Alternates

[samdaman]

Hi Guys
I was reading a thread on Alternates (actual vs planned) and wanted to ask you guys involved in RPT/charter if this is a common practice in Oz/Enzed. During my CPL theory, I was told that we use alternate to divert should the wx become unsuitable for landing/holding. I wasnt aware of a second alternate being in the equation. I apologise if I am not able to recall the exact procedure for CASA requirement, therefore, would be happpy if you can help.

http://www.pprune.org/questions/3974...-airborne.html

Is the above a common practice in Oz, too? Can someone please guide me to the AIP reference since I dont have a copy of it at this point of time.

I am not Instrument Rated but since I have asked a question pertaining to IF, I would be glad with any relevant answer.

Happy Landings

Sam

[Capt Claret]

samdaman,

The basic tenet in Australia is that if one requires an alternate, the nominated aerodrome should not itself require an alternate.

Alternates are not requires only due weather. Often the lack of nav aids, either at the destination, or in the aeroplane, or a combination thereof, will require the nomination of an alternate. Similarly, runway lighting and the lack of a responsible person might require an alternate.

It is rare that I don't have sufficient fuel to make an alternate (B717), even though there may not be a regulatory requirement to have one.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Alternates are not requires only due weather. Often the lack of nav aids, either at the destination, or in the aeroplane, or a combination thereof, will require the nomination of an alternate.

Hence the benefit in OZ of having a GPS enroute endorsement. Takes half a day to complete and with a TSO GPS and current database, provides the navaid at the destination, removing the requirement to have an alternate with a navaid within one hours flight time that the aircraft and pilot are capable of using.

[43Inches]

AIP ENR 1.1 para 73 is the reference for alternate selection.

If an alternate is required Aus air law only requires the nomination of one alternate that does not require an alternate itself with regard to weather, navaids(IFR and NVFR) and lighting(for night ops). As long as sufficient fuel to reach such an alternate is maintained throughout a flight an attemp to land at the destination or other aerodrome prior to the alternate is acceptable.

The en-route GPS only satisfies NVFR navaid requirements. For IFR the pilot must be capable of the approach with a TSO 146 unit to comply (or downgrade to VFR/NVFR if operationally capable).

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Alright....if we're going to start point scoring (on PPRUNE???)

For IFR the pilot must be capable of the approach with a TSO 146 unit to comply

....and have a valid FDE prediction, in lieu of which, the alternate selection may not be based on an RNAV approach.
BTW, a C145a unit will also meet the same req as the C146 unit.

The GPS receiver must be operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s operating instructions, and any additional instructions specified by the
operator.
The flight crew must meet appropriate RNAV(GNSS) qualification and recency requirements.

[samdaman]

Thanks a lot guys
So, in short, CASA doesnt require an alternate based on an alternate already in place. Fair enough.

If you dont mind me asking, what is the requirement in Asia then? Lets say Syd-Bkk route on a VH registered aircraft.

I apologise for being curious but I guess we have a lot to learn from the more experienced folks.
Sam

[Tempo]

Each country has it's own requirements and aircraft operating into that country must comply with those requirements, no matter what the registration.