Senario - do we need an alternate?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Sunnie Coast
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, big response in only a couple of hours - I haven't been monitoring the thread....
I posed the question because a recent command trainee at my airline got roasted on his command check flight when he encountered this senario and, in reply to the checkie's query, stated that, no, an alternate was not now required.
Now, I certainly don't have all the answers, but I totally agree with this candidate, and the wisdom expressed by Who Cares, Red Jet and others in that camp. It has to be a preflight, planning requirement only, because really, what does the Jepp/ AIP requirement to "provide for an alternate" really mean? Take more fuel, of course, to allow you to reach another port. So unless I missed the recent introduction of midair refuelling on our fleet, you're legally stuffed if that's not the case.
So although there is not a mandate to now provide an alternate, what is required, and alluded to by some here, is a COMMAND DESCISION and AIRMANSHIP. Sure, the destination conditions have deteriorated, so what are you going to do? Gather information and decide on a course of action. If you HAPPEN to have juice to divert, then that may be wise, but anything you do from here on is an enroute, inflight, can't-change-my-fuel-load descision.
That's what I reckon, anyway......
I posed the question because a recent command trainee at my airline got roasted on his command check flight when he encountered this senario and, in reply to the checkie's query, stated that, no, an alternate was not now required.
Now, I certainly don't have all the answers, but I totally agree with this candidate, and the wisdom expressed by Who Cares, Red Jet and others in that camp. It has to be a preflight, planning requirement only, because really, what does the Jepp/ AIP requirement to "provide for an alternate" really mean? Take more fuel, of course, to allow you to reach another port. So unless I missed the recent introduction of midair refuelling on our fleet, you're legally stuffed if that's not the case.
So although there is not a mandate to now provide an alternate, what is required, and alluded to by some here, is a COMMAND DESCISION and AIRMANSHIP. Sure, the destination conditions have deteriorated, so what are you going to do? Gather information and decide on a course of action. If you HAPPEN to have juice to divert, then that may be wise, but anything you do from here on is an enroute, inflight, can't-change-my-fuel-load descision.
That's what I reckon, anyway......
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK who_cares, I misconstrued your original statement. However, you must concede it is ambiguous!
The A330 case neatly encapsulates the worst case scenario of only of two available fields, where one is almost directly behind you, and once beyond the PNR the WX deteriorates below ALT criteria.
I fully agree with continuing to PER in this case and doing whatever it takes to get the aircraft on the ground.
This scenario is quite unusual given the geometry of the SIN-PER and the geometry & distance of Learmonth.
The real question is what do you do prior to the PNR with the WX deteriorating below the ALT criteria?
And I am talking TTF's/ TAF's not hazard alerts use to determine the WX.
The A330 case neatly encapsulates the worst case scenario of only of two available fields, where one is almost directly behind you, and once beyond the PNR the WX deteriorates below ALT criteria.
I fully agree with continuing to PER in this case and doing whatever it takes to get the aircraft on the ground.
This scenario is quite unusual given the geometry of the SIN-PER and the geometry & distance of Learmonth.
The real question is what do you do prior to the PNR with the WX deteriorating below the ALT criteria?
And I am talking TTF's/ TAF's not hazard alerts use to determine the WX.
My 2 bobs,
me personally, I would divert for the fuel if you can, if you cant (no options) then that's been covered above. 2 points for further consideration though:
1. Departure Alternates:these are only required to be above the landing minima to satisfy the requirements, and
2. In the event you push on and something happens, its not only CASA you need to be able to convince, its the legal system you will have to satisfy to stay out of jail.
No one should ever be criticized for a diversion in these circumstances. If you do, get it in writing and have a good think about what to do with that.
me personally, I would divert for the fuel if you can, if you cant (no options) then that's been covered above. 2 points for further consideration though:
1. Departure Alternates:these are only required to be above the landing minima to satisfy the requirements, and
2. In the event you push on and something happens, its not only CASA you need to be able to convince, its the legal system you will have to satisfy to stay out of jail.
No one should ever be criticized for a diversion in these circumstances. If you do, get it in writing and have a good think about what to do with that.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Just to agree with a couple of other posters in here....
I am assuming you recieve the updated report once airborne.
That being the case, the formal planning stage of the flight has passed, so I would assume that you have dispatched and become airborne without an alternate (something you do in Oz but we dont do here in JAR land).
At that point there is no legal requirement for an alternate.
On reciept of the updated WX info, prudence/airmanship would dictate that any number of appropriate options be considered i.e. an enroute diversion, return to origin, land at destination below published minima etc etc...
I think the point I would have highlighted to the trainer would be..it depends on the SPECIFIC circumstance
I am assuming you recieve the updated report once airborne.
That being the case, the formal planning stage of the flight has passed, so I would assume that you have dispatched and become airborne without an alternate (something you do in Oz but we dont do here in JAR land).
At that point there is no legal requirement for an alternate.
On reciept of the updated WX info, prudence/airmanship would dictate that any number of appropriate options be considered i.e. an enroute diversion, return to origin, land at destination below published minima etc etc...
I think the point I would have highlighted to the trainer would be..it depends on the SPECIFIC circumstance
I believe it depends on the airlines fuel policy.
This is a quote of the fuel policy of a particular airline "
Therefore (for this particular airline) I believe it means that if the forecast deteriorates to below the alternate minima, you would now need alternate (or holding) fuel if you want to continue to the destination.
Thats my interpretation anyway
This is a quote of the fuel policy of a particular airline "
....at all time in flight onboard fuel shall not be less than :
- flight fuel
- alternate fuel (if required)
- fixed and variable reserve
- weather fuel (when required)
- flight fuel
- alternate fuel (if required)
- fixed and variable reserve
- weather fuel (when required)
Thats my interpretation anyway
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that alternate requirements apply in flight as well. That is, if you get an updated TTF which has WX conditions below the SPAM / ALTN minima, you must provide for an alternate or divert to an airport where fuel can be picked up or if that's just not possible, continue with a PAN call.
Can anyone tell me where it says alternate requirements don't apply when airborne ? (Don't have the books with me here)
Some of us can probably still remember when ATC OPS would issue operational weather requirements to airborne aircraft that forced them to comply with the steps above. (Showing my age now!)
Can anyone tell me where it says alternate requirements don't apply when airborne ? (Don't have the books with me here)
Some of us can probably still remember when ATC OPS would issue operational weather requirements to airborne aircraft that forced them to comply with the steps above. (Showing my age now!)
That is indeed the requirement at my airline JC. It makes it simple I suppose, if at anytime you don't have those things, or can't change the flight plan to make it that you do have that much on board, then you are not meeting the company fuel requirements and paperwork should be done on landing ,along with whatever else needs to be done to ensure a safe outcome.
Does VB have an "in-flight fuel policy".
Does VB have an "in-flight fuel policy".
It's not that hard, and it's all specified in the AIP. 
It DOES NOT differentiate between Preflight and Inflight.
So the requirements apply whether you are still on the ground or enroute.
Alternate Aerodromes
It DOES NOT differentiate between Preflight and Inflight.
So the requirements apply whether you are still on the ground or enroute.
Alternate Aerodromes
Alt Req
AIP Para 73.2.1
And then it goes on blah blah blah.....
The book does not state that this is only a planning requirement and not an airborne need. It simply says "the pilot in command MUST (my bold
) provide for a suitable alternate aerodrome when the arrival at the destination...."
The fact is, if you don't have the fuel to hold an ALT you must do something about it, ie, divert for fuel, select another primary landing point or if these options are not do-able, then declare min fuel and receive priority.
Riddle me this
When you receive an updated forecast that has either INTER or TEMPO, do you just ignore it because "you're already airborne" or do you do something about it - divert, 'make fuel', declare MIN FUEL. Of course you don't just blunder on... do you?
For those in the 'no need to hold an alternate' camp, I'm open to looking at your AIP references and looking at how you come to your conclusion; as we all know, AIP isn't always the clearest document to read!
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 fore-
cast commencement of, the following weather conditions:
will be during the currency of, or up to 30 minutes prior to the fore-
cast commencement of, the following weather conditions:
The book does not state that this is only a planning requirement and not an airborne need. It simply says "the pilot in command MUST (my bold
) provide for a suitable alternate aerodrome when the arrival at the destination...."The fact is, if you don't have the fuel to hold an ALT you must do something about it, ie, divert for fuel, select another primary landing point or if these options are not do-able, then declare min fuel and receive priority.
Riddle me this
When you receive an updated forecast that has either INTER or TEMPO, do you just ignore it because "you're already airborne" or do you do something about it - divert, 'make fuel', declare MIN FUEL. Of course you don't just blunder on... do you?For those in the 'no need to hold an alternate' camp, I'm open to looking at your AIP references and looking at how you come to your conclusion; as we all know, AIP isn't always the clearest document to read!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
I'm with Capt Fathom,
It is not grey it is black and white, you need an alternate if the weather conditions go below alternate criteria. I can't believe this is a hard concept to understand? Of course there could be occasions where the destination goes under at the last few minutes and you dont have the fuel then of course the only action you have left is to continue.
It is not grey it is black and white, you need an alternate if the weather conditions go below alternate criteria. I can't believe this is a hard concept to understand? Of course there could be occasions where the destination goes under at the last few minutes and you dont have the fuel then of course the only action you have left is to continue.
My 2 bob worth:
- If it happens, and you can divert to a suitable alternate (not necessarily one you planned for) with the fuel you have left, then do it. If you have to divert now, then divert now, but if you have the fuel to continue to the destination then on to the alternate then do that. I would consider using some of the variable reserve if I had to, but as a last resort.
- If there's no straightforward way to divert, and even though wx is below Alt min, if there is still a reasonable chance of landing then carry on, but you better have a bloody good reason for continuing!
The way I read it is that you now need an alternate, and you must be able to make it to the alternate if the Wx at dest is ****e. Since you will only know if the dest is below mins when you get there, if you don't have the fuel to go to dest then to the alt, then you must divert straight away.
- If it happens, and you can divert to a suitable alternate (not necessarily one you planned for) with the fuel you have left, then do it. If you have to divert now, then divert now, but if you have the fuel to continue to the destination then on to the alternate then do that. I would consider using some of the variable reserve if I had to, but as a last resort.
- If there's no straightforward way to divert, and even though wx is below Alt min, if there is still a reasonable chance of landing then carry on, but you better have a bloody good reason for continuing!
The way I read it is that you now need an alternate, and you must be able to make it to the alternate if the Wx at dest is ****e. Since you will only know if the dest is below mins when you get there, if you don't have the fuel to go to dest then to the alt, then you must divert straight away.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Middle East
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has me confusing pilots (me!) for as long as I've been around.
Here's my take:
"Alternate Minima" is the minimum ceiling and visibility required for the aerodrome to be nominated for use as an Alternate. It is published on the airfield charts if it is higher than the standard alternate minima.
It has nothing to do with destination landing minima and for obvious reasons is far more conservative.
An authority or company may specify a generic margin above a destination airfield's approach minima below which an alternate must be nominated.
If no alternate is nominated, once airborne you may continue to destination so long as reports (any) indicate it will be above the Approach Minima for the most likely approach around the time of arrival.
It the forecast changes its up to you just how much of a margin you want to apply to this. If it's going to be that bad at the destination then things are pretty screwed up and the logical course is to divert while you can.
In most countries it is not permitted to commence an approach if the actual VISIBILITY (either RVR or Visual range) is reported to be less than the Approach Minima for that specific approach. The exception is airlines that operate with an "approach ban" point (usually the outer marker or 1000' if no outer marker) where the approach must be discontinued if the required visibility does not exist.
This is written from a long haul perspective and things may be different in Australia (they usually are!).
Here's my take:
"Alternate Minima" is the minimum ceiling and visibility required for the aerodrome to be nominated for use as an Alternate. It is published on the airfield charts if it is higher than the standard alternate minima.
It has nothing to do with destination landing minima and for obvious reasons is far more conservative.
An authority or company may specify a generic margin above a destination airfield's approach minima below which an alternate must be nominated.
If no alternate is nominated, once airborne you may continue to destination so long as reports (any) indicate it will be above the Approach Minima for the most likely approach around the time of arrival.
It the forecast changes its up to you just how much of a margin you want to apply to this. If it's going to be that bad at the destination then things are pretty screwed up and the logical course is to divert while you can.
In most countries it is not permitted to commence an approach if the actual VISIBILITY (either RVR or Visual range) is reported to be less than the Approach Minima for that specific approach. The exception is airlines that operate with an "approach ban" point (usually the outer marker or 1000' if no outer marker) where the approach must be discontinued if the required visibility does not exist.
This is written from a long haul perspective and things may be different in Australia (they usually are!).
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riddle me this When you receive an updated forecast that has either INTER or TEMPO, do you just ignore it because "you're already airborne" or do you do something about it - divert, 'make fuel', declare MIN FUEL. Of course you don't just blunder on... do you?
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.
Put it into another perspective and consider the myriad other scenarios that might make a destination unsuitable, but which are not covered by AIP alternate requirements. eg. Hydraulic failure in flight makes the destination runway too short for landing requirements. At no stage is the concept of an "alternate" as defined in the AIP applicable, but the crew are still going to have to make some decisions about where they're going to go. It may just be that their best option is to land anyway and hope they can pull it up in time!
As a side note - I suspect I remember the day clakajak's colleague received his "roasting". Un-forecast cloud in SY, BKN 01 earlier this month (below landing mins). You could almost hear everybody changing their mind over the radio!
NO LAND 3 stated:
Im not sure if this is a typo, regional difference or just plain wrong but that is not what the alternate minima means at all in Australia. If the wx at your destination airport is below the published alternate minima then that airport requires an alternate. NOT....
Or have I got this all wrong??
Here's my take:
"Alternate Minima" is the minimum ceiling and visibility required for the aerodrome to be nominated for use as an Alternate.
"Alternate Minima" is the minimum ceiling and visibility required for the aerodrome to be nominated for use as an Alternate.
An authority or company may specify a generic margin above a destination airfield's approach minima below which an alternate must be nominated.
An alternate aerodrome must not require an alternate itself, therefore for an aerodrome to be used as an alternate, the weather conditions at that aerodrome must be above the alternate minimum.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Middle East
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tee hee...yep, as I said: confusing.
Try googling 'definition of "alternate minima"'.
It's a long and convoluted subject.
I believe I am basically correct for the rest of the world. As for Australia it may depend on your background - ie RAAF, International, or G/A.
Maybe I'm just confusing things dipping into the Oz question but I'm finding it quite interesting. As I say - I'm looking at it from an international operaters point of view and of course do stand to be corrected!
Try googling 'definition of "alternate minima"'.
It's a long and convoluted subject.
I believe I am basically correct for the rest of the world. As for Australia it may depend on your background - ie RAAF, International, or G/A.
Maybe I'm just confusing things dipping into the Oz question but I'm finding it quite interesting. As I say - I'm looking at it from an international operaters point of view and of course do stand to be corrected!
Judging on the aircraft types (EMB/737) mentioned in the initial question, it appears that this question comes from a Virgin Blue pilot.
What does VBs company fuel policy dictate? Surely that should settle it.
What does VBs company fuel policy dictate? Surely that should settle it.
To me it depends on the nature of the hazard alert. If it is a forecast of poor conditions for arrival then yes you need to rethink your fuel and divert if necessary, if it is just a report of current conditions and the forecast either from the TTF or TAF remains good then no you don't need an alternate.