NO Instrument App/NO TAF - Alternate ?
Thread Starter
Hi Lead Balloon,
I guess I had been working too long for a company that was ruthless with respect to following the company and State regulations. Plus I wanted to brush up on the local regs, to be able to discuss the rulings intelligently with my potential new employer.
Your recollection or otherwise of past events is not a reliable source of safety adherence, no disrespect. Wasn't there a near disaster with QF and Virgin 737s a while back at Mildura or some such place with regards to diverting from Adelaide due fog? I hope there were robust changes made to whatever planning/fuel policies were in place at that time to close the Swiss cheese hole that nearly led to catastrophe.
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.
Well it’s ironic that you raise the Mildura incident. Neither Adelaide nor Mildura is a place bereft of IAPs and aerodrome forecasts and reports. The incident raised questions about the reliability and timeliness of the forecasts and reports. You can confine your flights to destinations that have an IAP and TAF, but that evidently ain’t a guarantee of anything.
When you commit the aircraft to entering cloud, you have to get out of that cloud, and that is legally planned in two ways:
a) Descend to the LSALT, and become visual for a visual landing. Allow a 500' buffer to the forecast cloud base on the Area Forecast for the trigger to plan an alternate, or,
b) Descent to the minima of an IAP and become visual for landing (straight-in or circling). Allow a 500' buffer to the circling minima (and 2km to the vis) for the trigger to plan an alternate.
Unlike Europe, there's no (required) consideration for multiple runway availability.
If VFR, you have to fly a 1000' circuit - so add 500' to that to trigger your Alternate planning.
Fairly simple, eh?
a) Descend to the LSALT, and become visual for a visual landing. Allow a 500' buffer to the forecast cloud base on the Area Forecast for the trigger to plan an alternate, or,
b) Descent to the minima of an IAP and become visual for landing (straight-in or circling). Allow a 500' buffer to the circling minima (and 2km to the vis) for the trigger to plan an alternate.
Unlike Europe, there's no (required) consideration for multiple runway availability.
If VFR, you have to fly a 1000' circuit - so add 500' to that to trigger your Alternate planning.
Fairly simple, eh?
Last edited by Checkboard; 27th Oct 2020 at 14:49.
Simple, yes. But you’re ‘linking’ the alternate requirement to “the forecast cloud base on the Area Forecast”. Those words appear nowhere in the Australian AIP.
Pity the Australian AIP doesn’t say that.
Wouldn’t it be great if - one day - the Australian AIP was again written properly?
Wouldn’t it be great if - one day - the Australian AIP was again written properly?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a Knuck who hated Aviation law as a subject in 1986, he did a great deal of good as AIP Editor in later years.. Effort now lost with the verbosity these days.
RIP Mice.
MJG
RIP Mice.
MJG
mmmm345
You asked for additional views a few posts back. Definitively - NO TAF means ALTERNATE. ENR 11.7.1.3 - WHEN AN AERODROME FORECAST IS NOT AVAILABLE, OR IS MARKED "PROVISIONAL" THE PIC MUST MAKE PROVISION FOR A SUITABLE ALTERNATE THAT HAS A FIRM FORECAST. End of paragraph.
The issue about LSALT + 500 is for no NAVAIDS. It should say "no cloud below LSALT plus 500 and 8km vis FROM THE TAF".
If still not convinced - think of this. There is no TAF at an airport called FUNGULU. LSALT to get there is 2,000 ft. The GAF, on the face of it, paints a picture of generally ****ty weather, but no real cloud below 2500 and vis is 9km. So off you go to FUNGULU and get there and its **** below 2500 and you cant get in.
10 miles from FUNGULU, so in the same area, is an airfield called ROSSOW. It has a TAF for cloud generally around 2500 ft and vis 9km (like the GAF), but it has TEMPO all day for cloud BKN at 800 and 3km vis in rain. So I go to ROSSOW, the weather is ****, but I've got the TEMPO fuel, so I hold then land. You only looked at the GAF, you say all good, you head off to FUNGULU and you get there at the same time I get to ROSSOW 10 miles away, the weather is ****, you can't get in and you have no fuel.
GAFS do not give INTERS, TEMPOS, fog, cross wind - these are all things that your fuel planning MUST be based on. Fuel at your destination is determined but the forecast AT YOUR destination. GAF is an overview.
You asked for additional views a few posts back. Definitively - NO TAF means ALTERNATE. ENR 11.7.1.3 - WHEN AN AERODROME FORECAST IS NOT AVAILABLE, OR IS MARKED "PROVISIONAL" THE PIC MUST MAKE PROVISION FOR A SUITABLE ALTERNATE THAT HAS A FIRM FORECAST. End of paragraph.
The issue about LSALT + 500 is for no NAVAIDS. It should say "no cloud below LSALT plus 500 and 8km vis FROM THE TAF".
If still not convinced - think of this. There is no TAF at an airport called FUNGULU. LSALT to get there is 2,000 ft. The GAF, on the face of it, paints a picture of generally ****ty weather, but no real cloud below 2500 and vis is 9km. So off you go to FUNGULU and get there and its **** below 2500 and you cant get in.
10 miles from FUNGULU, so in the same area, is an airfield called ROSSOW. It has a TAF for cloud generally around 2500 ft and vis 9km (like the GAF), but it has TEMPO all day for cloud BKN at 800 and 3km vis in rain. So I go to ROSSOW, the weather is ****, but I've got the TEMPO fuel, so I hold then land. You only looked at the GAF, you say all good, you head off to FUNGULU and you get there at the same time I get to ROSSOW 10 miles away, the weather is ****, you can't get in and you have no fuel.
GAFS do not give INTERS, TEMPOS, fog, cross wind - these are all things that your fuel planning MUST be based on. Fuel at your destination is determined but the forecast AT YOUR destination. GAF is an overview.
Yep I have seen that point in the AIP aswell. However that isnt really in the IFR alternate minima section 11.7.2.12, which details the alternate minima conditions for IFR flights.
In particiular, as this whole thread is abpoiut a non IAP destination, Clause C would apply, which states to refer to ENR 1.10, of which says the minimum forecast for a non IAP destination is a GAF.
Note Clause B above it directly refers to the quote about aerodrome forecast being unaviable or provisional , as you referred to earlier, however beings with , For aerodromes with an IAP , if it were to case for non IAP destinations, they wouldnt have said " For aerodromes with an IAP" and clause C would be redundant. Since both these clauses are under the heading " For IFR flights, the alternate minima are as follows", clearly this is the alternate minima for IFR flights !, evidently based on if there is a published IAl chart with an alternate minima to compare to a TAF or not.
Ah no, it isnt, it is found in the Weather IFR alternate minima section 11.7.2.12.
Additionally, refer to the current NOTAM ive included above. They clearly offer an ammendment to Clause B of the IFR altenrate weather minima, stating that when an TAF is U/S at the destination, instead of requiring an alternate, you can apply the LSALT +5 etc rule, in reference to the only remaining forecast since there is no TAF, THE GAF. The GAF is much more conservative than a TAF, often a TAF would suggest you can complete the flight LSAlt+5, however the GAF completly limits this without an alternate, not the other way around.
Obviously if the GAF was marginal you would carry an alternate, but on a CAVOK clear day, ( as per the opening post), an alternate is unessecary.
In particiular, as this whole thread is abpoiut a non IAP destination, Clause C would apply, which states to refer to ENR 1.10, of which says the minimum forecast for a non IAP destination is a GAF.
Note Clause B above it directly refers to the quote about aerodrome forecast being unaviable or provisional , as you referred to earlier, however beings with , For aerodromes with an IAP , if it were to case for non IAP destinations, they wouldnt have said " For aerodromes with an IAP" and clause C would be redundant. Since both these clauses are under the heading " For IFR flights, the alternate minima are as follows", clearly this is the alternate minima for IFR flights !, evidently based on if there is a published IAl chart with an alternate minima to compare to a TAF or not.
The issue about LSALT + 500 is for no NAVAIDS. It should say "no cloud below LSALT plus 500 and 8km vis FROM THE TAF".
Additionally, refer to the current NOTAM ive included above. They clearly offer an ammendment to Clause B of the IFR altenrate weather minima, stating that when an TAF is U/S at the destination, instead of requiring an alternate, you can apply the LSALT +5 etc rule, in reference to the only remaining forecast since there is no TAF, THE GAF. The GAF is much more conservative than a TAF, often a TAF would suggest you can complete the flight LSAlt+5, however the GAF completly limits this without an alternate, not the other way around.
Obviously if the GAF was marginal you would carry an alternate, but on a CAVOK clear day, ( as per the opening post), an alternate is unessecary.
mmm345
There is a lot of experience on here telling you that you have this wrong. One day in the future, when you suddenly see the light, however far in the future that may be, feel free to PM everyone and admit it.
There is a lot of experience on here telling you that you have this wrong. One day in the future, when you suddenly see the light, however far in the future that may be, feel free to PM everyone and admit it.
You seem quite certain, TTL. You could well be correct as a matter of basic airmanship and I would never argue with you on that front, but good luck in making a black and white argument on the basis of the current terms of the Australian AIP.
Why does ENR 1.1 para 11.7.2.6 refer to “a forecast” but the very next para refer to “TAFs”?
And the para you quoted uses the term “aerodrome forecast”.
Let me guess: They all mean the same thing?
Then why-oh-why don’t they use the same descriptor for the ‘thing’?
BTW, GAFs do include TEMPO and INTER and FM, TL and BECMG, albeit only for critical locations. But those critical locations are chosen for a reason. And cloud amount descriptors in GAF do include e.g. FEW, SCT, BKN and OVC.
There would be no scope for disagreement if the right words were consistently used to describe the right things, but instead we have a mish-mash caused by piecemeal and uncoordinated amendments. I do hope some managers in Airservices and CASA get annual bonuses for their outstanding achievements on the AIP front.
Why does ENR 1.1 para 11.7.2.6 refer to “a forecast” but the very next para refer to “TAFs”?
11.7.2.6 When a forecast has multiple INTER or TEMPO deteriorations...
11.7.2.7 When TAFs include a FM or a BECMG ...
11.7.2.7 When TAFs include a FM or a BECMG ...
Let me guess: They all mean the same thing?
Then why-oh-why don’t they use the same descriptor for the ‘thing’?
BTW, GAFs do include TEMPO and INTER and FM, TL and BECMG, albeit only for critical locations. But those critical locations are chosen for a reason. And cloud amount descriptors in GAF do include e.g. FEW, SCT, BKN and OVC.
There would be no scope for disagreement if the right words were consistently used to describe the right things, but instead we have a mish-mash caused by piecemeal and uncoordinated amendments. I do hope some managers in Airservices and CASA get annual bonuses for their outstanding achievements on the AIP front.
Done BUT. As we love the very efficient professional accuracy and faultless administrative bureaucracy of “Govermint” departments there will be no surprise that this was once done. The school where I did my SCPL (I think that was what it was called in those days) had a very interesting individual that ran the course. Ex WW11 pilot with an interesting number of stories particularly on the ineptitude of our CASA. One of the stories being that one of his students was a Barrister, so not a lay person in dealing with bureaucratic jargon. Whilst undertaking his course he was flabbergasted, flummoxed and effectively F%%k over by the inept written AIP, CAR, CAO, CASR, Oai abc’s etc. Being a chap with too many spare neurons he rewrote these in easy speak, submitted to school who passed on to CASA. Response was very good, will get our people to review and publish. When this was done the easy speak had been removed and the gobblygook was twice as bad.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again.
mmm345 is completely correct, just because an airport has no TAF does not mean an alternate is necessarily required.
AIP ENR 1.1 para 11.7.1.3
Means don't plan a particular airport as your alternate unless that airport has an aerodrome forecast that is not provisional. It says nothing about the destination aerodrome or the destination aerodrome's alternate requirements. It is in the 'general' sub-section' of a section titled 'alternate aerodromes'.
There is a list of airports that have TAFs normally issued in GEN 3.5 - these are the only airports that can be used as alternates, provided their TAF is not provisional.
Here is an excerpt from an email I sent about 4 years ago to Airservices to request an amendment, for the sake of not going through this on Pprune every few years (Para 59.1.3 is where the paragragh in question used to be)
And here is their response (via an 'SME') with my bolding
What they are saying is 11.7.1.3 means, if the aerodrome forecast at the the planned alternate is unavailable or is provisional, then a different alternate is required with a non-provisional (firm) TAF.
The rest follows simply:
No aid airport by day = alternate minima LSALT + 500 on last route segment and 8 KM vis, as determined from the GAF (which must be obtained for all flights) - navaid alternate requirements no longer apply by day (para 11.7.3.2 in the Radio Navigation Aids section), lighting and weather still apply with a different alternate minima
No aid airport by night (not greater than 5,700 KG) = alternate
No TAF airport (can never be an alternate), use the GAF/GPWT (which must be obtained) to determine the forecast weather and then use the Weather conditions section to determine if an alternate is required (see above if no aid as well, because if no IAL then no alternate minima on a plate, thus use LSALT + 500 etc), then lighting and navaids. But if an alternate is required, it must have a TAF that is not provisional.
mmm345 is completely correct, just because an airport has no TAF does not mean an alternate is necessarily required.
AIP ENR 1.1 para 11.7.1.3
Where an aerodrame forecast is not available or is provisional, the pilot in command must make provision for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast.
There is a list of airports that have TAFs normally issued in GEN 3.5 - these are the only airports that can be used as alternates, provided their TAF is not provisional.
Here is an excerpt from an email I sent about 4 years ago to Airservices to request an amendment, for the sake of not going through this on Pprune every few years (Para 59.1.3 is where the paragragh in question used to be)
I refer to AIR ENR paragraph 59.1.3, which concerns the requirement for the PIC to make provision for a suitable alternate.
This is often interpreted as meaning that:
A flight planning to an aerodrome that never has a TAF is required to provide for an alternate for the sole reason that the destination never has a TAF.
This is not what I believe to be correct, but a literal reading of 59.1.3, without reference to headings, indicates that interpretation is correct.
This is often interpreted as meaning that:
A flight planning to an aerodrome that never has a TAF is required to provide for an alternate for the sole reason that the destination never has a TAF.
This is not what I believe to be correct, but a literal reading of 59.1.3, without reference to headings, indicates that interpretation is correct.
AIP ENR 1.1, 59.2, 59.3 & 59.4 describe the circumstances (weather, navaids and lights) by which an alternate may be required. None of these require an alternate solely on the basis of the availability or otherwise of a TAF.
AIP ENR 1.1, 59.1.3 is intended to be read, as it is contained in Section 59 – Alternate Aerodromes, as the means by which an alternate is disqualified if the TAF is not available or issued as ‘provisional’.
It is not intended to be read as requiring all non-TAF aerodromes or landing sites to have an alternate if no TAF is available.
AIP ENR 1.1, 59.1.3 is intended to be read, as it is contained in Section 59 – Alternate Aerodromes, as the means by which an alternate is disqualified if the TAF is not available or issued as ‘provisional’.
It is not intended to be read as requiring all non-TAF aerodromes or landing sites to have an alternate if no TAF is available.
The rest follows simply:
No aid airport by day = alternate minima LSALT + 500 on last route segment and 8 KM vis, as determined from the GAF (which must be obtained for all flights) - navaid alternate requirements no longer apply by day (para 11.7.3.2 in the Radio Navigation Aids section), lighting and weather still apply with a different alternate minima
No aid airport by night (not greater than 5,700 KG) = alternate
No TAF airport (can never be an alternate), use the GAF/GPWT (which must be obtained) to determine the forecast weather and then use the Weather conditions section to determine if an alternate is required (see above if no aid as well, because if no IAL then no alternate minima on a plate, thus use LSALT + 500 etc), then lighting and navaids. But if an alternate is required, it must have a TAF that is not provisional.
Last edited by scavenger; 8th Nov 2020 at 11:53. Reason: typo, correction
It could and should be, Sunfish, but because there’s been so much loss of corporate knowledge and expertise there’s no longer the critical mass to do these things in a coordinated and comprehensive way.
If the intent is as set out in Airservices’ response to scavengers’ question (and I’m confident that is the intent), ENR 1.1 para 11.7 should not start with this confusing dross:
It should instead say:
If a pilot in command is required by ENR 1.10 to make provision for an alternate aerodrome, the alternate must comply with the following paragraphs.
Then ENR 1.10 should be revised in the light of the GAF amendment.
If the intent is as set out in Airservices’ response to scavengers’ question (and I’m confident that is the intent), ENR 1.1 para 11.7 should not start with this confusing dross:
11.7 Alternate Aerodromes
11.7.1 General
11.7.1.1 A pilot in command must make provision for flight to an alternate aerodrome, when required, in accordance with the following paragraphs.
11.7.1 General
11.7.1.1 A pilot in command must make provision for flight to an alternate aerodrome, when required, in accordance with the following paragraphs.
If a pilot in command is required by ENR 1.10 to make provision for an alternate aerodrome, the alternate must comply with the following paragraphs.
Then ENR 1.10 should be revised in the light of the GAF amendment.
Here we go again.
mmm345 is completely correct, just because an airport has no TAF does not mean an alternate is necessarily required.
AIP ENR 1.1 para 11.7.1.3
Means don't plan a particular airport as your alternate unless that airport has an aerodrome forecast that is not provisional. It says nothing about the destination aerodrome or the destination aerodrome's alternate requirements. It is in the 'general' sub-section' of a section titled 'alternate aerodromes'.
There is a list of airports that have TAFs normally issued in GEN 3.5 - these are the only airports that can be used as alternates, provided their TAF is not provisional.
Here is an excerpt from an email I sent about 4 years ago to Airservices to request an amendment, for the sake of not going through this on Pprune every few years (Para 59.1.3 is where the paragragh in question used to be)
And here is their response (via an 'SME') with my bolding
What they are saying is 11.7.1.3 means, if the aerodrome forecast at the the planned alternate is unavailable or is provisional, then a different alternate is required with a non-provisional (firm) TAF.
The rest follows simply:
No aid airport by day = alternate minima LSALT + 500 on last route segment and 8 KM vis, as determined from the GAF (which must be obtained for all flights) - navaid alternate requirements no longer apply by day (para 11.7.3.2 in the Radio Navigation Aids section), lighting and weather still apply with a different alternate minima
No aid airport by night (not greater than 5,700 KG) = alternate
No TAF airport (can never be an alternate), use the GAF/GPWT (which must be obtained) to determine the forecast weather and then use the Weather conditions section to determine if an alternate is required (see above if no aid as well, because if no IAL then no alternate minima on a plate, thus use LSALT + 500 etc), then lighting and navaids. But if an alternate is required, it must have a TAF that is not provisional.
mmm345 is completely correct, just because an airport has no TAF does not mean an alternate is necessarily required.
AIP ENR 1.1 para 11.7.1.3
Means don't plan a particular airport as your alternate unless that airport has an aerodrome forecast that is not provisional. It says nothing about the destination aerodrome or the destination aerodrome's alternate requirements. It is in the 'general' sub-section' of a section titled 'alternate aerodromes'.
There is a list of airports that have TAFs normally issued in GEN 3.5 - these are the only airports that can be used as alternates, provided their TAF is not provisional.
Here is an excerpt from an email I sent about 4 years ago to Airservices to request an amendment, for the sake of not going through this on Pprune every few years (Para 59.1.3 is where the paragragh in question used to be)
And here is their response (via an 'SME') with my bolding
What they are saying is 11.7.1.3 means, if the aerodrome forecast at the the planned alternate is unavailable or is provisional, then a different alternate is required with a non-provisional (firm) TAF.
The rest follows simply:
No aid airport by day = alternate minima LSALT + 500 on last route segment and 8 KM vis, as determined from the GAF (which must be obtained for all flights) - navaid alternate requirements no longer apply by day (para 11.7.3.2 in the Radio Navigation Aids section), lighting and weather still apply with a different alternate minima
No aid airport by night (not greater than 5,700 KG) = alternate
No TAF airport (can never be an alternate), use the GAF/GPWT (which must be obtained) to determine the forecast weather and then use the Weather conditions section to determine if an alternate is required (see above if no aid as well, because if no IAL then no alternate minima on a plate, thus use LSALT + 500 etc), then lighting and navaids. But if an alternate is required, it must have a TAF that is not provisional.
Totally agree. Thanks for the inclusion of the email to back up what ive been saying for this whole thread , appreciated. This is what ive been taught over the past year or two and is good to see it backed up.
There is no reason why you must plan for an alternate at a no IAP no TAF aerodrome if the weather is blue skies CAVOK. The AIP supports this fact through the numerous references that have been presented.
Still certain, Trevor the lover?
mmmm345
You asked for additional views a few posts back. Definitively - NO TAF means ALTERNATE. ENR 11.7.1.3 - WHEN AN AERODROME FORECAST IS NOT AVAILABLE, OR IS MARKED "PROVISIONAL" THE PIC MUST MAKE PROVISION FOR A SUITABLE ALTERNATE THAT HAS A FIRM FORECAST. End of paragraph.
The issue about LSALT + 500 is for no NAVAIDS. It should say "no cloud below LSALT plus 500 and 8km vis FROM THE TAF".
If still not convinced - think of this. There is no TAF at an airport called FUNGULU. LSALT to get there is 2,000 ft. The GAF, on the face of it, paints a picture of generally ****ty weather, but no real cloud below 2500 and vis is 9km. So off you go to FUNGULU and get there and its **** below 2500 and you cant get in.
10 miles from FUNGULU, so in the same area, is an airfield called ROSSOW. It has a TAF for cloud generally around 2500 ft and vis 9km (like the GAF), but it has TEMPO all day for cloud BKN at 800 and 3km vis in rain. So I go to ROSSOW, the weather is ****, but I've got the TEMPO fuel, so I hold then land. You only looked at the GAF, you say all good, you head off to FUNGULU and you get there at the same time I get to ROSSOW 10 miles away, the weather is ****, you can't get in and you have no fuel.
GAFS do not give INTERS, TEMPOS, fog, cross wind - these are all things that your fuel planning MUST be based on. Fuel at your destination is determined but the forecast AT YOUR destination. GAF is an overview.
You asked for additional views a few posts back. Definitively - NO TAF means ALTERNATE. ENR 11.7.1.3 - WHEN AN AERODROME FORECAST IS NOT AVAILABLE, OR IS MARKED "PROVISIONAL" THE PIC MUST MAKE PROVISION FOR A SUITABLE ALTERNATE THAT HAS A FIRM FORECAST. End of paragraph.
The issue about LSALT + 500 is for no NAVAIDS. It should say "no cloud below LSALT plus 500 and 8km vis FROM THE TAF".
If still not convinced - think of this. There is no TAF at an airport called FUNGULU. LSALT to get there is 2,000 ft. The GAF, on the face of it, paints a picture of generally ****ty weather, but no real cloud below 2500 and vis is 9km. So off you go to FUNGULU and get there and its **** below 2500 and you cant get in.
10 miles from FUNGULU, so in the same area, is an airfield called ROSSOW. It has a TAF for cloud generally around 2500 ft and vis 9km (like the GAF), but it has TEMPO all day for cloud BKN at 800 and 3km vis in rain. So I go to ROSSOW, the weather is ****, but I've got the TEMPO fuel, so I hold then land. You only looked at the GAF, you say all good, you head off to FUNGULU and you get there at the same time I get to ROSSOW 10 miles away, the weather is ****, you can't get in and you have no fuel.
GAFS do not give INTERS, TEMPOS, fog, cross wind - these are all things that your fuel planning MUST be based on. Fuel at your destination is determined but the forecast AT YOUR destination. GAF is an overview.
You (to a mate): Can I borrow your car today?
Mate: No, it's not available!
You: Well, can I borrow it tomorrow?
Mate: Nah, not available tomorrow either.
You: When will it be available?
Mate: Never.
You: WTF, why?
Mate: Because I don't have a car!
Wouldn't happen like that, would it? More like this:
You: Can I borrow your car?
Mate: Sorry, don't have a car!
You see, to be "not available", it has to be there in the first place. BoM may not be able to produce a TAF due to industrial action or maybe due to insufficient met data, or only enough data to produce a provisional TAF.
I would say in your argument, the TAF for ROSSOW with those conditions would be reflected in the GAF! However, I agree with you, going with it just on the margins like that wouldn't be smart, but having been using GAFs for those ops for 6 yrs I've yet to see that, or the GAF is split and your ROSSOW is other the dividing line with the ****ty WX. Now that I have seen and have taken appropriate precautions fuel wise.