NO Instrument App/NO TAF - Alternate ?
Thread Starter
I guess I am looking at this from the perspective of never having seen it before, therefore as the uninitiated - I am looking at it from direct translation fo the regulation in print. To the folk who are using terms like - "the assumption is " or "it makes not sense" etc, provides little guidance.
Under the Auspices of ALTERNATE AERODROMES the over arching statement is11.7.1.3 as writing here.
That sub section (11.7.3.2) is under the RADIO NAV AIDS SECTION.
That sub section (11.7.3.2) deals with Alternate planning from the perspective of radio nav aids.
The sub section (11.7.2.12) is under the WEATHER CONDITIONS SECTION.
In the sub section(11.7.2.12) for IFR flight it outlines three conditions for ALTERNATE MINIMAThis section states
For IFR flights, the alternate minima are as follows:
It is bloody confusing to say the least, as can be seen on these posts, and the ones in the past. Be great is CASA could clarify it.
Under the Auspices of ALTERNATE AERODROMES the over arching statement is11.7.1.3 as writing here.
- 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.
That sentence is not a conditional one, it is (to me at least) a straight out order.
oggers posted"11.7.3.2 Notwithstanding the above, a flight may be planned under the IFR by day to a destination aerodrome which is not served by a radio navigation aid without the requirement to provide for a suitable alternate aerodrome, provided that
a. not more than SCT cloud is forecast below the final route segment LSALT plus 500FT and forecast visibility at the destination aerodrome is not less than 8KM; and
b. the aircraft can be navigated to the destination aerodrome in accordance with para 4.1"
Taken with the aforementioned flight planning requirement:
b. the aircraft can be navigated to the destination aerodrome in accordance with para 4.1"
Taken with the aforementioned flight planning requirement:
That sub section (11.7.3.2) deals with Alternate planning from the perspective of radio nav aids.
The sub section (11.7.2.12) is under the WEATHER CONDITIONS SECTION.
In the sub section(11.7.2.12) for IFR flight it outlines three conditions for ALTERNATE MINIMAThis section states
For IFR flights, the alternate minima are as follows:
- For aerodromes with an instrument approach procedure, the alternate minima published on the chart (see ENR 1.5, Section 6.).
- 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.
- 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 (also refer ENR 1.10 Sub-section 1.4)
It is bloody confusing to say the least, as can be seen on these posts, and the ones in the past. Be great is CASA could clarify it.
To illustrate my level of boredom, I have been digging through the regs to find an answer for a hypothetical situation. But can't come up with a definitive answer as the regs seem to be about either a small aircraft with steam guages in PVT ops or airlines operating out of capital city aerodromes.
This is the situation. (hypothetrical)
Airfield, lets say Mansfield Vic, an ALA that's privately owned....as in your own private landing strip. No instrument approaches available. All required runway lights for night ops.
Terrain - Mansfiled is in a bowl with high terrain on almost every side about 10nm away in each direction.
Aircraft - MTOW 6489 kg (Kinagir 360) ME Turbine. Has all the bells and whistles.
Pilot - has every rating needed & is current.
Fuel is not an issue
Wx, CAVOK
Mr moneybags has 2 aircraft. A new G58 Baron and a new Kingair 360.
One night, a typical summer night that's just beautiful, he decides to do a trip round the Melbourne (Port Philip) bay. You know one of those night that's just begs for a scienic over the bay. The regs say he can do it in the Baron. But can he do it in the 6489 kg Kingair?
Part 2 of the question is, for a trip home on another flight, could he plan IFR in the same Kingair to a nearby aerodrome with an instrument approach then downgrade to NVFR for the last 30nm to home base. Assuming WX conditions are NVFR.
All NVFR regulations are aimed at aircraft not above 5700 kg.
Will the advent of wearable HUDS with EVS systems require a re-write of the regulations. There is some interesting tech about to filter down to smaller aircraft. You can alsways see the terrain from synthetic vision no matter where you look.
This is the situation. (hypothetrical)
Airfield, lets say Mansfield Vic, an ALA that's privately owned....as in your own private landing strip. No instrument approaches available. All required runway lights for night ops.
Terrain - Mansfiled is in a bowl with high terrain on almost every side about 10nm away in each direction.
Aircraft - MTOW 6489 kg (Kinagir 360) ME Turbine. Has all the bells and whistles.
Pilot - has every rating needed & is current.
Fuel is not an issue
Wx, CAVOK
Mr moneybags has 2 aircraft. A new G58 Baron and a new Kingair 360.
One night, a typical summer night that's just beautiful, he decides to do a trip round the Melbourne (Port Philip) bay. You know one of those night that's just begs for a scienic over the bay. The regs say he can do it in the Baron. But can he do it in the 6489 kg Kingair?
Part 2 of the question is, for a trip home on another flight, could he plan IFR in the same Kingair to a nearby aerodrome with an instrument approach then downgrade to NVFR for the last 30nm to home base. Assuming WX conditions are NVFR.
All NVFR regulations are aimed at aircraft not above 5700 kg.
Will the advent of wearable HUDS with EVS systems require a re-write of the regulations. There is some interesting tech about to filter down to smaller aircraft. You can alsways see the terrain from synthetic vision no matter where you look.
Yes i agree its a very confusing topic with conflicting information.
As you state above 11.7.3.2 is under the Radio Nav aids section, BUT, this same quote is repeated under Weather Conditions section ( 11.72.12 C).
For a destination without an IAP, the alt minima is LSALT + 5 and 8km visibility.
Note, the line referring to " where an aerodrome forecast is unaviable or is provisional, suitable alternate must be planned" is Clause B which begins with " For aerodromes with an IAP"- as the aerodrome forecast is used to be aligned to the alt minima on the IAP chart, which obviosuly isnt applicable to a destination without a published IAP chart, hence clause B begins with " For aerodromes with an IAP".
Heres a hypotheical situation: Planning a IFR charter from Bankstown to Cessnock ( AD north of Sydney near Williamtown).
Cessnock does not have any published IAP, nor nav aids, Nor TAF- however is quite a busy training a GA airport.
By day ( refer ENR 1.10 -1.4.1)- you can plan to a non IAP destination IFR if firstly you can navigate to the destination via an area navigation syste ( ie. GNSS) or visual reference ( since there are no nav aids at the destination ( ENR 1.1 4.1.1 IFR Navigation). So we can fly to the destination, but do we need an alternate.
ENR 1.10 states to refer to the alternate minima in ENR 1.1 11.7.2.12. In this reference, we refer to Clause C), since there is no published IAL chart. It states the Alternate minima is LSALT+5 and 8km visibility for the final route segment. Since the last route segment will probbley be via a waypoint MAKOR, the last route segment is well outside a TAF 5nm bubble ( irresepective of the fact we dont even have a TAF at Cessnock). Hence we consult the GAF for the area and see the lowest cloud we can expect is hypoteically FEW clouds 5000/ 7000, which happens to be above our final routes segment LSALT+500ft. Visibility isnt a problem based on the GAF.
So, we dont need an alternate since we are above the alternate minima for weather conditions. Is there any other things that may make us rewuire an alternate., consult ENR 1.1 approximatly page 90. Navaids alternates- not required since weather is better than LSALT +5 and 8km vis. Lighting- not a factor as daytime.
Therfore, we can plan an IFR flight to Cessnock without an alternate. By consulting ENR 1.5, when there is no published IAL chart, our landing minima will be the visual approach requirements by day. To land at this destination, paraphrasing the visual approach requirements, we will ensure that from an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA ( we could potentially use the Maitland 25nm MSA) or a pilot calculated/ grid LSALT, we are within 30nm,we have 5km vis, are clear of cloud and in continuous sight of ground and water, once this is acheived, we can commence a visual approach to Cessnock by DAY.
Now, lets consider if we are conducting this flight at night. ENR 1.10 states that we must have an alternate ( no ifs or buts), and we cant even do the flight if MTOW > 5700kg. Thus, we dont even need to consider the alternate factors in ENR 1.1 ( weather, aids, lighting etc) since before this is even considered, IFR to a non IAP destination at NIGHT must have an alternate. However, we must check the alternate factors such as Weather, aids, lighting etc when checking that our alternate doesnt actually require an alternate itself.
ENR 1.5 states that the landing minima will be VMC from LSALT within 3nm.
ENR 1.10 states that to conduct a landing at a non IAP destination at night ( Cessnock), we will fly at or above the LSALT until within 3n,. Once within 3nm,and with the aerodrome visually identified and able to maintain VMC, we can manouvere to land within a circling area of 3nm.
This provides a clear exam of how you can fly to a non IAP, Non TAF aerodrome , both by day and night, with compliance to the alternate requirements in ENR 1.1 and 1.10. Note, my example sees an alternate not rwquired by day, but is rewquired by night , cant be even conducted if above 5700kg at night.
Does anyone see if im missing something major here or got something very wrong??.
As you state above 11.7.3.2 is under the Radio Nav aids section, BUT, this same quote is repeated under Weather Conditions section ( 11.72.12 C).
For a destination without an IAP, the alt minima is LSALT + 5 and 8km visibility.
Note, the line referring to " where an aerodrome forecast is unaviable or is provisional, suitable alternate must be planned" is Clause B which begins with " For aerodromes with an IAP"- as the aerodrome forecast is used to be aligned to the alt minima on the IAP chart, which obviosuly isnt applicable to a destination without a published IAP chart, hence clause B begins with " For aerodromes with an IAP".
Heres a hypotheical situation: Planning a IFR charter from Bankstown to Cessnock ( AD north of Sydney near Williamtown).
Cessnock does not have any published IAP, nor nav aids, Nor TAF- however is quite a busy training a GA airport.
By day ( refer ENR 1.10 -1.4.1)- you can plan to a non IAP destination IFR if firstly you can navigate to the destination via an area navigation syste ( ie. GNSS) or visual reference ( since there are no nav aids at the destination ( ENR 1.1 4.1.1 IFR Navigation). So we can fly to the destination, but do we need an alternate.
ENR 1.10 states to refer to the alternate minima in ENR 1.1 11.7.2.12. In this reference, we refer to Clause C), since there is no published IAL chart. It states the Alternate minima is LSALT+5 and 8km visibility for the final route segment. Since the last route segment will probbley be via a waypoint MAKOR, the last route segment is well outside a TAF 5nm bubble ( irresepective of the fact we dont even have a TAF at Cessnock). Hence we consult the GAF for the area and see the lowest cloud we can expect is hypoteically FEW clouds 5000/ 7000, which happens to be above our final routes segment LSALT+500ft. Visibility isnt a problem based on the GAF.
So, we dont need an alternate since we are above the alternate minima for weather conditions. Is there any other things that may make us rewuire an alternate., consult ENR 1.1 approximatly page 90. Navaids alternates- not required since weather is better than LSALT +5 and 8km vis. Lighting- not a factor as daytime.
Therfore, we can plan an IFR flight to Cessnock without an alternate. By consulting ENR 1.5, when there is no published IAL chart, our landing minima will be the visual approach requirements by day. To land at this destination, paraphrasing the visual approach requirements, we will ensure that from an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA ( we could potentially use the Maitland 25nm MSA) or a pilot calculated/ grid LSALT, we are within 30nm,we have 5km vis, are clear of cloud and in continuous sight of ground and water, once this is acheived, we can commence a visual approach to Cessnock by DAY.
Now, lets consider if we are conducting this flight at night. ENR 1.10 states that we must have an alternate ( no ifs or buts), and we cant even do the flight if MTOW > 5700kg. Thus, we dont even need to consider the alternate factors in ENR 1.1 ( weather, aids, lighting etc) since before this is even considered, IFR to a non IAP destination at NIGHT must have an alternate. However, we must check the alternate factors such as Weather, aids, lighting etc when checking that our alternate doesnt actually require an alternate itself.
ENR 1.5 states that the landing minima will be VMC from LSALT within 3nm.
ENR 1.10 states that to conduct a landing at a non IAP destination at night ( Cessnock), we will fly at or above the LSALT until within 3n,. Once within 3nm,and with the aerodrome visually identified and able to maintain VMC, we can manouvere to land within a circling area of 3nm.
This provides a clear exam of how you can fly to a non IAP, Non TAF aerodrome , both by day and night, with compliance to the alternate requirements in ENR 1.1 and 1.10. Note, my example sees an alternate not rwquired by day, but is rewquired by night , cant be even conducted if above 5700kg at night.
Does anyone see if im missing something major here or got something very wrong??.
Last edited by mmm345; 26th Oct 2020 at 03:10. Reason: spelling
Heres a hypotheical situation: Planning a IFR charter from Bankstown to Cessnock ( AD north of Sydney near Williamtown).
Cessnock does not have any published IAP, nor nav aids, Nor TAF- however is quite a busy training a GA airport.
By day ( refer ENR 1.10 -1.4.1)- you can plan to a non IAP destination IFR if firstly you can navigate to the destination via an area navigation syste ( ie. GNSS) or visual reference ( since there are no nav aids at the destination ( ENR 1.1 4.1.1 IFR Navigation). So we can fly to the destination, but do we need an alternate.
ENR 1.10 states to refer to the alternate minima in ENR 1.1 11.7.2.12. In this reference, we refer to Clause C), since there is no published IAL chart. It states the Alternate minima is LSALT+5 and 8km visibility for the final route segment. Since the last route segment will probbley be via a waypoint MAKOR, the last route segment is well outside a TAF 5nm bubble ( irresepective of the fact we dont even have a TAF at Cessnock). Hence we consult the GAF for the area and see the lowest cloud we can expect is hypoteically FEW clouds 5000/ 7000, which happens to be above our final routes segment LSALT+500ft. Visibility isnt a problem based on the GAF.
So, we dont need an alternate since we are above the alternate minima for weather conditions.
<SNIP>
Does anyone see if im missing something major here or got something very wrong??.
Cessnock does not have any published IAP, nor nav aids, Nor TAF- however is quite a busy training a GA airport.
By day ( refer ENR 1.10 -1.4.1)- you can plan to a non IAP destination IFR if firstly you can navigate to the destination via an area navigation syste ( ie. GNSS) or visual reference ( since there are no nav aids at the destination ( ENR 1.1 4.1.1 IFR Navigation). So we can fly to the destination, but do we need an alternate.
ENR 1.10 states to refer to the alternate minima in ENR 1.1 11.7.2.12. In this reference, we refer to Clause C), since there is no published IAL chart. It states the Alternate minima is LSALT+5 and 8km visibility for the final route segment. Since the last route segment will probbley be via a waypoint MAKOR, the last route segment is well outside a TAF 5nm bubble ( irresepective of the fact we dont even have a TAF at Cessnock). Hence we consult the GAF for the area and see the lowest cloud we can expect is hypoteically FEW clouds 5000/ 7000, which happens to be above our final routes segment LSALT+500ft. Visibility isnt a problem based on the GAF.
So, we dont need an alternate since we are above the alternate minima for weather conditions.
<SNIP>
Does anyone see if im missing something major here or got something very wrong??.
Per AIP ENR 11.7.1.3, you are using the GAF to determine destination weather, however, 11.7.1.3 requires you to use an aerodrome forecast which is referenced to a TAF. Cessnock has no TAF so you must plan an alternate to Maitland, if Maitland itself does not require an alternate due weather.
It's a ridiculous situation where you cannot use the GAF for arrival weather, but so long as that AIP says "aerodrome forecast" you have to have a valid TAF to be able to determine if the weather will be above the Alternate Minima.
I'd like to know what idiot wrote that such that I can't use the GAF!
Thread Starter
mmm345, thank you for putting the time into this, I really appreciate it.
So one last question - In your example, I follow it all, but isn't the critical link still the airport itself? Say I depart to Cessnock from Bankstown, on a beautiful clear day, just after dawn, in winter, no fuel for an alternate, No cloud on the GAF at LSALT plus 500 for the final segment, therefore I can navigate happily but when I get to Cessnock there is a fog bank. For a reason like this scenario is why I interpret that General statement at the start of the Alternate section of AIP to be if there is no TAF you need an alternate.
Taking it to an extreme, say I was chartered to fly an A380 from Sydney to Cessnock (yes I know the airfield wouldn't take an A380 but its just a hypothetical, I couldn't imagine doing the flight without having an alternate that has a valid TAF.
So one last question - In your example, I follow it all, but isn't the critical link still the airport itself? Say I depart to Cessnock from Bankstown, on a beautiful clear day, just after dawn, in winter, no fuel for an alternate, No cloud on the GAF at LSALT plus 500 for the final segment, therefore I can navigate happily but when I get to Cessnock there is a fog bank. For a reason like this scenario is why I interpret that General statement at the start of the Alternate section of AIP to be if there is no TAF you need an alternate.
Taking it to an extreme, say I was chartered to fly an A380 from Sydney to Cessnock (yes I know the airfield wouldn't take an A380 but its just a hypothetical, I couldn't imagine doing the flight without having an alternate that has a valid TAF.
Yes.
Per AIP ENR 11.7.1.3, you are using the GAF to determine destination weather, however, 11.7.1.3 requires you to use an aerodrome forecast which is referenced to a TAF. Cessnock has no TAF so you must plan an alternate to Maitland, if Maitland itself does not require an alternate due weather.
It's a ridiculous situation where you cannot use the GAF for arrival weather, but so long as that AIP says "aerodrome forecast" you have to have a valid TAF to be able to determine if the weather will be above the Alternate Minima.
I'd like to know what idiot wrote that such that I can't use the GAF!
Per AIP ENR 11.7.1.3, you are using the GAF to determine destination weather, however, 11.7.1.3 requires you to use an aerodrome forecast which is referenced to a TAF. Cessnock has no TAF so you must plan an alternate to Maitland, if Maitland itself does not require an alternate due weather.
It's a ridiculous situation where you cannot use the GAF for arrival weather, but so long as that AIP says "aerodrome forecast" you have to have a valid TAF to be able to determine if the weather will be above the Alternate Minima.
I'd like to know what idiot wrote that such that I can't use the GAF!
In ENR 1.10 1.2.1 it states forecast information obtained must include aerodrome forecast etc. etc.
However, further down, it states " For a flight to an aerodrome where an IAP does not exist, the minimum forecast is a GAF". Therfore, since Cessnock has no IAP, the minimum forecast is a GAF.
Additionally, a TAF at Cessnock would be useless for alternate planning as since there is no IAP , as you must consider weather over the last route segment, which almost always will be outside the 5nm region of a TAF, thus requiring the GAF to be considered. I find it hard to believe there could be influential IMC weather on an aerodrome TAF, that isnt mirrored on the neighboring GAF since a GAF by definition must be more consiervative anyway.
mmm345, thank you for putting the time into this, I really appreciate it.
So one last question - In your example, I follow it all, but isn't the critical link still the airport itself? Say I depart to Cessnock from Bankstown, on a beautiful clear day, just after dawn, in winter, no fuel for an alternate, No cloud on the GAF at LSALT plus 500 for the final segment, therefore I can navigate happily but when I get to Cessnock there is a fog bank. For a reason like this scenario is why I interpret that General statement at the start of the Alternate section of AIP to be if there is no TAF you need an alternate.
Taking it to an extreme, say I was chartered to fly an A380 from Sydney to Cessnock (yes I know the airfield wouldn't take an A380 but its just a hypothetical, I couldn't imagine doing the flight without having an alternate that has a valid TAF.
So one last question - In your example, I follow it all, but isn't the critical link still the airport itself? Say I depart to Cessnock from Bankstown, on a beautiful clear day, just after dawn, in winter, no fuel for an alternate, No cloud on the GAF at LSALT plus 500 for the final segment, therefore I can navigate happily but when I get to Cessnock there is a fog bank. For a reason like this scenario is why I interpret that General statement at the start of the Alternate section of AIP to be if there is no TAF you need an alternate.
Taking it to an extreme, say I was chartered to fly an A380 from Sydney to Cessnock (yes I know the airfield wouldn't take an A380 but its just a hypothetical, I couldn't imagine doing the flight without having an alternate that has a valid TAF.
ENR 1.10 states that the minimum forecast to a negative IAP destination is a GAF, i cant really see why they would write that if you actually needed an alternate whenever there wasnt a TAF because that would just be contradicting exactly what they write in ENR 1.10 ( Note. the statement in the alternate section for weather begins with " For an aerodrome with an IAP" which isnt Cessnock.
Additionally, i acknowledge you point about Fog and to be honest with you, if i was PIC conducting an early morning sunny winter flight to Cessnock, i would carry alternate fuel from an airmanship persepctive and what i know from local knowledge of actually flying there.
However, I dont see how there could be Fog at cessnock, of which isnt reflected on a GAF which is meant to reflect the weather conditions within a much larger area than the 5 miles of a TAF. If there is Fog at Cessnock, one would see this on the GAF that includes the Cessnock area and thus plan an alternate as vis/ cloud would be below 8km and LSALT +5 etc....
Thread Starter
TSFactory -
Exactly.
and if you read the Sub Section Headed Radio Navigation aids,
11.7.3.2 Is the most limiting criteria and the drop the mike conclusion that if you don't have a TAF you need an AlternateNotwithstanding the above, a flight may be planned under the IFR by day to a destination aerodrome which is not served by a radio navigation aid without the requirement to provide for a suitable alternate aerodrome, provided that:
What about crosswind limitations?
and if you read the Sub Section Headed Radio Navigation aids,
11.7.3.2 Is the most limiting criteria and the drop the mike conclusion that if you don't have a TAF you need an AlternateNotwithstanding the above, a flight may be planned under the IFR by day to a destination aerodrome which is not served by a radio navigation aid without the requirement to provide for a suitable alternate aerodrome, provided that:
- not more than SCT cloud is forecast below the final route segment LSALT plus 500FT and forecast visibility at the DESTINATION aerodrome is not less than 8KM
There it is - you need too have forecast visibility at the Destination aerodrome, which is provided by a TAF and therefore NO TAF = Alternate
As usual, this is a case of confusion caused by piecemeal and uncoordinated changes to AIP.
It’s obvious that the sentence about a GAF being ‘good enough’, in the case of a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, was plonked at the end of para 1.2.1 of ENR 1.10 without a review of the other provisions of AIP that refer to “aerodrome” forecasts.
ENR 1.10 is headed “Flight Planning”, but is sprinkled with operational assertions, like the circumstances in which a flight may depart and continue.
Para 1.1 of ENR 1.10 is merely a list of the things which must be ‘carefully studied’ in formulating a plan for “flights away from the vicinity of an aerodrome, flights over water and all IFR flights”. The “forecast information” mandated for ‘careful study’ by para 1.2.1 is limited by para 1.1. That’s why paras 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 start with the words: “For flights for which [a forecast / an aerodrome forecast] is required ...”. If a forecast was required in all cases, those words would be redundant.
But then paras 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 drift into operational rather than planning matters, and confusingly so. They purport to determine whether or not you are “permitted” to depart and continue. Since when is “planning” the same as “doing”?
Para 1.2.2 says:
Note that para 1.2.2 starts out talking about “a forecast” - not specifically an aerodrome forecast - but ends by referring to a “suitable forecast ... for the intended destination”.
According to para 1.2.3:
Good luck working out the interaction between those two paragraphs. If I make provision for an alternate meeting all of the requirements specified in ENR 1.1. Section 11.7 in my flight plan, am I “permitted” to continue my flight if I can’t obtain “a suitable forecast” for my “intended destination” within 30 minutes after departure? Who knows.
Over in ENR 1.1 Section 11.7 headed “Alternative Aerodromes”, para 11.7.1.3 says:
I searched for the term “firm forecast” on the BOM website and in GEN 2.2, to no avail. And do the words plonked at the end of ENR 1.10 para 1.2.1 about GAFs also apply to ENR 1.1 para 11.7.1.3 so that “aerodrome forecast” means something that is not an “aerodrome forecast”? Who knows.
I do hope Mr Harfield and Mr Carmody received Cartier watches as a bonus this year, in addition to their circa $1 million (Mr H) and circa $600K (Mr C) salaries, to recognise the great job they’ve done in contributing to safety through simplicity!
It’s obvious that the sentence about a GAF being ‘good enough’, in the case of a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, was plonked at the end of para 1.2.1 of ENR 1.10 without a review of the other provisions of AIP that refer to “aerodrome” forecasts.
ENR 1.10 is headed “Flight Planning”, but is sprinkled with operational assertions, like the circumstances in which a flight may depart and continue.
Para 1.1 of ENR 1.10 is merely a list of the things which must be ‘carefully studied’ in formulating a plan for “flights away from the vicinity of an aerodrome, flights over water and all IFR flights”. The “forecast information” mandated for ‘careful study’ by para 1.2.1 is limited by para 1.1. That’s why paras 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 start with the words: “For flights for which [a forecast / an aerodrome forecast] is required ...”. If a forecast was required in all cases, those words would be redundant.
But then paras 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 drift into operational rather than planning matters, and confusingly so. They purport to determine whether or not you are “permitted” to depart and continue. Since when is “planning” the same as “doing”?
Para 1.2.2 says:
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 continue provided a suitable forecast is obtained for the intended destination within 30 minutes after departure.
According to para 1.2.3:
For flights to a destination for which an 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 11.7 is provided.
Over in ENR 1.1 Section 11.7 headed “Alternative Aerodromes”, para 11.7.1.3 says:
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.
I do hope Mr Harfield and Mr Carmody received Cartier watches as a bonus this year, in addition to their circa $1 million (Mr H) and circa $600K (Mr C) salaries, to recognise the great job they’ve done in contributing to safety through simplicity!
In ENR 1.10
2.1.2.3 For flights to a destination for which an 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 11.7 is provided.
Why would they need say " For flgihts in which aerodrome forecast is required" if as you say they are always required?
If ENR 1.10 says the minimum forecast to a non-IAP destination is a GAF, then this would be a case when a flight doesn't require an aerodrome forecast.
However, one flying to a destination that has an IAP, Clause 2 of ENR 1.1 comes into play, where when planning to a destination with an IAP and TAF becomes unavaiable, an alternate must be planed.
Can anyone provide some additional experience, potentially FIFO IFR charter as discussed in previous posts in flying to isolated non TAF, Non IAP destinations
2.1.2.3 For flights to a destination for which an 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 11.7 is provided.
Why would they need say " For flgihts in which aerodrome forecast is required" if as you say they are always required?
If ENR 1.10 says the minimum forecast to a non-IAP destination is a GAF, then this would be a case when a flight doesn't require an aerodrome forecast.
However, one flying to a destination that has an IAP, Clause 2 of ENR 1.1 comes into play, where when planning to a destination with an IAP and TAF becomes unavaiable, an alternate must be planed.
Can anyone provide some additional experience, potentially FIFO IFR charter as discussed in previous posts in flying to isolated non TAF, Non IAP destinations
This information can be determined from GPWT's of which in ENR 1.10 is a required forecast that must be obtained.
Obviously, if it appeared that crosswind would likely be a considerable problem without alternative runways available, then an alternate would be a very sound idea.
However, if the GPWT reflects that winds wont be an issue, why need carry fuel for an alternate that maybe over an hours flying time away in some rural areas on a blue sky, CAVOK calm day.
Obviously, if it appeared that crosswind would likely be a considerable problem without alternative runways available, then an alternate would be a very sound idea.
However, if the GPWT reflects that winds wont be an issue, why need carry fuel for an alternate that maybe over an hours flying time away in some rural areas on a blue sky, CAVOK calm day.
TAF required
Captain Rex,
You forgot that there there was a guy in a C182RG also going to Woop Woop. he was building up hours for his CPL in the hope that in five years time, maybe, the number of out of work commercial pilots looking for a job will have decreased.
He was so excited at staying at Woop Woop and the fact that you called up behind him that he forget to dangle the Dunlops and pulled up in the middle of the runway with a grinding noise! OOps!
It is now one hour before last light. Town is some five miles away so no way to get him off the strip before you arrive. What are you going to do? Your twin likes lots of runway. You have 60 minutes of fuel remaining.
The nearest alternate is 20 miles away.
Think quick.
You forgot that there there was a guy in a C182RG also going to Woop Woop. he was building up hours for his CPL in the hope that in five years time, maybe, the number of out of work commercial pilots looking for a job will have decreased.
He was so excited at staying at Woop Woop and the fact that you called up behind him that he forget to dangle the Dunlops and pulled up in the middle of the runway with a grinding noise! OOps!
It is now one hour before last light. Town is some five miles away so no way to get him off the strip before you arrive. What are you going to do? Your twin likes lots of runway. You have 60 minutes of fuel remaining.
The nearest alternate is 20 miles away.
Think quick.
Thread Starter
G'day runway 16 (all bold really?),
I actually had that scenario many moons ago flying a 717 to Aye. A deaf pilot, landed gear up, didn't see the lights from the tower, we diverted to AS, then half way there, were told they towed the c210 off the runway so we went back.
I have had many other such decisions to make in my career, lots of warries to tell over the bar, like flying to Harare (elevation 5000 ft), at night, in an A330, half the runway closed, half the lights not working, one reverser in op, doing a VOR approach with 15 kts tail wind, and then on final the VOR failed( below min fuel to divert to Lusaka)
or delayed ex Dubai due weather in an a380, taxiied for 2 hours, amber on the FMS fuel gauge predictions for Amsterdam, get airborne, lightning strike on departure, continue to AMS, FMS showing 6.5 Tonnes on arrival, told to hold (unable due min fuel ), AMS had 35K Crosswind, touched down with 6 Tonnes. The beers tasted bloody good that night. (Final reserve was 4.5 tonnes - a go around and return to land burns about 3.5 tonnes)
Any way as good as the above warries are, they distract from my original post query, and interpretation of the AIP. I think Lead Balloon sums it up perfectly - The muppets who wrote this stuff have no bloody idea, and the muppets who are supposed to amend and correct and clarify this stuff are similarly clueless.
I actually had that scenario many moons ago flying a 717 to Aye. A deaf pilot, landed gear up, didn't see the lights from the tower, we diverted to AS, then half way there, were told they towed the c210 off the runway so we went back.
I have had many other such decisions to make in my career, lots of warries to tell over the bar, like flying to Harare (elevation 5000 ft), at night, in an A330, half the runway closed, half the lights not working, one reverser in op, doing a VOR approach with 15 kts tail wind, and then on final the VOR failed( below min fuel to divert to Lusaka)
or delayed ex Dubai due weather in an a380, taxiied for 2 hours, amber on the FMS fuel gauge predictions for Amsterdam, get airborne, lightning strike on departure, continue to AMS, FMS showing 6.5 Tonnes on arrival, told to hold (unable due min fuel ), AMS had 35K Crosswind, touched down with 6 Tonnes. The beers tasted bloody good that night. (Final reserve was 4.5 tonnes - a go around and return to land burns about 3.5 tonnes)
Any way as good as the above warries are, they distract from my original post query, and interpretation of the AIP. I think Lead Balloon sums it up perfectly - The muppets who wrote this stuff have no bloody idea, and the muppets who are supposed to amend and correct and clarify this stuff are similarly clueless.
G'day runway 16 (all bold really?),
I actually had that scenario many moons ago flying a 717 to Aye. A deaf pilot, landed gear up, didn't see the lights from the tower, we diverted to AS, then half way there, were told they towed the c210 off the runway so we went back.
I have had many other such decisions to make in my career, lots of warries to tell over the bar, like flying to Harare (elevation 5000 ft), at night, in an A330, half the runway closed, half the lights not working, one reverser in op, doing a VOR approach with 15 kts tail wind, and then on final the VOR failed( below min fuel to divert to Lusaka)
or delayed ex Dubai due weather in an a380, taxiied for 2 hours, amber on the FMS fuel gauge predictions for Amsterdam, get airborne, lightning strike on departure, continue to AMS, FMS showing 6.5 Tonnes on arrival, told to hold (unable due min fuel ), AMS had 35K Crosswind, touched down with 6 Tonnes. The beers tasted bloody good that night. (Final reserve was 4.5 tonnes - a go around and return to land burns about 3.5 tonnes)
Any way as good as the above warries are, they distract from my original post query, and interpretation of the AIP. I think Lead Balloon sums it up perfectly - The muppets who wrote this stuff have no bloody idea, and the muppets who are supposed to amend and correct and clarify this stuff are similarly clueless.
I actually had that scenario many moons ago flying a 717 to Aye. A deaf pilot, landed gear up, didn't see the lights from the tower, we diverted to AS, then half way there, were told they towed the c210 off the runway so we went back.
I have had many other such decisions to make in my career, lots of warries to tell over the bar, like flying to Harare (elevation 5000 ft), at night, in an A330, half the runway closed, half the lights not working, one reverser in op, doing a VOR approach with 15 kts tail wind, and then on final the VOR failed( below min fuel to divert to Lusaka)
or delayed ex Dubai due weather in an a380, taxiied for 2 hours, amber on the FMS fuel gauge predictions for Amsterdam, get airborne, lightning strike on departure, continue to AMS, FMS showing 6.5 Tonnes on arrival, told to hold (unable due min fuel ), AMS had 35K Crosswind, touched down with 6 Tonnes. The beers tasted bloody good that night. (Final reserve was 4.5 tonnes - a go around and return to land burns about 3.5 tonnes)
Any way as good as the above warries are, they distract from my original post query, and interpretation of the AIP. I think Lead Balloon sums it up perfectly - The muppets who wrote this stuff have no bloody idea, and the muppets who are supposed to amend and correct and clarify this stuff are similarly clueless.
But it certaintly isnt the only topic whoever wrote the AIP seems to struggle with in its ability to employ the copy and paste from ICAO PANS-OPS without mucking it up.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: maidenhead, UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going into Hanover many years ago in a Dak, weather was foul but we broke out on minima, just. Met by the handling agent, we said we nearly had to divert to Hamburg - he replied that someone had blocked the runway at Hamburg. No problem say we, HAM has two runways. Yes says he, but the wreckage is on the intersection...
Some things you just can't plan for.
Some things you just can't plan for.
Why would they need say " For flgihts in which aerodrome forecast is required" if as you say they are always required?
So for IFR flights - yes - ‘it’, whatever ‘it’ is - is always required.
But that’s a distraction from the key issue causing confusion.
The key issue causing confusion is that when they plonked the sentence about GAFs being ‘good enough’, in the case of a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, at the end of para 1.2.1 of ENR 1.10, they didn’t review the other provisions of AIP that refer to “aerodrome” forecasts. I think you’ll find - in true Australian fashion - that the references to “aerodrome” forecast in e.g. ENR 1.10 para 1.2.3 and ENR 1.1 ENR 11.7.1.3 are intended to include a GAF in the case of a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist.
runway16: We get it. We all should have a ‘Plan B’. You divert to the alternate 20nms away, but then find that yet another guy in a C182RG has landed wheels up on the single runway at the alternate, and won’t be cleared before end of daylight.
Think quick.
IF a non IAP destination required an alternate if a TAF was unavailable- Clause B would say " For destinations with or without an IAP- where the aerodrome forecast is unavailable or provisional, an alternate must be planned"... However, it doesnt, it saysb) 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.
If Clause B applied to a non insturment approach destination, then they need not write Clause C, however they do
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 (also refer ENR 1.10 Sub-section 1.4).
As i have stated earlier, Clause B is written as the IAL chart has an alternate minima which reqiures comparision to a TAF to determine alternate reqirements. A non- IAP destination has no such published alternate minima on a non-existant chart, thus Clause C comes into effect. ENR 1.10 supports Clause C in saying that a non-IAP destinations minimum is a GAP.
Consider this NOTAM found currently in the YBBN / MML FIR Notams
It is reffering to ENR 1.1's IFR alternate minima for weather section as an amendment to Clause B. My interpretation is that one may be planning to a destination and then requires an Alternate due to the existance of Clause B, as a result of planning to do an IAP ( Note: Different to the situations we have been talking about earlier of a non- IAP destination) at their destination however the TAF is U/S, thus requring an alternate. However, COVID border restricitions potentially inhibits the ability of an aircraft to plan their desired alternate as it is across the nearby state border ( which is closed), therfore they have to plan to their secondary alternate ,which is within their state, but an extra 1.5 hours flight time. This causes excessive fuel load requirements and thus issues (ie. " E.G Insuffient Fuel".)
However, as a result of this NOTAM, one can disregard Clause B and effectivly apply clause C ENR 1.1 to a positive IAP destination. Note, how the destination doesnt have a TAF ( since this NOTAM applies), however they still state to consider LSALT+5 and 8km visbility...... from the only forecast still available to them..... the GAF.
If Clause B applied to a non insturment approach destination, then they need not write Clause C, however they do
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 (also refer ENR 1.10 Sub-section 1.4).
As i have stated earlier, Clause B is written as the IAL chart has an alternate minima which reqiures comparision to a TAF to determine alternate reqirements. A non- IAP destination has no such published alternate minima on a non-existant chart, thus Clause C comes into effect. ENR 1.10 supports Clause C in saying that a non-IAP destinations minimum is a GAP.
Consider this NOTAM found currently in the YBBN / MML FIR Notams
It is reffering to ENR 1.1's IFR alternate minima for weather section as an amendment to Clause B. My interpretation is that one may be planning to a destination and then requires an Alternate due to the existance of Clause B, as a result of planning to do an IAP ( Note: Different to the situations we have been talking about earlier of a non- IAP destination) at their destination however the TAF is U/S, thus requring an alternate. However, COVID border restricitions potentially inhibits the ability of an aircraft to plan their desired alternate as it is across the nearby state border ( which is closed), therfore they have to plan to their secondary alternate ,which is within their state, but an extra 1.5 hours flight time. This causes excessive fuel load requirements and thus issues (ie. " E.G Insuffient Fuel".)
However, as a result of this NOTAM, one can disregard Clause B and effectivly apply clause C ENR 1.1 to a positive IAP destination. Note, how the destination doesnt have a TAF ( since this NOTAM applies), however they still state to consider LSALT+5 and 8km visbility...... from the only forecast still available to them..... the GAF.
Thread Starter
mmm345 - Yes, very interesting. I think the regs are flawed, piss poorly written, ambiguous, and inherently unsafe. May I also suggest that the NOTAM was issued by someone who does not understand the AIP. I can't get my head around going to a place with no IAP and no TAF and relying on a GAF to ascertain the success of landing.
Last edited by Capn Rex Havoc; 26th Oct 2020 at 23:48.
I think the regs are flawed, piss poorly written, ambiguous, and inherently unsafe.
I can't get my head around going to a place with no IAP and no TAF and relying on a GAF to ascertain the success of landing.
But I’m a bit confused. Your opening post specified an IFR charter flight on a ‘gin clear day’. There are ways of finding out what’s going on at your remote destination. And you can always choose to provide for an alternate, even if it’s not mandated. What’s the safety issue?
I’m not aware of any IFR charter flight in the recent or even distant past that ended in a forced landing due to the unsuitability of the planned destination and all potential alternates, planned or otherwise.