IFR Alternate Question

[WangFunk]

Oi

Place with an instrument approach is referring to IF RULES

Place without an Instrument Approach is Technically VF RULES.

IFR requires MET always otherwise ALTERNATE. SIMPLE

IFR also requires at least ONE-navaid approach otherwise ALTERNATE. SIMPLE

IMC into VMC because of NO navaid..= A visual happy ending, IF you can meet the LSALT+500 & 8k.... NO Alternate REQ'D

You guys are doing my head in!!

[das Uber Soldat]

CASA formulated the regs based on commercial realities?

[Captain Nomad]

FGD, I have not fallen into any trap other than making a poor choice for one of my original examples. If you re-read my original post you will notice I have changed the example to Cessnock. In my attempts to clarify one situation (aerodrome with IAP versus one without) I may have created some confusion in another area (IFR destination NO IAP and NO TAF). I do apologise.

I have ONE IMPORTANT QUESTION for you and if you can answer it with a reference from the regs I would be most obliged. Keeping strictly to the scenario in the original question, how would you talk yourself out of this requirement? (Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.12 b.) - "For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast is unavailable... must make provision for a suitable alternate..."

The reason why I state:

Ironically, if it is a place with no IAP the alternate minima then becomes possibly less restrictive ...

is because that WOULD be the case if you were planning IFR by day say from Dubbo to Cessnock (no IAP) on a CAVOK ARFOR and CAVOK TAF for Cessnock (for example). YOU WOULD NOT NEED AN ALTERNATE! However if that was an IFR by day flight from Port Hedland to Coondewanna I would beg to differ and say that AN ALTERNATE WOULD BE REQUIRED (because Coondewanna has an IAP).

The reason why I have always specified IFR is because that is what the whole original question is about and also I was avoiding some smart alec coming along quoting the VFR by day within 50nm and also THIS! "For flight under the VFR (day or night) and helicopters operating under VFR at night, the alternate minima are a ceiling of 1500ft and a visibility of 8km. (Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.13).

I can't believe this has gone on so long. I hope this is the end of it. I don't know how much more clearly I can put it...

[WangFunk]

DUDE..

"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."

Do you know why that is? IFR, Its so you can work out LSALT + 500 (Which if you think bout it, LSALT only applies to IFR aircraft) and 8ks VIz!
You could probably work out your alternate requirements of that LOVE AND LIGHT xx

[FGD135]

Requiring ALT fuel for all non TAF 'dromes even when CAVOK would cripple GA and is completely illogical.

Great post, strim. You have managed to say in a few sentences what it has taken me several posts to say.

das uber, apologies if it was me you were referring to. I know I can be overly blunt in my writing at times.

About the CASA rules. The rule book could do with a good rewrite. I think we all agree on that. There are a number of things - like this stuff about alternates - that to really understand, you must read between the lines then apply some philosophy, history and logic to.

These rules about alternates were quite clear until RNAV approaches came along. To accomodate RNAV approaches, the rules were only tinkered with. The result is, today, a bunch of rules that are confusing and contradictory.

Some answers to questions:

How do your interpretations fit in with enr 1.10?

Those rules relate to the requirements to obtain a forecast before making a flight. They have nothing to do with the rules regarding alternates.

43Inches, good point.

Not trying to be a smartass either but could the 10%'ers please supply Jepp references as per the OP's original request?

The references have all been quoted throughout this thread. Some several times over.

Here is what the rules are really saying (daytime cases only):

An aerodrome can either SERVE as an alternate, or it requires an alternate. I find it easier to think in terms of the requirements that allow a place to SERVE as an alternate.

For the "non-VMC" scenario, to serve as an alternate, an aerodrome must have:
1. a valid TAF, and
2. navaid(s) and associated instrument approach(es), and
3. weather conditions better than the stipulated minima (e.g xwind, viz);

For the "VMC" scenario, to serve as an alternate, the aerodrome only needs:
1. weather conditions better than the stipulated minima (e.g xwind, viz);

If an aerodrome cannot SERVE as an alternate, then it REQUIRES an alternate. The logic behind the rules is all about the conditions an aerodrome must satisfy in order to SERVE as an alternate.

Note: I am unfamiliar with TSO C146 rules, but believe (from what I have read here) that an aircraft so fitted does not require ground-based navaid(s) for an aerodrome to satisfy alternate requirements.

[FGD135]

Captain Nomad,

Looks like we were both composing at the same time. Apologies if my previous posts have come across as overly blunt.

"For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast is unavailable... must make provision for a suitable alternate..."

I knew that you would quote this one and had intended to address it in my previous post but forgot.

Yes, this does appear to say that if a place has an instrument approach, then without a TAF, you must provide an alternate.

But, this passage dates from the days before RNAV approaches. In those days, the situation being referred to was one where there were ground aids, and also therefore, TAFs for all (or some) of the time.

So, this passage was (then) perfectly consistent with the various others. It is not consistent nowadays.

[Captain Nomad]

FGD, your explanation highlights to me why if I am flying IFR by day to Warnervale (no IAP no forecast - need alternate), I can use Cessnock and its firm forecast as my alternate without it itself needing an alternate even though it does not have an IAP or navaid. THAT is when the LSALT +500 & 8km vis rule comes into play!

I don't know if your description of how come you were not holding an alternate in the first place for the original example would auger well in a court of law. Jepp ATC pg 304 3.2.12 b. couldn't be much clearer.

[glekichi]

Okay FGD, Ill give it one more attempt but after this I give up.

Those rules relate to the requirements to obtain a forecast before making a flight. They have nothing to do with the rules regarding alternates.

Apply the logic theory that you have been discussing.

If it is not saying that the area forecast (showing the right information) satisfies the requirement for an aerodrome that does not have an instrument approach thus not requiring an alternate, then what else is it saying?

You can fly anywhere without a forecast if you are going to hold an alternate that does have one (suitable), so, what exactly would this area forecast be fulfilling as the "minimum requirement" ?

Also have a look at ENR 1.10 1.4.1 Non-instrument Procedure Destination.
It clearly states that flight to these destinations is allowed and that an alternate is required only if the destination forecast is worse than what is specified in ENR 1.1 58.2.12.

ENR 1.1 58.2.12

LSALT + 500' and 8km on the LAST ROUTE SEGMENT.

The weather on the last route segment can be calculated using the ARFOR obtained in accordance with ENR 1.10 1.2.1.

How many aerodromes without any instrument procedure have a TAF anyway?

[Jack Ranga]

This would have to be the most all-time, bestest PPRUNE thread ever

I mean, what a cack! Go back to page one and start with a wry smile on your face and read through to page 4.

Says it all about aviation in Australia don't you think?

I reckon I could come up with a paragraph that would state categorically whether YOU NEED AN EFFING ALTERNATE OR NOT................

[waren9]

Well Jack, CASA couldnt do it in 20, what makes you think you could do it in one?

Looking back, I think the question posed by the OP was not specific enough and required some interpretation or assumptions to come to an answer. Clearly not everyone has read it the same way.

I can see FDG's point after some late night reading but choose to disagree for now. My final answer to the OPs scenario is...not enough information.

[das Uber Soldat]

Before i read this thread, I thought I knew the rules.

All I know now is that im ****in confused

[Stationair8]

Used to be a stock-standard question at RFDS interviews.

[Captain Nomad]

Could someone please enlighten me as to all the VFR GA that is apparently going on that would have to come to a grinding halt? How many people do you know of are regularly blasting off VFR with just enough fuel for a destination further than 50nm from departure with no TAF and no alternate? (yes, we all know there will always be a cowboy out there doing it). By my reading of the regs, VFR is not exempt from the requirement to have a firm forecast or an alternate in this situation.

As for locations with no IAP and a TAF, well there are a few out there. Off the top of my head: Cessnock, Giles, Shark Bay, North Rankin A Platform (maybe there is some private helo procedure I don't know about), Kintore, Yuendumu, Ivanhoe, and probably quite a few more if I trawled through the regions with a fine tooth comb!

I have given two examples of where the LSALT +500 and 8km vis rule can be used yet people are still trying to extrapolate that rule into a situation where the rules clearly state: "For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure where an aerodrome forecast is unavailable or is 'provisional,' the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate." I am still entirely unconvinced that you could argue your way out of this in front of a judge!

The next clause states: "For aerodromes without an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima are the LSALT for final route segment +500ft and vis 8km (also refer to non-instrument procedure destination)." It never states that this scenario involves a location which is also without a TAF and I don't think it is safe to presume that. That this clause exists is precisely to help you with scenarios where you are dealing with TAF locations by day with no IAP as per the Cessnock example.

[glekichi]

Captain Nomad,

The final route segment requires an area forecast to calculate enoute cloud base and visibility, not a TAF.

[Jabawocky]

Used to be a stock-standard question at RFDS interviews.

And what was their preferred reply?

[Captain Nomad]

The final route segment requires an area forecast to calculate enoute cloud base and visibility, not a TAF.

So where is the 'OUT' clause permitting this to now obviate the need for a firm AERODROME forecast as required by Jepp ATC pg 303 3.1.3 "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."

This even appears in the old VFG book produced by CASA for VFR pilots! I'm still waiting for a regulation reference that produces an 'out' clause for this people...

(where's that popcorn icon??!!)

[das Uber Soldat]

You could be waiting a while, I've been waiting since page 1.

[glekichi]

The RFDS do still ask that question!

The out IS ENR 1.10 1.2.1.

It is backed up by ENR 1.10 1.4.1, amongst others.

This is going around in circles now and I'm starting to sound like a broken record, so Ill make this post my "out".

Enjoy.

[pcx]

Jepp ATC para 3 Alternate Aerodromes.
Wish I knew how to cut and paste from Flightstar.

3.1 General

3.1.1 A pilot in command must make provision for flight to an alternate aerodrome, when required, in accordance with the following paragraphs.

The way I interpret this is that there has to be a requirement already existing for the provisions of the following paragraphs to apply.

Therefore the provision in

3.1.3 When an aerodrome aerodrome forecast is not available or is "provisional" the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.

only applies if there is a requirement for an alternate specified somewhere else. ie this clause does not, in itself, generate a requirement for an alternate.

As has already beed discussed I think that IFR flights are required to provide for an alternate in accordance with para 3.2.12.

However I always believed that it was permissable to change category to VFR on the last route segment providing that the area forecast was such that VFR was possible.

Carefull reading of

Flight Planning 1.2 Forecasts

seems to indicate thet I am wrong for any destination that has a prescribed instrument approach procedure, but correct for any other aerodrome.

Common sense to me says that just because an aerodrome has an instrument approach it will need an alternate if a TAF is not available but an aerodrome close by that does not have a TAF will not, if the area forecast indicates no more than scattered cloud below LSa + 500ft and vis 8000m on the last route segment. I do not believe that this was the intent of this clause.

Also what about the case of a VFR only pilot. He or she may legitimately not know what an instrument approach exists for a particular destination and is certainly not required to have copies of approach plates to find out.

I guess that I really do not know the correct answer to this one, even after 30 years of flying. That really says more about the way the regulations are drafted than any thing else.

We really do all need to be concerned with the CASA rush to "offences of strict liability".

[Jack Ranga]

Well Jack, CASA couldnt do it in 20, what makes you think you could do it in one?

I know there's sarcasm & humour in your post waz but I'm going to use it as a Dorothy Dixer:

Could it be because the moron, public service, nanny state lawyer types have gotten control of the CASA.

And in their drafting of this and everything else in CAO's, ANO's, CAA's, CAR's, CAAP's, AIP, ERSA, DAP and every other publication that has existed in the past, present & future, they have not consulted any industry group, user group, dare I say it stakeholders or used any common sense whatsoever?

Just so long as it's almost impossible to read or interpret or justify almost any decision you have to make unless you are Rhodes Scholar, no make that a group of Rhodes Scholars of like mind.

Could that be the reason?????