IFR Alternates with no approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFR Alternates with no approach
Hi All, just wondering if some of the wiser of the pprune community can help me out with this dilemma? I've been doing some IFR revision and cannot get my head around this one...
According to the AIP ENR 1.1 73 when an aerodrome forecast is not available or is "provisional" the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.
So therefore if I was to fly to Echuca, no matter what the weather is doing I must plan for an alternate as Echuca does not have a TAF?
Yet over the page it says,
For IFR flights, the alternate minima are as follows:
a. For aerodromes with an instrumnet approach procedure the alternate minima published on a chart
b. For aerdromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast in unavailable or is provisional the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate
c. For aerdromes without an insturment approach procedure the alternate minima is the LSALT for the final route segment plus 500ft and visibility of 8km
So why is option c. there? If you are going to an aerodrome with no published approach procedure then there won't be a TAF, therefore no firm forecast so you must have an alternate...right?
Other wise it reads to me as though on a CAVOK day a I can fly to Maryborough (VIC) with no alternate as cloud will not be lower than LSALT +500, but on a CAVOK day I can't fly to Echuca without an alternate because it has an approach but no TAF???
The only half logical answer I can see is that 'unavaliable' actually means that there is normaly a TAF there but today its not working so you need an alternate, but if there was never a TAF there in the first place then you don't have to worry about an alternate?
Any one got any iedas, or did option c. just get thrown in for the hell of it without anyone really thinking about it?
According to the AIP ENR 1.1 73 when an aerodrome forecast is not available or is "provisional" the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.
So therefore if I was to fly to Echuca, no matter what the weather is doing I must plan for an alternate as Echuca does not have a TAF?
Yet over the page it says,
For IFR flights, the alternate minima are as follows:
a. For aerodromes with an instrumnet approach procedure the alternate minima published on a chart
b. For aerdromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast in unavailable or is provisional the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate
c. For aerdromes without an insturment approach procedure the alternate minima is the LSALT for the final route segment plus 500ft and visibility of 8km
So why is option c. there? If you are going to an aerodrome with no published approach procedure then there won't be a TAF, therefore no firm forecast so you must have an alternate...right?
Other wise it reads to me as though on a CAVOK day a I can fly to Maryborough (VIC) with no alternate as cloud will not be lower than LSALT +500, but on a CAVOK day I can't fly to Echuca without an alternate because it has an approach but no TAF???
The only half logical answer I can see is that 'unavaliable' actually means that there is normaly a TAF there but today its not working so you need an alternate, but if there was never a TAF there in the first place then you don't have to worry about an alternate?
Any one got any iedas, or did option c. just get thrown in for the hell of it without anyone really thinking about it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry guys, I figured it out!
(With some help)
If an aerdrome temporarliy lost the use of its navaid, but still had a TAF then you would obviously use LSALT +500 and 8km
So simple now!
And appaerntly there are place with TAFs but no approach
(I couldn't find any in my quick search through the ERSA yeseterday)
So there you go, i'll go home and shut up now!
(With some help)
If an aerdrome temporarliy lost the use of its navaid, but still had a TAF then you would obviously use LSALT +500 and 8km
So simple now!
And appaerntly there are place with TAFs but no approach
(I couldn't find any in my quick search through the ERSA yeseterday)
So there you go, i'll go home and shut up now!
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: BN196R @ 20nm
Age: 59
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about Echuca - does it has an instr apch?
Anyway, Just because it doesn't have an instrument apch procedure doesn't mean it doesn't have a TAF. Think of navaid being unserviceable. The procedure is there but you can't use it on that day. Therefore, use the criteria at (c).
Remember also the criteria for CAVOK and cloud base. The LSALT + 500 could be above that. CAVOK may not be enough.
Look at the area forecast. If you reckon from that you have no more than SCT below LSALT +500 on the last route sector and 8 k vis then you don't need an alternate to fly IFR in case (c).
Sorta half answers your question I guess.
Edit - must have posted my reply pretty close to yours, and there is no such thing as a dumb question!
Anyway, Just because it doesn't have an instrument apch procedure doesn't mean it doesn't have a TAF. Think of navaid being unserviceable. The procedure is there but you can't use it on that day. Therefore, use the criteria at (c).
Remember also the criteria for CAVOK and cloud base. The LSALT + 500 could be above that. CAVOK may not be enough.
Look at the area forecast. If you reckon from that you have no more than SCT below LSALT +500 on the last route sector and 8 k vis then you don't need an alternate to fly IFR in case (c).
Sorta half answers your question I guess.
Edit - must have posted my reply pretty close to yours, and there is no such thing as a dumb question!
Last edited by Razor; 3rd Jun 2009 at 03:04.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this sounds illogical (well, it is), but from memory if an aerodrome has a published approach but the navaid is U/S, then you cannot use the LSALT +500 / 8km rule, as it does have an instrument approach, regardless of whether the approach is available or not. I seem to remember IREX material along these lines. I'll check it out.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
training wheels:
Yes, I can. The story goes that the navaid and approach procedure was installed to facilitate all weather flights into and out of a farming property that the former PM, Malcolm Fraser, used to own close by. Apparently, he spent a lot of time on this property and, being PM at the time, aircraft needed to be able to retrieve him from the property even under adverse weather conditions when PM duties demanded it.
That's what I was told many years ago, anyway.
.. and then you have Yarrowee .. a place with an approach procedure but no TAF and no aerodrome! LOL! Can anyone explain that one?
That's what I was told many years ago, anyway.
Yes, I can. The story goes that the navaid and approach procedure was installed to facilitate all weather flights into and out of a farming property that the former PM, Malcolm Fraser, used to own close by
Regards,
BH.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bullethead:
Yep, he had Nareen but I was told he also had this other place near YWE as well.
But I must admit that I find it hard to believe (by today's standards) that a Govt department could justify the installation of a navaid and approach on this basis; but then again, as we all know, things were different back in them days before there was strong accountability or scrutiny of govt expenditure on aviation. So it could be true.
Yep, he had Nareen but I was told he also had this other place near YWE as well.
But I must admit that I find it hard to believe (by today's standards) that a Govt department could justify the installation of a navaid and approach on this basis; but then again, as we all know, things were different back in them days before there was strong accountability or scrutiny of govt expenditure on aviation. So it could be true.
Then again a study of the departures from Sydney shows lots of extra track miles befor setting course over the Pacific. The federal seat of Bennelong has a lot to do with that- so much for being green.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahhh, thanks for the explanation about Yarrowee. I've done that approach a few times under the hood, and of course, had always conducted the missed approach procedure at the missed approach point. Wouldn't it be funny if an ATO actually said "visual" at the missed approach point. I wonder what people would do in that situation?! LOL!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: End of the Earth
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUSH PILOT,
I think you have misunderstood the regs. You may proceed by day to an aerodrome without an approach procedure and/or TAF under the IFR, without providing a suitable alternate, if according to the area forecast, you have the 8 km visibility and no more that 4/8ths cloud below LSALT + 500 for the final route segment.
AIP ENR 1.1 - 73.3.2 a. "not more that SCT cloud is forecast below the final route segment LSALT plus 500FT and forecast visibility at the destination aerodrome is not less than 8 km"
AIP 1.10 - 1.2.1 "... For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach precedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is an Area Forecast."
(It would be a bit silly if we could not proceed IFR to an aerodrome without an instrument approach and therefore most likely without a TAF) - there are many small aerodromes without IAPs and TAFs serviced by IFR aircraft.
Hope this makes sense.
ID
I think you have misunderstood the regs. You may proceed by day to an aerodrome without an approach procedure and/or TAF under the IFR, without providing a suitable alternate, if according to the area forecast, you have the 8 km visibility and no more that 4/8ths cloud below LSALT + 500 for the final route segment.
AIP ENR 1.1 - 73.3.2 a. "not more that SCT cloud is forecast below the final route segment LSALT plus 500FT and forecast visibility at the destination aerodrome is not less than 8 km"
AIP 1.10 - 1.2.1 "... For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach precedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is an Area Forecast."
(It would be a bit silly if we could not proceed IFR to an aerodrome without an instrument approach and therefore most likely without a TAF) - there are many small aerodromes without IAPs and TAFs serviced by IFR aircraft.
Hope this makes sense.
ID
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't it be funny if an ATO actually said "visual" at the missed approach point. I wonder what people would do in that situation?! LOL!
In times gone by there used to be a fair few approaches that didn't terminate at an airfield. They were cloud break procedures, there to give an IFR aircraft in IMC the opportunity to get to VMC or to make use of visual procedures within 30nm of an airfield.
Bromelton NDB south of Brisbane had one as did a few other aids. Damned if I can remember the others though.
Bromelton NDB south of Brisbane had one as did a few other aids. Damned if I can remember the others though.
But I must admit that I find it hard to believe (by today's standards) that a Govt department could justify the installation of a navaid and approach on this basis; but then again, as we all know, things were different back in them days before there was strong accountability or scrutiny of govt expenditure on aviation.
Kingaroy aerodrome got a major upgrade so that the Qld Gov aircraft could take the "Big Peanut" home for the weekend and pick him up again on Monday morning.
".... but don't you worry about that"!
Dr
Bromelton NDB south of Brisbane had one as did a few other aids. Damned if I can remember the others though.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The VOR approach at YWE was initially for IFR approaches into Ballarat, before a NDB was installed there. YWE VOR was (is) an enroute aid. We use to fly big Mal in the 690 usually from YMEN direct to the property. Only the HS748 used Hamiliton, the BAC 111 was too heavy, and so landed at YMEN.
