, to show your breaking one by not providing an alternate once your airborne ill be a believer then
Dunno about you, I use a Taf for accessing weather, then when I am within 1200nm the TTF will cover me for my arrival.
Im no lawyer but pretty sure you can only be proscuted for breaking a Regulation, Im happy to stand corrected though if that isnt the case.
So if someone can find the Reg, to show your breaking one by not providing an alternate once your airborne ill be a believer then
Sprite,
It was established much earlier in the thread that it is one's duty to obtain up to date weather information throughout the flight to aid in ones decision making. The ATSB recommendations only indicate that pilots now need to get the weather themselves, as opposed to having it given to them as was the case in the past. But that, however, is not at all what we are debating here.
You have not provided any new information there to support your claim that an alternate is legally required should minima fall below the alt. minima during the flight. The quote given from 73.2.10 is a clarification of how the visibility should be applied when two visibilities are given. If you read 73.2.9, once again the evidence suggests that the AIP is refering to the planning stage of the flight.
The ATSB report is simply a report of what happened, because a PAN call was made. It does not in any way indicate that what the pilot chose was required.
No-one here would criticise the pilot of that flight, or anyone else, for declaring a PAN if they genuinely think that the safety of the flight has been compromised.
There seems to be a very large percentage of pilots in Australia that overcomplicate every rule that they read, and always assume the law to be more restrictive than it actually is. You can't argue with these people, because if you do, you're some sort of irresponsible cowboy.
I'm going to take a leaf out of Gundog's book and retire from this thread, as its been going around in circles for quite some time now. I have provided a couple of strong quotes to support my case (in particular, the CAR1988 reference), and am yet to see any solid evidence to the contrary.
From the CAR:
All regulations on alternates are contained within this section.
I look forward to hearing from Izdat on the CASA take on this.
It was established much earlier in the thread that it is one's duty to obtain up to date weather information throughout the flight to aid in ones decision making. The ATSB recommendations only indicate that pilots now need to get the weather themselves, as opposed to having it given to them as was the case in the past. But that, however, is not at all what we are debating here.
You have not provided any new information there to support your claim that an alternate is legally required should minima fall below the alt. minima during the flight. The quote given from 73.2.10 is a clarification of how the visibility should be applied when two visibilities are given. If you read 73.2.9, once again the evidence suggests that the AIP is refering to the planning stage of the flight.
73.2.9 Due to the continuous weather watch provided by TTF, the 30 minute
buffers required by paragraphs 73.2.7 and 73.2.8 do not apply.
Flights which will be completed within the time of validity of the TTF
may be planned wholly with reference to the destination TTF.
buffers required by paragraphs 73.2.7 and 73.2.8 do not apply.
Flights which will be completed within the time of validity of the TTF
may be planned wholly with reference to the destination TTF.
No-one here would criticise the pilot of that flight, or anyone else, for declaring a PAN if they genuinely think that the safety of the flight has been compromised.
There seems to be a very large percentage of pilots in Australia that overcomplicate every rule that they read, and always assume the law to be more restrictive than it actually is. You can't argue with these people, because if you do, you're some sort of irresponsible cowboy.
I'm going to take a leaf out of Gundog's book and retire from this thread, as its been going around in circles for quite some time now. I have provided a couple of strong quotes to support my case (in particular, the CAR1988 reference), and am yet to see any solid evidence to the contrary.
From the CAR:
239 Planning of flight by pilot in command
(1) Before beginning a flight,...
(1) Before beginning a flight,...
I look forward to hearing from Izdat on the CASA take on this.
AIP GEN 73.2.1
Except when operating an aircraft under the VFR by day within 50NM of the point of departure, the pilot in command must provide for a suitable alternate aerodrome when arrival at the destination will be during the currency of, or up to 30 minutes prior to the forecast commencement of, the following weather conditions: blah, blah, blah
Except when operating an aircraft under the VFR by day within 50NM of the point of departure, the pilot in command must provide for a suitable alternate aerodrome when arrival at the destination will be during the currency of, or up to 30 minutes prior to the forecast commencement of, the following weather conditions: blah, blah, blah
Understandably, if before you departed there was no weather forecast below the alternate minima you probably won't have the fuel to carry an alternate from your destination if the weather does deteriorate. If this does happen you will probably have only two options:
A) Divert to an enroute alternate, before reaching your destination to uplift additional fuel
or
B) if there are no suitable airports within range, declare a Pan-Pan and continue to your destination.
Of course, if you can hold, hold.
With the mob I work for, on sectors in excess of 1000nm we nominate a point between two airports. If after we have passed this point the weather at our destination falls below the alternate criteria and we have no other options available it's accepted that we may continue. Before this point, however, if there are no other options available to us (eg holding) we must divert.
My understanding of the AIP is that this is pretty more or less the concept that everyone should be adhereing to.
For those of you in the know or curious about that policy, I acknowledge that yes, our policy is a little more involved and flexible than I've just stated but I've kept it simple, for argument's sake.
The pilot in command of an aeroplane must:
(a) in the course of his or her preflight planning; and
(b) while en route;
take into account the alternate weather minima published by the Authority in
AIP-DAP applying at the destination aerodrome when determining:
(c) the amount of fuel required to conduct the operation; and
(d) whether or not an alternate aerodrome is required for the operation;
Civil Aviation Amendment Order no2 2002
(a) in the course of his or her preflight planning; and
(b) while en route;
take into account the alternate weather minima published by the Authority in
AIP-DAP applying at the destination aerodrome when determining:
(c) the amount of fuel required to conduct the operation; and
(d) whether or not an alternate aerodrome is required for the operation;
Civil Aviation Amendment Order no2 2002
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stralia
Age: 74
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'll be damned....
So, there it was
http://agencysearch.australia.gov.au...ction=agencies
- buried as an amendment in the mishmash of regulations and orders that is slowly choking the industry.
One could hardly ask for clearer demonstration as to why this country needs a regulation reform.....
Thank you though, for bringing it up and changing my perception of the legality of fuel planning in this country.
http://agencysearch.australia.gov.au...ction=agencies
- buried as an amendment in the mishmash of regulations and orders that is slowly choking the industry.
One could hardly ask for clearer demonstration as to why this country needs a regulation reform.....
Thank you though, for bringing it up and changing my perception of the legality of fuel planning in this country.
Last edited by Izdat Raton-Jourtail; 3rd Feb 2009 at 05:47. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so fast ...
That amendment is an old one from 2002. It dealt with CAO 82.0 (which, incidentally, does not apply to all flight ops in Australia), and there have been several more amendments since then.
That text is not in the current version of CAO 82.0
That amendment is an old one from 2002. It dealt with CAO 82.0 (which, incidentally, does not apply to all flight ops in Australia), and there have been several more amendments since then.
That text is not in the current version of CAO 82.0
Last edited by Unhinged; 3rd Feb 2009 at 10:04. Reason: clarity
Ok, I'm back.
Just cant help myself
As pointed out, Sprite's latest link was to an out of date document that is also out of context.
I have a new link to back up our side of the argument.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/.../B20040246.pdf
See chapter 7.
The ATSB is pretty damned clear on their interpretation.
Just cant help myself
As pointed out, Sprite's latest link was to an out of date document that is also out of context.
I have a new link to back up our side of the argument.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/.../B20040246.pdf
See chapter 7.
The requirements for weather-based decisions on the carriage of extra fuel to fly from the destination to an alternate described earlier are only applicable for pre-flight planning purposes. Once an aircraft is flying, the rules for carrying fuel to meet weather-related alternate diversion requirements do not apply, as it is not normally possible to refuel in flight. Allowances for this risk exist in conservative rules that provide a margin at the planning stage to provide for some inaccuracy in a weather forecast. This risk may be further mitigated if a pilot monitors a destination’s weather information while en-route, and elects to divert in flight to another aerodrome if the destination’s weather deteriorates.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm baaack. Couldn't help myself either glekichi.
CAAP 234-1(1): Guidelines for Aircraft Fuel Requirements
6.1 Subject to subsection 6.2, where it has been determined
that an alternate aerodrome to the destination aerodrome is
required, then the amount of fuel on board an aircraft at any
particular point in the flight should be an amount that is
sufficient:
(a) to enable the aircraft
(i) to fly from that point to a height of 1 500 feet
above the destination aerodrome; and
(ii) to make an approach to that aerodrome; and
(iii) to make a missed approach to that aerodrome;
and
(iv) to fly to the alternate aerodrome; and
(v) to make an approach to that alternate
aerodrome; and
(vi) to land at that alternate aerodrome; and
(b) to enable the aircraft to continue to fly at a cruising
speed for a specified percentage of the time that it
would take to fly in accordance with paragraph (a),
being the percentage specified in Table 1 of this
CAAP for that category and class of aircraft; and
(c) to provide for contingencies of the kind described in
section 8; and
(d) to provide holding fuel to take account of any traffic
delays of the kind mentioned in paragraph 4 (c); and
(e) to provide the fixed fuel reserve that is specified in
Table 2 of this CAAP.
that an alternate aerodrome to the destination aerodrome is
required, then the amount of fuel on board an aircraft at any
particular point in the flight should be an amount that is
sufficient:
(a) to enable the aircraft
(i) to fly from that point to a height of 1 500 feet
above the destination aerodrome; and
(ii) to make an approach to that aerodrome; and
(iii) to make a missed approach to that aerodrome;
and
(iv) to fly to the alternate aerodrome; and
(v) to make an approach to that alternate
aerodrome; and
(vi) to land at that alternate aerodrome; and
(b) to enable the aircraft to continue to fly at a cruising
speed for a specified percentage of the time that it
would take to fly in accordance with paragraph (a),
being the percentage specified in Table 1 of this
CAAP for that category and class of aircraft; and
(c) to provide for contingencies of the kind described in
section 8; and
(d) to provide holding fuel to take account of any traffic
delays of the kind mentioned in paragraph 4 (c); and
(e) to provide the fixed fuel reserve that is specified in
Table 2 of this CAAP.
Happy to be proven right/wrong as aviation is all about learning.
Edit
Fair enough unhinged.
Last edited by Gundog01; 3rd Feb 2009 at 21:36.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"this CAAP (which is legislation)"
CAAPs are not legislation, do not have to be complied with, and do not provide the only method of compliance.
CAAPs are not legislation, do not have to be complied with, and do not provide the only method of compliance.
The whole basis of an Alternate Minima verses the Landing Minima is to give us some options when the weather deteriorates at destination, ie. you'll have fuel to go somewhere else or hold.
Despite the ongoing debate and different interpretations of the law, what surprises me is the attitude of some (so called professional pilots), that continuing on into a situation of reported deteriorating weather, based on the assumption that it's above landing minima, we'll get in, is somewhat concerning!
Despite the ongoing debate and different interpretations of the law, what surprises me is the attitude of some (so called professional pilots), that continuing on into a situation of reported deteriorating weather, based on the assumption that it's above landing minima, we'll get in, is somewhat concerning!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stralya
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Fathom (and others - you know who you are
)- please do us all the courtesy and get off your high horse by questioning "the professionalism" of any view holder with an opinion contrary to your own. This discussion is NOT about your airmanship or decision making ability. I have not seen any contributor on this thread arguing that one should be
"continuing on into a situation of reported deteriorating weather, based on the assumption that it's above landing minima, we'll get in, is somewhat concerning!"
In fact, it is not "reported" weather information that are being debated here (that would be a METAR or ATIS), but rather the forecast that is at issue (TAF or TTF).
The rules and regulations on this issue in Australia has been pretty thoroughly demonstrated elsewhere on this thread to be highly nebulous and we wouldn't even be having this discussion in most other ICAO countries, where ALL IFR flight plans must have a valid alternate airport at any time while en route from A to B, regardless of weather conditions.
The reason for Australia's difference from ICAO convention is obviously due to our largely benign weather, combined with the vast distances between some airports where, say making a flight in to Alice Springs or Warburton from the coast under the IFR would be impossible for many aircraft types, if the requirement for an Alternate was vigorously enforced in good weather conditions.
Let us at least do each other the courtesy of respecting the opposing view until and if this issue ever gets properly settled.
)- please do us all the courtesy and get off your high horse by questioning "the professionalism" of any view holder with an opinion contrary to your own. This discussion is NOT about your airmanship or decision making ability. I have not seen any contributor on this thread arguing that one should be "continuing on into a situation of reported deteriorating weather, based on the assumption that it's above landing minima, we'll get in, is somewhat concerning!"
In fact, it is not "reported" weather information that are being debated here (that would be a METAR or ATIS), but rather the forecast that is at issue (TAF or TTF).
The rules and regulations on this issue in Australia has been pretty thoroughly demonstrated elsewhere on this thread to be highly nebulous and we wouldn't even be having this discussion in most other ICAO countries, where ALL IFR flight plans must have a valid alternate airport at any time while en route from A to B, regardless of weather conditions.
The reason for Australia's difference from ICAO convention is obviously due to our largely benign weather, combined with the vast distances between some airports where, say making a flight in to Alice Springs or Warburton from the coast under the IFR would be impossible for many aircraft types, if the requirement for an Alternate was vigorously enforced in good weather conditions.
Let us at least do each other the courtesy of respecting the opposing view until and if this issue ever gets properly settled.
Last edited by Red Jet; 4th Feb 2009 at 03:24. Reason: Spelling
Welcome back Gundog01! Haha.
This is not telling you how or when to determine if an alternate is required.
All it does is highlight and reemphasise that, even if your alternate is closer than your destination, you need to have fuel to make it past the alternate and back again, and still have your fixed + variable reserves etc. in place.
Anyway, I'm glad you liked the NTSB link
Capt. Fathom,
No-one is suggesting this at all.
We are saying that the law allows us a degree of freedom to THINK about the situation.
How far below the alternate minima is the forecast?
How far above the landing minima is the forecast?
What does the METAR say now?
How quickly are the conditions deteriorating (or improving)?
Etc.
Funnily, I ran into a situation SIMILAR to this last night.
At TOD I listened to the AWIS at my destination and a minute later centre confirmed what I had heard. SPECI issued actual conditions now 100' below alternate minima. No amendment to the TAF, though.
Interesting timing given this debate!
where it has been determined
that an alternate aerodrome to the destination aerodrome is
required, then the amount of fuel on board an aircraft at any
particular point in the flight should
that an alternate aerodrome to the destination aerodrome is
required, then the amount of fuel on board an aircraft at any
particular point in the flight should
All it does is highlight and reemphasise that, even if your alternate is closer than your destination, you need to have fuel to make it past the alternate and back again, and still have your fixed + variable reserves etc. in place.
Anyway, I'm glad you liked the NTSB link
Capt. Fathom,
No-one is suggesting this at all.
We are saying that the law allows us a degree of freedom to THINK about the situation.
How far below the alternate minima is the forecast?
How far above the landing minima is the forecast?
What does the METAR say now?
How quickly are the conditions deteriorating (or improving)?
Etc.
Funnily, I ran into a situation SIMILAR to this last night.
At TOD I listened to the AWIS at my destination and a minute later centre confirmed what I had heard. SPECI issued actual conditions now 100' below alternate minima. No amendment to the TAF, though.
Interesting timing given this debate!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta one good thing to come from this debate is the amount of re-reading of Regs i have been doing.
Unhinged, with regards to CAAPs being legislation.
From CAR 234
I would take that to mean that while CAAPs may not be legislation, conducting OPS is a way other than suggested in the CAAP will count against you in a court room situation. Thoughts???
Unhinged, with regards to CAAPs being legislation.
From CAR 234
For the purposes of these Regulations, in determining whether fuel and
oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient
within the meaning of subregulations (1) and (2), a court must, in
addition to any other matters, take into account the following matters:
(a) the distance to be travelled by the aircraft on the flight to reach
the proposed destination;
(b) the meteorological conditions in which the aircraft is, or may be
required, to fly;
(c) the possibility of:
(i) a forced diversion to an alternative aerodrome; and
(ii) a delay pending landing clearance; and
(iii) air traffic control re-routing the flight after commencement
of the flight; and
(iv) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; and
(v) where the aircraft is a multi-engined aircraft—an engine
failure;
(d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the
purposes of this regulation.
oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient
within the meaning of subregulations (1) and (2), a court must, in
addition to any other matters, take into account the following matters:
(a) the distance to be travelled by the aircraft on the flight to reach
the proposed destination;
(b) the meteorological conditions in which the aircraft is, or may be
required, to fly;
(c) the possibility of:
(i) a forced diversion to an alternative aerodrome; and
(ii) a delay pending landing clearance; and
(iii) air traffic control re-routing the flight after commencement
of the flight; and
(iv) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; and
(v) where the aircraft is a multi-engined aircraft—an engine
failure;
(d) any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA for the
purposes of this regulation.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From CAAP 234-1(1)
"This publication is only advisory but it gives a CASA preferred method for complying with the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) 1988. It is not the only method, but experience has shown that if you follow this method you will comply with the Civil Aviation Regulations. Always read this advice in conjunction with the appropriate regulations."
The CAAP gives "a CASA preferred method", which is specfically acknowledged as "not the only method" of compliance. Your only courtroom obligation in this regard would be to establish that the method you chose complied with the Regs in a way that was as good or better than the method in the CAAP. That would not be hard at all.
The court is required to take any CASA guidelines into account. It is not required to take into account your compliance with those guidelines. There is a very big difference between those two. If the method you chose gave a result equal to, or better than, that achieved by simplistically following the guidelines, then your defence to this part of the case is sounding pretty solid.
"This publication is only advisory but it gives a CASA preferred method for complying with the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) 1988. It is not the only method, but experience has shown that if you follow this method you will comply with the Civil Aviation Regulations. Always read this advice in conjunction with the appropriate regulations."
The CAAP gives "a CASA preferred method", which is specfically acknowledged as "not the only method" of compliance. Your only courtroom obligation in this regard would be to establish that the method you chose complied with the Regs in a way that was as good or better than the method in the CAAP. That would not be hard at all.
The court is required to take any CASA guidelines into account. It is not required to take into account your compliance with those guidelines. There is a very big difference between those two. If the method you chose gave a result equal to, or better than, that achieved by simplistically following the guidelines, then your defence to this part of the case is sounding pretty solid.
Easy way it was explained to me was CAAPs aren't binding, but if you f
something up, then you'd better have had a bloody good reason for not following the CAAPs!
something up, then you'd better have had a bloody good reason for not following the CAAPs!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 53
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a new link to back up our side of the argument.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/.../B20040246.pdf
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/.../B20040246.pdf
My reading of the annexes shows that Australia has the least conservative flight planning requirements. Everyone bar Australia requires an alternate if the weather is worse than VMC below 1300-2000 (state dependant). The FAA even requires two alternates in some situations. In Australia with the SLAM rules the weather can be 180 feet above landing minima and vis down to 2k and still not require an alternate. This would suggest to me that in the context of aviation in Australia the "margin at the planning stage" is significant reduced. However, the ATSB goes on to say that the risk can be further mitigated if the aircraft diverts and that is what this discussion is about and in the Australian context I am in the camp that says you have to divert if you can get to a suitable airfield with the minimum fuel required by your operation. (and forget the ridiculous scenarios suggested such as this happening at the IAF or requiring a 90min diversion over water at night - we are talking about Australia here)
