The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

VCTS: Alternate Requirement?

Old 7th Nov 2017, 05:03
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 381
It doesn't imply you'll have fuel to another port if your destination suddenly requires an alternate due to un-forecast changes, however if you have fuel to another port at the time it deteriorates, your obliged to apply the altn requirement and divert, or if it goes sour you'll answer for it.
I agree 100% with everything you've said in the above quote. That is exactly my understanding of the regs/company manuals.
The inflight quote ensures you don't continue on to destination after departure if your fuel level reduces to the level below what your min arrival fuel is pre departure.
I disagree with the above.
Your min arrival fuel pre departure is not relevant. None of the regs or company manuals suggest that the PinC is responsible for comparing destination fuel with a figure calculated pre departure. But they all suggest that he/she is responsible for ensuring that, based on the latest available forecasts, they have fuel to an airfield that has wx above alternate minima. QF goes so far as to point out that that airfield can be Destination, an Alternate, or any other suitable airport to which an Enroute diversion can be made.
At some point after you leave behind that last suitable and your destination wx goes below altn min you will obviously not have altn fuel. Or if your last suitable enroute goes to altn as well.
Correct. And in that circumstance the QF manual says
It is recognised that there are occasions when a flight may pass DPA with the required fuel on board and a subsequent deterioration in forecast weather may then result in the minimum mandatory requirements above not being met.
That is life, and at that stage there is precious little you can do about it, but the manuals have been doing their damnedest to prevent that circumstance from occurring by instructing the Captain to make decisions that ensure the 'minimum mandatory requirements ' are met at DPA.
73Q, I don't think you're a High Capacity pilot or you'd know that you're quoting is what you'll find in every airlines Fuel Policy, and you're taking it out of context!
What's a high capacity pilot?
73qanda is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2017, 09:09
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: deutschland
Posts: 41
What's a high capacity pilot?
73Q - If you don't know what a high capacity pilot is, your'e not involved in a heavy aircraft airline operation and your aviation knowledge is rather limited.
Con Catenator is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2017, 10:19
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,724
I think that's just pointing out that there's no ATPL(HiCap), issued (although don't tell CASA, they'll invent one).

In Europe, there are no weather or traffic holding requirements. You carry an alternate which has weather above the second most limiting approach (if you are CAT3, then that might be just 550m - the CAT 1 vis). If the weather at your destination is below landing minima, you source two alternates, and carry fuel for the furthest one. Any fuel you want for second approaches or holding for an approach is left up to the commander.

If your destination has two independent runways, and weather is pretty much CAVOK, you don't have to carry the alternate, but everyone ignores that bit.
Checkboard is online now  
Old 7th Nov 2017, 10:53
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 97
“High capacity pilot” has no meaning in Australia. Unless I’ve missed something in the last 50 years - last 20 or so on 747.
PW1830 is online now  
Old 7th Nov 2017, 16:34
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 381
Quote:
What's a high capacity pilot?
73Q - If you don't know what a high capacity pilot is, your'e not involved in a heavy aircraft airline operation and your aviation knowledge is rather limited.
Is that your only contribution to the topic? .....I fly 737's , I have no idea if that has the required capacity for me to be considered a "high capacity " pilot.
73qanda is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2017, 21:34
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by PW1830
“High capacity pilot” has no meaning in Australia. Unless I’ve missed something in the last 50 years - last 20 or so on 747.
Obviously sheltered from the likes of, for example, CAO 82.5...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2017, 21:47
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 0
No “high capacity” pilots in Australia?

I have seen plenty of pilots who are full of it, so he could mean that, or of course with the idiotic two person on the flight deck at all times rule it could merely be a reference to bladder capacity.

Yes I know.....back in my box
Snakecharma is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2017, 23:00
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,724
Obviously sheltered from the likes of, for example, CAO 82.5...
Which, as far as I can tell, doesn't define "high capacity" at all - and makes no mention of special licencing for pilots.
Checkboard is online now  
Old 7th Nov 2017, 23:42
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
The definition of high capacity aircraft is in CAO 82.0. CAO 82.5 applies conditions to the AOCs of the operators of those aircraft.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2017, 04:54
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 381
Well I'm glad we've sorted out the important stuff
73qanda is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2017, 10:39
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 25
73qanda

73,

Have to say I'm surprised and somewhat a little dubious that you're a 73 driver due to the way you write and the words you have used. But, I'll take it as given.

Re your "I disagree with the above", may be I didn't communicate what I meant very well, but I believe what I've said is basically correct. What you're missing there is the part on pre flight planning, which is basically the same as what it says when "at all times inflight onboard fuel shall not be less than': ......."

Without that the lawyers will argue that as long as you departed with the required fuel there are no requirements once airborne, as non are stipulated. So, without any changes you are required to land with what you originally planned, except your VR component reduces as you continue enroute. This is nothing new and has been the case as far back as 1982. Btw, you won't always have an enroute altn!

I don't think we're really disagreeing on much, more on seeing it a little differently, with the same result.

HC is > than 36 seats. Because of the way you wrote about the QF and VA manuals I didn't think you were airline, not that that really matters as it's the same regardless.
exfocx is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2017, 12:10
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 663
73Qanda, this was your statement from a few days ago that had me wide eyed with incredulity:
For all the uneducated readers out there;
If you're on a Qantas or Virginia Australia jet, the company has instructed the Captain that he or she must ensure that at all times while airborne, there is sufficient fuel in the tanks to fly to an airport that has not dropped below the alternate weather requirements, or if it has, they have the fuel to hold until it is better again.
It was the "at all times" bit that got me. I see from your posts since then that you realise the "at all times" is not really "at all times"!
FGD135 is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2017, 14:34
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Folks,
Except as detailed by our mate Bloggsie, (and one other area) Australia is about the only country I know where a PPL or higher licensed pilot is NOT automatically an approved weather observer, and the (un) reason is so very Australian.

Back in late '60's or early '70's there was an industrial fight between whichever union covered the bulk of weather observers and BoM and DCA, ie: the Commonwealth.

One of the outcomes was (much to us "drivers airframe" surprise) regulatory change from an industrial agreement that pilots ceased to be met observers. It was never anything to do with "safety", but try telling that to a current generation FOI.

The other "exception" was (is?) where there is an M on a position, where you can broadcast a full Airep, and last time I noticed, if you want to report anything elsewhere, you must use the magic words "---- Airep SPECIAL".

In the discussions on TS in the vicinity, again the last time I looked, as the forecast applies to a 5nm radiius, vicinity was defined in the ICAO books 5 to 10 miles, so legally TS in the vicinity (between 5 and 10 miles) does not mean an alternate must be carried.

Of course, what might be prudent is another thing altogether.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Re. European or US "alternate always required", in general, their alternate criteria are lower than here, often a lot lower, and possible alternates are commonly a long spit away, not Australian distances. The US has a provision where the alternate fuel is not required, but I am not going to try and quote it from memory, but essentially the destination must be forecast VMC for quite a time span around your ETA.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2017, 05:59
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 381
The ' uneducated readers ' comment was made in response to Bloggs writing
I am concerned that uneducated readers might think that "the big players in Australia" do carry alternates. They don't, as QF found out in their A330/CBR and A330/PER when the weather changed enroute a few years ago
Without that context it would leave me wide-eyed as well.
Have to say I'm surprised and somewhat a little dubious that you're a 73 driver due to the way you write and the words you have used. But, I'll take it as given.
Most of the time employing simple heuristics like that will stand you in good stead, we all do it. Sometimes they lead you astray, such is life.
Anyway, thanks for the chat, I've enjoyed it.
73qanda is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2017, 07:16
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 388
Thank you Leadsled,

In the discussions on TS in the vicinity, again the last time I looked, as the forecast applies to a 5nm radiius, vicinity was defined in the ICAO books 5 to 10 miles, so legally TS in the vicinity (between 5 and 10 miles) does not mean an alternate must be carried.
If anyone wants to look it up, refer to

Jepp Ref Met 8.1
AIP Ref GEN 3.5 Para 3.4.1.

I can't believe it took over 70 responses for someone to answer the original question correctly from a legal perspective. Apologies to anyone in the middle that I might have missed - I gave up reading and skipped to the end in disgust.
werbil is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.