Alternate Aerodrome requirements
 

Hi all,
Just catching up with IFR Charter (Part 135) after the rule changes. Regarding instrument approaches; has the requirement for two in the air or two on the ground (two independent means to conduct an approach) gone with the regulation changes? Beating my head against the wall trying to find the reference, any help would be amazing!

- Cheers

Checkboard, that data is way past it’s used by date.

Try ENR 1.1 Section 10.7.3
and additional
Part 91 MOS Section 8.05

Well, I've been flying in the UK for the last 20 years, so it was the result of a quick Google. :) I thought it had 2020 or so on it, and that seemed recent enough. :D

Thanks ControlLock! That's about where I got up to with my document search. As far as I can tell there is no requirement for an alternate as long as you are equipped with a single means to conduct an approach (down from a minimum two means prior to the reg changes). I've attached ENR 10.7.2.10 which also seems to confirm that you now only need a single means to conduct an approach. Basically a single TSO-C146 GPS and a VOR (for part 135 certification) is all you seem to need these days to operate without an alternate, provided weather is above alternate minima and the other criteria are met. Have I missed something here?
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....14e7b15596.jpg

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a0f1e3a167.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b7ea9b8625.jpg

You’re on the right track for a Part 91 operation, but for Part 135 you need to also consider the Part 135 MOS. For your particular question, have a look at Section 11, especially 11.09.

Essentially yes, you still need 2 receivers in the aircraft, but the requirement is actually that you ensure you have redundancy, rather than telling you exactly how to achieve it.

If you are actually working for a Part 135 operator, their exposition may include company procedures will would hopefully cover the legal requirements in a more user-friendly manner.

Bump with a related question: I remember a requirement for a destination airport to have multiple usable runways in addition to all other requirement to not file an alternate. Is this a Rule? Who's rule and where can I find it?

Found this-

Destination alternate

At least one destination alternate aerodrome must be designated and specified in the both operational and ATS flight plans if a flight under IFR is going to be made unless one of the following applies:

after taking all relevant factors into account, it is reasonably certain that VMC will prevail for the approach and landing
there is more than one independently useable runway is available which can be expected to be useable at the ETA and at least one of those runways has an instrument approach procedure
the aerodrome is isolated, in which case a destination alternate is not required and instead additional fuel must be carried. a Point of No Return (PNR) must be determined and this must not be passed unless an assessment of the prevailing weather, traffic and other operational conditions indicates that a safe landing can be achieved at the ETA.

Here: https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/alternate-aerodrome

For context: Part 91 US operator flying to Australia. Can possibly go non stop depending on winds but an alternate would force a fuel stop. First World Problems

Looks like here:
ICAO Annex 6 Part 1 4.3.4.3 based on a post I found on ProPilotWorld. Still would like to figure out if it is a applicable rule or just a guidance and a good idea.

As a basic guide to the new regs - almost nothing about what we can do has changed, but the page count is about 10 x larger, and a few things have changed names. :ugh::ugh::ugh:
So it about 10 x harder to find something, or justify an action. :rolleyes:

part 121 Alternate Requirements have significantly changed to bring them in line with ICAO (roughly).

121 Alternate Requirements to not have any alternate. But the reg only applies to overseas operations as the chances of an aircraft being stranded on a single runway in Australia is less than the rest of the world. 🥹

If you carry an alternate for every flight you do you should be right.

Not quite true as some destination scenarios require 2 alternates... and then what if the alternates all need alternates?

Don't forget that suitable alternates usually include the rwy you took off from so, unless you've botched your planning REALLY badly, you should always be able to turn around and go home...

Well they weren’t an alternate to begin with.

I would say around the world every day a large number of airliners would depart legally from ports they could not return to once reaching V1.

And if you are single engine whats the point of being able to conduct an approach back in after an engine failure?