IFR Alternate Question
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Blacknight, no, you are not further clarifying, you are further confusing the distinction between WEATHER and NAVAID considerations.
If you read my post you will notice that I conclude that an alternate IS required due to weather considerations only - not due to navaids.
The fact is, as academic as the situation might be, regardless of TSO146 or 129, the location happens to be one with no TAF available AND with an IAP therefore you are constrained by Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.12 b.
The only way you can get out of providing for an alternate in this example is to obtain a suitable TAF for the location.
If you read my post you will notice that I conclude that an alternate IS required due to weather considerations only - not due to navaids.
The fact is, as academic as the situation might be, regardless of TSO146 or 129, the location happens to be one with no TAF available AND with an IAP therefore you are constrained by Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.12 b.
The only way you can get out of providing for an alternate in this example is to obtain a suitable TAF for the location.
Last edited by Captain Nomad; 20th Jun 2011 at 00:37.
After near 40 posts though, that's the real worry!
Apart from the occassional QF into Perth or a medivac jet into Norfolk Is, does anyone in really go anywhere without carrying an alternate or appropriate holding - even if it is unofficial?
Not me!
How do you know that just as you arrive in the circuit area, someone isn't going to suffer a gear collapse, or the like, and block the runway?
Is is NOT a nice feeling to find yourself running out of options. I have been there twice in almost 40 years, and in no hurry to revisit. All perfectly legal when I departed, but then things went downhill fast.
Dr
Not me!
How do you know that just as you arrive in the circuit area, someone isn't going to suffer a gear collapse, or the like, and block the runway?
Is is NOT a nice feeling to find yourself running out of options. I have been there twice in almost 40 years, and in no hurry to revisit. All perfectly legal when I departed, but then things went downhill fast.
Dr
Apart from the occassional QF into Perth or a medivac jet into Norfolk Is, does anyone in really go anywhere without carrying an alternate or appropriate holding - even if it is unofficial?
Not me!
How do you know that just as you arrive in the circuit area, someone isn't going to suffer a gear collapse, or the like, and block the runway?
Is is NOT a nice feeling to find yourself running out of options. I have been there twice in almost 40 years, and in no hurry to revisit. All perfectly legal when I departed, but then things went downhill fast.
Dr
Not me!
How do you know that just as you arrive in the circuit area, someone isn't going to suffer a gear collapse, or the like, and block the runway?
Is is NOT a nice feeling to find yourself running out of options. I have been there twice in almost 40 years, and in no hurry to revisit. All perfectly legal when I departed, but then things went downhill fast.
Dr
Many a flight I have only the required reserves and flight plan fuel. I don't like it, but the alternative is to bump payload. The company gets upset when you do this unless it is required.
How many times have you gone on min ifr fuel to an airport with no forecast?
I'd still like further information on why para 3 from alternate requirements in the aip stating that if an 'aerodrome forecast is unavailable' it means only that if a taf hasn't been issued for the time of operation but normally is serviced by a taf. Why not if one is not available ever?
I'd still like further information on why para 3 from alternate requirements in the aip stating that if an 'aerodrome forecast is unavailable' it means only that if a taf hasn't been issued for the time of operation but normally is serviced by a taf. Why not if one is not available ever?
How many times have you gone on min ifr fuel to an airport with no forecast?
To me it's pretty black and white. No forecast = an alternate required.
There is a get out of jail card however. You can depart without a forecast and an alternate provided you get a forecast for your destination within 30 mins of departure and the conditions at your departure aerodrome allow a safe return for up to an hour.
Using the requirements for a no wx forecast destination for an aerodrome that normally has a TAF and is unavailable is cowboy behaviour. I'd be having stern words with the Pilot who is suggesting such a thing.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'd still like further information on why para 3 from alternate requirements in the aip stating that if an 'aerodrome forecast is unavailable' it means only that if a taf hasn't been issued for the time of operation but normally is serviced by a taf. Why not if one is not available ever?
The super key thing which keeps confusing everyone is whether there is an IAP at the location - it makes all the difference for WEATHER alternate considerations!
Ironically, if it is a place with no IAP the alternate minima then becomes possibly less restrictive in the sense that the LSALT +500 and 8km vis requirement comes into play. YOU CANNOT USE THIS TO GET OUT OF PROVIDING FOR AN ALTERNATE AT A LOCATION WITH AN IAP AND A TAF TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE!
To provide some historical context, in the days before RNAV, the interpretation that the weather alternate clause about a location WITH AN IAP and TAF 'UNAVAILABLE' would have been directed squarely to locations with a TAF temporarily unavailable. These locations would have also had at least one ground-based navaid in order to ALSO have an IAP in the first place. So traditionally, yes, this clause would have been directed at such locations as my previous example of Leinster on the weekend. However, now we have increasingly more places popping up with no TAF but with an RNAV approach with no ground-based aids (mining airstrips are a prime and most common example). This clause applies to these locations equally as to the tradtional locations with a TAF temporarily unavailable!
Last edited by Captain Nomad; 20th Jun 2011 at 04:33. Reason: Provide some historical background
Bold italics AND caps lock. Exciting stuff.
I understand your last post. What I don't really understand is the scenario of the no taf and no ial airport. ENR 1.1 58.1.3 paraphrased, an airport where an aerodrome forecast is not available or prov requires provision for an alternate'
Why is this over rided by not having an IAL? I understand that in the circumstance where there is no IAL the alternate minima changes, however I don't understand why you now no longer need to comply at all with 58.1.3.
Not trying to start an argument, just genuinely don't get it.
Cheers.
I understand your last post. What I don't really understand is the scenario of the no taf and no ial airport. ENR 1.1 58.1.3 paraphrased, an airport where an aerodrome forecast is not available or prov requires provision for an alternate'
Why is this over rided by not having an IAL? I understand that in the circumstance where there is no IAL the alternate minima changes, however I don't understand why you now no longer need to comply at all with 58.1.3.
Not trying to start an argument, just genuinely don't get it.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Das, not all the bold and caps were directed at you. Some posters have been implying that the LSALT +500 and 8km vis requirement can get you out of the altn requirement - it can't when the location has an IAP.
Fair call, I see what you are getting at in your last post. I may have inadvertently caused some confusion and I have edited my examples to clarify that. I don't believe ENR 1.1 58.1.3 (Jepp ATC pg 303 3.1.3) can be circumvented while under the IFR. The clause in Jepp 3.2.12 c. would best be illustrated by a place such as Cessnock (no instrument approach but TAF at least some of the time) ARFOR and TAF can be used when calculating whether or not weather is below the the altn minima (LSALT +500/8km vis).
Does that clear it up?!
Fair call, I see what you are getting at in your last post. I may have inadvertently caused some confusion and I have edited my examples to clarify that. I don't believe ENR 1.1 58.1.3 (Jepp ATC pg 303 3.1.3) can be circumvented while under the IFR. The clause in Jepp 3.2.12 c. would best be illustrated by a place such as Cessnock (no instrument approach but TAF at least some of the time) ARFOR and TAF can be used when calculating whether or not weather is below the the altn minima (LSALT +500/8km vis).
Does that clear it up?!
No TAF = Alternate required IFR or VFR (except VFR by day remaining within 50NM)
The other paragraphs relate to Instrument procedure availability and their weather minima whilst referenced to the TAF/TTF.
If only an ARFOR is available how do you allow for Storms/Rain Showers/Fog/Mist/Dust etc... within your area. Would you allow a blanket alternate as the ARFOR does not refer to inter or tempo or accurate commencement times etc. You may be able to get a cloud base but then have to convert to ceiling etc and local effects will vary the base. What about crosswind exceeding the maximum componant for the aircraft, again ARFOR wind at 2000' is a pretty useless indication at some locations.
The other paragraphs relate to Instrument procedure availability and their weather minima whilst referenced to the TAF/TTF.
If only an ARFOR is available how do you allow for Storms/Rain Showers/Fog/Mist/Dust etc... within your area. Would you allow a blanket alternate as the ARFOR does not refer to inter or tempo or accurate commencement times etc. You may be able to get a cloud base but then have to convert to ceiling etc and local effects will vary the base. What about crosswind exceeding the maximum componant for the aircraft, again ARFOR wind at 2000' is a pretty useless indication at some locations.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm. Where do I start?
The assertions made by Captain Nomad are incorrect and I will explain why below.
First of all, I need to bring in the small matter of "logic". There is definite logic about the the alternate rules regarding navaids and TAFs (but this logic is only visible when one has the correct understanding of those rules).
Until now, in this thread, there has been no consideration of the logic involved. When the logic is considered, it becomes clear that the view of the 90%'ers (including Captain Nomad) cannot be correct.
And, now that people are giving some thought to the logic, we are seeing hints that the logic underlying Captain Nomad's view is anything but logical:
From das Uber Soldat:
And from Captain Nomad himself:
To really understand the rules regarding alternates, you can't simply read, and apply literally, the words of the AIP (if the wording was better, you probably could, however). You must apply a certain amount of logic. That logic comes from an understanding of what the rules are trying to achieve.
Give some thought to what the rules are trying to achieve. When you think you know what the rules are telling you, ask whether that thing is actually logical. If your answer is NO, then the most likely reason is because your reading of the rules was incorrect.
To test out whether there is any logic behind the interpretation of the rules put forth by Captain Nomad, consider the following:
Again, we will work with the Coondewana and Balfour Downs example. Coondewana has an instrument approach (RNAV), but never has a TAF. Balfour Downs does NOT have an approach, and also never has a TAF.
To really focus on the logic, let us pretend that these two aerodromes are only 5 miles apart.
According to Captain Nomad, in day VMC, a flight to Coondewana would require nomination of an alternate, but a flight to Balfour Downs would not.
So, this means that Balfour Downs could be nominated as the alternate for Coondewana!!
Does this sound logical?
Here's another example. I actually brought this up in my previous post but can see I need to bring it up again. That rule again:
This is the rule that the 90%'ers will point to when confronted with the question about TAFs. This rule applies to BOTH VFR and IFR. According to the 90%'ers, a VFR flight must, in accordance with this rule, provide for an alternate if the destination does not have a TAF (even when the destination NEVER has a TAF).
So, this means that VFR flights, in the middle of the day, with perfect weather, must always be carrying alternate fuel to an aerodrome that has a TAF!!
Sound logical?
Captain Nomad, you are falling into the same trap as the rest of the 90%'ers. You are reading the words too literally and not questioning whether your interpretation might actually make any sense.
The assertions made by Captain Nomad are incorrect and I will explain why below.
First of all, I need to bring in the small matter of "logic". There is definite logic about the the alternate rules regarding navaids and TAFs (but this logic is only visible when one has the correct understanding of those rules).
Until now, in this thread, there has been no consideration of the logic involved. When the logic is considered, it becomes clear that the view of the 90%'ers (including Captain Nomad) cannot be correct.
And, now that people are giving some thought to the logic, we are seeing hints that the logic underlying Captain Nomad's view is anything but logical:
From das Uber Soldat:
Why is this over rided by not having an IAL?
Ironically, if it is a place with no IAP the alternate minima then becomes possibly less restrictive ...
Give some thought to what the rules are trying to achieve. When you think you know what the rules are telling you, ask whether that thing is actually logical. If your answer is NO, then the most likely reason is because your reading of the rules was incorrect.
To test out whether there is any logic behind the interpretation of the rules put forth by Captain Nomad, consider the following:
Again, we will work with the Coondewana and Balfour Downs example. Coondewana has an instrument approach (RNAV), but never has a TAF. Balfour Downs does NOT have an approach, and also never has a TAF.
To really focus on the logic, let us pretend that these two aerodromes are only 5 miles apart.
According to Captain Nomad, in day VMC, a flight to Coondewana would require nomination of an alternate, but a flight to Balfour Downs would not.
So, this means that Balfour Downs could be nominated as the alternate for Coondewana!!
Does this sound logical?
Here's another example. I actually brought this up in my previous post but can see I need to bring it up again. That rule again:
AIP ENR 1.1 57.1.3
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.
So, this means that VFR flights, in the middle of the day, with perfect weather, must always be carrying alternate fuel to an aerodrome that has a TAF!!
Sound logical?
Captain Nomad, you are falling into the same trap as the rest of the 90%'ers. You are reading the words too literally and not questioning whether your interpretation might actually make any sense.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how you can be too literal. If thats what it says, then thats what it says.
CASA wrote the rules and if they didnt write in another clause with a VFR exemption for the example you raise then I'd be inclined to comply.
Anyway, the OP didnt ask about VFR flight, not sure why you're pushing that one. Still, I'm here to learn and I say it again, if you've got a Jepp reference to support your argument, I'd be keen to read it.
Cheers
W9
CASA wrote the rules and if they didnt write in another clause with a VFR exemption for the example you raise then I'd be inclined to comply.
Anyway, the OP didnt ask about VFR flight, not sure why you're pushing that one. Still, I'm here to learn and I say it again, if you've got a Jepp reference to support your argument, I'd be keen to read it.
Cheers
W9
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, the OP didnt ask about VFR flight, not sure why you're pushing that one.
I brought up the VFR thing because it very effectively demonstrates that the interpretation of the following rule, by the 90%'ers, is flawed:
AIP ENR 1.1 57.1.3
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.
The 90%'ers rushed in and said "yes", and pointed to this rule as evidence.
But, their interpretation was faulty, I countered, and to demonstrate, brought up that VFR example.
If their interpretation was correct, then the VFR flights would be seriously (and utterly illogically) restricted - as I have pointed out.
So, if it could be shown their interpretation was wrong, then their case for "alternate required because no TAF" collapses - which means there is no rule anywhere that suggests any such thing.
Das uber and fdg
How do your interpretations fit in with enr 1.10?
1.2 Forecasts
1.2.1 A forecast must be either a flight forecast or an area forecast with an aerodrome forecast for the destination and, when required, the alternate aerodrome. For a flight to a destination for which a pre-scribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the mini-mum requirement is an Area Forecast.
1.2.2 For flights for which a forecast is required and cannot be obtained, the flight is permitted to depart provided the pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return of the flight within one hour of departure. The flight is permitted to con-tinue provided a suitable forecast is obtained for the intended des-tination within 30 minutes after departure.
1.2.3 For flights to a destination for which a aerodrome forecast is re-quired and cannot be obtained or is “provisional”, the flight is per-mitted to depart provided an alternate aerodrome meeting all the requirements specified in ENR 1.1 Section 58. is provided.
How do your interpretations fit in with enr 1.10?
1.2 Forecasts
1.2.1 A forecast must be either a flight forecast or an area forecast with an aerodrome forecast for the destination and, when required, the alternate aerodrome. For a flight to a destination for which a pre-scribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the mini-mum requirement is an Area Forecast.
1.2.2 For flights for which a forecast is required and cannot be obtained, the flight is permitted to depart provided the pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return of the flight within one hour of departure. The flight is permitted to con-tinue provided a suitable forecast is obtained for the intended des-tination within 30 minutes after departure.
1.2.3 For flights to a destination for which a aerodrome forecast is re-quired and cannot be obtained or is “provisional”, the flight is per-mitted to depart provided an alternate aerodrome meeting all the requirements specified in ENR 1.1 Section 58. is provided.
Last edited by glekichi; 20th Jun 2011 at 08:51.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDG
Just because you have found an example that in your mind doesnt "logically" fit the rules, doesnt necessarily make you and the other 10%ers right. I respectfully suggest there is something we have both missed.
I'm not arguing whether your logic is right or not. There are plenty of things that go on on Australian aviation that are not logical to me, but they still happen.
I counter again, if you cannot find the exemption for VFR example which I think you concede is not written anywhere, I would not like to take "logic" as my only defence in to the courtroom.
We all know thats not how CASA works.
Just because you have found an example that in your mind doesnt "logically" fit the rules, doesnt necessarily make you and the other 10%ers right. I respectfully suggest there is something we have both missed.
I'm not arguing whether your logic is right or not. There are plenty of things that go on on Australian aviation that are not logical to me, but they still happen.
I counter again, if you cannot find the exemption for VFR example which I think you concede is not written anywhere, I would not like to take "logic" as my only defence in to the courtroom.
We all know thats not how CASA works.
Im finding this thread to be really informative. Lets not ruin it by behaving like condescending dickheads when we think we're right eh?
I think the fact that so many clearly experienced people are in disagreement goes a long way to show how poorly written the regs really are, that something so simple as 'do I need an alternate' can generate this kind of disagreement.
I'd like to see a consensus reached if possible. I know in any grey area situation simply put ill be carrying an alternate, but it would be nice to know what the final word really is.
I think the fact that so many clearly experienced people are in disagreement goes a long way to show how poorly written the regs really are, that something so simple as 'do I need an alternate' can generate this kind of disagreement.
I'd like to see a consensus reached if possible. I know in any grey area situation simply put ill be carrying an alternate, but it would be nice to know what the final word really is.
If that is me you are referring to das uber, I can see how it could have come across that way but it was not my intention.
1.2.1 seems to answer the question about if an area forecast is acceptable or not, very clearly, I thought, so I didn't elaborate.
1.2.2 and 1.2.3 also spell out the other questions raised by others fairly clearly as well, in my opinion.
Agree that the rules are written in a very grey manner. Reading 1.1 57.1.3 in isolation certainly gives the wrong idea. Very common with the casa regs - ban everything and then tuck away explanations/exceptions elsewhere, and ban a few extra things elsewhere while you're at it, with no particular logic or structure. Just look at the number of rules that apply to all flight that appear under the title of air operations, a term that implies commercial operations.
1.2.1 seems to answer the question about if an area forecast is acceptable or not, very clearly, I thought, so I didn't elaborate.
1.2.2 and 1.2.3 also spell out the other questions raised by others fairly clearly as well, in my opinion.
Agree that the rules are written in a very grey manner. Reading 1.1 57.1.3 in isolation certainly gives the wrong idea. Very common with the casa regs - ban everything and then tuck away explanations/exceptions elsewhere, and ban a few extra things elsewhere while you're at it, with no particular logic or structure. Just look at the number of rules that apply to all flight that appear under the title of air operations, a term that implies commercial operations.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, apologies for all the cut and paste rules. Secondly, another example of poorly worded regulations which cause confusion and a variety of understandings.
For my 2 cents....I have included what I see as relevant rules below and highlighted the appropriate sections for the original example given (DAY IFR with IAP available with no TAF (ignoring the NAVAID section)).
AIP ENR 1.1 57.1.3
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.
AIP ENR 1.1 57.2.9
For IFR Flights, the alternate minima are as follows:
a) For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima published on the chart.
b) For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast is unavailable or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate.
c) For aerodromes without an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima is the lowest safe altitude for the final route segment plus 500ft and a visibility of 8km.
Enr 1.10
1.2.1 A forecast must be either a flight forecast or an area forecast with an aerodrome forecast for the destination and, when required, the alternate aerodrome. For a flight to a destination for which a pre-scribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the mini-mum requirement is an Area Forecast.
1.2.2 For flights for which a forecast is required and cannot be obtained, the flight is permitted to depart provided the pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return of the flight within one hour of departure. The flight is permitted to con-tinue provided a suitable forecast is obtained for the intended des-tination within 30 minutes after departure.
1.2.3 For flights to a destination for which a aerodrome forecast is required and cannot be obtained or is “provisional”, the flight is permitted to depart provided an alternate aerodrome meeting all the requirements specified in ENR 1.1 Section 58. is provided.
Summary..
It seems pretty clear from the 4 highlighted sections that in the example given an alternate must be planned for to depart legally.
To use FGD135's logic argument. Logically if you don't know what the weather is going to be at the aerodrome you are intending to land at then you plan to carry enough fuel to go to an alternate where you know what the wether is.
FGD135 says
The rule that this qoute is trying to dispell is not just for VFR but for IFR as well which is why it is broken down further as listed above.
For my 2 cents....I have included what I see as relevant rules below and highlighted the appropriate sections for the original example given (DAY IFR with IAP available with no TAF (ignoring the NAVAID section)).
AIP ENR 1.1 57.1.3
When an aerodrome forecast is not available or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.
AIP ENR 1.1 57.2.9
For IFR Flights, the alternate minima are as follows:
a) For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima published on the chart.
b) For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast is unavailable or provisional, the PIC must make provision for a suitable alternate.
c) For aerodromes without an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima is the lowest safe altitude for the final route segment plus 500ft and a visibility of 8km.
Enr 1.10
1.2.1 A forecast must be either a flight forecast or an area forecast with an aerodrome forecast for the destination and, when required, the alternate aerodrome. For a flight to a destination for which a pre-scribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the mini-mum requirement is an Area Forecast.
1.2.2 For flights for which a forecast is required and cannot be obtained, the flight is permitted to depart provided the pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return of the flight within one hour of departure. The flight is permitted to con-tinue provided a suitable forecast is obtained for the intended des-tination within 30 minutes after departure.
1.2.3 For flights to a destination for which a aerodrome forecast is required and cannot be obtained or is “provisional”, the flight is permitted to depart provided an alternate aerodrome meeting all the requirements specified in ENR 1.1 Section 58. is provided.
Summary..
It seems pretty clear from the 4 highlighted sections that in the example given an alternate must be planned for to depart legally.
To use FGD135's logic argument. Logically if you don't know what the weather is going to be at the aerodrome you are intending to land at then you plan to carry enough fuel to go to an alternate where you know what the wether is.
FGD135 says
So, this means that VFR flights, in the middle of the day, with perfect weather, must always be carrying alternate fuel to an aerodrome that has a TAF!!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't need to carry alternate fuel if the destination has no TAF and wx aint more than SCT below LSALT +500' for last route segment, based on ARFOR.
Obviously there are some who disagree, my local FOI isn't one of those.
The LSALT +500 is adequately conservative and I believe not particularly restrictive, especially when route LSALTS can be calculated down to 7nm either side of track using some methods.
There have been plenty of times when I've required ALT fuel (based on the above) and got visual approaching LSALT. There have been times when I'm not visual and have travelled to the ALT. Both these scenarios severely restricted load carrying capacity. This is where I think a lot of you are missing the commercial realities involved here. Requiring ALT fuel for all non TAF 'dromes even when CAVOK would cripple GA and is completely illogical.
Obviously there are some who disagree, my local FOI isn't one of those.
The LSALT +500 is adequately conservative and I believe not particularly restrictive, especially when route LSALTS can be calculated down to 7nm either side of track using some methods.
There have been plenty of times when I've required ALT fuel (based on the above) and got visual approaching LSALT. There have been times when I'm not visual and have travelled to the ALT. Both these scenarios severely restricted load carrying capacity. This is where I think a lot of you are missing the commercial realities involved here. Requiring ALT fuel for all non TAF 'dromes even when CAVOK would cripple GA and is completely illogical.