Committing when an alternate is required
Thread Starter
Committing when an alternate is required
Hi there,
Can anyone point me towards any rules or regs that mention 'committing' to an airfield ( in Australia) when the current weather is below Special Alternate Minima ?
There is often talk about ' committing' to an airfield but I think sometimes this is done in contravention to the regs.
Scenario: Assuming my aircraft is equipped in a way that allows the use of Special Alternate Minima and I am inbound to YSSY. The weather at YSSY becomes BKN at 600ft, 50km viz, no wind and is forecast to stay that way. YSCB is acceptable as an alternate and I have the fuel for it.
If I am instructed to enter a hold for 20 minutes and I know I will lose my ability to divert to YSCB from the missed approach in ten minutes, what rule or reg allows me to 'commit' to YSSY and remain in the hold rather than diverting to YSCB before I lose it?
I have made the scenario deliberately unrealistic regarding the Wx conditions because I am not interested in discussing airmanship or decision making, just the regs. I also am not interested in Tempo conditions or Inter conditions as I understand how they can be applied.
Thanks in advance.
Framer.
Can anyone point me towards any rules or regs that mention 'committing' to an airfield ( in Australia) when the current weather is below Special Alternate Minima ?
There is often talk about ' committing' to an airfield but I think sometimes this is done in contravention to the regs.
Scenario: Assuming my aircraft is equipped in a way that allows the use of Special Alternate Minima and I am inbound to YSSY. The weather at YSSY becomes BKN at 600ft, 50km viz, no wind and is forecast to stay that way. YSCB is acceptable as an alternate and I have the fuel for it.
If I am instructed to enter a hold for 20 minutes and I know I will lose my ability to divert to YSCB from the missed approach in ten minutes, what rule or reg allows me to 'commit' to YSSY and remain in the hold rather than diverting to YSCB before I lose it?
I have made the scenario deliberately unrealistic regarding the Wx conditions because I am not interested in discussing airmanship or decision making, just the regs. I also am not interested in Tempo conditions or Inter conditions as I understand how they can be applied.
Thanks in advance.
Framer.
Perhaps a timely question seeing as the wx atm is somewhat ordinary down sth here.
The 50ks viz is a little odd but I assume a typo there:-)
A pilot is or the word "committed" as you mention refers to when he/she can no longer land at their intended destination with the req'd fuel res intact. The time avail & the time to divert to an alt is when the above figure applies. If yr in a hold as you mention then you simply work out how long you can hold for b4 you need to bug out to yr Alt & land with those reserves, the simplest way there is to work back from yr legal fuel res on landing to where you are now (holding for Eg). The "commitment" decision is pilot based & actioned on.
So if yr in that hold as you mention for the instructed 20 mins then theoretically you can only stay there for 10 mins if you want to land with yr fixed res intact.
The 'SLAM' or any other Ldg min's for Eg higher Min's due other rwy's not avail or navaids out etc are academic really, the above applies for all.
The recent MIA Ldg's where an interesting scenario we can all learn from
Wmk2
The 50ks viz is a little odd but I assume a typo there:-)
A pilot is or the word "committed" as you mention refers to when he/she can no longer land at their intended destination with the req'd fuel res intact. The time avail & the time to divert to an alt is when the above figure applies. If yr in a hold as you mention then you simply work out how long you can hold for b4 you need to bug out to yr Alt & land with those reserves, the simplest way there is to work back from yr legal fuel res on landing to where you are now (holding for Eg). The "commitment" decision is pilot based & actioned on.
So if yr in that hold as you mention for the instructed 20 mins then theoretically you can only stay there for 10 mins if you want to land with yr fixed res intact.
The 'SLAM' or any other Ldg min's for Eg higher Min's due other rwy's not avail or navaids out etc are academic really, the above applies for all.
The recent MIA Ldg's where an interesting scenario we can all learn from
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 19th Aug 2013 at 23:47.
Thread Starter
Thanks for your reply Wally.
The thing I am trying to find out is 'what piece of legislation/regulation allows you to stay in the hold beyond the ten minutes?'
Could your above statement be changed to " So if yr in that hold as you mention for the instructed 20 mins then theoretically you can only stay there for 10 mins if you want to remain legal."
So if yr in that hold as you mention for the instructed 20 mins then theoretically you can only stay there for 10 mins if you want to land with yr fixed res intact.
Could your above statement be changed to " So if yr in that hold as you mention for the instructed 20 mins then theoretically you can only stay there for 10 mins if you want to remain legal."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i cant find anything that prevents you from holding as long as you like at syd.
the only reference to inflight reqmnts i can find is in jepp which only requires that you have enough fuel to effect a safe landing plus fixed reserve.
company fuel policy not withstanding of course
the only reference to inflight reqmnts i can find is in jepp which only requires that you have enough fuel to effect a safe landing plus fixed reserve.
company fuel policy not withstanding of course
Thread Starter
I hear what you're saying Waren , but equally I can't find anything that allows you to hold as long as you like.( regs-wise)
If you hold beyond the point where you can divert from the runway to YSCB then for at least the last part of your flight you will be committed to YSSY, which requires an alternate, and you don't have one.
If you hold beyond the point where you can divert from the runway to YSCB then for at least the last part of your flight you will be committed to YSSY, which requires an alternate, and you don't have one.
'Framer' if you think about it staying longer in that hold (assuming yr stated conditions re fuel) then regardless of any regs you obviously can't remain in that hold beyond 10 mins unless of course you desire to land with less than the legal fuel reserves & if that be the case then you better have a good reason for doing so:-)
.............hey 'W9' there is one major consideration that will stop you from holding as long as you like, it's called fuel!!
I am not aware of any reg's as such (there's plenty of Reg knowing pilots in here whom maybe able to quote) that state the things yr asking as it kinda doesn't make sense, you either have the fuel to hold 'till next week or you don't & in yr above mythical scenario you don't:-) You can obviously enter the hold as ATC have instructed but after 10 mins it's all over in yr case.
The only time you can stay longer in that hold & use yr Alt reserves is when you know from a legal standpoint & a common sense standpoint for that matter is that the wx at yr original destination is now at or above yr Ldg's req's now known from say an updated TTF.
This happens quite a lot when on say a ML-PH run when fog is about & you continue along yr route updating TTF's as you go to make sure yr not going to get caught at the end of the flight in less than the min req's.
Of course all this is very subjective as the wx-man is not a guaranteed source of exact science resulting as I mentioned earlier the recent MIA Ldg's by the 'big boys' but we do our best with what we have:-)
So I guess to answer yr Q as diectly as possible (What piece of reg allows you to stay longer in the hold) that reg would be a TTF for Eg that says the Ldg min is now at or above yr req's & yr original Alt fuel suddenly becomes holding fuel in yr case:-)
Back to the word 'committed' which seems to be the fly in the ointment here we are all 'committed' at some point in any flight based on the gas we have in the tanks, unless of course the ice is running out for the first class pax's drinks.
Regs or no regs the basics of any flt is to leave the ground for yr destination with the fuel req'd to cover all contingencies based on the wx at the time of arrival (Alt's inc). Anything that changes en-route will obviously be deal with on a case by case basis.
Wmk2
.............hey 'W9' there is one major consideration that will stop you from holding as long as you like, it's called fuel!!
I am not aware of any reg's as such (there's plenty of Reg knowing pilots in here whom maybe able to quote) that state the things yr asking as it kinda doesn't make sense, you either have the fuel to hold 'till next week or you don't & in yr above mythical scenario you don't:-) You can obviously enter the hold as ATC have instructed but after 10 mins it's all over in yr case.
The only time you can stay longer in that hold & use yr Alt reserves is when you know from a legal standpoint & a common sense standpoint for that matter is that the wx at yr original destination is now at or above yr Ldg's req's now known from say an updated TTF.
This happens quite a lot when on say a ML-PH run when fog is about & you continue along yr route updating TTF's as you go to make sure yr not going to get caught at the end of the flight in less than the min req's.
Of course all this is very subjective as the wx-man is not a guaranteed source of exact science resulting as I mentioned earlier the recent MIA Ldg's by the 'big boys' but we do our best with what we have:-)
So I guess to answer yr Q as diectly as possible (What piece of reg allows you to stay longer in the hold) that reg would be a TTF for Eg that says the Ldg min is now at or above yr req's & yr original Alt fuel suddenly becomes holding fuel in yr case:-)
Back to the word 'committed' which seems to be the fly in the ointment here we are all 'committed' at some point in any flight based on the gas we have in the tanks, unless of course the ice is running out for the first class pax's drinks
.Regs or no regs the basics of any flt is to leave the ground for yr destination with the fuel req'd to cover all contingencies based on the wx at the time of arrival (Alt's inc). Anything that changes en-route will obviously be deal with on a case by case basis.
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 20th Aug 2013 at 01:34.
Thread Starter
The only time you can stay longer in that hold & use yr Alt reserves is when you know from a legal standpoint & a common sense standpoint for that matter is that the wx at yr original destination is now at or above yr Ldg's req's now known from say an updated TTF.
If in my scenario in the first post the weather remains BKN at 600ft then I bug out after ten minutes to YSCB. If however, a TTF is issued before then stating the cloud BKN at 800ft I can remain in the hold and continue to YSSY as it does not require an alternate.
I know all this is a bit fanciful as I am trying to avoid getting into the airmanship and decision making side of things and isolating it strictly to legal requirements.
I know of a few pilots who would 'commit' to YSSY in the scenario I gave because they are confident that they'll get in. As I understand it, and until I can find some reference to 'committing' , they are then operating without the legal minimum of fuel onboard.
Yep there would be plenty of times where pilots have 'committed' themselves to their original destination knowing full well that it 'might' turn to poo but I guess that's up to the individual.
Legal is good we are all bound by the reg's but sometimes the legal goal posts move whilst in flt (Eg you take off with legal reserves & suddenly they say over the radio hey hazard alert Syd for Eg now req's 3 weeks holding !!) A good pilot will make decisions @ the planing stage based not only on the reg's but common sense & 'reading' a little more into the wx for that comfort factor
Wmk2
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
"T5" yes am aware of that crazy stunt but it's not quite the same thing now is it? I guess it was an act of defiance & he had options (land elsewhere & start all over again):-)
Legal is good we are all bound by the reg's but sometimes the legal goal posts move whilst in flt (Eg you take off with legal reserves & suddenly they say over the radio hey hazard alert Syd for Eg now req's 3 weeks holding !!) A good pilot will make decisions @ the planing stage based not only on the reg's but common sense & 'reading' a little more into the wx for that comfort factor
Wmk2
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
"T5" yes am aware of that crazy stunt but it's not quite the same thing now is it?
I guess it was an act of defiance & he had options (land elsewhere & start all over again):-)
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 20th Aug 2013 at 01:58.
Ah, Wally - you CAN actually hold as long as you like, regardless of fuel!
Boyd Munro did it in the late 80's in his Colemill Panther when the dispute was on. He'd planned to YSSY (not YSBK), ATC said Forgetaboutit, he said no I'll hold, they said fine, he held for a few hours, ran low on juice, dashed down to Goulbourn or somewhere for a top up, back up to the Bindook pattern for a few more hours worth. Can't recall where he went in the end, other than straight to the media to complain how he'd been held for literally hours
Boyd Munro did it in the late 80's in his Colemill Panther when the dispute was on. He'd planned to YSSY (not YSBK), ATC said Forgetaboutit, he said no I'll hold, they said fine, he held for a few hours, ran low on juice, dashed down to Goulbourn or somewhere for a top up, back up to the Bindook pattern for a few more hours worth. Can't recall where he went in the end, other than straight to the media to complain how he'd been held for literally hours
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
framer
in your scenario, i assume there was no alt reqmnt at pre flight stage
that you have fuel for canberra is a bonus. how you use it is up to you according to the regs, so long as you can effect a safe landing at all times.
if a situation transpires that at some point you dont have fuel for a safe landing having considered preflight the factors mentioned in cao 234(3) then ergo you have likely broken the law.
therefore how and where you achieve that safe landing is up to you. the net result is that any decision you make, just make sure you can justify it in court.
company fuel policies all not withstanding of course
in your scenario, i assume there was no alt reqmnt at pre flight stage
that you have fuel for canberra is a bonus. how you use it is up to you according to the regs, so long as you can effect a safe landing at all times.
if a situation transpires that at some point you dont have fuel for a safe landing having considered preflight the factors mentioned in cao 234(3) then ergo you have likely broken the law.
therefore how and where you achieve that safe landing is up to you. the net result is that any decision you make, just make sure you can justify it in court.
company fuel policies all not withstanding of course
Last edited by waren9; 20th Aug 2013 at 04:07.
Maybe I've had it wrong, but my understanding was that committing had more to do with wx deteriorating after your PNR. ie destination alternate suddenly required prior to PNR - continue if you wish to PNR then to your alternate, however as soon as you pass your PNR you are "committed" to your destination, regardless of the wx. Simply comes down to fuel in the tanks.
Without going too far off topic, is there any regulatory requirement to have the latest TTF?
eg. Last TTF received is valid for your arrival and just above alternate minima. Even though it doesn't say so, your experience suggests it may deteriorate below alternate, but probably not below landing minima. Airmanship aside, are you required to obtain the next TTF which may have alternate requirements?
Without going too far off topic, is there any regulatory requirement to have the latest TTF?
eg. Last TTF received is valid for your arrival and just above alternate minima. Even though it doesn't say so, your experience suggests it may deteriorate below alternate, but probably not below landing minima. Airmanship aside, are you required to obtain the next TTF which may have alternate requirements?
Thread Starter
Thanks for the input folks.
Waren what's the status/ relationship of Cao's 88 v's the CASR's 98?
My handle says I live in Ausi but I actually moved years ago and my Ausi law knowledge needs some work.
Are the 88 Cao's still the primary set of laws and the CASR's were laid over the top of them or is one current and the other not?
Waren what's the status/ relationship of Cao's 88 v's the CASR's 98?
My handle says I live in Ausi but I actually moved years ago and my Ausi law knowledge needs some work.
Are the 88 Cao's still the primary set of laws and the CASR's were laid over the top of them or is one current and the other not?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I havent flown in oz for many year either but i believe the rules are similar under all icao states.
The ceiling and viz for filing as alternate are only a preflight planning requirement.. Ie you need to have the altn fuel on departure but once airborne you can do whatever you like with it as long as you plan to land with final reserve.
And remember the inflight altn minima requirement becomes the landing minima.
You can quite legally nominate another alternate in flight as long as it meets ldg minima and you can land there with final reserve fuel.
Therefore you are effectively nominating syd as your new 'altn' as long as it is at or above the ldg minima.
Our company has very specific rules regarding continuing to the destination and i would imagine every operator would have their specific rules.
By the way under the new ICAO rule we are now required to advise ATC when we are effectively comitted to land by telling them "minimum fuel". When it becomes apparent that we will land with less than final fuel reserve we must declare "mayday x3 , Fuel".
The ceiling and viz for filing as alternate are only a preflight planning requirement.. Ie you need to have the altn fuel on departure but once airborne you can do whatever you like with it as long as you plan to land with final reserve.
And remember the inflight altn minima requirement becomes the landing minima.
You can quite legally nominate another alternate in flight as long as it meets ldg minima and you can land there with final reserve fuel.
Therefore you are effectively nominating syd as your new 'altn' as long as it is at or above the ldg minima.
Our company has very specific rules regarding continuing to the destination and i would imagine every operator would have their specific rules.
By the way under the new ICAO rule we are now required to advise ATC when we are effectively comitted to land by telling them "minimum fuel". When it becomes apparent that we will land with less than final fuel reserve we must declare "mayday x3 , Fuel".
Thread Starter
Insomniac, that is the belief that I think is incorrect when operating under Australian regulations.
Below is a cut and paste from the Ausi CAAP that Waren9 referred me to earlier.
Subsection 6.2 is just a reference to Tempo's and Inter's.
The important thing to note in the above quote is that the requirement to maintain your Alternate Fuel is is for " any particular point in the flight". Not just the pre-flight planning stage as many say.
I am always ready to change my mindset if someone points out that I am wrong so feel free to show me why the CAAP doesn't apply or how I've misinterpreted it.
Cheers,
Framer
Below is a cut and paste from the Ausi CAAP that Waren9 referred me to earlier.
6.1 Subject to subsection 6.2, where it has been determined that an alternate aerodrome to the destination aerodrome is required, then the amount of fuel on board an aircraft at any particular point in the flight should be an amount that is sufficient: (a) to enable the aircraft (i) to fly from that point to a height of 1 500 feet above the destination aerodrome; and (ii) to make an approach to that aerodrome; and (iii) to make a missed approach to that aerodrome; and (iv) to fly to the alternate aerodrome; and (v) to make an approach to that alternate aerodrome; and (vi) to land at that alternate aerodrome;
The important thing to note in the above quote is that the requirement to maintain your Alternate Fuel is is for " any particular point in the flight". Not just the pre-flight planning stage as many say.
I am always ready to change my mindset if someone points out that I am wrong so feel free to show me why the CAAP doesn't apply or how I've misinterpreted it.
Cheers,
Framer
Once you are airbourne, you must ensure that you have enough fuel within reason to land safely.
Scenario 1: Flying from A to B on a clear day. You take trip fuel, variable and fixed reserve. After your last Critical Point, you are committed to your destination - nothing wrong or illegal about that, right? - provided it is reasonable for you to assume that you can land there.
If you had been told of unforecast fog, or a crash on the runway then obviously it wouldn't be reasonable to continue - and you would cop it if you had to declare an emergency after continuing under those circumstances.
Scenario 2: Flying from A to B, weather at B is below the alternate minima, and you carry C as an alternate.
Arriving at B, you have made a little fuel enroute, and hold for 10 minutes as a front passes. You may continue to hold at B (burning your alternate fuel) if it is reasonable for you to assume that you can land - nothing wrong or illegal about that. i.e. You have observations/information on the weather which guarantees that the weather won't be an issue for you before you burn to final reserve.
You cop it if, in the event, you have to declare a fuel emergency for anything with you reasonably could have predicted.
Scenario 1 and 2 are effectively the same.
Scenario 1: Flying from A to B on a clear day. You take trip fuel, variable and fixed reserve. After your last Critical Point, you are committed to your destination - nothing wrong or illegal about that, right? - provided it is reasonable for you to assume that you can land there.
If you had been told of unforecast fog, or a crash on the runway then obviously it wouldn't be reasonable to continue - and you would cop it if you had to declare an emergency after continuing under those circumstances.
Scenario 2: Flying from A to B, weather at B is below the alternate minima, and you carry C as an alternate.
Arriving at B, you have made a little fuel enroute, and hold for 10 minutes as a front passes. You may continue to hold at B (burning your alternate fuel) if it is reasonable for you to assume that you can land - nothing wrong or illegal about that. i.e. You have observations/information on the weather which guarantees that the weather won't be an issue for you before you burn to final reserve.
You cop it if, in the event, you have to declare a fuel emergency for anything with you reasonably could have predicted.
Scenario 1 and 2 are effectively the same.
Last edited by Checkboard; 20th Aug 2013 at 16:49.