NO Instrument App/NO TAF - Alternate ?
No, I think you're wrong. My employer ops aircraft >5700 into non IAP no TAF airports, and has been doing so using GAFs (as do many others) and CASA is well aware of the operations and it isn't done off the back of a dispensation. With regards to NOT AVAILABLE I suggest the following conversation:
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.
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.
If the weather was this bad on the TAf, i struggle to see how this wouldnt be somwhat close to being reflected on the GAF. The GAF is generally much more conservative and whilst im sure there is the odd occurance where the GAF is not reflective of the TAF, in my experience, most GAFs paint the same if not much worse picture that what a TAF would, irrespective of even being able to permit flight at LSALT+5 ( the alternate minima to a negative TAF destinaition).
Lets not forget the opening post to this thread was about a CAVOK clear day.
The law supports the fact and permits no TAF in the fact that one requires a GAF to a non IAP destination ( ENR 1.10) and this will show ( 90% of the time) a sufficent coverage of the potential weather, and at worst it will prevent you from not carrying alternate with the LSALT+5 requirement ( which automatically requires the cloud base to be at 2000ft minimum since min LSALT is 1500ft from memory). Now, im sure that if an AD was forecasting BKN at 800ft, the GAF would at least show signficant cloud below LSALT+5.
But dont get me wrong, if the weather was marginal, nearby AD TAF's paint a bad picture and knowledge of wider area weather suggests being able to conduct a VA by day or establish VMC within 3 by night at a non IAP destination could be marginal, an alternate will be strongly considered !
Last edited by mmm345; 9th Nov 2020 at 09:52. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What we really need is someone who operates on mmm345's interpretation to have 'one of those days' and for the courts to sort out what the actual interpretation should be...! (only kidding of course - I wouldn't wish that on anyone). At the end of the day, staying safe is the name of the game. Anyone who has dug through the old threads will see that I'm not a fan of the no TAF, no ALT interpretation. I have seen this one argued to death both ways...
Right at the beginning of ENR 1.10 1.1 it states (my bolding): "...all IFR flights, must make a careful study of: a. current weather reports and forecasts for the route to be flown and the aerodromes to be used."
A bit later, 1.2.1 says: "Forecast information must include: a. an AERODROME forecast for the: (i) DESTINATION; AND (ii) when required, ALTERNATE aerodrome and..."
Remember Jepps had all those amendments not so long ago to make the very important wording change from 'aerodrome' to 'airport'? That's beside the point, but the point CAN be made that: your IFR flight needs a suitable and valid forecast for the destination airport. If there isn't one, you need one for the suitable alternate that you subsequently plan for... Simples!
I still think I would struggle testifying in court that it's all fine that my passengers sustained some injuries in the precautionary search and landing, or botched out-of-limits crosswind landing that ensued from my lack of due diligence to ensure the safe completion of the flight (remember CAR PIC responsibilities?)...
I also disagree that GPWT charts can be used to determine actual surface wind conditions at a proposed destination. The alternate weather conditions considerations in ENR 1.1 11.7.2.1 d. make a specific note that 'wind gusts must be considered' in determining suitable crosswind/tailwind conditions. Could you tell me how wind gusts are annotated on a GPWT chart please as I have never seen that before...
Well done on the somewhat civil debate so far folks - it's a pleasure to see some decency has returned to PPRuNe...!
Right at the beginning of ENR 1.10 1.1 it states (my bolding): "...all IFR flights, must make a careful study of: a. current weather reports and forecasts for the route to be flown and the aerodromes to be used."
A bit later, 1.2.1 says: "Forecast information must include: a. an AERODROME forecast for the: (i) DESTINATION; AND (ii) when required, ALTERNATE aerodrome and..."
Remember Jepps had all those amendments not so long ago to make the very important wording change from 'aerodrome' to 'airport'? That's beside the point, but the point CAN be made that: your IFR flight needs a suitable and valid forecast for the destination airport. If there isn't one, you need one for the suitable alternate that you subsequently plan for... Simples!
I still think I would struggle testifying in court that it's all fine that my passengers sustained some injuries in the precautionary search and landing, or botched out-of-limits crosswind landing that ensued from my lack of due diligence to ensure the safe completion of the flight (remember CAR PIC responsibilities?)...
I also disagree that GPWT charts can be used to determine actual surface wind conditions at a proposed destination. The alternate weather conditions considerations in ENR 1.1 11.7.2.1 d. make a specific note that 'wind gusts must be considered' in determining suitable crosswind/tailwind conditions. Could you tell me how wind gusts are annotated on a GPWT chart please as I have never seen that before...
Well done on the somewhat civil debate so far folks - it's a pleasure to see some decency has returned to PPRuNe...!
But CN, you failed to read all the way to the end of 1.2.1. It says, with my bolding:
Although it would have been better and less confusing if the GAF amendments had been implemented more coherently, the fact is that they accommodate a thing called 'reality'.
The reality is that a lot of IFR goes on to and from places in the gaffa that have no IAP/TAF and the people who engage in those operations are perfectly capable of ascertaining the conditions at those locations and risk managing realistic uncertainty about those conditions.
For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF.
The reality is that a lot of IFR goes on to and from places in the gaffa that have no IAP/TAF and the people who engage in those operations are perfectly capable of ascertaining the conditions at those locations and risk managing realistic uncertainty about those conditions.
Thread Starter
LB
That is under the Flight Planning Preparation - Forecasts section. So I just interpret that to be if when I am looking at my briefing package I can use a GAF.
To me that is different from the subsequent section which deals with Alternates. Which, as CN said, states emphatically No TAF = Alternate.
For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF.
To me that is different from the subsequent section which deals with Alternates. Which, as CN said, states emphatically No TAF = Alternate.
It does not state "emphatically". It states "confusingly".
Please confirm that you have read and understand the content of scavenger's post at #55.
I don't understand the point in denying that which goes on, all day, everyday, in reality and - surprisingly - seems to be supported by Airservices' preferred interpretation of the section dealing with alternates. Airservices says that the section does not determine when an alternate is required, but rather the parameters that an alternate has to satisfy if an alternate is required as determined during planning.
Please confirm that you have read and understand the content of scavenger's post at #55.
I don't understand the point in denying that which goes on, all day, everyday, in reality and - surprisingly - seems to be supported by Airservices' preferred interpretation of the section dealing with alternates. Airservices says that the section does not determine when an alternate is required, but rather the parameters that an alternate has to satisfy if an alternate is required as determined during planning.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lead Balloon, I have read to the end of the section - many times! And yes, I have read and understood #55 commenting on the alternate weather section.
Refers specifically to what can be used for a no IAP destination aerodrome and tells me nothing about the subsequent obligation or otherwise of planning for an alternate... However, the statement at the beginning of 1.10 is quite clear in describing exactly what forecast information one MUST have for their IFR flight:
Exfocx, I agree, your operations can indeed be done above board no problem:
BUT, how many times do you actually do this without carrying alternate/return fuel...?
For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF.
1.2.1 says: "Forecast information must include: a. an AERODROME forecast for the: (i) DESTINATION; AND (ii) when required, ALTERNATE aerodrome and..."
My employer ops aircraft >5700 into non IAP no TAF airports, and has been doing so using GAFs (as do many others) and CASA is well aware of the operations and it isn't done off the back of a dispensation.
Righto.....
So no IFR flight can be conducted to e.g. William Creek or Louth, because there is no aerodrome forecast service for them?
Methinks you haven’t spent much time in the gaffa.
So no IFR flight can be conducted to e.g. William Creek or Louth, because there is no aerodrome forecast service for them?
Methinks you haven’t spent much time in the gaffa.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So no IFR flight can be conducted to e.g. William Creek or Louth, because there is no aerodrome forecast service for them?
Willie Creek and Louth both have TAF alternate aerodrome options that could be planned for...
But it was you who quoted what you MUST have for an IFR flight, and that includes an AERODROME forecast for the ... DESTINATION, two posts ago. (Your bolding, capitalisation and italics.)
How can you possibly plan IFR to a destination that doesn’t have an aerodrome forecast service?
How can you possibly plan IFR to a destination that doesn’t have an aerodrome forecast service?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
After the word 'destination' are the words 'and alternate.' It's like anything else IFR alternate related - if the destination doesn't have it, the alternate has to have it. It doesn't stop you from going though - provided you have the alternate plan in place. The GAF covers you for planning to the destination as stated.
Like I said, it can be argued to death both ways...!
Like I said, it can be argued to death both ways...!
Plenty of mining flights have occurred over the years to non aid, non forecast aerodromes with no planned alternate. Given that CASA, mining companies, and the ATSB haven't said anything, which includes several high level incidents, I think it is safe to say that all you need is a GAF and use LSALT +500 for your weather and you can't do it at night if you are >5700KG.
I'm sure if you nearly crashed an aeroplane the ATSB would make mention that you didn't have a legal forecast.
I'm sure if you nearly crashed an aeroplane the ATSB would make mention that you didn't have a legal forecast.
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi folks,
Sorry to rehash an old post but I was looking to get some clarity regarding Day VFR to a ALA beyond 50nm. There seems to be a bit of conflicting information about whether or not an alternate is required.
Looking at ENR 1.1 10.7.1.3 it states:
"When an aerodrome forecast is not available, the pilot in command must make a provision for a suitable alternate that has an available forecast."
While I completely agree with the above as making sense, the AIP has had a number of updates since this post and it still reads as though it is referring to a general requirement for an aerodrome forecast being needed otherwise an alternate is required. When looking at the VFRG pg 80 it states:
"Where a forecast that is required for a planned destination is not available then you must nominate a destination alternate aerodrome."
To me, that seems to contradict what is found in the AIP assuming the former interpretation is correct.
When looking at ENR 1.1 10.1.2.1 Forecasts it states that:
Forecast information must include:
a. an aerodrome forecast for the:
(i) Departure
(ii) Destination; and
(iii) When required, any alternate aerodromes ....
For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF"
Is my understanding correct that because I am flying to an ALA, I can refer to the GAF for my alternate minima and not provide an alternate given conditions were suitable, however, if I flew VFR to an airport with an IAP and no TAF (e.g BOM reducing their TAF coverage for CAT D airports) I would be required to provide an alternate?
Looking at MOS 91 7.02 (5) it agrees with the above sentiment however, it only makes reference to IFR aircraft utilising a GAF for an airport without an IAP with no mention of VFR. So I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this wrong (likely knowing myself) or if the regs are just genuinely ambiguous and conflict.
Sorry to rehash an old post but I was looking to get some clarity regarding Day VFR to a ALA beyond 50nm. There seems to be a bit of conflicting information about whether or not an alternate is required.
Looking at ENR 1.1 10.7.1.3 it states:
"When an aerodrome forecast is not available, the pilot in command must make a provision for a suitable alternate that has an available forecast."
Here we go again.
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, 59.2, 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.
"Where a forecast that is required for a planned destination is not available then you must nominate a destination alternate aerodrome."
To me, that seems to contradict what is found in the AIP assuming the former interpretation is correct.
When looking at ENR 1.1 10.1.2.1 Forecasts it states that:
Forecast information must include:
a. an aerodrome forecast for the:
(i) Departure
(ii) Destination; and
(iii) When required, any alternate aerodromes ....
For a flight to a destination for which a prescribed instrument approach procedure does not exist, the minimum requirement is a GAF"
Is my understanding correct that because I am flying to an ALA, I can refer to the GAF for my alternate minima and not provide an alternate given conditions were suitable, however, if I flew VFR to an airport with an IAP and no TAF (e.g BOM reducing their TAF coverage for CAT D airports) I would be required to provide an alternate?
Looking at MOS 91 7.02 (5) it agrees with the above sentiment however, it only makes reference to IFR aircraft utilising a GAF for an airport without an IAP with no mention of VFR. So I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this wrong (likely knowing myself
) or if the regs are just genuinely ambiguous and conflict.
I think by "ENR 1.1 10..." you mean "ENR 1.10 1..." 
I'll take the deep dive...
Correct.
Incorrect.
My logic (!): Part 91 Plain Engliiis section 10 (page 70). By omission, you are not an IFR flight so the IAP/TAF requirements don't apply. If it doesn't say you can't, then you can!
ENR 1.10 section 1.2.1 doesn't make sense, both because it contradicts the new rules, and second, it contradicts itself:
Forecast information must include a. an aerodrome forecast...
then at the bottom:
...the minimum requirement is a GAF.
AIP ENR 1.1 10.7.1.3 contradicts the new rules as well.
Ref the VFRG page 80:
You could say the GAF is your forecast for the destination (which, according to the Part 91 bits, it appears to be [for VFR]), so you don't need to nominate an alternate.
But then, in the next section "Destination alternate not required", the VFRG omits your scenario, where you're going longer than 50nm in good weather. Now if it had said "Destination alternate required when", then it could be made to read better.
Correct. 
I'll take the deep dive...
Is my understanding correct that because I am flying to an ALA, I can refer to the GAF for my alternate minima and not provide an alternate given conditions were suitable,
if I flew VFR to an airport with an IAP and no TAF (e.g BOM reducing their TAF coverage for CAT D airports) I would be required to provide an alternate?
My logic (!): Part 91 Plain Engliiis section 10 (page 70). By omission, you are not an IFR flight so the IAP/TAF requirements don't apply. If it doesn't say you can't, then you can!
ENR 1.10 section 1.2.1 doesn't make sense, both because it contradicts the new rules, and second, it contradicts itself:
Forecast information must include a. an aerodrome forecast...
then at the bottom:
...the minimum requirement is a GAF.
AIP ENR 1.1 10.7.1.3 contradicts the new rules as well.
Ref the VFRG page 80:
Where a forecast that is required for a planned destination is not available then you must nominate a destination alternate aerodrome.
But then, in the next section "Destination alternate not required", the VFRG omits your scenario, where you're going longer than 50nm in good weather. Now if it had said "Destination alternate required when", then it could be made to read better.
the regs are just genuinely ambiguous and conflict.
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think by "ENR 1.1 10..." you mean "ENR 1.10 1..."
I'll take the deep dive...
Correct.
Incorrect.
My logic (!): Part 91 Plain Engliiis section 10 (page 70). By omission, you are not an IFR flight so the IAP/TAF requirements don't apply. If it doesn't say you can't, then you can!
ENR 1.10 section 1.2.1 doesn't make sense, both because it contradicts the new rules, and second, it contradicts itself:
Forecast information must include a. an aerodrome forecast...
then at the bottom:
...the minimum requirement is a GAF.
AIP ENR 1.1 10.7.1.3 contradicts the new rules as well.
Ref the VFRG page 80:
You could say the GAF is your forecast for the destination (which, according to the Part 91 bits, it appears to be [for VFR]), so you don't need to nominate an alternate.
But then, in the next section "Destination alternate not required", the VFRG omits your scenario, where you're going longer than 50nm in good weather. Now if it had said "Destination alternate required when", then it could be made to read better.
Correct.
I'll take the deep dive...
Correct.
Incorrect.
My logic (!): Part 91 Plain Engliiis section 10 (page 70). By omission, you are not an IFR flight so the IAP/TAF requirements don't apply. If it doesn't say you can't, then you can!
ENR 1.10 section 1.2.1 doesn't make sense, both because it contradicts the new rules, and second, it contradicts itself:
Forecast information must include a. an aerodrome forecast...
then at the bottom:
...the minimum requirement is a GAF.
AIP ENR 1.1 10.7.1.3 contradicts the new rules as well.
Ref the VFRG page 80:
You could say the GAF is your forecast for the destination (which, according to the Part 91 bits, it appears to be [for VFR]), so you don't need to nominate an alternate.
But then, in the next section "Destination alternate not required", the VFRG omits your scenario, where you're going longer than 50nm in good weather. Now if it had said "Destination alternate required when", then it could be made to read better.
Correct.
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just don't bend the aeroplane at the destination in that strong crosswind that was above the crosswind limits for the airplane and that you didn't know about because the GAF doesn't have any surface level winds, and you couldn't avoid because you were down to minimum fuel - right...?
Just because something is legal does not mean it makes for good airmanship...
Just because something is legal does not mean it makes for good airmanship...
